But this able, learned, sweet-tempered, yet weak-willed, unimaginative, irresolute man _knew enough outside the Confessional_——which is the point we have to deal with here——to render himself liable to have been sent to the galleys by the Pope, if His Holiness could have laid hold of him, when, notwithstanding this atrocious knowledge, he actually refused to give ear to the arch-conspirator, even although Catesby, on Father Gerard’s own admission, “offered sometimes to tell him [Garnet] that they [Catesby and his friends] would not endure to be so long so much abused, but would take some course to right themselves, if others would not respect them or could not relieve them.”——Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” p. 78. Truly “Evil is wrought by want of thought as well as by want of heart.” The fact that Garnet knew violence was likely to be shown to his lawful Sovereign, coupled with the fact that Garnet _might have learned all the particulars about that purposed violence_ had he not, through a negligence which can be only characterized as grossly criminal, passively omitted, if indeed he had not actively declined, to obtain those particulars from the lips of the arch-conspirator himself——such facts make the case _up to the 24th of July, 1605, absolutely_ fatal against Garnet. And such facts can lead the unbiased mind of the philosophical historian (who does not care a pin about all the ecclesiastical spite, on either one side or the other, that ever was or ever shall be), can lead to one inevitable conclusion only: that Henry Garnet was justly condemned to death by an earthly tribunal for misprision, that is, for concealment, of High Treason _against the Sovereign power of his Country_. Although, being a priest, he ought to have been ecclesiastically “_degraded_” first, according to the provisions of the Canon law, and then handed over to the secular arm for condign punishment, according to the law of the outraged State. For, “_Id certum est quod certum reddi potest_,” that is, certain knowledge which can be reduced to a certainty. Again, the damning evidence against Garnet is clenched by a letter that he sent to Rome, dated 28th August, wherein, amongst other things, he said: “And for anything we can see, Catholics are quiet, and likely to continue their old patience, and to trust to the King or his son for to remedy all in time.”——Gerard’s “_Narrative_,” pp. 78, 79. Now Garnet[A] was a man of most acute mind and very clear-sighted; but he was intellectually unimaginative as well as morally weak-willed. And such a man is never a far-sighted man. [Footnote A: Garnet was a profound mathematician and accomplished linguist, amongst other acquirements.]