Back Aa

Guy Fawkes; or, A Complete History of The Gunpowder Treason, A.D. 1605

<h2>[78]CHAPTER VII.</h2> 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. [79]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 [80]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 [81]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 [82]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, [83]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:— <div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> Gentem auferte perfidam Credentium de finibus, Ut Christo laudes debitas, Persolvamus alacriter. </div> </div> 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 [84]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 [85]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. [86]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 [87]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 [88]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] 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 [89]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. [90]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 [91]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 [92]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].” 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 [93]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 [94]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 [95]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. <div class="footnotes">Footnotes: <div class="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. </div> <div class="footnote">[23] Osborne’s Works, p. 436. </div> </div> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.