We now come to the second and latter part of Father Oldcorne’s Declaration
to Humphrey Littleton, from the whole of which Declaration Littleton drew
the conclusion that Oldcorne answered “the action was good, and seemed to
approve of it.”[A]
[Footnote A: By thus disclaiming knowledge of “_these_”——that is, the
object the plotters had in view in their nefarious Plot, and the means
they purposed having recourse to, to attain their object——Oldcorne
deliberately throws a veil over the full orb of truth. But Littleton might
have discerned, had he taken the trouble so to do, that Oldcorne was
equivocating under a sense of prior obligation; and the clue was afforded
by the person of the speaker and the tenour of the answer itself. In the
former part of the Declaration, by leaving Littleton _in abstracto_, he
had thrown a veil over a portion of the full orb of truth. Just as the
silvery moon, on some tempestuous night, may be first partially obscured,
by a thick, dark, driving cloud, and then afterwards wholly obscured, from
the view of the gazer.]
“And thus I applied it to this fact of Mr. Catesbie’s; it is not to be
approved or condemned by the event, but by the proper object or end, and
means which was to be used in it; _and because I know nothing of thes_, I
will neither approve it or condeme it, but leave it to god and ther owne
consciences, and in this wary sort I spoke to him bycause I doubted he
came to entrap me; and that he should take noe advantage of the words
whither he reported them to Catholics or Protestants.”[B]
[Footnote B: Oldcorne’s full answer to Littleton would be, “and because I
know nothing of these [that I am at liberty to tell you, Humphrey
Littleton”]: _these last words being interiorly expressed, perhaps_.]
Now, in the first place, let it be remembered that these words were spoken
_not before but after_ Wednesday, the 6th of November, when, as Oldcorne
himself has left on record, and which indeed we have seen already, Father
Tesimond came from Coughton to Huddington, and from Huddington to Hindlip;
and when “_he said that there were certain gentlemen that meant to have
blown up the Parliament House, and that their plot was discovered a day or
two before_.”[A]
[Footnote A: Father Oldcorne says that Tesimond reached Hindlip at two
o’clock. Now, as Tesimond came _from_ Huddington, where, already, he had
had an interview with Catesby, the conspirators must have reached
Huddington _before_ two o’clock; probably they reached the mansion-house
at twelve o’clock mid-day. Bates says that Tesimond was at Huddington
half-an-hour; but Jardine says two hours. Query, what does “_Greenway’s
MS._” say?]
Again; Fawkes, we are told by Eudæmon-Joannes,[169] explained at the Trial
of the conspirators why the prisoners pleaded “‘Not guilty,’ which was
that the Indictment contained ‘many other matters, which we neither can,
nor ought to countenance by our assent or silence,’ though none of them
meant to deny that which they had not only voluntarily confessed before,
_but which was quite notorious throughout the realm_.”[170] (The italics
are mine.)
Now, seeing that Oldcorne told Littleton that “_he knew nothing_” as to
the “_end or object_” the plotters had in their Plot, nor “_the means
which was to be used in it_,” when the whole of England, not to say
Europe, had been ringing with a knowledge of _not only the end or object,
but also the means_, for the last past few days, and perhaps weeks, at the
very least, I draw this inevitable conclusion:——
That because Oldcorne was a man as morally good as he was intellectually
clever, _he must have met his questioner’s inquiry with this nescience, by
reason of some antecedent, official, and professional duty; or, at least,
semi-official and quasi-professional duty, which had been imposed upon
him, ab extra, from the outside, prior in time to Humphrey Littleton’s
coming to him to be resolved of his doubts as to the moral rightness or
wrongness of the Gunpowder Plot_.[171]
In other words, that Oldcorne felt instinctively that he could recognise
in _a private individual, like Humphrey Littleton_, no valid right, title,
claim, or demand to call forth an answer, which might discover or disclose
to Littleton the secret of the repentant Christopher Wright.
Yea, neither in Justice, nor in Equity, nor in Honour could the grand
Yorkshireman betray to Humphrey Littleton the secret of trust that in a
semi-official, quasi-professional mode or fashion had come to be entrusted
to him by another, as that other’s private property and exclusive
possession.
_That other was Christopher Wright, the penitent revealing plotter, and
whomsoever he had, explicitly or implicitly, willed should share a
knowledge of the mighty secret. But to none other or others beside. And
certainly not to men probably prompted by sinister motives and crooked
aims._
For a knowledge of truth in action, truth in the result, truth in the
event, truth in the external, and every other kind of truth in relation to
the Gunpowder[A] Plot, _integral or partial, was irrevocably held in
trust_ by Edward Oldcorne, not for Humphrey Littleton, or the like of him,
but for Christopher Wright and men that were true of heart.
[Footnote A: THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS: NEITHER CAN A MAN OR A
WOMAN DO EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME. But Oldcorne would contend that, in
perfect Reason, Truth may be concealed, subject to certain limitations
and, regard being had to person, time, and circumstance, the
clue-affording possibilities; and this whether partial truth or whole
truth, _in pursuance of a prior and superior moral obligation_. And so
would say all modern diplomatists and commanders in the field, however
conscientious and upright they might be, unless they wished to court
defeat, or to give away their Country, and (if justice be meted out to
them) to be cashiered. Now, _unity at all times and in all places must
prevail. For all men are subject to the one Moral Law of Right Reason, and
nowhere will you find men without souls_, notwithstanding that certain
members of the English middle classes sometimes seem to labour under a
delusion to the contrary.
Equivocation cannot be had recourse to in matters of Contract, nor for
pecuniary gain, nor sordid profit. Remember _that_, O all ye worshippers
of Mammon! For, “a more glorious doctrine for knaves and a more disastrous
doctrine for honest men,” it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
conceive of than equivocation, if it were not held strictly and severely
in check and under control by the dictates of Intellectual Reason and
Moral Justice. Now, this highly scientific liberty, “equivocation,” is
never morally lawful to the witnesses in a Court of Justice, where the
judge has jurisdiction to try the parties and the cause, whether those
witnesses be the parties themselves to the cause, or strangers
“subpœnaed” to give testimony therein. Such persons would be justly
punishable for perjury who professed that, when bearing insufficient or
inadequate witness in a Court of Justice by not telling “the whole” truth,
they were merely “equivocating.” Nor can equivocation be had recourse to
for working hurt or injury to a fellow-creature, whether bond or free,
white, black, or copper-coloured, contrary to the primary obligations of
Justice, which bid man render unto _all men_ their due. Nor with reference
to Divine Truth can equivocation be used. (Hence the piteous absurdity of
the Royal Declaration against Popery.)
By the mild and merciful Law of England, a criminally-accused person may
equivocate, on the same moral principles as justify strategy in warfare,
until his guilt has been brought home to him by sufficient proofs. Such a
person equivocates by pleading “_not guilty_.”
_Because_ I believe the ethical doctrine which justifies equivocation,
when properly taught, to be true and not false, _and because_ I
furthermore believe that, in the interests of my Country and of Humanity
at large, it is of practical consequence, as well as mentally salutary,
that a knowledge of equivocation, its foundation principles, extents, and
limitations, should be “understanded” by all those that have the
guardianship of the People, whether in the senate, in the field, or at
sea, _therefore_, I have requested one, who has a competent mastery of the
subject, to explain the matter to my readers. This has been kindly done in
a letter, which will be found in Supplementum VI. For “_Melius petere
fontes_,” the jurist as well as the poet has it. “_Better is it to have
recourse to the fountain-head._”
The philosophical explanation of the fact that, under the pressure of
necessity, certain combatants can and do exhibit in action at the theatre
of war the highest strategetical skill, in spite of their knowing nothing
of the scientific doctrine of equivocation, springs from the law of reason
that, as a rule, _doing_ is the condition precedent _to knowing_;
experience to cognition. See Ferrier’s “_Institutes of Metaphysic_”
(Blackwood), p.15.]
This was an obligation, that flowed from the truth expressed by the
luminous maxim, “_Qui prior est tempore potior est jure_.” “He who is
first in time is the stronger in point of right.”
The Jesuit could never that trust, that confidence betray. If needs be, he
must be “true till death.” For it was not necessary that he should live.
But it was necessary that he should live undishonoured.