Roman Catholics as well as Protestants by his perjury, is touched upon by nearly all the leading historians who have dealt with his trial. I quote the following criticisms from their works:—
Dr. Lingard[1]:—'Three days later, he was interrogated a second time respecting the doctrine of equivocation, and boldly declared that the practice of requiring men to accuse themselves was barbarous and unjust; that in all such cases it was lawful to employ equivocation, and to confirm, if it were necessary, that equivocation with an oath; and that if Tresham, as had been pretended, had equivocated on his death-bed, he might have had reasons which would justify him in the sight of God. To these and similar avowals I ascribe his execution. By seeking shelter under equivocation, he had deprived himself of the protection which the truth might have afforded him ; nor could he in such circumstances reasonably complain if the King refused credit to his asseverations of innocence,[2] and permitted the law to take its course.'
Dr. Gardiner:—'Garnet was again examined several times after his conviction, and there may possibly have been some inclination on the part of the King to save his life. But the Jesuitical doctrine on the subject of truth and falsehood, which he openly professed, was enough to ruin any man'
J. R. Green:—'Garnet, the Provincial of the
