The Life Of A Conspirator Part 3

[55] _Peerage_, 1886, p. 1173.

"We two were engaged in a very serious conversation, in fact, concerning religion. You know that I am friendly to Catholics and to the Catholic faith; I was, nevertheless, disputing with this gentleman, who is a friend of mine, against the Catholic faith, in order to see what defence he could make, for he is an earnest Catholic, as I do not hesitate to tell you." At this he turned to Father Gerard and begged him not to be angry with him for betraying the fact of his being a Romish recusant to a stranger; then he said to Manners, "And I must say he so well defended the Catholic faith that I could not answer him, and I am glad you have come to help me."

Manners "was young and confident, and trusting his own great abilities, expected to carry everything before him, so good was his cause and so lightly did he esteem" his opponent, "as he afterwards confessed." After an hour's sharp argument and retort on either side, Father Gerard began to explain the Catholic faith more fully, and to confirm it with texts of Scripture, and pa.s.sages from the Fathers.

Manners listened in silence, and "before he left he was fully resolved to become a Catholic, and took with him a book to a.s.sist him in preparing for a good confession, which he made before a week had pa.s.sed." He became an excellent and exemplary Christian, and his life would make an interesting and edifying volume.

All honour to Sir Everard Digby for having been the human medium of bringing about this most happy and blessed conversion! It might have been difficult to accomplish it by any other method. In those days of persecution, stratagem was absolutely necessary to Catholics for their safety sake, even in everyday life, and still more so in evangelism. As to the particular stratagem used by Digby in this instance, I do not go so far as to say that it was blame-worthy; I have often read of it without mentally criticising it; I have even regarded it with some degree of admiration; but, now that I am attempting a study of Sir Everard Digby's character, and seeking for symptoms of it in every detail that I can discover of his words and actions, I ask myself whether, in all its innocence, his conduct on this occasion did not exhibit traces of a natural inclination to plot and intrigue. Could he have induced Manners to come to his rooms by no other attraction than a game of cards, which he had no intention of playing? Was it necessary on his arrival there to ask him to await that of guests who were not coming, and had never been invited? Was he obliged, in the presence of so intimate a friend, to pretend to be only well-disposed towards Catholics instead of owning himself to be one of them? Need he have put himself to the trouble of apologising to Father Gerard for revealing that he was a Catholic? In religious, as in all other matters, there are cases in which artifice may be harmless or desirable, or even a duty, but a thoroughly straightforward man will shrink from the "pious dodge"

as much as the kind-hearted surgeon will shrink from the use of the knife or the cautery.

Necessary as they may have been, nay, necessary as they undoubtedly were, the planning, and disguising, and hiding, and intriguing used as means for bringing about the conversions of Lady Digby, Sir Everard Digby, and Oliver Manners, though innocent in themselves, placed those concerned in them in that atmosphere of romance, adventure, excitement, and even sentiment, which I have before described, and it is obvious that such an atmosphere is not without its peculiar perils.

It is certainly very comfortable to be able to preach undisturbed, to convert heretics openly, and to worship in the churches of the King and the Government; yet even in religion, to some slight degree, the words of a certain very wise man may occasionally be true, that[56] "stolen waters are sweeter, and hidden bread is more pleasant." Nothing is more excellent than missionary work; but it is a fact that proselytism, when conducted under difficulties and dangers, whether it be under the standard of truth or under the standard of error, is not without some of the elements of sport; at any rate, if it be true, as enthusiasts have been heard to a.s.sert, that even the hunted fox is a partaker in the pleasures of the chase, the Jesuits had every opportunity of enjoying them during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.

[56] Proverbs ix. 17.

Besides a consideration of the personal characteristics of Sir Everard Digby, and the position of converts to Catholicism in his times, it will be necessary to take a wider view of the political, social, and religious events of his period. Otherwise we should be unable to form anything like a fair judgment either of his own conduct, or of the treatment which he received from others.

The oppression and persecution of Catholics by Queen Elizabeth and her ministers was extreme. It was made death to be a priest, death to receive absolution from a priest, death to harbour a priest, death even to give food or help of any sort to a priest, and death to persuade anyone to become a Catholic. Very many priests and many laymen were martyred, more were tortured, yet more suffered severe temporal losses.

And, what was most cruel of all, while Statutes were pa.s.sed with a view to making life unendurable for Catholics in England itself, English Catholics were forbidden to go, or to send their children, beyond the seas without special leave.

The actual date of the Digbys' reception into the Catholic Church is a matter of some doubt. It probably took place before the death of Elizabeth. That was a time when English Catholics were considering their future with the greatest anxiety. Politics entered largely into the question, and where politics include, as they did then, at any rate, in many men's minds, some doubts as to the succession to the crown, intrigue and conspiracy were pretty certain to be practised.

CHAPTER IV.

The responsibility of the intrigues in respect to the claims to the English throne, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, rests to some extent upon Queen Elizabeth herself. As Mr Gardiner puts it:--[57]

"She was determined that in her lifetime no one should be able to call himself her heir." It was generally understood that James would succeed to the throne; but, so long as there was the slightest uncertainty on the question, it was but natural that the Catholics should be anxious that a monarch should be crowned who would favour, or at least tolerate them, and that they should make inquiries, and converse eagerly, about every possible claimant to the throne. Fears of foreign invasion and domestic plotting were seriously entertained in England during the latter days of Elizabeth, as well as immediately after her death.

"Wealthy men had brought in their plate and treasure from the country, and had put them in places of safety. Ships of war had been stationed in the Straits of Dover to guard against a foreign invasion, and some of the princ.i.p.al recusants had, as a matter of precaution, been committed to safe custody."[58]

[57] _History of England_, from the Accession of James I. to the outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642, Vol. i. p. 79.

[58] Gardiner's _History of England_, Vol. i. p. 85.

When James VI. of Scotland, the son of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots, ascended the throne, rendered vacant by the death of Elizabeth, as James I. of England, no voice was raised in favour of any other claimant, and[59] "the Catholics, flattered by the reports of their agents, hailed with joy the succession of a prince who was said to have promised the toleration of their worship, in return for the attachment which they had so often displayed for the house of Stuart." King James owed toleration, says Lingard, "to their sufferings in the cause of his unfortunate mother;" and "he had bound himself to it, by promises to their envoys, and to the princes of their communion."

[59] Lingard, Vol. vii. chap. i.

The opinion that the new king would upset and even reverse the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth was not confined to the Catholic body: many Protestants had taken alarm on this very score, as may be inferred from a contemporary tract, ent.i.tled[60]_Advertis.e.m.e.nts of a loyal subject to his gracious Sovereign, drawn from the Observation of the People's Speeches_, in which the following pa.s.sage occurs:--"The plebes, I wotte not what they call them, but some there bee who most unnaturally and unreverentlie, by most egregious lies, wound the honour of our deceased soveraigne, not onlie touching her government and good fame, but her person with sundry untruthes," and after going on in this strain for some lines it adds:--"Suerlie these slanders be the doings of the papists, ayming thereby at the deformation of the gospell." [61] On the other hand, there were both Catholics and Puritans who were distrustful of James. Sir Everard cannot have been long a Catholic, when a dangerous conspiracy was on foot. Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic, and George Brooke, a Protestant, and a brother of Lord Cobham's, hatched the well-known plot which was denominated "the Bye," and, among many others who joined it, were two priests, Watson and Clarke, both of whom were eventually executed on that account. Its object appears to have been to seize the king's person, and wring from him guarantees of toleration for both Puritans and Catholics. Father Gerard acquired some knowledge of this conspiracy, as also did Father Garnet, the Provincial of the Jesuits, and Blackwell, the Archpriest; and they insisted upon the information being laid instantly before the Government. Before they had time to carry out their intention, however, it had already been communicated, and the complete failure of the attempt is notorious. The result was to injure the causes of both the Catholics and the Puritans, and James never afterwards trusted the professions of either.

[60] Somers Tracts, Vol. ii. p. 147. From the Cotton Library, Faustina, c. 11, 12, fol. 61.

[61] "James was an alien." "Supposing that on such principles King James was rejected, who would come next? The Lady Arabella Stuart, descended from Margaret, daughter of Henry VII. in the same manner as King James, save that her father was a second son, and King James's father was the eldest. But she had the fact of her birth and domiciliation within the kingdom of England as a counter-poise to her father's want of primogeniture." "Without openly professing Roman Catholicism, she was thought to be inclined that way, and to be certainly willing to make favourable terms with the Roman Catholics." Introduction by J. Bruce to _Correspondence of King James VI. of Scotland with Cecil and others_.

So far as the Catholics were concerned, the "Bye" conspiracy unfortunately revealed another; for Father Watson, in a written confession which he made in prison, brought accusations of disloyalty against the Jesuits. It was quite true that, two years earlier, Catesby, Tresham, and Winter--all friends of Sir Everard Digby's--had endeavoured to induce Philip of Spain to invade England, and had asked Father Garnet to give them his sanction in so doing; but Garnet had "misliked it," and had told them that it would be as much "disliked at Rome."[62]

[62] Dodds' _Church History of England_, Vol. iv. p. 8. Tierney's Notes.

Winter had arranged that if Queen Elizabeth should die before the invasion, the news should be at once sent to the Spanish court. For this purpose, a Yorkshire gentleman, named Christopher Wright, and one Guy, or Guido, Faukes, or Fawkes, "a soldier of fortune," of whom we shall have more to say by-and-bye, were sent to the Court of Spain in 1603. Although Father Garnet disapproved of the plan, he had given Wright a letter of introduction to a Jesuit at the Spanish Court.

Neither Wright nor Fawkes were able to rouse King Philip, who said that he had no quarrel with his English brother, and that he had just appointed an amba.s.sador to the Court of St James's to arrange the terms of a lasting peace with the English nation. Knowing something of this, Father Watson used it as an instrument of revenge against the Jesuits, who, he knew, had intended to warn King James against his own attempt to entrap him.[63] "It is well known to all the world," he wrote, "how the Jesuits and Spanish faction had continually, by word, writing, and action, sought his majesty's destruction, with the setting up of another prince and sovereign over us; yea, and although it should be revealed what practises they had, even in this interim betwixt the proclaiming and crowning of his majesty." And then he enumerated some of these "practises," among others, "levying 40,000 men to be in a readiness for the Spaniard or Archduke; by buying up all the great horses, as Gerard doth; by sending down powder and shot into Staffordshire and other places, with warning unto Catholics to be in a readiness; by collection of money under divers pretences, to the value of a million;" "by affirming that none might yield to live under an heretic (as they continually termed his majesty);" "and by open speech that the king and all his royal issue must be cut off and put to death." In making these bitter and, for the most part, untrue accusations against the Jesuits, he complained that he was "accounted for no better than an infidel, apostate, or atheist, by the jesuitical faction," and that he was never likely "to receive any favour" from his majesty "so long as any Jesuit or Spaniard" remained "alive within this land."

[63] Dodds' _Church History of England_, Appendix i. p. x.x.xv.

Undoubtedly, during the cruel persecutions of Elizabeth, Jesuits, as well as secular priests, and Catholic laymen too, for that matter, had hoped that her successor on the English throne might be of their own religion; they had good cause for doing so; the Pope himself had urged the enthronement of a Catholic monarch for their country, and in fairness, it must be admitted that not a few Englishmen, who considered themselves royalist above all others, had at one time refused to regard Elizabeth herself as the legitimate possessor of the British crown; but, when James had been established upon the throne, with the exception of a few discontents, such as the conspirators in the "Bye" plot and the diminutive Spanish party, the English Catholics, both lay and clerical, acknowledged him as their rightful king. Pope Clement VIII.[64]

"commanded the missionaries" in England "to confine themselves to their spiritual duties, and to discourage, by all means in their power, every attempt to disturb the tranquillity of the realm;" he also ordered "the nuncio at Paris to a.s.sure James of the abhorrence with which he viewed all acts of disloyalty," and he despatched "a secret messenger to the English Court with an offer to withdraw from the kingdom any missionary who might be an object of suspicion to the Council."

[64] Lingard, Vol. vii. chap. i.

Unfortunately, the discovery of the two conspiracies above mentioned, in which Catholics were implicated, weighed more with James than any a.s.surances of goodwill from the Pope or his emissaries. Had not Watson given King's evidence? Had not foreign invasion been implored by Catholics? Had they not intended "the Lady Arabella" as a subst.i.tute for his own Royal Majesty upon the throne? And had they not treasonably united with their extreme opposites, the Puritans, in a design to capture his precious person, with a view to squeezing concessions out of him, if not to putting him to death? To some extent he did indeed endeavour to conciliate the higher cla.s.ses among his Catholic subjects, by inviting them to court, by conferring upon them the honour--such as it was--of knighthood, as in the case of Sir Everard Digby, and by promising to protect them from the penalties of recusancy, so long as by their loyalty and peaceable behaviour they should show themselves worthy of his favour and his confidence, but he absolutely and abruptly refused all requests for toleration of their religious worship, and more than once, he even committed to the Tower Catholics who had the presumption to ask for it.

The times were most trying to a recent convert like Sir Everard Digby. I will again quote Lingard[65] to show how faithless was James to the promises he had made of relief to his Catholic subjects:--"The oppressive and sanguinary code framed in the reign of Elizabeth was re-enacted to its full extent; it was even improved with additional severities."

[65] Vol. vii. chap. i.

And then, after describing the severe penalties inflicted upon those who sent children "beyond the seas, to the intent that" they "should reside or be educated in a Catholic college or seminary," as well as upon "the owners or masters of ships who" conveyed them, and adding that "every individual who had already resided or studied, or should hereafter reside or study in any such college or seminary, was rendered incapable of inheriting or purchasing or enjoying lands, annuities, chattels, debts, or sums of money within the realm, unless at his return to England, he should conform to the Established Church, he says:--"Moreover, as missionaries sometimes eluded detection under the disguise of tutors in gentlemen's houses, it was provided that no man should teach even the rudiments of grammar without a license of the diocesan, under the penalty of forty shillings per day, to be levied on the tutor himself, and the same sum on his employer."

And again, when James had been a year on the throne, the execution of the penal laws enabled the king "... to derive considerable profit,"

says Lingard.[66] "The legal fine of 20 per lunar month was again demanded; and not only for the time to come, but for the whole period of the suspension; a demand which, by crowding thirteen separate payments into one of 260, exhausted the whole annual income of men in respectable but moderate circ.u.mstances. Nor was this all. By law, the least default in these payments subjected the recusant to the forfeiture of all his goods and chattels, and of two-thirds of his lands, tenements, hereditaments, farms, and leases. The execution of this severe punishment was intrusted to the judges at the a.s.sizes, the magistrates at the sessions, and the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical at their meetings. By them warrants of distress were issued to constables and pursuivants; all the cattle on the lands of the delinquent, his household furniture, and his wearing apparel, were seized and sold; and if, on some pretext or other, he was not thrown into prison, he found himself and family left without a change of apparel or a bed to lie upon, unless he had been enabled by the charity of his friends to redeem them after the sale, or to purchase with bribes the forbearance of the officers. Within six months the payment was again demanded, and the same pauperizing process repeated."

[66] Vol. vii. chap. i.

It may be only fair to say, however, that Mr Gardiner thinks Lingard was guilty of exaggeration on one point; for he says[67] "the 20 men were never called upon for arrears, and, as far as I have been able to trace the names, the forfeitures of goods and chattels were only demanded from those from whom no lands had been seized."

[67] _History of England_, 1603-42, Vol. i. p. 329, footnote.

A letter in Father Garnet's handwriting to Father Persons on these topics should have a special interest for us, as it was pretty certainly written at Gothurst, where he seems to have been staying at the time it is dated, October 4 and 21, 1605. It says[68]:--"The courses taken are more severe than in Bess's time.... If any recusant buy his goods again, they inquire diligently if the money be his own: otherwise they would have that too. In fine, if these courses hold, every man must be fain to redeem, once in six months, the very bed he lieth on: and hereof, of twice redeeming, besides other precedents, I find one here in Nicolas, his lodging," _i.e._, in the house of Sir Everard Digby. "The judges now openly protest that the king will have blood, and hath taken blood in Yorkshire; and that the king hath hitherto stroked papists, but now will strike:--and this is without any desert of Catholics. The execution of two in the north is certain:"--three persons, Welbourn and Fulthering at York, and Brown at Ripon, had in fact been executed in Yorkshire that year for recusancy.[69] Father Garnet continues:--"and whereas it was done upon cold blood, that is, with so great stay after their condemnation, it argueth a deliberate resolution of what we may expect: so that you may see there is no hope that Paul," _i.e._ Pope Paul V., "can do anything; and whatsoever men give out there, of easy proceedings with Catholics, is mere fabulous. And yet, notwithstanding, I am a.s.sured that the best sort of Catholics will bear all their losses with patience: but how these tyrannical proceedings of such base officers may drive particular men to desperate attempts, that I cannot answer for;--the king's wisdom will foresee."

[68] I quote from _Dodd and Tierney_, Vol. iv., Appendix xvi., p.

ciii.

[69] Challoner, ii. 12, 13.

Mr Gardiner, in noticing the fines levied on recusants, mentions[70] one point in connection with them which would be peculiarly vexatious to a man of Sir Everard Digby's temperament and position. "The Catholics must have been especially aggrieved by the knowledge that much of the money thus raised went into the pockets of courtiers. For instance, the profits of the lands of two recusants were granted to a foot-man, and this was by no means an isolated case."

[70] _History of England_, 1603-42, Vol i. p. 230.

Sir Everard Digby's great friend, Father Gerard, also testifies at great length to the persecutions under Elizabeth and James.[71] Father Southwell was put "nine times most cruelly upon the torture," and the law against the Catholics "put to cruel death many and worthy persons,"

and "many persons of great families and estimation were at several times put to death under pretence of treason, which also was their cloak to cover their cruelties against such priests and religious as were sent into England by authority from His Holiness to teach and preach the faith of Christ, and to minister his sacraments."

[71] _Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot_, p. 16. _seq._

Again, "their torturing of men when they were taken to make them confess their acquaintance and relievers, was more terrible than death by much, &c." "Besides the spoiling and robbing laymen of their livings and goods, with which they should maintain their families, is to many more grievous than death would be, when those that have lived in good estate and countenance in their country shall see before them their whole life to be led in misery, and not only themselves, but their wives and children to go a-begging." "And to these the continual and cruel searches, which I have found to be more terrible than taking itself. The insolencies and abuses offered in them, and in the seizures of goods, the continual awe and fear that men are kept in by the daily expectance of these things, while every malicious man (of which heresy can want no plenty) is made an officer in these affairs, and every officer a king as it were, to command and insult upon Catholics at their pleasure." It may be readily imagined how the writer of all this would discuss this bad state of affairs with Sir Everard at Gothurst.

I have no wish to exaggerate the sufferings endured by Catholics during the reigns of Elizabeth and the early Stuarts. I willingly admit that in many cases the legal penalties were not enforced against them, nay, I would go further and frankly remind my Catholic readers--Protestants may possibly not require to have their memories thus stimulated--that half a century had not elapsed since Protestants were burned at the stake in Smithfield for their religion by Catholics. Besides all this, it is certain that toleration, as we understand it, is a comparatively modern invention, and that if Mary Queen of Scots had ascended the English throne, or if it had fallen into the hands of Spain, Protestants in this country might not have had a very comfortable time of it, especially in the process of disgorging property taken from the Church, and that, under certain circ.u.mstances, some of them might even have suffered death for their faith; but, while readily making this admission, I doubt whether any Catholic government ever attempted to oblige a people to relinquish a religion, which it had professed for many centuries, with the persistency and cruelty which the governments of Elizabeth and James I. exercised in endeavouring to oblige every British subject to reject the religion of his forefathers. Instances are not wanting of Catholics dealing out stern measures towards those who introduced a new religion into a country; this, on the contrary, was a case of punishing those who refused to adopt a new religion.