Baynham went as a soldier, and that he thought good to commend him to the Pope's Nuncio and other friends in Flanders, that they should send him to the Pope to inform him of the distressed state of the Catholics in England, and to learn of the Pope what course he would advise them to take for their own good." And, finally, after his trial, in his letter to the fathers and brethren on Palm Sunday*, he declares, “that he had procured Baynham's mission in order to inform the Pope generally of the plot, and that this was the reason why he so confidently expected from his Holiness a prohibition of the whole business." Now, with respect to his recommendation of Baynham as a soldier, we are first struck with a similar absurdity to that above pointed out in relation to Fawkes, namely, that the Superior of the Jesuits should recommend a military man to the Pope's Nuncio. Besides which, it must be remembered that Baynham could have required no such introduction. He had served under the Earl of Essex on various occasions, and was intimately acquainted with Sir William Stanley and the other English refugees of the Catholic party living in Flanders. But, taking the latest and final reason alleged by Garnet, namely, that he proposed his mission to the Pope in order to negotiate for the prevention of the plot by a papal prohibition, is it credible that for such a purpose he would have employed such a messenger? Could the Superior of the Jesuits find no more fitting emissary on a message of mercy and salvation than the "Captain of the Damned Crew,"-the man of "treasons, stratagems, and spoils"-whose turbulent and unprincipled character was so notorious in England, that the conspirators themselves thought it imprudent to entrust him with any part of the conduct of the project at home, saying, that "he was not fit for *Antilogia, p. 141. the business?" But the conclusive answer given to this suggestion at the trial, and by which its falsehood seems to be demonstrated, was the indisputable fact that Baynham did not quit England until the middle of September; and consequently that it was barely possible, even if he had travelled directly to Rome with the utmost expedition, to have procured the Pope's prohibition, and to have returned with it to England, before the 5th of November. In fact, Baynham used no expedition at all; he went through Flanders and remained some days there, and, did not reach Florence till the 20th of October, well knowing that the real object of his mission would be accomplished by his being at Rome as soon as the tidings of the explosion had arrived there. Many other circumstances might be mentioned, all of which point directly to a different conclusion from that which Garnet laboured to establish on the trial, and which his apologists, with greater zeal and ingenuity than knowledge, have since urged on his behalf. But the enumeration of all the arguments would extend these remarks, already perhaps too much protracted, to a length of dissertation altogether unjustifiable. There was great justice in what Lord Salisbury said to Garnet upon the trial, namely, that "all his defence was but simple negation; whereas his privity and activity, laid together, proved him manifestly guilty." It is impossible to point out a single ascertained fact, either declared by him in his examinations to the Commissioners, or to the jury on his trial, or revealed by him afterwards, or urged by his apologists since his death, which is inconsistent with his criminal implication in the plot. On the other hand, all the established and undisputed facts of the transaction are consistent with his being a willing, consenting, and approving confederate, and * Bates's Examination, ante, p. 271. many of them are wholly unaccounted for by any other supposition. Indeed this conclusion appears to be so inevitable, upon a deliberate review of the details of the conspiracy and of the power and influence of the Jesuits at that period, that the doubt and discussion which have occasionally prevailed during two centuries respecting it can only have arisen from the imperfect publication of the facts, and above all, from the circumstance that the subject has always been treated in the spirit of political or religious controversy, and not as a question of mere historical criticism. INDEX TO THE VOLUME. Abbott, Dr. Robert, Anthony Wood's account of him, p. 366. (n.) Abington, Thomas, description of his house at Hendlip, p. 202. 325. His account of his examination before the Council, p. p. 62. Andrews, Lancelot, Bishop of Chichester, his answer to Bellarmine, p, 363. xiv. Baga de Secretis, description of it, Pref. p. Baynham, Sir Edmund, account of him, p. 47. His mission to the Pope, in September, 1605, ibid. Remarks thereon, as affecting Garnet, p. 400. Bell in the Wall, story of, p. 45. Bellarmine, his defence of Garnet, p. 364. Breves, Garnet's receipt of them, p. 229. Evidence respecting them, p. 276,277. Bromley, Sir Henry, his letter to Lord Salisbury about the search at Hendlip Casaubon, Isaac, account of his Letter to Fronto Ducæus, p. 365. Catesby, Robert, account of him, p. 26. His estimate of the nobility, p. 58. His conversation with Rookwood about the plot, p. 52. Intimate connection with Garnet, p. 388. Death at Holbeach, p. 87. Catholics, Political consequences of the plot to them, p. 1. Penal laws in force against them at the beginning of the reign of Instances of their practical application, p. 10. Their expectations on the accession of James I., p. 17. Few English Catholics acquainted with the plot, p. 187. Cellar, hire of it by Percy, p. 45. VOL. II. 2 B |