diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69912-0.txt | 16191 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69912-0.zip | bin | 343518 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69912-h.zip | bin | 1126046 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69912-h/69912-h.htm | 23366 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69912-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 747321 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 39557 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cdeb3e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #69912 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69912) diff --git a/old/69912-0.txt b/old/69912-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index ffb3b4c..0000000 --- a/old/69912-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,16191 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Popish Plot, by John Pollock - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Popish Plot - A study in the history of the reign of Charles II - -Author: John Pollock - -Release Date: January 30, 2023 [eBook #69912] - -Language: English - -Produced by: deaurider, Quentin Campbell, and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POPISH PLOT *** - - - Transcriber’s Note - -In the transcription that follows, italic text is denoted by -_underscores_ while bold text is denoted by =equal signs=. Small -capitals in the original text have been transcribed as ALL CAPITALS. -Superscripted text is prefixed by a caret ‘^’ symbol. If the -superscript continues for more than one character, it is surrounded -with curly braces ‘{}’. - - ———— - -See the end of this document for details of corrections and other -changes. - - —————————————————— Start of Book —————————————————— - - - - - THE - - POPISH PLOT - - A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF - THE REIGN OF CHARLES II - - BY - - JOHN POLLOCK - FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE - - - “Some truth there was, but dashed and brewed with lies.” - _Absalom and Achitophel._ - - “Oh! it was a naughty Court. Yet have we dreamed of it as the period - when an English cavalier was grace incarnate; far from the boor now - hustling us in another sphere; beautifully mannered, every gesture - dulcet. And if the ladies were ... we will hope they have been - traduced. But if they were, if they were too tender, ah! gentlemen - were gentlemen then—worth perishing for!”—_The Egoist._ - - “Donner pour certain ce qui est certain, pour faux ce qui est faux, - pour douteux ce qui est douteux.”—_Mabillon._ - - - LONDON: - DUCKWORTH AND CO. - MCMIII - - - - - INSCRIBED TO THE MEMORY OF - - LORD ACTON - - - - - PREFACE - - -When I first undertook the study of the Popish Plot the late Lord -Acton wrote to me: “There are three quite unravelled mysteries;—what -was going on between Coleman and Père la Chaize; how Oates got hold -of the wrong story; and who killed Godfrey.” The following book is an -attempt to answer these questions and to elucidate points of obscurity -connected with them. - -In the course of the work I have received much kind help from Dr. -Jackson and Mr. Stanley Leathes of this college, from the Rev. J. N. -Figgis of St. Catharine’s College, and from my father; and Mr. C. H. -Firth of All Souls’ College has been exceedingly generous in giving -the assistance of his invaluable learning and experience to a novice -attacking problems which have been left too long untouched by those -better fitted for the task. - -It is only as a mark of the deep gratitude I bear him that I have -ventured to dedicate this book to the memory of the illustrious man -whose death has deprived it of its sternest critic. Few can know so -well as myself how far its attainment falls short of the standard which -he set up. With that standard before me I can justify myself only -by the thought that I have tried to follow strictly the injunction: -Nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice. - J. P. - - TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 1903. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - TABLE OF SOME EVENTS OCCURRING IN THE HISTORY OF THE - POPISH PLOT xiii - - - I. DESIGNS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS - - CHAPTER I - TITUS OATES 3 - CHAPTER II - THE NATURE OF THE DESIGNS 15 - CHAPTER III - OATES AGAIN 70 - - - II. SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY - - CHAPTER I - GODFREY 83 - CHAPTER II - BEDLOE AND ATKINS 106 - CHAPTER III - BEDLOE AND PRANCE 117 - CHAPTER IV - PRANCE AND BEDLOE 132 - CHAPTER V - THE SECRET 149 - - - III. POLITICS OF THE PLOT - - CHAPTER I - THE GOVERNMENT 169 - CHAPTER II - THE CATHOLICS 196 - CHAPTER III - SHAFTESBURY AND CHARLES 222 - - - IV. TRIALS FOR TREASON - - CHAPTER I - MAGISTRATES AND JUDGES 265 - CHAPTER II - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 288 - CHAPTER III - TRIALS FOR THE PLOT 304 - - - APPENDICES - APPENDIX A 375 - APPENDIX B 382 - APPENDIX C 390 - APPENDIX D 394 - APPENDIX E 400 - - MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF THE POPISH PLOT 405 - - INDEX 415 - - - - - TABLE OF SOME EVENTS OCCURRING IN - THE HISTORY OF THE POPISH PLOT - - -1677. Ash Wednesday Titus Oates converted to the Church of Rome. - April Enters the English Jesuit college at - Valladolid. - October 30 Expelled from the college at Valladolid. - December 10 Enters the English Jesuit college at St. Omers. -1678. April 24 Jesuit congregation held at St. James’ Palace. - June 23 Oates expelled from the college at St. Omers - June 27 and returns to London. - August 13 Christopher Kirkby informs the king of a plot - against his life. - August 14 Kirkby and Dr. Tonge examined by the Earl - of Danby. - The king goes to Windsor. - August 31 The forged letters sent to Bedingfield at - Windsor. - September 2 Tonge introduces Oates to Kirkby at his - lodgings at Vauxhall. - September 6 Oates swears to the truth of his information - before Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. - September 27 Oates and Tonge summoned before the Privy - Council. - September 28 Oates swears again to the truth of his - information before Godfrey and leaves - a copy with him. - Oates examined at length by the council. - Search for Jesuits begun that night. - Edward Coleman pays a secret visit to Godfrey. - September 29 Sir George Wakeman before the council. - Oates again examined by the council and - continues the search for Jesuits at night. - Warrant issued for the arrest of Coleman - and seizure of his papers. - September 30 Coleman surrenders to the warrant against him - and is placed in charge of an officer. His - house searched and his papers seized. - Oates examined twice by the council and - again searches for Jesuits. - October 1 The king goes to Newmarket. - Coleman’s papers examined by a committee - of the council. - Coleman committed to Newgate. - October 12 Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey missing. - October 15 News of his disappearance published. - October 17 His body found in a field at the foot of - Primrose Hill. - October 18, 19 An inquest held. - October 20 Reward of £500 offered for the discovery of - Godfrey’s murderers. - October 21 Meeting of Parliament (seventeenth session - of Charles II’s second or Long Parliament). - October 23 Oates at the bar of the House of Commons. - October 24 Assurance of protection added to the reward - offered for the discovery of Godfrey’s - murderers. - October 25–31 The Earl of Powis, Viscount Stafford, Lord - Petre, Lord Bellasis, and Lord Arundel of - Wardour surrender to the warrants out - against them as being, on Oates’ - information, concerned in the Plot. - October 28 Test Act passes the Commons. - October 30, 31 Oates at the bar of the House of Lords. - November 1 Resolution of both Houses of Parliament - with regard to the Plot. - Funeral of Godfrey. - Proclamation commanding Popish recusants - to depart ten miles from London. - Arrest of Samuel Atkins. - November 5 Bedloe surrenders himself at Bristol. - November 7 Bedloe comes to town and is examined by - the king and secretaries. Examination of - Coleman in Newgate. - November 10, 18 Bedloe at the bar of the House of Commons - November 12 and at the bar of the House of Lords. - November 20 Test Act passed, but with a proviso exempting - the Duke of York. - November 21 Trial and conviction of William Staley for - high treason. - November 24 Oates accuses the queen in examination by - Secretary Coventry. - November 26 Staley executed at Tyburn, denying his guilt. - November 27 Trial and conviction of Coleman for high - treason. Bedloe accuses the queen. - November 28 Oates accuses the queen at the bar of the - House of Commons. He is confined by - the king and his papers are seized. - November 30 The king refuses to pass the Militia bill, - even for half an hour. - December 3 Execution of Coleman. - December 5 The five Popish Lords impeached. - December 16 Supply granted for disbanding the army. - - December 17 Trial and conviction of Ireland, Pickering, - and Grove for high treason. - December 19 Montagu’s papers seized. He produces - Danby’s letters to the Commons, revealing - the secret treaty with Louis XIV. - December 21 Miles Prance arrested and recognised by - Bedloe. Impeachment of Danby. - December 23 Prance confesses and accuses Green, Berry, - and Hill of being Godfrey’s murderers. - December 28 Dugdale comes forward as a witness. - December 29 Prance recants. - December 30 Parliament prorogued till February 4. -1679. January 11 Prance retracts his recantation. - January 24 Long Parliament dissolved. - Ireland and Grove executed; Pickering - respited till May 25. - February 5 Trial and conviction of Green, Berry, and - Hill for Godfrey’s murder. - February 8 Atkins is acquitted of the same murder. - February 21 Execution of Green and Hill. - February 28 Execution of Berry. - March 3 The king declares that he was never married - to any woman but Queen Catherine. - March 4 The Duke of York leaves for Brussels by - command of the king. - - March 6 The king repeats his declaration. - The third Parliament meets. Edward - Seymour chosen Speaker, and is rejected - by the king. - March 13 Parliament prorogued for two days. - March 15 Serjeant Gregory chosen Speaker. - March 21 Parliament votes the Plot to be read. - Prance’s examination read to the Lords. - March 22 The Commons resolve to proceed with - Danby’s impeachment. - March 24 Danby takes refuge at Whitehall. - March 25 Speech on Scotland by Shaftesbury. - April 1 Bill of attainder voted against Danby. - April 15 Bill of attainder passed. - April 16 Danby surrenders himself and is committed - to the Tower. - A supply voted and appropriated for the - disbandment of the army. - April 21 The king declares a new privy council, devised - by Sir William Temple. - April 24 Trial and conviction of Reading. - April 27 Resolution of Parliament against the Duke - of York. - April 30 The king’s speech concerning the succession. - May 3 Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews, murdered. - May 11 The Exclusion bill voted by the Commons. - May 15 The Exclusion bill read for the first time. - May 23, 24 The Commons attack the system of secret - service money. - May 26 The Habeas Corpus Act passed. The - Parliament prorogued to August 14, and - afterwards dissolved against the advice of - the whole council. - May 29 Outbreak of the Bothwell Brigg rebellion. - The Covenant proclaimed in the west of - Scotland. - June 1 Claverhouse defeated at Drumclog. - June Publication of “An Appeal from the City to - the Country.” - June 13 Trial and conviction of Whitebread, Fenwick, - Harcourt, Gavan, and Turner (the five - Jesuits) for high treason. - June 14 Trial and conviction of Richard Langhorn - for high treason. - June 15 Monmouth starts to suppress the rebellion. - June 20 Execution of the Five Jesuits. - June 22 The Covenanters routed by Monmouth at - Bothwell Brigg. - July 9 Samuel Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane, in - prison on account of the Plot, admitted to - bail by Scroggs. - July 14 Execution of Langhorn. - July 17 Sir Thomas Gascoigne committed to the - Tower on a charge of high treason. - July 18 Sir George Wakeman, Marshall, Romney, - and Corker tried for high treason and - acquitted. - August Executions in the provinces of priests on - account of their orders. - August 22 The king ill at Windsor. - August 23 The Duke of York summoned from Brussels. - August 29 The Duke sets out from Brussels - September 2 and reaches Windsor. - September 12 The Duke of Monmouth removed from his - commission of Lord General. - September 24 Monmouth leaves for Holland. - September 27 James leaves for Brussels, thence to Scotland. - October 7 The new Parliament, meeting, is prorogued - by successive stages to October 1680. - October 15 Shaftesbury dismissed from his place at the - council board. - October 20 Dangerfield searches Col. Mansell’s lodgings - and is arrested. - October 27 Dangerfield committed to prison on charge - of high treason. - October 29 Papers found in Mrs. Cellier’s meal tub. - November 9 Dangerfield pardoned. - November 17 First great Pope Burning, organised by the - Green Ribbon Club. - November 19 Laurence Hyde appointed First Commissioner - of the Treasury. - November 25 Trial and conviction of Knox and Lane. - November 27 Monmouth returns to England without leave. - December 6 Archbishop Plunket committed to the castle - at Dublin. - December 9 Petition of seventeen Whig peers for the - sitting of Parliament marks the beginning - of the practice of petitioning. - December 11 Proclamation against petitioning. -1680. January 6 Mowbray and Bolron pardoned. - January 9 Mrs. Cellier accuses Sir Robert Peyton of - high treason. - January 21 Oates and Bedloe exhibit articles against - Lord Chief Justice Scroggs. - January 31 Lord Russell, Lord Cavendish, Sir Henry - Capel, and Mr. Powle resign their places - on the council. - February 5 Benjamin Harris tried and convicted for a - libel in publishing “An Appeal from the - City to the Country.” - - February 11 Sir Thomas Gascoigne tried for high treason - and acquitted. - - February 24 The Duke of York returns from Scotland. - - February 26 Declaration of the Scottish Privy Council of - their abhorrence of tumultuous petitions - published in the _Gazette_ marks the - beginning of the “abhorrers’” addresses. - March 8 The king and the Duke of York entertained - at a banquet by the Lord Mayor. - March 30 Thomas Dare of Taunton fined for seditious - and dangerous words. - April 15 Assault on Arnold. - April 26 and June 7 Declarations published in the _Gazette_ - denying all truth in the rumour of the - Black Box. - May 11 Indictment of high treason, on Dangerfield’s - evidence, against the Countess of Powis - ignored by the grand jury of Middlesex. - May 13 The king ill at Windsor. - May 15 “A Letter to a Person of Honour concerning - the Black Box” published. - May 24 Trial and conviction of Tasborough and Price. - June 10 Conclusion of a treaty between England and - Spain to maintain the peace of Nymeguen. - June 11 Mrs. Cellier tried for high treason and - acquitted. - June 23 The Earl of Castlemaine tried for high treason - and acquitted. - June 26 Shaftesbury, with Titus Oates and fourteen - peers and commoners, presents the Duke - of York as a popish recusant. - July 14 Trial and conviction of Giles for an attempt - to murder Arnold. - July 28, 29 Trials for high treason at York. Lady - Tempest, Sir Miles Stapleton, and Mary - Pressicks acquitted, but Thwing, a priest, - convicted. - August–October Western progress of the Duke of Monmouth. - August 20 Death of Bedloe at Bristol. - September 11 Trial and conviction of Mrs. Cellier for - writing and publishing a libel. - October 20 The Duke of York leaves London for - Edinburgh. - October 21 Meeting of Charles II’s fourth Parliament. - October 26 Dangerfield at the bar of the House of - Commons. - October 28 Bedloe’s deathbed deposition read to the - House of Commons. Two members of - the Commons expelled for discrediting the - Plot. - October 30 Archbishop Plunket brought to London and - committed to the Tower. - November 2 The Exclusion bill voted. - November 10 Lord Stafford’s trial resolved on by the - Commons. - November 11 Third reading of the Exclusion bill in the - House of Commons. - November 15 The Exclusion bill rejected by the House - of Lords owing to Lord Halifax. - November 16 Halifax proposes the banishment of the - Duke of York. - November 17 Second great Pope Burning. - The House of Commons proceed against - Halifax. - November 24 The Commons vote the impeachment of - Lord Chief Justice North. - November 30–December 7 Trial and conviction of Lord - Stafford for high treason. - December 15 Sir Robert Peyton expelled from the House - of Commons. - December 29 Execution of Stafford. -1681. January 5 The Commons vote the impeachment of - Lord Chief Justice Scroggs and other - judges. - January 7, 10 The Commons pass resolutions against the - Duke of York, against such as shall lend - money to the crown, against a prorogation. - January 10 Parliament prorogued - January 18 and suddenly dissolved. - January 25 Sixteen Whig peers present a petition against - a parliament being held at Oxford. - February 28 Edward Fitzharris arrested for writing a - treasonable libel. - March 14 The king concludes a secret verbal treaty - with Louis XIV and sets out for Oxford. - March 17 Shaftesbury and other Whig leaders set out - for Oxford with an armed escort. - March 21 Meeting of Charles II’s fifth and last - Parliament at Oxford. - March 25 The Commons impeach Fitzharris. - March 26 The Exclusion bill voted. - The Lords refuse to proceed on Fitzharris’ - impeachment. - March 28 The Exclusion bill read the first time in the - House of Commons. Parliament suddenly - dissolved. - May The king’s declaration justifying the - dissolution answered by “A Just and - Modest Vindication of the Proceedings - of the two Last Parliaments.” - May 3 Trial and conviction of Archbishop Plunket - for high treason. - June 9 Trial and conviction of Fitzharris for high - treason. - July 1 Execution of Plunket and Fitzharris. - - - - - DESIGNS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS - - - - - CHAPTER I - - TITUS OATES - - -Titus Oates has justly been considered one of the world’s great -impostors. By birth he was an Anabaptist, by prudence a clergyman, by -profession a perjurer. From an obscure and beggarly existence he raised -himself to opulence and an influence more than episcopal, and, when he -fell, it was with the fame of having survived the finest flogging ever -inflicted. De Quincey considered the murder of Godfrey to be the most -artistic performance of the seventeenth century. It was far surpassed -by the products of Oates’ roving imagination. To the connoisseur of -murder the mystery of Godfrey’s death may be more exhilarating, but in -the field of broad humour Oates bears the palm. There is, after all, -something laughable about the rascal. His gross personality had in it -a comic strain. He could not only invent but, when unexpected events -occurred, adapt them on the instant to his own end. His coarse tongue -was not without a kind of wit. Whenever he appears on the scene, as has -been said of Jeffreys, we may be sure of good sport. Yet to his victims -he was an emblem of tragic injustice. Very serious were his lies to the -fifteen men whom he brought to death. The world was greedy of horrors, -and Oates sounded the alarm at the crucial moment. In the game he went -on to play the masterstrokes were his. Those who would reduce him to -a subordinate of his associate Dr. Tonge, the hare-brained parson -whose quarterly denunciations of Rome failed to arouse the interest of -Protestant London, have strangely misunderstood his character. Tonge -was a necessary go-between, but Oates the supreme mover of diabolical -purpose. - -In the year of the execution of King Charles the First Titus Oates was -born at Oakham in the county of Rutland. His father, Samuel Oates, -son of the rector of Marsham in Norfolk, had graduated from Corpus -College, Cambridge, and received orders from the hands of the Bishop of -Norwich. On the advent of the Puritan Revolution he turned Anabaptist, -and achieved fame in the eastern counties as a Dipper of energy and -sanctity. In 1650 he became chaplain to Colonel Pride’s regiment, and -four years later had the distinction of being arrested by Monk for -seditious practices in Scotland. The Restoration returned him to the -bosom of the established church, and in 1666 he was presented by Sir -Richard Barker to the rectory of All Saints’ at Hastings. Shortly -before, his son Titus went his ways to seek education and a livelihood -in the world as a scholar. Ejected in turn from Merchant Taylors’ -School and Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, he found a refuge at St. -John’s College, and some three years later was instituted to the -vicarage of Bobbing in Kent. “By the same token,” it was remarked, “the -plague and he visited Cambridge at the same time.” - -Oates was a bird of passage. He obtained a license not to reside in -his parish, and went to visit his father at Hastings. Long time did -not pass before he took wing again. He had already once been indicted -for perjury, though no further proceedings were taken in the case.[1] -Now he conspired with his father to bring an odious charge against -the schoolmaster of Hastings, who had incurred his enmity. The charge -fell to the ground, Oates’ abominable evidence was proved to be false, -and he was thrown into gaol pending an action for a thousand pounds -damages.[2] Escape from prison saved him from disaster, and he fled to -London. As far as is known, no attempt was made to prosecute him. The -men of Hastings were probably rejoiced at his disappearance. There was -no profit to be made out of such a culprit as Oates. If he were caught, -it would only bring expense and trouble to the authorities. It was -the business of no one else to pursue the matter. So Oates went free. -Without employment, he managed to obtain the post of chaplain on board -a vessel in the Royal Navy. The calling was rather more disreputable -than that of the Fleet parson of later times. Discipline on board the -king’s ships was chiefly manifest by its absence; under the captaincy -of favourites from court the efficiency of the service was maintained -only by the rude ability of men who had been bred in it; and the -standard expected from the chaplain was “damnably low.” Nevertheless -Oates failed to achieve the required measure of respectability. He was -expelled upon the same grounds as he had formerly urged against the -fortunate schoolmaster.[3] - -The mischance marked the beginning of his rise. Again adrift in London, -the tide threw him upon William Smith, his former master at Merchant -Taylors’ School. It was Bartholomew-tide in the year 1676. With Smith -was Matthew Medburne, a player from the Duke of York’s theatre, and -by creed a Roman Catholic. The two made friends with Oates, and on -Medburne’s introduction he became a member of a club which met twice -a week at the Pheasant Inn in Fuller’s Rents. The club contained -both Catholics and Protestants, discussion of religion and politics -being prohibited under penalty of a fine.[4] Here Oates made his -first acquaintance with those of the religion which he was afterwards -to turn to a source of so great profit. The rule which forbade -controversy applied only to the meetings of the club, and beyond its -limits discussion between members seems to have been free. It was -perhaps by the agency of some of these that in the winter of the same -year Oates was admitted as chaplain into the service of the Duke of -Norfolk.[5] Testimony to character on the engagement of a servant in -the seventeenth century was probably not severely examined. - -In the house of the great Catholic noble Oates found himself in the -company of priests of the forbidden church. Conversation turned on the -subject of religion, and Oates lent ear to the addresses of the other -side. Though he wore the gown of an English minister, his faith sat -light upon him, and he did not scruple to change it for advantage. -On Ash Wednesday 1677 he was formally reconciled to the Church of -Rome.[6] The instrument for the salvation of the strayed lamb was one -Berry, alias Hutchinson, a Jesuit whom Oates had afterwards the grace -to describe as “a saintlike man, one that was religious for religion’s -sake.” By others the instrument was thought to be somewhat weak-minded; -at a later date he seceded to the Protestant faith and became curate -in the city, later still to be welcomed back into the bosom of his -previous church; withal a very pious person, removed from politics, -and much given to making converts. Neither conversion nor piety alone -was an end to Oates. He soon made his way to Father Richard Strange, -provincial of the Society of Jesus, and notified him of a desire for -admission into the order. Consulting with his fellows, Strange gave -consent to the proposal, and before the end of April, Oates was shipped -on a Bilboa merchantman with letters to the English Jesuit seminary at -Valladolid.[7] - -There was little that Oates could hope from a career as an English -parson. Almost any other calling, especially one that took him abroad, -offered better chances. He probably believed that Jesuit emissaries -led a merry life and a licentious. Perhaps it is true that, as he -said, vague talk in the Duke of Norfolk’s household of the glorious -future for Catholicism had come to his ears. At least the times must -make him credulous of Catholic machinations. To his sanguine mind -the future would present unbounded possibilities. On the other side, -stout recruits for the Catholic cause were not to be despised. Oates’ -character was tough, and he was not the man to shrink from dirty work. -Had they known him well, his new patrons would hardly have welcomed -him as a convert. The plausible humility he aired was the outcome of a -discretion which rarely lasted longer than to save him from starvation. -By nature he was a bully, brutal, sensual, avaricious, and gifted with -a greed of adulation which, in a man of less impudence, would have -caused his speedy ruin. From earliest youth he was a liar. Yet he -was shrewd enough, and shrewdness and promptitude were qualities not -without a certain value. His vices had not yet grown to be notorious. -So he was taken to serve masters who generally succeeded in giving -their pupils at least the outward stamp of piety. In person Oates was -hideous. His body was short, his shoulders broad. He was bull-necked -and bow-legged. Under a low forehead his eyes were set small and deep. -His countenance was large and moon-like. So monstrous was his length of -chin that the wide slit mouth seemed almost to bisect his purple face. -His voice rasped inharmoniously, and he could tune it at will to the -true Puritan whine or to scold on terms with such a master of abuse as -Jeffreys. The pen of Dryden has drawn a matchless portrait of the man— - - Sunk were his eyes, his voice was harsh and loud, - Sure signs he neither choleric was nor proud: - His long chin proved his wit, his saint-like grace - A church vermilion and a Moses’ face.[8] - -This was the tender being whom the Colegio de los Ingleses took to -nurse into a Jesuit. - -The project failed of its mark. Five short months completed Oates’ stay -amid the new surroundings. On October 30, 1677 he was expelled the -college and shipped home, reaching London in November.[9] The sojourn -was in after days utilised to elevate him to the dignity of doctor of -divinity. He had obtained the degree at Salamanca, he said. The truth -was more accurately expressed in the lines— - - The spirit caught him up, the Lord knows where, - And gave him his Rabbinical degree - Unknown to foreign university;[10] - -for none but priests were admitted by the Catholic Church to the -doctorate, Oates was never a priest, and was never at Salamanca in -his life.[11] Though Valladolid had proved no great success, Oates -was unabashed. He returned to Strange and the Jesuits in London. -Protestations were renewed, and the eagerness of the expelled novice -was not to be withstood. The Jesuits afterwards professed that they -simply desired to keep Oates out of the way. Whatever their motive, he -was given a new trial. The society furnished a new suit of clothes and -a periwig, put four pounds into his pocket, and sent him to complete -his education at St. Omers. On December 10 he was admitted into the -seminary.[12] For one ambitious of an ecclesiastical career the venture -was not fruitful. Long evidence was given at a later date descriptive -of Oates’ course in the college. In important points it lies under -strong suspicion,[13] but the picture of his daily doings may be taken -as faithful. Oates was not a congenial companion to his fellows. Though -a separate table was provided for him at meals, he went to school -with the rest and attempted to gain their intimacy. He was the source -of continual quarrels, spoiled sport, tried to play the bully, and -sometimes met with the retribution that falls on bullies. He was reader -in the sodality, and enlivened more serious works, such as Father -Worsley’s _Controversies_, with interludes from that most entertaining -book, _The Contempt of the Clergy_.[14] He had a pan broken over -his head for insisting at a play by the novices on sitting in the -place reserved for the musicians. On another occasion he excited the -amusement of the college by allowing himself to be beaten up and down -by a lad with a fox’s brush. Still nobler was an effort in the pulpit, -where he preached “a pleasant sermon,” expounding his belief that -“King Charles the Second halted between two opinions and a stream of -Popery went between his legs.”[15] Lurid tales of Oates’ conduct were -afterwards published by the Jesuit fathers.[16] What is more certainly -true is the fact that his presence in the seminary rapidly became -embarrassing. On June 23, 1678 he was turned out of doors, and shook -the dust of St. Omers from his feet. On the 27th he reached London.[17] - -When Oates formed his alliance with Dr. Ezrael Tonge, rector of St. -Michael’s in Wood Street, is uncertain. The point is not without -importance. If Oates came first to Tonge in the summer of 1678, the -fact would be so far in his favour that he may have sought a good -market for wares which he believed to be in some degree sound. If he -took directions from Tonge before his visit to the Jesuit seminaries, -the chance of his sincerity would be much diminished. Simpson Tonge, -the rector’s son, afterwards composed a journal of these events. -Unhappily his statements are without value. Hoping for reward at one -time from Oates, at another from his enemies, Tonge contradicted -himself flatly, urging for the informer that Oates had sought his -father only after the return from St. Omers; against him, that the two -had, during an intimacy of two years, designed the Popish Plot before -ever Oates went abroad.[18] Judgment must therefore be suspended; -but it is notable that King Charles thought the evidence as to the -intrigue between Oates and Tonge unworthy of credence. Simpson Tonge -was taken to Windsor in the summer of 1680 to reveal his knowledge. -He left there papers in which evidence of the facts was contained. -Charles examined them, and told Sydney Godolphin that “he found them -very slight and immaterial,” and refused to see Tonge again.[19] At -whatever point co-operation began, acquaintance between the two men was -likely enough of long standing. Tonge had been presented to his living -by Sir Richard Barker, the ancient patron of Samuel Oates. A natural -tie thus existed, now to be developed by circumstances into strong -union. The doctor was an assiduous labourer in the Protestant vineyard. -His fear of Popery amounted to mania. Volumes poured from his pen in -denunciation of Catholic conspiracies. A catalogue was afterwards -made of Tonge’s library. Its character may be judged from the titles -of the following works:—_Massacres threatened to Prevent, Temple and -Tabernacle, Arguments to suppress Popery._[20] He had co-operated with -John Evelyn in translating _The Mystery of Jesuitism_, a work which -King Charles said he had carried for two days in his pocket and read; -“at which,” writes Evelyn, “I did not a little wonder.”[21] When fame -overtook him, Tonge raised the ghost of Habernfeld’s Plot and spent -some ingenuity in turning the name of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey to -_Dy’d by Rome’s reveng’d fury_, that of Edward Coleman to _Lo a damned -crew_. Now he passed a bashful and disappointed life. Needy and full of -silly notions, he divided his time between the detection of Jesuitry -and the study of obscure sciences. Here was beyond doubt the man to -interest himself in Oates. For Oates had brought back from beyond seas -a prodigious tale, calculated to set the most unpractical alarmist in -action. - -The scope of the disclosure was vast. Written at length and with the -promise of more to come, Oates’ _True and Exact Narrative of the Horrid -Plot and Conspiracy of the Popish Party against the life of His Sacred -Majesty, the Government, and the Protestant Religion_ filled a folio -pamphlet of sixty-eight pages. The Pope, said Oates, had declared -himself lord of the kingdoms of England and Ireland. To the work of -their reduction and government the Jesuits were commissioned by papal -briefs and instructed by orders from the general of the society. Jesuit -agents were at work fomenting rebellion in Scotland and Ireland. Money -had been raised and arms collected. The hour had only to strike for an -Irish port to be opened to a French force in aid of the great scheme. -The Papists had burned down London once and tried to burn it again. A -third attempt would be no less successful than the first. Chief of all, -a “consult” of the English Jesuits had been held on April 24, 1678 at -the White Horse tavern in the Strand, to concert means for the king’s -assassination. Charles was a bastard and an excommunicated heretic. -He deserved death, and the deed was necessary for the Catholic cause. -Want of variety in the instruments chosen should not save him. He was -to be poisoned by the queen’s physician. He was to be shot with silver -bullets in St. James’ Park. Four Irish ruffians were hired to dispatch -him at Windsor. A Jesuit named Coniers had consecrated a knife a foot -in length to stab him. Great sums of money were promised by French -and Spanish Jesuits and by the Benedictine prior to whoever should do -the work. If the Duke of York did not consent to the king’s death, -the same fate lay in store for him. In all this Oates had been a -confidential messenger and an active agent. It was only due to the fact -that he had been appointed for the task of killing Dr. Tonge that the -scheme thus carefully prepared was not put to the test; for Tonge had -moved him to exchange the trade of murderer and incendiary for that of -informer. Thus the great plot was divulged, together with the names of -ninety-nine persons concerned, as well as those nominated for offices -under the prospective Jesuit government, of whom the most prominent -were the Lords Arundel of Wardour, Powis, Petre, Stafford, Bellasis, -Sir William Godolphin, Sir George Wakeman, and Mr. Edward Coleman. The -falsehood of all this has been conclusively demonstrated. Not only did -Oates bear all the marks of the liar and never produce the slightest -evidence for what he announced, but much of his story is contradicted -by the actual conditions of politics at the time. The fact of his -conviction for perjury is widely known and its justice unquestioned. To -rebut his accusations singly would be fruitless, because unnecessary. -Their general untruth has long been known. Much time was occupied -by Oates and Tonge in reducing their bulk to the shape, first of -forty-three, then of eighty-one articles. Oates took a lodging in -Vauxhall, near Sir Richard Barker’s house, where Tonge dwelt. Together -they drafted and copied until all was prepared. Nothing lacked but a -proper flourish for the introduction of so grand an event. - -For this a pretty little comedy was arranged. Oates was to keep behind -the scenes while Tonge rang up the curtain. Nor did Tonge wish to -expose himself too soon to vulgar light. He procured an acquaintance, -Mr. Christopher Kirkby, to act as prologue. Kirkby was a poor gentleman -of good family, interested in chemistry, and holding some small -appointment in the royal laboratory. Their common taste for science -probably accounted for his relation with Tonge; and since he was known -to the king, he could now do the doctor good service. On August 11, -1678 Oates thrust a copy of the precious manuscript under the wainscot -of a gallery in Sir Richard Barker’s house. There Tonge found it, and -on the following day read it to Kirkby, who declared in horror at the -contents that the king should be informed. He would take this part upon -himself, he said. Accordingly on August 13, as Charles was starting for -his accustomed walk in St. James’ Park, Kirkby slipped a note into his -hand begging for a short audience on a matter of vital importance. The -king read it and called Kirkby to ask what he meant. “Sire,” returned -the other, “your enemies have a design against your life. Keep within -the company, for I know not but you may be in danger in this very -walk.” “How may that be?” asked the king. “By being shot at,” answered -Kirkby, and desired to give fuller information in some more private -spot. Charles bade him wait in his closet, and finished his stroll with -composure.[22] - - - - - CHAPTER II - - THE NATURE OF THE DESIGNS - - -For contemporaries the Popish Plot provided a noble field of battle. -Between its supporters and its assailants controversy raged hotly. -Hosts of writers in England and abroad proved incontestably either -its truth or its falsehood.[23] With which of the two the victory lay -is hard to determine. Discredit presently fell on the Plot, but the -balance was restored by the Revolution, when Oates’ release, pardon, -and pension gave again the stamp of authority to his revelations. From -this high estate its reputation quickly fell. Hume pronounced belief in -it to be the touchstone for a hopelessly prejudiced Whig, Fox declared -the evidence offered “impossible to be true,” and before the end of the -eighteenth century Dalrymple accused Shaftesbury of having contrived -and managed the whole affair. Since that time little serious criticism, -with the notable exception of Ranke’s luminous account, has been -attempted. Historians have generally contented themselves with relying -on the informers’ certain mendacity to prove the entire falsehood of -the plot which they denounced. The argument is patently unsound. As -Charles II himself declared, the fact that Oates and his followers were -liars of the first order does not warrant the conclusion that all they -said was untrue and that the plot was wholly of the imagination.[24] -The grounds upon which judgment must be based deserve to be more -closely considered. - -On November 8, 1675 a remarkable debate took place in the House of -Commons. Mr. Russell and Sir Henry Goodrick informed the House of an -outrage said to have been committed by a Jesuit upon a recent convert -from Roman Catholicism. Amid keen excitement they related that one -Luzancy, a Frenchman, who, having lately come over to the Church of -England, had in the French chapel at the Savoy preached a hot sermon -against the errors of Rome, had been compelled at peril of his life -to retract all he had said and sign a recantation of his faith. The -man guilty of this deed was Dr. Burnet, commonly known as Father -St. Germain, a Jesuit belonging to the household of the Duchess of -York.[25] The Commons were highly enraged. “This goes beyond all -precedents,” cried Sir Charles Harbord, “to persuade not only with -arguments but poignards!” He never heard the like way before. Assurance -was given by Mr. Secretary Williamson that strict inquiry was being -made. The king was busy with the matter. Luzancy had been examined -on oath before the council, and a special meeting was now summoned. -A warrant was out for St. Germain, but the Jesuit had fled. The -House expressed its feeling by moving that the Lord Chief Justice be -requested to issue a second warrant for St. Germain’s arrest, and yet -another in general terms “to search for and apprehend all priests and -Jesuits whatsoever.”[26] It was a strange story that Luzancy told. By -Protestants he was said to have been a learned Jesuit, by Catholics -a rascally bastard of a disreputable French actress.[27] The two -accounts are perhaps not irreconcilable. At least he was a convert and -had preached. Thereupon St. Germain, as he said, threatened him and -forced a recantation. Before resorting to this extreme the Jesuit had -tried persuasion. The Duke of York, he told Luzancy, was a confessed -Roman Catholic. At heart the king himself belonged to the same faith -and would approve of all he did. Schemes were afoot to procure an act -for liberty of conscience for the Catholics. That granted, within two -years most of the nation would acknowledge the Pope. It was sometimes -good to force people to heaven; and there were in London many priests -and Jesuits doing God very great service. Others besides Luzancy had -been threatened with tales of Protestant blood flowing in the London -streets; and these, being summoned to the council, attested that the -fact was so. Lord Halifax rose and told the king that, if his Majesty -would allow that course to Protestants for the conversion of Papists, -he did not question but in a very short time it should be effected.[28] -Two days later a proclamation was issued signifying that Luzancy was -taken into the royal protection, and St. Germain, with a price of £200 -on his head, fled to France, there to become one of the most active of -Jesuit intriguers.[29] Though the brandished dagger was likely enough -an embellishment of Luzancy’s invention, it is probable that his story -was in substance true. In December St. Germain found himself in Paris -and in close correspondence with Edward Coleman, the Duchess of York’s -secretary. Such a man writing within a month from the catastrophe -would certainly, had he been falsely charged, be loud in vindication -of his innocence and denunciation of the villain who had worked his -ruin. St. Germain merely wrote that his leaving London in this fashion -troubled him much. He had done all that a man of honesty and honour -could; an ambiguous phrase. It was absolutely necessary, more for his -companions and the Catholics’ sake than for his own, that his conduct -should be justified.[30] Evidently St. Germain was less troubled at -the injustice of the charge against him than incensed at its results. -What he wanted was not that his character might be cleared from a false -accusation, but that the tables might be turned on his accuser.[31] - -The conduct of St. Germain illustrates well the aims of the Roman -Catholic party in England about the year 1675. Their policy, already -undergoing modification, had root deep in the history of the times. - -For the first thirteen years of his reign Catholics looked for -the advancement of their cause to the king. During the Civil War -none had shown a more steadfast loyalty than they, and none hailed -the Restoration with greater eagerness. Half a century earlier a -considerable number of the squires of England had been Catholic. -They were a class bound closely to the royal cause both by tradition -and by personal inclination, and though the operation of the penal -laws effectively prevented their ranks from swelling, they rendered -conspicuous service to the crown in the day of trouble. With their -strength further diminished by death and by confiscation of estates -under the Commonwealth government, their hopes rose higher at the -king’s return. There was much justification for their sanguine view. -The promise of religious liberty contained in the declaration of Breda -was known to be in accord with Charles’ own desires. He was the son -of a Catholic mother and of a father suspected, however unjustly, of -Catholic tendencies. He was himself not free from the same suspicion. -He was under the deepest obligations to his Catholic subjects. They had -risked their persons and squandered their fortunes for him. They had -fought and intrigued for him, and succoured him in distress. He owed -them life and liberty. They had done so much for him that it was not -unreasonable to hope that, as it was not averse to his wishes, he would -do something for them. - -The disappointment of the Catholic expectations was not long delayed. -Whatever promises Charles had made, and whatever hopes he had fostered, -were dependent upon others, and not upon himself, for fulfilment. -The Restoration was a national work, and it was not in the power of -the king to act openly in opposition to the nation that had restored -him. Since he was not a Catholic, he was impelled to run no great -risk for the interest of those who were. And it became increasingly -clear that by far the greater part of the nation was in no mind to -tolerate any change which would make for freedom of life and opinion -for the maintainers of a religion which was feared and fiercely hated -by the governing classes and by the church which aspired to govern in -England. Fear of Roman Catholicism was a legacy of the dreadful days -of Queen Mary and of her sister’s Protestant triumph. That legacy was -a possession not of one sect or of one party alone. Cavaliers and -Roundheads, Puritans and high churchmen shared it alike. So long as the -Church of Rome was of a warring disposition, it was vain to expect that -the English people would see in it other than an enemy. The Protestant -religion was too insecurely established in the land and the memory -of sudden changes and violent assaults too recent for Englishmen to -harbour a spirit of liberal charity towards those who disagreed from -them in matters of faith. The Catholic, who cried for present relief -from an odious tyranny, appeared in their eyes as one who, were relief -granted, would seize any future chance to play the tyrant himself. - -No less than twelve penal statutes, of tremendous force, existed to -prevent Roman Catholics from exercising influence in the state.[32] -Had they been strictly executed, the Catholic religion must have been -crushed out of England; but they were generally allowed to remain -dormant. Even so they were a constant menace and an occasional source -of more or less annoyance, varying infinitely according to time and -place and the will of the authorities from an insulting reminder of -Catholic inferiority to cruel and deliberate persecution. The tenor -of these laws was so stringent that among moderate Protestants there -were many who believed that the more obnoxious and unjust might be -removed without placing a weapon of serious strength in the hands of -their opponents. In the House of Lords a party was formed in favour -of the Catholic and Presbyterian claims and opposed to the arrogant -pretensions of the Earl of Clarendon and his followers. Clarendon’s -wish was for the supremacy of his own church, but there were already -not a few who had begun to view his position with jealousy. In -June 1661 a committee of prominent Catholics met at Arundel House -to consider their position. They presented a petition to the Lords -protesting against the penalties on the refusal of Catholics to take -the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, but after several debates and -the lapse of more than eighteen months it was resolved that “nothing -had been offered to move their lordships to alter anything in the -oaths.” Nevertheless Colonel Tuke of Cressing Temple was admitted to -the bar and heard against the “sanguinary laws,” and papers on the -subject were laid on the table of the House. The petitioners disclaimed -the Pope’s temporal authority and offered to swear “to oppose with -their lives and fortunes the pontiff himself, if he should ever -attempt to execute that pretended power, and to obey their sovereign -in opposition to all foreign and domestic power whatsoever, without -restriction.” A committee was appointed to deal with the matter, -and acting on its report the Lords resolved to abolish the writ _de -haeretico inquirendo_ and the statutes making it treason to take orders -in the Roman Church, as well as those making it felony to harbour -Catholic priests and præmunire to maintain the authority of the Bishop -of Rome. - -At this point, when all seemed going well, misfortune intervened and -the hopes of success were dashed to the ground. It was suggested that -on account of its known activity and powers of intrigue the Society -of Jesus should be excepted from the scope of the proposed measure. A -heated controversy was instantly aroused. While Protestants and many -Catholics demanded that the Jesuits should accept the situation and -retire gracefully to win advantages for their brothers in religion, -members of the society retorted that a conspiracy was on foot to divide -the body Catholic against itself, and that it was not for the general -good to accept favours at the price of sacrificing the most able and -flourishing order of the church. It soon became evident that the -Jesuits were not to be moved. Their struggle in England had been hard. -Their position among English Catholics was one of great importance. -They would not now surrender it for the sake of a partial and -problematical success from the enjoyment of which they were themselves -to be excluded. The time when affairs were still unsettled was rather -one at which they should be spurred to greater efforts. - -Without the compliance of the Jesuits the moderate Catholics could do -nothing. A feeling of disgust at the selfish policy of the society -found free expression. It seemed that its members would never consider -the interest of others before their own. Nevertheless there was no -remedy; the committee at Arundel House was dissolved; at the request of -the Catholic peers the progress of the bill of relief in the House of -Lords was suspended, and it was never resumed.[33] - -No better fate attended the king’s efforts to make good the promises he -had given at Breda. With the assurance of support from the Independents -and Presbyterians he had issued late in the year 1662 a Declaration of -Indulgence, suspending all penal laws against dissenters, Catholic as -well as others, by virtue of the power which he considered inherent -in the crown.[34] The move called forth a storm of opposition, both -against the dispensing power and against the object for which it -was used. To appease the Commons, Lord Ashley, afterwards Earl of -Shaftesbury, brought in a bill to define and legalise the royal -power to dispense with laws requiring oaths and subscription to the -doctrines of the established church. The answer of the Commons was an -address against the Declaration,[35] in the House of Lords Ashley’s -bill was defeated by Clarendon and the bishops, and on March 31, 1663 -Parliament addressed the king for a proclamation ordering all Catholic -priests to leave the realm. Charles never forgave his minister, but -he was powerless to resist. On April 2 he recanted his declaration by -issuing the desired order. A bill to check the growth of popery and -nonconformity passed quickly through the House of Commons, but was -stopped by the influence of the Catholic peers, and an address for the -execution of all laws against dissenters was voted in its place.[36] - -Thus the penal laws were retained in their full vigour. And if the -enactments against the Catholics were not removed from the statute -book, still less were the causes which had produced them removed from -men’s minds. Only the establishment of general confidence that the -Catholic religion lacked power to menace the cause of Protestantism in -England and to invade the rights which were dear to Englishmen could be -effective in this; and confidence, so far from becoming general, shrank -to limits that became ever narrower. In the years that followed, fear -of the advance of Catholicism only increased. Fresh laws were passed to -check it. The House of Commons voted address after address that the old -might be put in action, petition after petition for the banishment of -priests and Jesuits from court and capital. To their alarm and chagrin -it appeared that all efforts were in vain, and belief spread that -the failure was chiefly due to opposition emanating from the highest -quarters. Instead of aiding in the accomplishment of the desired -object, the influence of the crown seemed to be directed absolutely to -prevent it. For the king’s policy was one which could only inspire the -nation with a sense of growing distrust.[37] - -Though Charles II had ascended the throne on a wave of popular -enthusiasm, his ideas were widely removed from those of his subjects. -By birth and education his mind was drawn towards the aims and methods -of French politics, and he leaned away from the Church of England. -With this bias he inherited for Puritanism and the Presbyterians a -dislike strengthened by personal experience. Coming into England -without knowledge of parliamentary government, his first trial of it -was far from encouraging. He found Parliament intolerant, suspicious, -unstatesman-like. The Commons fenced in the Anglican Church with severe -penal laws against dissent, and gave the king an income less than -the annual expenses of government and the services by half a million -pounds. Charles had been restored to a bankrupt inheritance, and -with every good intention the Commons failed completely to render it -solvent. Soon their good-will ceased. They were jealous of the royal -expenditure. They did not perceive the royal wants. They destroyed -the existing financial arrangements and did not replace them with -better.[38] They desired to carry the Protestant and Parliamentary -system to its logical end in controlling the King’s foreign policy -and directing it against the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. -To Charles this was intolerable. To be forced to act at the bidding -of Parliament was odious to him. He would be no crowned do-nothing. -And here the fortunes of England touched on those of France. The -schemes of Louis XIV for the expansion and consolidation of the -French kingdom made it imperative that he should obtain for their -prosecution the neutrality, if not the assistance, of England. He -could not devote his energy to the settlement of his north-east -frontier and the maintenance of his claims on the Spanish empire with a -Protestant country ever ready to strike at his back. He was therefore -always ready to pay for the concurrence of Charles and with him of -England.[39] The establishment of the Roman Catholic religion, could -it be effected, would be of material assistance to him. Especially -on the religious side of his policy it would be a powerful support. -Charles, on the other hand, desired to free himself from the financial -control of Parliament and to grant toleration to the Catholics. He was -therefore always ready to be bought. He was all the better pleased -since co-operation with France brought him into conflict with the -Dutch republic, which he disliked upon commercial and detested upon -dynastic grounds. Toleration Charles found to be impossible, and he -was subjected to constant annoyance by the attempts of the Commons -to control his dealings. Thus his aims crystallised into a policy of -making the crown supreme in the constitution and establishing the -Roman Catholic faith as the state religion upon the approved model in -France.[40] - -The plan undertaken in concert with his great ally was not the first -effort of Charles to give his ideas effect. During his exile on the -continent various tenders had been made for papal support; Charles -promised in return conversion and favour to his Catholic subjects; -and within a few years of the Restoration a serious negotiation was -started with Pope Alexander VII. In 1663 Sir Richard Bellings was sent -on a mission to Rome to beg the bestowal of a cardinal’s hat on the -Abbé d’Aubigny, almoner to the newly-married queen, and cousin to the -king. Charles took the opportunity to propose through Bellings the -formation of an Anglican Roman Church in England. He was to announce -his conversion, the Archbishop of Canterbury was to be patriarch of the -three realms, and liberty of conscience should be assured to remaining -Protestants. Roman Catholicism would become the state religion and Rome -gain the whole strength of the English hierarchy.[41] An understanding -was impracticable and the scheme fell through; but the renewed -solicitations of the English court on Aubigny’s behalf were successful. -In November 1665 he was nominated Cardinal, and died almost immediately -after. To the hopes of the Catholics his death was a terrible blow. -“The clouds,” wrote the general of the Jesuits on hearing of it, -“which are gathering over Holland, Poland, and Constantinople are so -dense that every prudent man must see reason to apprehend enormous -catastrophes and storms that will not be ended without irreparable -disasters. But in my mind all these coming evils are overshadowed by -the death of the Abbé Aubigny, which deprives the Church, for a time at -least, of the joy of beholding an English cardinal of such illustrious -blood, created at the public instances of two queens, and at the secret -request of a king, a prodigy which would, without doubt have confounded -heresy and inaugurated bright fortunes to the unhappy Catholics.” - -Three years later a still more remarkable embassy than Bellings’ took -place. It is not even in our own day commonly known that the Duke of -Monmouth, reputed the eldest of the sons of Charles II, had an elder -brother. So well was the secret kept, that during the long struggle to -save the Protestant succession and to exclude the Duke of York from the -throne, no man ever discovered that there was another whose claims were -better than those of the popular favourite, and who had of his free -will preferred the gown of an obscure clerk to the brilliant prospect -of favour at court and the chance of wearing the English crown. For -this son, born to the king in the Isle of Jersey at the age of sixteen -or seventeen years, the child of a lady of one of the noblest families -in his dominions, was named by his father James Stuart, and urged to -be at hand to maintain his rights should both the royal brothers die -without male heirs. He set the dazzling fortune aside and resolved -to live and die a Jesuit. In the year 1668, then being some four and -twenty years old, he entered the house of novices of the Jesuits at -Rome under the name of James de la Cloche. Towards the end of the same -year Charles wrote to Johannes Oliva, the general, desiring that his -son might be sent to England to discuss matters of religion. Assuming -the name of Henri de Rohan, La Cloche made for England. He was received -by the queen and the queen mother, and by them secretly taken to the -king. What passed between father and son has never transpired. La -Cloche was sent back to Rome by the king as his “secret ambassador -to the Father General,” charged with an oral commission and orders -to return to England as soon as it was fulfilled. The nature of that -mission is unknown, and whether or no the young man returned to -England. Trace of embassy and ambassador alike is lost, and the young -prince disappears from history. Yet it may be that his figure can be -descried again, flitting mysteriously across the life of his father. At -the height of the turmoil of the Popish Plot a certain gentleman was -employed to bring privately from beyond seas a Roman Catholic priest, -with whom the king had secret business to transact. The king and the -priest stayed long closeted together. At length the priest came out -with signs of horror and fear on his face. Charles had been seized with -a fit and, when the priest would have called for help, to preserve -their secret summoned strength to hold him till the attack had passed. -On Charles’ death two papers on religion were found in his cabinet -and published in a translation by his brother. The originals were in -French, in the form of an argument addressed by one person to another, -and it is suggested, not without reason, that their author was the same -man as the king’s questionable visitor, and none other than his own -son, who had forgotten his native tongue and had surrendered fame and -country for the good of his soul and of the Catholic Church.[42] - -One more negotiation was undertaken directly with Rome. By command of -the pope the papal internuncio at Brussels came to England. He had -sent a confidant to prepare the way, and was assured of welcome at -court. The Venetian envoy offered the hospitality of his house to the -visitor, and arranged an interview with the king. The queen, the Duke -of York, and Lord Arlington were also present, and the nuncio received -promises of the king’s good intentions towards the Catholics.[43] The -fruits of this undertaking, had there been any, were spoiled before -the gathering by the intrigue into which Charles had already entered -with Louis XIV. Only under a Catholic constitution, said Charles, -might a King of England hope to be absolute. He was to live to see the -prophecy falsified, and by his own unaided effort to accomplish what he -believed impossible, but now he showed the courage of his convictions -by attempting to make England Catholic. The scheme was afoot in the -summer of 1669. Nearly a year passed in its completion, and on June 1, -1670 “le Traité de Madame” was signed at Dover. Arlington, Clifford, -Arundel, and Sir Richard Bellings signed for England, and Colbert for -France; and Henrietta of Orleans, to whose skilful management success -was due, returned to her husband’s home to die, leaving a potent -influence to carry on her work—Louise de Kéroualle. Louis’ object in -the treaty was to break the Triple Alliance and carry the war to -a successful conclusion; that of Charles to make himself master of -England once again under the Catholic banner. The two kings were to -aid each other in men and money. “It was in reality,” says Lord Acton, -“a plot under cover of Catholicism to introduce absolute monarchy and -to make England a dependency of France, not only by the acceptance of -French money, but by submission to a French army.”[44] Charles was -to declare himself a Catholic when he thought fit. In the event of -resistance from his subjects he was to receive from Louis the sum of -£150,000 and a force of 6000 men to bring his country under the yoke. -Lauderdale held an army 20,000 strong in Scotland, bound to serve -anywhere within British dominions. Ireland under Lord Berkeley was -steeped in Catholic and loyal sentiment. The garrisons and ports of -England were being placed in safe hands. If the scheme succeeded, the -Anglican Church would be overthrown, Parliamentary government would be -rendered futile, and Charles would be left at the head of a Catholic -state and master of his realm. - -Success however was so far from attainment that no attempt was made -to put “la grande affaire” into effect. It was decided that Charles’ -declaration of Catholicism should be preceded by his attack in concert -with Louis on the Dutch. War was declared on March 17, 1672. Two days -before, the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending all penal laws -against dissenters, was issued. It sprang from the desire to obtain the -support of dissent for the war and to pave the way for a successful -issue of the Catholic policy at its close. Arms alone could determine -victory or defeat. If Charles thereafter found himself in a position to -dictate to Parliament, the rest might not prove difficult. Otherwise -there would be little hope of success. But the war did not justify -Charles’ expectations. Dutch tenacity and the growing hostility in -England to the alliance with France made it certain that the chief -objects for which Charles had sealed the Dover treaty could not be -achieved. When on February 19, 1674 he concluded peace with the -Republic for 800,000 crowns, the honour of the flag northward from Cape -Finisterre, and the retention of all his conquests outside Europe, the -king seemed to have emerged successfully from the struggle. In fact he -had failed to reach the goal. Unless he gained a commanding position -at home by military success abroad, he could not hope to put into -practice the English part of the programme drawn up at Dover. It was -something that his nephew the Prince of Orange had ousted the odious -republican faction from power in Holland, and much that the Republic -had been for ever detached from its alliance with France; but even this -was hardly sufficient compensation to Charles for the abandonment of -his policy in England. He had planned to restore the monarchy to its -ancient estate by means of Roman Catholicism. He had failed, and now -he turned his back finally upon Catholicism as a political power. He -had already been compelled to cancel the Declaration of Indulgence, -and on March 29, 1673 clearly marked the change by giving the royal -assent to the Test Act. A return to the policy of Anglican Royalism, -which in some ways approached that of Clarendon, was shaped. The Cabal -had been dissipated, the plans of its Catholic members ruined, its -Protestant members driven into opposition. Charles, guiding foreign -policy himself, and Danby as Lord Treasurer managing affairs at home, -determined to draw all stable elements in the kingdom round the Church -and the Crown, and to offer a united opposition to the factions and -the dissenters. The famous Non-Resisting Test was the result.[45] Here -again Charles failed. The opposition of Shaftesbury rendered abortive -the second line of policy by which the king attempted to restore the -full majesty of the crown. There was nothing left him now but a policy -of resistance. The next move in the game must come from his opponents. -Thus the three following years were spent by Charles intriguing first -with Louis, then with William, seeming to be on the brink of war and a -Protestant policy and always drawing back. No decisive step could be -taken until the panic of the Popish Plot gave to the country party an -opportunity, which after a three years’ struggle the king turned to his -own account with signal triumph. - -From the moment when he revoked the Declaration of Indulgence the -Catholics had nothing to hope from Charles. Up to that time Roman -Catholic policy in England looked to him; thereafter he stood apart -from it. Throughout his reign the king had been studying to rise to -absolute sovereignty on the ladder of Catholicism. By the treaty -of Dover he was actively concerned in a conspiracy to overturn the -established church and again to introduce the Roman Catholic religion -into England. He had undoubtedly been guilty of an act which in a -subject would have been high treason. Although he now dissociated -himself from his former policy, it was not abandoned by others. The -Catholics had been deceived by Charles. They now fixed their hopes upon -his brother, the Duke of York. Since the king would no longer join with -the Jesuit party, it was determined to go without him. From that time -James became the centre of their intrigues and negotiations. He was the -point round which their hopes revolved. - -The foundation of the intrigue was laid in the summer of 1673. Some -eighteen months before the duke had made known to a small circle his -conversion to the Roman Catholic Church.[46] The step was taken in the -deepest secrecy, and even at Rome was not recognised as final until -some years afterwards, for although James laid down his office of -Lord High Admiral in consequence of the Test Act, he still continued -to attend service in the royal chapel.[47] But despite all caution, -enough suspicion was aroused by James’ marriage at the suggestion of -the French court with a Roman Catholic princess, Mary of Modena. -It was a definite sign of his attachment to the French and Catholic -interest, and paved the way for the correspondence which was afterwards -so nearly to procure his downfall. The duke had for secretary a young -man named Edward Coleman, whom mysterious doings and a tragic fate have -invested with not unmerited interest. Coleman was the son of an English -clergyman. At an early age he was converted to the Catholic faith -and educated by the Jesuits, and to the furtherance of their schemes -devoted the rest of his life. To the good cause he brought glowing -ardour and varied talents. He was noted as a keen controversialist and -a successful fisherman of souls. The confidence of three ambassadors -from the court of France argues versatile ability in the man. With -Ruvigny Coleman enjoyed some intimacy; Courtin found him of the -greatest assistance; he discussed with Barillon subjects of delicacy on -his master’s behalf. The ambassadors found him a man of spirit, adept -in intrigue, with fingers on the wires by which parties were pulled. -And they valued him accordingly. For Coleman undertook the difficult -task of agent between Louis XIV and the mercenary Whigs. More than -three thousand pounds can be traced passing through his hands. The -leaders of the opposition had their price at some five hundred guineas; -but these took their money direct from the ambassador. Coleman dealt -with the rank and file, and here the gold, which among the more exalted -would have soon been exhausted, probably went far. He kept a sumptuous -table for his friends and laid up for himself what he gained by way of -commission. Knowledge of foreign languages, a ready pen, and his Jesuit -connection marked Coleman as the man for the duke’s service. He had -all the talents for the post save one. James’ want of discretion was -reflected in his secretary. Twice Coleman was dismissed; the dismissal -was apparent only, and he continued work as busily as before. He had -occupied himself in writing seditious letters to rouse discontent in -the provinces against the government. Complaint was made. Coleman was -discharged from his place by the duke. He was immediately taken into -the service of the duchess in the same capacity. Some years later his -zeal brought him into collision with the Bishop of London. Compton went -to the king and obtained an order to the duke to dismiss his wife’s -secretary. The French ambassador was much perturbed and pressed James -to afford protection, Coleman received his dismissal and took ship to -Calais. His Jesuit friends sent the news sadly one to another. His very -talents, it was said, had destroyed him. He was too much in the duke’s -counsels. His enemies could not countenance the presence of a man of -such parts. The duchess chose a new secretary. Within a fortnight -Coleman returned, and in secret resumed his office. He was in the -duke’s confidence and necessary to him.[48] Altogether Coleman was not -quite the innocent lamb that he has often been painted. - -At the outbreak of the second Dutch war an English cavalry regiment -was sent for the French service under the command of Lord Duras. Among -the officers was Sir William Throckmorton, an intimate of Coleman and -converted by him to the Catholic faith. Throckmorton left the regiment -and settled in Paris as his friend’s agent. The two corresponded at -length, and by Throckmorton’s means Coleman was put in communication -with Père Ferrier, Louis XIV’s Jesuit confessor. Ferrier was assured -by Coleman that parliament would force Charles II to break with France -and make peace with the Dutch. The accuracy of his prophecy gained -the confessor’s confidence. Letters were exchanged and the means to -advance the Duke of York and the Catholic cause in England debated. -Ferrier was the first of Louis’ confessors to play an important part -in politics, and his alliance was an achievement to be counted to -the duke.[49] Coleman proceeded to extend his connection in other -quarters. Under the assumed name of Rice the Earl of Berkshire was in -communication with him, urging with doleful foreboding the overthrow of -parliament and the Protestant party.[50] Berkshire was Coleman’s sole -correspondent known in England, but on the continent others took up the -thread. In France the Jesuit Sheldon was high in praise of Coleman and -his design. From Brussels the papal internuncio Albani discussed it -somewhat coolly. Meanwhile Coleman’s relations with Paris had undergone -a change. In May 1675 Sir William Throckmorton died disreputably of a -wound received in the course of his too eager courtship of a certain -Lady Brown, while his wife yet lived,[51] and in December St. Germain, -banished from England, took up his place. More important was the death -of Père Ferrier in September of the same year, for Louis XIV chose as -his confessor Père de la Chaize, the famous Jesuit whose dealings with -Coleman subsequently formed the heaviest part of the proof against -the unlucky intriguer.[52] Finally to the list of his political -correspondents whose names are known Coleman added that of Cardinal -Howard, better known as Cardinal Norfolk, at the Roman court.[53] - -Of this correspondence nearly two hundred letters have been preserved. -The insight which they give into the minds and intentions of their -writers is invaluable. They throw a strong light upon the undercurrent -of political movement at a time when politics were perhaps more -complicated and their undercurrents more potent than at any time -before or after. From them might be detailed the tenor of the designs -undertaken by a great religious party during a period of fierce -struggle. Such reconstruction from a fragmentary correspondence must -always be difficult. In the case of the Coleman correspondence the -difficulty would be great. That the letters can be read at all is -due to the fact that the key to the cipher in which they are written -was found with them. Not only were they written in an arbitrary -cipher, not to be elucidated without the key, but in such guarded and -metaphorical language that the meaning can often be caught only by -chance or conjecture.[54] Parables can easily be understood after the -events to the arrangements for which they refer; but when no effect -follows, the drift is more obscure. When before the Spanish Armada an -English agent writes from Spain that bales of wool are being stored in -large quantities, muniments of war may be read between the lines. When -Jacobites give notice to their exiled king that Mr. Jackson need only -appear in Westminster Hall to recover his estate, or that a cargo of -the right sort, now in great demand, must be shipped at once, their -meaning is transparent. But to the obscure terms used by Coleman and -his friends after events afford a slighter clue. No notion discussed by -them was ever tested as a practicable scheme in action. Neither success -nor exposure sheds light whereby to read their letters. Whatever is -in them must be painfully read as intention alone, and as intention -abandoned. The general ideas however are plain, and an admirable -exposition by Coleman himself saves the necessity of piecing them -together from small fragments. - -On September 29, 1675 he wrote a long letter to Père de la Chaize -relating in some detail the history of the intrigues of the previous -years.[55] Catholic ascendency in England and a general peace in -favour of France were the objects for which he had worked. For these -the dissolution of Parliament and money were necessary, money both to -dissolve Parliament and to supply the king’s wants. Next to Parliament -Lord Arlington was the Duke of York’s greatest enemy; for Arlington was -the supporter, if not the promoter of the Test Act.[56] In response -to this beginning Père Ferrier had sent a note to the duke through -Sir William Throckmorton. In agreement with James it was Louis XIV’s -opinion that Arlington and the Parliament formed a great obstacle to -their joint interest; and if the duke could succeed in dissolving the -present Parliament, he would lend the assistance of his power and purse -to procure another better suited to their purpose. The duke replied -to Ferrier in person, and Coleman answered too. Their letters were -to the same effect. The French king’s offer was most generous and -highly gratifying, but money was needed at the moment as urgently as -thereafter, for without money a dissolution could not be obtained, and -without a dissolution everything done so far would be nugatory. So -far as money went it was possible to consult Ruvigny, the ambassador -in England; further not, for Ruvigny was a Protestant. Eulogies of -Throckmorton and Coleman passed from Ferrier to James and back, each -expressing to the other his confidence in their agents.[57] At this -time, said Coleman, Charles II was undecided and felt the arguments -for and against dissolution equally strong. But if a large sum such -as £300,000 had been offered to him on condition that Parliament -should be dissolved, he would certainly have accepted both money and -condition. Peace would then be assured, with other advantages to -follow. Logic built upon money, wrote Coleman, had more charms at the -court of St. James than any other form of reasoning.[58] To obtain this -money Coleman and his associates had worked hard. Not only did Coleman -write to Ferrier about it and talk to Ruvigny about it in London, but -he made Throckmorton press for it in Paris, and press Pomponne, the -French secretary of state, as well as the confessor. Twice Throckmorton -persuaded Pomponne to speak particularly to Louis on the subject, and -once he sent a memoir for the king’s perusal. Louis returned it with -expressions of great interest in the duke’s cause and the message “that -he should always be ready to join and work with him.” Also Pomponne was -bidden to say that he had orders to direct Ruvigny “that he should take -measures and directions from the duke,” especially in what concerned -the dissolution of Parliament, Louis, he said, was most sensible of the -need for energy and caution and gave the greatest consideration to the -matter.[59] At the same time Sheldon was pressing the French king’s -confessor.[60] Still the money did not come. One excuse after another -was made. Pomponne declared that so great a sum as that demanded could -not possibly be spared by Louis; and Throckmorton believed that this -was so; but he was compelled to admit that another campaign would -cost perhaps ten times as much. The foreign secretary also complained -that the duke did not appear sufficiently in the movement himself. -He was answered by Coleman that James had ceased negotiating with the -ambassador as Ruvigny gave so little help, but he was in communication -with Ferrier. Coleman thought that Ruvigny’s backwardness was -deliberate. Sheldon and Throckmorton were of the same opinion, and -Throckmorton suggested as an alternative that a subscription should be -raised from the Catholics; £50,000 he thought might be promised from -France, and he hoped for twice that sum in England.[61] - -While Coleman was begging from the French court and declaring his -exclusive devotion to the interests of France, he was at the same time -urging the papal nuncio to obtain money from the Pope and the Emperor -and renouncing all designs except that of forwarding the Catholic cause -in the Pope’s behalf. Albani was moderately enthusiastic. The Emperor -commanded him to assure the Duke of York of the passionate zeal he -entertained for his service and the Catholic cause. The Pope too would -assist in matters in which he might properly appear. But James must -himself point the direction of the assistance to be granted. Coleman -replied that he had already shewn the way. Money alone was needed to -procure the dissolution of Parliament. Dissolution would mean peace -abroad and Catholic ascendency in England to the great advantage of -the Pope, the Emperor, and the whole Church. It was incumbent on the -Emperor and more especially on the Pope to open wide the purse for so -fair a prospect.[62] The nuncio was not however to be carried away -by emotion. Money could not be expended by the Pope upon such vague -expectation. He had others to think of in greater straits than the -English Catholics. Before the matter could be submitted to Rome more -definite guarantees must be given that the Catholic cause would really -be served. In any case what the Pope could afford would be nothing in -comparison to what was needed.[63] Coleman continued to press, even to -the point of Albani’s annoyance.[64] Repetition of the same arguments -merely met the same reply; and when by command of the Duke of York -Coleman paid a secret visit to Brussels to interview the nuncio, the -result was no better.[65] - -So the shuttlecock was beaten backwards and forwards between London, -Paris, and Brussels. Writing to La Chaize Coleman naturally made no -mention of his correspondence with the nuncio. Different arguments -had to be used in the two quarters. To Albani Coleman vowed his -undying affection for the Pope, to the Jesuit an extremity of -devotion for French interests. Neither the one nor the other had the -desired effect. Advice and encouragement were forthcoming, but not -pistoles. The bashfulness of Coleman’s correspondents is not hard to -understand. Albani gave his reasons brutally enough. Those at the court -of Versailles were probably of the same nature. And here they had -additional force, for if on general grounds the French were unlikely -to pay, they were still less likely to support the Duke of York with -doubtful advantages at a time when they could obtain their chief object -by subsidising his brother the king. No one of business habits would -pour his gold into English pockets without reasonable expectation of a -proportionate return. The English pocket had the appearance of being -constructed upon a principle contrary to that of Fortunatus’ purse. - -The scheme for which support was thus begged from whoever seemed likely -to give was not promising to any but an enthusiast. Money was wanted -certainly to bring Charles to the dissolution of Parliament, an idea -which was constantly in the air at court. The Cavalier Parliament -was an uncompromising opponent of Popery, and the Catholics bore it -a heavy grudge. But dissolution in itself would hardly improve their -own position. The design reached considerably farther than that. It -was no less than to bribe the king to issue another declaration of -indulgence, appoint the Duke of York again to the office of Lord High -Admiral, and leave the whole management of affairs to his hands.[66] -In the course of the next year a new parliament should be assembled, -bribed to support the French and Catholic interest, and the Catholic -position in England would be assured. James was an able and popular -officer and enjoyed great authority in the navy. Supposing the stroke -could be effected, he would occupy a position not only of dignity but -of power to meet any attack that might be made upon his new state. The -scheme was so far advanced that Coleman drew up a declaration for the -king to issue setting forth his reasons for a dissolution, and solemnly -protesting his intention to stand by the Protestant religion and the -decisions of the next parliament. That was to be before the end of -February 1675.[67] - -Although Coleman wrote to the nuncio that the Catholics had never -before had so favourable an opportunity, the design was shortly -modified and deferred.[68] In its present shape the possibility of -putting it to the test depended upon the good-will of the ministers. -After the dissolution of Parliament their assistance would be -necessary. Without it nothing could be done. If Parliament were -dissolved and the ministers stopped the execution of all that was -to follow, the last state would be worse than the first. And it now -became evident that matters were in just that case. Whatever the Cabal -might have done, it was certain that those who followed would have no -hand in exalting the Duke of York’s power. Danby, whose watchword was -Monarchy and No Toleration, was now firmly fixed in authority. Early -in February a proclamation was issued ordering the execution of the -penal laws, whetted against Roman Catholics by the promise of reward -to informers; young men were to be recalled from Catholic seminaries -abroad, subjects were forbidden to hear mass in the chapels of foreign -ambassadors, all English priests were banished from the kingdom.[69] -The effect of the proclamation was chiefly moral; but the worst -consequences might be expected from the Non-Resistance bill, now in -active preparation for the April session. Should this be passed, -Catholic, Presbyterian, and Whig alike would be excluded from all part -in the management of affairs, and the royal Church of England would -triumph. The Duke of York’s party veered round and adopted the cause -of parliament as a bulwark for themselves against the ministerial -attack. The moment was critical for all concerned. A golden age seemed -to have arrived for the Commons. Money was showered lavishly on them. -Fortune rained every coinage in Europe. Danby, the Bishops, the Dutch, -and the Spanish ambassador did battle with their rouleaux against the -Catholics, the Nonconformists, the French ambassador and theirs. The -scenes in Parliament were unprecedented, and have since scarcely been -surpassed. Swords were drawn and members spat across the floor of -the House. In the House of Lords the king appeared regularly at the -debates to exert a personal influence on his peers, and was likened -to the sun, scorching his opponents. Here Charles and Danby had the -advantage, and after seventeen days the bill was sent down to the -Commons; but Shaftesbury, who had fought with the utmost resolution, -seized his opportunity to foment the old dispute between the Houses as -to the right of appeal to the Lords, with such success that the session -had to be closed before the bill could be introduced, Parliament was -prorogued, and the Test vanished for ever.[70] Coleman and his friends -breathed again and proceeded to adapt their programme to the new -situation. Since dissolution would not help them, they would mould -Parliament to their design. At the moment the Duke of York’s position -was as precarious as before; but, wrote Coleman to La Chaize, “if he -could gain any considerable new addition of power, all would come over -to him as the only steady centre of our government, and nobody would -contend with him further. Then would Catholics be at rest and his most -Christian Majesty’s interest be secured with us in England beyond all -apprehensions whatsoever. In order to this we have two great designs -to attempt the next sessions. First, that which we were about before, -viz. to put Parliament upon making it their humble request to the king -that the fleet may be put in his royal highness’ care.[71] Secondly, -to get an act for general liberty of conscience.” Coleman had already -spoken to Ruvigny on the subject; the ambassador was not enthusiastic, -but he admitted the advantages that would ensue to France. Twenty -thousand pounds, thought Coleman, would ensure success; and success -would be “the greatest blow to the Protestant religion here that ever -it received since its birth.”[72] La Chaize answered briefly, promising -to give the matter consideration and desiring to hear more from his -correspondent.[73] Coleman rejoined in his last letter to the confessor -that has been preserved. He engaged to write whenever occasion arose, -and sent La Chaize a cipher for use between themselves; and for greater -security he would write between lines of trivial import in lemon -juice, legible when held to the fire. Only that part of the business -not relating to religion could be discussed with Ruvigny, continued -Coleman; and then, coming to the point, “We have here a mighty work -upon our hands, no less then the conversion of three kingdoms, and by -that perhaps the subduing of a pestilent heresy, which has domineered -over great part of this northern world a long time; there were never -such hopes of success since the death of Queen Mary as now in our days, -when God has given us a prince who is become (may I say, a miracle) -zealous of being the author and instrument of so glorious a work.... -That which we rely upon most, next to God Almighty’s providence and the -favour of my master the duke, is the mighty mind of his most Christian -Majesty.”[74] - -The significance of this is beyond doubt. It has been the custom of -historians, quoting the last passage alone, to belittle its importance -as the exaggerated outpouring of a zealot’s fancy. Taken with the -context it is seen to be something very different. The words only -express more clearly what was often hinted at and half outspoken in the -correspondence which led up to this point. Jesuit agents and the Duke -of York’s confidential secretary, for such in fact Coleman was, had -something more to do than to entertain themselves by writing at length -and in cipher to all parts of Europe with no other intention than to -express their hopes for the propagation of the Catholic faith in a -manner quite detached from politics, or to discuss political schemes -as matters of speculative interest; such things are not done for -amusement. Coleman’s phrases are pregnant with real meaning. They are -to be understood literally. The design which his letters sketch was in -substance the same as that afterwards put into practice when the Duke -of York ascended the throne as James II. Under the guise of a demand -for liberty of worship, it was a design to turn England into a Roman -Catholic state in the interest of France and the Jesuits, and by the -aid of French money. The remark of Halifax that dissenters only plead -for conscience to obtain power was eminently true of his own time. No -less true was it that those who separated themselves from the religion -of the state aimed at the subversion of it.[75] - -High treason, be it remarked, is the only crime known to the law -in which the intention and not the act constitutes the offence. -The famous statute of Edward III had defined as the most important -treasons the compassing or imagining of the king’s death, the levying -of war against the king, and adherence to the king’s enemies within -the realm or without.[76] An act passed at the height of power of -one of the most powerful monarchs who have reigned in England was -insufficient for the needs of those whose position was less secure. -The severity of repeated enactments under Henry VIII to create new -treasons, and perhaps the difficulty of meeting attempts against the -crown by statutory definition, rendered this method of supplying the -want unpopular and unsatisfactory. So in the reign of Queen Elizabeth -the extension of the statute of Edward III by construction became -the settled mode of procedure. With the lapse of time the scope of -constructive treason was extended. Coke laid down that an overt act -witnessing the intention to depose or imprison the king or to place -him in the power of another was sufficient to prove the compassing and -imagining his death. Conspiracy with a foreign prince to invade the -realm by open hostility, declared by an overt act, is evidence of the -same.[77] Hale held conspiracy, the logical end of which must be the -death or deposition of the king, even though this were not the direct -intention, to be an act of high treason. To levy war against the king -is an overt act of treason; conspiracy to levy war is thus an overt -act of treason by compassing the king’s death. To restrain the king by -force, to compel him to yield certain demands, to extort legislation by -terror and a strong hand, in fact all movements tending to deprive him -of his kingly government, whether of the nature of personal pressure or -of riot and disturbance in the country, are acts of treason. To collect -arms, to gather company, to write letters are evidence of the intention -of the same.[78] Treason by adherence to the king’s enemies was equally -expansive. Thus it has been held, says Sir James Stephen, “that to -imagine the king’s death means to intend anything whatever which under -any circumstances may possibly have a tendency, however remote, to -expose the king to personal danger or to the forcible deprivation of -any part of the authority incidental to his office.”[79] In 1678 a -question was put to the judges by the Attorney-General: “Whether it be -not high treason to endeavour to extirpate the religion established -in this country, and to introduce the Pope’s authority by combination -and assistance of foreign power?” The judges were unanimous in their -opinion that it was treason.[80] And in the case of Lord Preston in -1691 it was held that taking a boat at Surrey Stairs in Middlesex in -order to board a ship off the coast of Kent, and convey to the French -king papers containing information on the naval and military state -of England, with the purpose of helping him to invade the realm, was -an overt act of treason by compassing and imagining the death of the -king.[81] - -Doubt cannot exist as to the dangerous consequence of the -correspondence carried on by Coleman. Under the most favourable -interpretation it reveals a design to accomplish again by means of -bribery what the English nation had already rejected as illegal and -unconstitutional, a deed which was said to have broken forty acts of -Parliament,[82] to give the sanction of authority to a religion which -was banned and to priests who were under doom of high treason. And the -most favourable interpretation is certainly not the most just. Those -“great designs ... to the utter ruin of the Protestant party,” which -should “drive away the Parliament and the Protestants ... and settle -in their employments the Catholics,” refuse such a colouring.[83] At -Coleman’s subsequent trial the Lord Chief Justice told him, “Your -design was to bring in Popery into England and to promote the interest -of the French king in this place.... Our religion was to be subverted, -Popery established, and the three kingdoms to be converted”;[84] and -what the Chief Justice said was true. Coleman and the party to which -he belonged had designed “to extirpate the religion established in -this country” by the assistance of money given by a foreign power. -Such an endeavour could not be undertaken without the commission of -high treason. By the theory of the constitution the king can do no -wrong. Much less can he do wrong to himself. He cannot be persuaded -to perform an act directed against his own person. Great persuasion -or importunity addressed to the king, says Hale, cannot be held an -act of treason, since an intention must be manifested to restrain or -influence him by force.[85] But the king cannot be supposed of his -free will to undertake measures having their end, according to the -construction of the statute, in the compassing of his own death. Nor -can he be supposed to be persuaded to such measures, for both cases -involve a contradiction of himself. No king can be guilty of high -treason. Except by Act of Parliament none in England can divest his -office of any of the full authority pertaining thereto. Persuasion of -the king to do so is by the nature of the case impossible, whether -it be in the form of money or other. Any one who plans a fundamental -change of the constitution, to be effected by money or other means -except by the constitutional action of Parliament, falls under the -penalty for treason none the less because he may hope for assistance -from the man who is king, since the king cannot be considered to assist -an unconstitutional change. Any one planning such a change, though -he intends to obtain the king’s assistance, acts against the king’s -authority as much as if he did not so intend, and is therefore guilty -of high treason. Of such possible changes the overthrow of the Church -of England is one, for the king cannot otherwise than constitutionally -join in the subversion of the church of which he is head, and which he -has sworn to maintain. If he is successfully persuaded to take part in -such an act, the persuasion must be regarded as tantamount to force, -for persuasion of the king to commit treason against himself is absurd. -And the position of a man declaring his intention to accomplish this -change is exactly that of Coleman and the Jesuit party in England. -There can be no doubt that the subjects who took part with Charles -II in the treaty of Dover were guilty of high treason, none the less -because the man who was king acted in concert with them. And similarly, -none the less because they expressed the intention of bribing the -king to assist their design, no doubt can exist that Coleman and his -associates were brought by their schemes under the penalty of the same -crime. - -Such was the state of the Roman Catholic designs—the real Popish -Plot—in England at the close of the year 1675. The direction in -which they turned during the next three years is now to seek. At the -outset the chief part of the evidence fails. Until his arrest in -September 1678 Coleman continued his foreign correspondence,[86] but in -comparison with the letters of earlier date the portion of it preserved -is meagre indeed. Above all, no such exposition of his schemes as -Coleman sent to La Chaize exists to afford a clue to the tangled and -mysterious allusions with which his letters abound. The only two of -Coleman’s later correspondents whose letters are extant were St. -Germain and Cardinal Howard. The last written by St. Germain from -Paris bears the date October 15, 1678, but with this exception all his -letters belong to the year 1676. They are partly occupied with business -of slight connection with politics. A scheme of the Duchess of York for -the increase of an English Carmelite convent at Antwerp was pressed -upon the French court. Rambling intrigues undertaken for the purpose -finally succeeded in breaking down Louis XIV’s reluctance, the convent -was allowed to plant colonies in the French Netherlands, and the -irritation caused to the duchess by the delay was allayed by a splendid -present of diamonds made her in secret by the King of France.[87] St. -Germain’s letters also show that intrigues were being ceaselessly -carried on in the French and Jesuit interest throughout the year 1676 -by Coleman and his party. They do not show at all clearly of what -nature those intrigues were. After the failure in England caused by -his indiscretion Coleman probably did not accord him full confidence. -St. Germain’s complaints of his treatment were constant; and he was -always in want of money.[88] Nor does the Italian correspondence throw -much greater light. Cardinal Howard’s letters extend with somewhat -longer intervals from January 1676 to the end of the following year. -They tell still less of the political intrigues. The business passing -through Howard’s hands was considerable. He was concerned with the -difficult business of keeping the Duke of York on good terms with the -Pope. Coleman’s endeavours to keep up the pretence that James was not -engaged to French schemes were not uniformly successful, and on the -death of Clement X Howard received definite orders from home to vote -in the conclave with the French party. Yet the task was accomplished -with some adroitness. Howard was able to persuade the Pope that the -marriage of Mary of York to the Prince of Orange was not due to her -father’s fault, and on another occasion obtained a letter from James -to Innocent XI of such sweetness that “the good man in reading it -could not abstain from tears.” Sinister rumours were afloat at Rome of -the duke’s Jesuit connection, and repeated warnings were sent that, -if they proved true, his cause would be ruined. There were even grave -doubts as to the genuine character of his faith. For some time the -troublesome conduct of an English Protestant agent at Florence occupied -Howard’s attention. The Inquisition bestirred itself in the matter. A -triangular correspondence between Howard, Coleman, and Lord Arundel -resulted in the man’s recall and led them to debate the possibility of -a match between the Princess Anne and the son of the Duke of Florence. -Another source of continual trouble was Prince Rinaldo d’Este in his -quest for a cardinal’s hat. While his niece, the Duchess of York, -backed by a special envoy from the court of Modena, was worrying the -French ambassador in London for Louis XIV’s support, Coleman applied -directly to Howard at Rome. Promises of consideration for the matter -were all that could be obtained. The prince, who had no claims -other than those of family, afterwards gained his object by constant -importunity. Courtin had information that the Spanish ambassador had -offered the Duke of York the whole credit of Spain for the prosecution -of Rinaldo’s suit if he would quit the French interest, and therefore -could not risk the result of a definite refusal; but neither Paris nor -Rome manifested at this time the slightest intention to support the -Modenese pretensions.[89] Cardinal Howard was in fact the official -correspondent of the English Catholic party at Rome, and beyond the -general business of helping in the amelioration of Catholic conditions -and the improvement of the relations between different sections of the -party, had little to do with particular schemes that might be fostered -by one or another. Thus the literary evidence on the development of -Roman Catholic policy in England is of the slightest. Accessible -documents give little information. Nothing can be known exactly. The -course of events between the years 1675 and 1678 cannot be elucidated -by aid of the evidence of those who shaped it. The argument must be -from the known to the unknown. - -To start with, it is known that Coleman’s correspondence did not cease, -as he stated, in the year 1675. On the contrary, it was maintained down -to the day of his arrest and even beyond.[90] Among others it is almost -certain that he continued his negotiation with Père de la Chaize.[91] -The subject of this later correspondence is debatable. It may have -been concerned with a design again to establish the Roman Catholic -religion in England. Or it may not; and in this case Coleman’s letters -may have been filled with matters of less importance, such as are to -be found in those of Cardinal Howard. This alternative however is -hardly tenable. Not only are there allusions in St. Germain’s letters -inexplicable except on the supposition that they refer to the hopes -of the Catholics for the re-establishment of their religion, but the -position of Coleman and the Jesuits rendered a continuance of their -schemes virtually necessary. Early in 1676 St. Germain wrote that he -had urged on La Chaize the absolute necessity of “vigorous counsels -... to produce success in the traffic of the Catholics”; in these, he -said, the Duke of York took the lead, and that by the inspiration of -Coleman. A month later he added that Coleman was incurring reproof -at Paris on account of the violent measures he was said to advocate. -The secretary of the English ambassador tried to ingratiate himself -with the Jesuit by professing great zeal for the duke; was he sincere, -asked St. Germain, and “has the duke all along trusted him with the -secret of his affair”? On Ruvigny’s return to Paris from his embassy -St. Germain had an interview with him. Ruvigny expressed the opinion -that the intrigues of Coleman and the Jesuits would prove fatal to -James. Their conduct was detestable not only to Protestants and the -government, but to a certain section of the Catholics also, “because,” -said the ambassador, “they would introduce an authority without limits -and push Mr. Coleman to make such strange steps which must precipitate -them into destruction.”[92] Had the policy of which St. Germain was -an agent been wholly without reproach, it would be hard to ascribe -an adequate meaning to expressions like these. Coleman’s anxiety to -deny his correspondence would be equally difficult of explanation. -Curious too would be the comment of Pomponne, the French minister for -foreign affairs; for he undertook to prove the absurdity of the charges -against Coleman by remarking in ridicule that he had even been accused -of intriguing with Père de la Chaize, a fact the truth of which was -perfectly known to him.[93] The situation of affairs argues with still -greater force. The Jesuits were beyond all others the most militant -order of the church. They formed the advance guard in the march against -heresy. They had already borne, and were again to bear, the brunt of -the battle. It was their particular business to carry war into the -enemy’s camp, for this was the reason as well as the excuse for their -existence. They must work, fight, intrigue against the heretic and the -heretic state, or leave their mission unfulfilled. And Coleman was in -the same position. He was a pupil of the Jesuits, and under the guise -of secretary to the Duchess of York maintained an active correspondence -with agents abroad in the interest of their chief hope, the duke. -Intrigue was his business, and his conduct of it was made more eager -by the keenness of a convert. No one in the least acquainted with the -history of the Jesuits and with the writings of their apologists can -believe that their method of procedure was by conversion of individuals -alone. The society has always been in its essence political, and in -the troubled times of the seventeenth century political action of the -exiled, the feared, the reputed traitor was seldom calculated to avoid -the retribution of the laws by which those against whom it was directed -were fenced. The penal laws were harsh, but harshness was of necessity; -and the very necessity of their harshness begot retaliation; while -retaliation completed the circle by driving into conflict with the law -many who would have been glad to obey in peace and nurse conscience in -quiet. - -The class of Catholics whom Ruvigny found opposed to the Jesuit -policy was large. At the close of the seventeenth century it probably -comprised a majority of Roman Catholics in England. These were they -who would take the oath of allegiance to their sovereign, holding it -no bar to their faith, the followers of Blackloe, of Peter Walsh, of -John Sergeant, the men who thought it no shame to liberalise belief -by divorcing it from statecraft, the adherents of the church but not -of the court of Rome.[94] The Jesuits had already once in the reign -of Charles II interposed to prevent Roman Catholics in England from -bettering their position, and when persecution fell on these in the -evil days of Oates’ grandeur, they showed to the astonishment of the -society that it had earned small gratitude from them.[95] On the -question of the oath of allegiance the English Catholic body was -divided throughout the century. Catholics were willing to prove their -loyalty by taking the oath, but this proof they were not allowed -to give. The fruitless concessions offered by Charles I showed -conclusively that despite all protestations the papal party would not -abandon the deposing power. Whenever the movement in favour of the -oath seemed to be gaining strength, the whole weight of the papal -court and of the Society of Jesus was thrown into the scale against -it. It was probably the only point upon which the two were at this -time in agreement. The Earls of Bristol, Berkshire, Cardigan, Lord -Stafford, and Lord Petre actually took the oath, and of these, horrid -thought to the Jesuits, two had for their confessors Benedictines; Lord -Arundel, and for a time the Duke of York, stood firm in refusal.[96] -The division between the Catholics was purely political; it marked -those on whose loyalty reliance could be placed from those who must -be suspected of disloyalty; and the former class suffered for what -the latter alone undertook. The line lay between the Catholic and the -Jesuit parties, between those who would be satisfied with liberty of -conscience and those who would not. Undoubtedly the Catholic body in -England was much weakened thereby, and government owed not a little -to the moderate Catholics; but however much the execution of Catholic -policy was hampered, its direction was not diverted. Abstinence -from political action was the basis of the pure Catholic position. -The Jesuits held the wires of politics in their hands and directed -the policy. They too affirmed purity of faith to be their motive. -“Prosecution for matters of conscience,” remarks Halifax, “is very -unjust; but great care ought to be taken that private conscience is -not pleaded against the security of the public constitution. For when -private conscience comes to be a justifiable rule of action, a man may -be a traitor to the state and plead conscience for treason.”[97] - -Thus it may be accepted that Coleman’s correspondence between the -years 1675 and 1678 was not of an entirely innocent character, but was -concerned with matters of perilous import for the prosperity of the -government and of the Church of England. Since it was not dropped, the -negotiation must have proceeded either in the same line as that in -which it lay at the end of 1675 or in another. Did the design drag on -a weary course in the feeble hope of finding a parliament congenial -to Roman Catholic ideas and of obtaining the king’s support in return -for a substantial sum of money: or did the Catholic politicians change -their tactics to discover a better opening? If the argument is thus -far sound, answer can be made without hesitation. Early in that year -Coleman and his party had found that in the event of a dissolution of -Parliament they could not hope for a third declaration of indulgence -and the reappointment of the Duke of York to the offices which he had -formerly held. The design was thereupon altered to a scheme for bribing -the existing parliament to petition for the recall to office of James, -and to pass an act for general liberty of conscience. Coleman’s ideas -were based on two miscalculations. He understood neither the temper of -the English people nor the character of Charles II. The king was to him -an amiable debauchee, caring only for his pleasures and his pocket. -A sufficient present of money would induce him to retire from the -management of affairs and console himself with his mistresses, leaving -the reins of power for his brother to handle. As most men of his own -and after times have thought the same, Coleman’s mistake is perhaps -excusable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not money, but -power was what Charles wanted, and in the use of power, not of money, -he was skilled. Any plan grounded upon this conception of his character -was foredoomed to failure. Equally grave was the other miscalculation, -and in this too Coleman was not peculiar. A man looking back on the -history of the seventeenth century, and guided by the story of the -Revolution, can say with assurance that any attempt in its latter half -to restore Catholicism in England must have been hopeless of success. -The nation which drove out James II would have driven out another -for the like cause. Charles himself had learnt this in the best of -schools. The fact may have been plain to clear-sighted statesmen, but -to the mass a restoration of the old religion was looked on as among -events that were more than possible. Here was the root of the deep -hatred of Catholicism cherished by the English nation. Not only was -the event hoped by the one side, but it was feared by the other. And -the hopeful party had more reason to hope than the fearful to fear. -Englishmen might with justice anticipate intrigues and even plots, but -never their success. But the Jesuit, whose education was continental -and whose ideas were traditional, was unaware of the change that had -passed over England. He was still inspired by the genius and followed -the example of the dead Robert Parsons. His mind was filled with the -great instances of past times. Henry VIII, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth -had drawn their subjects with them like sheep from one church into -another. Within the memory of man a wave of Puritanism had swept over -the country, tottered, and broken. There followed a loyal reaction and -a court in which strong elements were Catholic. The people who had so -willingly followed their leaders before might be expected to do so -again. The hope of rebuilding the ruins of Jerusalem was strong in the -belief of its possibility.[98] Such notions render the undertaking -of Coleman and his party intelligible. But they were not blinded by -prejudice to the obvious meaning of facts passing within range of their -own observation. One scheme had already been abandoned: the second was -to be abandoned now. For if the former had proved impracticable, much -more so was the latter. To ask the House of Commons in the year 1676 -to pass an act of religious toleration and to petition in favour of -the Duke of York was to suggest that it should contradict its nature. -The strongest characteristic of the Cavalier Parliament was its hatred -of Roman Catholicism. It had already forced the retractation of two -declarations of indulgence, and had on several occasions instituted -proceedings against the Catholics. Coleman’s experience perhaps -led him to ascribe an undue importance to the influence of money. -Dishonest members of the country party might accept bribes from the -French king when the course which they were asked to take would be to -the embarrassment of government, but not all the gold of France would -induce them to put a weapon of such strength into the grasp of the -court as to petition for what they had repeatedly prevented it from -accomplishing. Popery and tyranny, it was said, went hand in hand. It -must soon have been seen by the Catholic managers that such a policy -was hopeless. If this was not evident at first, it must have become -more than plain when early in April 1676 the Duke of York took the -momentous step of ceasing to go to the royal chapel, and all England -knew that he was a Catholic. It was the first occasion for a long -time on which he had acted not in consonance with the ideas of France. -Rome was delighted and recognised him as a true son, but elsewhere the -news was not hailed with such joy. James had obtained his brother’s -consent only with difficulty. Pomponne marked the withdrawal of the -declaration of indulgence as the beginning of the troubles that crowded -on the royal authority in England. The duke’s declaration created a -notable addition. The effect of his move was instantaneous. Throughout -the country the feeling roused was intense, the penal laws were once -more put into execution, and Charles told the French ambassador that if -he were to die the duke would not be allowed to remain in the country -eight days.[99] It is perhaps to this time that the abandonment of the -second scheme sketched by Coleman to La Chaize should be referred.[100] -There can at all events be no doubt that its impracticable nature soon -became manifest. It was therefore along another line that the design -proceeded from the summer of 1676 onwards. - -Since the year 1670 various ways of procuring success for the Catholic -religion have thus been considered, adopted, and abandoned. The policy -of the Dover treaty had been led by Charles. Had it been successful -he would have been left at the head of a Catholic state, controlled -and compact. That had been blown to the winds. The declaration of -indulgence, faint resemblance of the plan which was to have been -put into execution, was the direct result of royal authority. With -its failure the king’s leadership in the last movement of the -counter-reformation ceased. Then followed the two schemes which Coleman -related to La Chaize. In the one the motive power was to be the king, -backed by the ministers and Parliament; in the other Parliament, -working on the king and supported by him. When these were deserted, -practically every arrangement in which the king could figure as chief -had been tried. The game of the Dover treaty had been opened by the -king, backed by French force; that of the declaration by the king’s -move alone; Coleman had suggested action by the king and Parliament, -by Parliament and the king. Unless one of these moves was made again, -Charles would stand in the background of the game; none would be made -again, for each had been proved ineffective. Even by the last two the -object had been to raise the authority not of the king, but of the Duke -of York. The only remaining possibility was that the duke should be -not only the object, but the leader of the game. He was the piece with -which the move had to be made. - -In what direction then could the move be made? So far from being an -assistance to the Catholic movement, Charles was now a direct hindrance -to it. He had abandoned the Catholic interest as a political weapon, -and had engaged in a policy of Anglican predominance. Undoubtedly -the design must be conducted behind his back, but it was impossible -not to take count of his position and influence in the state. Three -courses were left open to the managers of the movement. The king -might be forced to take action on their side, or he might be thrust -away from it, or he might be gradually elbowed into a position where -his personal action would be negligible. The last course had already -been considered. During the winter of 1674 and spring of the next -year Lord Berkshire and Sir William Throckmorton had submitted the -advisability of adopting a platform, the chief planks in which should -be the debauchery and political profligacy of the king and the sobriety -and ability of the Duke of York. By this means they hoped that all -the supporters of order and moderation would be drawn to the duke, -James would be surrounded by a compact and influential party composed -of Catholics and Protestants alike, the whole management of affairs -would eventually fall into his hands, and the king would be left beyond -the range of politics, ousted from their control, contented with the -otiose life of a peaceful rake.[101] This however had been discarded -for the plans submitted by Coleman to Père de la Chaize, in turn to -be relegated to the domain of untried political suggestion. The scope -for the design was therefore reduced to the alternatives: Charles must -either be thrust on one side or be compelled to take action in it -himself. As he had already been tried as a leader and had failed, the -latter course would mean that the plan should run without him, until at -the moment of success he should be forced by the necessity of events to -throw in his lot with the movement. In the former case the course of -events would be exactly similar, save that the king would not be taken -into the scheme at any point, and the movement would be carried to -completion without him. That both of these courses involved treasonable -schemes is hardly open to doubt. The logical end of the negotiations -in either case was a _coup d’état_, in whatever degree, a revolutionary -measure. - -In March of the year 1679 the Earl of Berkshire lay dying in Paris. -A month later a man passing under the name of John Johnson landed at -Folkestone, and was arrested at Dover on his way to London. He was a -certain Colonel John Scott, for whose arrival the authorities had been -on the watch for some time past. Whether or no he was the same Colonel -Scott who acted as an English spy in Holland during the second Dutch -war it is impossible to say. Latterly he had been attached to the -household of the Prince de Condé, and had commanded a troop of horse -in the French service.[102] Subsequent events make it seem likely that -orders for the Colonel’s apprehension were issued by the secretary -of state, owing to the belief that he had information of value to -impart. To the officers at Dover he ascribed his return to England to a -desire to see his native country, but when he reached London he told a -different tale. As the Earl of Berkshire lay on his deathbed, he sent -for Colonel Scott, who had vainly called a famous physician to his -aid, and bade him take a message to the king. There had been a foolish -and an ill design carried on in England, he said. He was a good Roman -Catholic, and in the Catholic religion he was minded to die; but some -of his faith were swayed by a giddy madness, and this he blamed. He was -neither a contriver nor a great supporter of the business. He would -not have had a hand in it but that Lord Arundel, Coleman, and others -had told him that it could not miscarry, and that, if he did not stand -with them, evil would be thought of him. That he ought long before to -have disclosed what he knew he was well aware; personal duty and the -allegiance of every man to his sovereign should have constrained him -to speak; there were bad men in the matter, Lord Bellasis and others, -who spoke ill of the king and very irreverently. But to his knowledge -there was never talk of killing the king; if there had been, he would -have spoken out. Then Colonel Scott asked who those others were; but -Lord Berkshire begged for no questions, repeating, “If I had known of -approaching dangers to the king, I should have told him.” Presently the -sick man began to sigh and to weep. “Friend,” said he, “I see things -will go as you will. For God’s sake promise me you will find some way -to tell the king every word I say, and that though some passages in -letters of mine may look a little oddly, I would have run any hazard -rather than have suffered any injury to have been done to his Majesty’s -person. ’Tis true I would have been glad to see all England Catholic, -but not by the way of some ill men.” Let the king have nothing to do -with those he had named, nor with Stafford, nor Powis, nor Petre. Yet -he hoped and believed that matter would not be found against them to -take away their lives.[103] If Colonel Scott spoke truth, then the -foregoing argument is certainly not quite baseless. And reason may be -given for supposing this to be the case. At the time when Scott gave -his information the fact of Berkshire’s correspondence with Coleman -was not publicly known. Coleman had already been tried and executed, -and at the trial a number of his letters were read as evidence against -him, but among them none from Lord Berkshire. Until the publication of -the correspondence by order of the House of Commons this was the only -channel by which particular knowledge of it reached the world at large. -The other letters were not published until December 1680. It must -therefore be supposed that Scott obtained his knowledge of the earl’s -correspondence privately. The only persons who had private knowledge -on the subject were Lord Berkshire, the officials in whose custody -the letters lay, and Coleman. Coleman was dead before Colonel Scott -came into England, and the secretary of state by whom he was examined -would have been most unlikely to furnish him with materials. It must -therefore have been from Lord Berkshire himself that he obtained his -information. But, it may be suggested, Scott may have drawn his bow at -a venture, knowing merely that Berkshire was a prominent Catholic, and -using his name as likely to gain credence for his story. The weight -against this suggestion is heavy. If Scott had been for all he knew -inventing the letters of which he spoke, he would surely have said more -about them than he did. To mention them in so casual a manner would -have been useless. The simplicity and directness of his relation points -in this matter to its substantial truth. Another proof of genuineness -has still greater force, the extreme moderation of the whole narrative. -A scoundrel following in the track of Oates and Bedloe would never -have concocted such a story. So far from being to his advantage, what -Scott said might actually put him into a most unpleasant predicament. -The chief point of the plot which Oates had discovered was the king’s -assassination. The chief agents in it were said to be the Jesuits. -All the informers who came after spoke to the same effect and tried -to spice their tales still more highly. Scott said not a word about -the Jesuits. He stated on his sole authority, one of the men who might -be expected to know, that no harm was intended to the king. To some -extent what he said is borne out by Berkshire’s letters. Passages in -them must certainly have looked “a little oddly” to the government, and -perhaps contained matters technically treasonable, but in nothing do -they suggest any personal danger to the king. No one looking for the -rewards of a professional informer would have acted as Colonel Scott. -Nor did he ever seek these. He never came forward to give evidence -against those condemned for the Plot. His name does not appear in the -list of secret service money, doled out to the shameless witnesses for -the crown. Nothing more is known of him.[104] His information may be -accepted as genuine. Clearly then there was some truth in the discovery -of a Roman Catholic conspiracy in the year 1678. What Lord Berkshire -said sketches its essence. Oates was not after all aiming shafts -entirely at random. During his stay in the Jesuit seminaries in Spain -and Flanders he must have obtained an inkling of what was in the air, -and proceeded to act upon the information to his best advantage. That -the whole truth had little resemblance to his tale of fire and massacre -is certain, but the tale was not wholly devoid of truth. His vast -superstructure of lies was not without a slight basis of solid fact. - -This conclusion can in some degree be supported from other sources. -Any attempt to reconstruct the part played by the Catholic reformation -in the years preceding the appearance of Oates must be chiefly -conjectural. Scarcely any evidence on the subject is known, but what -more comes to hand points in the same direction. In December 1680, as -he lay in the Tower under sentence for high treason, Lord Stafford -sent a message by Dr. Burnet and the Earl of Carlisle to the House of -Lords that he would confess all he knew of the Catholic intrigues. He -was admitted to speak from the bar of the House. Unfortunately his -statement does not refer at all to the later years of the movement, -for when he came to describe the project debated between Shaftesbury -and the Duke of York for a coalition between the Catholic and country -parties to obtain a dissolution of Parliament and general toleration, -Stafford was stopped hastily at the mention of the great Whig leader’s -name. To a few more questions put he simply answered no, and was -presently sent back to the Tower. Cut short as it was, his account -is of some value. He admitted that he had endeavoured to alter the -established faith, and gave some details of the meeting held early -in Charles II’s reign at the Earl of Bristol’s house to discuss the -oath of allegiance. He had always disapproved the policy of the -declarations of indulgence, and marked them as causes of the downfall -of his religion. At one time he almost decided to leave England and -live beyond sea. Others however were not of his opinion. The Papists -and Jesuits had been far too open in their conduct, he said, and -he had even seen a priest in the House of Lords standing below the -bar. All his fellow peers, excepting the Earl of Bristol, were in -favour of toleration for the Catholics. There was even talk of a -restitution of the church lands, but Stafford warned the Duke of York -that they were in so many hands as to render any attempt of the kind -impracticable.[105] All this does not amount to much; nevertheless -it shows a drift in one direction. Other straws are floated down the -same stream. In the summer of 1678, when it was doubtful whether or -no England would declare war on Louis XIV, Catholics in Ireland were -discussing the chances in that event of a rebellion in their country -aided by France. Calculations were made on the strength of the French -navy, and there was talk of a rising in Scotland as well.[106] There -were Jesuit missioners in Scotland, poor and hard worked, and it is -possible that Jesuit influence had been concerned in organising the -rebellion there in the year 1666;[107] while in 1679 there was serious -consideration of a movement in Ireland under Colonel Fitzpatrick, who -crossed to Brussels during the Duke of York’s exile there to consult -with him.[108] More definite information can be obtained from the -case of Père de la Colombière. The celebrated Jesuit preacher, famed -for his propagation of the cult of the Sacred Heart, was living in -England at the time of the Popish Plot panic, and acting as confessor -to the Duchess of York, Two Frenchmen, Olivier du Fiquet or Figuère and -Francois Verdier, accused him to the House of Lords of extraordinary -activity in spreading the Catholic religion. La Colombière had -concealed himself, but was discovered, arrested, and shipped out of -the country. Besides the general charge of caring for the growth of -his faith, he was accused of a close connection with Coleman and -Père de la Chaize. In attempting the conversion of Fiquet, who was -a Protestant, he had used as an argument that the Duke of York was -openly, and the king in secret, Catholic by faith. Parliament, he -said, should not always be master; in a short time all England would -be changed.[109] Supposing that these men had wished to make their -accusation a source of gain, they would have charged the confessor with -being a party to the king’s assassination, or at least to the plot in -general. Since they did not, their statements may be taken as true. -Nothing dishonourable was alleged against La Colombière, but he plainly -harboured the expectation of seeing England before long Catholic. His -hope was shared by others; for in advising on the establishment of a -nunnery by the Yorkshire baronet, Sir Thomas Gascoigne, the Jesuit John -Pracid wrote on June 9, 1678 to suggest the insertion of a clause in -the deed, depending on the condition: “If England be converted.”[110] -At most the evidence is slight, but it seems clear that the Jesuit -party was indulging in hopes considerably more active than they could -naturally have been if wholly unsupported by any plan of action. - -While the schemes of which these traces are to be found were in -the air, Oates was studying and being expelled from Valladolid -and St. Omers. There were in Flanders twenty-seven English Roman -Catholic seminaries; five belonged to the Jesuits, and of these the -establishment at St. Omers was the largest. It contained some thirty -professed fathers and a hundred and twenty scholars.[111] Probably the -best education in Europe was provided for the boys, and life there -was comfortable; but to the unwilling the seminary became a prison. -Pressure was put upon them to become priests, and communication with -the outside world was carefully restricted. In a letter preserved -from this time a Welsh boy, placed in the college by a wicked uncle, -wrote secretly to his father begging piteously to redeem him from his -great captivity.[112] Here, unless he made a prodigious guess, the -most fortunate in history, Oates must have acquired hints dropped on -the subject of the movement in England. It is not very profitable to -speculate on the question exactly how much truth his vivid imagination -concealed. Possibly a demonstration of force was suggested, organised -by the great Catholic nobles and relying on support for the Duke of -York to be gained in the navy. The fleet was at the moment being -strengthened by the addition of several capital ships, and in the -spring of 1678 was at full strength in sea service, with complete -stores for six months.[113] If this were the case, if Arundel, -Bellasis, and Stafford were implicated in the affair, but nothing -definitely arranged so soon as the autumn of 1678, Oates’ diffident -denunciation of these peers and the evident falsehoods which he, -Bedloe, and Dugdale afterwards told in their statements regarding -the Popish army, would be sufficiently accounted for. Or again, it -is possible that the design included help from France in money, and -perhaps the use of the English regiments employed in the French -service. Many of their officers were Irishmen, and most Catholics.[114] -For this it would be necessary to wait until peace was definitely -concluded in order that both men and money might be liberated from the -calls on them. Such a supposition would go some way to explain the -“dark, suspicious letter” seized at Coleman’s house after his arrest, -and bearing the date September 18, 1678. The writer, posting from -Paris, informed Coleman that the peace had broken all their plans, for -the French pretended that since its conclusion they had no need of his -party. Yet there was hope from another quarter. Let an agent known to -him be sent over. “To put our traffic afoot,” continues the letter, -“it’s absolutely necessary that my friend come speedily over to you, -to converse with you and our other friends, because his measures are -so well taken in Italy, that we can’t miss to establish this commodity -better from those parts than from any here at present, tho’ hereafter -we may find means and helps from hence too. But it’s most certain, -now is the time or never to put things in order to establish it with -you.”[115] The letter seems to point to hopes of early aid from -France, since disappointed. In this case Père de la Chaize, or whoever -managed the affair in France, may have thought that the gold of French -Catholics could be put to better purpose than to assist their fellows -of the faith in England in a forlorn hope. The likelihood of such a -desertion is to some extent supported by the refusal of the French -government in November 1678 to take any steps to assist the Duke of -York or his party.[116] But from the scraps of evidence obtainable it -is plain that the design, supposing it to have been such as is here -sketched, had not advanced beyond the stage of negotiation, ready to be -construed into immediate action. - -According to the information which Lord Berkshire gave to Colonel -Scott, no harm was intended to the king; at least he knew of none. This -may well have been; but at the same time it is necessary to remember -that Charles was at the moment the greatest impediment to the chance -of Catholic success. He was little older than his brother, and enjoyed -far better health. As far as could be judged, he was by no means likely -to be the first to die. He had definitely adopted a policy adverse to -the Catholics. If he were to die, the charge of revolutionary dealing -would lie at the door of those who should attempt to keep the Duke of -York from the throne. So long as he lived, any attempt to restore the -Roman Catholic religion in England, certainly any attempt made behind -his back, would be a matter of high treason and against the interests -of peace and established order. This much only can be said with safety, -that the brothers hated each other,[117] that the death of the king was -talked of in Jesuit seminaries on the continent,[118] and that James -was not above tolerating, if he did not direct, an attempt to murder -the husband of his daughter.[119] - - - - - CHAPTER III - - OATES AGAIN - - -Thus the Popish Plot was introduced to the world, “a transaction which -had its root in hell and its branches among the clouds.”[120] While -Charles proceeded on his walk, Chiffinch, his confidential valet, -refused Kirkby admittance into the royal bedchamber, not knowing his -business. Kirkby therefore waited in the gallery till Charles returned -and summoned him to ask the grounds of such loyal fears. Kirkby -replied that two men, by name Pickering and Grove, were watching for -an opportunity to shoot him, and that should they fail, Sir George -Wakeman, the queen’s physician, was employed to use poison.[121] Oates -and Tonge had committed this piece of information to paper for him the -day before. Asked how he knew this, Kirkby answered that he had the -news from a friend, who was ready to appear with his papers whenever -the king should command. He had waited to give his warning the day -before, but had failed. Charles ordered him to return with his friend -in the evening. Accordingly between eight and nine o’clock Kirkby -escorted Dr. Tonge to Whitehall. The doctor brought with him a copy of -the forty-three articles and solemnly presented it to the king, with a -humble request for its safe keeping. He entreated that only the “most -private cabinet” should be acquainted with the contents; otherwise the -secret would leak out, full discovery of the plot would be prevented, -and the lives of the discoverers put in hazard. But if under the -guise of chemical students they might have access to his Majesty until -seizure of the conspirators’ letters showed beyond doubt the truth of -their story, all would be well. Tonge afterwards complained that full -discovery was rendered impossible because the king did not take his -advice. Charles was too busy or too apathetic to attend to the matter -himself. He was going to Windsor on the morrow, he said, and would -leave the inquiry to Lord Treasurer Danby, on whose ability and honour -he placed all reliance.[122] Whence did the papers come to Tonge? he -asked. The doctor returned he had found them under the wainscot in -Sir Richard Barker’s house; he did not know the author, but suspected -him to be a man who had once or twice been there in his absence and -had formerly discoursed with him on such matters as appeared in the -articles. Of his condition too Tonge was uncertain, but thought he had -been among the Jesuits; perhaps, he suggested, the man had been set -on by secular priests or the Jansenists.[123] Much the same story was -told next day to the Earl of Danby. Tonge and Kirkby called on him -in the afternoon, and Kirkby, introducing the doctor, was requested -to leave. The Lord Treasurer had read the information overnight and -proceeded to examine Tonge on the subject. Were the papers originals? -No, they were copies of the doctor’s writing, the originals being in -his custody. He did not know the author, but guessed who he was. Did -he know where to find this man? No, but he had lately seen him two or -three times in the street and thought it likely they might meet again -before long.[124] Many were Dr. Tonge’s falsehoods in order to raise -an air of sufficient mystery. Three or four days later he returned to -Danby with the information that his guess at the authorship of the -papers was correct; nevertheless for secrecy’s sake he was not to give -the name, since if the fact were to become known the informer would be -murdered by the Papists. Danby asked some more particulars. Did the -doctor know Pickering and honest William, as Oates had called Grove, -who were named as the king’s assassins? Certainly; he could point them -out waiting their murderous chance in St. James’ Park. He did not know -their lodging, but would find it out and inform the earl; for Danby -insisted that they should be arrested forthwith. Leaving a gentleman of -his household in London in communication with Tonge, Danby drove down -to Windsor and told the king all that had passed. He urged that one of -the secretaries of state should issue a warrant for the apprehension -of the dangerous persons and that the whole matter should be brought -before the council, but Charles would not hear of it. On the contrary, -he commanded Danby not even to mention the affair to the Duke of -York, only saying that he would take great care of himself till more -was known. The Treasurer left Windsor for his house at Wimbledon and -sent directions that Lloyd, the gentleman whom he had trusted, should -bring him whatever news occurred.[125] Meanwhile Oates was consorting -with his Jesuit acquaintances, and even obtained supplies from them; -somewhat to their discredit, seeing that he had twice been expelled -from Jesuit colleges.[126] In the intervals he concocted additional -information, which Tonge took to Kirkby to copy and Kirkby gave to -Lloyd for Danby’s perusal. - -Despite Tonge’s assurance that Pickering and Grove might be captured -in St. James’ Park with their guns, the inquiry seemed as far from -reaching solid ground as ever. All that the doctor could do was to -point out Pickering to Lloyd in the chapel at Somerset House. It was -offered as an excuse for Grove’s absence that he had a cold. Something -better than this was obviously required. So one night Tonge went to -Wimbledon himself and informed Danby that the assassins were bound for -Windsor the next morning; he would arrange for Lloyd to travel in the -same coach with them and procure their arrest on arrival. The Treasurer -started at once and slept that night at Windsor, laying his plans for -the capture; but when the coach drove in, lo! Danby’s gentleman stepped -out alone. The others had been prevented from coming by an unforeseen -accident. Within two days at furthest however, as Lloyd brought word -from Tonge, they would be sure to come. Curiously enough the ruffians -failed a second time. On this occasion they were riding and one of the -horses had hurt his shoulder. The most that Tonge could manage was by -way of addition to the information already lodged. Although Pickering -and Grove had been stopped from attacking the king at Windsor, they -had all but made the attempt in London. Unfortunately the flint of -Pickering’s pistol was loose and he dared not fire: and for this he -suffered a penance of thirty lashes. The story was afterwards improved, -for Pickering had missed a rare chance not only once, but three times. -Now his flint was loose, on another occasion he had no powder in the -pan, on a third he had loaded with bullets only and no powder. It might -be suspected too that the discovery of the plot was no longer a secret; -for Oates, going one day to see Whitebread, the Jesuit provincial, -had been met with abuse as a traitor and even with blows. Clearly -the Duke of York, who had seen Kirkby come from his first interview -with the king, had mistaken him for Oates and told his confessor of -the accident.[127] The doctor’s efforts were vain. By no device could -Charles be moved to take interest in the matter. Danby was alarmed by -the idea that he was the only man beside his master to whom Tonge’s -disclosures were known, thinking perhaps that if ill came it might go -hard with himself, and urged that they might be communicated to others; -but the king had already come to the conclusion that the conspiracy -was fictitious, and after the ridiculous excuses offered by Tonge for -the absence of the supposed assassins was all the more positive in his -refusal to order a formal inquiry. He should alarm all England, he -said, and put thoughts of killing him into the minds of people who had -no such notions before.[128] - -Oates and Tonge now planned a bolder stroke. On August 30 Danby -received news from Tonge, for Oates was at this time still unknown -to him, that letters telling of treasonable designs had been sent to -Father Bedingfield, the Duke of York’s Jesuit confessor, and might -be intercepted at the Windsor post-office. Danby instantly returned -to Windsor and showed Tonge’s letter to the king. He was met by the -announcement that Bedingfield had already been at the post-office. -The confessor had found a packet awaiting him. It contained four -letters, ostensibly from priests of his order known to him but not -in their hands, and a fifth in the same style. All were apparently -of dangerous concern, full of mysterious phrases which seemed of no -good meaning. Bedingfield took the letters to the duke, who showed -them to the king. Thus when Danby arrived at Windsor his news was -stale. Charles believed still less in the existence of a real plot. -The letters were transparent forgeries. Purporting to be written by -different persons, from different places, at different dates, they bore -a curious likeness one to another. The paper on which they were written -bore the same watermark and appeared to have been cut from one sheet. -In every case the name signed was misspelt. Throughout, the writing -was disfigured by the same blemishes of style and spelling. Only one -of the letters contained a single stop, and that seemed to have been -made accidentally. Oates professed afterwards that the handwriting was -disguised and that the writers made mistakes on purpose, should the -letters be intercepted, to lull the reader to false security. A Jesuit -in London, who scented the discovery of the plot, had sent warning to -Bedingfield, and the confessor had handed his letters to the duke with -the express intention of showing them to be counterfeit and himself -to be innocent. Thus, declared the informer with indignation, they -had been made to appear the work of forgery. So far as the last goes, -Oates spoke the truth. They were patently the composition of himself -and his confederate. A tribute to the unscrupulous energy of those who -adopted the plot for political purposes is paid by the fact that these -letters were suppressed and never brought forward as evidence, although -three of the men who were supposed to have written them were afterwards -tried for treasons of which, had they been genuine, the letters would -have afforded strong proof. Oates met the rebuff by going at Kirkby’s -instigation to swear to the truth of his story before a London -magistrate. But at court the intriguers were badly received. Kirkby -and Tonge called several times on the Treasurer, only to be refused -admittance, and when Charles met his old acquaintance he passed by him -without word or look.[129] - -At this moment a sudden move of the Duke of York threw the game -into the hands of Oates. With his usual want of tact James demanded -an inquiry into the matter by the privy council. What difference -this actually made to the course of subsequent events it is hard to -calculate, for Oates was clever enough to place himself in a position -not wholly dependent on the action of government, but at least it -smoothed his way at the moment. The act of the duke was that of -applying the bellows to the seed of a mighty conflagration. At the -meeting of Parliament Danby was accused of having tried to stifle the -plot; unjustly, for he too had urged investigation. For some time -Charles withstood their instance. Danby alone he could have resisted, -but when James, whose occasions for importunity were better than those -of the Treasurer, added his demand, the king gave way and, against his -better judgment, consented. Oates was still occupied in enlarging and -copying his information when on the evening of September 27 Kirkby -brought word from Lloyd that Tonge was summoned to go with him to -the council. The council had already risen and their appearance was -postponed till the next morning. Tonge asserted that he would have -been better pleased had the inquiry been longer delayed that yet more -of the plot might have been discovered. His feelings must really -have been of some relief at the opportunity afforded, tempered with -suspicion of the council’s intention towards himself. Taking the -precaution to place his information beyond reach of danger by leaving -a sworn copy with the magistrate who had attested his oath, Oates -accompanied his friend to Whitehall. Some ten days earlier Charles -had been made acquainted with the informer’s name. The opinion of the -government was that Tonge had no other end in view than to obtain -a deanery. That notion must have been rudely dispelled by Oates’ -appearance at the council board.[130] - -Dr. Tonge was the first to enter and, kneeling, handed a petition for -pardon for himself and Oates, together with a list of the plotters and -their lodging. He was asked who Oates was. An acquaintance of short -standing, he answered. He had been a chaplain in the navy on board Sir -Richard Ruth’s ship, but having given information of some miscarriages -had received hard dealing from the privy council. In point of fact this -was the occasion when he had been summarily ejected from the service. -As Tonge begged excuse from reciting what he knew further of the plot, -an abstract he had made of Oates’ information was read. Oates was -called and examined on the contents of the papers. The council sat -long, and he was heard at length. His statements were of so general -a character that little criticism could be made, but the board was -sufficiently satisfied to authorise the informer to search for the men -he had named as conspirators. As night fell, he issued forth armed with -warrants and officers. Before morning Father Ireland, procurator of the -province of the Society of Jesus, Fenwick, agent for the college at St. -Omers, Pickering, and other Jesuits were in Newgate. Oates returned to -the council on the morning of Sunday, being Michaelmas day, to continue -his examination. This time the king was present. Oates was made to -repeat all he had said the day before. He had named in his narrative -Don John of Austria as not only cognizant of the plot, but active in -it. What was he like? asked Charles. Tall and graceful, with fair hair, -Oates replied promptly. Charles had seen Don John and knew him to be -short, fat, and dark. Oates said that he had seen Père de la Chaize pay -in Paris ten thousand pounds as the price for the king’s death. The -victim now asked in what part of Paris. In the Jesuits’ house close -to the Louvre, was the answer. Again Oates had committed himself, -for there was no such house in that position. The letters sent to -Bedingfield at Windsor were produced. Oates skated over the thin ice as -best he could, declaring that Jesuits used to make their letters appear -foolish to conceal their meaning. He pursued his tale with unbroken -confidence. Arundel and Bellasis were mentioned. Charles remarked that -those lords had served him faithfully, and that without clear proof he -would not credit anything against them. Oates protested to God that -he would accuse none falsely; he did not say that they were partners -in the plot, only that they were to have been acquainted with it. His -whole behaviour was of a piece with this. Loud in general accusations, -he refused to bring particular charges against persons who might appear -to contradict him successfully. Whenever he was pressed, he drew back -and hedged. The king ended the meeting by exclaiming that he was a most -lying knave.[131] - -Oates’ credit was rudely shaken. Nevertheless the matter could not be -dropped without further investigation. The informer managed to cover -his mistakes by the suggestion that he had himself been deceived. He -had misspelt the name of Louis XIV’s confessor, calling him Le Shee; -but in an age of loose spelling, when Barillon wrote of Shaftesbury -as Schasberi, and Cardinal Howard’s name was spelt Huart by a papal -nuncio, this was not of great weight. Oates had evidently lied, but -perhaps he had spoken some truth. His assurance and readiness had -been such as to amaze the council. Charles himself was taken aback, -and though he gave no credence to the informer’s story, felt that -great care was necessary for the discovery of the truth. Falsehood -has not been unknown in the seventeenth and other centuries as a prop -to even a good cause. At all events persons, against whom serious -charges, not disproved, had been made, could not be allowed to remain -at large. So on the second night in succession Oates was sent his -rounds with a guard, sleepless and defying the stormy weather. Before -dawn most of the Jesuits of eminence in London lay in gaol. At one -point the party encountered a check. Oates led his men to arrest -Whitebread, the provincial, at the residence of the Spanish ambassador. -The ambassador’s servants resisted the intrusion, and the next day -Count Egmont and the Marquis Bourgemayne lodged a complaint with the -secretary of state. Material compensation was not to be had, but an -ample apology; and the soldiers with Oates were said to have been -drunk and were punished.[132] Of greater importance than persons was a -find of papers. A warrant had been signed at the council board for the -arrest of Coleman. When the meeting rose the Earl of Danby noticed that -direction for seizing his papers had been omitted. He hastily caused -another warrant for this purpose to be drawn, and obtained the five -requisite signatures just in time that a messenger might be dispatched -the same evening. Coleman’s house was searched, and, besides others, a -deal box containing the most important of his letters was found in a -secret recess behind a chimney. Danby could boast with justice, when -he was accused of having acted in the French and papist interest, that -but for his action the chief evidence of the schemes of both in England -might never have come to hand. The Duke of York, against whom they -told heavily, would never forgive him, he said. Coleman surrendered -himself on Monday morning, and was put under the charge of a messenger -with only Oates’ accusation against him. He managed to send word to -the French ambassador that nothing would be found in his papers to -embarrass him. A cruel awakening from the dream was not long delayed. -When his letters came to be read, the lords of the council looked grave -and signed a warrant for his commitment. Coleman disappeared into -Newgate.[133] - -On Monday, September 30, Oates was again examined before the council, -and again coursed London for Jesuits. The town was by this time -thoroughly alarmed. Coleman’s papers were regarded by the council as -of high importance. They shewed at any rate that Oates had known of -his correspondence with La Chaize, and seemed evidence of a serious -state of affairs. In the streets they were taken as proof of his every -statement. Catholics who had sneered at the disclosure began to realise -that the charges against Coleman were heavy and that he was in danger -of his life.[134] The Protestant mob of London was convinced that the -charges against all accused were true. The Duchess of York started on -a visit to the Princess of Orange in Holland. It was said that she -was smuggling guilty priests out of the country. A fever seemed to be -in men’s minds. Freedom of speech vanished. To doubt the truth of the -discovery was dangerous. Opinions favourable to the Catholics were -not to be uttered without risk. The household of the Duke of York was -in consternation, and James himself gloomy and disquiet. Orders were -sent into the country to search the houses of Catholics for weapons. -Sir John Reresby hurried to town with his family to be on the scene -of a ferment the greatness whereof none but an eye-witness could -conceive. “In fine,” wrote Lord Peterborough, “hell was let loose; -malice, revenge, and ambition were supported by all that falsehood and -perjury could contrive; and lastly, it was the most deplorable time -that was ever seen in England.” Oates was hailed as the saviour of -the nation and was lodged with Dr. Tonge in Whitehall under a guard. -“One might,” exclaimed North, “have denied Christ with less contest -than the Plot.” To add to the general confusion the king left for the -races at Newmarket, scandalising all by his indecent levity. During his -absence Dr. Burnet paid Tonge a visit in his lodgings at Whitehall. He -found the poor man so much uplifted that he seemed to have lost the -little sense he ever had. Oates appeared and was introduced. He had -already received a visit from Evelyn. The courtier found him “furiously -indiscreet.” Burnet received the flattering intelligence that he had -been specially marked by the Jesuits for death; the same had been said -of Stillingfleet; but the divines thought the compliment cheap when -they found that it had been paid also to Ezrael Tonge. The informer -burst into a torrent of fury against the Jesuits and swore he would -have their blood. Disliking the strain, Burnet turned the conversation -to ask what arguments had prevailed upon him to join the Church of -Rome. Whereupon Oates stood up and, laying his hands on his breast, -declared: God and his holy angels knew that he had never changed, but -that he had gone over to the Roman Catholics to betray them.[135] The -perjurer might well triumph. The days of his glory were beginning. On -October 21 Parliament met. Before that time Godfrey, the magistrate -before whom Oates had sworn to the truth of his deposition, was dead -amid circumstances of horror and suspicion, and the future of the -informer with his hideous accusations was assured. - - - - - SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY - - - - - CHAPTER I - - SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY - - -The death of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey has passed for one of the most -remarkable mysteries in English history. The profound sensation which -it caused, the momentous consequences which it produced, the extreme -difficulty of discovering the truth, have rendered Godfrey’s figure -fascinating to historians. Opinion as to the nature of his end has been -widely different. To the minds of Kennet, Oldmixon, and Christie the -Catholics were responsible. North declared that he was murdered by the -patrons of Oates, to give currency to the belief in the Plot. Sir James -Fitzjames Stephen hazards that Oates himself was the murderer, and is -supported by Mr. Traill and Mr. Sidney Lee. L’Estrange was positive -that he committed suicide. Lingard and Sir George Sitwell have given -the same verdict. Ralph, Hallam, Macaulay, Ranke, and Klopp pronounce -the problem unsolved. Hume has pronounced it insoluble. All have -admitted the intricacy of the case and its importance. None has been -able without fear of contradiction to answer the question, “What was -the fate of Sir Edmund Godfrey?” On the answer to this question depends -to a great extent the nature of the final judgment to be passed upon -the Popish Plot. If Godfrey met his death at the hands of political -assassins, the weight of the fact is obvious. If he was murdered by -the Roman Catholics, much of the censure which has been poured on -the Protestant party misses the mark; if by Protestant agents, that -censure must be redoubled before the demands of justice are satisfied. -If he committed suicide, or was done to death in a private cause, the -criminal folly of many and the detestable crime of a few who in the -cause of religious intolerance fastened his death upon the innocent -were so black as to deserve almost the same penalty. - -Scarcely ever has a fact so problematical been attended by such weighty -results. Sir Edmund Godfrey left his house on October 12, 1678. On -October 17 his corpse was found in the fields at the foot of Primrose -Hill. From that moment belief in the Popish Plot was rooted in the -mind of the nation. The excitement throughout the country rose to the -mark of frenzy. Godfrey’s death seemed clear evidence of the truth -of Oates’ sanguinary tales, and the prelude to a general massacre of -Protestants. It became an article of faith that he had been murdered -by the Catholics. To deny it was to incur the most awkward suspicion. -No man thought himself safe from the same fate. Every householder laid -in a stock of arms. Posts and chains barricaded the streets of the -city. Night after night the Trained Bands stood to arms and paraded -the town as if an insurrection were expected before morning. During -the winter which followed, wrote Shaftesbury, “the soberest and most -peaceable of the people have, either in town or country, hardly slept -for fear of fire or massacring by the Papists.” Alderman Sir Thomas -Player declared that when he went to bed “he did not know but the next -morning they might all rise with their throats cut.” And this state -of things continued, as sober Calamy remarked, “not for a few weeks -or months only, but for a great while together.” It was regarded as -most fortunate that the Protestants did not seek to avenge Godfrey and -anticipate their own doom by exterminating the Roman Catholics.[136] - -Upon the death of a London magistrate was grounded the firm conviction -of the reality of the Popish Plot, under cover of which the Whig party -was all but successful in deranging the legitimate succession to the -throne, and even perhaps in overturning the monarchy itself. Of the -instruments by which Shaftesbury turned the Plot to this end, none was -more powerful than the belief in Godfrey’s murder. In one connection -or another that event appeared in almost all the state trials of the -two following years, in the debates in Parliament, in the pulpit, on -the stage.[137] The part which it played in the electioneering methods -of the Whigs was still more formidable, and Godfrey’s corpse was a -central figure in the grand annual ceremonies of Pope Burning, which -were arranged by the Green Ribbon Club.[138] Without the mystery of -Godfrey’s death it is possible that the agitation of the plot would -have burnt itself out in the course of a few months. As it was, the -fuel was fanned into a blaze of unexampled fierceness, which did not -die down until nearly three momentous years in English history had -passed. - -No one undertaking the study of this problem is likely to underrate the -difficulty of the task. To find a solution is obviously a matter of -great importance; but it is also a matter in which small success may -reasonably be expected. The door of the secret has remained unopened -for so long. The door is not one which can be forced, and the key is -missing. It would be worse than sanguine to hope for its discovery -after a light search. Nevertheless there is some hope. “When a door-key -is missing,” says Dr. Gardiner, “the householder does not lose time in -deploring the intricacy of the lock; he tries every key at his disposal -to see whether it will fit the wards, and only sends for the locksmith -when he finds that his own keys are useless. So it is with historical -inquiry.... Try, if need be, one hypothesis after another.... Apply -them to the evidence, and when one fails to unlock the secret, try -another. Only when all imaginable keys have failed, have you a right -to call the public to witness your avowal of incompetence to solve -the riddle.”[139] In the case of the Gunpowder Plot Dr. Gardiner -tried the key afforded by the traditional story and found that it -fitted the lock. With the secret of Sir Edmund Godfrey’s death the -method must be different. There is no traditional story to test. What -seems more remarkable is that no determined attempt has been made to -construct a consistent theory to fill the empty place. Contemporaries -who approached the question answered it according to their prejudice, -and selected only such evidence as would support their preconceptions. -Later historians who have answered definitely have arrived at their -conclusions by considering the balance of general probability in the -matter, and have supported them from the contemporaries whose evidence -lies on the side to which the balance seems to them to fall. No one -has formed a hypothesis to explain the facts and tested it by all the -evidence, in whatever direction it seems to point. The following study -is an attempt to accomplish this. It would be impertinent to suppose -that it offers a perfect key to fit the lock. But it offers a key -with which trial may be made, and which may not be found altogether -of the wrong size and shape. There is at least a hypothesis to be -tested. If it jars with established fact, this will be detected. If -the test reveals assumptions which are beyond the scope of legitimate -imagination, it must be discarded. At least its abandonment will be -because it has been shown to be inconsistent with the facts of the -case. It will then leave the way clear for the same test to be applied -to another theory. - -Sir Edmund Berry—and not Edmundbury—Godfrey was a justice of the peace -for the county of Middlesex and the city of Westminster. He came of a -Kentish family of some wealth and of good repute in the county. His -elder brother, father, and grandfather had all been justices of the -peace before him, and he was popularly said himself to be “the best -justice of the peace in England.” He had been educated at Westminster -and Christ Church, Oxford, had spent some time in travelling abroad, -was a member of Gray’s Inn, and owned a prosperous business as merchant -of wood and coal in Hartshorn Lane, near Charing Cross.[140] To the -public he had long been known. During the ghastly year when London -was in the grip of the plague and all who could fled to the pure -air of the country, Godfrey stayed at his post in town. London was -given up to the dying, the dead, and their plunderers. In the midst -of the chaos Godfrey went about his duties with redoubled energy and -conspicuous gallantry. Numerous thefts from corpses were traced to -a notorious ruffian. A warrant was issued for his apprehension. The -wretch took refuge in the pest-house, whither none would follow him. -Godfrey himself entered the forbidden spot and took the man alone. As -an appropriate punishment he sentenced him to be whipped round the -churchyard which he had robbed. It was of this time that his friend Dr. -Lloyd spoke: “He was the man (shall I say the only man of his place?) -that stayed to do good, and did the good he stayed for.... His house -was not only the seat of justice, but an hospital of charity.”[141] -The king was not slow to recognise good service, especially when -the recognition was not expensive. Charles gave Godfrey a knighthood -and a silver tankard, inscribed with an eulogy of the service which -he had done during the plague and the great fire.[142] Three years -later Godfrey roused sentiments of a less grateful character in his -sovereign. Sir Alexander Frazier, the king’s physician, owed the -justice £30 for firewood. Godfrey issued a writ against the debtor; but -Frazier took the matter before the king, the bailiffs were arrested, -and together with the magistrate were committed to the porter’s lodge -at Whitehall. Charles was so much angered at the interference with his -servant that he had the bailiffs flogged, and was scarcely restrained -from ordering the infliction of the same punishment on Godfrey himself. -“The justice,” writes Pepys, “do lie and justify his act, and says -he will suffer in the cause for the people, and do refuse to receive -almost any nutriment.” To the great wrath of the king, Godfrey was -supported by the Lord Chief Justice and several of the judges. After an -imprisonment of six days Charles was forced to set the magistrate at -liberty and to restore him to the commission of the peace from which -his name had been struck off.[143] - -A portrait of Godfrey belongs to the parish of St. Martin in -the Fields.[144] It shows the bust of a spare man, dressed in a -close-fitting coat of dark material, a high lace collar, and a -full-bottomed wig. The head is large, the forehead wide and high, the -nose hooked, the chin strong and prominent. The frank eyes and pleasant -expression of the firm lips belie the idea of melancholy. Godfrey’s -height was exceptional, and his appearance made more striking by a -pronounced stoop. He commonly wore a broad-brimmed hat with a gold -band, and in walking fixed his eyes on the ground, as though in deep -thought. Now and again he wiped his mouth with a handkerchief. “He was -a man,” writes Roger North, “so remarkable in person and garb, that, -described at Wapping, he could not be mistaken at Westminster.”[145] -Godfrey moved in good society. He numbered the Earl of Danby among his -acquaintance, was on terms of friendship with Sir William Jones and the -Lord Chancellor, and counted Gilbert Burnet and Dr. Lloyd among his -intimates. - -Early in 1678 he was ordered to the south of France for the benefit of -his health. He stayed for some months at Montpellier, and there admired -the construction of the great canal which Louis XIV was undertaking to -connect the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.[146] Late in the summer -Godfrey returned to England and resumed his magisterial duties in -London. It was scarcely beyond the ordinary scope of these when on -September 6 three men entered his office and desired him to swear one -of them to the truth of certain information which he had committed to -writing. The three were Titus Oates, Dr. Tonge, and Christopher Kirkby. -The paper contained Oates’ famous information drawn up in forty-three -articles. Oates made affidavit to the truth of the contents, and his -oath was witnessed by his two friends and attested by Godfrey. They -refused however to allow the magistrate to read the information in -detail, “telling him that his Majesty had already a true copy thereof, -and that it was not convenient that it should be yet communicated to -anybody else, only acquainting him in general that it contained matter -of treason and felony and other high crimes.” Godfrey was satisfied, -and the three men departed without more ado.[147] Oates professed -afterwards to have taken this course as a safeguard for himself and his -discovery from the vengeance of the Jesuits. His motive was far more -probably to form a connection apart from the court, where he had been -poorly received. At this point, so far as Godfrey was concerned, the -matter rested. He was relieved of responsibility by the fact that the -information had been forwarded to the king, and there were no steps -for him to take. But on the morning of Saturday, September 28, Oates -appeared before him again. Kirkby and Tonge had been summoned to the -council the previous evening, but before they could be fetched the -council had risen after giving orders that they should attend the next -day. During the last three weeks the informer and his allies had felt -their distrust of the council become more acute. While Oates had been -engaged in writing copies of his information, Tonge had on several -occasions been refused admittance to the Lord Treasurer. They believed -that the discovery was neglected, and probably suspected that the -summons to Whitehall was the prelude to discredit and imprisonment. -To guard against this they determined to remove the matter from the -discretion of the council. Two copies of the information, now in the -form of eighty-three articles, were laid before Godfrey, who attested -Oates’ oath to the truth of their contents. One Godfrey retained -in his possession, the other was taken by Oates to the council at -Whitehall.[148] - -Godfrey was now in the centre of the intrigue. His eminence and -reputation for the fearless performance of his duty had no doubt -directed Oates to select him as the recipient of the discovery. The -fact that he was known to have resisted pressure from court with -success on a former occasion made it likely that he would not submit -to be bullied or cajoled into suppressing the information if, as Oates -feared, the court had determined on this. He would certainly insist -upon making the facts public and would force an inquiry into the -matter. As a matter of fact Oates and Tonge were mistaken, for the -council proposed to investigate the case thoroughly. Even so, it was -from their point of view a good move to lay the information before -Godfrey. It would appear to be evidence of Oates’ desire to act in -a straightforward manner and frankly according to the law. But in -doing so they introduced a complication of which they were probably -unaware. Godfrey was not only remarkable for his ability as justice -of the peace, but for the tolerance with which he dealt between the -parties and creeds with which the business of every magistrate lay. -He was credited with sound principles in church and state, but he did -not find it inconsistent with these to allow his vigilance to sleep on -occasion. The penal laws against dissenters were not to his mind, and -he refrained from their strict execution. He “was not apt to search -for priests or mass-houses: so that few men of his zeal lived upon -better terms with the papists than he did.” Dr. Lloyd put the matter in -his funeral sermon: “The compassion that he had for all men that did -amiss extended itself to all manner of dissenters, and amongst them he -had a kindness for the persons of many Roman Catholics.” Among these -was Edward Coleman, secretary of the Duchess of York, who was now -accused by Oates of high treason.[149] The intimacy between the two -men exercised a profound influence upon the course of after events, -which Oates could not have foreseen. After Godfrey’s disappearance -his connection with Coleman became known; but at the time it was only -apparent that Godfrey was an energetic magistrate who possessed the -somewhat rare quality of being impervious to court influence. That -he was upon friendly terms with the Roman Catholics was, for the -informer’s purpose, of little moment. Oates was in search of support -outside the council-chamber, and Godfrey offered exactly what he -wanted. In case the government wished to suppress the discovery of the -plot, Godfrey was not the man to acquiesce in such a design on account -of private considerations. - -On Saturday, October 12, Sir Edmund Godfrey left his house in Hartshorn -Lane between nine and ten o’clock in the morning. That night he did -not return home. The next day Godfrey’s clerk sent to inquire at his -mother’s house in Hammersmith. Obtaining no news there, the clerk -communicated with his master’s two brothers, who lived in the city. -They sent word that they would come to Hartshorn Lane later in the day, -and enjoined the clerk meanwhile to keep Godfrey’s absence secret. In -the evening Mr. Michael and Mr. Benjamin Godfrey appeared at their -brother’s house, and set out in company with the clerk upon a round of -inquiry. That night and all Monday they continued the search, but could -nowhere obtain tidings of the missing man. On Tuesday the brothers -laid information of Godfrey’s absence before the Lord Chancellor, and -in the afternoon of the same day the clerk publicly announced his -disappearance at a crowded funeral.[150] Up to this time the fact -was unknown except to Godfrey’s household and near relatives. It was -afterwards asserted by those who wished to prove his suicide that the -secret had been kept in order to prevent discovery of the manner of his -death. The law directed that the estate of a person dying by his own -hand should be forfeited to the crown, and to prevent the forfeiture -Godfrey’s family concealed the fact. Sir Roger L’Estrange devoted some -effort to establish this.[151] He was however so unwise as immediately -to demolish his case by collecting evidence to show that the dead man’s -brothers had approached the Lord Chancellor, “to beg his lordship’s -assistance to secure their brother’s estate, in case he should be -found to have made himself away.”[152] Certainly, if the Godfreys -had known his suicide and had been moved to conceal it in order to -save his estate, the last person in the world to whom they would have -admitted their motive was the Lord Chancellor. L’Estrange’s sense of -the contradictory was small. Not only did he commit this blunder, -but he was at considerable pains to show that the fact of Godfrey’s -disappearance was never concealed at all; on the contrary, the news was -bruited about the town as early as the afternoon of the day on which -Sir Edmund left his house, in order to raise a cry that he had been -murdered by the Roman Catholics.[153] He did not consider that, as the -only persons who had first-hand news of Godfrey’s absence were members -of his family, the rumour must have emanated from themselves; whereas -he persisted at the same time that their one object was to keep the -fact secret. There was good reason why the family should be unwilling -to publish Sir Edmund’s disappearance until they had, if possible, -some clue to his whereabouts or his fate. A man of his prominence and -consideration could not vanish from the scene without giving rise to -reports of an unpleasant nature. When for expedience sake his brothers -announced that he was missing and brought the matter to the notice of -government, there sprang into being tales which any persons of repute -would have been glad to avoid, none the less because they perhaps -believed that some of them might be true. On the Wednesday and Thursday -following stories of Godfrey’s adventures were rife. He had chosen to -disappear to escape creditors, to whom he owed large sums of money. -As no creditors appeared this notion was exploded.[154] He had been -suddenly married in scandalous circumstances to a lady of fortune. He -had been traced to a house of ill repute, now in one part of the town, -now in another, and there found in the midst of a debauch. With one of -these last stories the Duke of Norfolk went armed to Whitehall, and was -so ill-advised as to announce it for a fact. But gradually, as none of -them gained support, the rumour spread that Godfrey had been murdered. -It was reported that he had been last seen at the Cock-pit, the Earl of -Danby’s house; then at the Duke of Norfolk’s residence, Arundel House; -then at St. James’, the Duke of York’s palace; even Whitehall, it was -said, was not spared.[155] The general belief was, “the Papists have -made away with him.” Everywhere the missing magistrate afforded the -main topic of conversation. The government was occupied with the case. -Michael and Benjamin Godfrey were summoned before the council, and -there was talk of a proclamation on the subject.[156] - -Before further steps could be taken definite news came to hand. On -Thursday, October 17, a man, who could never afterwards be found, -came into the shop of a London bookseller in the afternoon with the -information that Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey had been found dead near St. -Pancras’ Church with a sword thrust through his body. A Scotch minister -and his friend were in the shop and carried the news to Burnet.[157] -The report was correct. At two o’clock in the afternoon two men were -walking across the fields at the foot of Primrose Hill, when they saw, -lying at the edge of a ditch, a stick, a scabbard, a belt, and a pair -of gloves. Pushing aside the brambles, they found a man’s corpse in -the ditch, head downwards. With this discovery they proceeded to the -Whitehouse Inn, which stood in a lane not far off. John Rawson, the -innkeeper, offered them a shilling to fetch the articles which they -had seen on the bank, but rain had begun to fall, and they decided to -wait till it should cease. By five o’clock the rain had stopped, and -Rawson, with a constable and several of his neighbours, set out, guided -by the men who had brought the news. They found the body at the bottom -of the ditch resting in a crooked position; “the left hand under the -head upon the bottom of the ditch; the right hand a little stretched -out, and touching the bank on the right side; the knees touching the -bottom of the ditch, and the feet not touching the ground, but resting -upon the brambles”: through the body, which hung transversely, a sword -had been driven with such force that its point had pierced the back -and protruded for the length of two hand-breadths. In the ditch lay -the dead man’s hat and periwig. The constable called the company to -notice particularly the details of the situation. They then hoisted -the corpse out of the ditch, and to facilitate the carriage withdrew -the sword; it was “somewhat hard in the drawing, and crashed upon the -bone in the plucking of it forth.” The body was set upon two watchmen’s -staves and carried to the Whitehouse Inn, where it was placed upon a -table. As they came into the light the men recognised, what they had -already guessed, that the dead man was Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. A note -of the articles found was taken. Besides those brought from the bank -and the ditch, a large sum of money was found in the pockets.[158] On -the fingers were three rings. Leaving two watchmen to guard the body, -the constable and half a dozen others rode off to Hartshorn Lane. There -they found Godfrey’s brothers and his brother-in-law, Mr. Plucknet. -Towards ten o’clock at night the constable returned to the inn with -Plucknet, who formally identified the body. Rawson and Brown, the -constable, then took him to view the place where it had been found, by -the light of a lantern. The same night the brothers Godfrey sent to -Whitehall to notify what had passed, and a warrant was issued for the -summons of a jury to take the inquest.[159] - -On the following morning a jury of eighteen men and Mr. Cooper, coroner -of Middlesex, met at the Whitehouse. At the instance of some officious -tradesmen the coroner of Westminster offered his services also, but -they were properly refused.[160] The jury sat all day, and as the -evidence was unfinished, adjourned in the evening. On Saturday, October -19, the inquest was continued at the Rose and Crown in St. Giles’ in -the Fields, and late at night the verdict was returned: “That certain -persons to the jurors unknown, a certain piece of linen cloth of no -value, about the neck of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, then and there, -feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, did tie and -fasten; and therewith the said Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, feloniously, -wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, did suffocate and strangle, -of which suffocation and strangling he, the said Sir Edmundbury -Godfrey, then and there instantly died.”[161] Stripped of its cumbrous -verbiage the jury gave a verdict of murder by strangling against some -person or persons unknown. They were determined in this chiefly by -the medical evidence.[162] Testimony was given at great length on the -position and appearance of the corpse in the ditch. A number of people -had examined the body and the spot where it was found. Five surgeons -and two of the king’s apothecaries formed professional opinions on the -subject. At the inquest only two of the surgeons gave evidence, but -the testimony of the others, taken at a later date, entirely supported -their judgment. To points of fact there was no lack of witnesses. - -Godfrey’s movements were traced to one o’clock on the afternoon of -Saturday, October 12. At nine o’clock in the morning one of the jurymen -had seen him talking to a milk-woman near Paddington; at eleven another -had seen him returning from Paddington to London; at one Radcliffe, -an oilman, had seen him pass his house in the Strand, near Charing -Cross.[163] It was proved that on Tuesday there had been nothing in -the ditch where Godfrey’s corpse was found two days later.[164] Further -evidence of this was given at the trial of Thompson, Pain, and Farwell -in 1682 for a libel “importing that Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey murdered -himself,” Mr. Robert Forset was then subpœnaed to appear as a witness, -but was not called. He deposed before the Lord Mayor that on Tuesday, -October 15, 1678 he had hunted a pack of harriers over the field where -the body was found, and that his friend Mr. Harwood, lately deceased, -had on the next day hunted the hounds over the same place and along -the ditch itself; on neither occasion was anything to be seen of cane, -gloves, or corpse.[165] An examination of the body revealed remarkable -peculiarities. From the neck to the top of the stomach the flesh was -much bruised, and seemed to have been stamped with a man’s feet or -beaten with some blunt weapon.[166] Below the left ear was a contused -swelling, as if a hard knot had been tied underneath. Round the neck -was a mark indented in the flesh, merging above and below into thick -purple creases. The mark was not visible until the collar had been -unbuttoned. The surgeons’ opinion was unanimous to the effect that it -had been caused by a cloth or handkerchief tightly tied, and that the -collar had been fastened over it.[167] The neck was dislocated.[168] -The body was lissom, and in spots on the face and the bruised part of -the chest showed signs of putrefaction. Two wounds had been inflicted -on the breast. One pierced as far as a rib, by which the sword had been -stopped. From the other, which was under the left breast, the sword -had been extracted by the constable; it had been driven through the -cavity of the heart and had transfixed the body.[169] These facts were -suggestive, but the point which deservedly attracted most attention -was the striking absence of blood from the clothes of the dead man and -the place where his corpse had been found. In spite of the rain the -ditch, which was thickly protected by brambles and bushes, was dry, -and would certainly have shewn marks of blood if any had been there. -The evidence is positive that there was none. Brown, the constable, -Rawson, and Mr. Plucknet examined the spot with lanterns on the night -of Thursday, October 17. Early the next morning the ditch was searched -by several other persons. At no time did it contain traces of any blood -whatever. A few yards to the side of the ditch the grass was stained -with blood and serum which had oozed from the wound in the back after -the withdrawal of the sword. Some stumps, over which the men carrying -the body to the inn had stumbled, were stained in the same way. As they -had entered the house the body had been jerked against the doorpost; -similar marks were found there; and when it was set on the table there -was a further effusion of blood and serum which dripped upon the -floor of the inn parlour. With the exception of the part of the shirt -which covered the wound at the back, the clothes of the dead man were -without any stain of blood.[170] The importance of this is obvious. A -sword driven through the living heart must produce a great discharge of -blood. The clothes of a man thus killed would be saturated with blood. -The ground on which he lay would be covered with it. Only in one case -would this not happen. If the sword plugged the orifice of the wound in -such a way as wholly to stop the flow of blood from it, the quantity -which escaped would be inconsiderable. In the case of Sir Edmund -Godfrey this could not have taken place. L’Estrange says: “The sword -stopped the fore part of the wound, as tight as a tap.”[171] But the -only manner in which he could suggest that Godfrey committed suicide -was by resting his sword on the edge of the bank beyond the ditch and -falling forward on it.[172] It is impossible to believe that if he had -killed himself in this manner the sword should not have been disturbed -or twisted by his fall. As he fell, it must have been violently -wrenched, the wound would have been torn, and the ensuing rush of -blood have flooded the ditch and his body lying in it.[173] Apart from -L’Estrange’s bare word, there is no reason to believe that the wound -was plugged by the blade of the sword. This would have been in itself -a remarkable circumstance; and the fact that there is no evidence to -the point, when every other detail was so carefully noted, raises a -presumption that the statement was untrue. Even if it had been the -case, the second wound would still afford matter for consideration. It -would be sufficiently strange that a man wishing to end his life should -bethink himself of falling on his sword only after bungling over the -easier way of suicide by stabbing himself. But it is hardly credible -that a considerable flesh wound should be made and the weapon withdrawn -from it without some flow of blood resulting; and there was no blood -at all on the front of Godfrey’s body or on the clothes covering the -two wounds. The surgeons and the jury who trusted them were perfectly -right in their conclusion. There can be no substantial doubt that the -wounds found on Godfrey’s body were not the cause of his death, but -were inflicted at some time after the event. As a dead man cannot be -supposed to thrust a sword through his own corpse, he had certainly -been murdered. When this point was reached, the nature of his end was -evident. The neck was dislocated and showed signs of strangulation. -Clearly the magistrate had been throttled in a violent struggle, during -which his neck was broken and his body hideously bruised. The clerk -proved that when his master went out on the morning of October 12 “he -had then a laced band about his neck.” When the body was found, this -had disappeared. Presumably it was with this that the act had been -accomplished. - -That the murder was not for vulgar ends of robbery was proved by the -valuables found upon the body. Another fact of importance which came -to light at the inquest shewed as clearly that it was dictated by some -deeper motive. The lanes leading to the fields surrounding Primrose -Hill were deep and miry. If Godfrey had walked thither to commit -suicide, his shoes would have told a tale of the ground over which he -had come. When his body was found the shoes were clean.[174] Upon this -was based the conclusion that Godfrey had not walked to Primrose Hill -on that day at all. It was clear that he had been murdered in some -other place, that the murderers had then conveyed his body to Primrose -Hill, had transfixed it with his sword, and thrown it into the ditch, -that the dead man might seem to have taken his own life. - -The result of the inquest was confirmed by what passed some years -later. In the course of the year 1681 a series of letters were -published in the _Loyal Protestant Intelligencer_, purporting to prove -that Sir Edmund Godfrey had committed suicide. Thompson, Pain, and -Farwell, the publisher and authors of the letters, were tried before -Chief Justice Pemberton on June 20, 1682 for libel and misdemeanour. -The accused attempted to justify their action, but the witnesses whom -they called gave evidence which only established still more firmly the -facts elicitated at the inquest. Belief in the Popish Plot was at this -time on the wane throughout the country, and at court was almost a -sign of disloyalty. The men were tried in the fairest manner possible, -and upon full evidence were convicted. Thompson and Farwell were -pilloried and fined £100 each, and Pain, whose share in the business -had been less than theirs, escaped with a fine.[175] None but those -who were willing to accept L’Estrange’s bad testimony, assertions, and -insinuations could refrain from believing that Godfrey’s death was a -cold-blooded murder. Even some who would have been glad to credit his -suicide were convinced. The king certainly could not be suspected of a -desire to establish belief in the murder. When news of the discovery -of the body first reached him, he thought that Godfrey had killed -himself.[176] But when Dr. Lloyd, who went with Burnet to view the body -at the Whitehouse Inn, brought word of what they had seen, Charles was, -to outward appearance at all events, convinced that this could not have -been the case. He was open enough in his raillery at the witnesses of -the plot, but he never used his witty tongue to turn Godfrey’s murder -into a suicide.[177] - -The rumours which had before connected the magistrate’s disappearance -with the Roman Catholics were now redoubled in vigour.[178] Conviction -of their truth became general. The Whig party under the lead of -Shaftesbury boomed the case. Portrait medals of Godfrey were struck -representing the Pope as directing his murder. Ballads were composed -in Godfrey’s memory. Sermons were preached on the subject. Dr. -Stillingfleet’s effusion ran into two editions in as many days, and ten -thousand copies were sold in less than a month.[179] An enterprising -cutler made a special “Godfrey” dagger and sold three thousand in one -day. On one side of the blade was graven: Remember the murder of Edmond -Bury Godfrey; on the other: Remember religion. One, ornamented with -a gilt handle, was sent to the Duke of York. Ladies of high degree -carried these daggers about their persons and slept with them beneath -their pillows, to guard themselves from a similar doom. Others as -timid followed the lead of the Countess of Shaftesbury, who had a set -of pocket pistols made for her muff.[180] The corpse of the murdered -magistrate was brought to London in state, and lay exposed in the -street for two days. A continual procession of people who came to gaze -on the sight passed up and down. Few who came departed without rage, -terror, and revenge rooted in their hearts. On October 31 the body was -borne to burial at St. Martin’s in the Fields. Seventy-two clergymen -walked before; above a thousand persons of distinction followed after. -The church was crowded. Dr. Lloyd, afterwards Dean of Bangor and -Bishop of St. Asaph, himself a friend of Godfrey, preached a funeral -sermon from the text: “Died Abner as a fool dieth?” It consisted of an -elaborate eulogy of the dead man and an inflammatory attack upon the -Roman Catholics. To crown the theatrical pomp of this parade, there -mounted the pulpit beside the preacher two able-bodied divines, to -guard his life from the attack which it was confidently expected would -be made. “A most portentous spectacle, sure,” exclaims North. “Three -parsons in one pulpit! Enough of itself, on a less occasion, to excite -terror in the audience.”[181] There was one thing still lacking. As -yet no evidence had appeared to connect any one with the crime. On -October 21 a committee of secrecy was appointed by the House of Commons -to inquire into the Popish Plot and the murder of Sir Edmund Berry -Godfrey. On the 23rd a similar committee was established by the House -of Lords.[182] - -The secretaries of state and the privy council were already -overwhelmed with work which the investigation of the plot had thrown -upon their shoulders. For ten days the committees laboured at the -inquiry, and examined some dozens of witnesses without drawing nearer -to the desired end. Nothing appeared to throw light upon the subject. -Every clue which was taken up vanished in a haze of rumour and -uncertainty. There seemed every probability that the murderers would -escape detection. But information was soon to be forthcoming to shed a -ray of light upon the scene. - - - - - CHAPTER II - - BEDLOE AND ATKINS - - -On October 20 a proclamation was published offering a pardon and -the reward of £500 to any one whose evidence should lead to the -apprehension and conviction of the murderers. Four days later a second -proclamation was issued containing in addition to these a promise of -protection to the discoverer of the culprits. It is easy to point out -that this course offered temptations to perjury and to sneer at the -motives of the government, but it must be remembered that in the days -when the police were a force of the future it was only by obtaining -an accomplice in the crime to give evidence that criminals could in -many cases be brought to justice. The proclamations took effect. At -five o’clock in the afternoon of Friday, November 1, Samuel Atkins -was arrested at the offices of the Admiralty in Derby House for being -concerned in the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. Atkins was clerk to -Samuel Pepys, the secretary of the navy board. He was arrested on the -evidence of a certain Captain Charles Atkins. The two men were not -related by blood, but were acquaintances, and “for name-sake have been -called cousins.” Captain Atkins had laid information before Henry -Coventry on October 27.[183] Three days later he made the same relation -to the privy council, and on Friday, November 1, swore to his statement -before Sir Philip Howard, justice of the peace for the county of -Middlesex. He deposed: “That in Derby-house, being in discourse with -Samuel Atkins (clerk of Mr. Pepys, secretary of the Admiralty), the -said Samuel did say that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey had very much vilified -his master, and that if he lived long would be the ruin of him; upon -which the said Samuel did ask this examinant whether he did think Child -to be a man of courage and secrecy; to which this examinant did reply -that the said Child had been at sea, and had behaved himself very well, -as he had been informed; upon which the said Samuel bid this examinant -send the said Child to his master, Mr. Pepys, but not to him the said -Samuel, for that he would not be seen to know anything of it. This -examinant did endeavour to find out the said Child, but did not meet -with him till the day after the discourse had happened between him -and Samuel Atkins, at the Three Tobacco Pipes in Holborn, where this -examinant did tell Child that Secretary Pepys would speak with him; -and the next time that this examinant did see the said Child (after -he had given him that direction) he, the said Child, did endeavour to -engage the said examinant to join him in the murder of a man.”[184] The -quarrel between Pepys and Godfrey, he said further, was occasioned by -the discovery of the Popish Plot.[185] - -Samuel Atkins was immediately carried before the committee of inquiry -of the House of Lords. The conduct of the committee reflected anything -but credit upon its members. An account of the proceedings in his case -was afterwards drawn up by Atkins for Mr. Pepys.[186] In the course -of them he had been subjected to great annoyance and ill-treatment; -he had been imprisoned for a considerable length of time, and had -been tried for his life. Every motive was present to induce him to be -unfair towards the instigators of his prosecution. Even if he were -perfectly honest in drawing up his account, it could hardly be an -accurate relation of what took place. The careful literary form in -which it is written shows that he arranged it elaborately and revised -it often. Since his papers were twice taken from him in prison, he -must have composed it afterwards from memory.[187] But after full -allowance is made for this, the statement probably represents with -considerable truth what took place. It was not written for publication -as a controversial pamphlet, but for Pepys’ private information. -Atkins was likely therefore to attempt as far as possible to tell the -truth. Moreover the conclusions to be drawn from it are supported by -a consideration of the evidence produced in the case and the trial in -which it ended.[188] - -Atkins indignantly denied the whole story. He was several times called -before the committee, and received considerable attention from the Earl -of Shaftesbury himself, its most prominent member. Noble lords and -reverend bishops alternately coaxed him to confess and threatened him -with the awful consequences of a refusal. Plain hints were given to him -that both he and his master must certainly be papists, and that he had -only to admit their complicity in Godfrey’s murder to gain liberty, -pardon, and prosperity. In the intervals he was remanded to Newgate to -reflect upon the best means of getting out of it. Before he knew what -reception his revelations would find with the parties, Oates had taken -care to exonerate the Duke of York from all concern in the plot. It -would be a fine stroke for Shaftesbury, with whose schemes this did not -at all accord, if he could implicate the duke in the murder. If only -Atkins could be brought to accuse Pepys, the duke, under whom he had -worked for many years at the Admiralty, would offer an easy mark. - -That this was Shaftesbury’s real object can hardly be doubted. Captain -Atkins was known to be a person of disreputable character, and gave -his evidence in the most suspicious manner.[189] When the man Child -was produced he did not know Samuel Atkins by sight, and was unable -to say anything about the matter.[190] The captain was treated by the -committee with consideration. Although some show was made of pressing -him in examination on his statements, the pressure was removed as soon -as it appeared that his embarrassment was likely to lead to awkward -consequences to his patrons.[191] He was sent to interview his namesake -in Newgate in the hope of extorting admissions in the course of -conversation, and seemed to have been posted with fresh charges against -Pepys and the Duke. He was evidently prepared to spice and expand his -evidence in this direction whenever it seemed desirable.[192] But -before the time arrived for this, a new witness appeared upon the scene. - -On Wednesday, October 30, a man named William Bedloe wrote from -Bristol to Henry Coventry, secretary of state, signifying that he -had information to give concerning the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey, -and desiring aid and protection in coming to London. The next day he -wrote in a similar strain to Secretary Sir Joseph Williamson. Both -the secretaries answered him. To make sure that he should not think -better of his project and escape, Williamson wrote to the mayor of -Bristol enclosing a communication for Bedloe, while Coventry addressed -his reply to Bedloe and enclosed a letter to the mayor with orders -to give whatever assistance might be necessary.[193] Bedloe gave -himself up forthwith to the mayor and was sent post-haste to town. On -November 7 he made a deposition before the council and was examined in -the presence of the king; on the 8th he was examined by the Lords’ -committee and made a statement at the bar of the House.[194] It has -constantly been said that at his first examination Bedloe denied all -knowledge of the Popish Plot, and after professing to speak only to -Godfrey’s murder, the next day expanded his information to embrace more -general topics; and it is told that the king on hearing this exclaimed, -“Surely this man has received a new lesson during the last twenty-four -hours.[195]” The story is a mere fiction. In his first deposition he -“acquainted the Lords that he had several things to communicate to them -which related to the plot, and that he was able to confirm several -passages which Mr. Oates had discovered concerning the plot.”[196] -Examined on this, he gave a long account of the military operations to -be taken by the Roman Catholics; Chepstow Castle was to be surrendered -to Lord Powis, who was to command an army of twenty thousand “religious -men” shipped from Spain; a similar number were to sail from Flanders -to join Lord Bellasis at Bridlington Bay. He had known this for four -years, and had been employed by the Jesuits in London to carry letters -to Douay, Paris, and Madrid.[197] As far as Bedloe’s character is -concerned the matter is immaterial, for another lie from his mouth -would scarcely add weight to the scale of his perjury; but it is -important not to exaggerate the folly and credulity of the government, -and here at least it has been maligned. This was little more than -a support for Oates’ story in general. The more remarkable part of -Bedloe’s information dealt with the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. All -that need be extracted from it at this point is his evidence against -Atkins. Godfrey, he swore, had been murdered on Saturday, October -12, in Somerset House, the queen’s palace. He was himself to have -been one of the party to do the deed, but failed to come at the right -time. Soon after nine o’clock on Monday night he had been taken by -one of the murderers to see the dead body in the room where it had -been laid. There, in a small company, he saw by the light of a dark -lantern, standing near the corpse, two men “who owned themselves, the -one to be Lord Bellasis’ servant, and the other to be Mr. Atkins, -Pepys’ clerk.”[198] The account which was communicated to the Lords -concludes: “The same time Mr. Atkins being called in before Mr. Bedloe, -Mr. Bedloe saith that he is in all things very like the person he saw -in the room with Sir Edmundbury Godfrey’s dead body; and he doth verily -believe it was him that owned himself to be Pepys’ clerk; but because -he never saw him before that time, he cannot positively swear it, but -he doth verily believe him to be that man.”[199] According to Atkins’ -own account Bedloe’s charge against him at this meeting was still more -vague. Bedloe was asked if he knew the accused. Turning to Atkins -he said, “I believe, Sir, I have seen you somewhere, I think, but I -cannot tell where; I don’t indeed remember your face.” “Is this the -man, Mr. Bedloe?” asked the Duke of Buckingham. “My Lord,” returned the -informer, “I can’t swear this is he; ’twas a young man, and he told me -his name was Atkins, a clerk, belonging to Derby House; but I cannot -swear this is the same person.”[200] - -Bedloe was a man of evil character. He had been in the service of Lord -Bellasis, and had subsequently held a commission as lieutenant in a -foot company in Flanders.[201] He was of a type not uncommon in the -seventeenth century, one of the vast crowd who lived a roving life of -poverty and dishonesty, travelling from one country to another, in -many services and under many names, living upon their own wits and -other people’s money, men for whom no falsehood was too black, no crime -too gross to be turned to profit, men without truth, without shame, -without fear of God or man. Bedloe was afterwards known to be notorious -throughout Europe. He had been imprisoned in Spain for obtaining money -under false pretences. He had been imprisoned in the Marshalsea for -debt. He had been sentenced to death for robbery in Normandy, but had -escaped from prison. When the agitation of the Popish Plot broke out -he had only lately been released from Newgate. He had passed himself -off on the continent as a nobleman, and had swindled his way from -Dunkirk to Madrid. In Flanders his name was Lord Newport, in France -he called himself Lord Cornwallis, in Spain Lord Gerard.[202] When he -was examined before the House of Lords he denied without reservation -that he knew Titus Oates.[203] The government made inquiries behind -his back. His mother, his sister, and a friend were examined by the -Bishop of Llandaff on Bedloe’s behaviour between November 2 and 5, when -he had stayed at his mother’s house at Chepstow. It appeared that he -had discoursed to them about the plot, and had announced his intention -of discovering the murderers of Godfrey; but he also told them that -he had known Oates intimately when they were together in Spain.[204] -This might have led to unfortunate consequences. Bedloe attempted to -recover the slip by saying that he had known Oates personally, but -not by that name, since at Valladolid he had called himself Ambrose. -Oates supported him by the statement that he had been acquainted with -Bedloe in Spain under the name of Williams.[205] The recovery was not -sufficient, for Bedloe had told his family that he had known Oates -by the same name; but the unsystematic method of examination came to -the informer’s aid, and the fact passed at the time unnoticed. His -denial of Oates’ name and recognition of his person took place before -the House of Lords, while the facts which proved his perjury in this -only came to the notice of the privy council. When examinations of -the same persons on the same or different points might be conducted -by the secretaries of state, by the privy council, at the bar of the -House of Lords, at the bar of the House of Commons, or before the -secret committee of either one house or the other, and when it was the -business of nobody to dissect and digest the results of this mass of -raw evidence, it can hardly be a matter of surprise that contradictions -went undetected and lying statements unrebuked. - -In spite of this false step Bedloe was a man of some ingenuity and -even moderation. In his evidence against Atkins he had left the way -open to advance, if possible, and charge Pepys’ clerk more fully with -being implicated in the murder, or to retreat, if necessary, and -protest with a profusion of sincerity that he had been hoaxed. He was -far too careful to run the risk of definitely accusing any one with -having been in a certain place at a certain time until he was sure -that his reputation would not be ruined by running upon an alibi. The -tactics which he employed were justified by their success. After the -examination of Friday, November 8, Atkins was sent back to Newgate -and heavily ironed. On the following Monday Captain Atkins was again -sent to him in prison and exhorted him to be cheerful and confess his -guilt. This interview was the prelude to a visit on the next day from -four members of the House of Commons, headed by Sacheverell and Birch. -They went over the whole case to the prisoner, pointed out the extreme -danger in which he was situated, urged him with every argument to -confess, and declared that his refusal would be held to aggravate the -crime of the murder. Atkins remained obdurate, and the four left him -with serious countenances, Sacheverell saying as he went away that the -prisoner was “one of the most ingenious men to say nothing” whom he -had ever met.[206] Since nothing was to be gained in this fashion it -was determined to bring Atkins to trial. The date seems to have been -fixed for Wednesday, November 20, the day before the conviction of -Staley. When the day came the case was postponed. Atkins remained in -Newgate, and was allowed pen, ink, and paper to compose his defence. -The fact was that the committee had received intelligence that Atkins -could produce good evidence of an alibi for the evening of October 14, -the only point at which the evidence of Bedloe touched him. He had in -the meantime by the help of his friends collected witnesses, and the -crown was unable to face the trial without knowing what statements they -would make. When Atkins had committed enough to writing, his papers -were seized, and gave to the prosecution detailed information on the -subject.[207] On December 13 his witnesses were summoned before the -committee of the House of Lords. They proved to be Captain Vittells -of the yacht _Catherine_ and five of his men. They were examined at -length. On Monday, October 14, Atkins had sent word to Captain Vittells -that he would bring two gentlewomen, his friends, to see the yacht. At -half-past four o’clock in the afternoon they appeared at Greenwich, -where the vessel lay, and came aboard. The captain took them to his -cabin, and they drank a glass of wine. The wine was good, the company -pleasant, and they stayed drinking till seven o’clock. Atkins then -sent away his boat and returned to supper. After supper they drank -again, and the gentlemen toasted the ladies, and the ladies toasted the -gentlemen, till night had fallen and the clock pointed to half-past -ten. By this time they were all, said the captain, pretty fresh, and -Mr. Atkins very much fuddled. Captain Vittells put his guests, with a -Dutch cheese and half a dozen bottles of wine as a parting gift, into a -boat belonging to the yacht and sent them to land. The tide flowed so -strongly that the men rowing the wherry could not make London Bridge, -but set Atkins and the two ladies ashore at Billingsgate at half-past -eleven o’clock, and assisted them into a coach. “Atkins,” said one of -the sailors, “was much in drink, and slept most of the way up.”[208] He -must have blessed the fate that led him to joviality and intoxication -on that evening. It was obvious that he could not have been soberly -watching Sir Edmund Godfrey’s corpse at Somerset House when he was at -the time named by Bedloe, and for two hours after, first hilarious and -then somnolent at Greenwich. The evidence was unimpeachable. The only -fact revealed by a somewhat sharp examination was that some of the -sailors had signed a paper for the information of Mr. Pepys stating -at what time they had left Atkins. One of them admitted that he could -not read, but added immediately that he was a Protestant. In the -seventeenth century sound religious principles covered a want of many -letters. - -At this point the case rested. A true bill had already been found -against Atkins by the grand jury, but it was not until Tuesday, -February 11, 1679 that he could obtain a trial.[209] Important -developments had in the meantime taken place, and Atkins was no -longer the game at which the plot-hunters drove. On the day before he -was brought to the bar three men were convicted of the same murder -for which he was indicted on two counts, both as principal and as -accessory. The former of these was now dropped, and Atkins was tried -only as an accessory to the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. The centre -of interest in the case had moved away from him and Mr. Pepys and the -Duke of York, and the same evidence originally preferred against him -was produced in court without addition. The case for the prosecution -was lamentably weak. Captain Atkins swore to his previous story at -greater length, but without any new statement of importance.[210] -Bedloe followed with the story of the man who gave his name as Atkins -at the meeting over Godfrey’s corpse; but whereas he had formerly -seemed willing to recognise Atkins without much difficulty, he now -professed himself entirely unable to swear to his identity. “There -was a very little light,” he said, “and the man was one I was not -acquainted with.... So that it is hard for me to swear that this is -he. And now I am upon one gentleman’s life, I would not be guilty of -a falsehood to take away another’s. I do not remember that he was -such a person as the prisoner is; as far as I can remember he had a -more manly face than he hath, and a beard.”[211] The crown evidence -was so feeble that it was never even proposed to call the man Child. -An attempt was made to show that Atkins was a Roman Catholic, but -failed ignominiously.[212] The prisoner called Captain Vittells and -one of his men, who proved an alibi in the most decisive manner; the -Attorney-General threw up his case, and the jury without leaving the -bar returned a verdict of not guilty.[213] Sir William Jones was -anxious that no one should go away with the opinion that the king’s -evidence had been disproved. The Lord Chief Justice supported him. He -pointed out that Bedloe had not been contradicted, and that every one -who appeared at the trial might speak the truth and the prisoner yet -be perfectly innocent.[214] What he did not say, and what neither he -nor many others thought, was that Bedloe might equally be telling the -grossest falsehoods. - - - - - CHAPTER III - - BEDLOE AND PRANCE - - -The change in the situation had been caused by the appearance of a -witness whose evidence about the murder was of the greatest weight, -and whose position in the intrigues of the Popish Plot has always been -of some obscurity. Bedloe’s information was already of a startling -character. It was as follows. Early in October he had been offered by -two Jesuits, Walsh and Le Fevre, the sum of £4000 to assist in killing -a man “that was a great obstacle to their designs.” He gave his word -that he would do so, but when on Friday, October 11, Le Fevre told -him to be ready at four o’clock the next day to do the business, he -became nervous and failed to be at the place of meeting. On Sunday he -met Le Fevre by accident in Fleet Street, and by appointment joined -him between 8 and 9 o’clock P.M. the next day in the court of Somerset -House. Le Fevre told Bedloe that the man whom he had been engaged to -kill was dead and his corpse lying in the building at that moment. -Bedloe was taken into a small room to see the body. Besides himself -and Le Fevre there were also present Walsh, the man who called himself -Atkins, a gentleman in the household of Lord Bellasis, and a person -whom he took to be one of the attendants in the queen’s chapel. A -cloth was thrown off the body, and by the light of a dark lantern he -recognised the features of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. It was agreed to -carry the corpse to Clarendon House, and to take it thence by coach -to the fields at the foot of Primrose Hill. Bedloe promised to return -at eleven o’clock to assist, but went away intending to meddle with -the business no more. The next day he happened to meet Le Fevre in -Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Le Fevre began to rebuke him for breaking his -word. Bedloe answered that he had been unwilling to come because he -had recognised the dead man. Le Fevre bound him to secrecy and then -proceeded to tell him how the murder had been committed. Under pretence -of making a further discovery of the plot, the two Jesuits and Lord -Bellasis’ gentleman had persuaded Godfrey to come into Somerset House -with him. They then set upon him and with two others dragged him into a -room in the corner of the court. A pistol was held to his head and he -was threatened with death unless he would surrender the examinations -which he had taken concerning the plot. If they could obtain these, -said Le Fevre, fresh examinations would have to be taken, the originals -could then be produced, and the contradictions which would certainly -appear between the two would exonerate the plotters and convict the -informers of falsehood in the eyes of the world. Godfrey refused, -saying that he had sent the papers to Whitehall. Upon this they seized -him, held a pillow over the face until he was nearly stifled, and -then strangled him with a long cravat. On Monday night, after Bedloe -had gone away, the murderers carried the body out into the fields and -placed it where it was found with the sword run through it.[215] - -Bedloe’s evidence varied greatly on points of detail. The amount of the -reward which he was offered varied from two guineas to four thousand -pounds; the time at which Godfrey was killed from two o’clock to five; -the day on which his corpse was removed from Monday to Wednesday. -Sometimes he was stifled with one, at others with two pillows. Once -Bedloe said that the body was placed in the room where the Duke of -Albemarle lay in state, while according to another statement it was -hidden in the queen’s chapel. When his evidence was heard in court, a -multitude of further alterations was introduced. In all the different -versions of his story however there appeared with but little variation -the statement that Godfrey had been murdered in Somerset House in the -course of the afternoon on Saturday, October 12, by the means or at -the direction of three Jesuits, Walsh, Pritchard, and Le Fevre, and -that on the night of the following Monday he had seen the body lying -in Somerset House in the presence of these three, and of a man whom he -thought to be a waiter in the queen’s chapel. - -Of all those mentioned only one fish had been netted, and it was -certain that even he could not be brought to land. At the trial of -Atkins the Attorney-General darkly hinted that had it not been for the -conviction on the previous day, the prisoner would have been indicted -as a principal in Godfrey’s murder, and would probably have been -condemned.[216] But it may be doubted that this was more than a piece -of bravado. The evidence of Captain Atkins was worth nothing; that of -Bedloe little more. If the informers had expanded and defined their -information to an extent unparalleled even in the history of the Popish -Plot, where such things were not rare, it would hardly have produced -much effect. The evidence produced for Atkins’ alibi was too strong to -be seriously shaken. By the middle of November the investigation into -the murder had thus come to a halt. Proclamations were out for the rest -of the men accused by Bedloe, but there seemed to be every probability -that they would escape. If Atkins were brought to trial and acquitted, -consequences which would be serious to the policy of the Whigs on the -committees of secrecy might ensue. Consequences almost as serious were -to be expected in the event of his being released without a trial. In -either one case or the other the failure to obtain a conviction for the -murder of Godfrey would be damaging to their cause. They had staked -much on the cards, and it seemed as if the game was going against them. -Unless fortune came to their aid, the murder of which there had been -so much talk would go unpunished, and the sensation which it created -would die down. - -Meanwhile the public mind was occupied on other points. The trials -of Staley, Coleman, and Ireland for high treason filled the greater -part of one excited month.[217] Almost till Christmas the great murder -case made no progress. Just then, when it must have seemed less than -likely after the lapse of eight weeks and after the only hopeful trail -had disappeared that any substantial advance should be gained, an -extraordinary incident occurred. There was living in Covent Garden -a Roman Catholic silversmith, by name Miles Prance, who did a fair -business with those of his own religion and was occasionally employed -by the queen. He was a friend of the Jesuits who had been imprisoned -on account of the plot and, being in liquor one day at a tavern, -had declared loudly “that they were very honest men.” Suspicion was -aroused, and on inquiry it was found that he had slept away from his -house for three nights about the time of Godfrey’s disappearance. In -point of fact this had been before the date of the murder, and Prance’s -subsequent connection with the case was due to this initial mistake. -His landlord laid information, and on Saturday, December 21, Prance -was arrested for being concerned in Godfrey’s murder. He was taken -into the lobby of the House of Commons and was there waiting until -the committee was ready to examine him, when Bedloe happened to pass -through. His eye fell upon Prance and he cried out without hesitation, -“This is one of the rogues that I saw with a dark lantern about the -body of Sir Edmond Bury Godfrey, but he was then in a periwig.”[218] -Prance was taken before the committee of the House of Lords and -strictly examined. He denied knowing Walsh, Pritchard, or Le Fevre. -He denied that he was guilty of Sir Edmund Godfrey’s death and that -he had assisted in removing his body. When he spoke of Fenwick and -Ireland in the coffee-house he was drunk. He had not worn a periwig -once in the last ten years, but he owned one at home which had been -made twelve months since from his wife’s hair. He had not been to the -queen’s chapel at Somerset House once a month. After denying that he -had received money from Grove, he confessed that Grove had paid him for -some work. He first denied, but afterwards admitted that he had hired -a horse to ride out of town. He had intended to leave London to escape -the oaths administered to Roman Catholics, but had in the meantime been -arrested.[219] Prance was committed a close prisoner to Newgate, and -was lodged in the cell known as the condemned hole. There he remained -during the nights of December 21 and 22. On the morning of Monday, -December 23, he sent a message to the committee of inquiry offering on -the assurance of pardon to confess. By order of the House of Lords the -Duke of Buckingham and other noblemen were sent to Newgate with the -promise of pardon and to take his examination.[220] At the same time -the Commons ordered that the committee of secrecy or any three of them -should examine Prance in prison, and acquaint his fellow-prisoners in -Newgate with the king’s assurance of pardon consequent on discoveries -relating to the plot.[221] Prance confessed that he had been engaged -in the murder and had much information to give on the subject. He was -examined by the lords, and on the next day repeated his deposition -before the privy council. At the beginning of October one Gerald, or -Fitzgerald, an Irish priest belonging to the household of the Venetian -ambassador, had approached him on the subject of putting out of the -way a man whose name was not divulged. About a week later he learned -that this was Sir Edmund Godfrey. Two other men were also concerned in -the matter. Green, a cushion-layer in the chapel at Somerset House, -and Laurence Hill, servant to Dr. Gauden, the treasurer of the queen’s -chapel. They told him that Godfrey was to be killed, “for that he was -a great enemy to the queen or her servants, and that he had used some -Irishmen ill.” Lord Bellasis, said Gerald, had promised a reward. -Prance consented to their proposals, the more readily because he had -a private grudge against the magistrate. During the next week they -watched for an opportunity to waylay Godfrey, and on Saturday, October -12, “did dodge him from his house that morning to all the places he -went to until he came to his death.”[222] The same day the king ordered -the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Ossory to accompany Prance to -Somerset House and examine him on the spot where he said that the -murder had taken place. There he entered into a detailed account of the -crime. At about nine o’clock at night[223] Godfrey was coming from St. -Clement Danes down the Strand, followed by Hill, Green, and Gerald. -Hill walked on ahead, and as Godfrey came opposite the water-gate of -Somerset House begged him to come into the court and put an end to -a quarrel between two men who were fighting. The magistrate turned -in through the wicket, with Hill, Green, and Gerald following them. -Prance, who was waiting inside, came to the gate to keep watch. The -others went down the court until they came to a bench in the right-hand -corner close to the stable-rails, where Berry, the porter of Somerset -House, and an Irishman, whose name Prance did not know, were sitting. -Green crept up close behind, and when they had reached the bench threw -a large twisted handkerchief round Godfrey’s neck and pulled it tight. -The three other men set upon him and dragged him down into the corner -behind the bench. Green knelt upon his chest and pounded it, and then -wrung his neck round until it was broken. This, said Prance, Green had -told him a quarter of an hour afterwards when he came down from the -gate to see what had happened. The body was carried across the court, -through a door in the left-hand corner, from which a flight of stairs -led to a long gallery. From the gallery a door opened on to a flight of -eight steps, leading into Hill’s lodgings. In a small room to the right -of the entrance the body was set on the floor, leaning against the bed. -There it remained for two days. On Monday night at nine or ten o’clock -the same men removed the corpse to another part of Somerset House, -“into some room towards the garden.” As it lay there Prance was taken -by Hill to see it. He could not say if he had seen Bedloe there, but -Gerald and Green were present. Thence twenty-four hours later the body -was taken back, first to a room near Hill’s lodging, and on Wednesday -evening to the same room in which it had been at first. At midnight -Hill procured a sedan chair, and Godfrey’s corpse was put inside. -Berry opened the gate of the court, and Prance, Gerald, Green, and the -Irishman carried the chair as far as the new Grecian Church in Soho. -There Hill met them with a horse, upon which the body was set. Sitting -behind the body. Hill rode off in company with Green and Gerald, and -deposited it where it was found, having first transfixed it with the -sword. - -Having taken his examination, Monmouth and Ossory bade Prance guide -them to the places he had mentioned. Without hesitation he led the -way to the bench, and described with assurance the manner in which -the murder had been committed. Then he shewed the room in which the -body had first been laid, and conducted his examiners to every spot -of which he had spoken with unerring direction. To this process there -was one exception. Prance could not find the room in which he said the -corpse had been placed on the night of Monday 14. The three passed -up and down, into the corner of the piazza, down a flight of steps, -up again, across the great court which lay towards the river, into -and out of several rooms, but without success. The room could not be -found. Finally Prance desisted from the search, “saying that he had -never been there but that once, when Hill conveyed him thither with -a dark lantern, but that it was some chamber towards the garden.” -Monmouth and Ossory returned to the council-chamber with the report -of Prance’s examination, upon which the council made a note, “that -the said particulars were very consonant to what he had spoken at the -board in the morning, before his going.”[224] The council sat again in -the afternoon. Green, Hill, and Berry were summoned. All denied with -emphasis the charges which Prance had made against them, and denied -that they knew Sir Edmund Godfrey. Green and Hill admitted knowing -Father Gerald, and Green identified the Irishman mentioned by Prance as -a priest named Kelly. In one point Hill confirmed Prance’s evidence. -While they had been in his lodgings that morning, Monmouth and Ossory -had examined Mrs. Broadstreet, the housekeeper of his master, Dr. -Gauden. She affirmed that Hill left the lodgings at Michaelmas to move -into a house of his own in Stanhope Street. When Prance said she was -mistaken, since Hill had not left his rooms in Somerset House until a -fortnight after Michaelmas, Mrs. Broadstreet contradicted him angrily. -Hill now declared that in the middle of October he had been busy making -arrangements for the move; on the day of Godfrey’s disappearance he was -still occupied with his landlord in drawing up terms of agreement, and -the agreement was not concluded until the Wednesday following.[225] - -In addition to his evidence about Godfrey’s murder, Prance made a -statement concerning the plot. Fenwick, Ireland, and Grove, he said, -had told him that “Lord Petre, Lord Bellasis, the Earl of Powis, and -Lord Arundell were to command the army.” As more decisive evidence had -already been given against all these, his information was of little -consequence. He also desired to be set at liberty, that he might be -able to discover some persons connected with the plot whose names were -unknown to him. The request was naturally refused, but Prance was -removed from the dungeon and Hill was confined there in his place.[226] -Within forty-eight hours from this time Prance had recanted his whole -story. On the evening of Sunday, December 29, Captain Richardson, the -keeper of Newgate, received an order of council to bring Prance before -the Lords’ committee for examination. Prance was in a state of great -agitation and begged to be taken to see the king. Charles received him -in the presence of Richardson and Chiffinch, his confidential valet. -Prance fell upon his knees and declared that the whole of his evidence -had been false, that he was innocent of the murder, and the men whom -he had accused as far as he knew were innocent too. The next day he -was taken before the council and persisted that he knew no more of -Godfrey’s murder than was known to the world. He was asked if any one -had been tampering with him and answered, No. Hardly had he been taken -back to Newgate when he begged Captain Richardson to return to the -king and say that all his evidence had been true, and his recantation -false.[227] From this he again departed and reaffirmed his recantation. -He was heavily ironed and a second time imprisoned in the condemned -hole. Here he remained until January 11, 1679, when to complete the -cycle of his contradictions he once more retracted his recantation and -declared that the whole of his original confession was true. - -On February 10, 1679 Green, Berry, and Hill were brought to the bar -of the Court of King’s Bench to be tried upon an indictment for the -murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. The prosecution began by evidence -to shew that for some days before his disappearance Godfrey had been -in a state of alarm. Oates swore that Godfrey had complained to him -of the treatment he had received in consequence of having taken -his deposition; on the one hand those who wished to accelerate the -discovery of the plot had blamed him for not being sufficiently eager -in its prosecution; those, on the other, who were endangered by Oates’ -revelations had threatened the magistrate for the action which he had -taken. Godfrey told Oates that “he went in fear of his life by the -popish party, and that he had been dogged several days.” The testimony -of Oates carries no greater weight on this than on any other occasion, -but he was supported by another and a more respectable witness. Mr. -Robinson, chief protonotary of the court of common pleas, gave evidence -of Godfrey’s disturbance of mind. The two had met on October 7, and -Robinson questioned the magistrate about the depositions which he -had taken. Godfrey replied that he wished that another had been in -his place, for he would have small thanks for his pains; the bottom -of the matter had not yet been reached, he said; and then, turning to -Robinson, exclaimed, “Upon my conscience I believe I shall be the first -martyr,”[228] This was the prelude by which the evidence of Prance -and Bedloe was introduced. Bedloe retold the story to which he had -treated the council, the committee, and the House of Lords. This time -it differed in almost every point of detail from the statements which -he had previously made. The Jesuits who tempted him into the murder had -sent him about a week before to effect an acquaintance with Godfrey. -There were several separate schemes on foot to dispatch the justice. -After seeing the body upon Monday night he had gone away and never -seen the murderers again. The Jesuits told him that Godfrey had been -strangled, but how he did not know. His account of his many interviews -with Le Fevre were hopelessly at variance with what he had said about -them before.[229] But as the rules of legal procedure did not admit -as evidence depositions and reports of testimony given elsewhere, it -was impossible to convict the witness of these alterations. Bedloe’s -evidence too shewed striking points of difference from that of Prance, -who preceded him, even after he had toned it into better accord. The -prisoners, excited and ignorant, unused to sifting evidence and wholly -unskilled in examining witnesses, failed altogether to detect and point -out the discrepancies. - -The evidence given by Prance was, on the contrary, remarkably -consistent with the information which he had furnished on other -occasions. He went through all the incidents which he had detailed -first to the council and then on the spot to the Duke of Monmouth and -the Earl of Ossory. He described each point with perfect decision and -answered the questions put to him without hesitation. The only point -on which he showed uncertainty was when he was asked to describe the -room in which the body lay on the night of October 14. He said frankly, -“I am not certain of the room, and so cannot describe it.” In one -particular alone did a statement vary from his previous evidence. He -had told the council that on the morning of the fatal Saturday Green -had called at Godfrey’s house and inquired if he was at home.[230] -Now he said that he could not be certain whether it was Green or Hill -who went to Hartshorn Lane.[231] His motive in altering the distinct -statement is not far to seek. Elizabeth Curtis, who had been maid at -Godfrey’s house, was called as a witness. She testified that on the -morning of October 12 Hill came to see her master and had conversation -with him for several minutes. He wore the same clothes, she said, -in which he appeared in court; and Hill admitted that he had been -dressed in the same way on that day. Green had come to Hartshorn Lane -about a fortnight before to ask for Godfrey, but on the date of his -disappearance Hill was there alone.[232] The suspicion is difficult to -stifle that Prance had some knowledge of the evidence which the maid -would give, and altered his own in order not to contradict it. When -he afterwards published his _True Narrative and Discovery of several -Remarkable Passages relating to the Horrid Popish Plot_, he simply -stated in accordance with the evidence of Curtis that it was Hill who -spoke with Godfrey on that morning.[233] In some other points Prance’s -evidence was supported by independent witnesses. He had spoken of -meetings held by Gerald, Kelly, the prisoners, and himself at a tavern -with the sign of the Plow, where he was enticed to be a party to the -murder. The fact that they were frequenters of the Plow was proved by -the landlord of the inn and his servant.[234] About a fortnight after -the murder Prance had entertained a small party at the Queen’s Head -Inn at Bow. Gerald was there, and a priest named Leweson, and one -Mr. Vernatt, who was described as being in service to Lord Bellasis. -They were joined by a friend of Vernatt, named Dethick, and dined on -flounders and a barrel of oysters. According to Prance’s statement -Vernatt should have been present at the murder, but as he had been -prevented, Gerald furnished the company with an account of the manner -in which it had been accomplished. While the talk ran thus, Prance -heard a noise outside the door. Opening it suddenly, he caught the -drawer eavesdropping and sent him off with threats of a kicking.[235] -This was confirmed by the evidence of the drawer. He had listened at -the door and heard Godfrey’s name mentioned, and one of the party had -threatened to kick him downstairs.[236] Several important witnesses -were called for the defence. Mary Tilden, the niece of Dr. Gauden, -and his housekeeper, Mrs. Broadstreet, gave evidence that Hill was at -home on the evening of the murder and the following nights, when he -was accused of being busy with the body, and that the corpse was never -brought to their lodgings. The judges continually bullied and sneered -at the witnesses. The room in which Prance said the body was laid was -described by Sir Robert Southwell as “an extraordinary little place.” -Mrs. Broadstreet said that it was impossible for a corpse to be placed -there without their knowledge. On this Mr. Justice Wild told her that -it was very suspicious, and Dolben remarked, “It is well you are not -indicted.” The hostile attitude of the court was not mollified when -it appeared that there was some confusion in the evidence of both -witnesses. Mary Tilden stated that during the time when they were in -town she had never been out of the lodgings after eight o’clock in the -evening. “When were you out of town?” asked Mr. Justice Jones. “In -October,” the witness answered. The judge pointed out that October was -just the month in question. Mistress Tilden said that she had made a -mistake; she had meant to say that they were out of town in September. -She said too that there was only one key to the door of the lodgings; -but Prance declared, and was not contradicted, that in her examination -before the Duke of Monmouth, Mrs. Broadstreet had admitted that there -were several. The latter made the mistake of saying that Hill occupied -the rooms until a fortnight after Michaelmas, whereas she had before -sworn, as Sir Robert Southwell testified, that he left them in the -first week in October.[237] The workman who had been employed at -Hill’s new house in Stanhope Street proved that he had been in Hill’s -company from nine to two in the afternoon of Saturday, October 12, and -a neighbour that Hill had been at his house from five to seven o’clock -on the same evening.[238] Green called for his defence his maid, his -landlord, and the landlord’s wife. The maid testified that Green was -always at home before nine o’clock at night; James Warrier and his wife -that he was within doors in their company till after ten o’clock on the -night of October 12. Mrs. Warrier however made the mistake of saying -that this was a fortnight after Michaelmas day, which it was not, and -so raised a doubt that the evidence was directed to a time a week later -than the date in question.[239] The most weighty evidence for the -defence was produced by Berry in the persons of the sentries who had -kept guard at the gate of Somerset House on the night of Wednesday, -October 16. On that night Prance swore that Berry had opened the gate -to let the sedan chair containing Godfrey’s corpse pass out. From seven -to ten o’clock Nicholas Trollop had kept guard, Nicholas Wright from -ten to one, from one to four Gabriel Hasket. During the first watch -a chair had been carried into Somerset House, but all three men were -confident that none had been carried out. They were equally positive -that at no time had they left the beat to drink at Berry’s house or -with any one else. If the gate had been opened and a sedan taken -through, it would certainly have been seen by the soldier on duty. -Berry’s maid also testified that her master had come in that evening at -dusk and had remained at home until he went to bed at midnight.[240] -The only part of the evidence for the prisoners to which the Lord Chief -Justice devoted attention in his summing up was the testimony of the -sentries. He remarked to the jury that it was a dark night and that the -soldier might not have seen the gate opened, or, having seen, might -have forgotten, Scroggs went over the evidence of Bedloe briefly and of -Prance at length, and delivered a harangue on the horrors of the Plot, -of which Godfrey’s murder, he said, was “a monstrous evidence.” After -a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of guilty against all -the prisoners. The Chief Justice declared if it were the last word he -had to speak in this world he should have pronounced the same verdict, -and the spectators in court met his announcement with a shout of -applause.[241] - -On February 11 Green, Berry, and Hill came up to receive sentence, and -ten days later Green and Hill were hanged at Tyburn, denying their -guilt to the last. Berry, who was distinguished from them by being -a Protestant, was granted a week’s respite. To the indignation of -Protestant politicians he made no confession, and when he was executed -on February 28, declaring his innocence to the end, a rumour was spread -that the court party had gained him to a false conversion in order to -give the Roman Catholics the chance of saying that he at least could -not have lied in hope of salvation.[242] It was afterwards remembered -that by an extraordinary coincidence Primrose Hill, at the foot of -which Godfrey’s body was found, had in former days borne the name of -Greenberry Hill.[243] - - - - - CHAPTER IV - - PRANCE AND BEDLOE - - -At this point the atmosphere begins somewhat to clear. Two trials have -been discussed, and the result is seen that the two chief witnesses -at them were guilty of wilful perjury. Bedloe contradicted himself -beyond belief. Although it was by no means clear at the time, the men -convicted upon the evidence of Prance were certainly innocent. This -has since been universally recognised. Yet the verdict against them -was not perverse, and small blame attaches to the judges and jury who -acted on the evidence of Prance. For all they knew he was speaking the -truth. The witnesses for the defence were uncertain in points of time -to which they spoke, and Prance was to a certain extent corroborated by -independent evidence. On the case which came into court the conviction -was certainly justifiable. It is now possible to see that the verdict -was wrong. The motive which Prance alleged for the crime was weak -in the extreme, and his subsequent conduct supports the fact of his -perjury. Although an absolute alibi was not proved for any of the -accused at the time of the murder, a considerable body of evidence came -near the point, and an alibi was proved both for Green and for Hill -at the time when Prance stated that each was engaged in dogging Sir -Edmund Godfrey to his death. The sentries proved that the body had not -been removed in the manner which Prance described. The evidence of the -inmates of Hill’s house proved that it had not been placed where Prance -affirmed. Green, Berry, and Hill were wrongfully put to death. - -From this point it is necessary to start upon the pursuit of the -truth, and before starting it is well to take a view of the situation. -Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey disappeared on Saturday, October 12. Five -days later his body was found in a field near Primrose Hill. He had -been murdered, and the crime was committed for some motive which was -not that of robbery. He was murdered moreover not where his corpse -was found, but in some other place from which it had afterwards been -conveyed thither. Whoever was the criminal had placed the body in such -a way that those who found it might attribute the magistrate’s death -to suicide. Two witnesses appeared to give evidence to the fact of -the murder. These two were the only men who ever professed to have -direct knowledge on the subject. They both accused innocent men, told -elaborate falsehoods, and contradicted one another. Their stories -were so unlike, and yet had so much in common, that the fact must be -explained by supposing either that there was some truth in what they -said, or that one swore falsely to support the perjury of the other. -The relation between the two is the point to which attention must -be devoted in order to trace the interaction of their motives and -to determine whether both or neither or one and not the other knew -anything about the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. - -Nearly eight years after these events, in the second year of the -reign of King James the Second, Miles Prance pleaded guilty to an -indictment of wilful perjury for having sworn falsely at the trial of -Green, Berry, and Hill.[244] Later, when L’Estrange was writing his -work on _The Mystery of Sir E. B. Godfrey Unfolded_, Prance sent to -him an account of the manner in which his evidence had been procured. -He was, he said, wholly innocent and wholly ignorant of the murder. -Before his arrest he knew no more of Godfrey, Bedloe, or any one else -concerned than was known to the world at large. His arrest took place -upon Saturday, December 21. During the nights of Saturday and Sunday he -lay in irons in the dungeon in Newgate. Early on the Sunday morning he -was disturbed by the entrance of a man, who, as Prance declared, laid -a sheet of paper beside him and went out. Soon after another entered, -set down a candle, and went out. By the light of the candle Prance read -the paper; “wherein,” says L’Estrange, “he found the substance of these -following minutes. So many Popish lords to be mentioned by name; fifty -thousand men to be raised; commissions given out; officers appointed. -Ireland was acquainted with the design; and Bedloe’s evidence against -Godfrey was summed up and abstracted in it too. There were suggestions -in it that Prance must undoubtedly be privy to the plot, with words to -this purpose, you had better confess than be hanged.” In the evening -of the same day he was taken to Shaftesbury’s house and examined by -the earl. The Whig leader threatened him with hanging if he would -not confess and acquiesce in what had been suggested to him in the -paper. He could resist no longer, he said, “and so framed a pretended -discovery in part, with a promise to speak out more at large if he -might have his pardon.” A paper containing this was given him to sign, -and he was sent back to Newgate, where he made a formal confession the -next day. Clearly, thought Prance, the men who came into his cell, and -left instructions for the evidence which he was to give and a light by -which to read them, had acted under orders from Shaftesbury.[245] This -is what Prance and L’Estrange had to say about this first confession. -Before examining it further it will be proper to consider Prance’s -condition between that time and the date when after numerous manœuvres -he finally returned to it. On December 30 he appeared before the -council and recanted his confession. For nine days there seems to have -been no development. Prance lay in the dungeon and adhered to his -last statement. But on January 8 Captain Richardson, the keeper of -Newgate, and his servant, Charles Cooper, appeared before a committee -of the privy council with information that Prance was feigning madness. -When he was fettered he behaved the more sensibly. It was ordered -accordingly that he should be kept in irons and that Dr. Lloyd, the -Dean of Bangor, should be asked to visit and converse with him.[246] -On January 10 a similar order was given for the admittance of William -Boyce, an old friend of Prance, to be with him in prison. Cooper passed -two nights with the prisoner. His sleep was irregular, and he spent -long periods raving and crying out that “it was not he murdered him, -but they killed him.” In spite of his wild talk Prance seemed to behave -rather as if he wished to be thought mad than as if he actually were -so; he ate heartily, used a bed and blankets which had been given him, -and adjusted his dress with care.[247] Boyce also visited him, and -found him sometimes reasonable, at others apparently out of his senses. -Once he found him lying at full length on the boards of his cell and -crying, “Guilty, guilty; not guilty, not guilty; no murder”; but when -he first went to the prison Prance met him quietly and said, “Here -am I in prison, and I am like to be hanged. I am falsely accused.” -Shaftesbury’s threats had terrified him for the safety of his life, -but he was anxious to learn that Green, Berry, and Hill had not been -set at liberty, and in a conversation of January 11 told Boyce “that -he would confess all if he were sure of his pardon.”[248] On Friday, -January 10, Dr. Lloyd visited Newgate and found Prance in a very -wretched condition. The weather was intensely cold, and the prisoner -suffered severely from it, despite the covering with which he had been -provided. He was very weak and denied his guilt sullenly, but after -a time begged Lloyd to come again the next day, when he would tell -everything that he knew.[249] Accordingly on the evening of January 11 -the dean returned, and Prance was brought to him by the hall fire. For -some time he remained stupefied by the cold; he was without a pulse -and seemed almost dead; but after warming himself at the fire threw -off the lethargy and conversed with Lloyd briskly and with freedom. -The dean reported to the council: “He appeared very well composed and -in good humour, saying that he had confessed honestly before, and had -not wronged any of those he had accused.” He proceeded further to tell -of a plot to murder the Earl of Shaftesbury, and said that a servant -of Lord Arundel, one Messenger, had undertaken to kill the king. Lloyd -warned him to be careful of speaking the truth; Prance protested that -he would do nothing else. When he had finished his confession he asked -to be lodged in a warmer room and to have the irons knocked off.[250] -From that time onward he remained steadfast to his first confession. -Writing many years later, when everybody connected with the Plot had -fallen into discredit and Prance had pleaded guilty to the charge -of perjury, Lloyd assured L’Estrange that he had never believed the -informer’s evidence. In this he was deceived by his after opinions, -for at the time he told Burnet that it was impossible for him to doubt -Prance’s sincerity.[251] Lloyd did not escape the calumny which pursued -every one who refused to be an uncompromising supporter of all the -evidence offered in the investigation of the Plot. He expressed himself -doubtful as to the guilt of Berry and thought that Prance might have -made a mistake of identity. It was immediately said that Berry had made -horrible confessions to him, and that he had been pressed at court not -to divulge them.[252] - -Prison life in the seventeenth century was hard. Prisoners were treated -in a way that would now be considered shameful, and Prance did not -escape his share of ill-treatment. He was kept in the cell reserved -for felons and murderers. According to the general practice he was -heavily ironed. Until his life was thought in danger he had nothing -but the boards on which to lie. The greatest hardship arose from the -cold, against which there was no real provision. But there is no -evidence that Prance more hardly used than his fellow gaol-birds. -A detestable attempt was afterwards made to prove that he had been -tortured in prison to extract confessions from him. In the course of -the year 1680 Mrs. Cellier, the Roman Catholic midwife of otherwise -dubious reputation, published a pamphlet entitled “Malice Defeated; -or a Brief Relation of the Accusation and Deliverance of Elizabeth -Cellier.” The work was an attack upon the prosecutors of the Popish -Plot, conducted with all the coarse weapons of seventeenth-century -controversy. Incidentally she called the crown witnesses “hangman’s -hounds for weekly pensions.” On September 11 she was indicted for a -malicious libel and tried before Baron Weston and the Lord Mayor. The -libel lay in her open declaration that Prance was put on the rack in -Newgate and that Francis Corral, who had been imprisoned on suspicion -of complicity in Godfrey’s murder, was subjected to intolerably ill -treatment and active torture in Newgate in order to make him confess -his guilt.[253] The charges which Mrs. Cellier made were not only -outrageous but ridiculous, and were so improbable as not to deserve -detailed discussion. Witnesses were called for the prosecution who -proved their complete falsity, and Mrs. Cellier’s counsel virtually -threw up his brief. Not only did the keeper of Newgate deny everything -in the publication relating to himself, but the parties who had been -mentioned in it were summoned as witnesses and gave decisive evidence. -Prance denied the whole story and, what was of greater value than his -word, made the pertinent remark that, had he been used in such a way -as Mrs. Cellier suggested, Dr. Lloyd must certainly have known about -it. The man Corral had been kept out of court by the defence, but he -had already denied all Mrs. Cellier’s allegations in a deposition -made before the Lord Mayor. His wife had made a similar deposition -and, being now called as a witness, wholly refused to support the -statements of the accused. Her husband had been treated hardly, as were -all prisoners, but Mrs. Cellier’s charges of torture and brutality -were false. She had been allowed to see her husband occasionally and -to send him food constantly, and he had been given a charcoal fire -in his cell to protect him from the cold weather. Mrs. Cellier had -offered to support them both, apparently on the understanding that they -should acquiesce in what she had said.[254] Another important witness -proved the falsehood of many statements made in the publication, and -after a lengthy summing up of the evidence by Baron Weston the jury -without difficulty returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. -Mrs. Cellier was sentenced to stand three times on the pillory, to -a fine of a thousand pounds, and to imprisonment until the fine was -paid.[255] Eight years later the same charges were repeated by Sir -Roger L’Estrange and were supported by Prance, to whose objects this -line of conduct was now better suited. The evidence which L’Estrange -collected was exactly similar to that which Mrs. Cellier had obtained, -and equally worthless. Not only the result of the trial, but the -essential improbability of the facts alleged makes it certain that -these allegations were absolutely devoid of truth.[256] Dr. Lloyd, -who was well acquainted with the hard treatment accorded to Prance, -saw no evidence that it exceeded the common practice of the prison, -and disbelieved the gruesome stories which were industriously spread -abroad.[257] - -Whether or no Prance was subjected to illegitimate and illegal -pressure after his recantation in order to secure his adherence to -the earlier confession is a question of less importance than how that -confession was obtained. Prance’s subsequent account has already been -given. It remains to be considered whether that was true or false. -Apart from the rest of the evidence produced at the trials of the -Popish Plot, that of Prance exhibited one remarkable peculiarity. All -the other witnesses altered and rearranged their stories with constant -facility to suit the conditions in which they found themselves at any -moment. Among this rout of shifting informations the evidence of Prance -offers an exception to the rule of self-contradiction. In all but a few -particulars it remained constant. Other witnesses invariably put out -feelers to try in what direction they had best develop their tales. The -methods of Oates, Atkins, and Bedloe are notorious instances of this. -Prance produced the flower of his full-blown. Its bouquet was as strong -when it first met the air as at any later time. The evidence which -he gave to Godfrey’s murder in his first confession was as decisive -and consistent in form as after constant repetition, recantation, and -renewed asseverance. Almost all the other witnesses at their first -appearance told stories which were loose, haphazard, inconsequent. -Prance’s story was from the beginning minute and elaborate. He spoke -of places in great detail and afterwards pointed them out. He gave a -coherent account of what had happened at each spot. On these points he -did not contradict himself. The evidence which he proceeded to give -about the Plot in general throws his account of Godfrey’s death into -high relief. His later information was exactly similar in character to -that offered by all the other witnesses. It was vague and incoherent -and full of absurdities. The contrast to the elaboration and detail of -his previous evidence is striking. - -Compared with Bedloe’s account of the murder the testimony of Prance -shows another noteworthy feature. The evidence of the two men hardly -covers the same ground at all. In almost every particular it offers -remarkable points of difference. Up to the date of October 12 the two -stories run in different lines altogether. According to Prance two -priests, named Gerald and Kelly, had, by means of menace and abstract -arguments, induced him to join with them and four others, Green, -Hill, Berry, and Vernatt, in the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, -on the score that “he was a busy man and going about to ruin all the -Catholics in England.”[258] One Leweson, a priest, was also to have -a hand in the business. Bedloe’s tale on the contrary was that Le -Fevre, Pritchard, Keynes, and Walsh, four Jesuits, had employed him -to effect an introduction to Godfrey for them. Le Fevre afterwards -offered him £4000, to be paid by Lord Bellasis through Coleman, if he -would undertake to kill “a very material man” in order to obtain some -incriminating papers in his possession, without which “the business -would be so obstructed and go near to be discovered” that the great -Plot would come to grief.[259] At this point the stories begin to -converge, and at the same time retain strikingly different features. -Prance’s account ran that on October 12 Gerald, Green, and Hill decoyed -Godfrey as he came down the Strand from St. Clement’s into Somerset -House at about 9 o’clock in the evening under pretence of a quarrel. -Green, Gerald, Hill, and Kelly then attacked him. Green strangled him -with a twisted handkerchief, knelt with all his force upon his chest -and “wrung his neck round,” while Berry and Prance kept watch.[260] On -the nights of Saturday and Sunday the body was left in Hill’s lodgings -in Somerset House, and on Monday was removed to another room across -the court. There Hill shewed it to Prance by the light of a dark -lantern at past 10 o’clock at night: “Gerald and Hill and Kelly and -all were there.”[261] Prance had no knowledge of seeing Bedloe in the -room. At midnight on Wednesday, October 16, the corpse was placed in a -sedan chair and carried, as Prance said, by Gerald, Green, Kelly, and -himself as far as Soho Church. Hill met them there with a horse, on -which he put the body and rode with it to Primrose Hill.[262] Bedloe’s -finished account gave a picture very unlike this. He stated that on -Monday, October 14, between 9 and 10 o’clock P.M. Le Fevre took him to -a room in Somerset House and showed him the body of the murdered man -lying under a cloak. He recognised the body to be that of Sir Edmund -Godfrey. Besides Le Fevre he only saw in the room Walsh, a servant of -Lord Bellasis, the supposed Atkins, and another man whom he had often -seen in the chapel and afterwards recognised as Prance.[263] The next -day Le Fevre described the murder to him in detail. Before 5 o’clock -in the afternoon of October 12 Le Fevre, Walsh, and Lord Bellasis’ -gentleman had brought Godfrey from the King’s Head Inn in the Strand -to Somerset House under the pretext of taking him to capture some -conspirators near St. Clement’s Church. They took him into a room and, -holding a pistol to his head, demanded the informations which he had -taken. On his refusal they stifled him with a pillow and then strangled -him with his cravat.[264] On Monday night the murderers agreed with -Bedloe “to carry the body in a chair to the corner of Clarendon House, -and there to put him in a coach to carry him to the place where he was -found.”[265] Two accounts of the same facts could hardly be imagined to -differ more from one another than the stories of Prance and Bedloe. To -state the matter briefly, Bedloe swore that Godfrey was murdered in one -place, at one time, in one manner, for one motive, by one set of men; -Prance swore that he was murdered in another place, at another time, in -another manner, for another motive, by another set of men. Both Prance -and Bedloe swore that they had seen the body of Sir Edmund Godfrey -at nearly the same time in a room in Somerset House on the night of -Monday, October 14, but Prance swore only to the presence of the men -whom he had named as the murderers, while Bedloe swore only to the -presence of the men whom he had named, with the addition of “the other -person he saw often in the chapel,” whom he afterwards recognised to be -Prance. - -What then becomes of Prance’s statement that the only source of his -information was the paper introduced into his cell on the morning of -December 22, and containing the substance of Bedloe’s evidence? He -professed that it was solely from this that his elaborate confession -of December 23 and 24 was drawn, and that it was arranged not only -by the connivance, but absolutely at the direction of the Earl of -Shaftesbury. Nor was this all. He told L’Estrange further that after he -had been forced to retract his recantation his friend Boyce had acted -as agent of Bedloe and Shaftesbury in bringing his evidence into line -with that of Bedloe. On one point he refused to yield; he would not own -that he had worn the periwig of which Bedloe had spoken; but for the -rest, according to his own account, he made no difficulty.[266] The -story is glaringly inconsistent with the facts. So far from agreeing -first or last with Bedloe, Prance contradicted him in almost every -possible point. If it was true that, as he said, he was wholly ignorant -of the murder and concocted his confession from minutes of Bedloe’s -evidence which were given to him, the confession would have worn a -very different colour. His only object was to save his neck and get -out of Newgate. He would certainly have taken the material with which -he was provided, and have simply repeated Bedloe’s tale with so much -alteration as was necessary to make himself a partner in the murder. -He had no motive to do anything else. Even alone he could hardly have -missed the point, and by his own statement did not. Under the astute -guidance of Shaftesbury there could be no possible danger of bungling. -Instead of this being the case he acted in a fashion which, if he spoke -the truth, would have been inconceivable. Not only did he not tell the -same story as that which he professed was his only guide, but he told a -tale so entirely different that neither Bedloe’s name nor the name of -a single man given by Bedloe was mentioned in it at all. The idea of -collusion between the informers in this way must be discarded. It is -impossible that it should be true. - -The story was adorned with another flourish which Prance did not -himself venture to adopt. On his arrest he was met by Bedloe in the -lobby of the House of Commons and there charged by him with complicity -in the murder. L’Estrange declared that Bedloe had first made inquiries -about him and had seized the opportunity to take a good view of him -under the guidance of Sir William Waller.[267] But it would be little -good to Bedloe to act in this way in accusing a man who might for -all he knew refuse to give evidence, or give evidence which would -not corroborate his own. The more definitely he accused Prance, the -more difficult would be his own position if Prance should not support -him. He must certainly have assured himself beforehand that Prance -would make a good witness. Assurance might have been gained either by -arranging that Prance should be informed of what was expected before -his arrest, or by the knowledge that Shaftesbury would see to the -matter afterwards. Both conjectures are in the same case. The latter -has been shewn to be wide of the mark. For the same reasons the former -must be thought equally inaccurate. Further than this the comparison -between the evidence of Prance and Bedloe shows conclusively that the -two did not arrange beforehand to give false evidence about the murder. -Perjurers may be as stupid as other men, and an awkward muddle might -have ensued; but two men arranging a profitable piece of perjury would -hardly be at the pains to contradict each other’s evidence in every -particular. Also, between the date of Bedloe’s first information and -Prance’s confession there intervened a period of seven long weeks. If -there had been previous collusion between the two. Prance would have -come forward far sooner than four days before Christmas. - -Out of the total number of possible hypotheses which may be advanced -to account for the relation between Prance and Bedloe two are thus -disposed of. The witnesses did not arrange together to give evidence -of Godfrey’s murder. Nor was Prance furnished with the information -which he was wanted to give and then subjected to such pressure that -he was compelled to acquiesce in it. What then are the remaining -explanations which may be put forward? The notion that Bedloe, on -seeing Prance in custody on December 21, proceeded to denounce him at -a venture in the bare hope of getting some support from him may be -dismissed briefly. It would in any one have been a mad action to expose -himself to the risk that Prance could prove an alibi, but for Bedloe -to take such a course would have been more than improbable. When at -a former date he accused Atkins of complicity in the murder, he used -the greatest caution to obviate this risk. Until he knew whether or -no Atkins could prove an alibi he would make no positive charge at -all. The fact that his caution was justified would only make him more -careful to avoid being caught in a trap similar to that which he had -only just avoided. A more probable supposition is that Bedloe had -made sufficient inquiries to be sure that Prance could not prove an -alibi, and then denounced him, as if on the spur of the moment. This -is a theory which has likelihood in its favour and deserves to be well -weighed. Bedloe, it is supposed, had given entirely false information -about the murder. After his failure to secure the conviction of Atkins -he was compelled to turn in another direction. Looking round, his eye -fell upon Prance as a suitable tool. He made careful inquiries as to -his opportunity and ability to bear false witness, found that Prance -would be unable to make out an alibi, and denounced him dramatically -at Westminster. Prance was clapped into prison and, without having -any notes of Bedloe’s evidence given him, was so terrified by the two -nights which he spent in the dungeon in Newgate that he concocted -a false story and then made confession of it. There is certainly -something to be said in favour of this view. It was common talk that -Godfrey had been murdered in Somerset House, and Bedloe was well known -to have said as much. Prance was well acquainted with the place and the -people belonging to it. He had at least as fair a chance as another of -making a plausible account of the murder. He was in considerable danger -and in great discomfort. He had already lost his liberty and bade fair -to lose his life for speaking the truth. It was natural enough that he -should renounce his honesty and spin a tale to save his skin. He could -make use of knowledge which would render it unlikely that he should -be caught tripping. He had heard Bedloe say that he saw him on the -Monday night standing by the body with a dark lantern, so that he could -place this incident in his story without hesitation. The publicity of -the manner of Godfrey’s death would enable him to speak with equal -certainty as to the actual murder. - -Here is a plausible enough theory of the relation between the witnesses -and the manner in which Prance’s evidence was procured. Unfortunately -there are considerable difficulties in the way of its acceptance. If -Prance was enabled by the words which he heard Bedloe speak to place -the incident of October 14 in his narrative, he was also enabled to -make a connection with Bedloe himself at that point. As according to -the hypothesis this was his only knowledge of the details of Bedloe’s -information, he would have been eager to make the most of it. It would -have been the first point for him to clutch. On the contrary, Prance -did nothing of the kind. He did not mention Bedloe’s name at all. The -question why he did not is, if this theory be true, unanswerable. -Bedloe too went to the trouble of spending four valuable weeks in his -search for a suitable instrument to bear out his story. If that was the -case it is surely strange that he should not have attempted to make -certain that the man whom he obtained at last should be more or less -acquainted with the tale which he was to corroborate. To do this after -the arrest would probably be very difficult, but as a previous step it -would be by no means so hard. Oates and Bedloe had many disreputable -friends, by profession Roman Catholics, who could have easily effected -an introduction to Prance and have held conversation the meaning of -which would after his arrest be plain. Instead of this Bedloe on -the hypothesis preferred to run the risk of having his whole story -contradicted. These are objections of weight; but a still greater lies -in the nature of the evidence which Prance gave on his confession. He -had been in a very cold dungeon for thirty-six hours at most, from -the evening of December 21 to the morning of December 23. If he was -unprepared for Bedloe’s charge, his mind must have been in a turmoil -of conflicting emotions. Yet within this time he evolved a story so -detailed, elaborate, connected, and consistent that he never afterwards -found the need to alter it materially. For such a task phenomenal -powers of memory, imagination, and coolness would be demanded. A man -of Prance’s station, suddenly thrown into a horrible prison on a false -charge, cannot be supposed to have been endowed with such a wealth -of mental equipment. If he had possessed a tithe of the powers which -in this case would have been necessary, he would have made sure of -cementing a firm connection in his narrative between himself and Bedloe. - -This consideration then has reached the result that the relation -between the two men is not only inexplicable on the theory just -discussed, but that it is inexplicable except upon the ground that -there was more in Prance’s evidence than a work of mere fancy. Within -the space of thirty-six hours, and with every condition adverse to -clear and connected thought, he could not have produced the evidence -which he gave on December 23 and 24 unless it had been based upon some -reality in fact. On December 24 he was taken to all the places of which -he had spoken, and went to each, describing the transaction on the spot -in a manner perfectly consonant with what he had said under examination -elsewhere. The consistence of his story, its readiness, the minuteness -of its detail point to the certainty that he was speaking, not of -incidents manufactured to order, but of facts within his knowledge. -Prance was in fact a party to the murder.[268] From this it is a sure -deduction that when Bedloe denounced him in the lobby of the House of -Commons he was not, as L’Estrange asserted, making a move in a game -which had been arranged beforehand, but had on the contrary really -recognised the man and on the instant made an accusation not wholly -devoid of truth. Bedloe too must therefore have known something about -the murder. It would be an unbelievable coincidence that, if Bedloe -were wholly ignorant, he should chance to choose, out of all London, -one of the few who were not. - -It now becomes evident what part of Prance’s evidence was true and -what false. The three men whose conviction for the murder he procured -were certainly innocent. Almost with equal certainty it can be said -that he was not speaking at random. The truth of what he affirmed -lay therefore in the facts and the manner of the transaction which -he described. The murder had taken place at Somerset House in the -way which he related, but he fastened the crime upon men who were -guiltless of Godfrey’s death. The extent of Bedloe’s information also -can be calculated. On every point of time and place he had prevaricated -and contradicted himself beyond measure. On none of these is his -testimony of the slightest value. Nevertheless he was possessed of -enough knowledge to accuse definitely a man who was actively concerned -in the crime and could relate the facts as they happened. Clearly he -had become acquainted with the persons who were guilty of the murder. -The probability then is that those whose names he first gave directly -were the culprits. Prance he did not know by name, but by sight alone. -From the beginning he had always spoken of “the waiter in the queen’s -chapel,” or of the man whom “he saw often in the chapel.” If this -had been a chance shot, he would afterwards have identified this man -with Green, who actually answered to the description. Instead of this -he recognised him in the person of Prance. As he only mentioned the -fact incidentally and did not insist upon it as a circumstance in -his favour, his word on the point is the more deserving of credit. -If Prance himself was a party to the murder he must have known -the real authors of it. He must have accused the innocent not from -necessity but from choice, and in order to conceal the guilty. As he -was expected and supposed to corroborate Bedloe’s evidence, his most -natural course was to introduce into his story all those whom Bedloe -had named. He carefully avoided mentioning any of them. No other reason -is conceivable except that he knew Bedloe to have exposed the real -murderers, and that he wished to shield them. What then was the motive -of the crime, and how did this extraordinary complication arise? - - - - - CHAPTER V - - THE SECRET - - -Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was an intimate friend of Edward Coleman, -secretary to the Duchess of York. At the time of the murder Coleman -lay in Newgate under an accusation of treason, and had so lain for -a fortnight. He was therefore never examined on the subject of his -friend’s death. The omission was unfortunate, for Coleman could -probably have thrown some light upon the nature of the magistrate’s -end.[269] It was constantly said, and the statement has often been -repeated, that when Oates left a copy of his information with Godfrey -on September 27, Godfrey at once wrote to Coleman an account of the -charges contained in it to give the Duke of York warning of the coming -storm.[270] The story was extensively used by those who wished to prove -that Godfrey had been murdered by the supporters of the Plot, or that -he had committed suicide from fear of a parliamentary inquiry into his -conduct. He had not only this reason for fear, urged L’Estrange, but he -had concealed the fact of Oates’ discovery to him for nearly a whole -month; this was the meaning of Godfrey’s enigmatical expressions of -apprehension, and his fear, combined with constitutional melancholy, -drove him to take his own life.[271] Whether or no he suffered from -depression is not a question of importance, since it has been proved -that he did not commit suicide, but was murdered. The rest of the -argument is equally unsound. When Godfrey took Oates’ first deposition -on September 6, he had no copy of the information left with him and -knew that it had already been communicated to the government.[272] As -for the fact that Godfrey had sent an account of Oates’ revelations -to the Duke of York, it would be absurd to suppose that plans of -vengeance were harboured against him on this score, for the duke had -been acquainted with the matter since August 31, when the forged -letters were sent to Bedingfield at Windsor, so that the information -he received from Godfrey was unimportant.[273] As this was a fact of -which the Lord Treasurer was perfectly aware, the suggestions of North -and Warner, the Jesuit provincial, that Godfrey had been threatened and -finally dispatched by order of Danby, on account of his officiousness -in making a communication to the duke, fall to the ground at the same -time.[274] Taken in this sense the words in which Godfrey foreshadowed -his doom are meaningless. He had assured Mr. Robinson that he believed -he should be the first martyr. “I do not fear them,” he added, “if they -come fairly, and I shall not part with my life tamely.” He declared -to Burnet his belief that he would be knocked on the head. To his -sister-in-law he said, “If any danger be, I shall be the first shall -suffer.” He had told one Mr. Wynnel that he was master of a dangerous -secret, which would be fatal to him. “Oates,” he said, “is sworn and is -perjured.”[275] Clearly Godfrey was labouring under an apprehension of -quite definite character. He was in possession of secret information -concerning Oates’ discovery and believed that it would cost him his -life. What this secret was is now to seek. The nature of it must show -why danger was to be apprehended and from what quarter. - -The statement that Godfrey wrote to Coleman to acquaint him with Oates’ -accusations is not quite correct. Burnet notes: “It was generally -believed that Coleman and he were long in a private conversation, -between the time of his (Coleman’s) being put in the messenger’s hands -and his being made a close prisoner.”[276] Such a conversation in -fact took place, though it was earlier than Burnet thought. Coleman -surrendered to the warrant against him on Monday, September 30.[277] -Two days before he came to the house of Mr. George Welden, a common -friend of himself and the magistrate. Welden sent his servant to -Godfrey’s house with the message that one Clarke wanted to speak to -him. It was the form arranged between them for use when Godfrey was in -company and Coleman wished to see him. Godfrey went to Mr. Welden’s -and there had an interview with Coleman. “When Mr. Coleman and Sir -Edmondbury were together at my house,” said Welden, “they were reading -papers.”[278] It can hardly be doubted what these papers were. The date -was Saturday, September 28, the day on which Godfrey had taken Oates’ -deposition. In that Oates had made charges of the most serious nature -against Coleman; and Coleman was Godfrey’s friend. The papers can -scarcely have been other than Godfrey’s copy of the deposition. Godfrey -had probably sent at once to Coleman to tell him what had passed. This -much may be gathered from the reports of letters which he was said to -have sent to Coleman and the Duke of York. Coleman then met him at -Welden’s house, and together they went through Oates’ information, -“Oates,” said Godfrey, “is sworn and is perjured.” This alone was -hardly a secret so dangerous as to make him fear for his life. Many -believed it. It was not an uncommon thing to say. The most grievous -consequence that could ensue would be to gain the reputation of a -“bloody papist,” and possibly to be threatened with implication in the -Plot. Such an opinion could not conceivably lead to fears of assaults -by night and secret assassination. But there was one particular in -which knowledge of Oates’ perjury might be very dangerous indeed. -No doubt Coleman pointed out Oates’ long tale of lies through many -articles of his deposition. There was one which he certainly would not -omit. The cardinal point in the Plot, according to Oates’ revelation, -was a Jesuit congregation held on April 24, 1678 at the White Horse -Tavern in the Strand, where means were concerted for the king’s -assassination. At all the trials of the Jesuits Oates came forward to -give evidence to this point. It was of the first importance. Oates’ -statement was false. No congregation had met on that day at the White -Horse Tavern. His perjury is more easy to prove here than in most other -particulars, for it is certain that the Jesuit congregation was held -on April 24 in a different place. It was held at St. James’ Palace, -the residence of the Duke of York. More than five years afterwards -James II let out the secret to Sir John Reresby.[279] Up to that -time it had been well guarded. It was of the utmost consequence that -the fact should not be known. Had it been discovered, the discredit -into which Oates would have fallen would have been of little moment -compared to the extent of the gain to the Whig and Protestant party. -To Shaftesbury the knowledge would have meant everything. Witnesses of -the fact would certainly have been forthcoming, and James’ reception -of the Jesuits in his home was a formal act of high treason. The -Exclusion bill would have been unnecessary. James would have been -successfully impeached and would have been lucky to escape with his -head upon his shoulders. Charles would hardly have been able to -withstand the outcry for the recognition of the Protestant duke as -heir to the throne, the Revolution would never have come to pass, and -the English throne might to this day support a bastard Stuart line -instead of the legitimate Hanoverian dynasty. Besides the Duke of York -and the Jesuit party one man only was acquainted with this stupendous -fact. It is hardly credible that Godfrey met Coleman on September 28, -1678 with any other object than to discuss with him the charges made -by Oates. Still less is it credible that Coleman failed to point out -Oates’ perjury in this matter. It need not be supposed that a definite -statement passed from him. A hint would have sufficed. In some way, -it may be conjectured, Coleman disclosed to the magistrate that which -he should have concealed. Such understandings are abrupt in origin -but swift in growth. Beyond doubt the secret, the shadow of which -Godfrey saw stretching across the line of his life, was that the Jesuit -congregation of April 24 had been held in the house and under the -patronage of the Duke of York.[280] - -And hence arose the perplexity and depression of mind from which he -is said to have suffered during the last days of his life. He was -possessed of information which, if published, would infallibly ruin -the cause of the Duke of York and of the Catholics, to whom he was -friendly. It had come to him in private from his friend, and to use -it might seem an act almost of treachery. Yet with these sentiments -Godfrey’s duty as a magistrate was in absolute conflict. It was -undoubtedly his business at once to communicate his knowledge to the -government. Not only was it illegal not to do so, and highly important -that such a weighty fact should not escape detection, but Godfrey -found himself at the centre of the investigation of Oates’ discovery, -and to reveal his news was probably the only way of exposing Oates’ -perjury. Nor did Godfrey underestimate the danger into which this -knowledge brought him. He feared that he would be assassinated. The -Jesuits were confronted with the fact that a secret of unbounded value -to their enemies had come into the hands of just one of the men who -could not afford, however much he might wish, to retain it. Godfrey -was, by virtue of his position as justice of the peace, a government -official. He might take time to approach the point of revealing his -information, but sooner or later he would assuredly reveal it. All the -tremendous consequences which would ensue could not then be prevented -or palliated. The only possible remedy was to take from Godfrey the -power of divulging the secret. His silence must be secured, and it -could only be made certain by the grave. To the suggestion that the -motive to the crime was not sufficient, it need only be answered that -at least nine men preferred to die a horrible and ignominious death -rather than prove their innocence and purchase life by telling the -facts.[281] Godfrey’s death was no ludicrous act of stupid revenge, but -a clear-headed piece of business. It was a move in the game which was -played in England between parties and religions, and which dealt with -issues graver than those of life and death. - -So far the matter is clear. Sir Edmund Godfrey was an intolerable -obstacle to the Jesuit party. He was in possession of a secret the -disclosure of which would utterly ruin them. He recognised himself that -his life was in danger and went in expectation of being assassinated. -His murder was, like Charles the First’s execution, a cruel necessity. -Two men gave evidence as to his death. The one, Bedloe, contradicted -himself beyond belief. Nevertheless he was able to recognise and accuse -the other, Prance, whose minute and consistent descriptions of time -and place mark him as a partner in the crime. The inference therefore -is sound that, as Bedloe accused correctly a man whom he knew by sight -and not by name, some of the men whose names he gave directly in his -account of the murder were probably the real criminals. These were -Le Fevre, the Jesuit confessor of the queen, Charles Walsh, a Jesuit -attached to the household of Lord Bellasis, and Charles Pritchard, a -third member of the Society of Jesus. With them were associated the -Roman Catholic silversmith, Miles Prance, whom Bedloe recognised as -the man whom he had taken for a waiter in the queen’s chapel, and -a servant of Lord Bellasis, whom he named as Mr. Robert Dent.[282] -Strictly, it is only a matter of conjecture that these men undertook -the deed, but it is supported by considerable probability. They were -singularly unfitted for the task. Godfrey had to be killed and his -corpse to be disposed in such a way that the crime might not be traced -to its true source. The men to do this were not professional criminals. -They did not know, what constant experience has demonstrated, that -the most apparently simple crimes are the hardest to bring home to -their authors. Their proper course was to waylay the magistrate in -the darkness of a narrow street, strip his body of every article of -value, and leave it to be supposed that the murder had been committed -for a vulgar robbery. Instead of this they determined to dispose the -corpse in such a way that Godfrey might be thought to have committed -suicide. The disposal would need time, and to gain the time necessary -it was needful that they should choose a spot to which they could have -free access, and where they would be undisturbed. As the most secret -spot known to them they chose exactly that which they should have most -avoided, the queen’s palace, Somerset House. To decoy Godfrey was not -difficult, for, contrary to the practice of the day, he went abroad -habitually without a servant.[283] The court of Somerset House was -not, as the Duke of York afterwards declared in his memoirs, crowded -with people; on the contrary, it was understood that the queen was -private, and orders were given that visitors were not to be admitted -in their coaches.[284] The queen’s confessor and his friends however -could doubtless secure an entrance. Here Godfrey was murdered, and in -Somerset House his body remained for four nights. In what place it -was kept cannot be decided. Hill’s lodgings were certainly not used. -Perhaps the spot chosen was the room in the same passage where Prance -said that the body had lain during one night.[285] The drops of white -wax which Burnet afterwards saw must have here been spilt upon the -dead man’s clothes. Godfrey himself never used wax candles.[286] On -Wednesday night the body was removed from Somerset House and carried -to the field in which it was found. That it was not taken through the -gate is made certain by the sentries’ evidence. It must therefore have -been carried through a private door. Thence it was taken in a carriage -to the foot of Primrose Hill; marks of coach wheels were seen in the -ground leading towards the spot in a place where coaches were not used -to be driven.[287] Godfrey’s sword was driven through his body, and the -corpse was left lying in the ditch, where it was found next day. - -In lodgings near Wild House lived four men. Two of them were Le Fevre -and Walsh, parties to the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey; the others were -Captain William Bedloe, “the discoverer of the Popish Plot,” and his -coadjutor, Charles Atkins. Atkins had declared before the secretary of -state that he lodged at Holborn, but Bedloe let the truth appear in his -examination. As it was a slip, which he immediately tried to cover, -and he was far from bringing it forward as a point in his favour, -his statement may be accepted.[288] Bedloe was thus in daily contact -with two of the criminals. He was on terms of intimacy with them. -They went about in his company and confided in him enough to allow -him to be present at secret celebration of the mass.[289] From this -quarter Bedloe’s information was derived. It is easy to conjecture -how he could have obtained it. Walsh and Le Fevre were absent from -their lodgings for a considerable part of the nights of Saturday and -Wednesday, October 12 and 16. Bedloe’s suspicions must have been -aroused, and either by threats or cajolery he wormed part of the secret -out of his friends. He obtained a general idea of the way in which the -murder had been committed and of the persons concerned in it. One of -these was a frequenter of the queen’s chapel whom he knew by sight. He -thought him to be a subordinate official there. If he went afterwards -to the chapel to discover him he must have been disappointed, for the -man occupied no office. He had failed to learn his name. It was only -by accident that nearly two months later he met Prance and recognised -him as the man he wanted. As he had no knowledge himself of the murder -and could not profess to have been present at it, he devised the story -that he had been shewn the body as it lay in a room in Somerset House -on the night of October 14. At this point he introduced the name of -Samuel Atkins. Le Fevre and Walsh had in the meantime disappeared, and -Bedloe was left without any fish in his net. Doubtless the fact that -Charles Atkins was his fellow-lodger suggested the idea of implicating -Pepys’ clerk. Samuel Atkins was well known to his namesake and had in -times past given him considerable assistance.[290] Charles Atkins now -shewed his gratitude by arranging with Bedloe to accuse his benefactor -of complicity in Godfrey’s murder. - -Prance’s conduct is now easy to explain. He was denounced by a man -who, as he had good reason to know, was not a party to the crime and -could have no certain knowledge of it. If he could shew a bold front -and stoutly maintain his perfect innocence all might be well. But to do -this meant to expose himself to the danger of being hanged. Bedloe had -moreover named other of the real criminals. They might yet be taken and -the secret be dragged from them. This at any cost must be prevented. -So Prance determined to pose as the repentant convert and to shield -the real culprits by bringing to death men whom he knew to be innocent. -His knowledge of the crime enabled him to describe its details in -the most convincing manner, while his acquaintance with the circle -of Somerset House enabled him to fit the wrong persons to the facts. -No doubt, when he was once out of the condemned cell, he felt that -he would prefer to keep free of the business altogether. Perhaps too -he was not without shame and horror at the idea of accusing innocent -men. He recanted. A recantation moreover, if he could persevere in it, -might succeed in shattering Bedloe’s credit as well as his own and -in diverting the line of inquiry from Somerset House. Pressure was -immediately put upon him, he was forced to retract and to return to his -original course of action. In this he was perfectly successful. Not -only was the investigation removed from a quarter unpleasantly near -to the Duke of York, but Prance manipulated his evidence so cleverly -that even the keen inquisitors who sat on the parliamentary committees -never for a moment suspected that the germ of truth for which they were -seeking was not contained in his but in Bedloe’s information. After the -appearance of Prance that was relegated to a secondary position; but -as Bedloe gained the reward of £500 offered for the discovery of the -murder, was lodged in apartments at Whitehall, and received a weekly -pension of ten pounds from the secret service fund, he had no reason -to be dissatisfied with the result. Prance too received a bounty of -fifty pounds “in respect of his services about the plot.”[291] The fact -that the murder was sworn to have taken place in Somerset House was -not without danger to the queen herself. At Bedloe’s first information -she acted a prudent part. She sent a message to the House of Lords -expressing her grief at the thought that such a crime could have taken -place in her residence, and offered to do anything in her power that -might contribute to the discovery of the murderers. When an order was -given to search the palace, she threw open the rooms and in every way -facilitated the process. The course which she adopted was most wise. -The Lords were touched by her confidence and voted thanks for her -message.[292] Her confessor, who had been accused by Bedloe, was not -charged by Prance. In spite of the libels which assailed her she was -never again molested on the matter.[293] - -Prance’s attitude as it has here been sketched accorded entirely with -the rest of his evidence. In his examination before the council he -began his story; “On a certain Monday.”[294] When he was taken by -Monmouth and Ossory to Somerset House he said “that it was either at -the latter end or the beginning of the week” that Godfrey had met -his death.[295] The significance of this is clear. No one wishing -to construct a false account of the murder could possibly have made -these statements. It was notorious that Godfrey had disappeared upon -Saturday, October 12. To postpone the date of the murder would be -to add a ludicrous difficulty to the story. This is exactly what -Prance wanted to do. If only he could be branded as a liar and thrust -ignominiously out of the circle of inquiry, his dearest object would -be accomplished. Other statements in his information make it certain -that this was the case. After naming Monday night as the time of -the murder, he went on to say to the council that the body lay in -Somerset House for four days, and was then carried away on the night -of Wednesday. Reckoning at the shortest, the fourth day from Monday -night was Friday, twenty-four hours after Godfrey’s body was found. -Reckoning backwards from Wednesday, the fourth day was Saturday, when -Godfrey was missed. Prance was therefore deliberately falsifying his -evidence in point of time when he named Monday. A similar result is -obtained from his examination by the Duke of Monmouth. In that he -said that the day of the murder was either at the latter end or the -beginning of the week. He further said “that the body lay in Somerset -House about six or seven days before it was carried out.” Counting the -week-end from Friday to Tuesday, six days from either of those or the -intermediate points brings the calculation at least to Thursday. At -the same time Prance declared that the body was removed at midnight on -Wednesday. It is evident that he was trying to throw dust in the eyes -of the investigators. These tactics were in vain, and he was forced to -tell the story in point of time truthfully. As for the fictitious view -of the body on the night of October 14, Prance simply told Bedloe’s -story with as little variation as possible, with the exception that he -did not mention Bedloe at all. Bedloe had landed himself in hopeless -confusion when he was taken to Somerset House to shew the room where it -had taken place.[296] Prance did not attempt to point it out. - -Prance did not stop at his evidence on the subject of the murder, -but went on to give information as to the Plot. Unless he had done -so he could hardly have hoped to escape from prison, for it would -seem incredible to the authorities that he should know so much and -yet not know more. Perhaps too he was bitten with the excitement and -glory of an informer’s life. His evidence was not however calculated -to assist materially the party whose interest it was to prosecute -the plot. He had already aroused annoyance by contradicting Bedloe’s -evidence concerning the murder.[297] He now proceeded to spin out a -string of utterly ridiculous stories about the Jesuits and other -Roman Catholics. All that was important in his evidence was hearsay -or directed against men who had already to contend against weightier -accusations. He declared that Fenwick, Ireland, and Grove had told him -that four of the five Popish lords were “to command the army.”[298] -They had for some time past been in prison in the Tower on far more -direct charges. At the trial of Ireland and Grove Prance was not -produced as a witness at all. At the trial of Whitbread, Fenwick, and -Harcourt he made the same statement. Fenwick had told him also that -he need not fear to lose his trade in the case of civil war, for he -should have plenty of work to do in making church ornaments.[299] These -stories were again retailed at the trials of Langhorn and Wakeman.[300] -When he was summoned as a witness against Lord Stafford he could say -no more than that one Singleton, a priest, had told him “that he would -make no more to stab forty parliament men than to eat his dinner.”[301] -Much of his evidence about the Plot was so ludicrous that it could -never be brought into court at all. Four men were to kill the Earl of -Shaftesbury and went continually with pistols in their pockets. One -Bradshaw, an upholsterer, had said openly in a tavern that it was no -more sin to kill a Protestant than to kill a dog, and that “he was -resolved to kill some of the busy lords.” It was the commonest talk -among Roman Catholics that the king and Lord Shaftesbury were to be -murdered. It was equally an ordinary subject of conversation that a -great army was to be raised for the extirpation of heretics. A surgeon, -named Ridley, had often told him “that he hoped to be chirurgeon to -the Catholic army in England”; and when he complimented one Moore, a -servant of the Duke of Norfolk, upon “a very brave horse” which he was -riding, “Moore wished that he had ten thousand of them, and hoped in a -short time that they might have them for the Catholic cause.” In his -publication Prance added to this a disquisition on the immorality of -the secular priests, among whom he had at the time two brothers.[302] -So tangled and nonsensical a tale could be a source of strength to -no prosecution. Dr. Lloyd was alarmed at the extent and facility of -Prance’s new information.[303] Bishop Burnet thought, “It looked very -strange, and added no credit to his other evidence that the papists -should thus be talking of killing the king as if it had been a common -piece of news.[304] And Warner, the Jesuit provincial, characterised -Prance’s later evidence as of little scope and less weight.”[305] - -To how many persons Prance’s real position in the tortuous intrigues -which circled round the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey was known is a -question very difficult to answer. By the Jesuit writers on the Plot -his character is treated with a moderation foreign to their attacks on -the other informers. He is to them “a silversmith of no obscurity,” -and “by far less guilty than the rest in the crimes of their past -lives.”[306] It is hard to think that some of them were not acquainted -with the part which he had played. There are stronger indications -that within a select circle his true character was appreciated. When -James II came to the throne Prance was brought to trial for perjury, -and on June 15, 1686 pleaded guilty to the charge. The court treated -him to a lecture in which his conduct was compared favourably to that -of Oates, who had remained hardened to the end, and promised to have -compassion on a true penitent. He was sentenced to pay a fine of a -hundred pounds, to be three times pilloried for the space of an hour, -and to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. The last and heaviest -part of the punishment, the flogging, under which Oates’ iron frame -had nearly sunk, was remitted by the king’s command.[307] There is -considerable reason to believe that the trial was collusive and the -result prearranged. That Prance should confess himself perjured is -easy to understand: to understand why Prance’s sentence was lightened, -unless it was in reward for good service done, would be very difficult. -All the reasons which had worked before for the exculpation of the -Roman Catholics from the guilt of Godfrey’s murder were now redoubled -in force. Oates had already suffered for his crimes. The Popish Plot, -as Sir John Reresby told James, was not only dead, but buried. To -overthrow the Protestant story of Godfrey’s death would be to throw -the last sod upon its grave. This was much; but James was not the man -to forego without reason the sweetest part of his vengeance upon the -witness who had set up that story. The rancour with which he pursued -Oates and Dangerfield seemed to have completely vanished when the turn -came to Prance. Prance had certainly diverted the investigation from -James’ personal neighbourhood; but Oates had been saved nothing of his -terrible punishment by the fact that he had cleared the Duke of York -in his first revelation of the plot. The harm done by Dangerfield to -the Catholic cause was nothing compared to that accomplished by Prance, -if the surface of events told a true tale. Dangerfield was whipped, if -not to death, at least to a point near it. But Prance was let off the -lash. Without the flogging his sentence was trifling. James had no love -for light sentences in themselves. His action is only explicable on the -ground that he was acquainted with the truth, and knew how valuable an -instrument Prance had proved himself. - -One man at least could have told him the facts: Father John Warner, -late provincial of the Jesuits in England and confessor of the king. -Less than three years later, when the storm of revolution burst over -the Catholic court and drove its supporters to seek a penurious -refuge on the continent, a shipload of these was setting out from -Gravesend in mid December. They were bound for Dunkirk with as many -valuables as they could carry with them. Before they could set sail, -information was laid and an active man, aided by the officers of the -harbour, boarded the vessel. The last passengers were being rowed out -from shore. They were arrested in the boat and carried back with the -others seized on the ship. They were Father Warner and Miles Prance. -While the officers were busy in caring for the captured property, their -prisoners escaped. Warner made his way to Maidstone and by means of a -forged passport crossed the Channel. Prance was soon after retaken in -the attempt to follow under a false name. The vessel on board which he -was found was seized, but those on her were discharged, and Prance was -probably successful in his third endeavour to reach the continent.[308] -Supposing that Prance had been the Protestant puppet which he has -been believed, this was queer company in which to find him. He had -attacked Warner’s religion, accused his friends, and brought to death -those of his faith by false oaths. His confession of perjury would -hardly weigh down the scale against this. At least he was not the man -whom Warner would choose as a travelling companion on a journey in -which detection might at any moment mean imprisonment and even death. -The risk that Prance would turn coat again and denounce him was not -inconsiderable. Prance’s conduct too was remarkable. Why should he fly -from the Revolution? True, he had confessed that his accusations of -the Catholics were false, and he could not expect great gratitude from -the party in power; but he had only to retract his words once more, on -the plea that his confession had been extorted against his will, to -live in safety, at any rate, if not with prosperity. Away from England, -surrounded by those whom he had wronged, the future before him was -hopeless. - -The supposition cannot be supported. Prance’s position in the politics -of the plot is not easy to set in a clear light. The attempt made here -to do so at least offers a hypothesis by which some of the difficulties -are explained. The last phase of the informer’s career, at all events, -becomes intelligible. Prance had been throughout one of the most astute -and audacious of the Jesuit agents, and Warner must have been perfectly -aware of the fact. - -The success of Godfrey’s murder as a political move is indubitable. -The Duke of York was the pivot of the Roman Catholic schemes in -England,[309] and Godfrey’s death saved both from utter ruin. -Nevertheless it was attended by gravely adverse consequences. If the -fact of the Jesuit congregation at St. James’ Palace had become known, -nothing could have saved the duke. But the crime which prevented this -gave an impetus to the pursuit of the Plot and a strength to the Whig -party, so great that it all but succeeded in barring him from the -throne and establishing a Protestant dynasty. Godfrey’s fame rose -almost to the height of legend. On a Sunday in the February after his -murder a great darkness overspread the face of the sky of London. The -atmosphere was so murky that in many churches service could not be -continued without the aid of candles. It was said that in the midst of -the gloom in the queen’s chapel at Somerset House, even while mass was -being said, the figure of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey appeared above the -altar. Thereafter the place went by the name of Godfrey Hall.[310] - - - - - POLITICS OF THE PLOT - - - - - CHAPTER I - - THE GOVERNMENT - - -“The English nation are a sober people,” wrote Charles I to his abler -son, “however at present infatuated.” Charles II had greater right than -ever his father to believe that his subjects were mad. The appearance -of Oates and the death of Godfrey heralded an outburst of feeling as -monstrous as the obscure events which were its cause. From the sense -of proportion they had displayed in the Civil War the English people -seemed now divorced and, while they affected to judge those of “less -happier lands” fickle and tempest-tossed, let the tide of insobriety -mount to the point of complete abandonment. Public opinion was formed -without reason. The accumulated suspicion and hatred of years swelled -into an overpowering volume of tumultuous emotion. Scarcely the most -sane escaped the prevailing contagion of prejudice and terror. None -could tell where the spread would stop. - -The times were in a ferment when Parliament met on October 21, 1678. -In his speech from the throne the king gave notice to the Houses that -information had been laid of a Jesuit conspiracy against his life, -and he and the Lord Chancellor following promised a strict inquiry. -The government wished to keep the investigation clear of Westminster, -recognising the danger of parliamentary interference;[311] but the -Commons were of another mind. They returned to their house, and -business was begun by members of the privy council. Motions were made -to take the king’s speech into consideration, for the keep of the -army, and the court party tried first to turn the attention of the -house to the need for money. The question was about to be put, while -country members sat in amazement. Suddenly one rose to his feet and in -a speech of fire brought to debate the subject that was in the mind of -every man present. He admired, he said, that none of those gentlemen -who had spoken nor any others of the house who held great places at -court should speak one word of the Plot, though his Majesty’s life and -government were exposed to manifest danger; the property, liberty, -lives, and, yet dearer, the religion of all were embarked in the same -bottom; that neither an army nor money, in however vast sums, could -protect a prince from the knife of a villain the murder of two Kings -of France testified; and was the prisoner Coleman, so inconsiderable a -person, to be thought the chief agent in a design of such importance, -of such deep intrigues and tortuous ways But a few days before Sir -Edmund Godfrey had been done to death. Were a spaniel lost, inquiry -was made in the _Gazette_: now a worthy gentleman had been barbarously -murdered in discharge of his duty, and no search was undertaken for -the criminals. The privy council, declared the speaker, was cold in -its pursuit; let the great council of the land proceed with greater -vigour.[312] Parliament threw itself into the case with immediate -determination. Committees were appointed to consider ways and means for -the preservation of the king’s person, to inquire into the Plot and -Godfrey’s murder, a bill was prepared to disable papists from sitting -in either house of Parliament, addresses were made for the removal of -all popish recusants from London and for a day of solemn fast, which -was accordingly appointed by proclamation for November 13. Oates and -Bedloe were heard with their expansive tales at the bars of both -houses, and on the 1st of November a joint resolution was voted that -“there hath been and still is a damnable and hellish Plot, contrived -and carried on by Popish Recusants, for the assassinating and murdering -the King and rooting out and destroying the Protestant religion.”[313] - -Consternation was not expressed in debate alone. Gallant members were -in alarm as well for themselves as for their sovereign. Sir Edward Rich -informed the Lords’ committee of an apprehension he had for some time -felt that both houses of Parliament were to be blown up. A beggar at -the Great Door was arrested on suspicion that he was an Irish earl’s -son. Great knocking had been heard underground in the night hours. -Sir John Cotton, who owned a cellar beneath the Painted Chamber, was -requested to have his coals and faggots removed from so dangerous a -spot, and the Duke of Monmouth generously lent guards to stand watch -until a strict examination could be made. Accompanied by the Masters -of the Ordnance and an expert builder. Sir Christopher Wren and Sir -Jonas Moore conducted the inspection. They reported the lower structure -of the house to be in an extremely dangerous state. The walls were -mostly seven feet thick and contained many secret places. Vaults ran -all the way from the Thames under Westminster Hall. By the help of -neighbours who owned the cellars any one could introduce a store of -gunpowder within four and twenty hours. Without a guard their lordships -could have no security. Orders were given for the adjoining houses and -vaults to be cleared, for the cellars to be opened one into another, -and sentinels to patrol them night and day under command of a trusty -officer. It was even doubted whether Parliament had not better remove -to Northumberland House. Still as neither knocking nor the beggar -were seen to produce ill effects, nothing further was done, and Sir -Edward Rich found himself derided as a lunatic.[314] Beyond Westminster -the terror ran no less high. A report came to town that St. John’s -College, Cambridge, had been burnt down and three priests taken with -fireballs in their possession. The new prison at Clerkenwell was fired -and some priests immured there hailed as the obvious incendiaries. -Somerset House was searched by Lord Ossory, who was promptly said -to have found a hundred thousand fireballs and hand-grenades, A -poor Venetian soapmaker was thrown into prison on the charge of -manufacturing similar infernal machines; but on examination his wares -turned out to be merely balls of scent. Dread of fire seemed to have -touched the limit when Sir William Jones sent an express from Hampstead -with orders to move his store of firewood from the front to the back -cellar of his house in London that it might be less near the malign -hands of Jesuits. And from Flanders came the disquieting rumour that -if, as was expected, the Catholics in England were destroyed in the -turmoil, the burghers of Bruges had prepared the same fate for English -Protestants in their town.[315] - -Into the midst of so fierce a storm Charles II and his government were -thus suddenly thrown. It had broken over their heads almost without -warning. September had passed with a clear sky; October was not out -before the elements had massed their forces against the king’s devoted -servants and were threatening to overwhelm the land with a gigantic -catastrophe. In August Charles had at his control a formidable army -and in his pocket the sum of £800,000, with the added satisfaction of -seeing removed by the general peace a fruitful opportunity for his -political opponents: before December the throne on which he sat seemed -tottering to its fall. The servants of the crown faced the situation -with admirable fortitude. English statecraft of the Restoration period -was a haphazard school. Since the fall of Clarendon integrity of -dealing had ceased to be an ideal for English politicians. Common -honesty, the saving grace of party principle, fled from a scene where -could be witnessed the sight of offices bought and sold with cheerful -frankness and votes bidden for as at an auction without shame. The -king’s chief minister lent himself to a policy of which he heartily -disapproved. The king’s mistresses were notable pieces in the game -played at court. A quarrel between them might be expected to influence -the fate of incalculable futures. General want of method reduced the -public services to chaos. The salaries of ambassadors fell into long -arrear; clerks in the offices of the secretaries of state petitioned -vehemently for their wages; the very gentlemen waiters were forced -to urge that either their diet or money in its stead should not be -denied them.[316] Nevertheless the nation throve on a habit of inspired -disorder. Lord Treasurer Danby increased the royal revenue wonderfully. -The Stop of the Exchequer, a breach of faith which convulsed the -city, scarcely sufficed to shock the national credit. The growth of -trade and commerce was completely changing the aspect of England, -and wealth increased rapidly. Able and painstaking men such as Sir -Joseph Williamson, Sir William Temple, Henry Coventry, Sir Leoline -Jenkins, and in a lesser degree Samuel Pepys and the Earl of Conway, -conducted the changeful administration of affairs with industry and -circumspection. Want of order did not disturb them, for they were used -to none; and secretaries of state were accustomed to pursue their royal -master with business in bed, at his after-dinner dose, and even to -still more remote places of retreat.[317] A continual shifting of the -horizon prepared them for unexpected events. Without brilliant parts -they learned to confront steadily situations of difficulty and danger. -That which now met them was not without precedent. It had become -almost a tradition of Charles’ government to expect the worst without -ceasing to hope for the best. From the Restoration onwards alarms had -been frequent and a spirit of revolt, even of revolution, in the air. -Venner’s insurrection and the trouble in Scotland served during the -earlier years to make plain that stability was not assured, and it -was not only events on the surface that denoted uneasiness. In 1673 -and the following year attention was occupied by a mysterious affair, -never probed to the bottom, in which Edmund Everard, later perjured -as an informer at the time of the Popish Plot, was charged with a -design to poison the Duke of Monmouth and other persons of quality, and -himself confessed his ill intention, having apparently been tutored -by some of the experts in that art who flourished across the channel; -with the result that he was thrown into the Tower, and was able four -years after to boast of having been the first to discover the Plot and -to charge the authorities with stifling it in his person.[318] Other -problems trod upon the heels of this in quick succession. Throughout -the years 1675 and 1676 the government shewed anxiety lest a fresh -sectarian movement was on foot. A great riot made in the former year -by the London prentices drew watchful eyes upon reputed fanatics. -Considerable information was collected in the provinces, and judges -on circuit earned golden praise by proving their attachment in word -and deed to the established church. At Worcester a man of notorious -opinions stood his trial for treason, but the jury acquitted him on -the ground of madness, and despite plain speaking from the bench held -to their verdict. Dark hints reached the government that on the first -meeting of Parliament after the long prorogation an attempt would be -made to seize the king and his brother and “order all things securely.” -Somewhat later Compton, Bishop of London, furnished the Lord Treasurer -with particulars of conventicles held by Anabaptists and other -dangerous dissenters in the city and in Southwark, amounting to the -number of sixteen, and for the most part frequented by between one and -three hundred persons; while from another source Danby learned that the -total of a few of the London congregations rose to over four thousand -souls.[319] - -At the same time other adversaries of the church were not neglected. -Already in the spring of 1676 report was rife of papists laying -in supplies of arms, and a gentleman of Hereford was charged by a -number of witnesses with having declared that, had a recent account -of the king’s sickness or death continued but one day longer, the -Duke of York would have been proclaimed, and rather than allow the -duke to want men he would have raised a troop of horse at his own -expense. Orders were sent to the deputy lieutenant of the county to -keep stricter watch over the Roman Catholics of whom such tales were -told.[320] Repeated proclamations against the bold and open repair to -the chapels of foreign ambassadors for the purpose of hearing mass -and of the maintenance by them of English priests were doubtless -caused by political need, but the same reason cannot account for -private directions given by the king to Secretary Coventry to obtain -information as to the extent and nature of the correspondence carried -on with foreign parts by Edward Coleman. Instructions were issued -for his letters to be intercepted, and some dozen were seized, but -among them, unfortunately for all concerned, none of high importance. -Although no find was made, the fact that search should have been -thought necessary denotes in the government a real sense of the -working underground.[321] Shortly before, Danby had caused the bishops -to make returns of the proportion of Roman Catholics and other -dissenters to conformists in their several dioceses, and that from the -Bishop of Winchester is preserved. Dr. Morley had been advised that the -motive was a fear of the result should the laws against conventicles -be fully executed, as it was suspected that the number of those to be -suppressed exceeded that of the suppressors. He was delighted to reply -that the fear was groundless. Out of nearly 160,000 inhabitants in the -diocese of Winchester 140,000 conformed to the Church of England, and -of the remainder only 968 were classed as popish recusants; while the -bishop’s pious belief that the odds in favour of his side would be -equally great elsewhere was confirmed by an abstract of the returns -for the whole province of Canterbury setting down the complete number -of papists at 11,870. Other accounts gave the number of Catholics in -London alone as 30,000, and their real strength in England remains -unknown; but Danby had to admit to the French ambassador, when he spoke -of the alarm caused by the Duke of York’s conduct, that they did not -muster in all more than twelve thousand.[322] Though he did not lose -sight of Catholic movements and provided himself with detailed accounts -of their less known leaders in London,[323] the Lord Treasurer clearly -entertained keener fears of danger from the other side. - -So corrupt and able a statesman as the Earl of Danby could not fail -of being an object of attack when the panic of the Popish Plot swept -over the country. The one party accused him of having contrived the -whole affair to sustain his credit by a persecution of the Catholics -and an increase of the army, the other of stifling it to save the -Duke of York, his former patron.[324] In truth he had done neither -the one nor the other. When Tonge’s information first came to hand he -had regarded it carefully and wished to sift the matter with caution. -As likelihood grew stronger that the doctor was a liar, Danby became -cooler towards him; so cool indeed that Tonge and his associates fell -into a fright for the prosperity of their future and sought help -elsewhere. Yet he realised the necessity for watchfulness, and it was -due to his energy that Coleman’s papers were seized.[325] This attitude -was hardly changed by the meeting of Parliament. The Lord Treasurer was -a consistent opponent of the French and Roman Catholic interest. His -constant endeavour was to draw Charles into union with Parliament and -foreign Protestant powers against the pretensions of Louis XIV, and -he thought that unless the king obtained foreign aid and set himself -to a regular conquest of his country this was the only way to avoid -complete division and debility at home;[326] but though these were -his hopes, he was ready at the very moment of urging them to support -his master’s private policy abroad in a wholly contrary spirit, and -so caused his own fall; for when Charles wrote to Paris for money -from the French king, Danby executed his orders, thus leaving his -handwriting to be produced against him. The fate that forced the Lord -Treasurer to act on instructions he detested was bitter. Nevertheless -he was not prepared to sacrifice office for principle. He continued -to obey orders and to hold his place. Retribution fell on him. The -immoral character of his conduct reaped a full reward; but it must be -remembered that at a time when the king was master of his servants as -well in fact as in name, there was something in Danby’s plea that the -monarch’s command in matters of peace and war and foreign policy was -absolute to his minister, and not open to question. Immoral or not, the -danger of Danby’s course was obvious, for powerful enemies at home and -abroad were eagerly waiting the moment to hurl the forerunners of prime -ministers from his eminent seat. - -The opportunity had at last arrived. Feared and hated by the opposition -for his policy of Anglican predominance at home, by the French -government as a chief supporter of Protestant resistance on the -continent, by both for the army which might be used against either, -Danby found himself assailed by a combination of the Whig leaders -and the French ambassador. He had refused the place of secretary of -state to Ralph Montagu, ambassador in Paris, and the latter was now -recalled from his post by Charles owing to a discreditable intrigue -he had formed with the Duchess of Cleveland, abandoned and living in -France. Nor did the disgrace end there, for Montagu’s name was struck -off the list of the privy council. With him he brought back to England -letters written by Danby to demand subsidies from Louis. His intentions -could not yet be foreseen, but the indications of public events were -enough to cause the Treasurer grave anxiety. An atmosphere of plot and -disturbance surrounded the court, and while information poured in, -little exact evidence could be extracted from it. Money either to pay -or to disband the army there was none; the fleet was equally without -provision, and Parliament was tender of voting supplies lest they -should be misused. The Commons had imprisoned Secretary Williamson for -issuing commissions to popish recusants, and were highly incensed when -on the next day Charles calmly released him: worst of all, they were -preparing a bill to raise the militia of the whole kingdom without -possibility of its disbandment for a period of six weeks. Danby -believed that under cover of the universal excitement sinister designs -against the Duke of York and himself were in the air. Many were of -opinion, he wrote to Sir William Temple, that those who called for -inquiry into the Plot had objects nearer their hearts that they were -pursuing under its cover. Yet he was so overwhelmed with business that -he hardly had time to review the situation in his mind and consider the -best course to pursue.[327] - -Suddenly the bolt fell as if from the blue. Danby was warned by Sir -John Reresby of danger impending from Montagu’s side. He had in vain -attempted to manage the ambassador’s exclusion from Parliament; Montagu -was defeated at Grinstead by the Treasurer’s candidate, and narrowly -won a seat for Northampton on a contested election. Had he failed he -could scarcely have dared fortune, but privilege of Parliament secured -him from the enmity of the powers. Roused to immediate action, the -minister attempted a counterstroke. Montagu had held unauthorised -communication with the papal nuncio at Paris, and Danby charged him -before the council with his malpractice, swiftly sending a warrant -to seize his papers. But here the adroit statesman met more than -his match. In the midst of the disturbance caused to the Commons by -the king’s message on the subject, Montagu quietly remarked that he -believed the search a design by abstracting evidence to conceal the -misconduct of a great minister of which he had knowledge. He had in -fact removed the documents from his other papers and placed them in -safe keeping; and on the following day they were triumphantly produced -to the House as evidence of Danby’s popery, treachery, and subservience -to the interests of the King of France. For Montagu had been bought -by Barillon and Shaftesbury, and promised Louis XIV for a hundred -thousand crowns to procure the Treasurer’s ruin within six months. At -a moment when all Protestants in the realm were crying in horror at -the danger threatening their religion, the spectacle was exhibited of -the king’s chief minister hurled from power by the French ambassador -in conjunction with the leaders of the Protestant party for his too -powerful support of the Protestant cause and the Anglican constitution. -The man who had reorganised the royal finance, and had persistently -advocated a national policy in the cause of English commerce and -the English crown, vanished from the scene, accused of treachery to -all three and under the stigma of having robbed his master and left -twenty-two shillings and ten pence in an exchequer which, after payment -for a vast addition to the navy, was actually stocked with over a -hundred thousand pounds.[328] Charged with plotting, the Treasurer was -himself the victim of a plot as base and planned by men as unscrupulous -as are known to the annals of English politics. The rest of the story -is thrice-told; how Danby was impeached and defended himself, pardoned -and raised to a marquisate, how he lay hid in Whitehall while the bill -of attainder was being passed, how he saved his head by surrendering -four days before the attaint had force, and passed from the intrigues -of the Popish Plot to an imprisonment of five years in the Tower, -whence he was released in the day of his master’s triumph. Many years -after, when Danby published his letters, he took occasion to prove -himself no less unscrupulous than his enemies by judiciously altering -the words, “I approve of this letter,” which stood in the king’s -writing at the foot of the most incriminating sheet, to those which in -their yet more exonerating form have become famous; “This letter is -writ by my order—C. R.” Meanwhile his opponents triumphed, and Montagu -was even successful in obtaining from the French king as much as half -the reward promised for his perfidy.[329] - -The fall of the Lord Treasurer swelled the difficulties of the -government without disconcerting its policy. Though the opposition -could score so great a success, there was no thought of giving up the -main issue. The scheme of the militia bill was struck to the ground, -for Charles declared that he would not comply with it for so much as -the space of half an hour; he had not forgotten that the home forces -might be used against other than foreign enemies. The Whig party was -inspired with rage. Ten days before it had met with a still more -serious rebuff. On November 20 the bill disabling Roman Catholics from -sitting in Parliament was passed by the Lords, but with a proviso -excepting the Duke of York by name from its action. James had won -his point only by tears and incredible exertion, and the opposition -expected confidently to throw the proviso out in the Commons. A furious -debate took place. Supporters of the duke were assailed with cries of -“Coleman’s letters! Coleman’s letters!” High words were bandied across -the floor of the House, and Sir Jonathan Trelawny, on the court side, -was committed to the Tower for boxing the ears of Mr. Ash, a country -member, and calling him a rascal. Yet to the bitter disappointment of -its opponents the government was successful, and the saving clause -passed by a majority of two votes. The French ambassador thought that -James could have hardly escaped from a greater danger.[330] Another -was already looming darkly against him out of the cloudy future. Early -in the session of Parliament Shaftesbury, supported by Halifax, Essex, -and Barlow, now Bishop of London, had demanded the Duke of York’s -dismissal from the king’s presence and counsels. Lord Russell moved an -address to the same effect in the Commons. In the debate which followed -Sacheverell, acting on the report of Coleman’s examination that he had -himself drawn up, gave the first direct hint of the memorable project -of the Exclusion bill. Might not the king and Parliament, he asked, -dispose of the succession to the crown of England?[331] The idea struck -immediate root. It was the obvious point to which all that had gone -before tended. The exclusion of James was to be the touchstone of -English politics for two years, and the lines on which parties were to -be divided by it showed themselves at once. King Charles did not delay -to make his view of the situation plain. He told Danby in private that -he would not object to pare the nails of a popish successor, but that -nothing should induce him to see his brother’s right suffer injury; -and with more dignified language and thanks for the care manifested -for his personal safety informed Parliament of his readiness to join -in all possible ways and means to establish the Protestant religion in -firm security. Subjects might be assured that he would assent to any -bills presented to safeguard them during the reign of his successor, -with this ominous condition only, that none should diminish the just -powers of the throne or tend to impeach the right of succession and the -descent of the crown in the true line.[332] On the other side the Whig -lords, with whom Halifax was still at this time allied, had adopted the -notion and persuaded Barillon that an attack upon the duke was the best -way to attain his end. The ambassador was not wholly convinced but, -since the resistance he could make to their plan would be useless, went -the way of his friends and lent them judicious assistance. At least the -Frenchman’s policy proved successful. His objects were to overthrow -Danby and force Charles to disband the army which might perhaps be -used against France. Danby fell; and on the very day when the warrant -was sent to seize Montagu’s papers, the Commons voted a supply for -the purpose of paying off all the troops raised in the course of the -preceding year. A month later, as a last attempt to save his minister, -Charles dissolved the Cavalier Parliament after an unbroken existence -of eighteen years. - -The elections for the new parliament were fought amid intense -excitement and with peculiar energy. Both parties exerted their -utmost powers to gain the day. The contest was the sole subject of -conversation. Purse and pen and all other imaginable means of influence -were employed without stint to elevate the intelligence and debase the -morals of the electors of England. At this time began the ingenious -practice of splitting freeholds to multiply votes. Under the guidance -of Shaftesbury pamphlets urging the Exclusion as the only means of -safety for the nation flooded the country. Lord Russell, one of the -most honest of his party, was elected for two counties. Drunkenness and -bribery were everywhere notorious. At Norwich “a strange consumption of -beer” was noted by Sir Thomas Browne. Sir William Waller, a magistrate -famed for his success in priest-hunting, won a seat at Westminster at -no less a cost, as those on his own side reported, than of a thousand -pounds. At the Bedfordshire polls the same interest carried the day -for six times that sum. Everywhere the Whigs were victorious. When the -result came to be known, it was found that the government could rely -upon a mere handful of twenty or thirty votes in the new parliament as -against a hundred and fifty in the old.[333] - -Notwithstanding the disastrous complexion of affairs Charles began -the session on March 6, 1679 with considerable success. Outside the -circle of politicians the chief cause of alarm to the nation was the -continued existence of the army. The king had decided to remove the -ground of fear by undertaking the actual disbandment of his troops. To -this end he demanded from the Commons the accomplishment of the offer -made by the last parliament. On April 16 a supply of over £206,000 was -voted and appropriated for the purpose, and the disbandment began at -once.[334] Before many months had passed a source of apparent strength -and real weakness to the government was thus removed. Accusations of -arbitrary rule lost much of their force; for those who now indulged in -the charge were not only open to the retort, which could be levelled at -them before, that their insistance was insincere, but found themselves -in a far less good position to reply. It was perhaps with more personal -pleasure that Charles defeated the Commons in an altercation that took -place at the opening of Parliament over their choice of a Speaker, -Edward Seymour, a wealthy and profligate Devonshire landowner, who had -served in the chair in the late House of Commons, was noted for an able -opponent of the court and in particular of Lord Danby. The government -determined to effect a change, and named for Speaker Sir Thomas Meres, -a member of the Whig party, as less likely to give offence than one -from the court side. The Commons however elected Seymour again, and he, -having wind of the king’s intention to grant the formal request made -by all Speakers to be relieved of their dignity, on his presentation -omitted the customary words; but the Lord Chancellor replied for -Charles that he could not allow such talent to be wasted on the post, -having other employment for him, and sent Seymour and the rest of the -Commons back to choose another. High was the indignation of the House, -which sat for a whole week headless, combative, and remonstrating. -One ardent member declared: “This is gagging the Commons of England -and, like an Italian revenge, damning the soul first, then killing -the body.” A representation was made to the king, protesting that his -action was without precedent and the Commons only within their rights, -and a second to justify the first, which Charles had told them was -mere waste of time. In answer the king prorogued Parliament for two -days. When it again assembled, the matter was allowed to drop. Neither -Seymour nor Meres was proposed, but Serjeant Gregory, of a more neutral -disposition, who was elected and approved without difficulty.[335] -Though the Commons professed to be satisfied, since they had -established their right to a free choice, the honours lay in reality -with Charles, who had successfully rejected a freely chosen candidate -objectionable to himself. - -The beginning of the parliament was prophetic of what was to come. At -the time no cause could seem lower than that of the court. The Whigs -had swept the country at the elections. Everything at Whitehall, at -the exchequer, in the services, was in disorder and disrepair. The -royal household still clamoured for unpaid wages. The whole nation -was in a ferment. Men’s minds were painfully divided by the project -of exclusion. Innumerable cabals, intriguing one against another, -troubled the surface of politics and clouded the depths. No one could -tell what designs and what dangers any moment might bring forth. Above -all no one could gauge the king’s intentions. Uncertainty reigned -everywhere, and it seemed as if the opposing forces had but to make -one push and thrust aside the resistance of government, order England -as they would, and reign in peace.[336] A somewhat different light -is shed by after events on “the very melancholy aspect” which Sir -John Reresby noted in the kingdom. In spite of the clamour raised on -all sides against feebleness and irresolution, the government had -marshalled its strength with some adroitness. Danby was in the Tower. -The army was in the act of being disbanded. The treasury was put -into commission, and the Earl of Essex, whose austerity and popular -sympathies could not but inspire some measure of confidence, named as -first commissioner. Before Parliament assembled the Duke of York at -his brother’s command had left the kingdom, and was watching events -with wrath and foreboding, but with little influence, from across -the Channel. Nothing that could betoken a conciliatory spirit in the -court had been omitted. There followed a move still more important as -a check to the unbridled Commons. The committee of secrecy had just -been instructed to consider methods of impeachment of the five Popish -lords, when on April 21 the king announced to Parliament that he had -chosen a new privy council. The scheme he went on to outline, though -attributed at the time to divers other heads, had its origin in the -elegant fancy of Sir William Temple.[337] That excellent ambassador and -gardener, returning from a mission to the Hague, found the turbulence -of the state and the dangers surrounding the king such that he promptly -set to considering how he might devise some advantage to his master’s -service. Diplomatic experience and a natural bent to theoretical -statesmanship were more prominent in his mind than knowledge of the -practical expedients which must temper the keenness of political -ideas in action. He saw Parliament daily encroaching, as it seemed to -him, on the royal prerogative; he saw the king drawing apart from his -people; he feared an open rupture which might throw the state into -convulsion. On these considerations he evolved the notion of a third -authority, which, standing midway between the two, should act at the -same time as a cushion and as a link. The instrument he found in the -privy council. By reducing the number from fifty to thirty Temple hoped -that business would be discussed by the whole board, cabals and secret -understandings avoided. Members were no longer to be of one party -only, or allied in ambition; on the contrary, fifteen places should -go to officers of state, fifteen to popular leaders from both houses -of Parliament; and since he observed authority to follow land, Temple -arranged that the total income of the several members should amount -to £300,000, a sum to be compared not unfavourably with that of the -House of Commons, which was estimated at a third as much again. By such -a council the king’s policy would be ably regulated. Its composition -would give confidence even to the most hostile parliament. Neither by -Parliament nor by king could its authority be lightly disregarded. -In the event of a breach between the two the council would be rich -enough to assist the finances of the state. At the same time the king -could be certain, by means of the votes of his fifteen officers, that -he would not be forced to act against his own interests. The project -won instant approval. Essex considered that it pointed a return to -the happy days of the Restoration; Lord Sunderland, now secretary of -state in place of Sir Joseph Williamson, was favourably impressed; -the Lord Chancellor declared it was as a thing from heaven fallen -into his majesty’s breast. The Chancellor’s remark had an unwitting -point. Though the scheme was of Temple’s conception, Charles made it -his own by a characteristic touch. He consented to the inclusion of -Halifax in the new council only after some pressure, for he disliked -and perhaps feared the great Trimmer. It was therefore with amazement -that his advisers heard the king name Lord Shaftesbury. Still more -amazing, Charles positively insisted on the earl’s inclusion as an -extraordinary member of the council and its president. Temple was -compelled to submit, not without protest. It was an act which should -have given pause to optimists. None the less the news of the scheme -was hailed with general applause. Bonfires were lighted in the city, -the East India Company’s stock rose rapidly, Barillon did not conceal -his mortification, and the Dutch republic marked the occasion by the -appointment of one of its most able ministers as ambassador to St. -James’; only the House of Commons viewed the matter in an unexpected -light and with dissatisfaction. While the French feared a bond of union -between the hostile parties in England and old Cavaliers that the king -had delivered himself into the hands of his enemies, the Whigs held -sullenly aloof from rejoicing, or proclaimed that they were being led -into a trap. The Earl of Essex had already lost credit with his friends -by serving on the commission for the treasury, and those of the party -who took places on the council found that glances were cast askance at -them as betrayers of their trust.[338] - -To most eyes the situation as affected by the change of council was -far from clear. The king himself held the key to it. Whether or no -Temple’s scheme was really practicable, Charles did not intend to try. -He had gained a point by dissolving his old council, which was filled -with friends of Danby.[339] Another and a greater advantage was that -signified by the choice of Shaftesbury as president of the new. His -friends thought the king guilty of a lamentable piece of feebleness. -Had the council been meant to consult it would perhaps have been so. -But this was far from Charles’ design. “God’s fish!” he said to -an intimate, “they have put a set of men about me, but they shall -know nothing, and this keep to yourself.” Evidently the diplomatic -constitution had no grand future before it. And so it proved. Within -a short time the author was actively disregarding his own principle -by forming one of a cabinet of four with Sunderland, Essex, and -Halifax, to arrange matters before they came before the council and -Parliament; while Charles, as good as his word, kept his own counsel -and acted without the advice either of them or of the board at large, -on one notable occasion against its will and to the great displeasure -of the popular members. In Parliament the Whig councillors continued -their opposition as fiercely as ever, but at the council board they -had little influence. The position rapidly became impossible. It can -hardly be doubted that this was Charles’ exact intention. He had -achieved a double success. He had seemed to give the Whig leaders a -chance of reforming the government, while in fact he had only driven -them to greater exasperation. In the eyes of the nation he had offered -a compromise, secure in the knowledge that it would not be accepted. -The trick which the Commons feared had been played to a nicety. For -this their chiefs had only to thank themselves. Had they acted on their -suspicion and refused places on the council, their conduct would in -this have been faultless. But the bait was too tempting to be rejected. -They accepted the offer of office, intending from this new post of -vantage to pursue their old plans. Their duplicity gained nothing. -The king had provided for the result, and their failure could only -seem due to the deceit and intolerance with which they had repulsed -his good intentions. On October 15, 1679 Shaftesbury was dismissed -from the council in consequence of his agitation against the Duke of -York, and three months later Russell, Cavendish, Capel, and Powle, his -four most prominent allies on the board, tendered their resignation -by his advice. Charles accepted it in the words, “With all my heart.” -The famous scheme was thus finally abandoned. Temple withdrew from -politics to his garden and his library. Essex quitted the treasury and -openly joined the opposition. Only Halifax, after retirement to the -country, remained in the king’s service.[340] - -Meanwhile the tide in Parliament ran high against the government. The -new constitution had hardly begun its career before the Commons on -April 27 settled to consider how they might best preserve his Majesty’s -person from the attacks of papists. Impotent attempts made by members -in the court interest to divert the debate only increased its keenness, -and the House passed from stage to stage of fiery enthusiasm until -on Mr. Hampden’s motion it was unanimously declared that “the Duke -of York being a papist and the hopes of his coming such to the crown -have given the greatest countenance and encouragement to the present -conspiracies and designs of papists against the king and the Protestant -religion.” With the addition that James had been the unwilling cause -of the Plot, the House of Lords adopted the motion as it stood. This -was the prelude to the piece to come. On Sunday, May 11, when daylight -had gone out with talk, a resolution was carried, those against it -refusing to have their votes taken, “that a bill be brought in to -disable the Duke of York to inherit the Imperial Crown of this realm.” -It was followed by the ferocious declaration of the Commons that they -would stand by his Majesty with their lives and fortunes and, should -he come to any violent death (which God forbid!), revenge it to the -utmost upon the Roman Catholics. Four days later the Exclusion bill -was introduced and read for the first time. On May 21 it passed the -second reading and was committed. The threatening aspect of these -events could not be mistaken. The Commons were fierce and pertinacious. -Danby’s discomfiture was followed by an attack on Lauderdale and by -another, still more violent, on the system of secret service money. -“Extraordinary heats” broke out on the question whether bishops had -or having should retain their right to sit in judgment upon peers -arraigned on a capital charge, for the trial of the five Popish lords -was expected, and the strength of the spiritual peers was a matter of -grave consideration to those who hoped for an adverse verdict. Many -were the indecencies, records Burnet, that arose on this occasion both -in town and in country. Shaftesbury was expecting an easy triumph. -Suddenly all came to an end. The king had information that the common -council of the city was about to offer public assistance to the Commons -in their efforts for the preservation of the Protestant faith, and that -an inflammatory remonstrance on the subject of the Plot lay ready for -presentation in the House. His mind was made up. With the cheerfulness -characteristic of him he seemed to be thinking of nothing, when on May -26 he summoned the Commons to his presence and without warning declared -a prorogation of three months. Eight weeks later Charles dissolved -the Little Parliament of Westminster against the advice of almost the -whole of his council. The blow fell with crushing effect upon the Whig -party. Shaftesbury swore openly that he would have the heads of those -who had counselled it.[341] Yet this uproarious session produced one -good thing. Before proroguing Parliament the king gave his assent to -the Habeas Corpus Act, its solitary record on the statute book. How -near that sheet was to being blank may be told by the fact that this -measure, of weighty importance in the history of England, only passed -its third reading in the House of Lords because the Whig teller in joke -counted one very fat lord as ten.[342] - -Neither Parliament nor the privy council as a whole can properly be -said at this time to have been the government of the country. Under -the old system the council was a large and chiefly honorary body, the -business of which was regularly transacted by a few of its members. -By Sir William Temple’s construction it became a miniature of the -House of Commons as in the days when the government could count upon -about half the votes with an occasional majority. Though those who -carried on affairs might be privy councillors, there were also many -councillors who made it their chief business to prevent them from -doing so. The parliament of 1679 was still less to be classed with the -government than its predecessor. Here the Commons hardly disguised an -overmastering wish to obstruct the administration by others until it -fell wholly into their own hands, and to force on the government a -policy framed in the country and strongly disapproved at court. The -humour of the Commons seemed to infect the Lords also. The alarm and -activity of the upper house throughout the panic of the Plot almost -equalled those of the Commons; and it was by great exertion alone that -the court could carry the day even when the gravest interests were at -stake. The English state presented at the moment a striking appearance. -Since the beginning of the modern world government in England has been -with scant exception by consent, not only in the sense that in every -case force is ultimately on the side of the governed, but by virtue of -the fact that the English government has had nothing on which to rely -but the consent of the nation. Two famous examples had already shown -how hard of execution other methods must be. Mutual agreement between -parts of the frame was necessary to its usefulness. But now it seemed -as if this was no more. Variance had sprung up and silently grown until -it became direct opposition. Government and governed were divided -by an openly contrary spirit. It was a question how far Charles’ -government could allow the division to widen without being engulfed -in it. On the one side were ranged the forcible and callous statesmen -who had organised the country party in the old Cavalier Parliament -and transformed its soul to Whiggism; the country gentlemen, formerly -staunchest adherents of the government, the class from whom now its -keen opponents were drawn; religious dissenters; high-principled -republicans; malcontents of every kind; the squirearchy, the -magistracy, the Church of England.[343] On the other there met this -formidable array a mere handful of men, dependents of the court or -trained officials zealous to perform their duty and to uphold the -traditions of English politics. The government was formed of the king -and his servants, chief among them the secretaries of state. Apart from -these support for the king’s policy was meagre indeed. - -The work which fell on the secretaries’ shoulders was immense. -Throughout the winter which followed Oates’ revelations a perpetual -stream of reports, warnings, informations poured into their offices. -From all quarters came disturbing news. Alarms of armed men exercising -in bands at night were constant. Spanish forces were said to have -landed in Ireland and the French in Scotland. Tynemouth Castle was -reported blown up by gunpowder. Five thousand Spaniards were in -Wales. A combined French and Spanish fleet was only prevented by a -storm from landing at Milford Haven. The king’s ships at Chatham and -elsewhere were to be burnt and thus facilitate the passage of troops -from Dunkirk, while Hull and other seaports were ready to receive the -invaders. Gentlemen rode up from Yorkshire with wild tales of “the -crack and noise” in those parts, and in the West Riding the militia -was called out against imaginary foes. Vast fears came from Cheshire -of strange persons and a private post, denoting no good intentions. -An English doctor wrote from Amsterdam telling how he had overheard -conspirators planning the king’s destruction for the month of April, -and had barely escaped being murdered for his indiscretion.[344] -All this and a vast mass of the same description demanded instant -attention, decision, and answer. Frivolous accusations against reputed -papists and plotters were innumerable. A well-wisher sent from Vienna -as a present to the king an antidote of astonishing excellence against -possible poisons. A still more ingenious correspondent forwarded a -scheme to turn the tables on the pope by “assaulting the city of -Rome on that side where the Vatican palace stands and bringing away -the library.”[345] In Ireland, where the Duke of Ormonde’s sober -government preserved admirable order, long reports were drawn up -for the instruction of the secretaries at Whitehall, and these too -had to be perused.[346] London alone, apart from the turmoil caused -by Godfrey’s death, provided heavy work. Order had to be taken for -safeguarding the palace; twenty doors leading into St. James’ Park -were blocked and a sewer grated. Protestants and Catholics posted -mutual accusations to Whitehall until the secretaries were at their -wits’ end how to deal with them. On the prorogation of Parliament in -May, bills were distributed urging the prentices to take arms and -demand the trial of the lords in the Tower. The guards at the palace -were doubled, strong watches posted, and every precaution taken. A few -weeks before it had been thought necessary to send two companies of -dragoons to Portsmouth,[347] The whole country seemed on the verge of -insurrection. In December Charles thought he saw signs of a rebellion -brewing. A few months later Danby drew up a memorandum in the Tower -which clearly shewed that he was of the same opinion. He suggested -that the king should take up his residence out of London and call -Parliament to meet him away from the capital, the stronghold of his -opponents’ power. Touch should be kept with the troops disbanded. All -who had served against the king in the Civil War could be forced to -register their names. The navy might be officered by men who would have -influence on the sailors. Lastly and most significant, the Tower should -be secured.[348] - -Such and so multifarious were the doings of members of the government. -Yet they were members only. The head was the king’s, the policy his, -and to him its ultimate failure or success must be ascribed. - - - - - CHAPTER II - - THE CATHOLICS - - -Of the five hundred Cavalier gentlemen who fell in the Civil War more -than one-third were Catholics,[349] The remnant of the class that -had once been the most dignified and the wealthiest in England was -thrown by the Popish Plot into the fiercest persecution known to its -history. For the first time a real attempt was made to put the penal -laws into full force. All over the country the prisons were filled, -houses of Roman Catholics searched for arms, their estates confiscated. -Fourteen men were executed for high treason in the Plot, three for -Godfrey’s murder. Eight Catholic priests suffered on account of their -orders under the statute of Queen Elizabeth which made it treason for -a subject to take orders from the Church of Rome and, returning to -England, to remain there upwards of forty days. Five died in prison. -Thirty more were condemned to death, but were reprieved, and of these -sixteen died in confinement.[350] The actual figures are enough, but -they do not complete the tale of suffering. Nothing is told by them -of the persecution less than to death, the harrying of men and women -for conscience’ sake, the cruel blight fallen on the lives of hundreds -because of the crimes and follies of intriguers who turned religion to -be an affair of politics. The odour of mystery and the fear of foreign -assault which Catholic designs had for years aggravated had worked in -the minds of Englishmen with so strong a ferment that, were there -much or little of truth in the Plot, it needed only an opportunity for -hardly concealed terror and hatred finally to burst restraint.[351] -On all sides the lot of Catholics was pitiable. Those in London who -were not imprisoned were banished from the capital. As many as thirty -thousand were said to have fled. In the country fresh persecution -awaited them. Justices of the peace had orders to execute strictly the -laws against recusants, the Lord Chancellor to weed the commission -of those who did not. Popish books and relics were diligently sought -out, seized, and burnt. The library, papers, and vestments of Father -Harcourt, rector of the Jesuit College in London, went to make a -public bonfire. Wild House, the residence of the Weld family near -the Strand, and a noted resort of Roman Catholics, was ransacked and -twenty-seven chests of goods haled from a grotto in the garden. Houses -of eminent Catholics all over the kingdom were searched and searched -again, and sometimes almost destroyed by the efforts of officers to -find hidden priests. Catholic merchants found themselves bankrupt. -Everywhere Catholics were driven from home and livelihood, reduced to -beggary. Only the Penderels, Huddlestone the priest, and others who -had helped the king in his flight from Worcester escaped the general -fate. Charles’ gratitude procured for them exemption from the action -of the laws.[352] For the rest only good fortune could mitigate the -horrors of that time. Those in prison had nothing on which to subsist -but the charity of friends. Seized at inns, in secret retreats, on -beds of sickness, they were hurried through rain or snow to dreadful -cells without money or a sufficient supply of clothes. The Duke and -Duchess of York, Lord Castlemaine, and other noble Catholics made -great efforts for their fellows in religion. Yet to relieve the vast -mass of suffering no private aid could suffice. Many were reduced to -the greatest distress. Some even died of want. Priests, hunted from -one to another more painful hiding-place, were put to every shift to -evade capture. For days they lay, cramped and hungry, in holes within -walls, behind chimneys, even fastened up beneath tables, while their -pursuers tore up the floors, broke down the walls, dug up the garden -walks within a few yards of them. When they ventured forth to escape, -it was in the depth of winter, through ice and mud, and in the teeth -of midnight storms. Nor were the pious alone objects of attack. The -most irreligious of their religion were not spared. Long-stored enmity -and an insatiable desire for novelty caught at victims of whatever -character. The Duchesse Mazarin, who lived only for play and her light -loves, was accused of being a party to the Plot. Where the end would -come no man could say. All the Catholics in the service of the royal -family who could took ship for the continent. The Duchess of York wrote -to her brother that she could not describe the hundredth part of the -trouble into which they were plunged. Many abjured their faith or at -least took the condemned oaths of allegiance and supremacy. Pilate and -Herod, wrote the Jesuit Warner to his general, were banded with the -heretic priests against his society and the Catholics. A few weeks -later he added: “Hope itself is scarce left us.”[353] - -In no part of the country was persecution more bitter than in -Yorkshire. Even before the time of the Popish Plot Catholics in the -country had been subjected to considerable annoyance, and when “the -great crack and noise” of the event burst on the astonished ears -of the world they became at once the object of vehement attack. -Inquisition was made in all parts for priests and recusants. The -cells of York Castle, of which the condition was notorious in an age -of notorious prisons, were filled. To priests and their relatives -particular attention was paid. Soon two scoundrels, by name Mowbray -and Bolron, came forward to give evidence of the preparations of -papists to aid in the grand design discovered by Oates. Bolron had -been manager of coal-pits on the estate of Sir Thomas Gascoigne, an -aged baronet and representative of the ancient family of Barnbow Hall -in the West Riding, and, being suspected of fraud, was threatened with -a prosecution for felony by Lady Tempest, the baronet’s daughter. -Mowbray was a servant in the same family discharged on suspicion of -theft. Thus the two had every reason to plot revenge. Bolron swore that -Sir Thomas, together with his daughter, Sir Miles Stapleton, several -other gentlemen, and his nephew, a priest named Thwing, had signed -a resolution to kill the king and had offered a thousand pounds to -whoever should do the deed. Mowbray added that they had intended to -burn London and York to the ground. The Yorkshire magistrates refused -to act on the information of known criminals, but Bolron went to town -and found in Shaftesbury an inquisitor who would not consent to see the -matter dropped.[354] Sir Thomas was tried at Westminster, but acquitted -by a jury of Yorkshire gentlemen. Sir Miles Stapleton and Lady Tempest -stood their trial at York. They also were acquitted, but upon the -same discreditable evidence Thwing was convicted and on October 23, -1680 suffered the penalty for high treason. In spite of the fact that -three juries had disbelieved his word Bolron was able by permission of -the House of Commons to produce an ingenious forgery, entitled “The -Papists’ Bloody Oath of Secrecy and Litany of Intercession,” which -after repeated exposure and the lapse of more than two centuries is -still sometimes taken for true by his more gullible, if less malignant, -successors. For the moment the acquittal of Gascoigne and his friends -stayed the flow of blood, but the Yorkshire Protestants shewed -effectively by their conduct at the Revolution that their feelings -remained unchanged.[355] - -While persecution fell indiscriminately on those who confessed the -creed of the Roman Church, it was not to be expected that all should -view their troubles alike. The lead given in the speech from the throne -was freely followed. It was a Jesuit plot, said the king. It was a -Jesuit plot, cried Catholics who were not under the influence of the -order. The society has seldom drawn the affection of many outside its -own ranks in any age, and in the seventeenth century incurred the -hatred of almost all parts of the English Catholic body. Constant -intrigues set the secular priests, members of the other orders, and, it -can hardly be doubted, a large number of laymen against its restless -and selfish policy. The result was plain. For the doings of the society -every one had now to suffer. In the midst of fierce trouble it was -not against the government but against the Jesuits that Catholic -resentment was shewn. Jesuits were everywhere scouted, railed at for -their pernicious principles, scarce treated civilly in the company they -sought. There was even rejoicing at their downfall. At last old scores -would be paid off; at last all the juggles and intrigues at court would -find their due reward in public shame. The Jesuit historian sighs -with meek grief at the additional burden the society was compelled to -bear.[356] It was perhaps not only political intrigues that roused -the displeasure of laymen. Though many of the priesthood were men of -saintly temper and bore affliction with constancy and admirable effort -on behalf of their brethren, there were also black sheep among them. -Scandal caused by priests who thronged the court was of long standing. -In the opinion of the more discreet their behaviour was such as to -cause harm rather than good to the Catholic religion in England.[357] -The case of St. Germain was notorious. Great disrepute was brought on -the Society of Jesus by the story of Godfrey’s murder: had the real -facts been known they would have been more damaging still. Yet more -unfortunate, since it brought laughter with it, was the case of Father -John Gavan, the famous martyr and Jesuit who was likened to “an angel -of God” and his voice in preaching to “a silver trumpet”; for, having -done battle in youth with the lust of the flesh, he was seized at the -height of his reputation in the stables of the Imperial ambassador, -where he was hiding with a woman who passed as his wife and their -son.[358] - -It was the distressing fate of so prized a member of the society to be -a cause of dissension and scandal. Even his death at Tyburn did not -make an end. The no less famous Dr. John Sergeant, who had passed a -long career in controversy against Jesuit and Protestant divines, came -forward to blacken Gavan’s memory. Sergeant had already given trouble -to the Roman officials by his teaching on the oath of allegiance.[359] -With the prosecution of the Popish Plot the movement in favour of the -oath naturally grew in strength among moderate Catholics; the formula -had been many times condemned at Rome; and it was heard with dismay at -the curia that the Duke of Norfolk had flouted authority and taken the -oath, presumably to obtain more easily a pass to go beyond seas.[360] -With others of his order Gavan had written against the oath and, though -he pronounced in his speech from the gallows against the notion that -kings might be killed at the pope’s command, would not surrender the -theory of the deposing power.[361] Soon after his execution Sergeant -came to Henry Sidney, ambassador at the Hague. He knew nothing of the -Plot, but offered to prove that according to the teaching of a certain -Jesuit the queen might lawfully kill the king for his unfaithfulness. -Sidney brought the priest to London, where on October 31, 1679 he was -examined by the king in council. A few months later the council again -received his information and that of another priest, David Morris, -who had been educated at St. Omers and the English Jesuit College in -Rome. The Jesuit of whom they spoke was Gavan. It seemed that he had -expressed the opinion complained of to a lady living in Brussels. -By order of the House of Commons the depositions were printed and -obtained a wide circulation. The spectacle of two priests informing -against a brother in orders was calculated to afford grave scandal to -Catholics and equal satisfaction to Protestants. Considerable pains -were taken by the Jesuits to upset the credit of the story, and the -rector of the college at Liège wrote an account containing a denial -of the fact by the lady in question; but the compiler of the _Annual -Letters_ for the year 1680 was unfortunate in choosing to cast doubt -upon her credibility, thus leaving the matter as much open to question -as before.[362] The division in the Catholic body of which this was a -symptom was a source of undoubted weakness: all the efforts to crush -those in favour of the oath were unavailing, and lively agitation -was caused by the certain news that the Duke of York himself had -pledged his allegiance by it, seduced thereto by the example of so -many born Catholics who upheld its lawfulness.[363] However much it -might be denied in public controversy, the refusal to allow the oath -to Catholics was indissolubly bound up with the claim to the papal -power of deposition. About the same time a priest whose name is given -as Forstal maintained that the king might be deposed at the command -or at least with the participation of the pope. James questioned the -nuncio at Brussels on the subject, and received answer that the error -lay not in the opinion held, but in the choice of so inopportune a -moment to express it, since the worst consequences might be expected. -No doubt the matter was in debate, but the meaning to be drawn from -the prelate’s reply was obvious, for he did not think it worth while to -argue the point further. The priest guilty of such rashness was induced -to withdraw for a time to a monastery in Westphalia. Prudence was above -all things necessary in the cause of the church.[364] - -The Catholic body was thus divided within itself when the odium into -which it had fallen was enhanced by the obscure intrigue known as -the Meal Tub Plot. It was a time when Catholics could afford to take -few risks in their conduct. Besides direct charges against them they -lay under the imputation of more than one attempt to confound their -accusers by means as base as those used against themselves; two -brothers of Prance, who was not distinguished by the world from other -informers, were secular priests; Jennison, a follower in the train -of Oates, had a brother in the Society of Jesus, who lay dying in -Newgate, and was thought to be a wealthy country gentleman appearing -for honesty’s sake to enlighten his fellow-countrymen; strong suspicion -attached to witnesses who came to speak for the Jesuits at their -trials.[365] It might therefore be expected that the more Catholics -loved their religion, the more carefully would they refrain from adding -to the frightful hostility already shewn against it. Nevertheless it -was at this moment that some of their leaders, not without influence or -repute, undertook to retaliate on their enemies by weapons of more than -questionable worth. Whether they were the first movers in the affair or -entered it on the invitation of others was the question. - -In March 1679 a young man of infamous character who went by the name -sometimes of Willoughby, sometimes of Dangerfieid, lay in the debtor’s -side of Newgate. Having been in gaol for the best part of a year, he -began to turn his thoughts to means of getting out, and proceeded -to draw articles of complaint against Captain Richardson, the keeper -of Newgate, for his treatment of prisoners. This came to the ears of -another gaol-bird, Mrs. White, who, fancying Dangerfield’s ability, -on her discharge imparted the fact to a friend on the look-out for -an assistant of talent. Her friend was Mrs. Cellier, whose name and -character have become notorious in a swarm of pamphlets and reports of -trials of the time. She was the wife of a French merchant and pursued -the profession of midwife, and assuredly of something else, within a -circle of Roman Catholic notables. She was employed to collect alms -for the relief of those of her religion in prison for the Plot. She -had been concerned in the unsavoury case of Knox and Lane, who were -put up to defame Oates’ character.[366] When witnesses were sent over -from St. Omers to give evidence at the trials, it was at her house -that they were lodged and fed by Lord Castlemaine. The Duchess of York -had used her services to no small extent. She was in fact a regular -agent of the Catholic nobles in political intrigue, and in close -connection with the Countess of Powis, whose husband, together with -the Lords Petre, Arundel, Stafford, and Bellasis, was in the Tower -on a charge of high treason, a woman of bold and active spirit and -devoted to the Duke of York. The conduct of Mrs. Cellier was not such -as to inspire confidence in the purity of her intentions. Armed with -Mrs. White’s information she repaired to one Gadbury, an astrologer, -for Dangerfield’s horoscope, pretending that she wished for a man to -collect her husband’s debts. To suppose that any sane person could use -one of Dangerfield’s stamp for the purpose would be absurd: it was -certainly for other purposes that he was wanted. Their character soon -became apparent. For there was in Newgate a prisoner named Stroud, -a friend of Bedloe and thought capable of proving that the Earl of -Shaftesbury was suborning witnesses against the lords in the Tower. -Dangerfield was employed to make him drunk and learn what he could. -So well did he perform his task that Mrs. Cellier paid his debts, -whether to the amount of five pounds, as she, or of seven hundred, as -he said, and obtained his release. He was a handsome fellow enough, and -found favour in her eyes. It was now the month of June. Dangerfield was -maintained by his friend, and earned his wages by doing the work of -messenger for the witnesses sent from beyond seas for the defence of -the Five Jesuits, who stood their trial at this time.[367] - -Clad in a decent suit, with money in his pocket, and the friend of Mrs. -Cellier’s bosom, Dangerfield began to go about the town. He was taken -to Powis House and introduced to the Countess. He took notes at the -trials of Wakeman and Langhorn and carried them to Lord Powis in the -Tower. Indeed his appearance was so pleasing and his recommendation -so high that he was allowed to take up his abode at Powis House, and -even to sit with Lady Powis at table.[368] And now the serious business -began. One Nevil, alias Payne, a writer of libellous pamphlets, was -retained by Mrs. Cellier with others of his trade for the service -of Lady Powis. Dangerfield’s talents were added to the band, which -carried on a lively production of ballads and pamphlets, such as “The -Transforming of Traitors into Martyrs,” “The Presbyterian Unmasked,” -“The Ballad of the Popish Plot,” “The Danby Reflections,” and an -edition of the Five Jesuits’ dying speeches, all launched against -the Presbyterians. Dangerfield was an attorney’s son and, having -been bred a clerk, could write with some smartness. At the same time -he was employed to go the round of coffee-houses frequented by old -Presbyterians and new Whigs, to pick up what scraps of information -against them he could.[369] The result was most satisfactory. Lists of -names were obtained from the drawers. By means of Gadbury, Dangerfield -was introduced to Sir Robert Peyton, the great Whig merchant whose -apostasy was the first blow to the Whig cause. He thought of joining -the King’s Head Club himself, but was dissuaded on learning that he -would be required to pay a subscription of one or two guineas. He -began to find out the habits of Shaftesbury’s partisans. Presently -there appeared between Dangerfield and Mrs. Cellier those papers, the -authorship of which each fastened upon the other, bearing witness to -the existence of a Presbyterian plot. According to Mrs. Cellier’s -account Dangerfield brought the notes to her; they were written at the -dictation of Lady Powis, was what he said. That point may be discussed -later. It is at any rate certain that Lady Powis was acquainted with -their contents and ready to act upon them. She took Dangerfield to her -son-in-law, the Earl of Peterborough, Lord Peterborough to the Duke of -York, the Duke of York to the king, and the papers, which contained an -account of an extensive movement planned by Shaftesbury and Monmouth, -were seen by all. The budget was headed “The State of the Three -Kingdoms.” The names of the leaders were noted down, commissions were -stated to have already been granted, and a scheme for a revolutionary -government was sketched. James gave the captain, as Dangerfield was -styled by himself and Lord Peterborough, twenty guineas in reward for -his zeal; the king added forty more and turned him over to Secretary -Coventry. As earnest of his good faith, Dangerfield produced two -letters addressed to Shaftesbury by Sir Richard Bulstrode, the minister -at Brussels. They were on indifferent subjects; but how came they in -Dangerfield’s possession? Coventry was dissatisfied with the affair, -and told the captain that if he were to be believed, something more -material must be forthcoming. Dangerfield pressed for a general warrant -to search, but on the advice of Chief-Justice North was refused. -Evidently other means must be tried.[370] - -On October 22 Dangerfield, having given notice of a parcel of Flanders -lace smuggled into the country by one Colonel Mansell, obtained a -warrant to search his lodgings, which were in the same house as his -own. That is to say, Dangerfield had specially engaged rooms under -Mansell’s roof. The colonel was named in his list as quartermaster -of the prospective Presbyterian army. Under Dangerfield’s guidance -the customs’ officers went through the rooms, but could find nothing. -He begged them to look behind the bed and, when nothing came thence, -himself darted behind, pulled out a packet of papers, and began to cry -“Treason.” The officers took their find to a justice of the peace, -who, having regard to the suspicious circumstances, acted upon the -maxim, He who hides can find, and issued a warrant for Dangerfield’s -apprehension. An investigation was immediately ordered by the council. -On the next day, as Dangerfield was waiting to be examined, an officer -of the Mint happened to pass and, recognising in him an old offender, -had him arrested for coining false money. When Henry Coventry appeared -in the council-room he was met by the somewhat surprising intelligence -that his informer was in custody as a forger and coiner, and was known -for a noted criminal. A thorough examination made the truth of the -charges certain, besides bringing to light the fact, unfortunate for -the captain, that he had stood twice in the pillory, had only escaped -a third dose of the same punishment by breaking prison, and was in -fine a mischievous and notorious rascal. It was proved beyond doubt -that he had himself disposed the papers, containing a plain account of -the so-called Presbyterian Plot, in Mansell’s room and, since there -were no contraband goods there at all, had only brought the customs’ -officials to perform what the refusal to grant a search warrant had -prevented him from doing otherwise. As the result on October 27 -Dangerfield was committed to Newgate. He had in the meantime sent a -note to Mrs. Cellier, and by her assistance was let out for a couple of -days on bail. Thus the authorities were enabled to follow Dangerfield’s -committal by a search at Mrs. Cellier’s. Here on October 29 Sir -William Waller found two bundles of papers, one behind the kitchen -boiler, the other at the bottom of the meal tub, whence on this account -the name of the plot was derived. One contained a copy of Dangerfield’s -letter to the king, offering to make yet greater disclosures; the other -and larger proved to be a considerable amplification of the story he -had told on his first introduction at court. Fearing that the captain -would betray her, Mrs. Cellier had a message conveyed to him with the -encouraging words, which she boasted as her motto, “I never change,” -and was immediately after carried to the Gatehouse. The Lady Errant, -as she became known by her enemies, declared afterwards that her fear -was lest Dangerfield should falsely use their connection to his own -advantage. Whatever its nature, her fear was justified; for on October -31 he desired to be taken before Sir Robert Clayton, then Lord Mayor, -and made confession that the Presbyterian Plot was, in a word invented -by himself, a Sham destined to cover the intentions of the papists -and to ruin their adversaries. The papers found in the meal tub, -besides the treasonable letters he had put behind Colonel Mansell’s -bed, were dictated to him by the Countess of Powis, and approved by -Lord Peterborough and Mrs. Cellier. He had resisted the bribe of £2000 -offered him by Lord Arundel to murder the king, but had undertaken to -the Earl of Powis to assassinate Lord Shaftesbury for a quarter of -that sum. Divers attempts had actually been made on the Whig leader; -twice he had been himself to the earl’s residence, Thanet House in -Aldersgate Street, and once Mrs. Cellier went in person, only to meet -with failure. All this had been with the knowledge and at the direction -of Roman Catholic priests. The next day Dangerfield was taken before -the council and affirmed the truth of his statement.[371] - -In the tangle of accusations and informations which followed and were -laboriously examined at the council board, either side tried to throw -the blame of the intrigue on the other. Protestants were jubilant at -the detection of another Catholic plot, and swore by the whole truth -of Dangerfield’s confession. Catholics declared that the affair was -designed by Lord Shaftesbury to injure the Duke of York, and that their -leaders had been deceived by the captain, who had led them step by step -to catastrophe and hid the treasonable packet at Colonel Mansell’s with -the sole intention that his own sketch of the Presbyterian designs -might be discovered in Mrs. Cellier’s meal tub.[372] The intricacy -of these events will probably never be wholly developed. Every one -concerned was ready to lie in his own interest. Every one of the -principals did lie, it can hardly be doubted. Many committed perjury; -and some were probably suborned to perjure. The tale of complex untruth -and base endeavour is one that threatens to become dreary. Nevertheless -there are indications of the truth on which a general opinion may be -based. This is certain, that Dangerfield, perilous rogue as he was -known to be, was taken from prison by Mrs. Cellier, the confidante of -Lady Powis, supported in her house and at her cost. He was employed in -maintaining the cause of their religion, his employment was known to -Lord Peterborough, a friend of the Duke of York, and he was introduced -to the duke by him as an active agent against their common enemies. By -their account they took from him the tale of a Presbyterian plot; by -his own he invented it at their direction. Were the Catholic statements -accepted as true, they would convict the duke’s party of most gross -folly in trusting a man of character so depraved: more than that, for -the man had been paid to play the spy and, it was admitted by his -employers, had been given hints that it would be good to discover -plots of the nature of that which he retailed to them; and to accept -such a story without investigation, when it was known that the teller -had orders beforehand to collect materials, argues at least some -disingenuity. Nor is this all. There is reason to think that in some -essentials Dangerfield’s confession contained the truth. Supposing -that, as Lord Peterborough and his friends declared, the captain had -only hidden his parcel behind Mansell’s bed in order to be detected, -he would at least have taken the trouble to make discovery of evidence -against Mrs. Cellier certain. The papers concocted between them were -in his possession, and he had only to hide them without her knowledge -where they could be easily found by an officer. On the supposition -that he meant to turn informer against the Catholics their discovery -at Mrs. Cellier’s was necessary to his success. Without it there would -be no more than his bare word to shew that they had employed him at -all. As evidence the find of papers was invaluable to him. Yet he did -not even attempt to supply that evidence. So far from concealing the -incriminating notes himself, he gave them to Mrs. Cellier to dispose as -she thought best. The natural thing for her to do was to burn them and, -for all Dangerfield knew, she might have done so. For whatever reason -she preferred the other course. She gave the papers to her servant to -hide, and it was the servant who placed them in the regions of the -kitchen where they were found by Sir William Waller.[373] Dangerfield -could not possibly have known of their concealment or even of their -preservation. The fact that Mrs. Cellier chose to conceal the evidence -against her rather than deliver it to the council, which would have -been her best course had she been wholly innocent, or burn it to -destroy the traces of her guilt, if she were guilty, tells nothing; for -on Dangerfield’s arrest she hoped that he would still be faithful to -her, and was not in any case so clean of hand as to court an inquiry -into the nature of the services she had from him. She may well have -hoped that their connection would escape notice. But beyond this it is -plain that, even if she was not aware of Dangerfield’s intention to fix -the odium of a fictitious plot on the Protestant party, her relations -with him were of so intimate a kind that only wilful ignorance could -have saved her from knowledge of it. She knew of the treasonable papers -in Colonel Mansell’s room and, when a search warrant could not be -procured, it was she who advised Dangerfield to have recourse to the -customs house.[374] At least one who was closely acquainted with the -Catholic leaders and could not be suspected of prejudice declared the -whole affair to be a design of persons zealous for the Duke of York. -Lord Peterborough and Lady Powis, wrote the French ambassador, thought -to render a great service by bringing forward a man who would give -evidence against the Earl of Shaftesbury. They had merely tried to use -tools similar to those by which their enemies were thought to have -achieved success.[375] - -Though it was admitted that Dangerfield had tried to fit the -Protestants with a forged plot and highly probable that the Catholics -had a hand in the forgery, there is yet something to be said on -the other side. The Presbyterian plot was a fiction; but there was -a basis of Dangerfield’s story that was not fictitious. An actual -movement, the lines of which are partly known, was at the moment being -concerted by the Whig leaders. The list of those concerned in the -plot drawn up by Dangerfield contains the names of many undoubtedly -implicated, and of many afterwards guilty of the treason of the Rye -House Plot, which grew out of the designs at this time.[376] Another -fact is of importance. To strengthen his story in the eyes of the -secretary of state, Dangerfield produced two letters belonging to Lord -Shaftesbury.[377] In his confession he declared he had stolen these on -one of the occasions when he went to kill the earl. There is no need -to linger over the tales of attempted assassination. Improbable as -they were in themselves, they are set beyond the bounds of credibility -by the informer’s halting narrative and the ridiculous excuses he -alleged for failure.[378] Nevertheless his production of the letters -makes it evident that he had been with the Whig leader. There can be -no doubt that he had some knowledge of the Whig designs. Most likely -he was intriguing with both parties at the same time in order to see -which he could with greater profit betray, and ended by betraying -both, though the Catholics, since they had trusted him the more, were -more severely affected by the results of his treachery. In the course -of the next year Mrs. Cellier and the Earl of Castlemaine were tried -for high treason. Lady Powis too had been committed to the Tower, but -the bill against her was ignored by the grand jury. Both cases rested -largely upon the evidence of Dangerfield, against whom records of crime -were produced by the defence. As his pardon did not cover a felony of -which he had been convicted, Mrs. Cellier was formally acquitted on the -ground that he was no good witness and that only one other appeared -against her; and when the pardon was afterwards corrected, the jury -before whom Castlemaine was tried refused to believe the word of a -man who bore the accumulated weight of sixteen convictions, guilty of -“six great enormous crimes,” and pronounced a verdict of not guilty -after an absence of only a few minutes from the box.[379] Few will be -found to quarrel with the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, who told -Dangerfield: “You are a fine fellow, first to come to his Majesty and -there tell him one story, then to my Lord Powis, and from thence to my -Lord Shaftesbury’s, discovering to one what discourse you held with the -other; and thus to bring one story to the council, another to the Earl -of Shaftesbury.”[380] - -The Duke of York’s conduct in the Meal Tub Plot was characteristic -of him. He had brought Dangerfield to the king and by his imprudence -was the cause of much suspicion and distrust. No one felt certain how -the affair would turn out. People thought that James would “never -leave off tampering.”[381] He was a man with the smallest aptitude -for diplomacy. He was able neither to let events take their course -without interference nor by fingering ever to improve them. He was -always for action of a decided and generally a tactless kind. While -he persistently endeavoured to make others change their views, his -own were held with an obstinacy that nothing could uproot. His -continual desire for activity was one of the difficulties which most -hampered Charles II’s policy. Apart from his itch for management and -a preference shared with other politicians of the time for underhand -dealing his very presence at court was as a trumpet call to his -enemies. His severance from the Church of England was a severance from -the English people likewise. The Church of Rome was traditionally held -the enemy of the nation. It was responsible for many of the doubts and -difficulties of the restored monarchy. Its action was coupled in the -general mind with the aggression of foreign foes. For the heir to the -throne at such a time to go over to it was an act of great hardiness. -Nor could he do so without himself being proclaimed an enemy of the -people and disloyal to his duty. The horror expressed at the notion -that James should depart from the faith which his father had signed -with blood was increased by contemplation of the results attending -the step. The Roman Catholic religion, it was said, introduced an -_imperium in imperio_ and, were it settled in England, would at once -destroy the liberties and drain the wealth of the country.[382] It -seemed as if the duke must have some deep and sinister motive in -his mind to leave the religion that had been won by so much blood. -Many princes had changed their faith for reason of state, but the -instance of one who departed from the church of the people against the -clearest command of expedience and, as it seemed to them, the no less -clear showing of reason was unparalleled. And the subtle influence -of Jesuits who had wrought this in him was feared as well in the -present as for the future. So long as the duke remained at the king’s -right hand there was the added terror that he would shape the royal -policy in the direction whither he would direct it himself from the -throne. Nothing could be devised to cure the distrust aroused by his -attitude, except that he should return to the Protestant religion or -withdraw from the king’s presence. The latter was tried with success, -the former without. By the advice of Danby, when it was certain that -the elections for the parliament of 1679 were unfavourable to the -court, James was unwillingly sent out of England and ordered to take -up his abode in Brussels.[383] Episcopal powers of persuasion had -already been tried on him in vain. Before he set out another attempt -was made, with the like result. It is to the credit of his courage -that no prospect of advantage could bring him to surrender his faith. -The bishops brought forward every available argument, but were unable -to boast any satisfaction. Rome was hopeful that he would withstand -all similar proposals.[384] As the prosecution of the Popish Plot -drove the storm higher against the court and the Catholics, the -pressure put on James to recant his faith increased. A year later -when the duke was in London during the prorogation a strong attempt -was made by his friends. They knew that his conversion would mean the -greatest embarrassment to the host of enemies who built high upon his -opposition to the national temper. Should he consent they would be -compelled to change all their plans and perhaps fail to find another -weapon strong enough to serve the same purpose. At least he would be -able to remain at court. Charles spoke forcibly on the subject. A more -powerful advocate was found in the duchess, who despite James’ gross -and notorious profligacy exercised some influence on him and wished -at any price to escape a third exile. Months went by and the agitation -continued. James seemed to be weakening. As the day fixed for the -meeting of Parliament drew near, the gossip of Whitehall had it that he -would come over. Expectation was disappointed. On the day before the -session opened the duke and duchess set sail for Edinburgh, as Catholic -as ever.[385] There was nothing to be gained from him by argument. Nor -was he to be driven. Even Charles’ threat that unless he went to church -the Exclusion bill should be passed failed to move him. Conscience -and honour forbade him equally to deny and to dissemble his religion. -Besides, if he were to consent, Shaftesbury would only put about that -he had a dispensation from the pope and was still a Catholic at heart. -His mind was fixed. By God’s grace he was determined “never to do so -damnable a thing.”[386] - -James’ mind was fixed on other points as well. He could not understand -that time had any value in the struggle between men or delay any merit. -The king’s policy of waiting was wholly unintelligible to him. Ultimate -success seemed to him to depend upon immediate triumph, and for -immediate triumph he was ready to stake everything. Each concession, -each dilatory advance, each deceptive retreat appeared as sure tokens -that he and the monarchy were on the verge of ruin, about to be hurled -together into the abyss. There was little enough of sympathy between -the brothers, who made a public show of friendship and in private kept -secrets to themselves. When he afterwards compiled the memoirs of his -life, James was able to exhibit some calmness in discussing their -relations; for, as he said, the king was sensible that their interest -was at bottom the same against common adversaries, since “his chief -security lay in having a successor they liked worse than himself.” -“He resolved therefore,” continued the writer, “to stick to the main -chance, and suffer no diminution in the prerogative during his time; -however, he thought it necessary to yield as far as he could to -convince the world of his sincerity, and to put his enemies so much in -the wrong (without parting with any essential thing) as that, if they -forced him to break, he might have friends enough to assist him.”[387] -At the time this series of penetrating afterthoughts did not cross the -duke’s mind. He had so little conception of Charles’ aim and point of -view as to be in constant terror that he would be abandoned to the -wrath of the opposing forces. He conceived himself, like his son-in-law -the Prince of Orange, to be dealing with a volatile being of pleasure, -and crying, as the captain of a ship to his helmsman in a storm: -Steady, steady, steady.[388] Only positive commands and elaborate -assurances, to which even then he attached little weight,[389] could -induce him to leave the court at moments of crisis when his presence -was likely to have the worst possible effects. He could never think -that his absence would not serve only to embolden his enemies. Present, -he was continually interfering and making unwise suggestions. Absent, -he did not cease pressing for his recall.[390] Nor did he cease from -Belgium and Scotland to press on the king counsels of desperation. -Anything tainted with moderation had to his nostrils the odour of -surrender. He had not been two months at Brussels before he was urging -Charles to steps which he knew must mean civil war. Ireland, Scotland, -the fleet, the guards, the garrisons, were still in the king’s hand. -The Prince of Orange had given assurance that he would be on the side -of royalty. Let Charles cease to countenance Monmouth and the party -with him, let him think on the fate of Edward II, Richard II, and -the king his father. “Now or never,” wrote the duke, “is the time to -save the monarchy.”[391] This was of a piece with all his advice. All -things, he thought, tended to a republic. Sir William Temple’s council -seemed to him to make the king little better than a Doge of Venice, and -to leave him so little support that the Exclusion bill could hardly be -resisted, a calamity by which the house of Stuart would be “absolutely -ruined and given up.” A short time after he expressed the opinion -that if Charles would not submit to be less than a Doge of Venice a -rebellion would be the necessary result. By June 1679 he was writing; -“Things have been let go to that pass that the best I can expect is -very great disorders, and unless something very vigorous is done within -a very few days, the monarchy is gone.”[392] Five months, six months, -a year later the same counsel was being reiterated.[393] While Charles -remained cool and undismayed in the midst of pressing danger, every -fresh event abashed the mind of James.[394] He could not appraise -facts at their true worth, since he was without insight; devoid of -imagination, he was unable to attribute to others powers he lacked -himself. His very friends spoke against his unenlightened zeal, and the -pope favoured him and his wife each with a brief on the subject.[395] -It was the beginning of that stream of protest which afterwards marked -with increasing volume the course of his downfall. - -Advice to others to act boldly is not uncommon. But James was ready -on occasion to act on his own behalf. In May 1679 there appeared at -Brussels one Colonel Fitzpatrick, a man of brave counsel and of great -repute among his countrymen the Irish. He had come to arrange a rising -in Ireland. The Catholics were groaning under an intolerable yoke and -would follow him. By a small amount of assistance from foreign powers -the coasts could be seized, arms and munitions landed, and success -assured. Fitzpatrick was said to have for his project the consent of -the Irish Catholic clergy and to have carried letters of recommendation -into France before coming to Flanders. But French policy was opposed to -assisting James in the formation of a strong party and the money was -not to be obtained. Rather than run the risk of increasing hostility in -England by the Colonel’s presence near him, James dismissed him. With -much murmuring Fitzpatrick left Brussels.[396] Though this proposal -had to be refused, James kept the idea constantly before his mind. -The more certain that the king’s refusal to accept his violent advice -became, the more his thoughts turned to the possibility of violence -without the king’s participation. With the approach of Parliament in -the winter of 1680 the notion became further developed. James believed -that open force alone could re-establish the royal authority, on the -security of which he felt his own safety to rest. If he could compel -his brother to act, a final rupture might be precipitated. His enemies -would be forestalled, and out of the civil war that would ensue the -power of the throne might issue triumphant. It was his policy to push -matters to the point of extremity. When he was ordered from London to -avoid the session he took northwards with him the intention to see -to his own interest. Should the attack on him be pushed further, he -thought to unite parties in Scotland in the royal cause and by exciting -trouble there and in Ireland to bring the struggle to a head. Then he -believed that a larger party than many imagined would be on his side in -England.[397] - -On the success of the Duke of York depended all the hopes of Roman -Catholics for the future of their religion in the English realm. He -was their secular head and the turning-point of their plans. His -movements were watched with the keenest interest by the authorities of -the church. Patience, prudence, and persistence was the policy they -advocated. Exhortations to obedience, expressions of attachment and -submission passed continually between him and his spiritual patrons. -The papal nuncio at Brussels informed him of the deep concern that -the Catholic religion had in his cause, and received the gratifying -assurance that he would make it his first care to propagate the true -faith by every means at his disposal.[398] How James fulfilled that -promise is well known. However much devotion he expressed to the wishes -of the Holy Father, his heart was more at one with the Society of Jesus -than with the court of Rome. He chose Jesuits for his confessors, -begged emoluments for them, took their policy for his guide. While -his course drew from the Jesuits inexhaustible and still unexhausted -praise, it was met by a series of remonstrances waxing in indignation -from the pontiff. In the year 1687 fifty candidates for orders in the -society were being prepared for work in the English province. King -James, it is said, informed Father John Keynes, the provincial, that -double or treble that number would be necessary to accomplish what he -destined for Jesuit hands.[399] The result declared his wisdom. The -mystery of the Revolution was that William of Orange, a Protestant -invading the realm of a Catholic monarch, had the support of the -Catholic emperor at the instigation of the pope. From the fierce battle -of the Popish Plot Charles II tore a prize to deliver to the man by -whose ill-judged efforts he had most nearly been robbed of it. At his -death he left a kingdom compact, loyal, prosperous, ready to carry on -the traditions that had been built up with labour and in the teeth -of disaster. When that day came James behaved in perfect accord with -his character. Within four years he had thrown away the fruits of a -struggle that had lasted for a quarter of a century, and paid the -penalty of folly and invincible obstinacy by the dragging existence of -a pretender, an exile, a dependent, and a criminal. - - - - - CHAPTER III - - SHAFTESBURY AND CHARLES - - -Of all men whose reputation was made or raised by the Popish Plot, none -have since maintained their fame at so even a height as John Dryden. -His person but not his name suffered from the changes of fortune, -and at a distance of more than two centuries the sum of continuous -investigation has little to add to the judgments passed on his times -by the greatest of satirists. The flashes of Dryden’s insight illumine -more than the light shed by many records. In politics, no less than in -society, his genius had ample room. The Plot gave him a subject worthy -of a master:— - - Some truth there was, but dashed and brewed with lies - To please the fools and puzzle all the wise: - Succeeding times did equal folly call - Believing nothing or believing all. - This plot, which failed for want of common sense, - Had yet a deep and dangerous consequence; - For as, when raging fevers boil the blood. - The standing lake soon floats into a flood, - And every hostile humour which before - Slept quiet in its channels bubbles o’er; - So several factions from this first ferment - Work up to foam and threat the government.[400] - -The lines are a witness against the two great parties whose intrigues -were woven to menace the security of the English state. Oates’ false -oaths ruined the hopes of the Roman Catholics: the designs of the -English Whigs were grounded on them. - -Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, was the first statesman to -learn the art of organising support for policy from an entire nation. -His course in life was determined by the belief that it is the business -of a politician to succeed, and to that mass of mankind which is of the -same opinion he should be at once apostle and martyr. No means which -made for the end he had in view came amiss to his hand; by using good -and bad alike, he won the power of drawing round him men who could -make some show of virtuous conduct in company with scoundrels of the -choicest villainy; and he used them with infinite address. From the age -of twenty years he had lived in the glare of public life, ever rising -on the tide, true to his own principles and false to all whom in their -interest he could serviceably betray. In the Civil War he fought for -the king and served him well. As a member of Barebones’ Parliament he -was for Cromwell against the Saints. When the Protector threw the lot -for absolute rule, it was in him that parliamentary government found -its keenest supporter. To this course Shaftesbury remained faithful. -The throne on which “foolish Ishbosheth” sat became more rickety under -his attacks. When that shadow of his father vanished from the scene, -he strove with success against the despotism of the army. He was sent -by the Convention Parliament as one of the two commissioners to invite -Charles II to return to his kingdom. Under the restored monarchy -Shaftesbury found a fair and a wider field for the exercise of talents -which he devoted to the cause of religious and political freedom and -commercial enterprise. At his request John Locke drew for the state of -Carolina a constitution in which toleration was a prominent idea. In -the office of Lord Chancellor he earned an abiding reputation for speed -and purity of justice. He was an ardent foe of the Dutch republic, the -threatening rival of English prosperity. He opposed the Stop of the -Exchequer. As the last act in the service of government he counselled -the Declaration of Indulgence, for when that was withdrawn there was -nothing more to hope from the crown in the fight for liberty. At last -he knew the Catholic tendency of the king and, learning perhaps the -dupe that he had been made by the Treaty of Dover, flung himself into -the bitterest opposition. - -The foundation of the Whig party may be referred to the year 1675, -when the French ambassador first contracted an alliance with a cabal -consisting of four lords, Buckingham, Wharton, Ogle and, chief among -them, Shaftesbury,[401] From that time onwards Shaftesbury enjoyed -a growing ascendency over his partners. The fight over the bill of -Non-Resistance brought them closely together; their victory, though it -was by an artifice, gave them strength. But while the new party gained -followers in Parliament and support in the country, it was some time -before further success was achieved. The Cavalier, otherwise known -by the nicknames of the Pensioned and the Pump, Parliament depended -too much on the court to allow the possibility of complete triumph -to the opposition.[402] Away from Westminster the terror of popery, -with a Catholic successor to the crown in view, dominated the country, -and on this basis the programme of the Whigs was constructed. Popery -and slavery, to quote Shaftesbury’s memorable phrase, went hand in -hand. The Whigs aimed at securing the liberties of the nation and -reducing the Catholic religion to impotence. The overthrow of Danby -with his policy of Anglican supremacy, the dissolution of the House -of Commons which lavish and ingenious corruption had bound to his -side, the destruction of the Catholic strength in the House of Lords, -the downfall of the Duke of York; these were the main ideas in their -system. Yet so long as the Lord Treasurer led the Commons by his -purse-strings they were unable to mark progress in the open, however -much they might gain behind the scenes. So the next two years brought -only failure. When Parliament met in February 1677 after a prorogation -of fifteen months, the Whigs, resting their case on an obsolete statute -of Edward III, elected to argue that after so long an interval it had -no legal existence. The move resulted in immediate victory to the -government, and Buckingham, Shaftesbury, Salisbury, and Wharton, the -chief movers in the Lords, being ordered to ask pardon of the House -for their offence, and refusing, were sent to the Tower. Thus, said -Marvell, a prorogation without precedent was to be warranted by an -imprisonment without example. Danby was strong enough to obtain an -unconditional vote of £600,000. When however he introduced a bill for -the better securing of the Protestant religion in case of a Catholic -heir to the throne, though its drastic provisions passed the Lords -easily enough, the mere fact that it seemed to legalise such a state -of things roused against it the fury of the Commons, who threw it out, -with the added indignity of noting in their journal, Because the body -of the bill was contrary to the title.[403] After a few weeks three -of the imprisoned peers made submission and were set at liberty; but -Shaftesbury still lay in the Tower when in November the government -reckoned another stroke to its credit in the marriage of William of -Orange and Mary of York. It was not until February 1678 that he was -released. To human reckoning it seemed as if the Whig cause was lost. -Danby was firmer in power than ever, the royal marriage bade fair -to conciliate the nation, the peace of Nymeguen was approaching its -tardy conclusion. Well-informed persons believed that the leaders of -the opposition were about to confess their defeat and bid farewell to -politics.[404] Eight months later an auspicious wind blew Titus Oates -on to the scene, and the aspect of affairs was completely changed. - -There have not been wanting either among his contemporaries or in later -times some to assert that Oates was procured and his story directed -by the Earl of Shaftesbury. Once and again the case has broken down. -Neither is there the slightest evidence for the notion, nor has it the -least intrinsic probability. So clear a head as Shaftesbury’s could -never have been guilty of that monstrous stupidity. Clumsy forgery, -feeble promises, lame excuses, bald melodrama characterised the -informer’s entry into public life. The tale he told was full of gross -improbabilities. And with what truth it contained Shaftesbury could -not have been acquainted. But what makes certainty still more certain -is that on his first appearance Oates was so little sure of support -from any quarter that he not only exonerated the Duke of York from -complicity in the plot, but was so disobliging to the Whigs as to name -him for a possible victim. The king at first thought he saw traces of -Shaftesbury’s hand, but was soon convinced that he erred. Before they -had time to gauge the situation the Whigs laughed at the Plot as an -artifice for keeping the army on foot.[405] Yet though he had no claim -to be Oates’ tutor, Shaftesbury welcomed him with alacrity. Fortune as -if from heaven had fallen at his feet, and he prepared to make the most -of it, and at the same time to vindicate the penetration of Colbert -Croissy, who had called him “le plus fourbe, le plus injuste, le plus -malhonnête d’Angleterre.” - - The wished occasion of the plot he takes, - Some circumstance he finds, but more he makes; - -and, since the making of circumstance lies as well in the reception as -in the invention of facts, justice must be admitted to the second line -equally with the first. Circumstance was exactly what Shaftesbury could -provide. He created the atmosphere for Oates to work in. - -The miscreant who a few weeks before had been begging from the Jesuit -fathers rose to an undreamed height of luxury and influence. Repeated -addresses from the Commons obtained for him lodgings which he shared -with Dr. Tonge in Whitehall.[406] The modest sum of £12 a week allotted -him “for dyett and expenses” was eked out by occasional gifts of £50 -“as of free gift and royal bounty” and the payment of long bills -incurred for his witnesses at trials. Within twelve months the total -amount made out to him reached the figure of £945 : 8 : 10. Yet Oates -was but one of a host whom the popular fury enabled to batten on the -royal resources; and during the same period the accounts of the secret -service money, disbursed almost exclusively to informers, showed an -expenditure of nearly £5000.[407] The Salamanca doctor made the most of -his luck. Robed like a bishop and puffed with insolence he became the -darling of the Whig party. He set up as “a solemn housekeeper” and kept -a fine table. Each morning there waited at his lodgings to dress him -two or three gentlemen who vied for the honour of holding his basin. -He was received by the primate at Lambeth. The Bishop of Ely welcomed -him as a frequent guest at dinner and was unable to set bounds to the -brutality of his conversation, till Sir John Reresby administered a -merited rebuke. He received the public thanks of the House of Lords. -The House of Commons made the Duke of Monmouth responsible for his -safety, the Lord Chamberlain for his lodging, the Lord High Treasurer -for his nourishment. His sermons were public events, his person -followed by admiring crowds. Popular odes were composed in his honour, -popular dinners were given him in the city, designs represented him -knocking the tiara from the head of “that infallible fop, the pope,” -or more exalted still, as an angel looking down from heaven. Among -English merchants abroad his health was drunk next to that of the king. -Everywhere he was courted, fêted, acknowledged. “Whig peers,” writes -Sir George Sitwell, “supported him by their subscriptions. Whig peers -welcomed him to their houses in London and in the country. Whig peers -rolled him down in their coaches to aid by his unblushing presence the -election of Whig candidates, Whig peers defended him in council and -flocked to support him at his trials, while their political followers -were engaged in threatening and hustling the witnesses.”[408] Oates had -become for the moment the representative of the aspirations of the Whig -party. - -In this the influence of Shaftesbury is clearly visible. Though he -did not procure Oates’ appearance, it cannot be supposed that the -informer’s subsequent steps were without his knowledge and approval. At -his first examination by the council Oates had declared that he knew -no more than he had said against any person of what quality soever. -Within two months he thought better of his memory in a way that points -to refreshment from another source. The wife of one of the gentlemen -of the bedchamber was entrusted with a message that, if the king would -give way to it, Oates had somewhat to swear against no less a person -than the queen. The royal leave was granted. On November 25 therefore -Oates declared to the king in full council that if all other attempts -upon his Majesty’s life had failed the queen was to have been employed -to murder her husband. Three days later he appeared at the bar of the -House of Commons and raised his strident voice with the words, “I do -accuse the queen for conspiring the death of the king and contriving -how to compass it.” It was a ludicrous invention of having heard the -queen in conversation with certain Jesuits approve the plan for -Charles’ assassination and promise to assist it. Bedloe had a similar -story, which the Lords also heard as well as that of Oates. When they -asked what the two had meant by keeping back their information, Oates -replied that by “no other person of quality” he had meant none other -of the peers. Bedloe said he had forgotten. The House of Commons, -stirred by their deep affection and care for the royal person, voted -an immediate address for the removal of the consort and her household -from Whitehall, and sent to beg the Lords’ concurrence; but the -Lords, dissatisfied with the depositions laid before them, refused, -under protest of Shaftesbury and two of his followers, to join in the -vote. Their consideration had been won by the queen’s behaviour on -the subject of Godfrey’s murder, and they refused to allow her to be -molested. In public she bore herself bravely, but her intimates knew -how greatly she had been distressed by the attack. By an order from the -king Oates was placed in strict confinement, his papers were seized, -his servants dismissed, and free access to his rooms restrained. A -strong remonstrance was prepared by the Commons, and Charles closed the -incident by restoring the villain to his former liberty.[409] - -The attack on the queen affords a clue to the ideas of both adversaries -in the great battle that was being waged in the English state -between authority and revolution. Mrs. Elliot, wife of Elliot of the -bedchamber, had been the agent who took Oates’ message to the king. She -had also spoken to Tonge, and in a significant statement to the House -of Lords confessed she had been sent to him by Lady Gerard of Bromley. -The mention of this lady’s name throws a ray of light on the doubtful -intrigue, for she was in close connection with the Whig leaders; and -were it in any case permissible to suppose that Oates had acted without -assurance of support in bringing forward a charge of so delicate a -nature, her appearance in the background would make it certain that -this was not so. It may be taken that the move was directed from the -headquarters of the Whig party. What then was the object? Catherine -had never played any part whatever in politics. In obtaining favour -for those of her religion she had held strictly to the terms of her -marriage treaty. After the first shock at her husband’s faithless -impudence she had passed her time in gaiety, dancing, and frivolity. -Only one end could be served by attempting to prove her a party to the -Plot. It was to obtain her divorce and to marry the king to a wife -who should bear him Protestant children. The knowledge of Catherine’s -childlessness had given rise before to talk of a similar project.[410] -If it could actually be brought to completion and Charles beget a -Protestant heir to the throne, there seemed a fair chance that the -clouds which hung over the future of England would be dispelled. Desire -for power alone did not then actuate Shaftesbury, but a purer hope for -his country’s prosperity. For had the scheme of divorce borne fruit and -the Duke of York, with all the unrest and insecurity that his presence -denoted, been removed from the succession by the appearance of a child -who could hardly have been educated except as a Protestant, Shaftesbury -could not have hoped himself to exercise a decisive influence on the -king’s policy. The storm gave Shaftesbury his power; when calm returned -it would dissolve. This is his claim to real statesmanship. He was -willing, it must be believed, to sacrifice power to principle, and to -plan, though with odious implements, advantage to the nation, while he -contemplated for himself a relapse into insignificance. What followed -under Charles II’s successor justified his position. Swift changes -transformed his schemes and drove him to counsels of extremity, but the -Revolution suspends judgment against him. The principle he embodied was -that which William the deliverer came to England to save from utter -ruin, the reasoned liberty of thought and action. For that he worked -and made others work without sparing, bribed while his own hands were -clean of gold, joined while his private life was pure with profligates -of unrestrained license; for that he planned murder and brewed -rebellion; for that he “fretted the pigmy body to decay”;[411] for that -he died. This particular proposal was not without recommendation. It -was the simplest way out of the difficulty. It could cause no political -commotion in the country. No principle would be overset by it nor any -tradition overruled. It might be supposed to be not unpalatable to -Charles. The English Reformation had followed one divorce; another -might have rendered the English Revolution unnecessary. There was not -however the smallest chance of success, for the king was unalterably -opposed to anything of the sort. Badly as he had behaved to Catherine, -he was not without gratitude and affection for her and was constant -in his resolution not to add to his other faults the graver one of -desertion.[412] Further, Charles was determined to let the royal -power suffer injury in no respect. When the subject of the accusation -prepared against the queen was first broached, he said privately that -he was willing to give Oates line enough. It was the secret of the -king’s whole policy during the agitation of the Plot. He was playing -the Whig party as a skilful angler plays his fish. Each length of -line run out seemed to be the last of his reserve. Throughout his -reign Charles had been striving to restore the power of the monarchy -in England. Now it looked as if all his efforts had been in vain. His -opponents appeared about to gain the final victory. The king’s only -chance was to let them exhaust themselves by the violence of their -onslaught. - -Having failed in one direction, Shaftesbury’s attention was promptly -turned to others. A difficulty confronting him in his hope of excluding -the Duke of York from the succession was the choice of a substitute. -The scheme of Charles’ divorce and second marriage would have overcome -this, but when that was dashed it became necessary to pursue the -question further. At the time when Clarendon was chief minister, his -opponents and among them the Duke of Buckingham proposed, in order to -remove his son-in-law James, whose influence was thought to support -him, that the Duke of Monmouth, the eldest of Charles’ sons living in -England, should be declared legitimate and heir to the crown.[413] -The idea had created agitation at other times as well; and now -Shaftesbury infused fresh life into it by adopting the bastard’s cause -and supporting him with a powerful following. It was this which rent -the Whig party and destroyed its chance of success. Up to a certain -point Shaftesbury could carry the other leaders. Halifax was at one -with him on the treatment of the Plot, for he said that it must be -handled as if it were true, whether it were so or no, and told Sir -William Temple that, unless he would concur in points so necessary for -the people’s satisfaction, he would brand him everywhere as a papist. -He demanded that Catholic priests should without receiving public -warning be submitted to the rigours of a law unenforced since the reign -of Elizabeth. He was willing to join with Shaftesbury in planning -such steps as the French ambassador thought would tend to the entire -annihilation of the royal authority and reduce England to a republic -under kingly forms. But when it became apparent that Shaftesbury had -adopted the cause of the graceful, popular, feather-headed Duke of -Monmouth, Halifax drew away to the king’s side and took with him “the -party volant,” which boasted with the proud title of Trimmers to hold -the balance in the constitution. With them for the moment were also the -more respectable of the old Presbyterian party under the lead of Lord -Holles.[414] If the nation was divided by the Exclusion bill, those in -favour of the project were divided among themselves by the problem in -whose favour exclusion should be. Of the two claimants to consideration -the Prince of Orange in virtue of his wife and his mother had -obviously the better title. On the other hand it was thought that his -father-in-law the Duke of York might have a dangerous influence over -him; and there were fears that the republican party in Holland would in -alarm cast itself into the hands of Louis XIV and thus ruin still more -irretrievably the interests it was desired to preserve. The reasons -against the Duke of Monmouth were evident. To alter the succession -for the son of a prostitute, for the duke’s mother was a woman of -low character, could not but cause offence to many. Still more would -resent the violation of the rights of an heir who had done nothing to -forfeit them but adhere to the dictates of his conscience. Henry VIII -had more than once altered the succession by act of Parliament, but -though he declared his children bastards, they had yet been got in -lawful wedlock. When it came to the point of a struggle, the Duke of -York would have a good rallying cry. Monmouth was nevertheless secure -of a strong party; all who were opposed to James for religion’s sake, -who were many, and all Scotland, which grew daily more exasperated -under the unpopular government of Lauderdale. It may be believed that -the weakness no less than the strength of Monmouth’s position appealed -to Shaftesbury. The Whig power lay not in support of the right, but -in the constituencies, above all in London, where the sentiments by -which Monmouth found favour had their strongest hold. Monmouth was -moreover a man open to influence. Were the Duke of York successfully -excluded, Shaftesbury was more likely to find room for the exercise -of his talents under the rule of James’ nephew than under that of his -son-in-law, William of Orange. Of the two Monmouth gave far better -promise to the earl that he would retain his power in the country and -regain it in the government. Shaftesbury took his measures accordingly. -Yet the Whig prospect looked by no means assured. Dissension in the -party was widespread. “I must confess,” wrote Algernon Sidney, summing -up the arguments on the one side and on the other, “I do not know three -men of a mind, and that a spirit of giddiness reigns amongst us, far -beyond any I have ever observed in my life.”[415] - -The prorogation of Parliament in May 1679 filled the nation with ill -humours. Members rode down to their country seats in high discontent. -Alarm was general and, wrote Sidney significantly, “they begin to look -more than formerly unto the means of preserving themselves.”[416] -Scarcely were they clear of Westminster before news came that the -Scottish Covenanters were up in arms and in possession of Glasgow. -The outbreak was not unwelcome. Nor was it unexpected. As early as -the beginning of the month Sidney had information that a rising might -be expected at any moment. A few weeks before an inflammatory speech -was delivered by Shaftesbury in the House of Lords; he charged the -government with fomenting discord in Scotland by its evil rule, and -declared that in England popery was to have brought in slavery, but in -Scotland, while slavery went before, popery was to follow. By the next -post, it was said, forty copies of his speech were carried up north to -hearten the malcontents by the knowledge that they were favoured by -a party in England. The subject was freely discussed by the Whigs in -London. Even if they were not in direct communication with the rebels, -there can be no doubt that they had let it be known on which side their -sympathies lay,[417] The events of the ill-fated rebellion of Bothwell -Brigg do not belong to this story. It did not fail for want of effort -on the part of those who had encouraged its authors. Lauderdale had -been attacked by an address of the Commons, and a deputation under the -Duke of Hamilton now arrived to plead against him before the king. -Charles remarked that “they had objected many damned things he had done -against _them_, but there was nothing objected that was done against -_his_ service.” When the revolt came up for discussion at the council, -Lord Russell rose and expressed his wonder that war had not begun long -ago rather than that it should have come at last, “since his Majesty -thought fit to retain incendiaries near his person and in his very -council.” Lauderdale begged leave to retire, but the king turned to -Russell with the words, “No, no. Sit down, my Lord. This is no place -for addresses.”[418] Charles, who boasted with some justice that he -understood Scotch affairs better than any of his advisers, was for -the immediate suppression of the rising by force. He was opposed by -those who felt their interest advanced by its continuance. The Duke of -Hamilton and his friends gave assurance that peace might be restored -without bloodshed if only such men were employed as were acceptable -to the nation. Shaftesbury did not conceal his desire that the rebels -might at least be successful in obtaining a change of government. The -Presbyterians and other sectaries were united in their hopes for their -brethren in Scotland, and pamphlets were strewn about the town inciting -the people to prevent the court from making preparations of war. By -the suggestion of the Duke of Monmouth as commander-in-chief of the -forces, the king gained his point. Shaftesbury had argued that English -troops could not legally be sent to serve in Scotland. Glad to avail -himself of the prestige his puppet would win from the campaign, he now -consented to the arrangement, hoping that the duke would carry powers -not only to beat but to treat with the rebels; more might perhaps be -gained by negotiation than by arms. In this he was nearly successful. -While the commission giving to Monmouth full powers was signed, -Lauderdale sat silent. As the council rose he followed the king into -his bedchamber and begged him, unless he wished to follow his father, -to rescind that part of the commission which might be used to encourage -rebellion in Scotland and raise another in England. “Why did you not -argue this in council?” asked Charles. His gross but able administrator -answered with emphasis, “Sire, were not your enemies in the room?” -To the great disappointment of Monmouth and the Whigs as well as the -Covenanters, peremptory orders were sent after him that he should not -treat but fall on them at once. Shaftesbury’s party discovered that -they had been tricked. Lord Cavendish and Lord Gerard refused to serve -under their commissions; Mr. Thynne declined to receive one; Lord Grey -of Werke resigned his command of the horse. Even after Monmouth had -started an attempt was made to obtain his recall and, had time allowed, -a monster petition in favour of the rebels, to be signed by many -peers and gentlemen and all the principal householders of London, was -prepared for presentation to the king. Charles made use of the event, -by an order which had the additional advantage of creating a difference -between the Earls of Essex and Shaftesbury, to raise a troop of two -hundred guards to be about his person.[419] - -The copies of Shaftesbury’s speech intended for such fatal use in -Scotland were said to have been made in the Green Ribbon Club.[420] -That famous society, founded in the year 1675, quickly acquired -ascendency over the Whig party. To-day it has been almost forgotten; -its influence was unknown to the classic historians of England, who -were in politics mostly Whig; but during seven tumultuous years of -English history it played a part that can only be compared to the work -of the more notorious Jacobin organisation of a century later across -the Channel. The club met at the King’s Head Tavern at the corner of -Chancery Lane and Fleet Street. Its character may be known at once -from the fact that its members organised and paid for the imposing -ceremonies of pope burning, by which the most fiendish lies of Oates -were yearly sustained and the worst passions of the London mob, a word, -it may be noted, itself derived from the club, systematically inflamed. -Oates himself was a member, and Aaron Smith, his legal adviser; and -under the leadership of Shaftesbury the club was filled with men of -the same kidney, who crowded on to the balcony with pipes in their -mouths and wigs laid aside to witness the papal holocaust with which -each great procession ended opposite their windows. Here was the -fountain of the inner counsels of the Whig party and the seat of its -executive. Within the walls of the club the decision had been taken to -agitate for the dissolution of Parliament after the long prorogation -of 1677; here a few years later the Rye House conspiracy was schemed; -here the actual assassination plot was hatched. Over the country the -Green Ribbon Club enjoyed a profound influence. It was the centre of -the party pamphleteers who devoted keen ability to incite the nation -and defame the government, and their productions were scattered far -and wide by means of a highly effective service of correspondents. -While policy was debated and action resolved by the chiefs of the club, -their agents at the coffee-houses in London and throughout the country -obeyed orders from headquarters. At the elections their activity was -unparalleled. Tracts poured into the constituencies. Industrious agents -attacked the character of the court candidates and firmly organised -the national opposition. It was the Green Ribbon Club which introduced -the “Protestant flail” to London and clothed the town in silk armour -as a defence against the expected daggers of papists. The club almost -usurped the functions of Parliament. Many members of that body belonged -to it, attended its consultations, took their cue from its decisions. -Agents thronged the lobby of the House of Commons, posting members with -arguments for debate, whipping in sluggards to a division, carrying the -latest news back to the club. Men of all classes and various character -belonged to the society, broken scoundrels and wealthy statesmen, pious -enthusiasts and tired profligates, the remains of the Cromwellian -party, the forerunners of the Revolution, poets, aldermen, country -gentlemen, assassins, bound together in a common league of animosity -against Charles II and his government, not a few traitors to that bond -itself. Scarcely a name of note on the Whig side is absent from the -list, which contained Shaftesbury and Monmouth, Buckingham, Ireton, -Slingsby Bethel, Sir William Waller, the Spekes, the Trenchards, Howard -of Escrick, Sir Robert Peyton, Russell, Holles, and Algernon Sidney. -With the lapse of time the counsels of the club became more violent; -and the most infamous of political tracts, “An Appeal from the Country -to the City,” which spread deliberate and abominable lies to incite -the nation to rebellion, and urged the Duke of Monmouth to strike with -force for the crown, not because he had a right to it, but because -he had none, was written by Robert Ferguson, nicknamed the Plotter, -himself a member, Shaftesbury’s _âme damneé_.[421] More than a third -of the whole number of members of the club were concerned in the Rye -House Plot. Sixteen or eighteen took an active part in Monmouth’s -invasion. After the Revolution they obtained their reward. Shadwell, -the poet of the club, was made laureate in place of Dryden. Aaron Smith -became Chancellor of the Exchequer to King William. Lord Grey of Werke, -basest of traitors, was given office and an earldom. Sir John Trenchard -was made secretary of state. Dukedoms were conferred upon the Earls -of Bedford and Devonshire and a marquisate upon Lord Mulgrave. Ireton -became lieutenant-colonel of dragoons and gentleman of the horse to -the king. Oates was pilloried and pensioned. Speake, Ayloffe, Rouse, -Nelthrop, and Bettiscomb were hanged.[422] - -In August 1679 the chance of the Green Ribbon Club seemed to have -arrived. After a hard game of tennis the king took a chill in walking -by the river-side at Windsor. Fever ensued, and a horrible fear that -Charles lay on his death-bed struck at men’s hearts. The cry rose -everywhere that he had been poisoned. The Duchess of Portsmouth was -accused of having done the black deed. Amazement and horror were -universal. People looked upon any ill that should happen to the king, -said Sir William Temple, as though it were the end of the world. The -privy council was obliged to take action to prevent an overwhelming -rush of inquirers into the royal bedchamber. Algernon Sidney returning -to town found the general apprehension such that, had the king died, -there was no extremity of disorder that might not be expected. “Good -God!” wrote Henry Savile from Paris, “what a change such an accident -would make! the very thought of it frights me out of my wits. God -bless you and deliver us all from that damnable curse,”[423] There -were indeed good grounds for the fears so poignantly expressed. The -Duke of York, who had been sent from the country in February, was -still beyond seas. Monmouth had returned from Scotland, puffed with -success in having pacified the Covenanters. Shaftesbury divided the -court and seemed to have the nation at his back. If the king died, he -was prepared to make a bold push for fortune. The second declaration -of Monmouth, published in the following reign, made mention of a -consult held at this time “for extraordinary remedies.” No copy of the -declaration can now be traced, but it was seen and the fact noted by -David Hume. That consult decided upon notable measures. Early in the -course of the next year Sir Robert Peyton was accused by Mrs. Cellier -and Gadbury the astrologer of treasonable practices, and was examined -before the privy council. Though he denied his guilt, he let it be -understood that the charge was not baseless and confessed to the House -of Commons that he had been intriguing with the Duke of York. His old -associates turned against him, and Peyton was expelled the House; -but his object was accomplished and he went over to the court side, -to find a reward for his perfidy in the favour of James. No definite -accusation was made against the heads of the popular party, but the -extent of the Whig plans became vaguely known. On the news of the -king’s illness preparations had been quickly made for insurrection. -Money was collected and old Cromwellian officers engaged. A large -force would have been in the field at a few days’ notice. Had Charles -died at Windsor the leaders of the movement were ready to seize the -Tower, Dover Castle, and Portsmouth, and to arrest the Lord Mayor and -those privy councillors who should offer to proclaim the Duke of York -king.[424] - -The government was not idle in face of the danger. With the consent of -the king Sunderland, Halifax, and Essex, most unstable of triumvirates, -summoned the duke from Brussels. Leaving his wife and children, James -set out in disguise and reached Windsor on September 2 without being -recognised by more than two persons on the way. Charles received -him with admirably feigned surprise. The danger was past; Jesuits’ -powder, the modern quinine, had already restored the king to the point -of eating mutton and partridges, and within ten days he was again -discussing important business with the French ambassador. Another -issue of events had been expected. If the worst had taken place, the -Lord Mayor and aldermen had concerted means to declare the duke their -sovereign. Fortunately for the nation the Whigs were deprived of the -chance to decide whether they or the government held the stronger hand. -On the contrary the hopes raised by the king’s illness brought on them -a serious rebuff. Once in England James, who had continually pressed -for his recall and thought his brother’s behaviour was driving the -country to ruin, shewed no desire to depart again. It was represented -to him that his absence was for the king’s advantage, and he consented -to leave; but on conditions, for Sunderland suggested that Monmouth, -whom his father’s danger made yet more arrogant and his uncle’s -unexpected arrival sulky and furious, should quit the country too. -James after a brief visit to Brussels took coach for Scotland, but -Monmouth, to the delight of the court party deprived of his office of -captain-general of the forces and his command of the horse guards, for -Holland. There was some thought of his attempting to refuse, but milder -counsels prevailed and he was persuaded that a willing submission -would serve to invest him in the eyes of the people with the character -of a martyr. The generalship was abolished and the business of the -office handed over to Sunderland. Yet another slight was put upon the -Whig party. Sir Thomas Armstrong, the intimate agent of Monmouth and -a fierce opponent of the Duke of York, was banished from the king’s -presence and court for ever.[425] - -As the year 1679 wore away the disturbance of the kingdom seemed to -increase. A rising had been expected as the result of James’ return to -England, and alarms of the same nature were raised when the king paid -a visit to London after his recovery. Guards were set in Covent Garden -and Lincoln’s Inn Fields; barges and an escort two hundred strong -were in readiness to carry the royal party to the Tower in case of a -tumult; but no stir was made and the day passed quietly. Fears of the -vaguest character were abroad. “I am very confident,” wrote Charles -Hatton, “you will suddenly hear very surprising news, but what I am -unable to inform you as yet.” At the back of men’s minds the feeling -was growing that the Whigs could not attain their object except by -plunging the country into civil war.[426] The agitation became greater -than ever when at the end of November the Duke of Monmouth returned -without leave to England. He entered London at midnight to the sound of -ringing bells and by the light of a thousand bonfires, crackling almost -at the palace doors. His popularity seemed unbounded. Crowds followed -him in the streets and stopped passers to drink his health. Nell Gwyn, -cheered by the crowd as “the Protestant whore,” entertained him at -supper. He struck from his arms the bar sinister, which denoted the -maimed descent: it was a fashion among the royal bastards, for the Duke -of Richmond, Charles’ son by Louise de Kéroualle, who was thought to -have intentions on the queen’s throne for herself, had done the same, -and displayed the lions of England without diminution.[427] The king -was incensed, refused to see the pretender, deprived him of all his -offices, ordered him to quit London. Monmouth at length obeyed, but it -was to make a royal progress through the west of England, captivating -the people and laying the foundations of the support for his hapless -attempt against his uncle’s crown.[428] - -Meanwhile the question arose when Parliament should meet. The elections -had not much altered the complexion of the House of Commons, but it was -noted that while the Whigs held their own in the counties and great -corporations, the court began to gain in many small boroughs.[429] On -the appointed day in October Charles first prorogued and then adjourned -Parliament till the following January. Shaftesbury attempted to force -the king’s hand by appearing in company with sixteen other peers to -present a petition that set forth the danger in which the monarch, -the religion, and the government of England lay, and their prayer -that his Majesty would make effectual use of the great council of the -realm. Charles replied he would consider it, and heartily wished that -all others were as solicitous as himself for the good and peace of -the nation. Three days later he shewed the meaning of his answer by -proroguing Parliament, without the advice of the council, to November -1680. He followed the stroke by summoning the Lord Mayor and aldermen -to his presence to enforce on them their duty of preserving the peace -and preventing ill-disposed persons from pursuing the ends of discord -under cover of petitioning. The surprise of the Whigs was intense. Only -one thing was left for them to do. They went on petitioning. Petitions, -prepared in accordance with Shaftesbury’s instructions, bombarded the -king from all over the country. A proclamation issued to denounce -merely had the effect of redoubling them. Charles’ own answers were -far more effective. The men of Wiltshire presented a petition as from -their county, but lacking the sanction of the grand jury were rated -as a company of loose and disaffected persons. The petitioners from -London and Westminster were told by Charles that he was the head of -the government and would do as he thought best; while to the Berkshire -gentlemen he replied, “We will argue the matter over a cup of ale when -we meet at Windsor, though I wonder my neighbours should meddle with -my business.” In one case alone Charles had the worst of a passage of -arms. When a citizen of Taunton offered him a petition, the king asked -how he dared do so? To which the man replied, “Sir, my name is Dare.” -The government was not behindhand in dealing with the situation. To -shew that the petitioners did not represent the country, an immediate -flood of counter addresses poured in, expressing confidence in the -king’s wisdom and abhorrence of the petitioners. Petitioners and -abhorrers divided the nation, and it was by no other godfather than -Titus Oates that the latter party, by a name famous in English history, -was christened Tory.[430] In this clamorous contest the king gained an -undeniable success. But success did not bring repose. Watchfulness was -more severely needed than ever. To calm suspicion the penal laws were -once more sharpened against the Catholics. Additional garrisons were -thrown into the Tower and Tilbury Fort. Portsmouth and Sheerness were -strengthened. London remained quiet, but the Christmas festivities were -suspected of unfortunate possibilities. There was talk of threatening -Shaftesbury with a prosecution.[431] - -Instead of a prosecution Shaftesbury was drawn into a negotiation with -the court. The French ambassador learned with agitation that the earl -went secretly by night to Whitehall to discuss terms of settlement -with the king. Shaftesbury offered to let drop the Exclusion bill -and assure Charles an ample revenue for the rest of his life if he -would consent to a divorce and to marry a Protestant. The king should -make a show of resistance, to be overborne by apparently irresistible -pressure, the country would be satisfied, and peace return to the -land. Charles made believe that he viewed the notion with favour. Only -Lord Holles and very few others were admitted to knowledge of what was -passing. Soon Lauderdale, whose character and career were particularly -displeasing to the Presbyterians, was added to their number. Holles -drew back, then fell ill, and the scheme languished. Nevertheless -Shaftesbury hoped for success. Suddenly his hopes were shattered. On -January 29, 1680 Charles brought the matter to an end by declaring to -the council that, since the Duke of York’s absence had not produced -the desired effect, he was about to recall him to England. A royal -yacht left immediately for Edinburgh to convey him thence. On February -24 James arrived in London. The recorder of the city presented him -with a complimentary address. A sumptuous banquet was given the royal -brothers by the Lord Mayor. To crown the display a grand illumination -was arranged to testify the extraordinary joy all good subjects were -supposed to feel.[432] Shaftesbury might well harbour resentment at the -artifice of which he had been a victim. - -In the “Appeal from the Country to the City” the Duke of Monmouth was -recommended by name to be the saviour of the people, since he who had -the worst title was like to make the best king. Between that, the -project of the queen’s divorce, and the pretence that Monmouth was in -fact the legitimate heir to the throne the minds of Whig politicians -wavered. The last idea had already risen to such prominence that, when -the Duke of York left the kingdom in March, a solemn declaration was -drawn from Charles that he had never married or made any contract of -marriage with any other woman than his wife, Queen Catherine, then -living.[433] For greater security the king’s signature was attested by -his councillors and the deed enrolled in Chancery. Shaftesbury had no -sooner emerged from his defeat of the midnight meetings at Whitehall -than the fable sprang into renewed life. Mysterious tales were bruited -abroad of a certain black box, which, if found, should contain the -contract of marriage between the king and Lucy Walters, mother of -the Duke of Monmouth. The box was said to be in the possession of -Sir Gilbert Gerard. If it did not contain the actual contract, at -any rate there lay in it a certificate from the hand of Dr. Cosens, -late Bishop of Durham, who had solemnised the marriage. Others had it -that one Dr. Clare, an eminent royalist parson, had read the service. -At least the ceremony had been witnessed by a judge and three other -persons of quality. The story attained such proportions that an -extraordinary meeting of the council was held. Sir Gilbert Gerard was -called to state what he knew. It appeared that he knew nothing. He -had never seen either contract or box, and had no knowledge whatever -of anything of the sort. The rumour was traced to a maternal aunt of -the late Lucy Walters: who had set her on could only be conjectured. -It cannot be doubted that the tale emanated from the office of the -Whig party. The authors of it were men of versatility. Sir Gilbert -Gerard’s statement seemed to have dissolved the myth, but within a -few weeks the appearance of a pamphlet entitled “A Letter to a Person -of Honour concerning the Black Box” brought the facts again into -question.[434] The whole account of the black box, affirmed the letter, -was a mere romance, an ingenious device of the Duke of York to sham -and ridicule the marriage, which indeed had no relation to it, for -with the exposure of the box the true history would at the same time -fall into discredit. It was notorious that assurance of Monmouth’s -legitimacy had been given to the Countess of Wemyss before she disposed -her daughter in marriage to him. In a letter from the king to Mrs. -Walters, intercepted by Cromwell’s officers, he had addressed her as -wife. And it was beyond doubt that she had actually received homage -from many of the royalist party. Many copies of this pamphlet were -scattered in the Exchange and dispersed throughout the kingdom. It had -an instant effect. On June 7 another declaration was published by the -king, condemning the libel, denouncing its falsehood, and forbidding -all subjects on pain of the utmost rigour of the law to utter anything -contrary to the royal pronouncement. The result was a second “Letter -to a Person of Honour,” in which Charles’ word was contradicted and -his motives traduced. All the former statements were repeated, some -arguments added, and the pamphlet ended by the modest proposals, “That -Parliament, being admitted to sit, may examine this affair, whereof -they alone are competent judges; and that the Duke of York may be -legally tried for his manifold treasons and conspiracies against the -king and kingdom,” which treasons were set out at length in thirty-four -articles.[435] To carry the war still further into the enemies’ camp, -on June 26 Shaftesbury appeared in Westminster Hall in company with -the Earl of Huntingdon, Lord Grey, Lord Gerard, Lord Russell, Lord -Cavendish, and nine commoners to present the Duke of York to the grand -jury as a popish recusant and to indict the Duchess of Portsmouth for -a national nuisance. With them went Titus Oates, invested as it were -with a representative authority on behalf of the Whig party. That both -charges were true is certain; but the action of the Whigs was dictated -by a purely partisan spirit, and Chief Justice Scroggs, judging the -fact so, discharged the jury before they could find a bill. Four days -later the attack was repeated in another court, and with the same -result. The judges only followed their chief’s example. James appeared -downcast and knew well what danger he ran. His adversaries seemed to -be throwing off the mask, strong in the support of which they were -assumed to be conscious. When it was told to Shaftesbury that the king -had railed at him and his party as seditious rebels, he replied aloud -and in public, “The king has nothing to do but take the pains to punish -rebels and seditious persons. We will keep with the bounds of the law, -and we shall easily find means by the law to make him walk out of the -kingdom.” There were not many who could boast of having the last laugh -in a game with Charles. Not many months after, when the law by which he -held was put into operation against the Whig leader, Charles heard that -Shaftesbury had accused him of suborning perjurers, and thereupon very -pleasantly quoted a Scotch proverb. Veiled in the decency of a learned -language it ran: “In die extremi judicii videbimus cui podex nigerrimus -sit.”[436] - -Violent distempers were now feared on all sides. Partisans of the -Prince of Orange were intriguing keenly on his behalf. In the spring of -the year Charles was ill again, and the several parties hastily met to -concert action. “God keep the nation,” wrote Dorothy Sidney, “from the -experiment what they could have done.” The danger may be gauged by the -fact that, had the king’s illness continued, three hundred members of -the Commons were determined to remain sitting despite the prorogation. -A considerable movement was detected among the London prentices. The -date of May 29 had been fixed for a large meeting to be held under -pretence of burning the Rump; four or five thousand men had pledged -themselves to attend, but information was laid, the leaders arrested, -and the outbreak apprehended by the court did not take place.[437] -Those of the opposite party were no less alarmed. Their chief enemy, -James, was holding a brilliant court and still maintained himself -against them. Shaftesbury left town for Easter, fearing a personal -attack. Mr. William Harbord looked abroad to spy some safe retreat. -Sir William Waller fled to Holland, thence to Italy, pursued by the -watchful eye of the government. On the pretext of Catholic intrigues, -the city guards were doubled.[438] A penetrating observer might have -perceived a change drawing over the spirit of the times. While the -Whig attack, far from having spent itself, grew only the more fierce, -and a final struggle with authority seemed imminent, the nation had -begun to reflect upon the turn of events. If passion was exasperated -by the last bold step against the Duke of York, it shewed too the -extremity to which his opponents were driving. Thereafter could be no -thought of reconciliation: they must either ruin him or themselves -end in ruin. It was not without some justice that Charles I called -the English sober. As the future was dimly shaped to men in shadows -of high misfortune, the fear of open strife and loss of all they had -given so much to gain in recalling Charles II to the throne of his -fathers weighed more heavily upon them. Innate reverence for authority, -standing to the letter of its rights, returned in some of its ancient -force. Though they were willing to see the royal prerogative curbed, -there was no sympathy for those who would strike against its existence. -And in the party which fostered terror and maddened the nation by the -Popish Plot were not a few to whom this was the object, Independents -and other sectaries, fierce republicans who had fought through the -Civil War and might not be sorry at the chance of fighting through -another. It was felt that the least accident might throw everything -into confusion. People began at length to test the stories circulated -for their consumption. Tales “that Holborn should be burnt down and the -streets run with blood” were no longer accepted on the mere statement. -The Irish Plot, loudly denounced about this time by Shaftesbury, found -small credence except from the London mob, and even in London the busy -merchants who feared disorder exercised an influence of restraint. At -the end of July Sir Leoline Jenkins was able to write: “Letters from -several parts beyond the seas do tell us that we are represented there -as if we were already in a flame. God be praised! ’tis no such matter. -All things are as still and peaceable as ever they were, only we are -pelted at with impudent, horrid libels.” Evidently the English nation -was in no humour for a second civil war.[439] - -The king met Parliament on October 21, 1680. James was again on his -way to Edinburgh, induced to withdraw himself by a promise of full -support, but inwardly persuaded that he was lost. Seven of the council -had favoured the journey, eleven were against it. “Since he has so many -friends for him,” said Charles, “I see he must go.” In spite of gay -hearts the royal prospect was not bright. The king had tried a bout -with the Whigs over the city elections, and was forced to accept their -choice; and the Duchess of Portsmouth, fearful of an attack on herself -and with a heavy bribe in her purse, had gone over to the side of his -enemies.[440] The session opened with turbulence almost unexampled -even in the hot times that had passed. For discrediting the Plot in the -last parliament, a member had been expelled by the Commons. He was now -followed by two others. Petitioning was voted to be the right of the -subject. Abhorrers were violently attacked. Charles had long expressed -his willingness for any compromise that should leave his brother the -title of king when he came to the throne, and offered Expedients, -the effect of which would be to take all power from the hands of -the sovereign. Similar proposals were made by others also. Halifax -suggested that the duke should be banished for five years, Essex an -association in defence of the Protestant religion, Shaftesbury would -still be satisfied by a divorce. Otherwise he stood firm for Exclusion. -James viewed the Expedients alike with horror, and the Commons rejected -them with insult. Once let a popish king have the title, it was said, -and he would take the power too. “Expedients in politics are like -mountebanks’ tricks in physic,” cried Sir William Jones. The bill, the -bill, and nothing but the bill, was the cry. Colonel Titus summed the -matter up neatly. “You shall have the Protestant religion,” he said, -“you shall have what you will to protect you, but you must have a -popish king who shall command your armies and your navies, make your -bishops and judges. Suppose there were a lion in the lobby, one cries: -Shut the door and keep him out. No, says another, open the door and let -us chain him when he comes in.” The metaphor became popular in verse:— - - I hear a lion in the lobby roar; - Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door - And keep him out?—or shall we let him in - To try if we can turn him out again?[441] - -On November 4 the Exclusion bill was introduced, heralded by -denunciations of James. The violence of the debates beggars -description. If swords were not drawn, their use was not forgotten. -The prospect of civil war was freely mooted. “The case, in short, is -this,” exclaimed Mr. Henry Booth, “in plain English, whether we would -fight for or against the law.” Sir William Jones pursued, “The art of -man cannot find out any remedy as long as there is a popish successor -and the fears of a popish king.” He was answered by Colonel Legge, a -personal friend of the Duke of York: “There has been talk in the world -of another successor than the duke, in a Black Box; but if Pandora’s -box must be opened, I would have it in my time, not in my children’s, -that I may draw my sword to defend the right heir.” On November 11 the -bill was passed, and four days later with a mighty shout was carried -to the Lords by Russell, followed by a great body of the Commons. -To signify the attitude of the city, he was accompanied by the Lord -Mayor and aldermen. At the debate which followed Charles was present. -He heard the passionate attacks of Shaftesbury, the grave force of -Essex’s oratory. He witnessed the treachery of Sunderland, who joined -his enemies. He heard Monmouth urge Exclusion as the only safety for -the king’s life, and broke in with a loud whisper, “the kiss of Judas.” -He saw Halifax rise to champion the right, and heard him speak fifteen -or sixteen times and carry the day by his inexhaustible powers of -wit, sarcasm, and eloquence. At nine o’clock in the evening, after a -debate of six hours, the bill was thrown out by sixty-three votes to -thirty.[442] It was a memorable victory. - -The fury of the Commons exceeded all bounds. Supplies were refused. -Votes and addresses were passed against Halifax, against Jeffreys, -Recorder of London, against Lord Chief Justice North, against placemen -and pensioners, against the judges, against James. “No sooner does a -man stand by the king but he is attacked,” wrote the duke to William -of Orange. To the attack against Halifax Charles answered suavely -that “he doth not find the grounds in the address of this House to -be sufficient to induce him to remove the Earl of Halifax.” He told -Reresby: “Let them do what they will, I will never part with any -officer at the request of either House. My father lost his head by such -compliance; but as for me, I intend to die another way.” And Halifax -took occasion to say to Sir John: “Well, if it comes to a war, you -and I must go together.” A bill for a Protestant association for the -government of the country with Monmouth at its head was being prepared, -when on January 10, 1681 the king suddenly prorogued and then dissolved -Parliament, leaving twenty-two bills depending and eight more already -ordered. The next parliament was summoned for March 21, and according -to the old advice of Danby not in the capital, but at Oxford.[443] - -Charles’ wisdom in this course cannot be questioned. Before the -last session Ferguson the Plotter had returned from concealment in -Holland. An agent of Essex was busy in London concerning “the linen -manufacture,” for which he had enrolled three or four hundred men and -spent as much as a thousand pounds. Hugh Speke sent down to the country -to have his horse ready. “Get him in as good case as you can,” he -wrote, “for God knows what use I may have for him and how suddenly.” -There is reason to think that Shaftesbury had been planning to place -Parliament under control of the city.[444] London had always armed -the Whigs with the possibility of support other than parliamentary. -The removal of Parliament to Oxford made it certain that the coming -struggle would be fought on ground favourable to the king. No sooner -was Charles’ determination known than Shaftesbury, Monmouth, and Essex, -together with thirteen other peers, presented a petition shewing that -evil men, favourers of popery and enemies of the happiness of England, -had made choice of Oxford as a place where the Houses would be daily -menaced by the swords of papists who had crept into the ranks of the -king’s guards, and making their humble prayer and advice that the -parliament should sit at Westminster as usual. “That, my lord, may -be your opinion,” returned the king to Essex; “it is not mine.”[445] -The Whigs promptly set to making the elections their own. Nothing was -omitted to secure their success. Instructions from the Green Ribbon -Club directed events in all parts of the country. Members bound -themselves to prosecute the Plot, to demand restriction of the king’s -power to prorogue and dissolve Parliament, to support the Exclusion, -the right of petitioning, the Association.[446] When the means of man -were exhausted, supernatural powers were called to assist. On the one -side and on the other were raised ghosts, who foretold doom to their -opponents. The city of London elected its old representatives. They -were begged to refuse supplies and assured that in pursuit of their -ends they should have the support of the citizens’ lives and fortunes. -A host of scribblers, libellers, and caricaturists poured into Oxford. -A rumour was spread that the city would be the scene of a massacre. The -Whig chiefs rode down attended by bands of armed retainers. Guards of -townsmen accompanied members from the boroughs. The Londoners appeared -in a great company with bows of blue satin in their hats, on which were -woven the inscription: “No Popery! No Slavery!” Tory crowds met them -at the gates, red-ribboned, brandishing clubs and staves, and crying, -“Make ready! Stand to it! Knock ’em down! Knock ’em down!” In the midst -of his life-guards, among whom Essex had failed at Charles’ polite -request to point out the creeping papists, the king drove from Windsor. -Information had come to hand of a plot to kidnap him at Oxford. -Measures were taken accordingly. A regiment was moved up to the Mews in -case of an attack on Whitehall. The constable of the Tower was advised -to hold himself in readiness. Attention was given to Lambeth Palace and -the forts on the Thames. The cannon at Windsor were looked to, and Lord -Oxford’s regiment was posted along the Windsor road, should Charles be -compelled to retreat. “If the king would be advised,” said Halifax, “it -is in his power to make all his opponents tremble.”[447] It was what he -had come prepared to do. - -Since the fall of Danby, Charles had lived in a state of poverty. -Scarcely any supplies were furnished by Parliament. None came from -France. His resources were at one moment so low that he even thought -of recalling his ministers from the courts of foreign princes.[448] At -the same time thousands of pounds were being absorbed by the informers -against popish plotters, tens of thousands by the royal mistresses. -The treasury was in the hands of Laurence Hyde, second son of Lord -Chancellor Clarendon. That he was able to pay the way is a source of -wonder and admiration. Such a state of affairs could not last for -ever, and Charles had recourse to the mine whence he had drawn so much -wealth before. Though Louis XIV had gained his immediate object by -turning against his cousin, he felt as time went on that the tools -he used might destroy his own work. His constant desire was to keep -England in such a position that, if she would, she could not thwart his -plans. For this he had joined the Whigs against Danby. From the same -motive his ambassador supported Shaftesbury in his advertisement of -Monmouth and bribed not only members of parliament, but city merchants -and Presbyterian preachers. But there was a point beyond which he -could not follow this line. It would be as little to his interest to -see Charles’ authority overthrown and English policy directed by a -Protestant parliament as to contend with Charles adopting and leading -the same policy. Therefore in the autumn of 1679 Barillon had tried to -come to an agreement with Charles. He offered the sum of £200,000 for -three years but, attempting to get more than the king was willing to -give, found the proposal fall to the ground. Charles threw himself on -to the side of the allies against France and in July of the following -year concluded a treaty with Spain to resist the pretensions of Louis. -Alarmed by the violence of the Commons and realising that their -hostility to France could not be cured by gold, Barillon again broached -the subject. The king hung back until just before the dissolution of -the last parliament at Westminster and by skilful play obtained what he -wanted. A verbal treaty was concluded in the queen’s bedroom, between -the bed and the wall. Charles agreed to disengage himself from the -Spanish alliance and to prevent the interference of Parliament. In -return he was to receive from Louis an amount equivalent to twelve and -a half million francs in the course of the next three years. So close -was the secret kept that besides the two kings only Barillon, Laurence -Hyde, and the Duke of York had knowledge of the treaty.[449] Though -he was tight bound by it for the matter of foreign policy, Charles -had attained his object. Except for the advancement of his power at -home and to quicken the growth of English commerce he did not care -for foreign politics. So long as he could turn Louis’ ambition to his -own advantage he was satisfied. This the new treaty accomplished, and -although Louis too gained handsomely by it, he was obliged to confess -the victory not altogether his by the complete reversal of his policy -of the last four years in England. Charles met Parliament strong in the -consciousness of his independence. - -The session that now opened gave little hope of a peaceful end. Meeting -on March 21, the Houses listened to a speech of studious moderation -from the throne. Charles promised consent to any means whereby under -a Catholic successor the administration should remain in Protestant -hands, but what he had already said with regard to the succession, by -that he would abide—there should be no tampering with that. There could -be no mistake as to his attitude. “I, who will never use arbitrary -government myself,” he said with a proud lie, “am resolved never to -suffer it in others.” Charles could well offer a compromise, for he -knew it would never be accepted. The two parties, it was said, were -like hostile forces on opposite heights. The Commons refused the -Expedients. They adopted the cause of a wretch named Fitzharris, -whose obscure intrigue, by whomever directed, was certainly most base -and most criminal, and tried to turn him into an engine of political -aggression. It was evident that they meant to force the king to abandon -James and recognise the Duke of Monmouth. Shaftesbury once more tried -negotiation. In conversation with Charles in the House of Lords he -pressed him in the public interest and for the peace of the nation to -accept the position and give way. The king returned: “My Lord, let -there be no self-delusion, I will never yield and will not let myself -be intimidated. I have the law and reason on my side. Good men will be -with me. There is the church,” and he pointed to where the bishops sat, -“which will remain united with me. Believe me, my Lord, we shall not be -divided.” It was an open declaration of war. On March 26 the Exclusion -bill was voted. Monday, March 28, was fixed for the first reading. On -Sunday the king busied himself with preparing the Sheldonian theatre -for the Commons, who complained that Convocation House was too small; -he viewed the plans, strolled among the workmen, congratulated himself -on being able to arrange for the better comfort of his faithful -subjects, and made all show of expecting a long session. That night his -coach was privately sent a stage outside Oxford with a troop of horse. -Next morning he was carried as usual to the House of Lords in a sedan -chair, followed by another with drawn curtains, seeming to contain a -friend. When the king stepped out his friend was found to be a change -of clothes. He had come to make his enemies tremble. At the last -moment an accident nearly wrecked the scheme. The wrong robes had been -brought. Hastily the chair was sent back for the robes of state, while -Charles held an unwilling peer in conversation that he might not give -the alarm. Then, when all was ready, he swiftly took his seat on the -throne and, without giving the Lords time to robe, summoned the Commons -to attend. As Sir William Jones was in the act of appealing to Magna -Carta as the safeguard of the subject’s right, the Black Rod knocked at -the door. The Commons thronged eagerly through the narrow passages to -the king’s presence, the Speaker leading with Russell and Cavendish at -either hand. They thought they had come to receive Charles’ surrender. -When the tumult was calmed the king spoke; “My lords and gentlemen, -that all the world may see to what a point we are come, that we are -not like to have a good end, when the divisions at the beginning are -such, therefore, my Lord Chancellor, do as I have commanded you.” Finch -thereupon declared Parliament, which had lived for exactly one week, to -be dissolved, and Charles immediately left the throne. As he reached -his dressing-room he turned to a friend, his eyes gleaming, with the -remark that it was better to have one king than five hundred. He made a -short dinner and, leaving by the back stairs, drove off in Sir Edward -Seymour’s coach to where his own was waiting. That night he was in -Windsor.[450] - -The dissolution scattered the opposition as a gust of wind the leaves -of a tree in autumn. Shaftesbury in vain attempted to hold the Houses -together. His followers in the Lords remained for an hour under -pretence of signing a protest, while messengers were dispatched urging -the Commons to fulfil their promises. But they were too much cowed -by the stroke. They feared “if they did not disperse, the king would -come and pull them out by the ears.” Presently they fled. In a quarter -of an hour the price of coaches in the town doubled. Oxford had the -appearance of a surrendered city disgorging its garrison.[451] And with -their flight the history of the Popish Plot comes to an end. On that -the Whigs had staked all, and they had lost. The country was alienated -by their violence and rapacity and fearful of the horrors of civil -war. Once deprived of their means of action in Parliament they could -do nothing but go whither the king drove them, to plot frank rebellion -without the shadow of legality. Up to this point Shaftesbury had led -a bold attack, not without good hope of success. Now he was left to -sustain the defence, stubborn and keen, but in the end incapable of -avoiding ruin. The tide had at last turned, and Charles, who since the -first appearance of Oates had borne with unexampled equanimity a series -of the most fierce assaults, found himself upon a pinnacle of triumph, -his enemies lying crushed beneath his throne until he should goad them -to complete disaster. Had he struck twelve months sooner the country -would in all likelihood have been on their side; but he had gauged the -temper of his people correctly and knew now that they would be with -him. The history of these years is in brief the history of Charles -II’s reign, the history of a long struggle for the power of the crown. -In the panic of the Popish Plot and the wild agitation of the Exclusion -bill that struggle, exasperated by the Dover treaty and the Catholic -intrigues, came to a head. Its consequence was the Rye House Plot, -the perfection of Whig failure. In that struggle too the conflicting -principles found their absolute exponents in the two wittiest and two -of the most able statesmen in English history, each gifted with a -supreme political genius, each exclusive of the other, each fighting -for personal ascendency no less than for an idea, for principle no -less than for power, Charles II and the Earl of Shaftesbury. Without -a grasp of this the history of the times cannot be understood, and -for this reason some historians have found in them, and more have -left, a mere tangle of helpless chaos. Of the two Charles had the -better fortune in his life, Shaftesbury after death. For Shaftesbury, -ruined, disappointed, embittered at the loss of all his hopes, was -yet the father of the Revolution: all that Charles had gained was -thrown away by his less worthy brother. But the personal triumph of -the king was unique. While to the world he seemed a genial debauchee, -whose varied talents would have fitted him equally to be a chemist, -shipwright, jockey, or dancing-master, the horseman, angler, walker, -musician, whose energy tired while his company delighted the most -brilliant of English courts, more admirable than Crichton had he not -been more indolent, he laboured in an inner life at a great endeavour -and, chiefly by letting himself be misunderstood, achieved it.[452] -He restored the crown to its ancient place in the state, whence his -father and his grandfather had let it fall. He gave Parliament just -enough rope to hang itself. - - - - - TRIALS FOR TREASON - - - - - CHAPTER I - - MAGISTRATES AND JUDGES - - -The trials of the Popish Plot have remained the most celebrated in the -annals of our judicial history. Their reports occupy three volumes of -the State Trials and more than two thousand pages of crowded print. -They contain twenty-two trials for treason, three for murder or attempt -to murder, eleven for perjury, subornation of perjury, libel, and other -misdemeanours. They gave rise to proceedings in Parliament against two -Lord Chief Justices, and against two judges of the Court of King’s -Bench. They are a standing monument to the most astounding outburst -of successful perjury which has occurred in modern times. It is due -to their connection with these trials that posterity has branded the -names of three[453] judges with lasting infamy, and that fourteen men -executed as traitors have earned the reputation of martyrs. Not only -are they filled and brimming with the romance of life and death, but -there lies locked within them the kernel of that vast mass of treason, -intrigue, crime, and falsehood which surrounds and is known as the -Popish Plot. Strangely enough, therefore, they have been little studied -and never understood. - -The consequence of this has been unfortunate. Instead of going to -the fountain-head for information, historians have for the most part -contented themselves with relying on accounts supplied by writers on -the one side or the other, sources which are always prejudiced and -usually contradictory. To extract truth from the mutual opposition -of two lies is an ingenious and useful task when evidence is not -forthcoming at first hand; but it is a method less accurate than the -examination of original authorities when these can be consulted. Nor is -there only an obligation to devote attention to the trials themselves; -they cannot be judged alone: and historians have not escaped error -when, although they have studied the trials immediately within view -from the actual reports, they have neglected to read them in the light -of the preceding practice of the English courts of law, and to ground -their opinions upon the whole judicial system which gave them their -peculiar character, and of which they were an inseparable part. To -appreciate properly the significance of the trials they must not be -taken apart from their setting, and it is necessary before passing -judgment upon the events recorded in them to review the past which lies -behind them and the causes which influenced their nature. - -The judicial system of England in the latter half of the seventeenth -century was very different from its descendant in the twentieth. Its -nature had been determined by the course of political events which -moulded it into a form as unlike to that of two centuries after as the -later Stuart constitution was to the Victorian. - -Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, from the time -when Henry VIII broke the political power of Rome in England until -the day when the last revolution destroyed the influence of the -Jesuits in English politics, the English state lived and developed -in an atmosphere charged with the thunderstorm and resonant with the -note of war. War against foes within the land and without was the -characteristic condition of its existence. Besides conflict with -foreign powers, war and rebellion, constant in Scotland and almost -chronic in Ireland, may be counted in eight reigns three completed -revolutions, ten[454] armed rebellions, two great civil wars, and -plots innumerable, all emanating from within the English nation -alone. From beyond seas enemies schemed almost without ceasing to -overturn religion or government or both as they were established at -home. There is no need to wonder that the English government was a -fighting machine. In this light it was regarded by all men. Where -government is now looked on as a means of getting necessary business -done, of ameliorating conditions of life, and directing the energy of -the country to the highest pitch of efficiency, two centuries and a -half ago it was anxiously watched as an engine of attack or defence -of persons, property, and conscience. The first duty of government -is to govern; to guard the tranquillity of the society over which it -is set, to anticipate the efforts of malignants against the social -security, and to punish crime, the commission of which it has been -unable to prevent. This is at all times a heavy burden; but its weight -is redoubled when private gives way to public crime, and the criminal -turns his strength against the state itself. For acts directed against -society in its corporate being are fraught with far more danger than -those which touch it indirectly, however great their magnitude, not -only because the consequences of the successful act in the former -case are vital, but also because the restless class from which the -actors are drawn commands a higher ability than that containing men to -whom crime is a means to private gain, and is endowed with a reckless -hardihood which springs from the certainty of detection and retribution -in case of failure. In the seventeenth century this class was numerous, -and the difficulties of guarding against it great. The state was always -in danger, the government always battling for its own life and the -safety of society, the morrow always gloomy for the success of their -cause. To be for or against the government was the shibboleth which -marked the peaceable man from the revolutionary. To be “counted to be -a very pernicious man against the government”[455] was sufficient to -weigh against the credibility of a witness before the highest tribunal -of the kingdom. Therefore it was that far wider scope could then be -allowed to acts of administration than ought to be allowed in peaceful -times, and that the government might be sure of support for its bad as -well as its good measures when they appeared to be directed towards the -doing of rough justice on individuals whose presence was felt to be -a common danger. It could be assumed that the means adopted for this -purpose would not be too closely scrutinised. - -Government was from necessity a fighting machine. But it was a machine -so ill adapted for fighting that its action, far from attaining to -mechanical precision and gravity, was coarse, spasmodic, questionable, -and was driven to atone for want of ease and regularity by displaying -an excess of often ill-directed energy. The means ready to the hand -of the administration were scanty. Without an army, without police, -without detectives, the order maintained in the country practically -depended upon the goodwill of the upper and middle classes. The police -of the kingdom consisted of watchmen in the cities and boroughs; in -the country, of parish constables. Both were notoriously inefficient. -The type of watchmen with which Londoners were familiar in the opening -years of the seventeenth century is sufficiently known from the -character of Dogberry. About the same time the parish constables were -distinguished for being “often absent from their houses, being for -the most part husbandmen, and so most of the day in the fields.”[456] -As late as 1796 the watchmen of London were recruited by the various -authorities from “such aged and often superannuated men living in -their respective districts as may offer their services,” and were -recognised to be feeble, half-starved, lacking the least hope of -reward or stimulus to activity.[457] Without an excessive strain on -the imagination it may be conjectured that in the intervening period -the police system did not rise to a high pitch of perfection. In the -capital the king’s guards and the city trained bands were available -forces, but in the provinces the only body on which reliance could -be placed for the execution of justice was formed by the sheriff’s -officers or in the last resort the cumbrous militia. Even the militia -could not be maintained under arms for more than twelve days in the -year, for although the force of any county might be kept on foot for -a longer period by the king’s special direction, the Lord Lieutenant -had no power to raise money with which to pay the men.[458] The only -practicable instrument of government for the defence of the state -was the judicial system of the country. As there was no method known -for the prevention of crime by an organised force of police, and no -deterrent exerted on would-be criminals by the existence of a standing -body of soldiery, the only possible weapon to be used against them was -to be found in the law courts. It followed that the judges and justices -of the peace not only fulfilled the judicial and magisterial functions -which are known to modern times, but constituted as well an active arm -of the administration. - -The justices of the peace combined in their persons the characters, -which have since been distinguished, of prosecutor, magistrate, -detective, and often policeman. They raised the hue and cry, chased -malefactors, searched houses, took prisoners. A justice might issue -a warrant for the arrest, conduct the search himself, effect the -capture, examine the accused with and without witnesses, extract -a confession by alternately cajoling him as a friend and bullying -him as a magistrate, commit him, and finally give damning evidence -against him at his trial. Such was the conduct of Alderman Sir Thomas -Aleyn in the case of Colonel Turner, tried and convicted for burglary -in 1664.[459] The alderman examined Turner in the first place, and -charged him point-blank with the offence. He then searched his house. -In this he was unsuccessful, but the next day, owing to information -received, tracked the colonel to a shop in the Minories, where he -was found in possession of money suspected to be part of the stolen -property.[460] Aleyn carried him to the owner of the stolen goods, upon -whose engagement not to prosecute Turner confessed that he knew where -the plunder was concealed, and by a further series of artifices induced -him to surrender, through the agency of his wife, part of the missing -jewelry. On this he committed both Colonel and Mrs. Turner to Newgate, -and finally appeared at their trial to tell the whole story of his -manœuvres in considerable detail and with the greatest composure.[461] -Twenty years later, as Sir John Reresby was going to bed one night, -he was roused by the Duke of Monmouth’s page to play a similar part. -Mr. Thynne had been shot dead as he was driving in his coach along -Pall Mall,[462] and Sir John was summoned to raise the hue and cry. He -went at once to the house of the murdered man, issued warrants for the -arrest of suspected persons, and proceeded to investigate the case. -From a Swede who was brought before him he obtained the necessary -information, and set out to pursue the culprits. After giving chase all -night and searching several houses, he finally took the German officer -who had been a principal in the murder in the house of a Swedish doctor -in Leicester fields at six o’clock in the morning, and was able to -boast in his diary that he had performed the somewhat perilous task of -entering the room first and personally arresting the captain.[463] On -another occasion Reresby deserved well of the government by his action -in an episode connected with the Rye House Plot. Six Scotchmen had been -arrested and examined in the North, and were being sent in custody -to London by directions of one of the secretaries of state. Sir John -however was led to suspect that the examination had not been thoroughly -conducted and stopped the men at York. He examined them again and -extorted confessions of considerable importance, which he was then able -to forward to the secretary in company with the prisoners.[464] - -Instances to illustrate the nature of these more than magisterial -duties might easily be multiplied. The agitation caused by the Popish -Plot was naturally a spur to the activity of justices throughout the -country. Especially was this the case in the west of England, where -the Roman Catholics had their greatest strength. In Staffordshire Mr. -Chetwyn, in Derbyshire Mr. Gilbert, in Monmouthshire Captain Arnold -were unflagging in their efforts to scent out conspiracy and popery. In -consequence of information laid before the committee of the House of -Lords Mr. Chetwyn, in company with the celebrated Justice Warcup,[465] -searched Lord Stafford’s house. Tart Hall, for a secret vault in which -some priests were said to be concealed. The search was unsuccessful, -but the vigorous manner in which it was conducted is testified by -Chetwyn’s furious exclamation “that if he were the king, he would -have the house set fire to, and make the old rogues come forth.”[466] -The same magistrate also would have assisted in the work of obtaining -Dugdale’s confession, had he not been absent in London at the time.[467] - -To Henry Gilbert, justice of the peace for Derbyshire, belonged the -merit of tracking, arresting, and obtaining the conviction of George -Busby, Jesuit, for being a Romish priest, at the Derby Assizes of -1681.[468] The evidence which Gilbert gave is very instructive as to -the scope of a magistrate’s duty.[469] As early as January 1679 William -Waller had come to search Mr. Powtrel’s house at West Hallam, where -the Jesuit was said to be concealed, but was dissuaded on Gilbert’s -assurance that he had already been over the place several times in -vain and believed Busby to have escaped from England. Since then -however trustworthy information had come to hand that he was still -in hiding. Gilbert first reconnoitred the house under the pretext of -buying wood for his coal-pits. He then went away, returned with a -constable and five or six other men and, fortified by the news that -Busby had been seen in the garden only a few moments before, conducted -a thorough search, which resulted in the discovery of various priestly -vestments, an altar, “a box of wafers, mass-books, and divers other -popish things.”[470] This was on March 1, 1681. A fortnight later, in -spite of some opposition from Mr. Justice Charlton, who was on circuit -for the spring assizes, Gilbert sent the prize, which by law should -have been burnt, back to West Hallam, in the hope of lulling the priest -to a false security. On the same night he went to gather the fruits of -his manœuvre. Posting men round the house, he made a noise and then -waited to see “if they could spy any light, or hear any walking in the -lofts or false floors.”[471] A constable and further assistance was -summoned, and about midnight Gilbert tapped at a window and demanded -admittance. It was refused, and after a proper interval the constable -broke in the door and the whole party entered the house. The priest’s -chamber was found in disorder; the fire had been lately extinguished, -the bedclothes were lying about the room in heaps, and the mattress, -which had been turned, was cold on the top, but warm underneath. This -was the prelude to a thorough examination of the house. The spies in -the garden had heard the priest’s footsteps near a corner under the -roof as he retreated to his hiding-place. From one until ten in the -morning of March 16 the search was carried on, Gilbert tapping on the -plaster inside with his sword and the others meeting him by knocking -on the tiles and walls from the other side. Hope was nearly abandoned -when the searchers were spurred by the jeers of the people of the house -to one last effort. At length they were rewarded. Sounding the roof -inch by inch, they came upon a spot near some chimney stacks where the -knocks from the two sides did not tally; breaking open the tiles, they -discovered a priest’s hole, and in it Busby, whom Mr. Gilbert forthwith -bore off in triumph and committed to Derby gaol. - -These exploits were no doubt typical of the range of activity common to -busy justices of the peace throughout the kingdom. Important business -passed through their hands, and they felt their position likewise -to be important. They were an energetic body of men and spared not -themselves, nor their neighbours, nor those against whom their action -was directed in the execution of their duty as government officials. -Each was sure to be in his way a local magnate, and thus the influence -which the government exerted on the justices was through them spread -widely over the country. Well known among provincial magistrates, and -still more active than the two above mentioned, was Captain Arnold, -whose name appeared in the commission of the peace for Monmouthshire. -It was this Arnold who in 1679 assisted Dr. Croft, Bishop of Hereford, -in his attack on the Jesuit college at Combe, near Monmouth. The -college was dispersed and ten horse loads of books, seized in it, were -removed to the library of Hereford Cathedral.[472] In December of the -previous year he had been instrumental in the arrest of Father Pugh, -formerly of the Society of Jesus, and in the seizure of papers and -valuables belonging to Hall, another member of the society.[473] But -Arnold exhibited something more than the zeal proper to an energetic -and business-like justice. He was a keen adherent to the Whig and -extreme Protestant party. In addition to the usual government reward -of £50 for the apprehension of a Jesuit, he offered £200 from his own -resources for each capture.[474] He made friends with the missioners -and then procured their own dependents to give evidence against them. -He armed bodies of servants to assist him in his expeditions, and -brought the unfortunate priest whom Oates had named as prospective -Bishop of Llandaff triumphantly into Monmouth at the head of a dozen -horsemen.[475] Chief among his performances was the capture of two -well-known Jesuits, David Henry Lewis and Philip Evans, popularly -dubbed Captain. Lewis was taken by Arnold in person, Evans through -his agency. Against both he produced the witnesses and managed the -evidence.[476] Both were convicted of high treason under the statute -of Elizabeth, for being priests in orders received from the see of -Rome. Evans was executed at Cardiff on July 22, Lewis at Usk on -August 27, 1679.[477] In the summer of 1680 Arnold’s name leaped into -notoriety in London, when on July 16 John Giles was brought to the -bar at the Old Bailey “for assaulting and intending to despatch and -murder John Arnold, one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace.”[478] -This incident however, which raised Arnold’s importance so high with -the Whig party that his popularity bade fair to rival even that of the -murdered Sir Edmund Godfrey,[479] affords strong grounds for doubting -the candour of motive in his official alertness; for there is reason -to believe that no attempt whatever was made upon his life, and that -the whole affair was trumped up in a most discreditable manner with -a view to establishing more firmly the reputation of the Protestant -party and the guilt of the Roman Catholics.[480] One more, and this -again a characteristic instance, may suffice to illustrate the -varied, almost intriguing, nature of a magistrate’s position and the -inquisitorial side which did not completely disappear from his duty -until far into the nineteenth century.[481] At Lord Stafford’s trial -the three justices who had examined Dugdale immediately after his -arrest in December 1678 were called by the prisoner to prove that the -witness had then absolutely denied all knowledge of the Plot.[482] To -rebut this evidence the managers of the prosecution called William -Southall, coroner of the county of Stafford. This man, who was not -even a magistrate and occupied the least judicial position known to -the law, had taken the opportunity of some legal business which was -to be transacted between a cousin of his and Dugdale to undertake a -little private examination of the latter on his own behalf in the hopes -of obtaining information about the Plot. According to his own account -Southall acquitted himself with some skill and, by assuming a knowing -air as if convinced of Dugdale’s guilt and playing upon his hopes of -pardon and reward, managed to extract from him a material confession. -With this he repaired, not to the justices of the peace by whom Dugdale -had originally been examined, but to three different magistrates, and -in their company was present the next day at a detailed examination of -Dugdale, who then swore to nearly the same evidence as he now gave at -the trial of Lord Stafford.[483] Whether this story was true, or, as -is suggested by the ease of Southall’s success where others naturally -better qualified had failed, the interview and its result was arranged -beforehand between the two men, is at this point immaterial; for honest -or fraudulent, the coroner’s behaviour was accepted as a matter of -course, and without the least hint that there was any irregularity -in the action of an inferior official going behind the backs of his -superiors, and finally transferring so delicate a matter out of their -cognisance altogether into the hands of a third party. - -Such were the functions of the justices of the peace in the seventeenth -century, and so wide was the reach of the magisterial arm stretched -out as a weapon in the service of the administration of government. -And if the justices filled so important a position, still more -important was that assumed by the king’s judges. The justices were able -administrators, dealers of small mercy to the evildoer, guardians of -the peace in the name of which their commissions ran; but the judges -took a place in the foremost rank as great officers of state. The -character of their office had been determined by the famous conflict -between James I and Lord Chief Justice Coke which came to a head in -1616 and ended in Coke’s dismissal.[484] The Chief Justice’s endeavour -had been to erect the bench into an independent tribunal, founded on -the ruins of broken agreement between king and Commons, and occupying -the position of arbitrator and guardian of the constitution midway -between the two. To the king and to Bacon, who advised him, this seemed -intolerable; to James, because the ideal of absolutism which guided -his mind could not admit in the state a constitutional oracle other -than himself; to the Attorney-General, because his liberal instincts, -wide statesmanship, and knowledge of political requirements made -clear the impracticable nature of Coke’s ideas, the bonds of crabbed -technicality with which they sought to shackle the future, their -essential conservatism. Coke’s parchment knowledge, too good for James, -was not good enough for Bacon. If Bacon inclined towards administrative -absolutism, and Coke represented in the struggle the majesty of the -law, assuredly the law for which the Chief Justice fought, for ever -seeking guidance in the records of the past, was unfit to mould the -future of a great nation. So when Coke fell, characteristically -enough, over a sordid squabble into which a question of principle was -inappropriately dragged, his fall demands our sympathy perhaps, but -hardly our regret. Regret at a victory in the personal cause of the -monarch and the check given to the forward march of constitutional -progress is profitless. Between the ideas of Bacon and Coke there was -no middle course open at the moment when a choice became necessary. -It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the judges must either -become an independent power in the state, an irresponsible tribunal -to which constitutional questions of the highest importance should -be referred for decision in strict accordance with the rules of the -Court of King’s Bench, or be content to remain in subservience to the -crown, supporters of the king’s prerogative, and administrators of -his policy. The expedient, which has since made the way plain, of the -constitutional supremacy of the Commons of England was then unborn, and -as yet in the light of practical affairs inconceivable. The Lord Chief -Justice, “toughest of men,” and too stubborn to yield, was broken; but -his brethren on the bench gave way and offered assurances of their -good conduct for the future and of their devotion to the royal will. -James took the opportunity of the lecture which he read to the judges -in the star chamber to compare their behaviour in meddling with the -prerogative of the crown to the atheism and blasphemy committed by good -Christians in disputing the word of God. - -Thus the judges became, according to Bacon’s wish, “lions, but yet -lions under the throne,” and carried themselves very circumspectly -not to “check or oppose any points of sovereignty.”[485] Of their -regularity in this course there can be no doubt, for if any lapsed -into forbidden ways, a judge he speedily ceased to be. His appointment -was _durante beneplacito_[486] and revocable at the will of the king; -and the king took full advantage of his power. The example offered by -the case of Coke was not left long in isolation. The government was -engaged in the hopeless attempt to uphold the constitution of the Tudor -monarchy at a time when the nation had outgrown it, and had opened -a war to the death with the progressive tendency of Parliament. In -such a struggle the judges were the king’s strongest weapon, and as a -weapon that turns uselessly in the hand, the recalcitrant judge was -discarded without scruple. When the better class of judges questioned -the legality of acts of government they met with the same fate as -their rugged predecessor. Under Charles I two Lord Chief Justices were -dismissed and Chief Baron Walter was suspended from office. Judicial -offices of consequence were filled with “men of confidence,” men who -enjoyed the confidence of the king and quickly lost that of every one -else.[487] - -In their support of the crown by technical legality and practical -injustice the courts lost all repute as temples of the law. Even that -high royalist, Lord Clarendon, recognised that reliance upon such -means was a cause of weakness, not of strength, and that men ceased to -respect judicial decisions when they were used to cloak the designs of -government. “When they saw,” he writes, “in a court of law (that law -that gave them a title to the possession of all they had) reason of -state urged as elements of law, judges as sharp-sighted as secretaries -of state, and in the mysteries of state, ... they had no reason to -hope that doctrine, or the promoter of it, would be contained within -any bounds. And here the damage and mischief cannot be expressed that -the crown and state sustained by the deserved reproach and infamy -that attended the judges; there being no possibility to preserve the -dignity, reverence, and estimation of the laws themselves but by the -integrity and innocency of the judges.”[488] To the thorough supporter -of the administration the matter appeared in a different light. When -the two dissenting judges gave way under pressure and adhered to the -report of the majority in favour of ship-money, they were told by Lord -Wentworth that it was the greatest service the legal profession had -rendered to the crown during this period.[489] - -For good or evil the work of reducing the bench to an arm of the -administration had been done, and from this political degradation it -did not recover for nearly three-quarters of a century, until William -III was seated on the throne and the judges became independent of the -crown. - -The stirring events of the great rebellion, the Protectorate, and the -Restoration, which so profoundly affected the life and institutions of -the nation in other ways, touched the bench but slightly. In the early -months of the Long Parliament a resolution was passed by both houses of -Parliament to the effect that the judges’ appointments should be for -the future _quamdiu se bene gesserint_, and on January 15, 1641, the -king gave effect to this by a declaration that they should no longer -hold office at the pleasure of the crown but during good behaviour. For -twenty-four years the improvement was maintained in theory; in practice -the old system kept its hold unshaken. During the short remainder of -Charles I’s reign the judges were concerned on only two occasions in -affairs of state. These were however enough to demonstrate that the -change in the manner of their appointments had by no means the result -of rehabilitating the character of the bench and restoring to it the -quality, which it had long lacked, of independence. One of the first -acts of the Long Parliament, after dealing with the vital question -of ship-money, was to turn upon the judges who had lent the weight -of their names to the decision which pronounced its legality. Finch -was violently attacked as a traitor in the House of Commons, and his -impeachment voted with scarcely a dissentient voice. The Lord Keeper -preferred the path of safety to that of dignity and fled to Holland -on board a royal vessel, leaving the impeachment to be formally -concluded in his absence. At the same time proceedings were commenced -against six other judges who had sat at Hampden’s trial.[490] The -effect of this was immediate. Only once again did the judges come into -prominence before the outbreak of the Civil War. Scarcely five months -after Finch’s impeachment the House of Lords demanded their opinion -whether or no the articles against Strafford amounted to making him -guilty of treason. Without hesitation they replied unanimously that -upon the articles which the Lords had voted to be proved it was their -opinion that the Earl of Strafford did deserve to undergo the pains -and penalties of high treason by law.[491] Not only was their conduct -in delivering this extra-judicial opinion decidedly irregular,[492] -but their decision was in flagrant opposition to the clearest dictates -of justice and rules of law, for the accusations against Strafford -cannot be regarded as tantamount, or even approaching, to a substantial -charge of treason.[493] The fault lay not in their intelligence, but -in the system which had made their honesty an asset in the treasury of -government, and had robbed them of their ability to judge facts in the -light of law and reason without reference to principles of statecraft -or the struggle of parties. It was not upon the merits of the case -that their decision was based now that it was unfavourable to the -administration, any more than their favourable decisions had been based -upon the merits of cases when the administration was in power: the -only difference was that formerly they had feared dismissal from the -service of an angry sovereign as the result of an independent opinion, -whereas now they feared impeachment at the hands of the angrier Commons. - -Under the Commonwealth and the Protectorate the bench fared no better. -In October 1649 all judges and other officers of the law, down to the -very clerks of the courts, who had shown themselves hostile to the -Parliament and in sympathy with the monarchy, were summarily dismissed, -and their posts filled by men in whom trust could be reposed. Even -this was not sufficient. In affairs of state justice was at a still -greater discount under the Protectorate than under the monarchy. -The cause of right was pleaded in vain when it came into collision -with the power and plans of the Protector. “For not observing his -pleasure” judges were rebuked, suspended, dismissed. Special judicial -commissions were appointed to do his work; obnoxious attorneys and -critical counsel were imprisoned.[494] The jury which acquitted Lilburn -after “the furious hurley-burleys” of his second trial were sharply -examined on their conduct by the Council of State.[495] Moreover the -new appointments to the bench in spite of all care were not entirely -satisfactory to Cromwell’s government. The judges still exhibited a -bent which must have been far from pleasing to the republicans. Sir -Matthew Hale withdrew as far as possible from all political trials and -refused to sit on Penruddock’s trial after the collapse of the rising -at Salisbury.[496] Surely it is this rather than the respectability -of their characters that should explain how it came about that at the -Restoration nine out of the fifteen republican judges then in office -were found acceptable to the new government. - -The character of the bench was no more altered by the Restoration -than by the rebellion. If the traditions of forty years had clung too -closely to be shaken off by those who might perhaps wish to be rid of -them, they were not likely to be removed ten years later by those whose -interest it was to retain them. The only practical difference was that -the judges, whose duty as partisans of the government had been sealed -by time and recognised by all who were concerned in the government, -could now return to their more natural sphere as servants of the crown -as well. Thenceforward until the end of the Stuart monarchy they were -indispensable as allies of the king, protectors of the administration, -shining examples of loyalty well applied and labour serviceably -directed. They possessed moreover the signal advantage of being able to -enforce the example which they inculcated. Those who did not obtained -an evil reputation at court; and Sir Matthew Hale was looked at askance -as one who was suspected of not lending a whole-hearted support to the -government.[497] Even the theoretical advantage which had been gained -by the Long Parliament now disappeared. Charles II took advantage of -the lengthy prorogation of 1665 quietly to reintroduce appointments “at -the good pleasure” of the crown.[498] - -There was however some change for the better. A large majority of the -nation was for the first time for thirty years united in sympathy with -the government. The universal desire was for peace and stability. -The great constitutional questions which had rent the kingdom and -distracted the bench lay for the moment at rest. Government was no -longer divided against itself; what was now found in opposition was -not a combination of popular feeling with constitutional principle, to -crush which the law must be strained by a serviceable judiciary, but a -discredited party of fanatics and dissenters, the dregs of a defeated -rebellion, against whom the law could be directed legally and to the -satisfaction of the vast majority of the king’s subjects. - -The demand therefore for that cast of mind which under Charles I had -been the peculiarity of a successful judge no longer existed for -Charles II. When definitions of law were no longer needed to support -the crown in opposition to the other legitimate elements of the -constitution, and when the government was in close accord with the -people, there was no temptation to subject the law to such strains -as it had formerly been made to bear in the effort to galvanise into -life a system which had already died a natural death. Perhaps it was -less that judges had become more scrupulous than that the objection to -their scruples had disappeared. To whatever cause they were due, it -is certain that the reign of Charles II was marked by the renewal of -decisions which must have been obnoxious to the government. No doubt -these are not to be found in particular cases which were regarded as -of high consequence, but the tendency is perfectly visible, and in -one instance at least proved to be of profound importance. This was -the trial of Penn and Meade in 1670, for by the proceedings which -arose from it was finally established the principle that a jury has -an absolute right to give such a verdict as it thinks proper without -being open to question therefore by any other person or authority -whatsoever.[499] The Quakers had been indicted for an unlawful -assembly, and the jury before whom they were tried, in spite of -repeated direction and shameful abuse from the Lord Mayor and the -Recorder, found a verdict of not guilty. For this the court sentenced -the jurymen to a fine of forty marks apiece and imprisonment until the -fine was paid. Bushell, the foreman, and his fellow-jurors obtained a -writ of habeas corpus, and the point was argued at length on the return -to the writ. Ten judges out of twelve affirmed the absolute discretion -of the jury to believe or disbelieve the evidence given according to -the dictates of conscience, and not only were the jurymen discharged -from custody without paying the fine, but no attempt has ever been made -since to contest the principle thus established.[500] - -One further instance may be noted. In 1675 a consultation of all the -judges but two was held to decide a case which was submitted to them -by the Attorney-General. A great riot had been made a month before -by the weavers’ apprentices in various parts and suburbs of London -by way of protest against the increased introduction of looms into -their trade; the looms had been broken, a large amount of property -destroyed, and several persons injured. The Attorney-General now wished -to indict the rioters for high treason; but the judges were divided, -five for, five against the opinion that treason had been committed, -and in spite of the evident anxiety of the government to proceed -against the apprentices on the graver issue, the Attorney-General had -to be content with laying the indictments for a riot and obtaining -convictions for the lesser offence.[501] When it is remembered that the -London apprentices perpetually drew upon themselves the watchful eye of -the government by their obnoxious politics, and that a trade riot was -always suspected of being the forerunner of a sectarian revolt, it is -evident that the decision of the judges meant considerable annoyance, -if not an actual rebuff, to the government.[502] - -The general usefulness of the bench was not however impaired by such -exceptions. The judges still formed one of the most important parts of -the administrative machinery. They were consulted by the government, -gave advice, and put into effect the results of their advice. They -supplied the king during the long prorogation of 1675 with the pretext -which he required for the suppression of the coffee-houses.[503] Before -the trial of the regicides they had held a conference with the king’s -counsel, Attorney, and Solicitor-General to resolve debatable points -which were likely to arise in the course of the trials.[504] When the -Licensing Act expired in 1679, the judges were ordered by the king to -make a report concerning the control of the press. Their unanimous -decision was “that his Majesty may, by law, prohibit the printing and -publishing of all newsbooks and pamphlets of news whatsoever, not -licensed by his Majesty’s authority, as manifestly tending to a breach -of the peace and disturbance of the kingdom”;[505] and their preaching -was put into practice before many months had elapsed at the trials of -Harris[506] and Carr,[507] the former of whom was sentenced to the -pillory and a fine of £500, and the latter to the suppression of the -newspaper which he owned. - -Actions for libel had always afforded a wide field for the exercise of -administrative authority. Under the Clarendon _régime_ the sentence -pronounced by Chief-Justice Hyde upon Twyn, the printer, had fully -sustained the traditions of the trials of Prynne, Bastwick, and -Lilburn.[508] With the multiplication of political pamphlets after -1678 trials and convictions for libel became frequent. Within two -years six important prosecutions of authors, printers, or publishers -were instituted, and not only resulted almost always in the infliction -of heavy punishments, but offered at the same time opportunities for -many caustic and edifying remarks from the bench. Some time after, the -number of trials for political libels and seditious words held within -the space of seven months actually mounted to the total of sixteen.[509] - -The advantage of lectures thus delivered in court on general politics -and the duties of a good subject was of considerable value to the -government. In this part of their duties the judges rivalled even the -courtly eloquence of divines whose chief occupation was the advocacy -of the doctrine of non-resistance. On his elevation to the bench in -October 1676 Sir William Scroggs “made so excellent a speech, that -my Lord Montague, then present, told the king he had since his happy -restoration caused many hundred sermons to be printed, all which -together taught not half so much loyalty; therefore as a sermon desired -his command to have it printed and published in all the market towns -in England.”[510] It was afterwards made a ground for proceedings in -Parliament against Scroggs that he had publicly spoken “very much -against petitioning, condemning it as resembling 41, as factious and -tending to rebellion, or to that effect”[511] and it was said that -Sir Robert Atkyns was dismissed from the bench for contradicting a -dictum of the Chief Justice while on circuit, “that the presentation -of a petition for the summoning of Parliament was high treason.”[512] -Similar behaviour was also made the subject of complaint against Mr. -Justice Jones.[513] Even the courteous Lord Chancellor Finch, in -delivering sentence upon Lord Stafford, undertook to prove by the way -that Godfrey had been murdered, and London burnt, by the papists.[514] -But most of all the influence and importance of the judges was shown -in trials for treason. In those days state trials were not merely -impartial inquiries into the question whether or no certain persons had -committed certain acts, the nature of which was under examination: they -were life-and-death struggles of the king and his government against -the attacks of those who wished to subvert them. It was the business -of those engaged in them to see that the king’s cause took no hurt. -In this light they were universally regarded, and to this end their -conduct was undertaken. Judges and jurors alike were engaged in the -recognised task of the defence of the state. To the hearers it was -no quaint piece of antiquated phraseology when the clerk of the crown -addressed the prisoner arraigned at the bar for high treason: “These -good men that are now called, and here appear, are those which are -to pass between you and our sovereign lord the king, upon your life -and death”; it was a sober expression of vivid truth. The jury stood -between the king’s life and the intrigues of a defeated malefactor. -Of his innocence they were indeed ready to be convinced, but it would -require strong evidence to convince them. In his guilt their belief -was already strong. They can scarcely have refrained from regarding -themselves less as agents employed in the cause of truth to examine -without prejudice the merits of the case before them than as executors -of an already predetermined justice. - -And here the weight of the judge’s authority was preponderant. He -directed those heavy advantages which weighed on the side of the -king and against the prisoner. The stringent system of preliminary -procedure, which rendered extreme the difficulty of properly preparing -his case beforehand, his isolation when actually upon trial, and the -unsympathetic atmosphere by which he was surrounded, and of which the -counsel for the prosecution were ready to take advantage to press every -point home, combined to render the accused almost helpless against -the crown. Even when administered with mercy the system was severely -favourable to the prosecution; and the adverse rules which hemmed in -the prisoner were generally worked to the utmost. To understand these -clearly, it will be necessary to pass shortly in review the history of -criminal procedure in the English courts of law, and the developments -which led to its state at the time of the trials for the Popish -Plot.[515] - - - - - CHAPTER II - - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - - -The Reformation, as in almost all other branches of modern history, -constitutes the starting-point at which the study of public procedure -must be begun. Rather it would be true to say that in this as in other -subjects it should form the starting-point. Unfortunately the necessary -materials are here wanting. The State Trials, which afford not only the -greatest quantity but the finest quality of evidence on the judicial -history of England, are printed from reports which do not begin before -the reign of Queen Mary in 1554. From that date until our own day -they are continuous, and form the greatest collection of historical -documents in the English language. From that date too the history of -criminal procedure in modern England may be said to begin. Throughout -the seventeenth century the courts of law occupy for the student of -history a position of singular importance. They were the scenes not -only of profound constitutional struggles, but of brilliant and deadly -political contests. - -The study of criminal procedure is therefore indispensable to an -understanding of the numerous historical problems which have been -worked out in the courts of law; especially to an understanding of -those, not few, which have been worked to a conclusion, but not to a -solution. - -The difference between the procedure in criminal cases as it exists -to-day and as it existed two centuries and a half ago is but little -known. It is the more difficult to understand because it is witnessed -by few great landmarks in the history of the administration of -justice, and owes its existence to no promulgation of new codes or -rules to which a triumphant finger may be pointed. Rather the new -system has emerged from the old by a procession of unconsidered -changes, at different times, of varying importance, the results of -which have come to be so universally known and approved, that to the -backward glance they seem to be not the outcome of long experience, but -inextricable parts of a system which has existed from all time. The -essential change has been one of conduct less than of opinion, and is -to be found rather in an altered point of view than in any variation of -practical arrangements. - -The evolution of the forms under which trials were conducted during -the later Stuart period was slow and unpronounced. The all-pervading -activity of the Tudor privy council in affairs of state had left a -deep imprint upon the course of English justice, and one from which -it did not soon free itself. It was then that the courts gained -the inquisitorial character which they did not lose until after -the restoration of the monarchy, and it was not until the Puritan -Revolution that the judicial authority of the council, which had -grown to such a height of severity in the preceding half century, -was swept away. During that time the privy council played a part of -high importance in political trials. When a suspected criminal was -to be brought to justice a stringent preliminary inquiry was held. -The accused was examined on oath and in secret by the council. His -examination was taken down in writing and might afterwards be produced -against him under the name of a “confession.” The investigation here -made had the greatest weight. “In point of fact,” says Dr. Gardiner, -“these preliminary investigations formed the real trial. If the accused -could satisfy the privy council of his innocence, he would at once -be set at liberty. If he failed in this, he would be brought before -a court from which there was scarcely a hope of escape.”[516] As a -rule he did fail. The privy councillors were not apt to waste their -time on persons who were not brought before them as suspect on good -grounds, or objectionable for reason of state. Innocence moreover -would be little protection to a prisoner in the latter case, for the -political grounds against him would be unaffected by any scrutiny of -evidence. If the accused was committed by the council, it was with no -bright prospect before his eyes. Until the day of his trial he was -kept close prisoner. He had no notice of the witnesses who were to be -called against him or of the evidence which they would give. Nor was -the evidence for the prosecution the only point in which the prisoner -was at a disadvantage, for he was not allowed to call witnesses to set -up a case for himself. This at least seems to have been the fact; but -even had theory permitted the appearance in court of witnesses for the -prisoner, in practice the difference made would have been trifling, for -he certainly had no means of procuring their attendance or, supposing -they came, of ascertaining what they would say. Even at the close of -the seventeenth century, when witnesses for the defence were recognised -and encouraged by the courts, great difficulty was experienced by -prisoners in procuring the attendance of the right persons, and, when -these came, they sometimes gave evidence on the wrong side.[517] The -accused was brought into court in absolute ignorance of what would be -produced against him, and was compelled to defend himself on the spur -of the moment against skilled lawyers, who had been preparing their -case for weeks or perhaps months beforehand. Neither before or at the -trial was he allowed the aid of counsel or solicitor. On being brought -to the bar, the prisoner was treated in such a way as to rob him almost -of the possibility of escape. During his confinement examinations had -been made of all other suspected persons, and their depositions had -been taken. Not only could these now be produced in court against him, -but the confessions of accomplices, when these could be found, were -regarded as specially cogent evidence. No one, it was said, could have -so great a knowledge of the crime as the accomplices of the criminal—a -remark, it must be admitted, which, at a time when there existed no -organised force of police, was not without some show of justice. -No doubt such men were of bad character, but then it was not to be -expected that one could raise the curtain on scenes of such ill-odour -without coming into questionable company. The prisoner was not allowed -to cross-examine the witnesses brought against him and had not even the -right to confront them in court face to face.[518] - -In a trial of any intricacy the case for the crown was usually divided -between several counsel. Each worked out his part minutely before -giving place to the next, partly by making direct statements, partly -by a string of questions addressed to the prisoner. The trial was thus -resolved into a series of excited altercations between the accused -and the counsel for the crown. The success with which the defence was -conducted depended entirely upon the skill and readiness displayed by -the prisoner himself. At his trial for treason in 1554[519] Sir Nicolas -Throckmorton maintained for close upon six hours a wordy conflict with -Sergeant Stamford and the Attorney-General, and acquitted himself so -well that the jury after deliberating for two hours returned a verdict -of not guilty.[520] The Duke of Norfolk, convicted of high treason -in 1571, was set an even harder task, for he was compelled to deal -successively with no less than four eminent counsel who had undertaken -different parts of the case against him.[521] - -Apart from the opening speeches of the crown lawyers and the summing -up of the evidence by the judge at the end of the trial, there was -little room for any display of fine oratory, and practically none -for the sentimental appeal to the jury which at a later date became -so prominent a feature in the courts. Every point was argued by the -opposing parties in a close and acrimonious conversation, which had at -least the merit of throwing light from every possible point of view -on the subject in hand. In this the judges presiding did not take -much part, nor was the summing up regarded as of special importance; -but explanatory remarks, and questions on points which seemed to the -judges to have been overlooked, were occasionally interposed from the -bench.[522] - -But what weighed most heavily of all against the prisoner was the fact -that rules of evidence, as they are understood at the present time, -were practically unknown. The only distinction recognised was between -the evidence of an eye-witness to the actual crime and everything -else. If other than eye-witnesses were admitted, there seemed to be -no reason why the most insignificant evidence upon hearsay of facts, -however remotely connected with those alleged in the charge, should not -be produced against the prisoner. Even the production of the originals -of documents relied upon as evidence for the prosecution was not -required.[523] - -This was a fault in criminal procedure which persisted until at least -the end of the seventeenth century and exercised a supreme influence -upon the course of justice. Grave attention and decisive weight was -given to evidence which in modern times would not be allowed to come -into court at all. The most irrelevant detail was freely admitted -against the prisoner. At Raleigh’s trial in 1603 one Dyer, a pilot, -swore that when he was at Lisbon he had accidentally met a man who said -that Cobham and Raleigh would cut King James’ throat before he could -be crowned.[524] Evidence of a still more remarkable character was -given at the trial of Benjamin Faulconer for perjury in 1653. After the -charge had been proved, witnesses were called to testify to a variety -of facts startlingly unconnected with the case. They swore that the -prisoner had been guilty of using bad language, that he had drunk the -devil’s health in the streets of Petersfield, and that he had “a common -name for a robber on the highway.”[525] All this was allowed as good -evidence to raise a presumption of his guilt. Instances of the lax -rules of evidence in force might be multiplied. At Hulet’s trial for -having been executioner of Charles I witnesses were admitted for the -defence to testify that they had heard Brandon, the hangman, say that -he had himself cut off the king’s head. On the other hand the evidence -for the prosecution chiefly consisted of the testimony of persons who -swore that they had heard Hulet admit the truth of the charge.[526] -The trial of Hawkins for theft before Sir Matthew Hale in 1669 is -still more notable. Not only was evidence allowed to prove for the -prosecution that Hawkins had committed, and for the defence that he -had not committed, two other thefts wholly unconnected with the case -before the court,[527] but the prisoner, who was a country parson, -was permitted to produce a certificate signed by over a hundred of -his parishioners, to the effect that the prosecutor was “a notorious -Anabaptist, an enemy to the Church of England, and a perfect hater -of all ministers of the same, but in particular most inveterate and -malicious against Robert Hawkins, clerk, late minister of the church -of Chilton,” and going on to express their belief in the innocence of -Hawkins and the dishonesty of the prosecutor.[528] - -The trials of Colonel Turner for burglary and of the Suffolk witches, -who were condemned in the year 1665, afford perhaps the strongest -instances of the slight extent to which the principles of evidence -were understood. In the former the chief part of the evidence given -by Sir Thomas Aleyn, the principal witness, was concerned with what -other people had done and said, and would by modern methods have -certainly been ruled out; in the latter the smallest apprehension of -the value of testimony would have resulted in an abrupt termination of -the case, for nothing which by courtesy could be called evidence was -produced against the wretched old women who were being tried for their -lives, and their conviction was obtained partly on the strength of a -statement by Dr. Browne of Norwich, author of the _Religio Medici_, -as to the nature of witches and their relations with the devil, no -single word of which could have been spoken in a modern court of -justice.[529] It was a state of things, due to lack of experience and -of scientific vision, which prevailed until after the Revolution and -exerted a powerful influence against the accused. In other points -however criminal procedure in the English courts underwent changes -of considerable importance. From the reign of Queen Mary until the -Puritan Revolution it had remained almost unaltered, but during the -Commonwealth and Protectorate several modifications were introduced. An -apparently spontaneous change, inaugurated by no legislative enactment, -bore witness to the fact that the view in which criminal trials were -regarded was insensibly shifting from the ancient to the modern -standpoint. The inquisitorial nature of the old trial was gradually -disappearing. Chief among the differences which may be noted as having -arisen is the fact that the prisoner was no longer systematically -questioned in court. When he was questioned, it was now, if he were -innocent, in his favour. His examination was no longer what it had been -in the days of Elizabeth and James I, the very essence of the trial. -Questions were still put to him, but now they were directed by the -judges and not by the prosecution. The process was of no greater scope -than was demanded by the necessities of the defence of a prisoner who -has not the assistance of counsel. It was used as a natural means of -arriving at the truth of statements made on one side or the other, -and served to set in a clear light the strong and weak points of the -defence. At the trial of the Turners, who were guilty, a lengthy -examination of the prisoners by the court succeeded in shewing the -great improbability of statements in their story, and tended directly -to the conviction of the colonel.[530] On the other hand, in the case -of Sir George Wakeman, who was innocent, the triangular series of -questions between judge, witness, and prisoner had an effect which was -by no means unfavourable to the accused.[531] The prisoner moreover -could, if he wished, refuse to answer questions put to him.[532] - -Two other results of the changing spirit of the times may be found in -the criminal courts. Witnesses for the prosecution were now always -brought face to face with the accused, unless reason such as would -be valid to-day was given to the contrary; and the prisoner was not -only allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him, but to call -evidence in his own behalf.[533] The value of cross-examination to the -defence was doubtless an important advance in theory; practically it -was greatly impaired by the natural difficulties, which to an untrained -man are almost insuperable, of cross-examining witnesses without proper -instruction. But the power of calling witnesses for the defence was in -practice as well a gain of immense magnitude. - -With these changes the procedure of Tudor times was handed on to the -restored monarchy, and was retained without alteration until the end -of the Stuart dynasty. The position of a person on trial, bettered -as it was, was pitiable. The bench received the prisoner’s witnesses -with the utmost suspicion and treated them as if they were proved to -be accomplices in his crime. It was pointed out to the jury that they -were not upon oath. At the trial of one of the regicides in 1660 it was -even hinted that their evidence might be disbelieved on this ground -alone.[534] Later practice demanded that the jury should be directed -to notice the fact and warned that witnesses not upon oath deserved -no less credit for this reason; but opportunity was generally taken -to slight their evidence in other ways. If the prisoner’s witnesses -were Roman Catholics, it was pointed out that their evidence might be -tutored.[535] If not, the counsel for the prosecution could easily -make an opening to call attention to the fact that mere words for the -prisoner ought not to weigh as heavily as sound oaths for the king, -and he would not be hastily checked by the court.[536] Theoretically, -the court was “of counsel for the prisoner” in matters of law;[537] -practically, as this conflicted with the judges’ duty to the king -and their watch over his life, the prisoner was allowed to shift for -himself. To justify the denial of counsel to the accused, the argument -was constantly used that, in order to convict him, the proof must -be so plain that no counsel could contend against it.[538] Honestly -enough, no doubt, this was the theory; but in practice the slightest -complication of facts or the most awkward piece of perjury could not -fail to render the prisoner in his eagerness and ignorance helpless to -unravel the skein which was being wound round him. - -In particular matters of law counsel might be assigned to argue -such points as the court thought fit, but only when they had been -proposed to the court by the prisoner himself.[539] When Colledge at -his trial for high treason retorted that without the aid of counsel -he could not tell what points to submit for argument, he was told by -the Attorney-General that ignorance of the law was an excuse for no -man.[540] - -In countless ways the system worked, in accordance with the tradition -of many years, in favour of the king and in glaring disfavour of the -prisoner. Peculiar cruelty on the part of the judges has continually -been assumed as an explanation of this. In reality recourse need be -had to no such hypothesis. The judges handled the means which had come -down to them as legitimate, without necessarily indulging the rare -vice of spontaneous inhumanity which has been attributed to them by -historians. They did their work and performed their duty as it came in -their way; and the work of a judge in state trials in the seventeenth -century was to modern eyes neither dignified nor pleasant. Nor, -although their names are linked to no distinction in the annals of the -law, were the judges, whose patents ran “during the good pleasure” of -King Charles II, men devoid of talent. Lawyers were raised to the -bench by influence at court, since all offices of state were to be -obtained by favouritism; but their appointments were seldom devoid -of some foundation of solid attainments. Some, like Scroggs, were by -nature brilliant; others, like North and Pemberton, had grounded their -fortunes on many years of laborious industry.[541] Such men, whose -minds were not bent to reverence of the law by severe learning in it, -were likely to be influenced by their position as lawyers less than by -that as officers of state, and to regard their oaths as constraining -them rather to the service of the crown than to an absolute pursuit -of justice. Sometimes the rules under which they worked themselves -prevented them from doing right to prisoners. They were unable, for -instance, to summon or to protect witnesses for the defence, for their -power ended with the confines of the court. When Colonel Turner on -his trial in 1664 told the bench that his witnesses had sent him word -that they did not dare to come without an order, the Chief Justice -replied, “When witnesses come against the king, we cannot put them -to their oaths, much less precept them to come.”[542] At the trial -of Langhorn, the Roman Catholic lawyer, for the Popish Plot, Lord -Castlemaine complained to the court that the prisoner’s witnesses -were being threatened and assaulted by the mob outside and dared not -“come to give their evidence for fear of being killed.” The judges -were indignant and declaimed loudly against the “very horrid thing,” -but they were powerless to do more than to threaten the offenders with -severe punishment, if the earl could produce or point to them. As this -was naturally impossible, nothing could be done.[543] - -The inability of the court to allow real favour to the accused receives -constant illustration from the trial of Lord Stafford. It might have -been expected that a venerable peer, standing to be judged by his peers -and surrounded by his relatives and old acquaintances, would receive -an amount of respect and favour which was denied to meaner folk. But -this was far from being the case. In spite of the evident desire -of the Lord Chancellor, who presided in the capacity of Lord High -Steward, to allow to the accused every advantage that was consistent -with his duty, he found it impossible to contest against the managers -of the prosecution in their demand that the rules should be exerted -against him in all their usual harshness. Time after time the counsel -pressed home points of procedure which lay in their favour. It roused -the indignation of Jones and Maynard that the barristers retained by -Lord Stafford to be his counsel on matters of law stood so near him -that they might be suspected of wishing to prompt him in matters of -fact, and they were forced to move to a greater distance from the -prisoner.[544] When at the end of the second day of the trial Finch -urged that before further proceedings a day’s rest should be given to -the prisoner to recover from his great physical fatigue, the managers -withstood his proposal eagerly. The Lord High Steward asked what -inconvenience would ensue. They could suggest none of consequence, but -said that the delay would be highly unusual and that it was a most -unreasonable thing to demand. Jones’ zeal was such that he exposed -himself to a well-deserved snub from the court.[545] Without being -in the least abashed he pursued his speech and finally carried the -point triumphantly.[546] A similar violation of the maxim _De vitâ -hominis nulla est cunctatio longa_, which the Lord Chancellor quoted on -this occasion, occurred during the trial of Lord Russell, when Chief -Justice Pemberton would have granted a short respite to the prisoner -but for the opposition of the prosecuting counsel. “Mr. Attorney, why -may not this trial be respited till the afternoon?” To which the -Attorney-General rudely replied, “Pray call the jury”; and Pemberton -had nothing for it but to say to the prisoner, “My Lord, the king’s -counsel think it not reasonable to put off the trial longer, and we -cannot put it off without their consent.” On the last day of Lord -Stafford’s trial the court again displayed its weakness as a protector -of the accused. Owing to the prisoner’s excessive weakness and failure -to make his voice heard, the Lord High Steward ordered a clerk to read -the paper from which he was struggling to propose certain points of -law to be argued. The managers immediately objected. It was contrary -to custom and might be turned into a dangerous precedent. Finch -was compelled to give way to their harsh insistence, and Stafford, -tottering with fatigue, to make an effort which was almost beyond his -strength.[547] - -The old criminal trial of the English courts had been conducted -strictly on the inquisitorial method of procedure, a system admirably -contrived for the conviction of the guilty, but by no means so -successful in ensuring the acquittal of the innocent. Of this -character it was robbed by the Puritan Revolution, which rendered the -administrative methods of continental nations odious to the English -mind. But in its place nothing so complete or logical remained. The -changes which were then introduced, beneficent as they were, did not -institute an order capable, in the interest of justice and of the -state, of guaranteeing the discovery of the truth or of safeguarding -the rights of the individual. The rigorous system of preliminary -procedure, the denial of counsel to assist the accused, the ignorance -of the art of cross-examination and of the science of sifting evidence, -combined to set judge, jury, and prisoner alike at the mercy of every -man of villainy sufficient to swear away a man’s life by a false oath, -and of impudence sufficient to brazen out his perjury.[548] Not until -greater knowledge of the principles of judicial administration was -gained by a long and harsh experience, and until a more stable state of -society produced the possibility of treating accused persons with the -generosity which is characteristic of modern criminal procedure, were -these evils remedied. - -Society, as it was in the latter half of the seventeenth century, could -neither afford nor pretend to be generous to the prisoner at the bar. -In these latter days when a man comes to be tried, the jury are told -that it is their first duty to believe him innocent until he is proved -to be guilty. The burden of that proof lies heavily upon the shoulders -of those who conduct the prosecution. Whatever doubt may exist is -counted to the benefit of the accused. He is treated throughout with -studied consideration. But when the fourteen men who died for the -Popish Plot were brought to the bar, all this was unheard of. Then the -prisoner came into court already in the minds of all men half proved -an enemy to the king’s majesty, and one to whom no more advantage than -was his strict right could be allowed. To the satisfaction of one jury, -indeed, he had been actually proved guilty, for the grand jurors “for -our Lord the King” had presented upon their oaths that the prisoner -“wilfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought” had committed -the crime for which he was arraigned. Why should he be accounted -innocent, to whose guilt at least twelve good men and true had -positively sworn? The presumptive innocence of the accused is a modern -fiction which has tacitly grown up in a society conscious that its -strength is too firm to be shaken by the misdeeds of single offenders, -and therefore willing that any individual suspected of offence against -its laws shall retain all the advantages on his own side. Before this -stage was reached, men thought otherwise. In the seventeenth century -society and government were unstable and liable to sudden shocks. A -comparatively trifling event might set the balance against the reign -of law and order, and consequently the law meted out hard measure -to those who came into contact with it. As soon as the accused was -committed for trial he was sent to close confinement, from which he did -not emerge until he was brought to the bar. Unless by extraordinary -favour, he was allowed neither counsel nor solicitor to assist in the -preparation of his defence. He was not allowed to see his witnesses -before they came into court.[549] All the papers which he wrote in -prison were taken from him.[550] The utmost he might claim was that one -of his friends should visit him in order to summon the proper witnesses -for his defence. Even these interviews, in any case of importance, -could be held only in the presence of the jailor, that the prisoner -might be cut off from all means of illicit intercourse with the outer -world,[551] a precaution which was justified by the fact that, when all -possible care had been taken, prisoners still found means underhand to -receive communications which would have been prizes of considerable -value to the government if they had been intercepted.[552] The age -which knew the penal laws as active measures of administration, which -was divided from the tragedy at Fotheringay by less than a hundred -years and from the Gunpowder Plot by scarcely more than the span of -a man’s life, which had only recovered from the successive shocks -of revolution and restoration to wait expectantly for the day when -rebellion would have to be met once again, and on which within the ten -ensuing years did burst another rebellion and a second revolution, -could hardly be expected to rate the safety of society more lightly -than the life of one who, at the best, was surrounded by incriminating -circumstances. Even so late and well-ordered a man as Paley believed -that it was better for the innocent to die than for the guilty to go -free.[553] - - - - - CHAPTER III - - TRIALS FOR THE PLOT - - -Such was the state of society and the procedure of the English courts -when Edward Coleman was brought to the bar of the Court of King’s Bench -on November 27, 1678 to be tried on the charge of high treason. The -trial was a test case. In point of importance it was chief among the -series of trials for treason which arose from the Plot, for all the -others which followed to some extent depended from this. If Coleman -had been acquitted, there could have been no more to come. His letters -formed, as they still form, the weightiest part of the evidence against -the Roman Catholic intriguers,[554] and had they not secured his -conviction, the Jesuits, Mr. Langhorn, Lord Stafford, and Archbishop -Plunket would have gone unconvicted also. By his condemnation the way -was opened by which they were sent to the scaffold, the innocent and -the guilty alike, without favour or discrimination. - -In the words of Sir George Jeffreys, Recorder of London, the indictment -set forth “that the said Edward Coleman, endeavouring to subvert the -Protestant religion and to change and alter the same, and likewise to -stir up rebellion and sedition amongst the king’s liege people and -also to kill the king,” did hold certain correspondence with “M. la -Chaise, then servant and confessor to the French king.”[555] In point -of fact the indictment lays by far the greater stress on the former of -these counts. The murder of the king is mentioned, but not insisted -upon. The charges against Coleman are summed up in the accusation of -a plot “to bring and put our said sovereign lord the king to final -death and destruction, and to overthrow and change the government of -the kingdom of England, and to alter the sincere and true religion of -God in this kingdom as by law established; and wholly to subvert and -destroy the state of the whole kingdom, being in the universal parts -thereof well-established and ordained; and to levy war against our -said sovereign lord the king within his realm of England”; and the -letters in which he endeavoured to obtain aid and assistance for these -objects are mentioned in particular.[556] Sergeant Maynard and Sir -William Jones, Attorney-General, followed and opened the evidence for -the crown. They too touched on the charge of killing the king and the -evidence which Oates was prepared to give on the subject, but dwelt -most heavily on Coleman’s correspondence with Throckmorton, Cardinal -Howard, and Père de la Chaize. “The prisoner at the bar,” said Maynard, -“stands indicted for no less than an intention and endeavour to murder -the king; for an endeavour and attempt to change the government of -the nation, so well settled and instituted, ... and for an endeavour -to alter the Protestant religion and to introduce instead of it the -Romish superstition and popery.”[557] The matter could not be better -or more briefly stated. The substantial charge against Coleman lay, -not in the actual attempt of which he was accused to murder the king, -but in the designs which he had formed to alter the established -course of government and religion, as settled in the kingdom. By the -recognised construction of the statute of Edward III such an attempt -was held to include “imagining the king’s death,” and was as much high -treason as an assassination plot of the most flagrant character.[558] -All that was required was that the intention should be proved by an -overt act, and the portion of Coleman’s correspondence which had been -seized afforded the plainest proof of his designs. This was the real -offence which lay at his door, and for this he was legally and properly -condemned to suffer the penalties of high treason. “Mr. Coleman,” said -the Chief Justice after the verdict had been delivered, “your own -papers are enough to condemn you.”[559] - -The case for the prosecution was opened by the evidence of Titus -Oates. After an admonition from the bench to speak nothing but the -truth, permission was given him to tell his story in his own way. In -the course of a long examination by the Chief Justice he reaffirmed -the startling evidence which he had given before the two Houses of -Parliament, and which had already become a powerful weapon in the -Whig armoury. He deposed that he had carried treasonable letters from -Coleman and various Jesuits in London to the Jesuit College at St. -Omers; that he had carried to Père de la Chaize a letter written by -Coleman in thanks for a promise from the confessor of £10,000 to be -employed in procuring Charles II’s death;[560] that Coleman had in -his hearing expressed approval when he was told that the Jesuits had -determined to kill the king;[561] and that Coleman had been engaged -in distributing throughout the kingdom copies of certain instructions -sent to the Jesuit Ashby concerning the assassination of the king, in -order to give heart to those of their party who were not on the scene -of affairs.[562] In the medley of wild accusations against the Jesuits -and other Roman Catholics, which Oates mingled with this evidence -against Coleman, the main point, as in his previous examinations, was -the Jesuit consult held, he swore, at the White Horse Tavern in the -Strand on April 24, 1678, to concert means for the death of the king. -After the consult had broken up into smaller committees, it was at that -which met at Wild House that Coleman had, according to Oates, given -his formal approval to the project. Later, in a letter which Oates -professed to have seen, he had expressed the desire “that the duke -might be trepanned into this plot to murder the king.”[563] Bedloe’s -evidence, which followed, was of the same nature, though not so wide -in scope or so decisive in character.[564] He swore to treasonable -correspondence between the Jesuits in London and Paris, to treasonable -words which he had heard Coleman speak, to treasonable consults in -Paris at which Coleman was not present, and on hearsay from Sir Henry -Tichbourn bore out Oates’ statement that Coleman had received a patent -to be secretary of state under the new Jesuit _régime_ in England.[565] -This closed the oral evidence for the crown, and it was against this -that Coleman directed the only part of his case which could be called -a defence. He objected to Oates that his testimony was entirely -untrustworthy. At the examination before the privy council, Oates had -neither known nor accused him personally; yet now he pretended to be -his intimate and conversant with all his plans.[566] Oates replied -quickly that, when he was confronted with Coleman at the council board, -the candles in the room gave so dim a light that he was unable to swear -positively to his identity. “I then said,” he declared, “I would not -swear I had seen him before in my life, because my sight was bad by -candle-light, and candle-light alters the sight much.... I cannot see -a great way by candle-light.” Here the monstrous ugliness of Oates’ -features came to his aid in a strange fashion. His eyes were set so -deep in the sockets that they were universally noted as being out of -the common. Contemporary descriptions of him all mark this feature as -striking.[567] There must have been signs of something perhaps almost -unnatural about them, which would lend colour to the idea that he -needed a strong light to see clearly. His reply on the present occasion -has been universally treated by historians with ridicule, but it is -difficult to believe that it seemed so to spectators and even possible -that there was some truth in what he said. The answer at all events -was taken, and the court passed to what was in fact the more important -point, Coleman’s assertion that Oates had not charged him before the -privy council with what he had since brought forward. “The stress of -the objection,” said the Chief Justice, “lieth not upon seeing so much, -but how come you that you laid no more to Mr. Coleman’s charge at that -time?” To this the witness had no sufficient answer. His memory failed -him completely. He declared with many turns and qualifications that he -had not felt bound “to give in more than a general information against -Mr. Coleman,” and that he would have spoken in greater detail had he -been urged. But he had been so wearied by two sleepless nights spent -in tramping round the town to take prisoners that the king and council -were willing to let him go as soon as possible. Unfortunately he let -slip that he had accused Coleman in particular with writing treasonable -newsletters to inflame the country.[568] Upon this the court seized. If -he had been able to charge Coleman with this malodorous correspondence, -why had he not been able to accuse him of any of the far graver acts of -treason which he now laid to his charge Oates was thereupon subjected -to a severe examination by the bench. The questions were constantly -put to him: “Why did you not accuse Mr. Coleman by name? You were by -when the council were ready to let Mr. Coleman go almost at large? Why -did you not name Mr. Coleman at that time? How came you (Mr. Coleman -being so desperate a man as he was, endeavouring the killing of the -king) to omit your information of it to the council and to the king -at both times?”[569] Oates’ answers were the reverse of satisfactory. -He became loud in protestation, swore that he had been so tired that -he could scarcely stand, and appealed to the king to attest what had -passed at his examination; but the Chief Justice kept close to the -point and drove him from one position to another, until he seemed ready -to take refuge in silence. The saviour of the nation was within an -ace of a catastrophe which would have wrecked his whole future career -when the prisoner restored the balance by a false move. Turning from -the witness, Scroggs asked Coleman if he had any further question to -put. With maladroitness singular in a man of his experience, Coleman -reverted to the incident of the candles and Oates’ inability to -recognise him at the council. The question was threshed out minutely, -for Coleman thought that he had found in Sir Thomas Dolman, clerk to -the privy council, a witness who could prove that Oates had not only -failed to recognise him, but had denied acquaintance altogether with -the person of Mr. Coleman. This however Sir Thomas could not do, and -the matter was left exactly where it was before: the evidence only -shewed that Oates had not been able to identify as Coleman the man -with whom he was confronted.[570] This Oates had already admitted and -explained. But the examination of Dolman naturally led the court to -call upon Sir Robert Southwell, another of the council clerks, to state -his version of what had happened. From his evidence it appeared that at -the examination before the council Oates had charged Coleman by name -with having in person paid £5000 out of £15,000 to Sir George Wakeman -as a fee for poisoning the king.[571] This was a fact which Oates had -not mentioned in his evidence at the trial, when he only swore that -Coleman considered £10,000 too small a sum for such a great work, -and had advised that Sir George Wakeman should be paid half as much -again.[572] He had moreover forgotten altogether that he had given any -evidence of the sort before the council. On this no remark was made -either by the court or by the prisoner. The omission however to point -out his lapse of memory as of weight against the witness is patent of -a genuine explanation. Clearly no possible amount of fatigue would -have justified Oates in the eyes of the judges for having failed at -his examination by the council to charge Coleman with treason of which -he afterwards accused him; but it was a very different thing, and -perfectly reasonable, to consider that the great exertions which he had -undergone might fairly explain his forgetfulness of the charge which he -had then actually made.[573] The question had been reduced to the issue -whether or no Oates had then charged Coleman with the high crimes of -which he was now giving evidence. This was now indisputably determined -in favour of the witness and against the prisoner. - -The first reflection upon this scene which occurs to the mind of one -who comes to study it in the twentieth century is that in a modern -court it could scarcely have taken place at all. It seems as if the -elaborate care taken to discuss particular omissions and contradictions -in Oates’ evidence was only so much waste of time, for to the modern -eye the whole bulk was of a character which would now be considered -wholly inadmissible as good testimony. Writing of the evidence of the -other informers as well as of Oates throughout the trials, Sir James -Fitzjames Stephen says: “No one accustomed to weighing evidence can -doubt that he and the subordinate witnesses were quite as bad and quite -as false as they are usually supposed to have been. Their evidence -has every mark of perjury about it. They never would tie themselves -down to anything if they could possibly avoid it. As soon as they were -challenged with a lie by being told that witnesses were coming to -contradict them, they shuffled and drew back and began to forget.”[574] -The evidence which Oates gave against the accused consisted largely in -his swearing that he had carried letters from one person to another, -which upon a mental comparison with yet more letters, he recognised -to be in the handwriting of a third person, being in this case that -of Coleman.[575] Or that he had been told by Coleman of treasonable -letters which he had written into the country to encourage the Catholic -party. Or again, that he had been told by other persons that at a -consult, from which he himself had been absent, various treasonable -designs were formed and approved; or that it was generally understood -among the conspirators that the accused had done this, that, or the -other. Even definite facts sworn by the witness, as for instance -when Oates swore that he had seen Coleman pay an extra guinea to the -messenger who carried £80 to four Irishmen as payment for the king’s -death, and when Bedloe swore that he had heard Coleman say that “if -there was an hundred heretical kings to be deposed, he would see them -all destroyed,”[576] were statements which did not receive and were -scarcely susceptible of corroboration. Nowadays it is an established -principle that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not to -be acted upon, and the direct evidence of witnesses in the Popish Plot, -even when it was most definite and precise, would without exception -have fallen under this rule. But in the seventeenth century the rule -was unknown. Practically any statement made on oath in the witness -box was accepted unconditionally, unless the witness was either -contradicted by better evidence or else proved to be no “good witness.” -The competence of a witness was technically destroyed only by a record -of perjury proved against him, but the credibility of evidence was a -question for the judgment of the jury; and where the witness had been -convicted of other crimes the jury sometimes disbelieved his word.[577] -The evidence of accomplices was not only admitted but highly prized. -That it should be uncorroborated excited no wonder, for it was regarded -as a remarkable piece of fortune to obtain it at all. To our minds the -dead weight of an oath seems to be of far less account in determining -the trustworthiness of evidence than its intrinsic probability and the -degree to which it is corroborated by other circumstances, but in the -judgment of the seventeenth century an oath carried all before it. -A remarkable illustration of this is received from the trial of the -Five Jesuits in 1679. Fenwick objected that the evidence against him -was wholly uncorroborated. “All the evidence that is given,” he said, -“comes but to this, there is but saying and swearing. I defy them all -to give one probable reason to satisfy any reasonable uninterested -man’s judgment how this could be.” “You say there is nothing but -saying and swearing,” answered the Chief Justice, “but you do not -consider what you say in that matter. All the evidence and all the -testimony in all trials is by swearing. A man comes and swears that -he saw such a bond sealed, or heard such words spoken; this is saying -and swearing; but it is that proof that we go by, and by which all -men’s lives and fortunes are determined.... Mr. Fenwick,” he added in -summing up to the jury, “says to all this: there is nothing against -us but talking and swearing; but for that he hath been told (if it -were possible for him to learn) that all testimony is but talking and -swearing: for all things, all men’s lives and fortunes are determined -by an oath; and an oath is by talking, by kissing the book, and -calling God to witness to the truth of what is said.”[578] Fenwick’s -cosmopolitan education here gave him the advantage. By the light of -experience he is seen to have been in advance of the times in England, -but for the law and practice of the English courts his contention was -vain. He was asking that the court should in his case lay down a rule -which half a century later was new to the English mind. - -The ignorance which was thus displayed of the proper nature of -testimony has constantly been considered as a mark of atrocious -ferocity and cowardly time-service in the judges of the period. Such a -view is entirely erroneous. The evidence accepted at political trials -did not differ in character from that acted upon at trials the causes -of which were remote from politics. Fortunately there are means by -which this can be proved exactly. It is fortunate, for it is improbable -that the same type of perjured evidence should appear in any other than -a political trial. Of perjured evidence there was no doubt plenty at -every assize, as is witnessed by the case of the Rev. Mr. Hawkins,[579] -where a considerable dose was nearly swallowed without being detected. -But in this style of lie there was not the same boldness, the same -play of fancy, the same overriding of the limits of likelihood which -has rendered the acceptance of Oates’ evidence unintelligible to -historians except on the supposition of monstrous immorality in the -judges and juries. “Witnesses,” writes Fox, “of such a character as not -to deserve credit in the most trifling cause, upon the most immaterial -facts, gave evidence so incredible, or, to speak more properly, so -impossible to be true, that it ought not to have been believed if it -had come from the mouth of Cato; and upon such evidence, from such -witnesses, were innocent men condemned to death and executed.”[580] -Such a state of things, thought Fox and many after him, is not to -be explained on any supposition other than that of wilfully wicked -blindness to the truth, and can hardly be paralleled in modern history. -There is however, if not a parallel, at least a very great similarity -between the evidence offered at the trials for the Popish Plot and that -taken at another series of trials of almost the same date, to find -which no one need go further than a different page in the same volume -of reports. The same tangled farrago of wild nonsense with which Oates -and his fellow-witnesses filled the courts is, on another plane, almost -exactly reproduced in the witch trials of the seventeenth century. - -In the first half of the century the numbers of women who had been -condemned and hanged as witches may be counted almost by dozens,[581] -and in the reign of Charles II at least five wretched creatures were -put to death for practices in the black art. What is here noteworthy -about their trials is that they exhibit just the same characteristics -as the trials for the Popish Plot. The monstrous evidence offered by -the witnesses and the credulity displayed by the court at the trials of -the Suffolk witches in 1665 and of the Devon witches seventeen years -later at least equalled, if they did not surpass, anything which is -recorded of political cases of the same age. Two instances will suffice -to demonstrate the truth of this. At the trial at Bury St. Edmunds, -Margaret Arnold gave evidence as to the children who were said to have -been bewitched: “At another time the younger child, being out of her -fits, went out of doors to take a little fresh air, and presently a -little thing like a bee flew upon her face and would have gone into her -mouth, whereupon the child ran in all haste to the door to get into -the house again, screeching out in a most terrible manner; whereupon -this deponent made haste to come to her, but before she could get -to her, the child fell into her swooning fit, and at last with much -pain, straining herself, she vomited up a twopenny nail with a broad -head; and after that the child had raised up the nail, she came to her -understanding and, being demanded by this deponent how she came by -this nail, she answered ‘that the bee brought this nail and forced it -into her mouth.’”[582] The information of Elizabeth Eastchurch against -Temperance Lloyd, one of the three women condemned in 1682, is a fair -specimen of the evidence which was, in the words of Fox, “impossible -to be true,” and which was nevertheless accepted and acted upon by the -courts. “The said informant upon her oath saith. That upon the second -day of this instant July, the said Grace Thomas,[583] then lodging in -this informant’s said husband’s house, and hearing of her to complain -of great pricking pains in one of her knees, she the said informant -did see her said knee, and observed that she had nine places in her -knee which had been pricked, and that every one of the said pricks were -as though it had been the prick of a thorn. Whereupon this informant -afterwards, upon the same 2nd day of July, did demand of the said -Temperance Lloyd whether she had any wax or clay in the form of a -picture whereby she had pricked and tormented the said Grace Thomas? -Unto which the said Temperance made answer that she had no wax or -clay, but confessed that she had only a piece of leather which she had -pricked nine times.”[584] - -When it is considered that the former of these trials was conducted by -Lord Chief Justice Hale, the most famous and according to all testimony -the most moderate judge of his time, it becomes brilliantly clear that -it was not only by incompetent judges, as the nature of the cases -makes it clear that it was not only in political trials, that unsound -evidence was accepted as genuine, but that the common knowledge of the -times did not discriminate in any appreciable manner between evidence -which is, and that which ought not to be, sufficient to procure the -conviction of prisoners. Without adornment the fact is that evidence -which to modern ears is bad, to those of judges and juries of the -seventeenth century seemed perfectly good.[585] One further point of -similarity between the evidence given at witch trials and at trials for -the Plot may be noted. Credence was given to flimsy tales of the devil -and his practices, if not solely, at least all the more readily because -such ideas were current in the popular mind, and scarcely more than a -hint was needed for their embodiment as concrete facts. The same may be -said of the revelations of the Popish Plot. For years men had expected -nothing more certainly and had feared nothing more keenly than a great -onslaught of Catholicism upon their own religion. What they now heard -seemed only a just realisation of their prophecies. “They had,” says -Bishop Parker, “so familiarly accustomed themselves to these monstrous -lies, that at the first opening of Oates’ Plot they with a ready and -easy credulity received all his fictions; for whatsoever he published, -they had long before expected.”[586] - -It is necessary to lay stress upon this aspect of the evidence -given by the witnesses at Coleman’s trial, since at all those which -followed it reappeared with little variation; but to Coleman himself -it was not of the first importance. Sixteen letters selected from his -correspondence with Roman Catholics abroad were read at length,[587] -and formed the heaviest part of the case against him. From them the -nature of his schemes was plainly visible. It was of little moment to -him that they were taken as establishing the reality of the nightmare -which Oates had sketched. Without anything in common with the blood and -thunder tales which that miscreant poured forth, they contained more -than enough of treasonable matter to cost the prisoner his head. It was -impossible for him to deny the letters. All he could do was to say that -he had meant no harm, and to express the hope that they would not be -found to bear out the charge of high treason. “I deny the conclusion, -but the premises,” he admitted, “are too strong and artificial.”[588] -Chief among the correspondence read were three letters to and one -from Père de la Chaize and the declaration which Coleman had drawn -up to justify the prospective dissolution of Parliament.[589] On the -subject of these an important discussion took place between Scroggs -and the prisoner. Coleman insisted that there was nothing in his -letters to justify the accusation that he had planned the death of -the king; he might have used extravagant expressions; but if all the -letters were considered together, surely it would be evident that, -so far from designing any ill to the king and the Duke of York, his -sole aim had been to exalt their power as high as possible. The Chief -Justice pointed out that the letters openly declared, almost in so -many words, an intention to overthrow the religion and government of -the country by the help of foreign power; to say that he had attempted -this for the benefit of the king was merely to offer a feeble excuse -for his fault; with that the court had nothing to do. Coleman again -began to explain his point of view in a rather muddled fashion. People -said that he had made use of the duke’s name without leave in his -negotiations; was it likely that he had been so foolish as to imagine -that his friends abroad would expend their money without the certainty -that it was for the duke’s service; still more, was it likely that the -duke would use any sum thus obtained to the disservice of the king? -“I take it for granted,” he continued “(which sure none in the world -will deny), that the law was ever made immediately subject to the king -or duke; and consequently to the duke, I cannot think this will ever -be expounded by the law of England or the jury to be treason.” At -this point the Chief Justice interrupted him impatiently. “These vain -inconsequential discourses” served but to waste the time of the court. -The plain truth was that the prisoner had formed a design “to bring -popery into England, and to promote the interest of the French king in -this place”;[590] a fact which Coleman had not even attempted to deny. -What Scroggs meant, and what, had he been a better judge, he would -have made clear to the prisoner, was that such designs, according to -the law which it was his duty to administer as it had been handed down -to him, were technically evidence of high treason, whether or no they -included an actual plot to kill the king; but he was so much irritated -by Coleman’s feeble efforts to say that this was not or ought not to -have been so, that he neglected altogether to explain the matter, with -the result that when Coleman came up for judgment on the following day -he shewed that he was still in the dark about it.[591] - -Concerning Coleman’s letters a curious point arose at the trial. In -opening the evidence for the crown Sergeant Maynard had remarked -that the correspondence found at the prisoner’s house extended only -“to some part of the year 1675; from 1675 unto 1678 all lies in -the dark; we have no certain proof of it, but we apprehend he had -intelligence until 1678.”[592] The Chief Justice took the subject up: -“Mr. Coleman, I will tell you when you will be apt to gain credit -in this matter.... Can mankind be persuaded that you, that had this -negotiation in 1674 and 1675, left off just then, at that time when -your letters were found according to their dates? Do you believe there -was no negotiation after 1675 because we have not found them?” The -prisoner replied, “After that time (as I said to the House of Commons) -I did give over corresponding. I did offer to take all the oaths -and tests in the world that I never had one letter for at least two -years; yea (that I may keep myself within compass), I think it was for -three or four.”[593] After he had delivered sentence on the next day, -Scroggs adjured the condemned man to confess that he had continued to -correspond with agents abroad during the last three years. “I am sorry, -Mr. Coleman,” he said, “I have not charity enough to believe the words -of a dying man; for I will tell you what sticks with me very much: -I cannot be persuaded, and nobody can, but that your correspondence -and negotiations did continue longer than the letters that we have -found, that is, after 1675.” “Upon the words of a dying man and the -expectation I have of salvation,” was Coleman’s answer, “I tell your -lordship that there is not a book or a paper in the world that I have -laid aside voluntarily.” Scroggs urged that he might have burnt them. -“Not by the living God,” returned the prisoner.[594] Coleman lied. The -correspondence which he carried on with Paris and Rome, even in the -fragmentary state in which it has been preserved, extended beyond the -end of the year 1675. Between December in that year and December 1676 -he received fifty letters from St. Germain at Paris, and a letter from -the same quarter, dated October 5, 1678, was seized on delivery after -Coleman’s arrest. From January 1676 to January 1678 a correspondence -was steadily maintained between Coleman and Cardinal Howard at Rome -either personally or by his secretary Leybourn, and a letter from -Leybourn seized on its arrival bore the date October 1, 1678. Shortly -before, a “very dark, suspicious letter,” dated September 28, 1678, had -been seized on delivery. Coleman even received letters from Italy after -his arrest by the help of his wife. The last doubts on the subject -are resolved by the evidence of his secretary, Jerome Boatman, taken -before the committee of the House of Lords: “I was employed to write -home and foreign news. The correspondence was held on until my master -was taken. There came letters by post since my master was taken. I -delivered the letters to my mistress to carry to my master after he -was under the messenger’s hands.”[595] Belief in the dying vows of the -Jesuits and their friends is perhaps scarcely strengthened by Coleman’s -conduct in this matter. It is remarkable that the means taken for the -preparation of the case were so haphazard that the crown lawyers had -no knowledge of such valuable material as was in the hands of the -committee of the upper house; and it is small testimony to the capacity -of the noble lords who negotiated the business of the committee with -the Attorney-General[596] that the latter should have been entirely -ignorant of its existence.[597] - -Throughout his trial Coleman was treated neither more nor less fairly -than any other prisoner in any crown case of the period. The practice -of the day weighed heavily against him. He did not receive nor could he -expect any favour from it. Neither was he met by any special disfavour -on political or any other grounds. One point of his defence however -should undoubtedly have received more consideration than it did. Oates -had charged him with paying a guinea as an extra fee for the king’s -murder, “about the 21st day of August.”[598] Almost at the end of the -trial, after the final speeches for the prosecution, Coleman announced -that if his diary were fetched from his lodgings he could prove that he -had been out of town from the 10th of August until the last day of the -month.[599] His servant was called, but was unable to do more than say -generally that he had been away from London during part of August. With -the book, said the prisoner, he would be able to prove his statement -exactly; but the Chief Justice would not allow it to be brought, on -the ground that even if what he said were true, little would be gained -to him.[600] This was no doubt true. Apart from the evidence of Oates, -the testimony of Bedloe and his own letters were enough to hang the -prisoner, and if Oates’ word had been shaken in this point it would -have been but little benefit to Coleman. But a great mistake was made -by the court. To have proved a perjury against Oates so early in -his career of witness would have inflicted a lasting injury on his -character and redoubled the force of the catastrophe which befell him -at the trial of Sir George Wakeman eight months later. This was not -however apparent at the time, and the Chief Justice’s determination, -due to the lateness of the hour and the small extent to which the -prisoner’s interest was actually involved, is easy to understand. -When he came up to receive judgment the next day Coleman produced the -diary,[601] but it was then too late and the chance was gone. - -Scroggs proceeded at once to recapitulate the evidence to the jury. -What was important in his summing up was almost entirely concerned -with the meaning and weight of Coleman’s letters.[602] He pointed out -acutely that the construction which the prisoner put upon them and -the feeble explanation which he gave of his designs were repugnant -to common sense and could not be entertained. “For the other part of -the evidence,” he terminated abruptly, “which is by the testimony -of the present witnesses, you have heard them. I will not detain -you longer now, for the day is going out.”[603] The jury went from -the bar and returned immediately with the verdict of Guilty. On the -following day Coleman received sentence as usual in cases of high -treason, and five days after was executed at Tyburn. As the cart was -about to be drawn away he was heard to murmur, “There is no faith in -man.” A rumour spread throughout the town that until the end he had -expected to receive a pardon promised by the Duke of York, and that, -finding himself deceived, he had died cursing the master whom he had so -diligently served.[604] - -Coleman was not the first man to suffer for the Popish Plot. On -November 26, the day Coleman was brought to trial, William Staley, a -Roman Catholic goldsmith, had undergone a traitor’s death at Tyburn. -Staley was accused by two scoundrels of having in a public tavern -uttered words which announced his intention of taking away the king’s -life. The chief witness was a wretch named Carstairs, who had eked out -a precarious livelihood by acting as a government spy on conventicles -in Scotland.[605] Two others of the same kidney corroborated his -evidence. They swore that Staley had entered a cookshop in Covent -Garden to dine with a French friend named Fromante, and had there -burst into a rage against the king; the old man, Fromante, his friend, -said “that the king of England was a tormentor of the people of God, -and he answered again in a great fury, ‘He is a great heretic and the -greatest rogue in the world; here is the heart and here is the hand -that will kill him.’... In French the words were spoken, he making a -demonstration stamping with his foot: ‘I would kill him myself.’”[606] -By an act passed early in Charles II’s reign, “malicious and advised -speaking” had been made an overt act of high treason, and on this -Staley was indicted. Over his sentence historians have gone into -ecstasies of horror, on the ground that it is impossible to believe -that “a great Roman Catholic banker” in the position of Staley should -have spoken such words.[607] Staley however was not the banker, but the -banker’s son, and was not therefore of the same highly responsible age -and position as has been supposed. “Young Staley,” as he is called in -a letter of the time,[608] is identified by Von Schwerin, ambassador -of the Great Elector to the court of Charles II. On November 19 he -writes: “Auch ist der Sohn eines sehr reichen Goldschmieds gefänglich -eingezogen worden, weil er bei einem Gelage—wiewohl in trunkenem -Zustande—Reden geführt hat: die Conspiration sei noch nicht ganz -entdeckt, so habe er noch Hände den König zu ermorden.”[609] But the -decisive evidence on the point is the fact that William Staley’s -father, the banker, was alive some three weeks after he should, -according to the received account, have been hanged and quartered. On -December 18 his clerk and cashier were examined before the committee -of the House of Lords on the subject of a reported connection between -their master and Sir George Wakeman. The cashier had been in his -service for seven years. The next day Mr. Staley, as ordered, himself -attended the committee, bringing with him “the books wherein he has -kept his accounts the last two years.”[610] Obviously this man had been -head of the firm for more than the previous month, and the account -given by the Brandenburg envoy is correct.[611] - -To hold that the words attributed to Staley by the witnesses at the -trial were spoken “advisedly and maliciously” was undoubtedly to drive -the act as far as it would go against the prisoner; but that they were -spoken seems almost certain. He hardly denied that he had called the -king a rogue and a heretic.[612] His only explanation of the words to -which Carstairs swore was that instead of saying “I would kill him -myself,” he had said “I would kill myself.” The difference between -the words _Je le tuerais moi-même_ and _Je me tuerais moi-même_ is -small enough to account for an easy mistake made by a hearer, but it -was unfortunate for Staley that, as was pertinently remarked by the -Attorney-General, the latter would not make sense in the context. Still -more damning was the prisoner’s omission to call as a witness for his -defence Fromante, who had taken part in the conversation, and could, -if Staley had been innocent, have cleared the point in his favour; -but although every facility was given him for doing so, he refused -either to call his friend or to make use of the copy of his previous -examination, which the Attorney-General offered to lend him.[613] -The case was not terminated even by Staley’s sentence and death. In -consideration of his exemplary conduct in prison, where he “behaved -himself very penitently, from the time of his conviction until the time -of his execution, which was attested by the several ministers which -visited him during that time,” leave was given by the king that his -body should be delivered to his friends after execution for private -burial. With great want of tact, and “to the great indignity and -affront of his Majesty’s mercy and favour, the friends of the said -Staley caused several masses to be said over his quarters, ... and -appointed a time for his interment, viz. Friday, the 29th of November -1678, in the evening, from his father’s house in Covent Garden, at -which time there was made a pompous and great funeral, many people -following the corpse to the church of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, where -he was buried”: in consequence of which an order was given for the -disinterment of the body, and to vindicate the majesty of justice his -quarters were affixed to the city gates and his head set up to rot on -London Bridge.[614] - -A fortnight after Coleman’s execution, Whitebread, Fenwick, Ireland, -Pickering, and Grove were brought to the bar of the Old Bailey. Thomas -White or Whitebread, alias Harcourt, was a man sixty years of age. -He had been educated at St. Omers, became a professed father in the -Society of Jesus in 1652, and was chosen provincial of the English -province at the beginning of the year 1678.[615] It was by his means -that Oates had entered the Jesuit College at St. Omers after expulsion -from Valladolid, and it was he who Oates swore had boxed his ears on -learning that the plot was betrayed.[616] Fenwick, less well known by -his real name Caldwell, was ten years his junior. He had joined the -English mission from Flanders in 1675, and was now the London agent -for the college at St. Omers. Both were noted in the society for their -success in the missionary field.[617] Ireland, alias Ironmonger, had -come into England in 1677 as procurator of the province.[618] All -five were accused by Oates of being principals in the plot and privy -to the king’s death. Pickering, a Benedictine, and Grove, a Jesuit -lay-brother, were named as the actual agents in one of the schemes -for his assassination. Oates’ evidence was long and highly coloured. -He had been sent over by the Jesuits to murder Doctor Tonge. He had -seen instructions for the murder of the Bishop of Hereford and Dr. -Stillingfleet. He had been in the thick of a scheme of Fenwick’s -contrivance to raise rebellion in Scotland and Ireland. Whitebread -had sealed commissions for the popish army under the seal of Johannes -Paulus de Oliva, general of his order. Fenwick had been present when -Coleman paid the famous guinea to quicken the message which was to be -fatal to the king. All the prisoners had been present at the consult -on April 24, 1678, when a resolution to kill the king was signed by -at least forty persons, Pickering was to have thirty thousand masses -and Grove £1500 for the deed. They had dogged the king in St. James’ -Park, and had twisted the silver bullets of their carbines that the -wound made might be incurable. Charles would infallibly have been shot -had not the flint of Pickering’s pistol been loose, and Pickering had -undergone penance of thirty lashes for his carelessness. To use their -own words, “they did intend to dispose of the duke too, in case he did -not appear vigorous in promoting the Catholic religion.”[619] To all -this there was little to be said. The prisoners put some questions to -Oates, and were in turn slightly questioned by the court. All that -appeared was that Grove had known Oates more intimately than he wished -to represent, and that the witness had borrowed from both Grove and -Fenwick money which had naturally never been repaid.[620] Fenwick -however offered to bring a document from St. Omers, under the seal of -the college and attested by unimpeachable witnesses, that Oates had -been at the seminary at the time when he swore that he was present -in London at the consult at the White Horse Tavern. This was refused -by the court without hesitation. Fenwick exclaimed bitterly that the -judges seemed to think there was no justice out of England.[621] -But in supposing that a special piece of unfairness was directed -against himself and his friends he was mistaken. It was a regular and -unbroken rule of the court that no evidence could be brought, if such -an expression may be used, from outside the trial. Such evidence as -reports of other trials, the journals of the Houses of Parliament, the -minutes of the privy council was allowed to be used on neither side. -It was one of the points in which the practice of the day pressed -hardly on the accused, but the judges could not, as Scroggs truly -said, “depart from the law or the way of trial.” The theory of the law -was that the evidence at a trial might be disproved by the defence, -or its value might be destroyed if the witness were proved not to be -competent; but neither could it be shaken by such a document as Fenwick -proposed to produce,[622] nor could evidence afterwards be called -against it to shake the credit of a witness at a previous trial. To -effect this the witness must be indicted and convicted for perjury and -the record of his conviction proved. Every trial stood by itself, and -everything alleged at it had to be proved or disproved on the spot, -either by direct evidence or by judicial records sworn at the trial to -be correct.[623] - -Bedloe was then called. He began by giving evidence of the Plot in -general, in pursuit of which he had been employed, he swore, for the -last five years to carry letters between Jesuits and monks in England, -Ireland, and France, and Sir William Godolphin and Lord Bellasis.[624] -But of the prisoners in particular he could only speak to Ireland, -Pickering, and Grove. Whitebread and Fenwick he knew by sight alone. -At the trial of Reading he confessed that this was a lie.[625] There -he explained that he would have borne witness before against the two -Jesuits had not Reading been intriguing with him at the time, and that -he kept back his evidence in order to lead the attorney deeper into the -business.[626] Not only was this admitted by the court as sufficient -justification of his conduct, but at their later trial, when Bedloe -gave decisive evidence against them, Whitebread and Fenwick hardly made -any objection to his credibility upon this ground.[627] - -One witness having failed, the prosecution attempted to supply his -place by reading a letter written to summon a father of the society -to the Jesuit congregation which the provincial had fixed for April -24. But this the Chief Justice would not permit. The letter was from -Edward Petre, afterwards confessor to James II, to William Tunstall. It -had been found with Harcourt’s papers and did not mention Whitebread’s -name at all. The contents might substantiate Oates’ evidence as to the -date of the congregation, but they could not conceivably be construed, -as the crown lawyers suggested, into evidence touching the prisoners. -Scroggs’ opposition prevented the manœuvre, and after a strong warning -to the jury he allowed the letter to be read, “to fortify the testimony -of Mr. Oates, that there is a general plot: it is not applied to any -particular person.”[628] - -It was now apparent that the crown had only one witness against the -two chief of the accused, which in a case of high treason was not -sufficient to procure a conviction. Thereupon Scroggs, with the -approval of the other judges, discharged the jury of Whitebread and -Fenwick and recommitted them to prison.[629] Six months later they -were again tried and executed for the same treason. Whitebread then -urged that he had been given in charge once, that on the insufficient -evidence he should have been acquitted, and that he ought not to be -tried again; but the whole court held without hesitation that the -objection was baseless.[630] Afterwards this decision was held up to -scorn, and has since often been condemned;[631] but it was grounded -upon good authority and supported by the general practice of the -courts.[632] - -The three remaining prisoners proceeded to make their defence. Beyond -repeated assertions of their innocence this amounted, as far as -Pickering and Grove were concerned, to little. Ireland made a better -effort. Oates had sworn that he was in London in August of the year -1678 and present at a treasonable meeting in Harcourt’s rooms.[633] The -prisoner now called evidence to contradict this. His mother and his -sister testified that he had left town on August 3 and did not return -until the middle of September. Sir John Southcot’s coachman swore that -he had been at various places in Staffordshire and on the way thither, -in company with his master, from August 5 until the third week in that -month, and another witness gave evidence that he had seen Ireland at -Wolverhampton shortly after St. Bartholomew’s day, and again on the 7th -and the 9th of September.[634] To rebut this the prosecution called a -woman who belonged to the household of Lord Arlington. She had once -been in the service of Grove, the prisoner, and had at that time seen -Ireland constantly and waited upon him with letters from her master. -She now swore positively that she had seen him in London at the time -when the king went to Windsor in August. By the evidence of Sir Thomas -Dolman this was calculated to be the 13th of the month.[635] Oates -again took the opportunity to swear that Ireland was in town on the 1st -or 2nd of September. It was an unfortunate interruption, for it formed -the perjury assigned in the indictment upon which he was convicted at -his second trial six years afterwards.[636] Only one more witness was -produced. Sir Denny Ashburnham, member of Parliament for the borough of -Hastings, was called by Ireland to testify to Oates’ character. Instead -however of damaging the informer’s credit, he came forward to say that, -although he might have had little respect for Oates’ veracity in the -days of his youth, the manifold circumstances by which his testimony -was now supported had entirely convinced him of the truth of his -statements; “and,” said he, “I do think truly that nothing can be said -against Mr. Oates to take off his credibility”;[637] which was of small -value from the point of view of the defence. - -The prisoners complained bitterly that they had been allowed neither -time nor facility to produce their witnesses. At Oates’ second trial -for perjury on May 9, 1685 there were called for the prosecution no -less than forty-five witnesses, who proved conclusively where Ireland -had been on every day but one between August 3 and September 14, -1678, the dates when he left and when he returned to London.[638] Five -months after Ireland’s execution, Whitebread, Fenwick, and Harcourt -called at their trial, to prove the same points, ten witnesses, whose -evidence covered a considerable part of the time in debate,[639] Had he -been able himself to call even those ten, not to say the whole number -afterwards collected, it can scarcely be doubted that their evidence -must have procured his acquittal and have given birth to the reaction -against Oates which every additional conviction postponed. As it was, -there were for the defence only four witnesses, two of whom were -intensely interested in the prisoner’s acquittal, against the hitherto -unshaken credit of Oates himself and the testimony of a disinterested -person called to support him. Scroggs put the point quite fairly to the -jury,[640] and the jury chose to disbelieve the prisoner’s witnesses. -The real hardship lay, not in the prejudice of the court or the violent -speech which the Chief Justice appended to his summing up of the -evidence,[641] but in the fact that the accused were kept wholly in -the dark as to the evidence which was to be produced against them. The -practice of the law, as it is still the theory,[642] made it impossible -for the accused to defend himself with certainty against the evidence -which might be brought against him. The preparation of his defence had -to be undertaken in the dark and conducted at random. - -On the same day Ireland, Pickering, and Grove received sentence of -death from Jeffreys, as Recorder of London, in a speech which wavered -between pure abuse and a sermon which would have done credit to the -most strenuous divine.[643] More than a month later Ireland and Grove -were executed at Tyburn. Had Ireland’s execution been postponed, an -insurrection was feared. Pickering was respited by the king for so -long that the indignant Commons on April 27, 1679 petitioned urgently -that the law might take its course on the man who “did remain as yet -unexecuted, to the great emboldening of such offenders, in case they -should escape without due punishment;” and on May 25 Charles sent a -message to the House by Lord Russell to say that the sentence should -have effect.[644] All three died protesting their innocence to the last. - -Round the dying vows of the fourteen men who were executed for the Plot -controversy raged hotly. To Roman Catholics their solemn denials seemed -so conclusive that they fancied the effect must be the same on others -too.[645] When it became apparent that such earnest assertion was met -with frank unbelief, they attributed the fact to the black malice -and the wicked prejudice of heretical hearts. To Protestants, on the -other hand, the protestations of the Jesuits were clearly the logical -result of their immoral doctrines. If anything, they afforded a further -confirmation of guilt. Able pamphleteers undertook to prove that -according to the principles of their order “they not only might, but -also ought to die after that manner, with solemn protestations of their -innocency.”[646] Protestant pulpits reverberated with demonstrations -that the Jesuits would not “stick at any sort of falsehood in order to -their own defence.” Good Bishop Burnet was shocked at the violence of -his brother divines and “looked always on this as an opening of their -graves, and the putting them to a second death.”[647] Few however were -of his mind, and Algernon Sidney expressed the common opinion when he -wrote to his cousin: “Those who use to extol all that relates to Rome -admire the constancy of the five priests executed the last week; but -we simple people find no more in it than that the papists, by arts -formerly unknown to mankind, have found ways of reconciling falsehood -in the utmost degree with the hopes of salvation, and at the best have -no more to brag of than that they have made men die with lies in their -mouths.”[648] Party spirit could not fail to be aroused in its most -virulent form by the speeches of the condemned men, and to seize upon -them as evidence on either side. They were, in point of fact, evidence -for neither one party nor the other. Oaths sworn in such a manner were -wholly worthless. - -As Bedloe lay on his death-bed in the autumn of 1680 he reaffirmed with -every protestation of truth, and as he hoped for salvation, the ghastly -mass of perjured evidence by which he had sworn away the lives of men. -His conscience was clear, he said, and “he should appear cheerfully -before the Lord of Hosts, which he did verily believe he must do in a -short time.”[649] Three years later the man who has been held up to -posterity as the most truthful of his age died, calling God to witness -his innocence of the treason for which he was condemned.[650] Yet Lord -Russell was a member of the Council of Six and had engaged actively in -the preparation of an extensive rebellion. He was an intimate friend of -the men who hatched the actual Rye House Plot. If he was unaware that -the king’s life was aimed at directly and indirectly, it was because -he had deliberately shut his eyes to the tendency of his own schemes -and those of his associates.[651] This must be the test of the value of -such declarations. The unbounded immorality with which the politics of -the reign of Charles II were stamped so clouded the minds of men that -truth became for them almost indistinguishable from falsehood. They had -only not reached the point of view of the native of Madras, who said -of the value of death-bed confessions: “Such evidence ought never to -be admitted in any case. What motive for telling the truth can a man -possibly have when he is at the point of death?”[652] - -Mention has already been made of the trial of Reading.[653] This -was the first of a series of important cases which were conducted -in the course of the ensuing year. Briefly, they were trials of -Roman Catholics for fraudulent endeavours, in the words of the time, -to stifle the Plot. Not to speak of the notorious Meal Tub Plot, -the most determined and unscrupulous effort of the Roman Catholic -party to remove the accusation of treason from themselves to their -opponents,[654] there may be noticed four distinct attempts to impair -by fraudulent and criminal means the evidence offered for the crown. -As early as February 1679 information was laid before a committee of -the privy council that an Englishman named Russell, who belonged to the -household of the French ambassador, had endeavoured to suborn witnesses -to invalidate the credit of Oates and Bedloe, and had offered the sum -of £500 for the purpose. The council addressed to the ambassador a -request for the delivery of the accused to stand his trial; but the -case did not come into court, probably because Russell had either -absconded or been shipped abroad.[655] The incident was kept secret -and produced no consequences. But within twelve months three other -attempts of the same nature were proved against Roman Catholic agents -and exercised a considerable influence against their party. The trials -of Reading for a trespass and misdemeanour, of Knox and Lane for a -misdemeanour, and of Tasborough and Price for subornation of perjury -must not be overlooked in forming a judgment on the events of which the -courts of justice were the chief scene. - -Nathaniel Reading was a Protestant attorney of some standing in his -profession. Thirty years before he had been secretary to Massaniello -in the insurrection at Naples, and was now living in London and -enjoying a fair practice. He had been the friend and legal adviser -of Lord Stafford for several years, numbered other gentlemen of title -and repute among his acquaintance, and was of a position to receive -an invitation to dinner from the Lieutenant of the Tower when he went -to visit his client in prison.[656] During the Hilary term of 1679 -he had been engaged in procuring the discharge on bail of several -prisoners for the Plot, and had gone by leave of the secret committee -of the House of Lords to advise the lords imprisoned in the Tower on -the like subjects. In the course of his negotiations for them he had -become acquainted with Oates and Bedloe, and acted as counsel for the -latter in obtaining his pardon from the king. Bedloe was constantly -in his company, and the two talked frequently of the nature of the -Plot and the witness’ charges against the prisoners.[657] In public -Reading exhorted Bedloe to reveal all his knowledge and bring the -guilty to justice, but in private conversation suggested that it -might be profitable to reduce his evidence against certain of those -incriminated. The plot was blown to the winds, the king’s life out -of danger, Bedloe would be able to feather his own nest, and no harm -would be done. Bedloe promised to consider the matter and, as earnest -of his good intentions, withdrew his evidence against Whitebread and -Fenwick.[658] At the same time he carried the news of the intrigue -to the committee of secrecy. Prince Rupert, the Earl of Essex, and -Mr. Speke[659] were informed of the business, and Bedloe was advised -to continue his negotiation in the hope of extracting something of -importance. Reading had in the meantime gone to the lords in the Tower -and brought from them promises of ample reward if Bedloe would consent -to save them. A meeting was appointed for March 29, to make the final -arrangements.[660] Before Reading appeared, Speke and another witness -were hidden in the room in such a position that they could overhear -every word which passed between the two men. They heard Bedloe ask, -“What say my lords in the Tower now?” Reading replied that Lord -Stafford had promised to settle an estate in Gloucestershire on the -informer, and that he had orders to draw up a deed to that effect and -sign it ten days after Lord Stafford’s discharge from prison. The Earl -of Powis, Lord Petre, and Sir Henry Tichbourne also promised rewards if -Bedloe would procure their acquittal. Bedloe then drew up an abstract -of his evidence against the lords, and Speke saw Reading take the -paper to deliver to them in the Tower. Two days later the attorney met -Bedloe by appointment in the Painted Chamber at Westminster and gave -him in answer to this a corrected version of the evidence which the -accused had drawn up for his actual use at their trials. Bedloe without -looking at the paper handed it at once to Mr. Speke, who carried it to -a committee room in the House of Lords for examination.[661] This paper -was read in court, and proved to contain an amended version of Bedloe’s -testimony so vague and slight that it could not have possibly been of -any use to the prosecution.[662] - -Reading’s defence was sufficiently feeble. He was treated by the -bench with the greatest indulgence and allowed to make a lengthy and -unsupported discourse on Bedloe’s character. It is noteworthy that he -objected to the witness not on the ground that he had perjured himself -in holding back evidence at the trial of Whitebread, Fenwick, and -Ireland, but on account of treasonable practices, which were covered -by his pardon. He protested that the first proposal of the intrigue -came from Bedloe, and that he only joined in it to prevent the shedding -of innocent blood. The estate in Gloucestershire spoken of had been -promised by Lord Stafford to himself, if he obtained his acquittal, -and not to Bedloe, though hardly it seemed without the understanding -that the informer was to have some share in it. He would have thought -it a crime not to engage in the business; it was a duty which he owed -to God and his country. By saying this he practically confessed to the -whole indictment, and after a concise summing up the jury immediately -returned a verdict of guilty. Reading was sentenced to be pilloried, to -pay a fine of £1000, and to imprisonment for one year.[663] - -The case of Knox and Lane was a still more disreputable affair. Thomas -Knox was in the service of Lord Dumblane, the Earl of Danby’s son. John -Lane and one William Osborne were servants to Titus Oates. These two -were discharged by Oates in April 1679, Lane, who had some acquaintance -with Dangerfield, was lodged by him and Mrs. Cellier under an assumed -name at the house of the Countess of Powis.[664] At Dangerfield’s -suggestion they approached Knox on the subject of the charges which -Oates had made against the Lord Treasurer.[665] Knox agreed to their -suggestion, and together they arranged the details of the scheme. -Osborne and Knox lodged information that Oates had conspired with -Bedloe to bring false accusations against Lord Danby, while Lane -charged his master with using obscene language concerning the king and -with the commission of an unnatural crime. But under examination Knox -and Lane broke down, and all three were driven to confess that there -was not a word of truth in the story which they had concocted. Osborne -fled the country, and his two accomplices were clapped into gaol. News -however was brought to Lane as he lay in prison that Knox was prepared -to stand by his original story. He forthwith retracted his confession, -and on November 19, 1679 indictment was brought against Oates “for an -attempt to commit upon him the horrid and abominable sin of sodomy.” -The grand jury ignored the bill, and a week later the two miscreants -were brought to the king’s bench bar on the charge of “a conspiracy to -defame and scandalise Dr. Oates and Mr. Bedloe; thereby to discredit -their evidence about the horrid Popish Plot.” After a long trial, in -which the defendants were treated with all fairness and in which each -attempted to throw the blame on the other, the jury returned a verdict -of guilty without leaving the bar. The prisoners were sentenced to -fine and imprisonment, and Lane in addition to stand for an hour in -the pillory. The verdict was received with a shout of applause, “many -noblemen, gentlemen, and eminent citizens,” adds the account which was -drawn up under Oates’ direction, “coming with great expectations of the -issue of this trial, which was managed with that justice, impartiality, -and indifference between the king and the defendants, that some have -been heard to say they could never believe a plot before, but now they -were abundantly satisfied.”[666] - -The labyrinthine nature of the intrigues connected with the Popish Plot -is amply illustrated by these two trials. The third case presents less -intricacy, but no less dishonesty. In January 1680 John Tasborough and -Anne Price were tried for subornation of perjury in having offered a -bribe to the informer Dugdale to retract the evidence which he had -given at the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, and Fenwick. Mrs. Price -had been a fellow-servant with Dugdale in the household of the Roman -Catholic peer, Lord Aston. On the night before the trial of the five -Jesuits[667] she came to him and begged him not to give evidence -against Father Harcourt, who was her confessor. When the trial was over -she renewed her solicitations, offering him the reward of £1000 and the -Duke of York’s protection if he would recant what he had then sworn. -Dugdale was introduced to Tasborough, a gentleman belonging to the -duke’s household.[668] Meetings were held at the Green Lettice Tavern -in Brownlow Street and at the Pheasant Inn in Fullers-rents. Tasborough -confirmed the promises made by Mrs. Price. The informer was to sign -a declaration that all his evidence had been false, to receive £1000 -in cash, and to be maintained abroad by the Duke of York. The name -of the Spanish ambassador was also mentioned. But Dugdale, as Bedloe -before him, had secreted witnesses at these interviews. The intriguers -were arrested, and the whole story was proved beyond the possibility -of doubt at their trial.[669] Tasborough was sentenced to the fine of -£100, Price to the fine of twice that sum. All parties at the trial -were at considerable pains to exonerate the Duke of York. There was -in fact no direct evidence against him; but it is improbable that the -culprits had been using his name entirely without authority. They must -have known that Dugdale would not put his name to the recantation -without substantial guarantee for the reward, and certainly neither was -in a position to pay any sufficient part of the sum mentioned from his -own resources. - -The evidence which Dugdale should have retracted was considerable. His -reputation was still undamaged. He had been steward of Lord Aston’s -estate at Tixhall, in Staffordshire, was thought to have enjoyed a -fair reputation in the county, and to have been imprisoned in the -first instance for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance and -supremacy.[670] Although he had laid information before the privy -council as early as December 1678, it was not until the trial of the -Five Jesuits[671] on June 13 of the year following that he appeared -in court. The case for the prosecution was opened, as usual, with the -evidence of Oates, He reaffirmed the story which he had told at the -trial of Whitebread, Fenwick, and Ireland, and gave similar evidence -against Harcourt, Gavan, and Turner. Dugdale was then called. He -swore to treasonable consults held at Tixhall in September 1678, -where Gavan and Turner were present, to treasonable letters between -Whitebread, Harcourt, and others, and to a letter dispatched from -London by Harcourt on October 20, 1678, addressed to Evers, another -Jesuit, and containing the words “This night Sir Edmond Bury Godfrey -is dispatched.”[672] The death of the king was to be laid at the door -of the Presbyterian party. A general massacre of Protestants was to -follow, “and if any did escape that they could not be sure of were -papists, they were to have an army to cut them off.”[673] Bedloe -followed with the evidence which he had before suppressed against -Whitebread and Fenwick, and swore similarly to the treason of Harcourt. -Some trifling evidence from Prance closed the first part of the case -for the crown.[674] But almost more important than the oral testimony -were two letters which were read in court. The one was a note from -Edward Petre, containing a summons to the congregation fixed for April -24, 1678; the other a letter from Christopher Anderton, dated from -Rome, February 5, 1679, in which occurred the following sentences: “We -are all here very glad of the promotion of Mr. Thomas Harcourt; when I -writ that the patents were sent, although I guess for whom they were, -yet I know not for certain, because our patrons do not use to discover -things or resolutions till they know they have effect. And therefore -in these kind of matters I dare not be too hasty, lest some might say, -a fool’s bolt is soon shot.” Both had been found among Harcourt’s -papers several days after Oates was examined by the privy council.[675] -They seemed to confirm his evidence in a remarkable manner. He had -constantly spoken of the Jesuit design; the former of the letters -contained the same word and enjoined secrecy on the subject. The -latter seemed to refer to the patents which Oates had declared were -sent to the commanders of the popish army. The prisoners explained -that the “design” of the congregation was but to settle the business -of their order and to choose a procurator to undertake its management -at Rome. As for the patents, Anderton had meant to say _Literae -Patentes_, and referred only to Harcourt’s patent as new provincial. -_Literae Patentes_, contended the court, when used in reference to one -person, meant a patent; but when the phrase was translated patents, it -necessarily pointed at more than one. Oates, said the Chief Justice, -interpreted the matter more plainly than the accused.[676] - -The Jesuits proceeded to make their defence. Sixteen witnesses were -called to prove that Oates had been at St. Omers from December 1677 -to June 1678, and had not left the college at the time when he -swore that he was present at the consult in London. This was the -perjury upon which he was convicted at his first trial in 1685. Five -witnesses were called to testify that Gavan had not been in town in -April 1678; ten, that Ireland had been in the country in August and -September of the same year. Very similar evidence to that now given -was accepted six years later by the court to substantiate the charge -against Oates, but at the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, and Fenwick -it was disbelieved. The witnesses were examined in detail and gave an -elaborate account of the life at the seminary. But the story which they -told was not altogether satisfactory. Under examination they shuffled -and prevaricated. Sometimes they contradicted one another on points of -time. They came prepared to speak to the date of the consult and the -time immediately before and after it. When questions were put about -dates less closely concerned, they seemed unwilling to answer. One, -who declared that he had left Oates at St. Omers on taking leave for -England to go to the congregation, was confounded when Oates reminded -him that he had lost his money at Calais and had been compelled to -borrow from a friend. Another confused the old and new styles. A -third stated that whenever a scholar left the college the fact could -not but be known to all his fellows. He was immediately contradicted -by Gavan, who said that care was taken that the comings and goings -of the seminarists should be unnoticed.[677] A rumour was spread -abroad that witnesses had been tutored, and was repeated by Algernon -Sidney in a letter to Paris.[678] For once rumour was not at variance -with truth. Sidney’s information was perfectly correct. Three of the -lads from St. Omers were arrested on their arrival in London by Sir -William Waller, and their examinations were forwarded by him to the -secret committee of the House of Commons. One of these was Christopher -Townley, alias Madgworth, alias Sands, who had been a student in the -seminary for six years. He admitted that “his instructions from the -superior was to come over and swear that Mr. Oates was but once from -the college at St. Omers, from December 1677 to June following.” Of -his own knowledge he could say no more than that he had been in the -seminary all the time during which Oates was there; “the said Mr. Oates -might be absent from St. Omers in that time for several days and at -several times, but not absent above one week at a time, this examinant -being lodged in the college where Mr. Oates was, but did not see him -daily.”[679] At the trial he did not scruple to say that he had seen -and talked with Oates on every day throughout April and May and that, -if Oates had ever been absent, he must certainly have known it.[680] -Nor was this all. At his examination he deposed that Parry, Palmer, -and Gifford were all absent from St. Omers while Oates was an inmate -of the college. At the trial Gifford, Palmer, and Parry were produced -to give evidence of their personal knowledge that Oates had been there -the whole of the time.[681] No credence whatever can be given to such -witnesses. It is worthy of remark that they were housed and entertained -by no other than Mrs. Cellier, who was afterwards deeply concerned -both in the Meal Tub Plot and in the case of Knox and Lane, and was -pilloried for an atrocious libel in connection with the murder of Sir -Edmund Berry Godfrey.[682] No doubt can exist on the subject of Oates’ -repeated and astounding perjuries. It is as little open to doubt -that the witnesses who were opposed to him at this trial were almost -equally untrustworthy. They were in fact very cleverly parroted. If his -infamy remains undisturbed, the unctuous indignation with which it was -denounced by the Jesuits, at the very moment when they were employing -means as unhallowed as his own to controvert his statements, at least -entitles them to a place by his side in the pillory of history. - -Even at this point the false evidence given at this terrible trial -was not ended. The crown produced seven witnesses to prove that Oates -had been in London at the end of April and the beginning of May 1678. -Of these the only two who gave evidence of any weight were Smith, -who had been Oates’ master at Merchant Tailors’ School, and Clay, a -disreputable Dominican friar, whom Oates had taken out of prison. Both -were afterwards proved to have been suborned by Oates and to have -perjured themselves.[683] - -The Jesuits concluded their defence with speeches of real eloquence. -Scroggs summed up the evidence in an elaborate speech and strongly -in favour of the crown; and after a quarter of an hour’s absence -the jury returned to court with a verdict of guilty against all the -prisoners.[684] - -On the next day Richard Langhorn was indicted at the Old Bailey for -practically the same treason as that for which the Five Jesuits were -convicted. Langhorn was a Roman Catholic barrister of considerable -eminence.[685] He was the legal adviser of the Jesuits, and -conducted for them much business which would now more naturally -pass through the hands of a solicitor. Oates consequently named him -as an active agent in the Plot and prospective advocate-general -under the new government.[686] His trial was a continuation of the -trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, and Fenwick, and exhibited all the -same characteristics, of perjury on the one side, on the other of -prevarication and falsehood. The same evidence was developed at -length, and with the same result. Two fresh points of importance alone -occurred. To Oates’ great alarm the hostess of the White Horse Tavern -in the Strand was called by the defence. Oates had sworn that as many -as eighteen or twenty Jesuits had met together there in one room at the -congregation of April 24. The woman now declared that no room in her -house would hold more than a dozen persons at the same time, and that -when a parish jury had once met there the jurors had been compelled -for want of space to separate into three rooms. This would undoubtedly -have produced an effect, had not three of the spectators in court -immediately risen to swear that there were two rooms in the inn which -were large enough to hold from twenty to thirty people without crowding -them unduly. An unfavourable impression concerning the evidence for -the defence was created, and the king’s counsel was able to score an -effective point.[687] - -Of greater weight than this was a portion of Bedloe’s evidence. He -swore that he went one day with Coleman to Langhorn’s chambers in the -Temple, and from the outer room saw the lawyer transcribing various -treasonable letters brought by Coleman into a register at a desk in his -study within.[688] The nature of cross-examination was so imperfectly -understood at the time that Langhorn did not attempt to question the -witness on the shape of his rooms or to shake his credit by calling -evidence to the point. In his memoirs, which were published in the -course of the same year, he wrote the following comment on Bedloe’s -statement: “Every person who knows my said chamber and the situation -of my study cannot but know that it is impossible to look out of my -chamber into my study so as to see any one writing there, and that I -never had at any time any desk in my study.”[689] This was supported -by other evidence. When Oates and Bedloe exhibited in 1680 “articles -of high misdemeanours” against Scroggs before the privy council, they -charged him in one that at the previous Monmouth assizes he “did say to -Mr. William Bedloe that he did believe in his conscience that Richard -Langhorn, whom he condemned, died wrongfully.” To which the Chief -Justice answered “that at Monmouth assizes he did tell Mr. Bedloe that -he was more unsatisfied about Mr. Langhorn’s trial than all the rest; -and the rather, that he was credibly informed, since the trial, that -Mr. Langhorn’s study was so situated that he that walked in his chamber -could not see Mr. Langhorn write in his study; which was Mr. Bedloe’s -evidence.”[690] - -This was not the first incident which shook the credit of the witnesses -in the Chief Justice’s mind. He had in the meantime received a still -more striking proof of their worthlessness. On July 18, four days -after the execution of Langhorn and nearly a month after that of the -Five Jesuits, Sir George Wakeman, in company with three Benedictines, -was brought to trial at the Old Bailey. Wakeman was accused of having -bargained with the Jesuits for £15,000 to poison the king. The other -three were charged with being concerned in the Plot in various degrees. -Feeling had run so high after the last two trials that the case was -postponed from the end of June for nearly three weeks, that it might -have time to cool.[691] Interests were at stake which had not been -present in the previous trials. In November of the year before, Oates -and Bedloe had accused the queen of high treason, and Oates had sworn -that Sir George Wakeman, who was her physician, had received from -her a letter consenting to the king’s death.[692] The queen was now -implicated with Wakeman, and the trial was regarded as the prelude to -an attack on herself.[693] - -Before the crown lawyers opened the direct attack, witnesses were, -as usual, produced to testify to the reality of the plot. Prance and -Dugdale reaffirmed their previous evidence, and Jennison, himself the -brother of a Jesuit, swore that he had met Ireland in London on August -19, 1678, thus proving to the satisfaction of the court that Ireland -had died with a lie in his mouth.[694] The prosecution then came to the -prisoners. Oates told again the story how he had heard the queen at a -meeting at Somerset House consent formally to the plot for murdering -the king, and swore that he had seen a letter from Wakeman to the -Jesuit Ashby, which was occupied chiefly with a prescription for the -latter during his stay at Bath, but mentioned incidentally that the -queen had given her approval to the scheme. He had also seen an entry -in Langhorn’s register of the payment of £5000 made by Coleman as a -third part of Wakeman’s fee and a receipt for it signed by Wakeman -himself.[695] Bedloe gave evidence which would prove equally the guilt -of the queen and her physician, and both swore to the treasonable -practices of the other prisoners.[696] To rebut this, Wakeman produced -evidence to prove that he had not written the letter for Ashby himself, -but had dictated it to his servant Hunt. The letter was addressed to -Chapman, an apothecary at Bath, who read it and then tore off and kept -the part containing the prescription. Hunt proved that the letter was -in his handwriting and was corroborated by another servant in Wakeman’s -household. Chapman proved that the body of the letter was in the same -handwriting as the prescription, that it contained nothing about the -queen or any plan for the king’s murder, and that Oates had given an -entirely inaccurate account of the prescription, which was so far from -ordering a milk diet, as Oates had sworn that milk would have been -not far removed from poison for a patient who was drinking the waters -at Bath. Scroggs was afterwards accused of having grossly favoured the -prisoner in order to curry favour at court; but the manner in which -this evidence was received is an absolute proof to the contrary. The -bench held, in a way that now excites surprise, but at the time did -not, that Oates had meant that the milk diet was prescribed for Ashby -before he went to Bath, and was therefore not at all inconsistent -with drinking the waters while he was there; and that Wakeman might -easily have written two letters on the same subject. No doubt, said -the judges, the witnesses for the defence spoke the truth. What had -happened was that Sir George had dictated one letter, which consisted -of nothing but medical directions, and of which the apothecary and the -other witnesses spoke; but he must certainly have written another, -containing the treasonable words to which Oates swore. The court -treated the matter as if this were beyond a doubt. To the prisoner’s -objection that he was unlikely to have written two letters to convey -the same instructions, Mr. Justice Pemberton replied, “This might be -writ to serve a turn very well”; and Scroggs closed the discussion by -remarking, “This your witnesses say, and you urge, is true, but not -pertinent.”[697] Shortly before Wakeman turned to his fellow-prisoners -and said, “There is my business done.” He knew that in all human -probability he would be condemned. Suddenly, without any warning, -there occurred the most unexpected event, which, in a dramatic moment -unsurpassed by the most famous in history, shattered the credit of -Oates and produced the first acquittal in the trials for the Popish -Plot.[698] Sir Philip Lloyd, clerk to the privy council, was asked to -state with what Oates had charged the prisoner at his examination -before the council. The evidence deserves to be given in Sir Philip’s -own words: “It was upon the 31st of September,” he stated; “Mr. Oates -did then say he had seen a letter, to the best of his remembrance, from -Mr. White to Mr. Fenwick at St. Omers, in which letter he writ word -that Sir George Wakeman had undertaken the poisoning of the king, and -was to have £15,000 for it; of which £5000 had been paid him by the -hands of Coleman. Sir George Wakeman, upon this, was called in and told -of this accusation; he utterly denied all, and did indeed carry himself -as if he were not concerned at the accusation, but did tell the king -and council he hoped he should have reparation and satisfaction for -the injury done to his honour. His carriage was not well liked of by -the king and council, and being a matter of such consequence as this -was, they were willing to know further of it; and because they thought -this evidence was not proof enough to give them occasion to commit him, -being only out of a letter of a third person, thereupon they called in -Mr. Oates again, and my Lord Chancellor desired Mr. Oates to tell him -if he knew nothing personally of Sir George Wakeman, because they were -in a matter of moment, and desired sufficient proof whereupon to ground -an indictment; Mr. Oates, when he did come in again and was asked the -question, did lift up his hands (for I must tell the truth, let it be -what it will) and said, ‘No, God forbid that I should say anything -against Sir George Wakeman, for I know nothing more against him.’ And I -refer myself to the whole council whether it is not so.” - -Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane Hill, marching against Macbeth, or -the duke uncloaking to Angelo could not create a greater sensation. “My -lord,” cried Sir George Wakeman, “this is a Protestant witness too.” -Oates began to bluster. He remembered nothing of all this. He did not -believe that any such question was asked him at the council board. -If there had been, he was in such a state of exhaustion after being -deprived of his rest for two nights in succession that he was not in a -condition to answer anything. “What,” returned Scroggs, “must we be -amused with I know not what for being up but two nights?... What, was -Mr. Oates just so spent that he could not say, I have seen a letter -under Sir George Wakeman’s own hand?” The informer swore that to his -best belief he had spoken of the letter; or if he had not, he believed -Sir Philip Lloyd was mistaken; or if not that, he was so weak that -he was unable to say or do anything. Then he completely lost control -of himself and broke out recklessly: “To speak the truth, they were -such a council as would commit nobody.” “That was not well said,” put -in Jeffreys quickly. “He reflects on the king and all the council,” -cried Wakeman. At this the wrath of the Chief Justice burst out on the -perjured miscreant. “You have taken a great confidence,” he thundered, -“I know not by what authority, to say anything of anybody”; and -becoming more grave, pointed out the decisive importance of what had -been proved against him, Oates did not open his mouth again during the -rest of the trial.[699] - -The case still dragged on its weary length. Numerous other witnesses -were called to prove and disprove points of varying importance and -connection with the matter at issue. All the prisoners against whom -Oates and Bedloe had sworn made long speeches and discoursed on a -hundred irrelevant topics. Marshal, the Benedictine, lectured the court -and delivered an impassioned harangue on the injustice of the English -nation and on the future state. He was stopped and, beginning again, -drew down on himself from Scroggs a violent rebuke in which he declared -his belief that it was possible for an atheist to be a papist, but -hardly for a knowing Christian to be a Christian and a papist. When the -heated wrangle which followed was ended, the Chief Justice summed up, -setting the evidence on both sides in a clear light and pointing out -where its strength lay against the prisoners, but plainly intimating -his opinion that the revelation made by Sir Philip Lloyd went far to -invalidate Oates’ testimony. As the jury were leaving the box Bedloe -broke in: “My lord, my evidence is not right summed up.” “I know not -by what authority this man speaks,” said Scroggs sternly. After the -absence of about an hour the jury returned. Might they, they asked, -find the prisoners guilty of misprision of treason? “No,” replied -Jeffreys, the Recorder, “you must either convict them of high treason -or acquit them.” “Then take a verdict,” said the foreman; and returned -a verdict of not guilty for all the prisoners. - -Scarcely was the trial over when a storm broke upon the head of the -Lord Chief Justice. He had already earned the hatred of the ferocious -London mob by accepting bail for Mr. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane, who -were in prison on account of the Plot.[700] Now the feeling against -him amounted to positive fury. Sir George Wakeman, after visiting -the queen at Windsor, fled the country to escape the effects of the -popular rage.[701] Scroggs stood his ground. The London presses -teemed with pamphlets against him. _Some observations upon the late -trials of Sir George Wakeman_, etc., by Tom Ticklefoot; _The Tickler -Tickled_; _A New Year’s Gift for the Lord Chief in Justice_ are among -those which deserve to be remembered for their especial virulence. -The Portuguese ambassador had the egregious folly to call publicly -upon Scroggs the day after the trial and to thank him for his conduct -of the case.[702] It was immediately said that the Chief Justice had -been bribed. A barrel packed with gold had been sent to him. “Great -store of money” had been scattered about. The jury had been bribed. -A good jury had been impanelled, but was never summoned, and a set -of rascals was chosen in its place.[703] When Scroggs went on circuit -for the autumn assizes he was met in the provinces with cries of—A -Wakeman, a Wakeman; and at one place a half-dead dog was thrown into -his coach.[704] Early in the year following Oates and Bedloe exhibited -thirteen articles against the Chief Justice before the privy council, -and Oates declared that “he believed he should be able to prove that -my Lord Chief Justice danced naked.” On January 21 Scroggs justified -himself in a set reply of great skill and wit, and the informers met -with a severe rebuff.[705] His other traducers were treated with no -greater courtesy. At the opening of the courts for the Michaelmas term -of 1679 Scroggs made an able speech of eloquence, distinction, and -almost sobriety, in which he grounded his belief in the Plot on the -correspondence of Coleman and Harcourt and vindicated the integrity of -the judicial honour; and on May 20, 1680 one Richard Radley was fined -£200 for saying that the Chief Justice had “received money enough from -Dr. Wakeman for his acquittal.”[706] In September 1679 he was received -with great favour at the court at Windsor and in December caused horrid -embarrassment to Lord Shaftesbury and several other Whig noblemen, -whom he met at dinner with the Lord Mayor, by proposing the health of -the Duke of York and justifying his own conduct on the bench.[707] In -January 1681 he was impeached by the Commons. When the articles of his -impeachment were brought up to the House of Lords he was treated, to -the indignation of the Whig party, with great consideration and favour; -but although the lords refused even to put the question “whether there -shall now be an address to the king to suspend Sir William Scroggs from -the execution of his place until his trial be over?” he was absent -from court at the beginning of the Hilary term, and did not take his -place upon the bench during the rest of the term.[708] Three days after -the opening of the Oxford parliament Scroggs put in his answer to the -impeachment. He denied the truth of the articles exhibited against -him severally, and insisted that the nature of the facts alleged in -them was not such as could legally be made the ground for a charge -of high treason. He prayed the king for a speedy trial.[709] Copies -of his answer and petition were sent to the House of Commons, but -before further proceedings could be taken Parliament was dissolved on -March 28, and the impeachment was blown to the winds in company with -other Whig measures of greater importance and still less good repute. -The Chief Justice was not left long in the enjoyment of his triumph. -In April 1681 Charles removed him from the bench and appointed Sir -Francis Pemberton to be Chief Justice in his place. The move was no -doubt directed by the approaching trial of Fitzharris. For this was -undertaken in the teeth of the bitter opposition of the Whig party, and -it was expedient that a man who was already odious to Shaftesbury’s -adherents should not endanger the success of the crown by his presence -on the bench on so important an occasion. The late Chief Justice was -compensated by an annual pension of £1500 and the appointment of his -son to be one of “his Majesty’s counsel learned in the law.”[710] - -Sir William Scroggs, Chief Justice of the court of king’s bench, was a -man of a type not uncommon in the seventeenth century. He was vulgar -and profligate, a great winebibber, stained by coarse habits and the -ignorant prejudices common to all of his day but the most temperate -and learned, but a man of wit, shrewdness, strong character, and -master of the talents which were necessary to secure success in the -legal profession as it then was.[711] The prominent position into -which he was brought by the trials for the Popish Plot has earned for -him a reputation for evil second in the history of the English law -courts only to that of Jeffreys. He has been accused of cowardice, -cruelty, time-service, of allowing his actions on the bench to be -swayed by party spirit, and of using his position with gross injustice -to secure the conviction of men who were obnoxious to the popular -sentiment. These charges cannot be substantiated. When the evidence -of interested partisans by whom he was lauded or abused is stripped -away, they rest on two grounds: the fact that he presided at trials -where men were condemned for the Popish Plot, and at one where men were -acquitted of similar charges; and the nature of his speeches in court -at those trials. It was said that he obtained the acquittal of Sir -George Wakeman because he realised that the king “had an ill opinion” -of the Plot, and because he had been told that the popular leaders -had no support at court; and that he had taken an opposite course at -the previous trials because he believed the contrary to be true.[712] -These statements have passed for truth ever since they were made, and -have been repeated by one writer after another. They were in fact -feeble attempts to explain what their authors did not understand. They -are contradicted not only by the statements of other contemporaries, -which are of small weight, but by the whole course of the Lord Chief -Justice’s action and the circumstances by which he was surrounded. -From the very outbreak of the Popish Plot it was notorious in official -circles that the king discredited the evidence offered by the -informers.[713] It is absurd to suppose that Scroggs was ignorant of -the fact. If anything, Charles was rather more inclined to believe in -the Plot in the spring of 1679 than on Oates’ first revelations.[714] -No judge could possibly have expected to gain favour at court by an -exhibition on the bench of zeal which was directed against the court. -Still more absurd is it to suppose that a man in the position of the -Lord Chief Justice should have imagined that the Earl of Shaftesbury -exercised a favoured influence over the king’s mind. Nor does Scroggs’ -conduct on the bench afford good ground for these accusations. His -behaviour in the test case, the trial of Sir George Wakeman, was -exactly the same as it had been in all the previous trials, and exactly -the same as it was at the later trials over which he presided, whether -they were of priests charged with treason on account of their orders, -of persons charged with treason in the Plot, or for offences of a less -high character.[715] It is scarcely surprising to hear that after the -attack made on him by Oates and Bedloe, “whensoever either of them have -appeared before him, he has frowned upon them, spoke very frowardly -to them and reflected much upon them.”[716] Nevertheless he treated -their evidence quite fairly. The rule was that only a conviction of -perjury could disqualify a witness, and Scroggs enforced it without -prejudice.[717] Throughout he had the entire support of the other -judges, and not least that of Chief Justice North.[718] His mind was -filled, equally with theirs, with the fear and horror of popery, and as -the chief part of the speaking fell to his lot he expressed this more -often and more emphatically than his brethren. But he made up his mind -on the merits of each case in accordance with the evidence which was -then given and with the stringent and unjust rules of procedure which -had been handed down to him. Scroggs was neither a judge of remarkable -merit nor a lawyer of learning, but on the evidence which was brought -before him, and which was not then, as it would be now, rendered -incredible by its own character, he did in a rough manner sound justice. - -For the violence and brutality of his speeches there can be no more -excuse than for the coarseness and violence of all speech and action -in the age in which he lived. But his words must not be judged alone, -nor must his manner of speech be considered peculiar. Language in the -latter half of the seventeenth century was harsh and exaggerated to a -degree hardly comprehended to-day. Scroggs constantly launched forth -into tirades against the Roman Catholic religion, full of heated abuse. -Sometimes he attributed to the Jesuits, at others to all papists, -the bloody, inhuman, abominable doctrine that murder, regicide, and -massacre were lawful in the cause of religion. “Such courses as these,” -he declared, “we have not known in England till it was brought out -of their Catholic countries; what belongs to secret stranglings and -poisonings are strange to us, though common in Italy.”[719] He told -Coleman, “No man of understanding, but for by-ends, would have left -his religion to be a papist.... Such are the wicked solecisms in -their religion, that they seem to have left them neither natural sense -nor natural conscience: not natural sense, by their absurdity in so -unreasonable a belief as of the wine turned into blood; not conscience, -by their cruelty, who make the Protestants’ blood as wine, and these -priests thirst after it; Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum?”[720] -The onslaught on Ireland, Pickering, and Grove was still more virulent: -“I would not asperse a profession of men, as priests are, with hard -words, if they were not very true, and if at this time it were not very -necessary. If they had not murdered kings, I would not say they would -have done ours. But when it hath been their practice so to do; when -they have debauched men’s understandings, overturned all morals, and -destroyed all divinity, what shall I say of them? When their humility -is such that they tread upon the necks of emperors; their charity such -as to kill princes, and their vow of poverty such as to covet kingdoms, -what shall I say to them?... This is a religion that quite unhinges -all piety, all morality, and all conversation, and to be abominated -by all mankind.”[721] Yet Scroggs’ language was no stronger than -that of his brothers on the bench. Jeffreys in sentencing Ireland, -Wild in sentencing Green, Jones in sentencing Tasborough attained an -exactly similar style. At the trial of Penn and Mead in 1670 the court -was at least equally ill-mouthed, and nothing ever heard in a court -of justice surpassed the torrents of venomous abuse which Coke, as -Attorney-General, poured upon the head of Raleigh at his trial in 1603. -One fact in judicial procedure exercised an immense influence on the -nature of speeches from the bench. The judges took no notes.[722] In -summing up the evidence they relied solely upon memories developed for -this purpose to an extent which seems almost marvellous. But another -result besides this remarkable mental training was that in his summing -up the judge had no set form by which to direct himself. There was not -the constraint which comes from the necessity of following a definite -guide on prosaic slips of paper. It followed that the whole of this -part of his work was far more loose and undefined than it has come to -be since the additional burden of taking notes has been imposed. Not -only could he, but it was natural that he should, break off from the -course of the evidence to interpose comments more or less connected -with it; and in the days of little learning and violent religious -prejudice, the judge’s comment was likely to take the form of abuse of -the creed which he did not profess. - -Men of the seventeenth century habitually expressed their thoughts with -a coarseness which is disgusting to the modern mind. A man named Keach, -who had taught that infants ought not to be baptized, was indicted for -“maliciously writing and publishing a seditious and venomous book, -wherein are contained damnable positions contrary to the book of common -prayer.”[723] At his speech at the opening of Parliament in 1679 Lord -Chancellor Finch likened the Roman Catholic priests and their pupils to -“the Sons of Darkness,” and declared that “the very shame and reproach -which attends such abominable practices hath covered so many faces with -new and strange confusions, that it hath proved a powerful argument -for their conversion; nor is it to be wondered at that they could no -longer believe all that to be Gospel which their priests taught them, -when they saw the way and means of introducing it was so far from being -Evangelical.”[724] Other parties were equally violent; and on two -separate occasions Shaftesbury swore that he would have the lives of -the men who had advised the king to measures obnoxious to his party. -The most notorious of all Scroggs’ utterances, an acrid sneer at the -doctrine of transubstantiation: “They eat their God, they kill their -king, and saint the murderer,” is paralleled almost exactly by Dryden’s -couplet: - - Such savoury deities must needs be good. - As served at once for worship and for food;[725] - -and Dryden, who at this time belonged to the court and high church -party, became within five years himself a Roman Catholic. The whole -literature of the time bears witness to the fact that such language -was scarcely beyond the ordinary. It was a convention of the age and -must be accepted as such. There would be no greater mistake than to -attribute to words of the sort too great an influence on action. The -results which attended them were unimportant. Of all Chief Justice -Scroggs’ harangues the most consistently brutal and offensive was that -directed at Marshal, at the trial of Sir George Wakeman.[726] Yet it -was followed immediately by a fair summing up and the acquittal of the -prisoners. - -Only one other case demands attention in this review of the trials -for the Popish Plot. The trial of Elizabeth Cellier for high treason -belongs rather to the history of the Meal Tub Plot; those of Sir Thomas -Gascoigne, Sir Miles Stapleton, Thwing, and Pressicks to the provincial -history of the Plot; that of Archbishop Plunket to its history in -Ireland. The acquittal of Lord Castlemaine is chiefly important as -an episode in the infamous career of Dangerfield, the informer. The -proceedings against Fitzharris belong rather to the history of Whig -conspiracy against the crown, the transition to which they mark.[727] -But the trial of Lord Stafford calls for more lengthy notice. It was -the last of the treason trials for the main Popish Plot, and ranks in -importance with the weightiest of those which went before. More than -two years had now elapsed since the beginning of the ferment caused -by the Plot. During that time it had exercised a magic over men’s -minds. This influence was now suffering a decline. The acquittals of -Wakeman, Lord Castlemaine, and Sir Thomas Gascoigne had wrought the mob -to fury against the court and the Roman Catholics, but they had also -sown doubts in the judgment of intelligent persons as to the credit of -the informers and the truth of the facts to which they swore. At the -end of the year 1680 it was doubtful, said Sir John Reresby, “whether -there were more who believed there was any plot by the papists against -the king’s life than not.”[728] The situation of the Whig party was -critical. Their violent espousal of the Plot and the concentration of -all their efforts upon the propagation of ultra-Protestant designs had -brought about the result that, should the Plot be discredited before -they had gained their object in excluding the Duke of York from the -succession to the throne, their power would vanish into thin air. To -stave off a day of such evil and to re-establish on its former firm -footing the general belief in “the bloody designs of papists,” the -trial of Giles for the bogus attempt on Captain Arnold’s life had -been undertaken.[729] With the same object Lord Stafford was brought -to trial. His imprisonment had already lasted for two years and two -months.[730] He was now brought to the bar in preference to any of -the other four noblemen who had been imprisoned with him because, as -was believed at court, his advanced age and bodily infirmity rendered -him a more easy prey to the rancour of the House of Commons.[731] On -all sides the case was regarded as of the utmost importance. If the -prisoner were condemned the Whigs would gain a great advantage. If -he were acquitted, the prosecution of the Plot, which was their sole -weapon, would suffer a disastrous check.[732] - -Stafford’s trial was conducted upon a scale befitting its consequence. -Seven days were occupied in its process, a length which was at the time -unprecedented. As many as sixty-one witnesses were called on the one -side and on the other. For those who appeared for the prosecution the -cost of summons and entertainment amounted to a hundred pounds.[733] -The court of the Lord High Steward was held in Westminster Hall. Round -the hall were arranged galleries, from which privileged persons watched -the proceedings with the keenest interest. From her seat in a private -box the Duchess of Portsmouth exerted her charms upon the members of -the House of Commons stationed near her, distributing “sweetmeats -and gracious looks.” Another box was reserved for the queen. In a -third sat the king, a constant attendant during every day of the -trial.[734] Opposite the bar was the seat of the Lord High Steward, -and near by were placed the managers of the prosecution, Sir William -Jones, Sergeant Maynard, Winnington, Treby, Trevor, Powle, the most -distinguished lawyers of the House of Commons. - -On November 30, 1680, his sixty-ninth birthday, Thomas Howard, Lord -Viscount Stafford, was brought to the bar. That nothing might be -omitted against the prisoner, the managers called witnesses to prove -the reality and general designs of the Popish Plot. The whole story -was gone into at immense length. Oates, Dugdale, Jennison, a secular -priest named John Smith, and Bernard Dennis, a Dominican friar, gave -a volume of evidence to the point. The records of the conviction of -nineteen persons for treason and other charges connected with the -Plot, beginning with Coleman and ending with Giles, were proved and -the record of Coleman’s attainder was read. Thus the whole of one day -was occupied.[735] On the following morning the managers proceeded to -call witnesses to the treason of Lord Stafford. The mass of evidence -which they gave may be reduced to three points. Dugdale swore that -at a certain meeting held at Tixhall, in Staffordshire, about the -end of August or the beginning of September 1678, the accused had -given his full assent to the plot for taking away the king’s life, -and in September had offered him the sum of £500 to be the actual -murderer.[736] Oates swore that he had seen letters to various Jesuits, -signed Stafford, containing assurances of his zeal and fidelity to the -design; that the prisoner had in his presence received from Fenwick -a commission constituting him paymaster-general of the forces; and -that, in conversation with Fenwick, Lord Stafford had said he did -not doubt that “Grove should do the business,” adding with reference -to the king, “he hath deceived us a great while, and we can bear no -longer.”[737] Lastly Turbervile, a new witness, swore that after a -fortnight’s acquaintance with the prisoner in Paris, in the year 1675, -he had directly proposed to him to kill the king of England, who was -a heretic and a rebel against Almighty God.[738] Round these charges -the contest was waged hotly. Lord Stafford and his witnesses doing -battle against the managers and theirs. On the third day the attack was -directed on Dugdale. A servant of Lord Aston proved that the informer -had lived in bad repute at Tixhall, that he was discharged from his -post of steward, that he ran away to escape his creditors, was caught -and imprisoned for debt, and that he had sworn by God that he knew -nothing of any plot.[739] The last was confirmed by the magistrates -who had arrested Dugdale for debt. He had then been examined about -the Plot and denied all knowledge of it. Only two days later he made -a full confession.[740] Two servants of the accused were called to -prove the nature of the interview in which Dugdale swore that Lord -Stafford offered him £500 to kill the king. Every circumstance of it -was fully explained. The witnesses had been in the room the whole -time, and deposed that the conversation had turned upon nothing more -serious than the chances of a horse-race in the neighbourhood.[741] -Other Staffordshire men testified to Dugdale’s evil reputation, and two -artisans of Tixhall stated that Dugdale had offered them separately -money to swear against Lord Stafford.[742] - -Of Oates’ evidence little could be made for the defence, but Stafford -was able to point out that after having solemnly declared to the House -of Lords that he could accuse no other persons “of whatsoever quality -they be,” he had proceeded to charge the queen herself with high -treason.[743] - -Again Dugdale was called and cross-examined on his deposition of -December 24, 1678, which was read from the journal of the House of -Lords. In that he had said “that presently after one Howard, almoner -to the queen, went beyond seas, he was told by George Hobson (servant -to the said Lord Aston) that there was a design then intended for the -reformation of the government of the Romish religion.” He now swore -that he did not know Hobson before the latter came into Lord Aston’s -service in 1678. Stafford seized upon this as evidence either that -Dugdale was lying, or that his information, sworn two years before, -was false. Dugdale contended that the meaning of the clause “was that -Hobson told me that presently after almoner Howard went over, there was -such a design carrying on.” It is a testimony to the obscurity of the -style of ordinary English prose at the end of the seventeenth century -that the court held, in apparent opposition to common sense and common -justice, that the construction which Dugdale gave to the sentence was -not only possible, but the more probable.[744] - -Turbervile, the third of the informers, was met in his evidence by -numerous contradictions. It was proved that in his original deposition -he had altered two dates the day after having sworn to their accuracy. -Both in his deposition of November 9, 1680 and at the trial in the -course of examination he had sworn that he had constantly seen Lord -Stafford in Paris during a fortnight in 1675 when Stafford was ill with -gout, and that the prisoner then pressed him to undertake the murder -of the king. Two of Lord Stafford’s servants who had been with him in -Paris now proved that they had never once seen Turbervile during that -time, and that their master had not been ill or lame with gout for -at least seven years.[745] Material evidence was brought against the -witness on other points. He had sworn that at the end of 1675 Lord -Stafford had returned to England by Calais, sending him by Dieppe. The -contrary was now proved by an independent witness. It was also proved -by a French servant belonging to the household of Lord Powis that -Turbervile had lodged with him in Lord Powis’ house in Paris at a time -when he professed to be in fear for his life of the earl himself, and -by his brother, John Turbervile, that whereas he had sworn that Lord -Powis threatened to have him disinherited, he had not at any time had -even a remote chance of any inheritance whatsoever.[746] - -On the fourth day of this ponderous trial Lord Stafford closed his main -defence. He pointed to the turpitude of Oates’ character, and spoke -with emotion of his abhorrence that a man guilty of such immorality as -to profess a change of religion which he did not experience should be -allowed to give evidence against a peer among his peers. “I appeal to -your lordships,” he cried, “whether such ... is not a perjured fellow, -and no competent witness? No Christian, but a devil, and a witness for -the devil.” Even Oates himself was flustered and had to be restrained -by the managers from breaking into excesses.[747] - -The prosecuting Commons however were undismayed. They called a swarm of -witnesses to set up the character of the informers and to destroy that -of witnesses for the defence. It was proved by word of mouth and the -production of letters that servants of Lord Aston, Lord Bellasis, and -Mr. Heveningham had attempted to suborn persons to give false evidence -against Dugdale.[748] The new witnesses were in turn contradicted by -the defence, and this wonderful series of contradictions was carried -still one step further when fresh evidence was called to corroborate -them.[749] - -On the fifth day Lord Stafford summed up his defence. He laid special -stress on the infamous character of his accusers and his own clean -record, the points in which the witnesses had been contradicted, -and the general improbability of the charge. His speech was badly -received. The opportunity of a slight pause was seized by Lord Lovelace -to spring to his feet and denounce with indignation the presence in -court of a well-known Roman Catholic.[750] Moreover the prisoner -made a grave tactical mistake in proposing for argument a number of -points of law, of which some were frivolous and others had already -been authoritatively determined. Of these the only one which could be -considered material was the question whether or no in a case of high -treason two witnesses were necessary to prove each overt act alleged, -since the witnesses against Lord Stafford had sworn separately, and -never together, to the commission of several acts. This had in fact -been determined in the case of Sir Harry Vane,[751] but now with -remarkable consideration for the prisoner the opinion of the assembled -judges was taken: it was unanimous to the effect that the evidence of -two separate witnesses to two distinct acts constituted a proof of -high treason. The other points were easily disposed of by Jones and -Winnington.[752] - -In a speech of great ability Sir William Jones answered the accused. -Here especially the professional training of the managers had weight. -With the ease and decision of a practised lawyer the leader ran over -the trial, setting the strong points of the prosecution in a clear -light and minimising the value of the defence. His zeal was evident, -but hardly unfair. If here and there a statement overshot the mark of -strict accuracy, the effect of his speech was only enhanced by the -patience with which he submitted to correction from the prisoner. -Concluding with a short but powerful address, he demanded that the -court should do “that justice to your king and country as to give -judgment against these offenders, which will not only be a security -to us against them, but a terror to all others against committing the -like offences.”[753] On the night of Saturday, December 4, Stafford -petitioned to be heard again in his defence. His request was granted, -but the rambling speech to which the court listened on the Monday -following was calculated to produce any effect rather than that of -advancing his cause. The managers only found it necessary to reply very -briefly before the court adjourned to consider its verdict.[754] - -At eleven o’clock on the next morning the votes were taken. Thirty-one -peers pronounced Lord Stafford innocent, fifty-five guilty. The verdict -was not unexpected. Stafford had conducted his defence so feebly as -to make his acquittal improbable.[755] Physical weakness accounted -largely for this; but he had made the mistake of speaking as much as -possible, and his remarks were halting, nebulous, indecisive. On the -night before the verdict was delivered Barillon wrote that there was -every appearance that it would be adverse to the accused.[756] Sir -John Reresby was staggered by the evidence for the prosecution, and -only maintained his belief in Stafford’s innocence by fixing his mind -firmly on the depravity of the witnesses.[757] Anglesey, Lord Privy -Seal, afterwards pressed hard for Lord Stafford’s pardon, but at the -trial he felt constrained to vote against him, “secundum allegata et -probata.”[758] Even Charles, although he knew that Oates and his crew -were liars and publicly called them rascals, thought that the evidence -against the accused was strong, and that he might well be guilty;[759] -and the Countess of Manchester, who was present at the whole trial, -wrote to Lady Hatton before the verdict was known, that the charge “was -so well proved that I believe not many was unsatisfied, except those -that were out of favour with the party might wish it other ways.”[760] -Charles was present in Westminster Hall while the peers delivered -their verdict, and took notes of the sides on which they voted. When -it became evident that the majority were for condemnation, his face -to those who were near him shewed profound disappointment.[761] -Whether or no he believed in Stafford’s innocence, the conviction -was a blow to the king’s cause. But the votes were not directed by -political considerations alone. These would probably have ensured an -acquittal. If Charles had exerted his personal influence on the court, -an acquittal would have been certain.[762] The peers gave judgment on -what seemed to them the merits of the case. Three eminent members of -Lord Stafford’s family voted for the death.[763] The same verdict was -delivered by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of -Oxford, Lord Maynard, and the Duke of Lauderdale. Among the thirty-one -who found for the accused were such staunch Whigs as Lord Holles, -Lord Lucas, and the Earl of Clarendon. All these, had party spirit -directed the votes, must have determined to the contrary. The fact -must be faced that so late as December of the year 1680, more than -two years after Oates’ first revelations, and after the disclosure at -Wakeman’s trial had rendered certain the fact of his perjury, many -of the most honourable and intelligent men in the kingdom sincerely -accepted as credible the evidence offered against Lord Stafford, and as -earnest of their belief sent to the scaffold one of their own number, -a man bowed down with years and infirmity, the victim of miscreants -supported by the enemies of the king, for the false plot against whose -life he was now to die. It was a memorial to all time of the ignorance -of the principles of evidence and the nature of true justice which -characterised their age. - -Sentence as usual in cases of high treason was pronounced on the -condemned man, but at the request of the peers the king commuted the -penalty to beheading alone. Efforts were made to obtain a pardon, but -without avail. Charles was determined to let the law take its course -that he might not be said to balk the ends of justice.[764] - -The sheriffs disputed the validity of the warrant for Stafford’s -decapitation and requested the advice of the House of Commons on the -following questions: “Can the king, being neither party nor judge, -order the execution? Can the lords award the execution? Can the king -dispense with any part of the execution? If he can dispense with a -part, why not with all?” To the ingenuity of Sir William Jones was -due the studied insult offered to Charles in the answer of the House: -“The house is content that the sheriffs should execute William, -late Viscount Stafford, by severing his head from his body.”[765] -The excitement which prevailed in London was intense. Throughout -the trial Stafford had been hooted in the streets on his way to and -from the Tower. Angry brawls arose between the witnesses and the -crowd at the doors of Westminster Hall. When Dugdale swore that the -prisoner had offered him £500 to kill the king, a savage hum arose in -the precincts of the court itself and drew a severe rebuke from the -Lord High Steward.[766] On December 29, 1680 Stafford was led to the -scaffold. From the place of execution he read a lengthy speech, which -was published in print on the same afternoon, asserting his innocence -and vindicating his religion.[767] His words fell on deaf ears. A vast -crowd was assembled to witness his death. Almost all historians have -repeated the assertion that the spectators were touched and answered -with cries of, “We believe you, my Lord; God bless you, my Lord.”[768] -The story is a mere fable. Lord Stafford died with howls of execration -of the bigoted London mob ringing in his ears. The cries with which -he was met testify relentlessly that the belief in his guilt was -firmly fixed in the mind of the nation.[769] The Popish Plot was not -yet a thing of the past. But the result of Lord Stafford’s trial was -not altogether what was expected. Shaftesbury and his party indeed -gained a temporary victory, but the ultimate triumph was to the king. -His steadiness, restraint, and readiness for compromise contrasted -favourably with the intolerance and unconciliating attitude of the -Whigs. Their game was played for the crown and, when their rejection of -all offers short of that made their motive plain to the nation, Charles -had the nation at his back. The violence with which they attempted to -force the king’s hand alienated public feeling. He was able to dissolve -the Oxford Parliament in safety, and the Whigs were driven to plan open -rebellion and the treason of the Rye House Plot. - - - - - APPENDICES - - - - - APPENDIX A - - - LONGLEAT MSS. COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 393 - - April 29, 1679. Dover. Francis Bastwick to Henry Coventry. - -This day I received advice of one Col. Scott coming from Folkestone to -take horse here for London, and on his arrival I seized him and sent -for the Comm. of the passage. His examination I send you enclosed, upon -which we found cause to commit him (which was accordingly done by the -deputy mayor) into safe custody until we had further orders from one -of his Majesty’s principal secretaries what to do with him. He owns -himself to be the same person we have had orders for several months -past to seize at his landing. Col. Strode, deputy formerly, had an -order to seize Col. Scott as I remember from Mr. Secretary Coventry, -but I am not certain but Col. Strode or his deputy are at present in -the place. - -I am your most humble servant Fran. Bastwick. I desire your speedy -answer when you have acquainted my L^d. Sunderland. Col. Scott has been -found in many contrary tales, and went at his landing by the name of -John Johnson. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 396 - -From the examination of Colonel Scott at Dover, April 29, 1679. That -he is a pensioner to the prince of Condi, and hath formerly commanded -the prince of Condi’s regiment of horse in the French service. And that -the said prince of Condi sent him over in September last in order for -the surveying of several parcels of lands and woods in Burgandie and -Picardie was the occasion of his going over. - -That the occasion of his return is to see his native country, and his -profession is a soldier. The said Colonel offered to take the oaths of -allegiance and supremacy and the test. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 397 - - Undated. Paper headed: An account of what the Earl of Barkeshire - desired Colonel John Scot to communicate to His Ma^{ty}. with - what passed before the discourse. (Endorsed by Coventry in the - same words.) - -The Earl of Barkeshire, that had lain long of a languishing sickness -in Paris, was pleased to let me know he desired to advise with me -about a physician. This was in March last. I told his lordship I was -acquainted with an able man of our own nation, and one of the college -of physicians in London, but I was of opinion his Lordship’s Roman -Catholic friends would not approve of him because he was not only a -strict protestant, but one that did publicly defend the doctrine of the -church of England, and as publicly declare the English Roman Catholics -were prosecuted on just grounds. His Lordship said that mattered not, -he should not dispute that point with him, nor did he value any man -the worse for differing from him in judgment, and that he was not so -strait-laced as others of his opinion, and did commit himself to the -charge of the said Doctor Budgeon; but it did prove too late, for this -gentleman soon told his Lordship what condition he was in, and he came -to my lodgings and signified to me his Lordship’s great desire to speak -with me, telling me his Lordship in all human probability could not -live long; and I waited upon his Lordship the morning following, and he -having commanded his servants out of the chamber, and to suffer nobody -to come in till he called, spake to me as I remember these very words:— - -Colonel Scot, you are my friend; I must commit a secret to you; there -has been a foolish and an ill design carried on in England: I don’t -tell you the Roman Catholic religion is a foolish business, for it -is the faith I will die in, but ’tis the giddy madness of some of -that religion I blame. I knew nothing on’t till my Lord Arundel, Mr. -Coleman, and others told me the business could not miscarry, and that I -should be looked upon as an ill man if I came not in in time, and truly -I believed them. I was none of the contrivers, I was not consulted with -till towards the latter end of the day, nor did I ever hear anything -mentioned about killing the king; if I had, I would have discovered it, -and so indeed I ought to have done what I did know, as well for the -personal obligations I had to his Majesty as that which my allegiance -obliges me to, and every man too; for my Lord Bellasis is an ill man; -he and others were accustomed to speak ill of the king, indeed very -irreverently. - -Then I asked his Lordship who those others were; but he answered, -prithee, good Colonel, ask me no questions; if I had known of -approaching dangers to the king, I should have told him. He then -fetched a great sigh and wept, but presently said, Friend, I see things -will go as you will; for God’s sake promise me you will find some way -to tell the king every word I say, and that though some passages in -letters of mine may look a little oddly, I would have run any hazard -rather than have suffered any injury to have been done to his Majesty’s -person: ’tis true I would have been glad to have seen all England -Catholic, but not by the way of some ill men. My Lord Stafford was all -along a moving agent, and was here in France about the business; the -man of himself is not very malicious. My Lord Powis his covetousness -drew him in further than he would have gone. I believe and hope there -will hardly be found matter against them to take away their lives, but -pray the king from a poor dying man not to have to do with any of those -four Lords I have named, for they love not his person. - -My Lord Peeter has always had a great love and reverence for the -king’s person; ’tis true this last wife of his is foolishly governed -by priests and influences him; but he was ever averse to all things of -intrigue in this matter. I need not desire you to be secret, your own -safety will oblige you. My Lord Cardigan and others being at the door -and calling to this Lord, the servants were ordered to let them in, -and before them he said, pray don’t forget the hundredth we spake of, -nor the business at Rohan. I was there once more with the Doctor, but -he grew exceeding deaf; he said only then to me: Colonel, don’t forget -what I said to you for God’s sake. This is the very manner he spake it. - - JOHN SCOT. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 171 - - December 23, 1676. Hague. A letter, unsigned. Note by Coventry at - head—To one Johnson: at foot—shewed his Maj. 23rd of Dec. 76. - -In my last I made some observations to you of the working of the old -spirit in the Popish party: at this time will now only add that the -same seemeth not to be restrained to England.... The popish humour -beginneth to spread itself over the English regiments, especially the -regiment lately Col. Tanwicke. One Wisely is made Col., being Lieut. -Col. before. Archer the major is made Lieut. Col., both Irish Papists, -and the rest of the officers are generally papists and mad Irish, and -for aught we know for the most part recommended by the Duke of York. -Now albeit this be true that this congregating of Papists together in -a body be in the dominion of another state, yet it is true they are -subjects of England and in regard to the ... circumstances of England -in my poor opinion worthy the public notice. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 506 - - Undated. Letter without address or signature; deciphered from numbers - written in very light ink in place of all important words, so - that all those in the decipher stand between the lines. - -Col. Scot doth send his letters by way of Mons. Gourville, in whose -chamber he writes them, so that I see little hopes of doing what you -know, though the undertaker doth still insist for the contrary. I am -ready for the journey, hoping Mr. Secretary will be so just as to spare -naming me till that service is done, for I should be sorry to trust any -other who I do know to have contrived my being disliked in this court. -A lady of quality, my good friend, returned yesterday from Bretagne and -assures a great arming upon those coasts and an army of forty thousand -men ready to ship at Nantes, Brest, etc., whenever commanded to sea, to -save (as they report) the K. of England from destruction. The lady, if -there were no disguise in the outward state of things in England (which -many do think there is), might I think be brought to use her knowledge -for his Majesty’s service, but my hands are tied, and you know how -things stand with you. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 313 - - May 21 1678. St. Malo. Thomas Kelly to Mr. William Talbot in Corn - Market, Dublin. - -I pray you to pay to Mr. John Plunket the sum of 89 pounds sterling by -the review of this letter; in doing so you will satisfy your creditor. -Made the 21st of May at St. Malo, 1678. - - THOMAS KELLY. - -[The above is in plain dark ink. What follows is light and indistinct; -the characters were evidently written in milk or lemon-juice, and made -visible by being held to the fire.] - -When I came from Paris to St. Germaine where I stayed some time and -among other speeches I heard in dophin [_sic_] Chamber from some which -were there that if the English should make war against them they should -easily excite a rebellion both in Scotland and Ireland, and sending -by some Marshal of France 10 men of war with all things necessary for -to make up 2000 soldiers in Ireland and that, by the help of some -skillful Irishmen, and under their conduct all the Irish should be, -they may easily overcome all Ireland. This was the discourse of those -gentlemen in Dorphin [_sic_] Chamber, but whether it comes to effect or -not I cannot tell.... [Goes on to give particulars of the numbers and -strength of the French navy on the north coast.] - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi, 310 - - July 6, 1678. Kimper. David Neal to John Plunket at sign of the Ship - in the Corn Market in Dublin. - -[Of the same character as the last. The letter, in black ink, is -frivolous. Interlined in light writing as follows.] - -I have been over all places where I was bound, but the fairest places -is Brest, and afterwards Havre and St. Malos for merchants. The names -of them that are capable to serve I did send long since. All other -places are nothing after these places neither is there any man of war -in them other places unless they should stay for a day or two expecting -to convoy others.... [Gives other particulars of ships and a list of -names of captains of French men of war. Concludes—] - -If you please I intend to go home since the time is past whenever I was -engaged, neither will my friends have me to apply myself to it. Your -resolution hereupon I will willingly see as soon as possible, for I -have not much money to stay long in ... country as dear as this is. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 317 - - June 17, 1678. Rochford. Walter B—— à Monsieur Patric Roch à la place - au blé à Dublin. (Endorsed in Coventry’s hand): Mr. Burke. - -[Of the same nature as the last two, and in the same handwriting.] -There is nothing here worthy of relation only that all the people of -this country is very desirous to have war against you, and specially -all the seamen desire no other thing but it.... [Further particulars -of French ships, mostly merchant vessels. One passage in the black ink -deserves to be noted.] This is the fourth letter which I did write to -your honour without receiving any answer. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 204 - - April 14, 1678. St. Omers. Sam Morgan to his father. (Copy of same - 205.) - -(Endorsed in Coventry’s hand.) Send to Doc^t. Lloyd to learn where -Morgan the father liveth, and how I may write to him.—Mr. Morgan the -father lives at Kilkin in Flintshire near the Bp. of Bangor. - -Honoured Father! These are next to my humble duty unto yourself and my -mother to acquaint you with my present condition. I am here entered -in a College called Flamstead amongst good gentlemen, and am well -beloved of them all. The place is very good for meat and drink and -other necessaries, but my fear is and am in good measure satisfied -that my uncle intends me for a priest. He spoke nothing unto me as -yet, but I partly understand that he is of that opinion, which when I -considered on is clean against my conscience. I daily see and know what -they are, and am utterly dissatisfied with and condemn the principles -and practices of their diabolical opinions, for I dare not call it -religion. If you would be pleased to call for me home I think I should -be very well; for now (I thank God) I got more learning here since I -came than I should have gotten anywhere in Wales in 7 or 8 years. I -have competent skill in Greek and Latin, and can write a little of -both: if you would be pleased to take me home, I should thank my uncle -for my learning, and let him take whom he thinks fit for his priest. - -I must stay here 18 years yet, and God knows who would be alive then; -and for all that, if I were like to be a comfort to my friends, I -would stay with all my heart, though I utterly abhor their ways. If -you intend to take me home it must be done within this two years -at furthest; otherwise it will be too late; and if you be of that -resolution put two strokes in the bottom of your letter; be sure you -mention it not publicly in my letter, for then the Reader, which is the -master of the house, will come to know it; for there is not a letter -that comes in or goes out of the house but he has the perusal of it, -but now I write this and deliver it privately to an honest man that set -out this day hence; so that the master knows nothing of it. No more but -that you would use some means to redeem me from this great captivity, -who am in extraordinary haste. - - Your dutiful son, - SAM MORGAN. - - JOSEPH LANE. - - - P.R.O. ROMAN TRANSCRIPTS. VAT. ARCH. NUNT. DI FRANCIA 332 - - December 2, 1678. L’Abb^e G. B. Lauri à S. EM^{za}. - -Ancor che lo stato presente d’Inghilterra, e la risposta datami la -settimania passata dal Sig^r di Pomponne non mi facessero sperare cos’ -alcuna di buono intorno all’ assistenza richiesta a favore del Sig^r -Duca di Yorch; nondimeno a proporzione della premura di N.S. e dell’ -importanza dell’ affare, ne rimovai le instanze al suddetto ministro -Martedì passato, nel qual giorno per questi e per altri negozii -pendenti mi portai à Varsaglia; egli soggiunsi che il credito talvolta -e l’assistenza del Re di Francia avrebbe potuto ristabilire il partito -del Sig^r Duca di Yorch e de’ Catholici di quel regno, quando S. M^{ta} -si fosse dichiarata per loro. Rispose tuttevia il Sig^r di Pomponne -che tutti i Catholici d’Inghilterra ò erano imprigionati ò erano stati -discacciati di Londra. Il med^{mo} Sig^r Duca di Yorch restava escluso -dall’ essercizio delle sue cariche, e tutti indifferemente venivano -osservati in maniera che il dichiararsi nello stato presente per loro -altre non sarebbe stato che un accrescergli le persecuzioni, e finir di -ruinare il partito Catholico di quel regno; per queste ragioni avere -stimato S. M^{ta} che non sia tempo di prestar l’assistenza richiesta, -mentre il cambiamento delle cose faceva ogni conoscere che tal -consiglio non era pin utile, come ragionevolmente avra per altro potuto -stimarsi prima che succedessero le mutazioni accennati. Io dunque -essendo cosi cambiate di faccia le cose d’Inghilterra, ed incontrando -que le scritte difficoltà, tralascierò di fare altre istanza per quest’ -affare finche da V.S., informata che sia delle cose che passano, mi -vengano nuovi comandamenti. - - - - - APPENDIX B - - - LONGLEAT MSS. COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 237 - - October 28, 1678. Copy of the letter sent to Mr. Sec. Coventry - subscribed T. G. Concerning the murder of Sir Edmond Bury Godfrey. - -This is to certify you that upon his Majesty’s Declaration I have been -both at Whitehall and at your own house these three days together, and -never can be admitted to come to the speech of your worship. Whereupon -I thought fit to give you an account what it is I can declare, which -is as follows:—Being on Tuesday the 15th, of this instant October, in -a victualling house in White Friars I chanced to hear two persons a -discoursing, the one saying to the other that if he would go down to -Billingsgate he would treat him there with wine and oysters, whereupon -the other replied and said: “What you are uppish then are you?” Upon -which words he swore, God dampe him (_sic_), he had money enough, -and draws a bag out of his pocket and says. There were fifty pounds. -Whereupon the other party was very inquisitive to know how he came by -it, and did importune him very much, and at the last he told him that -if he would swear to be true to him and never discover, he would tell -him. Whereupon he did make all the imprecations and vows that could -possibly be that he would never discover, whereupon he told him that -the last night he with three men did murder Sir Edward Bury Godfrey and -he had that £50 for his pains, and said that he believed he could help -him to some money if he would go along with him on the morrow night -following. Upon these words the other asked him where it was done and -who the other three was that was with him, and he told him that he -murdered him at Wild House, and the other three that was concerned with -him was gentlemen. Two belonged to my Lord Bellasis, and the other to -my Lord Petres, but of the Monday before, there was a court held at -Wildhouse and there they tried him, and there was a man like a priest -who passed sentence of death upon him; and likewise he asked him how -he came to be concerned in it, and he told him that there was a broker -that lodged in Eagle Court in the Strand that spoke to him of it: so -this is all I can testify of, but only that I can give some account in -what a barbarous manner they murdered him. This man’s name is Hogshead, -he liveth (?) at the Temple and Whitefriars very much. So, Sir, if you -please to give orders to your servant, and let me come to the speech of -you, I will come and make oath of it, and with this proviso that I may -have the liberty to make a fuller discovery of it, I not being anything -out of pocket myself; I desire your answer to-morrow morning to be left -at the place mentioned in my former letter, and withal desire it may be -more private than the last. - - Your humble servant to command, - - T. G. - From the Temple this - 28th instant 1678. - - - COVENTRY PAPERS xi. p. 235. Coventry’s answer to this. - - October 28, 1678. To his very loving friend T. G. these. - -(Note added by Coventry below the address): This letter was sent to the -Rainbow Coffee House, but never called for, and was brought back by -Col. Vernon. - -I have yours, and am abundantly satisfied with it, but know not how to -answer it at large. Will you tell me by what name I shall subscribe -it to you; whether your own or another it matters not so you are sure -to receive it. If you enquire for one Mr. Evans at my house to-morrow -or any morning he shall bring you to me, when I will give you my best -advice and assistance in what you desire. - - I am, - Your humble servant, - HENRY COVENTRY. - - - BRIT. MUS. ADD. MSS. 11058: 244 - - Nov. 7, 1678. Mr. Bedloe’s confession before his Majesty of the - murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. - -He saith that the Saturday Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was missing, about -two in the afternoon as he (Godfrey) was going home, two or three -gentlemen met him and said they could discover some persons near the -Strand Bridge that were agitators in the Plot, upon which Sir E. -Godfrey showed great readiness, but they desired him to walk into -a houseyard till a constable was got ready; but Sir E. Godfrey had -scarce made two or three turns but several people rushed out upon him -and stopped his mouth; two friars and some of Lord Bellasis’ servants -executing the same, and having carried him into an inner chamber -demanded of him Mr. Oates his deposition, promising they would save his -life if he would render it to them; yet their design was to have taken -away his life though he had given them that satisfaction. Sir Edmund -Berry told them that the king and council had them, and therefore he -could not possibly do what they desired. Upon which expression they -began to use him inhumanly and barbarously, kneeling upon his breast -till they thought he was dead; but they opened his bosom and found his -heart panted; then they took a cravat and tied it hard about his neck, -and so ended his life. He says further that he came too late to be -assistant in the murder, for he found him strangled and lying dead on -the floor, but presently received an account from the actors in what -manner it was performed. His corpse was laid at the high altar of the -Queen’s chapel, and continued there till they had consulted a way for -removing the same secretly from thence. - -He further saith that two guineas were the reward promised among the -undertakers, and on Wednesday following the corpse was conveyed in a -sedan to Lord Bellasis’ house, and from thence carried in a coach to -the place where it was found. He also acquainted the Lords that he -had several things to communicate to them which related to the Plot, -and that he was able to confirm several passages which Mr. Oates had -discovered concerning the plot, but he desired leave to give his -testimony in writing, that so he might make no other discovery than -what he could be able to testify. - -Actors: Mr. Eveley, Mr. Leferry, Jesuits; Penchard and Atkins, laymen; -the keeper of the Queen’s chapel and a vally de chambre to the Lord -Bellasis. - - - P.R.O. S.P. DOM. CHARLES II 407: ii. 29. LONGLEAT - MSS. COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 272–274. - - 7th Nov. 1678. Before his Majesty. - -Mr. Bedloe informs, - -A contrivance between Charles Wintour and the governour of Chepstow -Castle, and Mr. Charles Milbourn and Mr. Vaughan of Cont ... and his -son, to be in arms when my Lord Powis would in Cardiganshire, to give -up the castle to Mr. Charles Wintour and army of 20^m men. - -Mr. Thimbleby in Lincoln: under Lord Bellasis was to have 20^m men. -20^m religious men were to meet at S^{t.} Jago to come over into Wales -from the Groin, and meet Lord Powis and the aforesaid gentlemen in arms. - -20^m out of Flanders to meet Lord Bellasis and Mr. Thimbleby: to land -at Burlington Bay. Has known this by being four years among them. - -Qu. What proofs. - -Resp. Has lived among the Jesuits four years, and had all he had from -them, etc. - -Has been in Spain. Employed from five Jesuits to Sir W. Godolphin, -Stapleton, Latham, Le Fere, Cave and Sheldon. - -Cave and Le Fere sent him to Doway last summer 12 months. 20 months -since, and thence by Paris, etc., to Madrid. - -Le Fere told him of this design. - -Lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, where Walsh the priest lodges, near -Wild House. - -Mr. Selvyns at the back door of the Palgrave’s Head will show where -Captain Atkins lodges, and consequently where Le Fere. - -Le Fere is an Englishman, calls himself a Frenchman. The passage of the -20^m men from Flanders was to be from Newport. - -As to Sir Edmond Godfrey; was promised 2000 guineas to be in it by Le -Fere, my Lord Bellasis’ gentleman, and the youngest of the waiters in -the Queene’s chapel, in a purple gown and to make the people orderly. -They did not tell him at first who was to be killed nor till he was -killed. - -They murdered him in Somerset House in the corner room, the left hand -as you come in, near Madame Macdonnel’s lodgings, and near the room -where the duke of Albemarle lay in state. - -Stifled him with a pillow, then he struggling they tied a cravat about -his neck and so strangled him. - -Le Fere told him so, having sent for him by a footman in a blue livery -to Somerset House in the walk under the dial. ’Twas done in hopes the -examinations he had taken would never come to light. - -Obj. The King. The parties were still alive to give the informations. - -Resp. In hopes the second informations taken from the parties would not -have agreed with the first, and so the thing would have been disproved -and made it not be believed. For this reason the Lord Bellasis advised -it. Coleman and my Lord Bellasis advised to destroy him. - -The informant was born at Chepstow, bred up an indifferent scholar. His -friends all protestant since the world began. Went into the Prince of -Orange’s army, where finding the religious houses kind and obliging, -he hearkened to their arguments, etc., and so was persuaded. - -Was never an officer in the Prince of Orange’s army. Was designed to be -lieutenant to Vaudepert, a captain. Employed some time to make levies -in England from Holland, etc. - -My Lord Bellasis’ gentleman is he that waits on him in his chamber, and -none other dresses him but he. Middle stature. Little whiskers like a -Frenchman. - -The Trappan. They persuaded Godfrey that if he would go a little way -into the Strand they would make out a great discovery to him. He called -a constable and appointed him to meet him at Strand bridge with power, -in the interim of which they persuaded him, Godfrey, to walk into -Somerset House, where walking with two of them, the Lord Bellasis’ -gentleman and a certain Jesuit whom he knows not, others came and with -gloves stopped his mouth and hurried him into the room. - -The Informant escaped yesterday fortnight by the coach from the Talbot -in the Strand to Bristol. Coming to Bristol sent for his mother, and -upon her blessing she charged him to discover whatever he knew. Will -take his oath and the Sacrament of all this. Has had racks of all -this for a year in his conscience. Would have gotten from them three -months ago when the king was at Windsor, they about the time whispering -something, but not so as to let him know it. - -Conyers is a Jesuit, and Pridgeot, and Lewis. Sir John Warner was in -the Plot. Le Fere, Keimes, Welsh, Lewis, Pridgeot. - -Keimes is in the north of Scotland or beyond the sea. Went two months -ago into the north; was with Le Fere the night before. He went to -Ernham to Mr. Thimbleby and so northwards. - -Mr. Welsh, the chapel-keeper, Le Fere, my Lord Bellasis’ servant, -strangled him. - -The Chapel keeper carried him off. They carried him off in a chair -about Piccadilly and so on to the fields. - -He did not see him after he was dead. - -Le Fere sent to him by a foot-boy immediately afterwards to tell him of -it. - -Wintour told him two years ago that if he would keep private so great -a design, he should be governour to Chepstow Castle, etc. My Lord of -Worcester has kept a very ingenious gunsmith, one David Winkett, in his -house for many years to make arms. Mr. Charles Price, steward to my -Lord of Worcester, took them off from time to time and disposed of them -to my Lord Powis. Mr. Christall, my Lord Powis’ servant, told him my -lord had the finest arms of that man’s making, etc. Mr. Jones, a sugar -baker on College Hill, can tell where his the informant’s brother is. -His brother was with him in Spain, and wondered how he could live as he -did. - -Le Fere. -Lord Bellasis’ gentleman. -The usher of the Queen’s chapel, etc. - - - LORDS JOURNALS xiii. 343 - - Bedloe’s statement at the bar of the House of Lords. Die Veneris - 8 die Novembris. - -The Lord Treasurer reported by his Majesty’s directions, “That -yesterday one William Bedlowe was examined at Whitehall concerning -the discovery of the murder of Sir Edmond Bury Godfrey, and that his -Majesty had given order he should be brought to give this house an -account thereof.” - -Who being brought to the Bar and had his oath given him, made a large -narrative to this effect. - -“That he was born in Monmouthshire and was of the Church of England -till within these two years, that by Persuasion and Promises from -the Jesuits he was drawn over to them: that he is not in orders. He -knows that Sir E. B. Godfrey was murdered in Somerset House, on the -Saturday, by Charles Walsh and—Le Fere Jesuits, and two laymen, one a -gentleman that waits on the Lord Bellasis, the other an underwaiter in -the Queen’s Chapel. That he saw the body of Sir E. B. Godfrey, after -he was murdered, before he was carried out, and Le Fere told him ‘He -was stifled between two pillows,’ and he was offered 2000 guineas to -be one of the three to carry out the body, which was kept either in -the room or the next where the D. of Albemarle lay in state: That the -Chairmen who carried out the body on Monday night at nine of the clock -are retainers to Somerset House; but he knows them not.” - -He saith “That Walsh and Le Fere and Pritchard told him ‘that the Lord -Bellasis employed them in this business.’” - -He said further “That Walsh and Le Fere informed him ‘That the Lord -Bellasis had a commission to command Forces in the North, the Earl of -Powis in S. Wales, and the Lord Arundell of Warder had a commission -from the Pope to grant commissions to whom he pleased’: That Coleman -had been a great agitator in the design against the King; And that he, -asking the Jesuits ‘Why they had not formerly told him what they had -designed concerning the king’s death?’ they answered him ‘That none -but whom the Lord Bellasis gave directions for were to know of it.’ -He desired he might have time to put the whole narrative into writing -(which he had begun). - -“And being asked if he knew Titus Oates, he denied it.” - - - P.R.O. S.P. DOM. CHARLES II 408: ii. 47 - - Prance’s examination before the Council. The notes are in Sir Joseph - Williamson’s handwriting. Dec. 24, 78. Prance called in, etc. - -On a certain Monday—with a twisted handkerchief—in the corner near the -stables. Carried him into a house in the dark entry, leading up out of -the lower court into the upper. Left at that house where Hill lived -then, two days, in the dark entry—by the water-gate. There Hill and -Gerald and the cushion-man (Green) carried him away. About ten Hill -told this informant to go to the other side of the house. Green told -him that he thought he had broke his neck before he was carried into -Hill’s house. After that, 4 days after. Hill carried him and shewed -him the place where he lay with a dark lanthorn about 9 o’clock—and -Hill brought him back to his house. Green and Gerald were there—and not -having conveniency for keeping him in his own house, conveyed him into -another house on the other side.—Hill procured a sedan, and had him -carried in a sedan from Hill’s out at the end gate of the upper court. -This was Wednesday night.—Was carried as far as the Greyhound in the -Soho. He was one that carried him. Green and Gerald and Irishman who -lay over the stables in certain lodgings that Green has there.—From -Hill’s house first he was carried somewhere to the other side of the -house, towards the garden, and Hill met them about the new church with -a horse, and he was set upon that horse and carried away, and the -sedan was left in one of the new houses when they came back. He came -back to his house, and Hill went with the body. Green, Gerald, and -the Irishman went also with the body.—Gerald said to him that my Lord -Bellasis engaged them to the thing, and said there would be a reward, -not yet. Does not know my Lord Bellasis.—Killed him because he loved -not the Queen or her servants, therefore Green and Hill, etc.—One Owen -in Bloomsbury was in the shop where he changed £100.—Two or three went -to his house to ask after him, the maid answered he was not within, -etc. They found him out and dogged him, till he came over against the -water-gate, came from St. Clement’s, about 9 o’clock, etc. Hill, etc., -dogged him. He was not there.—Two feigned a quarrel in the gate, and -he was called in to appease the quarrel.—He knew Gerald a year and a -half. Hill upon five years. Green about a year, etc.—Hill was without -and prayed Godfrey to walk in to quiet the quarrel. He walks within the -gate (?) and the upper Court.—Knows not if any guard at the gate. Knows -not if any company. About 9 at night—He was strangled in the upper -court on the stable side in a corner that is railed (?). He struggled. -Carried in at the water-gate.—He had the £100 in gold from Owens in -Bloomsbury. Being to go out of town as a papist he got this informant -to get it for him. It was nothing to this ... [a line very indistinct]. -He stood at the water-gate while he was strangled. Bury the porter -stood the other way, he watched also there.—Hill dwells in Stanhope -Street, keeps a victualling house. - -As to the Plot. Was in Ireland’s chamber. Groves, Fenwick were there. -Ireland said there would be 50^m men in arms. So Fenwick. Two or three -days after Groves came to his house to buy two swords.—Said my Lords -Powis, Bellasis, Peters, Arundell should become councillors.—That -Bellasis, Powis, Arundell were to govern the army.... [Some words -indistinct]. - -One Le Fere came to his shop to ask for a silver sword hilt. Knows not -who he is more than that he is.—Knows not Walsh, Pritchard, nor Le Fere -not by the names.—50^m men.—They hoped Cath. Rel. would be established -in a little time, etc.—Heard nothing of the killing of the King, -etc.—Godfrey was kept from the time of his being killed in a sitting -posture, etc.—One Mr. Moore, servant to the D. of Norfolk, being on -a great horse, etc., would we had 10^m of them, etc.—His ill-will to -Godfrey (that the Queen could not protect her servants)—Knows nothing -of the plot nor of any person in it.—That one—a Messenger belonging to -Lord Arundell said—He hoped the R. C. Rel. would before long flourish -in England. - -Has declared everything he knows, everything, etc.—Green, Hill, etc., -said Godfrey had used some Irishman ill—Owen knows nothing of all this -that he learns (?).—Saw Ireland last at Will’s coffee house in Covent -Garden and Dr. Southwell were drinking with him in his own house the -night before Pickering was taken, etc. - - - - - APPENDIX C - - - LONGLEAT MSS. COVENTRY PAPERS xi. 148 - - Lord Windsor to Henry Coventry. July 8, 1676. - -I was yesterday at the trial of Studesbury of Broadly at Worcester -assizes, where Judge Atkyns sat upon the bench. The treason was fully -proved against him according to that information I did send you. The -judge took occasion by advice of those justices which were upon the -bench to make the trial long, the better to discover whether he were -distracted or not: upon the whole examination and by the answers he -made to the many questions that were asked him, it was the opinion of -all that sat upon the bench (which were many) that he was very sensible -and in no way mad, but in justifying Venner’s action and holding the -worst of the fanatic opinions, and often using their ranting way of -talking; he said he held a halberd at the trial of the late King, and -repeated some of his words with Bradshaw’s answers to them, and said -the putting of Venner and his associates to death was murder. The chief -witness against him (besides his own confession) was one Harrington, an -anabaptist mentioned in the first examination, which Harrington being -asked if he did judge Studesbury mad upon the first discourse he had -with him (which held near an hour) when he would have advised him to -take arms against the King, he declared he found nothing of that mind -in him, but thought he designed to ensnare him; yet notwithstanding all -this the jury found him a madman. Upon that the judge told them that he -and all that sat with him were of a contrary opinion and desired them -to withdraw and consider better of’t, which they did do and came in -again of the same opinion, one of them saying that if he were not mad -he would not have said what he did. - - - BRIT. MUS. ADD. MSS. 28042: 19 - - Memorandum by the Marquis of Danby. (Endorsed) Mem^{d.} (7–8/9.) - -To put forth a declaration. To examine the present state of the -revenue: to consider about stop of payment and when: what is yet to -come in upon the accounts and at what times: To know what is due to -the ships abroad: at what times those ships are expected: in what -state the victualling is. In what hands the militia; the justices -of the peace: the judges. When the dissolution ought to be: what -preparation for a new Parliament and when: About the sheriffs: the -next Lord Mayor: the Cinque Ports: the Port towns by the commissioners -of the customs, of treasury, of Navy: who have a particular interest -in Borrows. To consider what grateful things may be done in this -interval of Parliament: what should be said in the declaration -upon the dissolution: for these q^e Sir R. W. (Weston) and let the -journals of the Commons be searched for their proceedings in this -last session: To consider wherein they have exceeded all the due -limits of their own power as in imprisonment of men who are not their -members, etc., and meddling with the King’s prerogatives and private -accounts, etc.: To keep Lord Roberts by some encouragement: About -another Attorney-General, viz.: Sir R. W. (Weston) (which is of main -importance): what change of Councillors. In what condition all the -garrisons are as to their fortifications: what number of forces and -where placed after the disbanding: to inquire into the riots at the -last elections. How conventicles should be inquired after, and what -penal laws should be put in execution: who to be in the Treasury and -in the treasury of the Navy: what can be done for the suppressing of -seditious prints and papers: About directing somebody to write both -about the present state of things to give the world a better impression -of them than they are now possessed with and to give constant weekly -accounts of what is done at any time which may be for the satisfaction -of men’s minds. Q. Whether the Plot not triable out of Parliament. -Q. About securing the arms of all who have been officers in the late -Rebellion. To take their names and abodes in all counties. Q; how -for to take notice of them and dissenters from the Church how busy -they have appeared of late and what reasonable cause of danger to the -government from them. Parliament to be called to some other place: the -King to reside out of London: Tower to be well secured: L^d Ossory -sent to the Navy: that to be officered so as to have influence upon -their men: To have a control to know justly when the army is all -disbanded and whether there be any remains. About the Tower in case -of insurrection: To take some course about the reasons of the Commons -which are printed, (?) to suppress them and to have something writ to -satisfy the people. - - - BRIT. MUS. ADD. MSS. 32095; 196 - - (Paper endorsed) Popish Plot. This paper was presented to the King by - the D. of York, Oct. 20^{th} 1679. - -That in or about May or June last Col. Fitzpatrick delivered to the -Pope’s internuncio at Brussels a letter or paper subscribed by four R. -C. bishops, two of which were Plunket archbp. of Armagh, and Tyrel bp. -of Clogher, recommending the said Fitzpatrick for the only person fit -to be entrusted general of an army for establishing the R. C. religion -in Ireland under the French sovereignty, which paper after coming to -the internuncio’s hands was seen by several clergy and laymen, known to -Father Daly, procurator, F. O’Neill, commissary. F. Macshone, guardian -of the Irish Franciscans, and F. Macmahone alias Matthews, Prior of -the Dominicans in Lovain, among whom ’tis also said that Fitzpatrick -carried such another instrument into France, where he first arrived -from Ireland and whence he went into Flanders, where he resolved to -settle at Brussels. But he was forced to remove thence by his R.H. -commands, which he obeyed not without much regret and murmuring. - - - P.R.O. ROMAN TRANSCRIPTS. VAT. ARCH. NUNT. DI FIANDRA 66 - - Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, May 24/June 3, 1679. - -In Ibernia, dove il numero de’ Cattolici è molto maggiore che quello -de’ Protestanti, ha gran seguito e autorità il Colonello Fitzpatrice, -onde il Duca d’Jorch a mostrato haverlo veduto malvolontieri venire à -Brusselles, per dubbio che il Parlamento pigliando gelosia del ricorso -di lui à S. A. Reale prenda motivo di maggiormente inasprirsi contro la -medesima, contro di essa, e contro il Duca d’Ormond. N’è perciò egli -partito per Olanda à titolo di veder quel paese, ma precedentemente ha -tenuta una segreta conferenza col Sig^r Duca d’Jorch, dopo la quale mi -ha lasciato intendere soffrirsi troppo patientemente da S. A. Reale -l’audacia de’ Parlamentarii, e doversi di gia pensare almeno à modi di -respingerla quando la temerità loro e la debolezza del Rè d’Inghilterra -passasse à porre in esecutione il projetto della sua diseredatione. -Toccante l’Ibernia ha detto chiaramente essere insofferibile il -giogo sotto l’oppressione del quale gemono quei Cattolici, e ha -aggiunto che apprendendosi per massima naturale il difendersi in -qualsivoglia maniera, non dubita egli che non fussero per commoversi -tutti concordemente, non solo se il Sig^r Duca d’Jorch ma se qualunque -barbaro Principe con qualque denaro, e con assistenza di pochi vascelli -si accostasse alle spiaggie dell’ Isola, e portasse armi e munitioni da -guerra à quelli habitanti. - - - - - APPENDIX D - - -“The trial of John Giles at the Old Bailey, for assaulting and -attempting to murder John Arnold, Esq.,” is a case which presents some -difficulty.[770] - -Arnold’s character for activity against the Roman Catholics has already -been mentioned. The way in which this trial is regarded materially -affects the answer to the question whether or no he exceeded the -legitimate bounds of his magisterial duty. If Giles was rightly -convicted, the excess was not great; if wrongly and the attempt on -Arnold’s life was a sham, not only did Arnold lend himself to a -criminal and most disreputable intrigue, but all his other actions must -be more severely judged. The case was as follows. Arnold had accused -Mr. Herbert, a Roman Catholic gentleman of Staffordshire, of speaking -seditious words against the king and government.[771] They were both -ordered to appear before the privy council on April 16, 1680.[772] On -the day before that date it was alleged that Giles, who was a friend -of Herbert,[773] attempted to murder Captain Arnold. For this Giles -was tried on July 7, before Jeffreys, the Recorder of London, and -convicted after what seemed to be a singularly fair trial. The case -for the prosecution was that, as Arnold was going between ten and -eleven o’clock on the night of April 15 to see his solicitor, he was -assaulted in Bell-yard, Fleet Street, by the accused and one or two -other persons, and but for the appearance of the neighbours would have -been murdered. Giles had spoken disrespectfully of the Plot and the -Protestant religion, had been seen to dip handkerchiefs in the blood of -the Jesuit Lewis who was executed the year before at Usk,[774] and was -supposed to have attacked Arnold in revenge for the part he had played -in the capture of Evans. Arnold himself gave evidence of the fact. He -swore that he had been dogged by two or three men into Bell-yard. One -of these went by him and then stood still while the magistrate passed. -By the light of a candle which a woman was holding at the door of a -neighbouring house Arnold saw the man whom he afterwards recognised -to be the prisoner. As he crossed a lane which ran into the yard, a -cloak was thrown over his head and he was knocked down into the gutter, -though not before he had time to draw his sword. As he lay on the -ground the men stabbed at him with their swords. He was cut in the -face, the arm, and the stomach, but the men were unable to pierce the -bodice of whalebone which he wore under his coat. One of them cried, -“Damme, he has armour on; cut his throat.” A light in Sir Timothy -Baldwin’s house, hard by, and a boy coming into the yard with a link -disturbed the murderers and they made off. As the cloak was pulled from -his head, Arnold again recognised the prisoner by the light of the -link. The men swaggered away and one turned back to call, “Now, you -dog, pray for, or pray again for the soul of Captain Evans.”[775] - -The evidence called to support and to oppose this was very -contradictory. It was sworn that, talking about the affray at a tavern -next day, Giles said, “God damn him, God rot him, he had armour on”; -but the witness admitted that he might have said, “God rot him, he had -armour on, they say.”[776] The prisoner declared that he merely told it -as a common piece of news that Arnold would have been killed had he not -worn armour, and called a witness who affirmed that this was so, that -Giles had called the attempt “a cruel assassination” of which he was -sorry to hear, and had made use of no oaths at all.[777] Evidence was -given for the crown that Giles had hurried through Usk on May 5, saying -that he was afraid of being arrested for the assault on Arnold, and at -a cutler’s shop where he went to have a sword mended said he had been -fighting “with damned Arnold.”[778] This was contradicted by the Mayor -of Monmouth, who proved that Giles had not hurried through Usk, but -stayed there several hours; and by the cutler’s apprentice, who proved -that when the prisoner was asked, “How came your sword broke? Have you -been fighting with the devil?” so far from speaking the words alleged, -he had answered, “No, for I never met with Arnold.”[779] A great deal -of evidence was given concerning the prisoner’s movements on the night -of April 15. He had passed the evening in company at various taverns, -and had finally gone to sleep at the King’s Arms in St. Martin’s Lane; -but as the witnesses arrived at the times o’clock to which they deposed -by guess-work alone, their evidence was naturally contradictory; and it -seems now quite impossible to know certainly whether Giles was, as the -prosecution contended, seen last at ten o’clock and did not go to bed -till one in the morning, or, as the witnesses for the defence stated, -had been in company till the hour of eleven or twelve.[780] According -to the evidence therefore, which Jeffreys summed up at length and with -moderation,[781] it was open to the jury to find either for or against -the prisoner, and after deliberating for half an hour they returned a -verdict of guilty. Giles was sentenced to the fine of £500 and to be -pilloried three times. On July 26 he was pilloried in Lincoln’s Inn -Fields and was pelted so severely that his life was in danger; and -when the remainder of the sentence was carried out in Holborn and the -Strand, he had to be protected from the mob by a guard of constables -and watchmen.[782] - -The real case against Arnold and in favour of the prisoner did not come -into court. Sir Leoline Jenkins, secretary of state, employed an agent -to draw up a report on the subject. The report was confined entirely to -the assault itself and did not discuss the movements of either Arnold -or Giles before or afterwards. It is notable that Arnold himself was -the only witness as to the manner of the attack and the incidents -connected with it, and that the important part of his evidence was -wholly uncorroborated. Although he wished to deny the fact, he was well -acquainted with Giles, who had been his chief constable, and probably -knew enough of his movements to lay a false charge against him without -running too great a risk of detection.[783] Jenkins’ information throws -a curious light upon his evidence. It does not afford proof that Arnold -lent himself to a bogus attempt on his life, but it raises strong -suspicion that this was the case. There was no motive for the reporter -not to tell the truth in points of fact. His deductions are lucid and -apparently sound. The government probably refrained from bringing -forward the new material owing to the intense opposition which the -effort to obtain Giles’ acquittal would have raised. I quote the most -important portion of the minute at length from the S.P. Dom. Charles -II 414: 245. The paper is undated, but from internal evidence is seen -to have been composed before the trial. It is without title, but is -endorsed by Jenkins: “Mr. Arnold and about his being assassinated.”[784] - -“1. Mr. Arnold was found near two at night April 15th, 1680 sitting in -the dirt, wounded, leaning his head against the wall, some four yards -within Jackanapes Lane, and immediately upon crying out, Murther. - -“2. Quaere:—the manner of the assault. When and where he received his -wounds; whether before his crying out or just at the time: what words -passed on the one side and on the other, and concerning their going -away laughing and triumphing. - -“3. He was struck down, muffled in a cloak, and they stamped upon his -breast; and yet he was found with a white hat on his head, no dirt upon -it, and his clothes only dirty where he sat; though the land was fouler -at that time than ordinary. - -“4. Two pricks in his arm, the one so just against the other, that it -seemed to be one wound; and yet hard to imagine how it should pass, for -the bone. - -“5. Upon his crying out, a woman held a candle from a window just over -him, and two of the neighbours’ servants went immediately to him; but -neither could see nor hear of anybody near him. - -“6. If wounded before he cried out, ’tis a wonder that one of these -boys should not hear either the blows or the scuffle; especially -standing within 6 or 7 yards of him in the street, and having a duskish -view of his body so long before he cried out, till upon his knocking -at the door of the Sugar-loaf for drink, a servant of the house came -downstairs, took his errand, went down for drink and came up again, in -the meantime. - -“7. Or if before this boy knocked, ’tis a wonder that upon that -knocking he did not immediately cry out for succour, hearing people -within distance of relieving him. - -“8. If he was stunded when they left him, how could he take notice of -what they said, and that they went laughing and triumphing away? Beside -the danger of being heard into Sir Timothy Baldwin’s house, on the one -side, and Mrs. Camden’s on the other, that looked just on to the place. - -“9. If he could not be heard to cry out because he was muffled, how -should he hear what the ruffians said? For they durst not speak so loud -as he might cry; neither with a cloak over him could they well come at -his throat. - -“10. If they meant to kill him, they might have stabbed the knife into -his throat; as well as have cut him; or having him down they might well -have thrust him into his belly when they found the sword would not -enter his bodice. - -“11. There was no blood seen upon the ground neither where he lay, or -thereabouts.” - -The balance of probability seems to be undoubtedly that no attempt -whatever was made on Arnold’s life, and that he deliberately engaged -in a worse than dishonest scheme to inflame popular prejudice against -the Catholics. - -This result supports the evidence received from other quarters. The -opinion at court and of the king himself was that the attack on Arnold -was a part of the Whig political machinery. Barillon, writing on April -26/May 6, 1680, says:—“Ce prince (Charles II) n’est sans inquiétude, -il voit bien par ce qu’il s’est fait sur le prétendu assassinat de -Arnold que ses ennemis ne se rebuttent pas et qu’ils veulent de temps -à temps faire renaître quelque occasion d’animer le peuple contre les -Catholiques.” - -In his manuscript history of the Plot (118) Warner gives the following -account of the affair: “Supra dictum nihil magis commovisse plebem -quam Godefridae eirenarchae caedes. Tentandam alterius caedem visum, -eundem ad finem et aptus visus Arnoldus personam in ista tragicomica -fabula sustineret, et Londini ... qui tum versabatur. Omnibus ad eam -exhibendam paratis, designata hora ix vespertina, nocte illumi. Cum -ergo biberet cum sociis in taberna publica, monitus a famulo instare -tempus, quod ad causidicum condixerat, se statim inde proripit et -conjicit in obscurissimam [sic] angiportum, destinatam scenam. Illic -magnis clamoribus civium opem implorat; a papistis sibi structas -insidias, sicarios ibi expectasse, jugulum haurire voluisse, sed -errante ictu mentum vulnerasse; eos fuga elapsos, ubi cives convenire -vidissent; eorum neminem sibi notum sed unum in tibia laesum; hunc -ex vulnere, reliquos ejus indicio comprehendi posse. Hoc xix Aprilis -contigit. Hinc tragice debacchant in Catholicos factiosi, Oate -praeeunte: legum beneficio juste privari qui leges susque deque -haberent; gladio utendum in publicos sicarios, internecione delendos, -ut ne catulus quidem reliquatur; averruncandam semel pestem omnium -vitae imminentem. Inventae una nocte omnes Catholicorum domus cruce -cretacea signatae, percussoribus indiciae, ubi hospitarentur. Nihil -deesse visum quam qui signum daret: hoc saluti fuit Catholicis sub -cruce militantibus, cruce signatis. Brevi motus ipsi subsiderunt, dum -constitit leniter tantum perstrictam cutem; nec constare a se, an ab -alio id factum; nemo vero Catholicus erat, in quem facinoris invidia -derivaretur. Testati chirurgi neminem in tota civitate vulnus in tibia -habere. Unus tandem inventus in familia Powisii qui attritam lapsu -tibiam oleo lenibat. Hic tentatae caedis arcessitur coram consilio -regio inde ad Arnoldum deducitur. Sed cum hic eum non accusaret, et -ipse probaret se navem conscendisse Brillae xix Aprilis (id est, -eodem die quo tentatum facinus) et tantum tertio post die Londinum -appulisse, et ipse demissus est, et Arnoldi fictae querimoniae cum risu -transmissae.” - -Strangely enough, Warner seems to have known nothing about the arrest -and trial of Giles. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, judging from the -report of the trial, regards the attempt to murder Arnold as an act of -revenge for the magistrate’s energy against the Roman Catholics, and -quotes it in support of Macaulay’s suggestion that Sir Edmund Godfrey -was murdered by some Catholic zealot for a similar motive.[785] In the -face of the probability that no real attack was made on Arnold, this -support falls to the ground. It is far more likely that the rumours -at court that Oates had murdered Godfrey to gain credit for the plot -suggested to Arnold or his wire-pullers the method of continuing the -credit of the Whig party by the shameful means of a bogus attempt on -his own life. - - - - - APPENDIX E - - - PENAL LAWS IN FORCE AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICS, 1678 - - 1. 1 _Eliz._ _cap._ 1 (Act of Supremacy), 1559. - - No foreign potentate shall exercise ecclesiastical power in - the Queen’s dominions. - - All the Queen’s servants, all temporal and eccles. officers, - all with degrees in the universities shall take the oath of - supremacy. - - None shall maintain the jurisdiction of any foreign - potentate in the Queen’s dominions under penalty of fine - and imprisonment for the first offence, for the second of - Præmunire (_i.e._ to be put out of the King’s protection and - forfeit all goods and chattels to the crown), for the third of - high treason. - - 2. 5 _Eliz._ _cap._ 1, 1562. - - None shall maintain the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome - within the Queen’s dominions under penalty of Præmunire. - - Two judges of assize or justices of the peace in sessions have - power to hear and determine this offence. - - All members of Parliament, schoolmasters, attorneys, officers - of the courts, etc., shall take the oath of supremacy on - penalty of Præmunire for the first and high treason for the - second offence of refusal. - - 3. 13 _Eliz._ _cap._ 1, 1571. - - All obtaining or putting in use any Bull of absolution or - reconciliation from the church of Rome shall be guilty of - high treason, their concealers of misprision of treason, - their comforters of Præmunire. All bringing into the Queen’s - dominions crosses, beads, etc., shall be guilty of Præmunire. - - 4. 23 _Eliz._ _cap._ 1, 1581. - - All persons pretending to have power to absolve the Queen’s - subjects from their natural obedience and converting them to - the church of Rome shall be guilty of high treason, and their - aiders and maintainers of misprision of treason. None shall - say mass under penalty of two hundred marks’ fine and a year’s - imprisonment, or hear mass under penalty of one hundred marks’ - fine and a year’s imprisonment. - - Every person above sixteen years of age who forbears to attend - church regularly (according to the Act of Uniformity 1 Eliz. - c. 2 § 3) shall forfeit to the Queen the sum of £20 monthly. - - 5. 27 _Eliz._ _cap._ 2, 1584. - - All Jesuits, seminary priests, or priests in orders from the - see of Rome, being born within the Queen’s dominions and - returning into or remaining in them, shall be guilty of high - treason. - - All others educated in Roman Catholic seminaries and not yet - having received orders shall be guilty of high treason, unless - they return within six months after proclamation made in - London and take the oath of supremacy. Penalty for concealing - a priest or Jesuit for more than twelve days, fine and - imprisonment during pleasure. - - 6. 29 _Eliz._ _cap._ 9, 1587. - - All Popish recusants shall, on conviction, pay into the - exchequer twenty pounds a month: in default, two-thirds of - their goods and two-thirds of their lands shall be forfeited - to the Queen. - - 7. 35 _Eliz._ _cap._ 2, 1592. - - All Popish recusants above sixteen years of age shall, on - conviction, repair to their usual dwellings and not remove - thence more than five miles, on pain of forfeiting all goods, - lands, and annuities. - - A Popish recusant, not having land worth twenty marks and - goods worth forty pounds yearly, and not complying with this, - shall abjure the kingdom, or not abjuring the kingdom, shall - be adjudged a felon. - - A Jesuit or priest refusing to answer shall be committed to - prison until he do answer. - - All married women shall be bound by this act, save only in the - case of abjuration. - - 8. 1 _Jac. I_, _cap._ 4, 1603. - - All statutes of Queen Elizabeth confirmed and appointed to - be put in execution. The heir of a Popish ancestor, not - conforming before the age of sixteen years, shall suffer the - penalties of the above statutes and forfeit two-thirds of his - land to the King to answer the arrears of twenty pounds a - month, according to the act of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. - - None shall send a child beyond seas to be instructed in the - Roman Catholic religion, on pain of the fine of one hundred - pounds. - - 9. 3 _Jac. I_, _cap._ 4, 1606. - - The recusant that conforms shall receive the sacrament within - one year of his conforming and once in every year, on pain to - forfeit for the first offence twenty pounds, for the second - forty, and so on. In forementioned cases the King may at will - refuse the twenty pounds a month from a Popish recusant and - take the two-thirds of his lands, saving only the recusant’s - mansion-house. - - The Bishop of the diocese or the justices of the peace - may tender the oath of allegiance to any persons (except - noblemen), being eighteen years of age and being convicted or - indicted for recusancy. - - Penalty for refusal to take the oath, Præmunire. - - To withdraw the King’s subjects from their natural obedience, - to reconcile them to the church of Rome, or to move them to - promise it, is high treason. - - None shall be punished for his wife’s offence. - - 10. 3 _Jac. I_, _cap._ 5, 1606. - - Informers discovering any harbouring Popish priests or hearing - mass shall have a third of the forfeiture due for the said - offences, or if the whole exceeds £150, then £50. - - No Popish recusant shall come to court on pain of the fine - of a hundred pounds, or to London or within ten miles of it, - unless a tradesman, on pain of the same fine, half to the - King, half to the informer. - - No Popish recusant shall practise law, medicine, or hold - office in any court, ship, castle, or fort on pain of the same - fine. - - None whose wife is such shall hold any office in the - commonwealth unless he educates his children as Protestants - and takes them to church. - - A married woman, being a Popish recusant, must conform a - year before her husband’s death, or forfeit two-thirds of - her jointure and be incapable of administering her husband’s - estate. - - Popish recusants must be married in open church by an Anglican - minister, and must cause their children to be similarly - baptised on pain of the fine of one hundred pounds, to be - divided between the King, the prosecutor, and in the latter - case the poor of the parish. - - Popish recusants must be buried in the Anglican churchyard, on - pain of a fine of twenty pounds from the executors. - - Popish recusants are disabled from presenting to benefices, - and from being executors, administrators, or guardians. - - Two justices of the peace have power to search the houses of - all Popish recusants, and of all whose wives are such, for - Roman Catholic books and relics, to burn and deface them. - - By warrant from four justices all arms, gunpowder, and - ammunition belonging to Popish recusants may be seized. - - 11. 7 _Jac. I_, _cap._ 6, 1609. - - Popish recusants may be required by justices of the peace (or - if barons and baronesses by three privy councillors) to take - the oath of allegiance. Penalty for refusing, Præmunire and - imprisonment until the oath is taken. Those refusing shall - be incapable of holding any office and of practising law, - medicine, surgery, or any liberal science for gain. - - A married woman, being a Popish recusant, and not conforming - within three months after conviction, may be imprisoned by - warrant of two justices of the peace (or if a baroness, of - a privy councillor or bishop) until she conform, unless the - husband pay £10 monthly, or forfeit a third of all his lands. - - 12. 3 _Car. I_, _cap._ 2, 1627. - - None of the King’s subjects shall go, or send, or cause to be - sent any one to be trained beyond seas in the Roman Catholic - religion, or pay any money for the maintenance of others for - that purpose, on pain of forfeiting all his goods, lands, and - chattels, and being disabled from prosecuting any suit at law. - - 13. 16 _Car. II_, _cap._ 4, 1664. (The Conventicle Act, directed - against all Nonconformists.) - - All meetings, other than those of the family, of more - than five persons declared to be unlawful and seditious - conventicles. - - Penalty for first offence, a fine of £5 or imprisonment for - 3 months; for second, a fine of £10 or imprisonment for 6 - months; for third, transportation for 7 years, or a fine of - £100. - - 14. 17 _Car. II_, _cap._ 2, 1665. (The Five Mile Act, directed - against all Nonconformists.) - - No person preaching in an unlawful conventicle or meeting to - approach within 5 miles of any corporation sending members - to Parliament, without having taken an oath “that it is not - lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the - King.” - - No such person shall teach in any public or private school. - - Penalty for not complying, a fine of £40. - - 15. 25 _Car. II_, _cap._ 2, 1673. - - All persons holding office, civil or military, or having - command, or receiving pay in whatever capacity in the service - or household of the King or the Duke of York, shall before a - specified date appear in the court of Chancery or King’s Bench - or of their respective counties openly to take the oaths of - allegiance and supremacy. - - And the said officers shall receive the sacrament of the - Lord’s Supper according to the usage of the church of England - on or before August 1, 1673 in some parish church upon some - Lord’s Day. - - Penalty for refusing to take the oaths, incapacity to hold any - office or position of trust either civil or military, and for - executing office after refusal, incapacity to prosecute any - suit at law and fine of £500. - - 16. 30 _Car. II_, _cap._ 1, 1678. - - No peer or member of the House of Commons shall sit or vote - until he has taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and - subscribed to a declaration that the worship of the church of - Rome is idolatrous. - - Penalty for peers and members offending, disability to hold - office and a fine of £500. - - Provided that this does not extend to the Duke of York. - - - - - MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF THE POPISH PLOT - - - 1. _Manuscripts._ - - Public Record Office. - - State Papers Domestic, Charles II 407–416. The state papers - of the period have not been calendared and are preserved - in loose bundles, some of which are ill arranged. Thus in - referring to the S.P. Dom. Charles II 407, I have been - compelled to add _e.g._ i. 285, ii. 23, as there are two - sets of papers in the bundle bearing the same numbers. - - State Papers, Ireland 339. - - Transcripts from Paris: dispatches of the French ambassadors. - - Transcripts from the Vatican archives in Rome. - - British Museum. - - Additional MSS.: 11,058, 17,018, 24,136, 28,042, 28,053, - 28,054, 28,093, 34,195. - - Harl. MSS.: 3790, 4888, 6284. - - Land. MSS.: 1235. - - Stowe MSS.: 144, 180, 186, 302. - - Longleat. - - MSS. belonging to the Marquis of Bath. Coventry Papers xi. - xx. lx. By the generous permission of the Marquis of Bath - and the courtesy of the authorities at the British Museum I - have been enabled to use these important papers (of which - an unsatisfactory account will be found in the appendix to - the 4th report of the Hist. MSS. Com.) in the Manuscript - department of the Museum. I am greatly indebted to Mr. S. - Arthur Strong, librarian of the House of Lords, for his kind - offices in obtaining access to the papers for me. - - I have also to express my thanks to Mr. Warner and Mr. - Bickley of the British Museum, and to Mr. Hubert Hall and - Mr. Salisbury of the Record Office for much kind help and - courtesy shewn to me during my work in their departments. - The manuscripts in the Vatican archives of which I have made - use were copied for me by Mr. Bliss, who most generously - interrupted his other work to make the transcripts. - - Cambridge University Library: “Persecutionis Anglicanae et - Conjurationis Presbiterianae Historia.” Autore P. Warner, - S.J., Regi Jacobo II^{do} a sacris. 181 pp. fol. - Letter-book of John Warner, S.J. - - These manuscripts, of which the former is the more - important, have, I believe, never been used before. They - were seen by Henry Foley, compiler of the Records of the - English Province, S.J., but do not appear to have been - used by him. A notice of them is so deeply buried in his - laborious and unordered work (v. 289) that it has escaped - the notice of the author of Warner’s life in the _Dictionary - of National Biography_. Foley left inside the cover of - Warner’s _History_ a note, which I quote below. Few are - likely to agree with him that it is “probably the best, the - fullest, and the most truthful ever recorded.” The account - of the Jesuit father is naturally prejudiced in favour of - his society and partakes of the nature of a martyrology. - There are nevertheless points of considerable interest - contained in it. The euphuistic style of Warner’s writing - marks him as a man of learning and culture. - - _Note by Henry Foley. 13 Nov. 1876._ - - “The original draft of this valuable MS. in the hand of the - Rev. Father John Warner, S.J., is in the British Museum, - Harlean MSS. 880. - - “It is closely written, divided into 8 chapters—f.c. 4^{to} - [_sic_]. The writing is so bad that it is difficult to make - it out. - - “Father Warner succeeded Father Thomas Whitbread, who - suffered at Tyburn 30 June 1679, as Provincial of the - English Province, S.J., and remained in that office for - three years. - - “In 1686 he was appointed confessor to King James II. He - died at the court of St. Germains the 2nd of Nov. 1692, - aet. 64. He was a very learned man and wrote several - controversial works. - - “HENRY FOLEY. - - “The history of these terrible times is probably the best, - fullest, and most truthful ever recorded. The learned author - was upon the spot and had his own personal share in the - sufferings. - - “The facts recorded are fully borne out by the _Litterae - Annuae, Prov. Angl. S.J._ of the time, and likewise by - contemporary writers. _Vide_ Echard, _Hist. Engl._, etc. - - “One new fact is ascertained—that the meeting of the Fathers - in London (upon the affairs of their body) was not held, - as sworn by Oates and his associates, at the White Horse - Tavern, Strand, but at St. James’ Palace, the residence of - the Duke of York. The Fathers who were tried and suffered - death could have proved this upon the trial, but were - silent, preferring death to the danger of compromising the - Duke.” - - 2. _Printed Documents and Sources._ - - Historical Manuscripts Commission: appendices to 1st Report - (Lefroy MSS.); 4th Report (Bath MSS.); 7th Report, Part - II. (Verney MSS.); 11th Report, Part II. (House of - Lords MSS. 1678–1688); 11th Report, Part V. (Dartmouth - MSS.); 12th Report, Part VII. (Le Fleming MSS.); 12th - Report, Part IX. (Beaufort MSS.); 14th Report, Part VI. - (Fitzherbert MSS.); 14th Report, Part IX. (Lindsey MSS.); - 15th Report, Part II. (Elliot Hodgkin MSS.); 15th Report, - Part V. (Savile Foljambe MSS.). - - Ailesbury (Thomas, Earl of): Memoirs. Written by himself. Ed. - W. E. Buckley. Roxburgh Club. 1890. - - Arnauld (Antoine): Œuvres, 42 tomes. T. xiv. Apologie pour les - Catholiques. Paris et Lausanne. 1775–1783. - - Avrigny (Hyacinthe Robillard d’), de la campagnie de Jésus: - Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire universelle de l’Europe. - Paris. 1757. - - Anglesey (Earl of): Memoirs. London. 1693. - - Bedloe (William): Narrative and Impartial Discovery of the - horrid Popish Plot. London. 1679. - - Calamy (Edmund): An Historical Account of my own Life. Ed. J. - T. Rutt, London. 1829. - - Campana de Cavelli (Marquise de): Les Derniers Stuarts à St. - Germain en Laye. Paris. 1871. - - Clarke (Rev. J. S.): Life of King James the Second. London. - 1816. - - Dalrymple (Sir John): Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland. - Edinburgh. 1771. - - Danby (Earl of): Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of - Danby. London. 1679. - - —— Copies and extracts of some letters written to and from - the Earl of Danby (now Duke of Leeds) in the years 1676, - 1677, and 1678, with some particular remarks upon them. - Published by his Grace’s direction. London. 1710. - - —— Memoirs relating to the Impeachment of Thomas, Earl of - Danby (now Duke of Leeds) in the year 1678. London. 1710. - - Evelyn (John): Memoirs. London. 1827. - - Grey (Hon. A.): Debates of the House of Commons. London. 1769. - - Florus Anglo-Bavaricus. Liège. 1685. - - Groen van Prinsterer: Archives de la Maison d’Orange Nasau. - 2nd série. T. v. Utrecht. 1861. - - Hale (Sir Matthew): Historia Placitorum Coronae. London. 1736. - - Halstead (Robert): Succintes Genealogies. London. 1685. - - Hatton Correspondence. Camden Society. Ed. M. Thompson. 1878. - - Journals of the House of Lords. - - Journals of the House of Commons. - - Jurieu (Pierre): La Politique du Clerge de France. 1681. - - L’Estrange (Roger): Brief History of the Times. London. 1687, - 1688. - - Luttrell (Narcissus): Brief Historical Relation of State - Affairs. Oxford. 1857. - - Kirkby (Christopher): A Complete and True Narrative of the - Manner of the Discovery of the Popish Plot to his Majesty. - London. 1679. - - North (Roger): Examen, London. 1740. - - —— Lives of the Norths. Ed. Jessopp. London. 1890. - - Oates (Titus): True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and - Conspiracy. London. 1679. - - Orléans (Pierre Joseph d’): History of the Revolutions in - England under the family of the Stuarts. London. 1722. - - Palmer (Roger), Earl of Castlemaine [ascribed to; see - Wheatley’s note to Pepys’ Diary, Dec. 1, 1666]: The - Catholique Apology, with a reply to the answer.... By a - person of honour. 3rd Edition, much augmented. 1674. - - Parliamentary History iv. London. 1808. - - Pomponne (Marquis de): Memoires. Ed. Mavidal. Paris. 1860, - 1861. - - Prance (Miles): True Narrative and Discovery. London. 1679. - - Reresby (Sir John): Memoirs. Ed. Cartwright. London. 1875. - - Sidney (Algernon): Letters to the Honourable Henry Savile, - ambassador in Paris in the year 1679. London. 1742. - - Sidney’s Charles II. Ed. Blencowe. London. 1843. - - Smith (William): Intrigues of the Popish Plot. London. 1685. - - Schwerin (O. von): Briefe aus England über die Zeit von 1674 - bis 1678. Berlin. 1837. - - Secret Service Expenses of Charles II and James II. Camden - Society. Ed. J. Y. Akerman. 1851. - - Somers Tracts vii. viii. London. 1812. - - State Trials 6, 7, 8, 10. Cobbett’s Collection. London. 1809. - - Treby (Sir George): A collection of letters. London. 1681. - - —— The second part of the collection of letters. London. 1681. - - Temple (Sir William): Works. Edinburgh. 1754. - - Welwood (James): Memoirs. London. 1718. - - Wood (Anthony à): Life and Times. Oxford. 1892. - - 3. _Histories and Biographies, etc._ - - Acton (Lord): The Secret History of Charles II. Home and - Foreign Review i. 146. - - Airy (Osmund): The English Restoration and Louis XIV. London. - 1888. - - —— Charles II. London. 1901. - - Boero (Giuseppe): Istoria della Conversione alla Chiesa - Catholica di Carlo II, Rè d’Inghilterra. Roma. 1863. - - Brosch (Moritz): Geschichte von England. Gotha. 1892. - - Burnet (Gilbert): History of My Own Time. Ed. Airy. Part I. - Oxford. 1897, 1900. - - Campbell (Lord): Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England. - London. 1856–1857. - - —— Lives of the Chief Justices of England. London. 1849–1857. - - Carte (Thomas): An History of the Life or James, Duke of - Ormond. London. 1736. - - Chantelauze (Régis de): Le Père de la Chaize. Paris. 1859. - - Christie (W. D.): Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of - Shaftesbury. London. 1871. - - Cooke (G. W.): History of Party. London. 1836. - - Courtenay (T. P.): Life of Sir William Temple. London. 1836. - - Cretineau Joly (J.): Histoire politique, religieuse, et - literaire de la compagnie de Jésus. Paris. 1844. - - Douglas (R. K.); Article on Titus Oates in Blackwood’s - Magazine. February. 1889. - - Echard (Laurence): History of England. London. 1707. - - Foley (Henry): Records of the English Province of the Society - of Jesus. London. 1879. - - Forneron (H.): Louise de Kéroualle, Duchesse de Portsmouth. - Paris. 1886. - - Fox (Charles James): History of the Early Part of the Reign of - James II. London. 1808. - - Foxcroft (H. C.): Life and Letters of Halifax. London. 1898. - - Gentleman’s Magazine: January 1866. Article on the conversion - of Charles II. - - —— July 1848. Notes on Sir E. B. Godfrey. - - —— September 1849. Notes on the Popish Plot. - - Gneist (Rudolf): History of the English Constitution. Trans. - Ashworth. London. 1891. - - Hallam (Henry): Constitutional History of England. London. - 1884. - - Hargrave (Francis): Opinion and Argument in support of Lady A. - S. Howard’s right to the new Barony of Stafford. 1807. - - Harris (Dr. William): Historical and Critical Account of the - Life of Charles II. London. 1814. - - Irving (H. B.): Life of Judge Jeffreys. London. 1898. - - Jesse (J. H.): The Court of England under the Stuarts. London. - 1855. - - Kennet (Dr. White): A Complete History of England. London. - 1706. - - Klopp (Onno): Der Fall des Hauses Stuart. Wien. 1875–1888. - - Lingard (John): History of England. London. 1831. - - Macpherson (James): History of Great Britain. London. 1775. - - Macaulay (Lord): History of England. London. 1849. - - Madden (R. R.): History of the Penal Laws enacted against - Roman Catholics. London. 1847. - - Oldmixon (John): History of England during the Reigns of the - House of Stuart. London. 1730. - - Parker (Samuel): History of his Own Time. London. 1727. - - Parkinson (Father): The Yorkshire Branch of the Popish Plot. - The Month xviii. 393. - - Ralph (James): History of England. London. 1736. - - Rapin Thoyras (Paul de): Histoire d’Angleterre. La Haye. - 1724–1736. - - Ranke (L. von): Englische Geschichte. Leipzig. 1877. - - Russell (Lord John): Life of William Lord Russell. London. - 1853. - - Shaw (W. A.): The Beginnings of the National Debt. Owens - College, Manchester, Historical Essays. Ed. J. F. Tout and - J. Tait. London. 1902. - - Sitwell (Sir George Reresby): The First Whig. Privately - printed. 1894. - - Seccombe (T.): Titus Oates in _Twelve Bad Men_. London. 1894. - - Spillmann (Joseph) S. J.: Die Blutzeugen aus den Tagen der - Titus Oates-Verschwörung. Freiburg i. B. 1901. - - Stephen (Sir J. F.): History of the Criminal Law in England. - London. 1883. - - Traill (H. D.): Shaftesbury. London. 1888. - - Wilson (Walter): Life and Times of Defoe. London. 1830. - - - - - INDEX - - - Albani, papal internuncio, 33, 38, 39 - - Alexander VII, Pope, 25 - - Aleyn, Sir Thomas, 269–270, 294 - - Anderton, Christopher, S.J., 342 - - Anglesey, Lord Privy Seal, 368, 369 - - Anne, Princess, 50 - - Arlington, Lord, 27, 35 - - Armstrong, Sir Thomas, 241 - - Arnold, Captain, 273, 361 - - Arnold, Margaret, 314 - - Arundel of Wardour, Baron, 12, 27, 50, 54, 61, 67, 77, 205, 209 - - Ashburnham, Sir Denny, 331 - - Ashby, 348, 349 - - Atkins, Captain Charles, 106, 108, 113, 116, 157, 158 - - Atkins, Samuel, 106–116 _passim_, 144, 158 - - Atkyns, Sir Robert, 286 - - Aubigny, Abbé d’, 25 - - - Bacon, Francis, 276–277 - - Barillon, 31, 179, 183, 188, 256, 260 _note_, 368 - - Barker, Sir Richard, 4, 10, 12, 13 - - Bedford, Duke of, 239 - - Bedingfield, Father, S.J., 74, 150 - - Bedloe, William, 63, 67, 109–148 _passim_, 157–160, 170, 229, - 312, 321, 328, 329, 334, 336, 337, 341, 347, 353, 356; - his character, 111, 113 - - Bellasis, Lord, 12, 62, 67, 77, 111, 122, 205, 328 - - Bellings, Sir Richard, 25, 27 - - Berkeley, Lord, 28 - - Berkshire, Earl of, 33, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69 - - Berry, porter of Somerset House, 123, 124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 140 - - Boatman, Jerome, 320 - - Bobbing, Kent, 4 - - Bolron, Robert, 199 - - Boyce, William, 135 - - Breda, Declaration of, 18, 21 - - Bristol, Earl of, 54, 65 - - Broadstreet, Mrs., 124, 129 - - Browne, Dr., 294 - - Buckingham, Duke of, 111, 121, 224, 225, 232, 238 - - Bulstrode, Sir Richard, 207 - - Burnet, Gilbert, 80, 95, 103, 156, 163, 333 - - Busby, George, S.J., 271–273 - - - Cardigan, Earl of, 54 - - Carlisle, Earl of, 64 - - Carr, trial of, 285 - - Castlemaine, Earl of, 198, 205, 213, 298, 360, 361 - - Catherine, wife of Charles II, 159, 160, 229–231, 246, 347–348, 362 - - Cavendish, Lord, 236, 247, 258 - - Cellier, Elizabeth, 137–138, 205–213 _passim_, 240, 338, 344, 360 - - Chaize, Père de la, S.J., 34, 35, 39, 42, 51, 68, 77, 305, 306, 317 - - Chapman, 348 - - Charles II, 10, 13, 15, 18, 26, 36, 42, 56, 59, 88, 103, 122, 125, - 169, 172, 184, 189, 195, 216, 218, 223–260 _passim_, 282, 333, - 362, 368; his policy, 23–25, 29–30, 232 - - Chepstow, 112 - - Chetwyn, Mr., 271 - - Child, 107, 109, 116 - - Clarendon, Earl of, 20, 22, 232, 278, 369 - - Clayton, Sir Robert, 209 - - Clement X, Pope, 38, 50 - - Clifford, Lord, 27 - - Cloche, James de la (James Stuart), 26 - - Coffee-houses, suppression of, 284 - - Coke, Lord Chief Justice, 46, 276–277, 358 - - Colbert, 27 - - Coleman Correspondence, 34–36 and _note_, 40 _note_, 42, 44 and - _note_, 47, 49, 51, 55, 58 _note_, 175, 317, 320 _note_, 353 - - Coleman, Edward, 11, 12, 17, 32 and _note_, 38, 39, 59–60, 61, - 62, 68, 78, 327, 346; his trial, 91, 120, 149, 151, 170, - 304–322 _passim_, 363 - - Colledge, trial of, 297 - - Colombière, Père de la, S.J., 66 - - Compton, Bishop of London, 174 - - Conway, Earl of, 173 - - Cooper, Charles, 134–135 - - Corral, Francis, 137 - - Cotton, Sir John, 171 - - Courtin, 31, 51 - - Coventry, Henry, 106, 109, 169 and _note_, 173, 175, 207, 208 - - Criminal procedure, 288–303 - - Croissy, Colbert, quoted, 226 - - Curtis, Elizabeth, 128 - - - Danby, Earl of, Lord Treasurer, 29, 71–75 _passim_, 78, 173, 176–181 - _passim_, 186, 190, 195, 215, 224, 225, 253; his policy, 41, 42 - - Dangerfield, Thomas (Willoughby), 164, 204, 213 _passim_, 338, 360 - - De Quincey, on murder of Godfrey, 3 - - Deane, Sir Anthony, 352 and _note_ - - Declaration of Indulgence, 21, 28, 29, 30, 223 - - Dennis, Bernard, 362 - - Devon witches, trial of, 314 - - Devonshire, Duke of, 239 - - Dolman, Sir Thomas, 309 and _note_, 331 - - Dover, Treaty of, 27, 28, 30, 48, 59, 224, 260 - - Dryden, John, quoted, 7, 85 _note_, 222, 360 - - Dugdale, 67, 275, 339, 340–341 and _note_, 348, 362, 363, 364, 370 - - Duras, Lord, 33 - - - Eastchurch, Elizabeth, 315 - - Elliot, Mrs., 229 - - Essex, Earl of, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 236, 241, 251, 254, 336 - - Este, Prince Rinaldo d’, 50, 51 - - Evans, Philip, S.J., 274 - - Evelyn, John, 10 - - Everard, Edmund, 174 - - Evers, S.J., 341 and _note_ - - Exclusion Bill, 153, 182, 190, 216, 218, 233, 244, 251, 252, 257–258, - 260 - - - Faulconer, Benjamin, 293 - - Fenwick (Caldwell), S.J., agent at St. Omers, 76, 125, 312–313, 326, - 327, 328, 329, 332, 363 - - Ferguson, Robert, 238, 253 - - Ferrier, Père, 33, 34, 35 - - Finch, Sir John, 279, 286, 299, 300, 359 - - Fiquet, Olivier du, 66 - - Fitzharris, trial of, 354, 360 - - Fitzpatrick, Colonel, 65, 218–219 - - Fletcher, W. M., 100 _note_ - - Forset, Robert, 98 - - Fox, quoted on witnesses, 314, 315 - - Frazier, Sir Alexander, 88 - - Fromante, 323, 325 - - - Gadbury, astrologer, 205, 240 - - Gardiner, Dr., and Gunpowder Plot, 86 - - Gascoigne, Sir Thomas, 66, 199, 200, 360, 361 - - Gauden, Dr., 122, 124, 129 - - Gavan, John, S.J., 201, 202, 341, 343 - - Gerald, Father, 122, 123, 124, 129, 140 - - Gerard, Lady, of Bromley, 229 - - Gerard, Lord, 236, 246 - - Gerard, Sir Gilbert, 246 - - Gilbert, Henry, 271–273 - - Giles, John, 274 - - Godfrey, Benjamin, 92, 95 - - Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry, 3, 11, 80, 83–166 _passim_; - his secret, 153, 155 - - Godfrey, Michael, 92, 95 - - Godolphin, Sydney, 10 - - Godolphin, Sir William, 12, 328 - - Goodrick, Sir Henry, 16 - - Green, 122, 123–124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 140, 147 - - Green Ribbon Club, 237–238, 239, 254 - - Gregory, Serjeant, 185 - - Grey of Werke, Lord, 236, 239, 247 - - Grove, W., lay-brother, S.J., 70, 73, 121, 125, 326, 327, 328, 330, - 332 - - - Habeas Corpus Act, 191 - - Habernfeld’s Plot, 11 - - Hale, Sir Matthew, 46, 47, 281, 282, 316 - - Halifax, Viscount, 17, 44, 55, 183, 189, 190, 232, 233, 241, 251, - 252, 253, 255 - - Hamilton, Duke of, 235 - - Harbord, Sir Charles, 16 - - Harbord, William, 249 - - Harcourt, William, Rector of the London College, S.J., 197, 329, 332; - his trial, 340–345 - - Harris, trial of, 285 - - Hastings, 4 - - Hatton, Charles, 242 - - Hatton, Lady, 368 - - Hawkins, Robert, trial of, 293, 300 _note_, 313 - - Henrietta of Orleans, 27 - - High Treason, 45–48 - - Hill, Lawrence, 122, 123–126, 131–132, 140 - - Hobson, George, 363, 364 - - Holles, Lord, 233, 238, 245, 369 - - Howard, Cardinal (Norfolk), 34 and _note_, 50, 51, 305, 320 - - Howard, Sir Philip, 106 - - Hulet, trial of, 293, 296 _note_ - - Huntingdon, Earl of, 247 - - Hyde Laurence, 255, 256 - - - Innocent XI, Pope, 50 - - Ireland (Ironmonger), Father, S.J., 76, 120, 125, 326, 328, 330–332 - - Ireton, Lieut.-Col., 238, 239 - - - James I., 276 - - Jeffreys, Sir George, 3, 7, 304, 332, 351, 352 - - Jenkins, Sir Leoline, 173, 250 - - Jennison, informer, 204, 362 - - Jennison, Thomas, S.J., 204 _note_ - - Jesuit congregation at St. James’ Palace, 152, 166 - - John of Austria, Don, 77 - - Jones, Sir William, 116, 172, 251, 252, 258, 305, 362, 367, 370 - - Justices of the peace, 269–287 - - - Kelly, Father, 124, 140 - - Keynes, John, S.J., 140, 220 - - Kirkby, Christopher, 12, 13, 70–75 _passim_, 89 - - Knox, Thomas, 335, 338–339 - - - Lane, John, 335, 338–339 - - Langhorn, Richard, trial of, 298, 304, 345–347 - - Lauderdale, Duke of, 28, 233, 235, 236, 245, 369 - - L’Estrange, Sir Roger, 13 _note_, 92 and _note_, 100, 102 _note_, 121 - _note_, 133, 134, 147, 149 - - Le Fevre, Father, S.J., 117–119, 127, 140, 141, 155, 157, 158 - - Legge, Colonel, 252 - - Leopold I, Emperor, 38, 220 - - Lewis, David Henry, S.J., 274 - - Lloyd, Dr., 72, 87, 89, 104, 135, 136, 138, 163 - - Lloyd, Sir Philip, 349–351 - - Lloyd, Temperance, 315 - - Locke, John, 223 - - Louis XIV, 24, 27, 255–257 - - Lovelace, Lord, 366 - - Lucas, Lord, 369 - - Luzancy, 16, 17 - - - Manchester, Countess of, 368 - - Mansell, Colonel, 208, 209, 210 - - Marshal, O.S.B., 351, 360 - - Marvell, Andrew, 225 - - Maynard, Sergeant, 305, 319, 362 - - Mazarin, Duchesse, 198 - - Meal Tub Plot, 204 _seq._, 335, 344, 360 - - Medburne, Matthew, 5 - - Meres, Sir Thomas, 184 - - Monmouth, Duke of, 25, 122, 123–124, 127, 129, 160, 227, 232, 233, - 234, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242, 245, 254 - - Montagu, Ralph, 178–181 - - Morley, Dr., Bishop of Winchester, 176 - - Morris, Father David, 202 - - Mowbray, Laurence, 199 - - Mulgrave, Marquis of, 239 - - - Non-Resistance Bill, 42 - - Norfolk, Duke of, 6, 202 - - Norfolk, Duke of (1571), his trial, 291 - - North, Chief Justice, 357 - - North, Roger, 89, 104, 150 - - Nymeguen, Peace of, 225 - - - Oates, Samuel, 4 - - Oates, Titus, 3–13 _passim_, 63, 64, 66, 70–80 _passim_, 89–91, - 112, 150, 151, 164, 170, 225–231 _passim_, 237, 239, 247, - 306–314 _passim_, 321, 327, 329, 331, 342–353 _passim_, - 356, 362–369 _passim_ - - Ogle, Lord, 224 - - Oliva, Johannes Paulus de, General, S.J., 26, 327 - - Orange, Mary, Princess of, 50, 225 - - Orange, William, Prince of, 29, 217, 220, 225, 233 - - Ormonde, Duke of, 194 - - Osborne, William, 338 - - Ossory, Earl of, 122, 123–124, 127, 160, 172 - - Oxford, Earl of, 369 - - - Parsons, Robert, S.J., 56 - - Pemberton, Chief Justice, 102, 298, 299, 300, 354 - - Penal statutes against Romanists, 19, 41, 53, 196, 244 - - Penn and Meade, trial of, 283, 358 - - Pepys, Samuel, 106, 107–109, 173, 352 and _note_ - - Peterborough, Earl of, 207, 209, 210, 212 - - Petre, Edward, S.J., 329, 342 - - Petre, Lord, 12, 54, 62, 205, 337 - - Peyton, Sir Robert, 207, 238, 240 - - Pickering, lay-brother, O.S.B., 70, 73, 76, 326, 327, 328, 330, 332 - - Plucknet, Mr., 96, 99 - - Plunket, Archbishop, 304, 360 - - Pomponne, Marquis de, 37, 52, 58 - - Portsmouth, Duchess of, 27, 242, 247, 250, 362 - - Powis, Countess of, 205, 207, 209, 212, 213 - - Powis, Earl of, 12, 62, 205, 337 - - Pracid, John, S.J., 66 - - Prance, Miles, 120–148 _passim_, 155, 158–166 _passim_, 348 - - Preston, Lord, 47 - - Price, Anne, 335, 339–340 - - Prison life in seventeenth century, 136 - - Pritchard, Charles, S.J., 119, 120, 140, 155 - - Pugh, Father, S.J., 273 - - - Radley, Richard, 353 - - Raleigh, Sir Walter, 292, 358 - - Rawson, John, 95, 96, 99 - - Reading, Nathaniel, trial of, 328, 335–338 - - Reresby, Sir John, 152 and _note_, 164, 179, 186, 227, 253, 270, 361, - 368 - - Rich, Sir Edward, 171 - - Richardson, Captain, 125, 134, 205 - - Roman Catholics, persecution of, 196–221 - - Rupert, Prince, 336 - - Russell, Lord, 16, 182, 183, 189, 235, 238, 247, 252, 258, 299, 333, - 334 - - Ruvigny, 31, 36, 38, 43, 52 - - Rye House Plot, 212, 237, 239, 260, 270, 334, 371 - - - St. Germain, Father (Dr. Burnet), S.J., 16, 17, 34, 52, 64, 80, - 201, 319 - - St. James’ Palace, Jesuit meeting at, 152, 166 - - St. Omers, 8, 9, 10, 67, 326, 342, 343 - - Salamanca, 8 - - Salisbury, Earl of, 225 - - Sarotti, quoted, 18 _note_ - - Savile, Henry, quoted, 239 - - Scott, Colonel John, 61–64 and _note_, 69 - - Scroggs, Chief Justice, 286, 298, 309, 317–319, 321, 322, 328, 329, - 332, 342, 345, 347, 349, 352–359 _passim_ - - Sergeant, Dr. John, 53, 201, 202 _note_ - - Seymour, Edward, 184 - - Shadwell, poet laureate, 239 - - Shaftesbury, Earl of, 22, 29, 42, 85, 103, 108, 142, 182, 183, 188, - 189, 191, 223–260 _passim_ - - Sheldon, Father, S.J., 33, 37, 38 - - Ship-money, 279 - - Sidney, Algernon, 234, 238, 239, 333, 343 - - Sidney, Henry, 202 - - Sitwell, Sir George, 13 _note_, 85 _note_, 228 - - Smith, Aaron, 237, 239 - - Smith, John, 362 - - Smith, William, 5 - - Somerset House, 156, 159, 161 - - Southwell, Sir Robert, 124 _note_, 129, 130 - - Southwell, Sir Thomas, 309 - - Speke, George, 336 and _note_, 337 - - Speke, Hugh, 238, 253 - - Stafford, Lord, 12, 54, 62, 64, 65, 67, 205, 337; his trial, - 153 _note_, 275, 280, 286, 298–300, 360–371 _passim_ - - Staley, William, his trial, 323–326 - - Stapleton, Sir Miles, 199, 360 - - Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, 46, 83, 146 _note_, 311 - - Strange, Richard, Provincial, S.J., 6, 8 - - Stuart, James (De la Cloche), 26 - - Suffolk witches, trial of, 293–294, 314 - - Sunderland, Earl of, 187, 189, 241 - - - Tasborough, John, 335, 339–340 - - Tempest, Lady, 199 - - Temple, Sir William, 173, 179, 186, 187, 190, 192, 218, 232, 239 - - Test Act, 29, 35, 42 - - Thomas, Grace, 315 - - Thompson, Pain, and Farwell, trial of, 98, 102 - - Throckmorton, Sir Nicolas, 291 - - Throckmorton, Sir William, 33, 35, 37, 38, 60, 305 - - Thwing, Father, 199, 360 - - Thynne, Mr., 236, 270 - - Tichbourne, Sir Henry, 337 - - Tilden, Mary, 129 - - Titus, Colonel, 251 - - Tonge, Dr. Ezrael, 3, 9, 12, 70–80 _passim_, 89–90, 177, 227, 326 - - Tonge, Simpson, 10, 13 _note_ - - Tory, origin of name, 244 - - Townley, Christopher, 344 - - Trade riot, 284 - - Trelawny, Sir Jonathan, 181 - - Trenchard, Sir John, 238, 239 - - Tuke, Colonel, 20 - - Tunstall, William, S.J., 329 - - Turbervile, John, 365 - - Turner, Anthony, S.J., 341 and _note_ - - Turner, Colonel, 269–270, 293, 298 - - Twyn, printer, sentence on, 285 - - - Valladolid, 6, 8, 67, 112, 326 - - Vane, Sir Harry, 366 - - Verdier, Francois, 66 - - Vernatt, 128, 140 - - Vittells, Captain, 114–115, 116 - - - Wakeman, Sir George, 12, 70, 295, 309, 322, 324; his trial, 347–352, - 355, 356, 361 - - Waller, Sir William, 143, 183, 209, 238, 249, 271, 343 - - Walsh, Charles, S.J., 117, 140, 141, 155, 157, 158 - - Walters, Lucy, 246, 247 - - Warcup, Justice, 271 - - Warner, John, S.J., 164, 165, 198 - - Warrier, James, 130 - - Watchmen, 268 - - Welden, George, 151 - - Wemyss, Countess of, 247 - - Wharton, Lord, 224, 225 - - White, Mrs., 205 - - Whitebread (White or Harcourt), Thomas, Provincial, S.J., 73, 78; - his trial, 326–330, 340–345 - - Williamson, Sir Joseph, 16, 109, 173, 178, 187 - - - York Castle, 199 - - York, Duchess of, 31, 49, 50, 79, 198, 205, 215 - - York, James, Duke of, 17, 27, 30, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 57, 69, 75, - 152, 164, 166, 181, 186, 198, 203, 207, 213–221 _passim_, 224, - 226, 234, 240, 241, 245, 251, 322, 341 _note_ - - - THE END - - - _Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_. - - - - - FOOTNOTES - - -[1] 7 State Trials 128. Evidence of Sir Denny Ashburnham, _ibid._ 1097. - -[2] Anthony à Wood, _Life and Times_ ii. 417. 7 State Trials 1094. - -[3] Burnet ii. 157. - -[4] Smith, _Intrigues of the Popish Plot_ 4. Oates, _Narrative_ 35, 36. -It was at this house that Baxter was insulted in 1677 by a Catholic -gentleman, who accused him of having been tried at Worcester for the -murder of a tinker. Baxter’s _Relation_ iii. 179. - -[5] Burnet ii. 157. 7 State Trials 1320. - -[6] 7 State Trials 1320. - -[7] _Ibid._ 1096, 1320, 1321. Burnet ii. 157. Foley, _Records_ v. 12. - -[8] _Absalom and Achitophel_ 646–649. Father John Warner describes -Oates in similar terms: “Mentis in eo summa stupiditas, lingua -balbutiens, sermo e trivio, vox stridula et cautillans, plorantis quam -loquentis similior. Memoria fallax, prius dicta nunquam fideliter -reddens, frons contracta, oculi parvi et in occiput retracti, facies -plana, in medio, lancis sive disci instar, compressa, prominentibus hic -inde genis rubicundis nasus, os in ipso vultus centro, mentum reliquam -faciem prope totam aequans, caput vix corporis trunco extans, in pectus -declive, reliqua corporis hisce respondentia, monstro quam homini -similiora.” MS. history 104. - -[9] _Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami à Paris_, 1679. 7 State Trials 1322. - -[10] _Absalom and Achitophel_ 657–659. - -[11] Sir William Godolphin to Henry Coventry, on information obtained -in Spain, November 6/16, 1678, Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers lx. 264. - -[12] 7 State Trials 358, 1322. Burnet ii. 158. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ -93. - -[13] See below in Trials for Treason. - -[14] _The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy and -Religion enquired into._ By John Eachard, D.D., Master of Catherine -Hall, Cambridge, 1670. - -[15] 7 State Trials 360–375. 10 State Trials 1097–1132. - -[16] _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 93, 94, 95. - -[17] 7 State Trials 324, 1325, _Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami à -Paris_. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 95. - -[18] Simpson Tonge’s Journal, S.P. Dom. Charles II 409: 39. Simpson -Tonge to L’Estrange, _Brief Hist._ i. 38. Simpson Tonge’s Case, House -of Lords MSS. 246–249. - -[19] S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 185. Sydney Godolphin to Sir Leoline -Jenkins, September 25, 1680. - -[20] S.P. Dom. Charles II 409: 36. - -[21] Evelyn, _Diary_ January 25, 1665. - -[22] Simpson Tonge’s Journal S.P. Dom. Charles II 409: 39. Simpson -Tonge to the King, _ibid._ 414: 139. Simpson Tonge to L’Estrange, -_Brief Hist._ i. 38. Kirkby, _Compleat and True Narrative_ 1. -_Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of Danby_ 14. _Brief Hist._ -ii. 100–125. Burnet ii. 158. North, _Examen_ 170. Ralph i. 382, 542. -In this account of Oates and the revelation of the Plot I have made -considerable use of Mr. Seccombe’s monograph on Titus Oates in _Twelve -Bad Men_, and of Sir George Sitwell’s study of _The First Whig_. I -am unable however to follow these writers, and especially Sir George -Sitwell, to whom I am much indebted for a loan of his book, in placing -much reliance upon witnesses on the Catholic and Tory side. These -labour under as great a bias as their opponents, and on some points -are convicted of falsehood. This applies in particular to the evidence -of L’Estrange and Simpson Tonge, upon whose authority the story of -the deliberate concoction of the Plot by Oates and Dr. Tonge rests. -That Tonge was a fanatic and Oates a villain is unquestioned; and it -is probably as just to call Tonge villain and Oates fanatic. But that -their rascality took this form is not proved. Simpson Tonge was also -a rascal, and his repeated contradictions, in the hope of gain from -both parties, make it impossible to discover the truth from him. In -the winter of 1680 L’Estrange challenged Oates (_Observator_ i. 138) -to prosecute young Tonge for defamation of character. The challenge -passed unnoticed; but the fact proves nothing, for however many lies -Tonge had told, Oates was not then in a position to risk a rebuff or to -court an inquiry into his own conduct. And L’Estrange’s bare assertion -is no proof of the truth of the fact asserted. The way I have treated -this, as all other doubtful evidence in the course of this inquiry, is -always to disbelieve it, unless it is corroborated from other sources, -or unless the facts alleged are intrinsically probable, and the witness -had no motive for their falsification. When the test is applied to the -present case, I believe that no other result than that stated above can -be obtained. - -[23] See, for instance, _La Politique du Clergé de France_, by -Pierre Jurieu. Arnauld, _Apologie pour les Catholiques, Le Jesuite -sécularisé_, and _La Critique du Jesuite sécularisé_, Cologne, 1683. - -[24] Barillon, January 16/26, 1680. See below in Trials for Treason. - -[25] He was wrongly said to be the Duchess’s confessor. Sarotti, -October 26/November 4, 1678. Ven. Arch. Inghil. 65. - -[26] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 780, 781, 782. C.J., November 8, 1675. - -[27] _Ibid._ Reresby, _Memoirs_ 98, 99. Ralph i. 292. Verney MSS. 466. -Foley i. 276 _seq._ Lingard xii. 278–282. Antoine Arnauld, _Œuvres_ -xiv. 532, 533. Foley i. 276, 277. Wood, _Fasti Oxon._ (ed. Bliss -1815–20) ii. 350. - -[28] Ralph i. 292. Verney MSS. 466. Burnet ii. 104. - -[29] Ruvigny, November 7/17, 8/18, 1675. - -[30] Fitzherbert MSS. 112, 76; St. Germain to Coleman, December 3/13. -1675; January 5/15, 1676. - -[31] Sarotti, who might have been expected to have heard of the case -favourably to St. Germain, writes of him simply as “un Padre Jesuita -che fu capellano della medesima Signora Duchessa e già tre anni in -circa fuggì, ritrandosi a Parigi per le differenze ch’ hebbe con -un ministro Calvinista della casa del Signor di Rouvigny,” October -26/November 4, 1678, as above. - -[32] See Appendix E. - -[33] L.J. xi. 276, 286, 299, 310. Kennet, _Register and Chronicle_ -469, 476, 484, 495. Orleans, _History of the Revolutions in England_ -236. _Letter from a Person of Quality to a Peer of the Realm_, 1661. -_Collection of Treatises on the Penal Laws_, 1675. Continuation of -Clarendon’s _Life_, by himself, 140, 143. - -[34] December 6, 1662. Kennet, _Register and Chronicle_ 848–891. -Baxter’s _Life_ ii. 429. - -[35] February 27, 1663. - -[36] July 25, 1663. C.J. Feb. 27, 28, April 27, May 30. L.J. xi. 478, -482, 486, 491, 558, 578. Clarendon 245–249. James i. 428. - -[37] For a general statement of the Catholic case see _The Catholique -Apology_, attributed to the Earl of Castlemain, and on the other -side _An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in -England_, by Andrew Marvell. - -[38] Ranke iv. 323. W. A. Shaw, “The Beginnings of the National Debt,” -_Owens College, Manchester, Historical Essays_. Mr. Shaw’s remarkable -essay throws a flood of light on the financial difficulties of the -early part of the reign. He considers the year 1667, when the Commons -attacked the administration and voted a commission to examine public -accounts, to be the point beyond which patriotic action could be -expected on the part neither of the Commons nor of the king. - -[39] Ruvigny, January 17/27, 1675: “Que les finances du roi ne -pouvaient pas mieux être employées qu’à la destruction d’un puissant -ennemi, qui soutenait tous les autres.” - -[40] As to the date of Charles’ conversion see Ranke iv. 383, 384. - -[41] Ranke iv. 384–386. _Gentleman’s Magazine_, January 1866. Lord -Acton, “Secret History of Charles II,” _Home and Foreign Review_ i. -146. Hallam ii. 387. - -[42] Acton, _op. cit._ _Gentleman’s Mag._ January 1866. Boero, _Istoria -della Conversione alla Chiesa Cattolica de Carlo II_. Welwood, -_Memoirs_ 146. - -[43] Brosch 420, n. Ranke v. 88. - -[44] _Lectures on Modern History._ - -[45] April 1675. - -[46] Clarke, _Life of King James II_ i. 440, 629. In referring to this -work I adopt Lingard’s plan of mentioning it simply as “James,” except -where the passage referred to is based, as here, upon James’ original -memoirs, when I refer to it as “James (Or. Mem.).” Klopp i. 235. Foley -i. 272 _seq._ - -[47] Cardinal Howard to Coleman, April 18, 1676. Treby i. 85. Courtin, -April 2, 1676. - -[48] Ruvigny, August 19/29, 1675. Courtin, October 9/19, 1676, January -11/21, 15/25, 1677. Barillon, December 17/27, 1677. Giacomo Ronchi, -October 3/13, 1678, in Campana de Cavelli i. 233. Longleat MSS. Strange -to Warner, December 28, 1676; Bedingfield to Warner, December 28, 1676; -Coleman to Whitehall, January 1, 1677; Mrs. Coleman to Coleman, January -1, 1677, January 4, 1677; Coventry Papers xi. 245, 246, 247. MS. diary -of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 199, 200. _Parl. Hist._ iv. -1035. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. i. Ap. 56. _Floras Anglo-Bavaricus_ 136. -Forneron, _Louise de Keroualle_ 136, 161, 179. Ralph i. 272. Burnet ii. -51, 99. - -Coleman is described by Warner, MS. history 41: “Hunc proxime secutus -est Edwardus Colemannus, serenissimae Ducissae Eboracensi a secretis, -in haeresi educatus, quam detectis erroribus ejuravit, et totus in -Catholicorum partes transiit, quas exinde promovit pro virili, magno -zelo sed impari prudentia. Magnum a natura sortitus est et festivum -ingenium, cui dum nimium indulgeret, et liberrimis censuris quae -parum a satyris abessent curules perstringeret, divûm nulli parcens, -multorum, praecipue, Danbaei, offensam incurrit, a quibus tandem -oppressus est.” - -The imputation that he diverted the Frenchmen’s gold to his own use -was put upon Coleman by Whig historians. Of this his character has -been cleared by Sir George Sitwell (_First Whig_ 25, note). The Whig -Committee of the House of Commons appointed to examine Coleman reported -his confession “that he had prepared guineas to distribute among -members of Parliament, but that he gave none and applied them to his -own use” (C.J. November 7, 1678). The committee was composed of men who -themselves received money from the French ambassador, and therefore had -the strongest motive to conceal the facts. But the truth slipped out -two years later in a speech made in the House by Mr. Harbord (December -14, 1680). Coleman, he said, did confess “that he had twenty-five -hundred pounds from the French ambassador to distribute amongst members -of Parliament, and your committee prudently did not take any names from -him, it being in his power to asperse whom he pleased, possibly some -gentlemen against the French and Popish interest.” The prudence of the -committee in attributing to Coleman statements which he never made is -also indubitable. - -[49] Coleman to Ferrier, June 29, 1674. Ferrier to Coleman, September -25, 1674. Coleman to Ferrier in answer to above. Coleman to La Chaize, -September 29, 1675. Treby i. 1, 3, 6, 109. Chantelauze, _Le Père de la -Chaize_ 4. - -[50] Berkshire to Coleman, March 24, 1675. Treby i. 103. - -[51] Throckmorton to Coleman, April 27, May 1, 1675. Fitzherbert MSS. -70. Burnet ii. 103. - -[52] Chantelauze, _Le Père de la Chaize_ 4. See below in Trials for -Treason. - -[53] In 1672 Howard was appointed bishop-elect of England with a see -“in partibus” but not consecrated. In 1675 he was created cardinal by -Clement X, and in 1679 nominated by Innocent XI Cardinal Protector of -England and Scotland. - -[54] Some of the letters could not be deciphered; see for instance -Albani to Coleman, January 12, 1675. Treby i. 121. - -[55] Treby i. 109–116. - -[56] Colbert, November 10/20, 1673, on the information of St. -Évremonde. Mignet, _Negotiations_ iv. 236. - -[57] Treby i. 110. Ferrier to Coleman, September 25, 1674; and -Coleman’s answer to Ferrier, Treby i. 3, 6. The Duke of York to -Ferrier, Treby i. 119. This last letter Coleman declared at his -examination in Newgate to have been written by himself in the duke’s -name and without his knowledge. 7 State Trials 54. There is however -no reason to accept his statement as true. Answering Ferrier’s letter -Coleman writes, “His royal highness has received the letter that you -sent him by Sir William Throckmorton, which he has answered to you -himself.” Treby i. 3. Supposing Coleman to have told the truth to his -examiners, he must have forged the letter, a work of considerable -difficulty, since James’ writing would certainly have been well known -at the French court. Throckmorton and Coleman must also in this case -have conspired to divert Ferrier’s letter to James and never deliver -it; for there could be no reason for the duke to meet with a marked -rebuff a letter so flattering to him and written in his interest, and -unless he refused to send an answer, Coleman would have no motive -to forge one. Nor can it be supposed that Coleman carried on his -correspondence without the duke’s knowledge. Beyond the certainty -that Coleman was in James’ confidence, this is plain from the fact -that on several occasions either Coleman’s correspondent desires him -particularly to show his letter to the duke or he mentions that he has -done so. And Coleman had the strongest motive to shield his master by -taking on himself the authorship of the letter. That he was believed is -probably due to Oates’ careful exoneration of the duke from concern in -the Plot at a time when he was not certain of a favourable reception -for his story. Another misunderstanding would be welcomed by Coleman. -This letter was said at the time to have been addressed to La Chaize, -and the belief would suit Coleman, since the letter would be less -likely to be connected with his own written to Ferrier at the same -time. The confessor to whom it was sent was certainly Ferrier and not -La Chaize, for Throckmorton, who is mentioned in it, was dead some -months before the latter came to court. The erroneous idea was probably -owing to the manner in which Ferrier is spoken of in the letter in the -third person, an use common with the writers in this correspondence. - -[58] Treby i. 110, 111, 112. - -[59] Treby i. 112. Coleman to Throckmorton, February 1, 1675. Treby ii. -1. Throckmorton to Coleman, November 28, December 1, 1674. Fitzherbert -MSS. 50, 51. Same to same, February 13, 1675. Treby i. 73. - -[60] Sheldon to Coleman, July 13, 1675. Treby i. 49. - -[61] Treby i. 112. Throckmorton to Coleman, December 8, December 22, -1674, January 19, 1675. Fitzherbert MSS. 51, 62, Treby i. 66. Coleman -to Throckmorton, February 1, 1675. Treby ii. 1. Sheldon to Coleman, -July 13, 1675. Treby i. 45. - -[62] Albani to Coleman, August 4, 1674. Coleman to Albani, August 21, -1674. Treby i. 21: 7. - -[63] Albani to Coleman, October 19, 1674. Treby i. 23. - -[64] Coleman to Albani, October 23, 1674. Albani to Coleman, January -12, 1675. Treby i. 12, 25. - -[65] Fitzherbert MSS. 113. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1024, 1025. Burnet ii. 104. - -[66] Coleman to Throckmorton, February 1, 1675.—“The duke having -the king wholly to himself, he would no longer balance between the -different motives of his honour and the weak apprehensions of his -enemies’ power; but then the duke would be able to govern him without -trouble, and mark out to him what he ought to do for the establishment -of his grandeur and repose. For you well know that when the duke comes -to be master of our affairs the King of France will have reason to -promise himself all things that he can desire. How shall we get this -parliament dissolved? ... by the King of France and the help of three -hundred thousand pounds. This parliament is revengeful to the last -degree, and no man that offends them must think to escape. But as for a -new parliament that will be better natured and will doubtless accord to -his Majesty all that he shall need for his occasions. And this for very -good reason, since they will more depend upon his Majesty upon other -accounts than his Majesty upon them for money. And to conclude where we -began, the duke by the dissolution will be all-powerful” (Treby ii. 1, -2, 3). - -Coleman to Albani, August 21, 1674.—“So that if the duke can happily -disengage himself of those difficulties wherewith he is now encumbered, -all the world will esteem him an able man, and all people will entrust -him in their affairs more willingly than they have done formerly. And -the king himself, who hath more influence on the East India Company -(Parliament) than all the rest, will not only re-establish him in -the employment he had before, but will put the management of all the -trade into his hands. We have in agitation great designs, worthy the -consideration of your friends, and to be supported with all their -power, wherein we have no doubt but to succeed, and it may be to the -utter ruin of the Protestant party” (Treby i. 78). - -Coleman to Albani, October 2, 1674.—“If the duke can shew to the king -the true cause of all these misfortunes and persuade him to change -the method of their trade, which he may easily do with the help of -money, he will without difficulty drive away the Parliament and the -Protestants who have ruined all their affairs for so great a time, and -settle in their employments the Catholics, who understand perfectly -well the nature of this sort of trade” (Treby ii. 6). - -[67] Treby ii. 21–25. - -[68] Coleman to Albani, October 2, 1674. Treby ii. 6. - -[69] Coleman to Albani, February 12, 1675. Treby ii. 8. John Leybourn, -president of the English College at Douay, to Cardinal Albani, June 17, -1675. Vat. Arch. Misc. 168. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 673, 674. Brosch 431, 432. - -[70] Ranke v. 184, 185, 186. Airy, _The English Restoration_ 235, 236, -237. Brosch 432. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 715 _seq._ Schwerin, _Briefe aus -England_ 24. Andrew Marvell, _Growth of Popery_. Treby i. 114. - -[71] This is awkwardly expressed. What they were about before was to -have the duke put again over the fleet, but not to have this done -at the request of Parliament; for it was then the object to have -Parliament dissolved. - -[72] Treby i. 116. Sec also Coleman to Albani, February 12, 1675. Treby -ii. 8. - -[73] Treby i. 117. - -[74] Treby i. 117, 118. - -[75] Halifax, _Maxims of State_:— - -XXIII.—The Dissenters of England plead only for conscience, but their -struggle is for power; yet when they had it, have always denied to -others that liberty of conscience which they now make such a noise for. - -XXVI.—They that separate themselves from the Religion of the State and -are not contented with a free Toleration, aim at the Subversion of it. -For a conscience that once exceeds its bounds knows no limits, because -it pretends to be above all other Rules. - -The dangerous nature of Coleman’s correspondence was recognised at the -time by sensible people, as well Catholics as Protestants. Barillon, -October 3/13: “On trouve dans les papiers de ceux qui ont été arrêtés -beaucoup de commerces qui paraissent criminels en Angleterre, parce -qu’il s’agit de la religion.” October 10/20, 1678: “On continue -toujours ici la visite des papiers du Sieur Coleman.... Tous les gens -raisonnables croyent que la conjuration contre la personne du Roi de -la Grande Bretagne n’a aucun véritable fondement. Les commissaires du -conseil qui instruisent l’affaire parlent de la même manière sur cela, -mais en même temps ils disent qu’il paraît un commerce fort dangereux -pour l’État avec les étrangers. Qu’il s’emploie de grandes sommes pour -soutenir les cabales et pour augmenter la religion catholique, et que -par les lois d’Angleterre la plupart de ceux qui sont arrêtés sont -criminels. Ils parlent bien plus affirmativement du Sieur Coleman. -On a trouvé dans ses papiers des minutes de toutes les lettres qu’il -écrivait à Rome, en France, et ailleurs. On prétend qu’il y a quantités -de projets qui tendent à la ruine de la religion protestante en -Angleterre et à l’établissement d’une autorité souveraine en Angleterre -et d’un changement de gouvernement par le papisme.” - -Il Nuntio di Vienna al Nuntio in Francia, Nimega, October 18/28, 1678: -“Al Colman oltre l’ insufficienti imputationi de complicità s’adossa -hoggi corrispondenza per altri capi criminali, che lo mettono in gran -pericolo della vita.” Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia 329. - -J. Brisbane to Henry Coventry, October 14/24, 1678.—M. de Pomponne -and M. Courtin treat the whole matter of the plot _en ridicule_ and -say that “le pauvre Coleman est mort seulement pour être Catholique.” -February 11, 1679.—Finds that those who did not long ago canonise -Mr. Coleman, do now acknowledge his execution to have been a just -punishment. Bath MSS. 242, 243. - -[76] 25 Edward III St. 5, c. 1. - -[77] Third Institute 6, 12, 14. - -[78] Hale, _P.C._ i. 109, 110. - -[79] _History of the Criminal Law_ i. 268. See on the whole subject -Stephen i. 241–281 and Hale, _P.C._ i. 87–170. - -[80] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 128. - -[81] 12 State Trials 646. - -[82] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 519. - -[83] See above. - -[84] 7 State Trials 60, 67. - -[85] Hale, _P.C._ i. 110. - -[86] Evidence of Jerome Boatman, his secretary, House of Lords MSS. 8. - -[87] St. Germain to Coleman, March 28, April 8, April 15, September -6, 1676. Treby i. 32, 40. Fitzherbert MSS. 81. Treby i. 42, ii. 18. -Courtin, March 23, April 1, July 16, August 11, August 13, 1676. -Pomponne to Ruvigny, April 1, 1676. Both Ruvigny and Courtin were in -London at this time. - -[88] St. Germain to Coleman, January 15, 29, February 1, 5, 8, March -18, April 13, November 18, 1676. Fitzherbert MSS. 76, 78, 79, 96, 107. -Treby i. 30, 32, 35. - -[89] Leybourn, Howard’s secretary, to Coleman, May 16, June 20, -September 5, September 21, 1676, June 25, July 10, July 16, August 6, -1677, January 1, 1678. Fitzherbert MSS. 102, 103, 104, 105. Treby i. -94, 95, 96. Howard to Coleman, March 1, April 18, 1676. Treby i. 81, -85. Courtin, March 13/23, March 22/April 1, April 3/13, April 10/20, -July 6/16, November 9/19, November 22/December 2, November 30/December -10, 1676. Correspondence later on the same subject March 29, April 8, -1679; the Duke of York to the Pope; the Duchess to the Pope. Vat. Arch. -Epist. Princ. 106. The internuncio at Brussels to the Pope. Nunt. di -Fiandra, 66. - -[90] See below in Trials for Treason. - -[91] Above, 43. - -[92] St. Germain to Coleman, January 29, April 15, July 25, 1676. Treby -i. 30, 43. Fitzherbert MSS. 80. - -[93] _Mémoires du Marquis de Pomponne_ i. 538. - -[94] This distinction was widely recognised, see 7 State Trials 475. -Ralph i. 91, note. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 274. It corresponded in the ideas -of the time to the difference between a simple Roman Catholic and “a -Jesuited Papist.” - -[95] Stafford’s statement; House of Lords MSS. 43. Burnet i. 346. Foley -v. 19. - -[96] Foley v. 80. John Leybourn, April 19/29, 1674; same to Cardinal -Albani, June 7/17, 1675. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Inghilterra and Misc. 168. - -Pietro Talbot (the Jesuit Archbishop of Dublin), Primate de Irlanda -al Nuntio F. Spada, Nuntio in Parigi, April 3/13, 1675. Nunt. di -Francia, 431. “V. S. Ill^{ma} si compiaccia de aggiungere le inchiuse -propositioni del Sig^n Giovanni Sargentio alle altre sue; tutte (come -V. S. Ill^{ma} vede) sono heretiche o almeno inferiscono l’heresia.” - -Continual references to the same subject are found in the Papal -despatches of the time. - -[97] _Maxims of State_ lxv. - -[98] See D’Avrigny, _Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de l’Europe_ 47, -48. Arnauld, _Œuvres_ xiv. 410. - -[99] Leybourn to Coleman, May 2, 1676. Fitzherbert MSS. 102. John -Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, March 30, 1676, “The Duke of York did -declare that he would never more come under the roof of Whitehall -chapel, which makes every one say he is a perfect papist.... ’Tis -said he publicly goes to mass. God bless him and preserve the King.” -Verney MSS. 467. Courtin, March 23, April 2, October 2/12, 1676. -Le ministre des affaires étrangères à Courtin, April 1/11, 1676. -_Mémoires du Marquis de Pomponne_ i. 491. Marchese Cattaneo al Duca -di Modena, April 20/30, 1676: “In alcune parti d’Inghilterra si e -cominciata l’esecuzione delle legge contro i Cattolici, imprigionandoli -e confiscandogli i beni.... Delle rincrudite persecuzioni verso i -Cattolici e accagionato il Duca d’York perche non ha voluto nella -Pasqua recarsi alla capella Regia (Protestante),” in Campana de Cavelli -i. 171. Longleat MSS. Proclamation of October 3, 1676. Coventry Papers -xi. 154. - -[100] The interpretation of the following letter seems doubtful, but -it is worth quoting. It is a curious fact that Lord Castlemaine should -have either taken, or intended to take, orders in the Church of Rome. - -January 1, 1677. To the Lord Castlemaine at Liège: “118 and 109, as I -am privately told, are now perfectly reconciled to the Duke of York, -and fully resolved to serve him and his interest, so that if the -Lords and Commons when they meet do nothing, the King will dissolve -them and once more publish a toleration. Consider if Mr. Skinner can -make a seasonable check of mettlesome stuff for the conjuncture. By -a letter from Mr. Warner at Paris I find D. of Cleveland persuaded -that Ld. Castlemain is already made a priest by the Jesuits’ underhand -contrivances, and that she obstructed it what she could at Rome. I -should think it expedient that she should continue in that belief, -that she may think it now too late to go about to hinder it.” Unsigned -Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 347. - -[101] Throckmorton to Coleman, January 9, February 20, 1675. -Fitzherbert MSS. 60, 66. Berkshire to Coleman, n.d. Treby i. 102. - -[102] Journal of Sir Joseph Williamson, March 12, 30, 1672, in Cal. -S.P. Dom. 1671–1672, 608. Longleat MSS. Francis Bastwick to Henry -Coventry, April 29, 1679. Examination of Col. Scott at Dover of same -date. Coventry Papers xi. 393, 396. Two letters in the same collection -seem to show that Scott was a regular spy of the English Government, -but they are so vague that much reliance cannot be placed on them. -Coventry Papers xi. 171, 506. See Appendix A. - -[103] Longleat MSS. “An account of what the Earl of Berkshire desired -Colonel John Scott to communicate to his Majesty.” Coventry Papers xi. -397. See Appendix A. See too Collins’ _Peerage_, 1812, iii. 163. - -[104] Scott afterward gave evidence before the House of Commons against -Pepys, whom he charged on report with having given information of -the state of the navy to the French court; but the affair was never -thoroughly investigated. Grey, _Debates in Parliament_ vii. 303–309. - -[105] House of Lords MSS. 43, 44. Burnet i. 345, 346; ii. 276, 277. -Airy, _The English Restoration_ 240. - -[106] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 310, 313, 317. See Appendix A. - -[107] J. P. Oliva Generale dei Gesuiti al Cardinale Altieri, September -23/October 3, 1674. Vat. Arch. Archivio di Propaganda Fide. Ranke v. 91. - -[108] Dal Sig^r Internuncio, May 24/June 3, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di -Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. 32095: 196. See below in Politics of the Plot. - -[109] L.J. November 21, 1678. Foley v. 221, 222. Longleat MSS. Coventry -Papers xi. 483, a version of Du Fiquet’s information in French. - -[110] 7 State Trials 1007. - -[111] Brusselles Dal. Sig^r Internuncio, April 19/29, 1679. Vat. Arch. -Nunt. di Fiandra 66. - -[112] Longleat MSS. St. Omers, August 14, 1678. Sam Morgan to his -father, Coventry Papers xi. 204. See Appendix A. - -[113] Pepys, _Memoires relating to the State of the Royal Navy in -England_ 4, 5, 8. - -[114] Longleat MSS. Letter of December 23, 1676. Coventry Papers xi. -171. See Appendix A. - -[115] Treby i. 19. September 18/28, 1678. - -[116] L’Abbate G. B. Lauri a S. Em^{za}, November 22/December 2, 1678. -Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia 332. See Appendix A. - -[117] Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. “Il (le Duc d’York) me fit -entendre. ...qu’il ne comprenait pas que le Roi son frère voulût -mettre tous les Catholiques en désespoir et les persécuter sans -aucunes mesures. Il ajouta à cela en termes pleines de colère et -ressentiment que si on le poursuit à bout et qu’il se voit en état -d’être entièrement ruiné par ses ennemis, il trouvera le moyen de les -en faire repentir et se vangera d’eux.... M. le Duc de Bouquinham m’a -dit plusieurs fois qu’il avait bu fort souvent avec le Roi de la Grande -Bretagne, mais qu’il n’avait jamais vu ce Prince dans une débauche un -peu libre qu’il ne temoignât beaucoup d’aigreur et de la haine même -contre son frère.” - -[118] Examinations of Saunders, Coulster, and Towneley, April 28, 1679. -House of Lord MSS. 149–152. - -[119] Macaulay iv. 649–652. Lord Acton, _Lectures on Modern History_. -If Charles’ word when he was sober can be trusted, he believed there -was no ground to suspect the duke of any intention against his life. -Barillon, November 22/December 2, 1680. “Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne -dit encore en jurant avant hier au conseil: Mon frère ne m’a point -voulu faire tuer, ny pas un de vous ne le croît.” It was however -Charles’ constant policy to uphold the Duke of York. See too Reresby, -_Memoirs_ 146. - -[120] Ralph i. 382. - -[121] It is a tribute to the liveliness of Oates’ imagination that -Pickering, said to be an agent in the Jesuit plot, was a Benedictine -lay-brother. - -[122] Kirkby, _Compleat and True Narrative_ i. Simpson Tonge’s Journal -38; S.P. Dom. Charles II 409. - -[123] Simpson Tonge’s Journal 39. - -[124] Kirkby, _Compleat and True Narrative_ 2. Simpson Tonge’s Journal -40, 41. _Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of Danby_ 13, 14. - -[125] _Impartial State of the Case_ 14, 15. - -[126] _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 95. - -[127] _Impartial State of the Case_ 15. Kirkby, _Compleat and True -Narrative_ 2. 7 State Trials 96, 328, 345. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 39, -59. - -[128] _Impartial State of the Case_ 15. - -[129] _Impartial State of the Case_ 15, 16. Kirkby, _Compleat and True -Narrative_ 2, 3. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 64, 65, 124. L’Estrange, -_Brief Hist._ ii. 4–15. _Observator_ ii. 150–153, October 1684. James -(Or. Mem.) i. 518, 519. Ralph i. 383, 384. Burnet ii. 158. - -[130] Simpson Tonge’s Journal 135. Kirkby, _Compleat and True -Narrative_ 3. _Impartial State of the Case_ 16. James (Or. Mem.) i. -518. Temple, _Works_ i. 398. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 147. Burnet ii. 158. - -[131] Simpson Tonge’s Journal 152. 7 State Trials 29, James (Or. Mem.) -i. 518–521. Warner MS. history 26. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 98. Foley -v. 16. Burnet ii. 160. North, _Examen_ 58. - -[132] Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678. 7 State Trials 656. -Foley v. 17, 18, 20, 21. Schwerin, _Briefe aus England_ 330, 334, 342. - -[133] Barillon, October 3/13, 10/20, 1678. 7 State Trials 29, 30, 33. -_Impartial State of the Case_ 17. Add. MSS. 28,042: 32. Notes by Danby -for a letter to be sent to a member of the House of Commons. Danby to -Lord Hatton, March 29, 1678. _Hatton Correspondence_ i. 184. - -[134] Il Nuntio di Vienna al Nuntio in Francia. Nimega, October 18/28, -1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia, 329. - -[135] Barillon, October 3/13, 7/17, 10/20, 17/27, 1678. Paolo Sarotti, -Ven. arch. October 11/21, 1678. Schwerin, _Briefe aus England_ October -4/14, 1678. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 1. Halstead, _Succinct -Genealogies_ 433. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 145. North, _Examen_ 177. Evelyn, -_Diary_ October 1, 1678. _Caveat against the Whigs_ ii. 42. Foley v. -18. Burnet ii. 161, 162. - -[136] Calamy, _Own Life_ i. 83, 84. Christie, _Life of Shaftesbury_ ii. -309. Burnet ii. 165. North, _Examen_ 206. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. -12, 21. Schwerin, _Briefe aus England_ 336, 351, November 18, 1678. - -[137] See the prologue to Dryden’s tragi-comedy, _The Spanish Friar_, -produced early in 1681:— - - A fair attempt has twice or thrice been made - To hire night murderers and make death a trade. - When murder’s out, what vice can we advance, - Unless the new-found poisoning trick of France? - And when their art of rats-bane we have got, - By way of thanks, we’ll send them o’er our Plot. - -Scott suggests that the allusion is to the murder of Mr. Thynne, but -this did not occur till some months after the production of the play. -Christie refers it to the assault made upon Dryden himself in Rose -Alley in December 1679; but the reference to the plot makes it far more -probable that Dryden had in his mind the murder of Godfrey and the sham -attempt on Arnold eighteen months later. He would certainly class the -two together, for he attributed Godfrey’s death to Oates:— - - And Corah might for Agag’s murder call - In terms as coarse as Samuel used to Saul. - -_Absalom and Achitophel_, 676, 677. - -[138] Sir George Sitwell gives a most instructive and entertaining -description of these, _The First Whig_, chap. vi. - -[139] _What Gunpowder Plot was_ 13. - -[140] Tuke, _Memoirs of Godfrey_ 1–15. Sidney Lee, Article on Godfrey -in _Dict. of Nat. Biog._ _Gentleman’s Magazine_, January 1848. -Godfrey’s Christian names are variously spelt. I give the most correct -form in writing, but in quoting retain that used by the writer or -reporter. - -[141] Tuke, _Memoirs_ 39–51. - -[142] Sidney Lee, _op. cit._ _Gazette_ No. 88. Ralph i. 139. - -[143] Pepys, _Diary_ May 26, 1699. Tuke, _Memoirs_ 36–39. Tuke is -mistaken in saying that Godfrey was knighted on this occasion, in -recompense for the injury done him. The knighthood was conferred in -September 1666. - -[144] An engraving by F. H. van Hove is inserted in Tuke’s _Memoirs_. - -[145] Tuke, _Memoirs_ 19, 20. North, _Examen_ 199. - -[146] Tuke, _Memoirs_ 52, 53. - -[147] Kirkby, _Compleat and True Narrative_ 2, 3. - -[148] Kirkby, _Compleat and True Narrative_ 3. Simpson Tonge’s Journal -126, 135. - -[149] Tuke, _Memoirs_ 22, 23, 29, Burnet ii. 163. North, _Examen_ 199, -200. - -The author of the Annual Letters of the English Province S.J. is -probably inaccurate in stating, “He was especially kind to the Roman -Catholics, and was moreover a great confidant of the Duke of York” -(quoted Foley Records v. 15); but the statement is only an exaggeration -of the truth. Warner MS. history 26, “Nec alius in eo magistratu -aut Carolo fidelior aut Catholicis, etiam Jesuitis, quorum multos -familiarissime noverat, amicior.” - -[150] Burnet ii. 164. Depositions of Henry Moor, Godfrey’s clerk. -L’Estrange, _Brief History_ iii. 203, 204, 208. The depositions -collected by L’Estrange in this work must be regarded with suspicion. -The statements in many are obviously untrue, and L’Estrange was not -above falsifying evidence to suit his purpose. Among other reasons for -the use of great caution is the fact that most of the depositions were -not taken until eight or nine years after the event. Their exact dates -cannot be ascertained, as they are seldom quoted by L’Estrange, and the -original documents are missing. They are supposed to have been stolen -from the State Paper Office immediately after the Revolution (Sitwell, -_First Whig_ ix.). Only after careful scrutiny can these papers be used -as evidence. Moor’s evidence was taken for the coroner. He afterwards -went to live at Littleport, in Cambridgeshire, and died apparently in -1685 or 1686. _Brief Hist._ iii., Preface vii. 171. - -[151] _Brief Hist._ iii. 204, 205. - -[152] _Brief Hist._ iii. 205, 206. Depositions of Pengry and Fall. - -[153] _Brief Hist._ ii. chap. vi, 199, iii. 195–201. The evidence that -the news of Godfrey’s absence was known before Tuesday, October 15, -is not to be relied on. It consists wholly of depositions taken by -L’Estrange several years after. Some contain such ridiculous statements -as that before 3 P.M. on Saturday, October 12, it was a common report -that Godfrey was murdered by the Papists. (Dep. of Wynell, Burdet, -Paulden, 195, 196, 200.) At this time even his household could not -possibly have known that he would not return. Another declares that -on the morning of Sunday “it was in all the people’s mouths in that -quarter that he was murdered by the Papists at Somerset House.” (Dep. -of Collinson, 200.) At this time it was not known in Hartshorn Lane -that Godfrey had not spent the night at his mother’s. In another a -false statement can fortunately be detected. Thomas Burdet deposed -(196, 197) that Godfrey and Mr. Wynell had an appointment to dine -on the Saturday with Colonel Welden, that Godfrey did not keep his -appointment, and that the surprise which was caused by this was -increased by the immediate report of his murder. As a matter of fact -Godfrey had no appointment to dine with Welden, and so could not have -caused surprise by not appearing. He had been invited, but could not -promise to come. Welden gave evidence before the Lords’ Committee: “He -came on Friday night with officers of St. Martin’s, and at going away -I asked him to dine with me on Saturday. He said he could not tell -whether he should.” (House of Lords MSS. 48.) North’s assertions to the -same effect (_Examen_ 201) are equally worthless. Burnet is positive -that the news of Godfrey’s absence was not published before Tuesday, -October 15. Burnet’s character has been sufficiently rehabilitated -by Ranke and Mr. Airy; but I may remark that, as he was opposed to -the court, did not believe in Oates’ revelations, and had access to -excellent sources of information, his evidence upon the Popish Plot is -of remarkable value. - -[154] Burnet places this tale at a time before the news was public, -and says that the suggestion was credited by Godfrey’s brothers. Very -likely they may have believed it, but a comparison with Moor’s evidence -(see above) makes it probable that this explanation was the first given -after his absence was known. - -[155] Burnet ii. 164. North, _Examen_ 202. _Diary of Lord Keeper -Guildford_, Dalrymple ii. 321. - -[156] John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471. - -[157] Lloyd to L’Estrange, _Brief Hist._ iii. 87. Burnet ii. 164. North -says the body was found upon Wednesday, October 16 (_Examen_ 202), but -this is a mistake. - -[158] “7 guineas, 4 broad pieces, £4 in silver.” The coroner’s evidence. - -[159] Evidence of the coroner and Rawson before the Lords’ Committee. -House of Lords’ MSS. 46, 47. Evidence of Brown, the constable, at the -inquest. _Brief Hist._ iii. 212–215, 222. - -[160] Deposition of White, coroner of Westminster. _Brief Hist._ iii. -224. - -[161] Quoted from the printed copy published by Janeway in 1682. _Brief -Hist._ iii. 232. - -[162] “The jury’s reasons for the verdict they gave.” _Brief Hist._ -iii. chap. xii. - -[163] Evidence of Collins, Mason, and Radcliffe. _Brief Hist._ iii. -252, 300. Some not very good evidence was collected several years -afterwards as to Godfrey’s movements later in the day. It cannot be -considered trustworthy. 8 State Trials 1387, 1392, 1393. _Brief Hist._ -iii. 174, 175. - -[164] The coroner’s evidence before the Lords’ committee; “There was -nothing in the field on Tuesday.” House of Lords MSS. 47. Evidence of -Mrs. Blith and her man at the inquest. _Brief Hist._ iii. 244. - -[165] Deposition of Robert Forset. 8 State Trials 1394, 1395. - -[166] Sir George Sitwell says: “The bruises or discolourations upon -his chest might well have been produced by those who knelt upon it in -stripping off the clothes” (_First Whig_ 41). Bruises however cannot -be made to appear upon a corpse beyond the time of three and a half -hours after death (Professor H. A. Husband in the _Student’s Handbook -of Forensic Medicine_), nor is there any evidence that the body was so -treated. Marks which look like bruises may be caused after death by the -process of hypostasis or suggillation, the gravitation of the blood to -the lowest point in the dead body. But if the marks on Godfrey’s body -had been thus caused, the face and neck would have shown pronounced -signs of discolouration, since the head was lower than any other point -in the body. It had moreover been in that position for at most only -twenty-four hours, so that the blood would not have gravitated to the -chest immediately after death at all. - -[167] L’Estrange afterwards persuaded the surgeon Lazinby to say that -the mark was caused by the pressure of the collar. _Brief Hist._ iii. -259. But his evidence in court was, on the contrary, that it was caused -“by the strangling with a cord or cloth.” 8 State Trials 1384. - -[168] The evidence as to the exact condition of the neck, varies -slightly, but the doctors, and indeed all who saw the body, were agreed -that it was broken. - -[169] Evidence of the surgeons Cambridge and Skillard at the trial -of Green, Berry, and Hill. 7 State Trials 185, 186. Evidence of the -coroner before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. Evidence -of Hobbs and Lazinby, surgeons, and the two Chaces, apothecaries, at -the trial of Thompson, Pain, and Farwell. 8 State Trials 1381–1384. - -[170] Evidence of Brown, Skillard, and Cambridge at the trial of Green -and others. 7 State Trials 184, 185, 186. Evidence of Hazard, Batson, -Fisher, Rawson, Mrs. Rawson, Hobbs, Lazinby, the Chaces, at the trial -of Thompson and others. 8 State Trials 1379–1384. Depositions of -Skillard, Rawson, and others. _Brief Hist._ iii. 265–271. Some of the -witnesses in their depositions before L’Estrange spoke of the presence -of a greater quantity of blood than they had previously remembered. -Obviously their earlier impressions are the more trustworthy. Even at -the later date the quantity to which they swore was not considerable. - -[171] _Brief Hist._ iii. 271. He does not attempt however to give any -evidence for his statement. - -[172] _Brief Hist._ iii. 230. - -[173] Mr. W. M. Fletcher, M.B., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, -has kindly furnished me with his opinion on this point. He says: “A -sword transfixing the living body and at the same time driven through -the cavity of the heart would cause violent hæmorrhage from one or -other of the external wounds, except only under a set of circumstances -which could be present only by the rarest chance; the hæmorrhage, that -is to say, could be restrained only by an accidental block produced -not only at one but at two points on either side of the heart cavity, -where the torn tissues might happen so to fit outwards upon and closely -against the undisturbed sword as to form a kind of valve. Such an -accidental valve formation, occurring at two separate points on each -side of the pent-up blood, is improbable enough, but could not be -imagined as a prevention of hæmorrhage if the sword were bent, twisted, -or withdrawn after the infliction of the wound.” - -[174] 7 State Trials 295. Information of Mrs. Warrier. _Brief Hist._ -iii. 142. Burnet ii. 164. Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ -committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. L’Estrange produces two depositions -to the effect that the ground was quite dry and not muddy, and in -doing so contradicts the argument upon which he lays stress in arguing -against Prance’s story (see below) that if the body had been brought to -Primrose Hill upon a horse, the feet and legs must have been covered -with mud. _Brief Hist._ iii. 261, and see 8 State Trials 1370 for the -same point in Thompson’s libel. - -[175] 8 State Trials 1359–1389. - -[176] Barillon, October 21/31, 1678. “Ce Godefroy s’est trouvé mort à -trois milles d’ici sans qu’on sache qui l’a tué. Le Roi d’Angleterre -et M. le Duc d’York m’ont dit que c’était une espèce de fanatique et -qu’ils croyent qu’il s’était tué lui-même.” - -[177] Burnet ii. 165. Blencowe’s _Sidney_ lxii. Lady Sunderland to John -Evelyn, December 25, 1678. - -[178] See the letter subscribed T. G. to Secretary Coventry and -Coventry’s reply. Longleat MSS. See Appendix B. - -[179] John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471. This did not -take place till November, but it may be noted at this point. - -[180] Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. Despatches of Giacomo Ronchi, -secret agent of the Duke of Modena in London, January 20, 1679. Campana -de Cavelli i. 239. _Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury_ i. 29. - -[181] Lansd. MSS. 1235: 76. North, _Examen_ 202, 204, 205. North alone -relates the incident of the pulpit. As Ranke observes, he has never -been contradicted, so that the story may be accepted. Burnet ii. 165. -Ralph i. 392. Echard 950. Oldmixon 620. - -[182] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1022. L.J. xiii. 299. House of Lords MSS. i. - -[183] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 232. The information of October -27 is practically the same as that given below from the Lords’ Journals. - -[184] Examination of Charles Atkins, Esq. 6 State Trials 1479. L.J. -November 12, 1678. - -[185] Evidence of C. Atkins before the Lords’ Committee. 6 State Trials -1474. - -[186] 6 State Trials 1473–1492. - -[187] 6 State Trials 1484, 1491. - -[188] There is unfortunately a gap from October 28 to December 11 in -the minutes of the committee of inquiry of the House of Lords, so that -it is impossible to check Atkins’ statements exactly. - -[189] See 6 State Trials 1476, 1481. - -[190] _Ibid._ 1474. - -[191] _Ibid._ 1481. - -[192] See the conversations between Charles and Samuel Atkins on the -stairs of the committee room, November 6, and in Newgate, November 8. -_Ibid._ 1480, 1484. North, _Examen_ 243–247. - -[193] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 285. Bedloe to Williamson, October -31, 1678; ii. 23. Williamson to Bedloe, November 5. _Brief Hist._ iii. -7. Coventry to Bedloe, November 2. - -[194] See Appendix B. - -[195] Whence Lingard derives the words I cannot discover, xiii. 98. -_Brief Hist._ iii. 16. Ralph i. 393. Burnet ii. 168. Burnet, who -relates that Charles told him the same thing of Bedloe, must have -misunderstood the king’s words, unless, which is quite possible, -Charles deceived him intentionally. - -[196] Add. MSS. 11,058: 244. See Appendix B. - -[197] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. See Appendix B. - -[198] Deposition of November 8 before the Lords’ committee. 6 State -Trials 1487. - -[199] _Ibid._ 1489. - -[200] _Ibid._ 1484. - -[201] 7 State Trials 347, 349. Exam. of November 7. S.P. Dom. Charles -II 407. See Appendix B. Care, _History of the Plot_ 127. - -[202] Warner MS. history 36. Exam, of Mary Bedloe (see below). Burnet -ii. 168. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 127, _Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami -à Paris_, 1679. L.J. xiii. 392. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 149. - -[203] L.J. xiii. 343, November 12. - -[204] Deposition of Alice Tainton, alias Bedloe, taken this 14th day of -November 1678, before the Rt. Rev. father in God William Lord Bishop -of Landaffe, one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace in the county -of Monmouth. Deposition of Mary Bedloe of Chepstow of same date before -the Bishop of Landaffe. Deposition of Gregory Appleby, December 2, 1678 -before the Bishop of Landaffe. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 287, -307. - -[205] L.J. November 24, 28; xiii. 389, 391. - -[206] 6 State Trials 1489, 1490. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 51. North, -_Examen_ 248. - -[207] 6 State Trials 1490, 1491. For Staley’s case see below in Trials -for Treason. North, _Examen_ 249. - -[208] Evidence of Captain Vittells and his men before the Lords’ -committee. House of Lords MSS. 49, 50, 51. Evidence of Vittells and -Tribbett at Atkins’ trial. 7 State Trials 248. - -[209] 6 State Trials 1491, 1492. - -[210] 7 State Trials 238–240. - -[211] Bedloe’s evidence. _Ibid._ 242, 243. - -[212] _Ibid._ 241, 245. - -[213] _Ibid._ 246–249. - -[214] _Ibid._ 249. North, _Examen_ 250, 251. North’s account is as -usual highly coloured, and contains at least one untrue statement. - -[215] Bedloe’s deposition before the Lords’ committee. L.J. November -12, xiii. 350, 351. - -[216] 7 State Trials 237. - -[217] See below in _Trials for Treason_. - -[218] Burnet ii. 191. 7 State Trials 183. _True Narrative and -Discovery_ 20. _Brief Hist._ iii. 52, 53, 65. L’Estrange alone gives -the words. The fact that Prance was questioned about the periwig makes -it probable that they are more or less correct. L’Estrange also says -that the meeting was prearranged by Bedloe and Sir William Waller. -Reasons for disbelieving this will appear later. - -[219] House of Lords MSS. 51. - -[220] L.J. xiii. 431. Blencowe’s _Sidney_ lxii. Lady Sunderland to John -Evelyn, December 25, 1678. - -[221] C.J. ix. 563. L’Estrange comments on this: “It makes a man -tremble to think what a jail delivery of discoverers this temptation -might have produced” (_Brief Hist._ iii. 55). Surely it is more -natural to suppose that the information was directed not to the common -malefactors, but to those already imprisoned in Newgate on account -of the plot. If an examination of Prance was taken by the Commons’ -committee, it was never reported to the House. On December 30, 1678 -Parliament was prorogued, and on January 24, 1679 dissolved. The new -parliament did not meet till March 6, when the trial for Godfrey’s -murder had already taken place, and Green, Berry, and Hill had been -hanged. - -[222] L.J. xiii. 436. - -[223] The deposition begins, “That it was either at the latter end or -the beginning of the week that Sir E. Godfrey,” and so on. The rest -of the examination is only intelligible on the ground that Saturday -was the day of the murder. Prance’s reasons for prevaricating in this -statement will be the subject of discussion below. - -[224] L.J. xiii. 437, 438. 7 State Trials 191, 192. Evidence of Sir -Robert Southwell, clerk to the privy council. There exists among the -state papers the notes taken by Sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of -state, of Prance’s first examination before the council. They only -differ from the account in the Lords’ Journals in that they begin -“On a certain Monday.” The paper is worth studying for the wonderful -vividness in which Williamson’s disjointed sentences bring the scene to -the mind. See Appendix B. - -[225] L.J. xiii. 439. - -[226] House of Lords MSS. 52. - -[227] Warner MS. history 37. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 17. Note -of the proceedings at the council on December 30. 7 State Trials 177, -210. Evidence of Richardson and Chiffinch. James (Or. Mem.) i. 535. -Burnet ii. 193. _Brief Hist._ iii. 61, 62, 65. L’Estrange says that -the king saw Prance alone on the evening of December 29, and called in -Richardson and Chiffinch afterwards. This is contradicted by Richardson -and Burnet. It would moreover have been a piece of imprudence unlike -Charles’ caution; and as none of the Whig writers, who would have -given much to obtain such a handle against the king, mention a private -interview, the story is probably without truth. The events which passed -between Prance’s first confession and his final adherence to it will be -discussed below. - -[228] 7 State Trials 167, 168, 169. - -[229] _Ibid._ 179–183. - -[230] L.J. xiii. 437. - -[231] 7 State Trials 169–173. - -[232] _Ibid._ 186, 187. - -[233] _True Narrative and Discovery_ 12. - -[234] 7 State Trials 169, 188, 189. - -[235] 7 State Trials 174. _True Narrative_ 18. - -[236] 7 State Trials 190. - -[237] 7 State Trials 195–200. - -[238] _Ibid._ 201, 202. - -[239] _Ibid._ 204, 205, 206. - -[240] _Ibid._ 207, 208, 209. - -[241] 7 State Trials 213–221. - -[242] _Ibid._ 223–230. Burnet ii. 194, 195. - -[243] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 9. - -[244] 7 State Trials 228. - -[245] _Brief Hist._ iii. 26, 27. - -[246] _Brief Hist._ iii. 66, 67. - -[247] _Ibid._ 67, 68. Cooper’s information of January 9 and January 11. - -[248] _Ibid._ 69, 75. Informations of Boyce. - -[249] Lloyd’s report to the Council. _Brief Hist._ iii. 69. Lloyd to -L’Estrange. _Ibid._ 82. - -[250] Lloyd’s report to the Council. Fitzherbert MSS. 154. _Brief -Hist._ iii. 69, 71. Lloyd to L’Estrange. _Ibid._ 85. - -[251] Burnet ii. 193, 194. - -[252] Burnet ii. 194. _Brief Hist._ iii. 85, 86. - -[253] State Trials 1183–1188. This was also a Jesuit story. Warner MS. -history 37, “fidiculis tortus et se reum asseruit, et complius [sic. -qu. complures] se accusaturum.” - -[254] 7 State Trials 1199, 1200, 1210–1212. - -[255] Evidence of Fowler. _Ibid._ 1194–1197, 1204–1209. - -[256] The improbability does not lie in the unlikelihood of the -application of torture to witnesses at this date so much as in the -nature of the particular facts alleged, which cannot be believed. -_Brief Hist._ iii. 76, 77, 78, 80. L’Estrange procured Corral to -contradict his evidence at the trial. _Ibid._ 102, 106. It is important -to insist upon the falsehood of the charge in this case, because it has -been adopted without question by Foley v. 29, n., and see Echard, 503 -_seq._ - -[257] _Brief Hist._ iii. 84. - -[258] _True Narrative_ 11. - -[259] 7 State Trials 180. - -[260] _True Narrative_ 13, 14. - -[261] 7 State Trials 172. _True Narrative_ 15. - -[262] 7 State Trials 173. _True Narrative_ 16, 17. - -[263] 6 State Trials 1487. 7 State Trials 182. - -[264] 6 State Trials 1488. - -[265] _Ibid._ 1487. - -[266] Prance to L’Estrange, January 17, 1688. _Brief Hist._ iii. 127. - -[267] _Brief Hist._ ii. 52, 53. - -[268] It is worthy of remark that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, judging -only from the evidence which Prance gave at the trial, has come to the -same conclusion. _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 393. - -[269] It was ordered that an examination should be held on the subject, -but Coleman was never questioned on Godfrey’s death. House of Lords -MSS. 48. L.J. xiii. 303, 307, 308. - -[270] Warner MS. history 27: “Rem totam Eboracensi detulit,” _Florus -Anglo-Bavaricus_ 97. James (Or. Mem.) i. 534. North, _Examen_ 174. -Lingard xiii. 69. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 40. - -[271] _Brief Hist._ iii. 181–186. - -[272] See above, 89. - -[273] James (Or. Mem.) i. 517–519. _Impartial State of the Case of the -Earl of Danby._ Lingard xiii. 68. - -[274] North, _Examen_ 174. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 97, 98. Godfrey -“rem totam Edwardo Coleman ... per literas aperuit: quod non neminem -usque adeo offendit, ut Godefredus haud ita multo post violenta morte -suam in Catholicos benevolentiam luerit.” Warner MS. history 26, 31, -to the same effect. Warner names Danby as the probable author of the -murder. - -[275] 7 State Trials 168. House of Lords MSS. 47. _Brief Hist._ iii. -187. Burnet ii. 163. - -[276] Burnet, _ibid._ - -[277] 7 State Trials 29. - -[278] Welden’s evidence before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords -MSS. 48. - -[279] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 325. Warner MS. history 27. “Ad congregationem -provincialem ubi ventum est, cui se interfuisse mentitus predicat -Oates, Carolus ab eo petiit, ubinam convenissent Jesuitae? Respondit -alter, magna cum fiducia, convenisse Londini, in plataea quae Strand -dicitur, in oenopolio cui insigne Equi Albi. Hoc falsum esse sciebat -Carolus, cui notum ipsos in ipsa Eboracensis Aula convenisse; cujus -tamen rei nec Carolus nec ullus alius Catholicorum apologista mentionem -fecit donec persecutio plane desaevisset, ne augeretur inde in -Eboracensem invidia.” - -[280] At Lord Stafford’s trial in 1680 Dugdale, the informer, declared -that Godfrey had been murdered by the Duke of York’s orders because -Coleman had made disclosures to him. He did not however suggest what -the nature of those disclosures was. A theory not unlike that set out -in the text was therefore in the air at the time. As almost every -conceivable hypothesis to account for the murder was being discussed, -this is not surprising; but there was this difference, that then -Dugdale had no good reason to offer in favour of the truth of what he -said. He was at the time of the murder in communication with various -Jesuits in Staffordshire: but it is most unlikely that, even if they -knew anything about it, they would have told him. If he had known -anything, it would probably have been that the Jesuit congregation -was held at St. James’; and he was certainly ignorant of this. Burnet -tells, on the authority of the Earl of Essex, that the king prevailed -on Dugdale to stifle this part of his information because it pressed on -the Duke of York; but, as Essex, or Burnet, taking the tale from him, -was mistaken as to the date when Dugdale first told the story, and as -Dugdale could beyond doubt have had a better price for his information -from Shaftesbury than from Charles for the suppression of it, this -cannot be believed without corroboration, which is not forthcoming. -Burnet ii. 190, 191. 7 State Trials, 1316, 1319. And see below in -Trials for Treason. - -[281] See below (in materials for the history of the Popish Plot), -Foley’s note on Warner’s MS. history. - -[282] Slip appended to examination of November 7. Longleat MSS. -Coventry Papers xi. 276. - -[283] 7 State Trials 168. Burnet ii. 163. - -[284] James (Or. Mem.) i. 527, 528. Burnet ii. 174. House of Lords MSS. -52. 7 State Trials 154. L.J. xiii. 353. - -[285] 7 State Trials 172, 192. - -[286] Burnet ii. 164, 165. L’Estrange produced some bad evidence, which -he does not even seem to have believed himself, to the effect that -these stains were of mud, and not wax. _Brief Hist._ iii. 326, 336. -Sir George Sitwell says: “The drops of wax ... may have been spilt -the evening before, when Sir Edmund, for some mysterious reason, was -engaged in burning a quantity of his private papers” (_First Whig_ 41). -But the evidence for this is wholly valueless, being told on hearsay -from a bad witness by a worse. _Brief Hist._ iii. 179. - -[287] Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ committee, House of -Lords MSS. 46. - -[288] Examination of Charles Atkins, October 27, 1678. Slip appended to -the examination in Coventry’s hand. “Mr. Charles Atkins lodgeth at the -Golden Key in High Holborn, over against the Fountain Tavern.” Longleat -MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 234. Examination of Bedloe of November 7. -“Lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, where Walsh the priest lodges, -near Wild House.” S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. Longleat MSS. -_ibid._ 272–274; _ibid._ 278, on a slip appended to the examination, -“Le Fevre: about fifty years of age, with a flaxen periwig, a handsome -man. He lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, near Wild House.” - -[289] L.J. xiii. 353. Evidence of Diana Salvin, Elizabeth Salvin, John -Saunders, Alexander Oldis. - -[290] 6 State Trials 1475–1477. - -[291] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1113. _Secret Services of Charles II and James -II_, payment to Prance 22. - -[292] L.J. November 15, 1678. Ralph i. 398. - -[293] For example the libel, “A copy of a letter dropped in the -exchange,” 1679. - -[294] See above and Appendix B. - -[295] See above, 122. - -[296] James (Or. Mem.) i. 528. Schwerin, November 22, 1678. “Bedloo -hat in Somerset House das Gemach gewiesen in welchem ihm der todte -Körper gezeigt worden ist; allein weil er in derselben Kammer eine -Thüre angab, die sich nicht daselbst vorfand,—überdem die Königin -damal in diesem Gemache wohnte,—und der Ort, an welchem ihm der todte -Körper gezeigt worden sein soll, ein steter Durchgang und Aufenthalt -aller Domesticken der Königin ist, so wird die Angabe von vielen für -verdächtig gehalten.” _Briefe von England_ 352. - -[297] James, Duke of York, to the Prince of Orange, December 24, 1678, -“... some are not well pleased with what this man says, because it -contradicts Bedloe.” Foljambe MSS. 127. - -[298] House of Lords MSS. 52. - -[299] 7 State Trials 343. - -[300] _Ibid._ 425, 612, 613. - -[301] _Ibid._ 1320. - -[302] Lloyd to the council, January 11, 1679. Examinations of Prance of -December 26, 1678, January 13, March 19, March 22, 1679. Fitzherbert -MSS. 154–158. 7 State Trials 1226, 1231. Warner MS. history 37. _True -Narrative_ 2–8, 26–40. - -[303] Lloyd to L’Estrange, April 16, 1686. _Brief Hist._ iii. 83. - -[304] Burnet ii. 195. - -[305] Warner MS. history 37: “librum edidit in quo pauca de Jesuitis, -eaque leviora retulit ... et in sacerdotes saeculares fanda infanda -conjecit, tanquam e plaustro probra jaceret (qu, tanquam e plaustro -= histrionis more. v. Hor. _A.P._ 275 ap. Facc.), ipsa maledicentiae -magnitudine fidem sibi detrahens: quam apud paucissimos invenit.” - -[306] _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 103, 128. - -[307] 7 State Trials 228. House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61. - -[308] House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61. Foley v. 285, 286. - -[309] S. A. Tanari, Internuncio at Brussels, to the papal secretary -of state, June 17, 1679: “Nella salute della sua persona consistevano -tutte le speranze di veder ristabilita la vera religione in -Inghilterra.” Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. - -[310] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 8. - -[311] Memorandum by Danby. “Q. Whether the Plot be not triable out of -Parliament?” Add. MSS. 28042: 19. Henry Coventry to the king, October -7, 1678.... “It will be worth your serious consideration when you -return on which side the greater inconveniency will be, either in the -suppressing them [Coleman’s letters] or publishing them, or whether any -middle way can be taken.” Add. MSS. 32095: 119. - -[312] A narrative of proceedings in the House of Commons. Harl. MSS. -6284: 35, 36. - -[313] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1021–1026. - -[314] House of Lords MSS. 16, 17. Lady Sunderland to John Evelyn, -October 28, 1678. Correspondence of John Evelyn, 1852, 251. - -[315] W. Harrington to George Treby, February 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. -14. John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, November 11, 1678. Same to same, -May 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 471. Sarotti, November 15/25, 1678. Ven. -Arch. Inghilterra 65. Lives of the Norths i. 70. Le Gros to Sir Charles -Lyttleton, November 26, 1678. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 301. - -[316] Sir W. Godolphin to Henry Thynne, August 14/24, 1679. Longleat -MSS. Coventry Papers lx. 275. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 119, 120; -ii. 70, 79. - -[317] Earl of Conway to Sir L. Jenkins, September 26, 1681. S.P. Dom. -Charles II 416: 30. - -[318] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 17–54. _Narrative of Edmund -Everard_ 1679. - -[319] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 67, 92, 98, 100, 114, 138, 140. -_Ibid._ 148, Lord Windsor to Henry Coventry, July 8, 1676. See Appendix -C. Verney MSS. 465. Earl of Danby to the Lord Chancellor, April 4, -1676. Leeds MSS. 13. Particulars of Conventicles. Leeds MSS. 15. John -Smith to Henry Coventry, January 24, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry -Papers xi. 172. A paper endorsed by the Earl of Danby; “Fifth monarch -meetings in London and Southwark. This was given me by the Bishop of -London in October 1677.” Add. MSS. 28093: 212. And see Gooch, _English -Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_ 326. - -[320] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 117, 120, 122, 124, 126, 132. - -[321] “Memd. of his Majesty’s directions for interrupting Coleman’s -letters.” December 10, 1676. Henry Coventry to Col. Whitely, December -11, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 168, 170. And the letters -intercepted, _ibid._ 224, 245, 246, 247, 248. And see above, Designs of -the Catholics 32, n. - -[322] Spillmann. Pater Spillmann’s work is in general of little value. -Bishop Morley to the Earl of Danby, June 10, 1676. Leeds MSS. 14. -Courtin, August 6, 1676. - -[323] Leeds MSS. 17. - -[324] Foley v. 11, 12, 13. Diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple, -ii. 200, 320. Articles of _Impeachment against the Earl of Danby_ iv. -_Parl. Hist._ iv. 1068. - -[325] See above 78. - -[326] Memorandum by Danby, undated, but probably in 1677. “State and -present condition of the crown, which cannot be amended but by force or -by compliance. - -“[Compliance to the old parliament would mean war with France and the -enforcement of all laws against papists and dissenters; with a new -parliament, war with France and general toleration except for the -papists.] From all this it seems as if compliance must necessarily -conclude in a resolution to give satisfaction in point of France. -[Force could hardly be exerted without foreign aid, which would -certainly mean a total conquest.]” Add. MSS. 28042: 17. - -[327] Earl of Danby to Sir W. Temple, November 19, 1678. Add. MSS. -28054: 196. Burnet ii. 97, note, 151, 152. See also Lindsay MSS. 399. -Forneron, _Louise de Kéroualle_ 153. Harris, _Life of Charles II_ 226 -_seq._ - -[328] Memoranda by Danby. Add. MSS. 28042: 53. - - “The three points to be considered by the committee of trade every - Thursday:— - - “(1) A treaty marine with France. - - “(2) What should be proposed to the king to be done by his example in - not permitting French commodities to be worn in the court. - - “(3) A treaty of commerce with France.” - -Add. MSS. 28042: 60. - - “For the 30 ships - - In 1677 £90,000 0 0 - In 1679 [?8] 339,735 0 0 - In 1679 before the 25th March 47,957 0 0 - ——————— - £477,692 0 0 - - £584,978 - 477,692 - ———— - £107,286 remaining in the Exchequer, Lady Day, ’79.” - -See too Campana de Cavelli i. 290–294. Barillon, March 3/13, 1679. - -[329] Webster MSS. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iii. 421. Article by Mr. Sidney -Lee on Osborne (Thomas) in the _Dict. of Nat. Biog._ Danby obtained his -knowledge of Montagu’s connection with the nuncio from Olivencranz, the -Swedish ambassador. Sir Leoline Jenkins to the Earl of Danby, January -13, 1679. Lindsey MSS. 398. Grey, _Debates_ vi. 388. The authorities -for the story of Danby’s fall are well known and too numerous for -citation. - -[330] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1039–1045, 1052. Burnet ii. 176, 178. Barillon, -November 25/December 5, 1678. Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_, Part II. -219. - -[331] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1034. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 63. - -[332] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 149. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1035. Barillon, October -17/27, 1678. Ranke v. 236. - -[333] Barillon, February 17/27, February 24/March 6, 1679. Edm. Verney -to Sir R. Verney, February 24, 1679. Verney MSS. 471, Fitzherbert MSS. -12, 13. Foljambe MSS. 127. _Caveat against the Whigs_ i. 47. Ranke v. -244, 245. Sir Thomas Browne, _Works_, 1836, 240. Sitwell, _The First -Whig_ 54, 55. - -[334] Barillon, December 30, 1678/January 9, 1679, January 30/February -9, May 12/22, June 2/12, 1679. John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 22, -1679. Verney MSS. 472. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1086, 1121. - -[335] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1092–1111. Burnet ii. 205 and note 2. And see -Temple i. 412. Seymour had formerly been on the court side, and after -Danby’s imprisonment made up the quarrel. A memorandum in the Leeds -papers contains the following note on Seymour; “This man, the most -odious to the House, till he disturbed your Majesty’s affairs.” Add. -MSS. 28042: 21. - -[336] See Reresby, _Memoirs_ 170, 171. Temple i. 396–414. - -[337] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1122. Algernon Sidney wrote that Halifax was -the author of the scheme. _Letters_ 34. James had news that the Duchess -of Portsmouth bragged that she had helped to make it. James to the -Prince of Orange, May 8, 1679. Foljambe MSS. 129. - -[338] Temple i. 414–419, 473–477. Barillon, April 7/17, April 21/May 1, -April 24/May 4, April 28/May 8, 1679. Dalrymple ii. 216, 217. Reresby, -_Memoirs_ 168. North, _Examen_ 76, 77. Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_, -Part II. 238; and see Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. chap. vi. - -[339] Burnet ii. 209. - -[340] Barillon, February 5/15, 1680. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 19, -33. Burnet ii. 246, 248, 249. Temple i. 419, 420, 441–444. Ailesbury, -_Memoirs_ i. 35. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 173–178, 192. Christie, -_Life of Shaftesbury_ ii. 357. Airy, _Charles II_ 240. - -[341] Barillon, May 26/June 5, 1675. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1125–1149. -Temple i. 424, 429–432. Burnet ii. 210–215. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 173. -North, _Examen_ 506. Ralph i. 453, 454, 455. - -[342] Burnet ii. 263, 264. House of Lords MSS. 136. And see Ferguson, -_Growth of Popery_, Part II. 246. - -[343] See Lord Keeper Guildford MS. diary. Dalrymple ii. 91, 321. “It -is certain the Church of England men joined in this cry as heartily -as any else, for they were always most eager against Popery, although -they had friendship with the Cavalier papists, and many considering men -seeing an army kept up against an act of Parliament were zealous that -fetters might be put on the King, and therefore would join in showing -any discontent.” The Whig party on Temple’s council tried to purge the -commission of the peace of justices on the other side, but Charles -prevented this by a very droll device. North, _Examen_ 78. Nevertheless -the weight of the commission was against the court. See below in Trials -for Treason. - -[344] W. Harrington to Sir G. Treby, February 20, 1679. Fitzherbert -MSS. 14. Thomas Ward to Sir J. Williamson, November 15. Sir Francis -Chaplin to same, November 30. Henry Layton to same, December 9, 1678. -S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 108, 167; ii. 117. George Beckett, vicar -of Castham, to Sir Peter Pindar at Chester, October 28. Examination -of same, November 4, 1678. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 229. Dr. -Henry Corneil to Sir J. Williamson, December 23, 1678, January 20, -1679. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: ii. 59; 411: 69. - -[345] Add. MSS. 32095: 160. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 36. - -[346] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xx. 120–130. S.P. Ireland 339. -Carte, _Life of Ormonde_ 477–481. - -[347] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 268. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1034. John -Verney to Sir R. Verney, June 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 472. Barillon, -April 19/May 1, June 12/22, 1679. And see Klopp ii. 193. - -[348] Burnet ii. 179. Add. MSS. 28042: 19. See Appendix C. - -[349] Klopp i. 26. - -[350] Foley v. 95, 96. - -[351] Ranke v. 233. Das papistische Complot erscheint als ein Symptom -der zwischen den Bekenntnissen wieder angeregten heftigen Antipathien. - -Schwerin, _Briefe_ 330. Es sei nun an dieser Conspiration viel oder -wenig, so ist es doch gewiss, dass diese Nation sowohl gegen die -Papisten als gegen Frankreich—dem es besonders beigemessen wird—von -neuem erbittert wird. - -[352] L.J. xiii. 408. Airy, _Charles II_ 70. - -[353] Warner MS. hist. 29 from _Gazette de Hollande_, November 22, -1678. Schwerin, _Briefe_ 340, 348. Duchess of York to Duke of Modena, -November 3, November 24, December 16, 1678. Ronchi, January 20, -February 23, November 21, 1679. Campana de Cavelli i. 229, 236, 239, -240, 242. Warner MS. Letter book, December 3, December 30, 1678. -Fitzherbert MSS. 12. House of Lords MSS. 39, 126. Foljambe MSS. 123. -L.J. xiii. 482, 485, 502, 512. Foley v. 21, 23, 80, 482–488, 915, 965, -966. 8 State Trials 532, 533. - -The internuncio at Brussels acutely noted as the three causes of the -feeling aroused—“l’odio de’ Protestanti, gli amatori di novità, e li -nemici della casa Reale.” October 30/November 9, 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. -di Fiandra 66. - -[354] 7 State Trials 995. - -[355] 7 State Trials 959–1043, 1162–1183. C.J. December 16, 1680. -_Narrative of Lawrence Mowbray_ 1680. _Narrative of Robert Bolron_ -1680. Depositions from York Castle, Surtees Society xl. 1861. Foley v. -759–767. _The Month_ xviii. 393. - -[356] Foley v. 19, 21. Warner MS. history 29. Misera Catholicorum -omnium conditio, maxime vero Jesuitarum, quos et communia mala et -omnium insuper invidia gravabat, etiam apud simul patientes. _Ibid._ 36. - -Maxime odiosum Jesuitarum nomen, sacerdotibus etiam et saecularibus et -regularibus et ipsis Catholicis laicis, quod ab iis orta feratur ista -saevissima tempestas quae totam religionem Catholicam evertet. - -[357] Brosch 432. - -[358] S.P. Dom. Charles II 411: 87, a paper endorsed by Sir Joseph -Williamson, “25 January, 78/9. Gavan the priest. Information, etc.” -_Ibid._ 92. “It was Sir William Waller who, by a warrant from the -council, seized Gavan in Count Wallenstein the Imperial ambassador’s -stables in bed.” Foley v. 454. Le Fleming MSS. 155. - -[359] See above 53. - -[360] Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, March 20/30, 1680. Vat. -Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 252. Order in -Council for a passport for Henry, Duke of Norfolk, May 26, 1680. - -[361] 7 State Trials 496. Foley v. 460. - -[362] Sidney’s diary in Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 82, 163, 165, 166, -174–176. Sidney, _Letters_ 154. _Domestic Intelligence_, September 26, -1679. C.J. March 26, 1681. Foley v. 80, 81, 460–467. Burnet ii. 228. - -It has been supposed that John Sergeant who bore witness against -Gavan was a different person from the eminent controversialist of -the same name (see his life in _Dict. of Nat. Biog._ by Mr. Cooper). -His identity is however placed beyond question by the advertisement -in the _Domestic Intelligence_ above cited, by despatches of Roman -ecclesiastics which refer to “il Dottore Sargentio” without hinting at -any change of person, and by the indignant exclamation of Warner (MS. -hist. 132), “et, proh dolor! Johannes Sergeantius et David Mauritius” -in speaking of the witnesses for the Plot. So too Luttrell (_Brief -Relation_ i. 21): “One Sergeant, a secular (who hath writ against -Dr. Stillingfleet), is expected from Holland, and ’tis said he will -discover several matters about the plot.” The letter of the internuncio -from Brussels of March 20/30, 1680 contains the following passage: Ho -pregato S. A. di discorrere opportunamente col Sig^r Duca d’Jorch, -excitandolo ad opporsi ad ogni tentativo che potesse tentarsi dal Frate -Valesio, e delli Dottori Sergeant e Mauritio accioche non si propongà a -Catt^{ci} il giuramento di Fedeltà, gia censurato dalla S. Sede, ò non -se ne inventi nuova formula che non sia precedentemente approvata da S. -B^{ne} quale ho assicurato esser per mostrarsi sempre propenso verso le -convenienze di S. A. Reale. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. - -[363] Di Brusselles del Sig^r Internuncio, April 28/June 8, 1680. -Circa il giuramento di fedeltà condannato altre volte dalla S. Sede, -e pur troppo vero che il Sig^r Duca di Jorch lo presto anni sono, -sedotto dall’ esempio di molti allevati nella Religion Catt^{ca} e non -informato che lo stesso fosse stato prescritto da Sommi Pontifici. Vat. -Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. - -[364] Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, August 16/26, August -22/September 2, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. - -[365] See below in Trials for Treason. 7 State Trials 617. Burnet ii. -196–198. - -Thomas Jennison, S.J., died in Newgate on September 27, 1679. - -[366] See below in Trials for Treason. - -[367] 7 State Trials 1049. Dangerfield’s _Particular Narrative_ 1–7. -_Malice Defeated: or a Brief Relation of the Accusation and Deliverance -of Elizabeth Cellier_ 12, 13, 28. Col. Mansell’s _Exact and True -Narrative_ 7, 60. - -[368] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 8. _Malice Defeated_ 13, 39. Mansell’s -_Narrative_ 39, 47, 60, 69. - -[369] Mansell’s _Narrative_ 43, 53, 54, 69. _Malice Defeated_ 13, 14. -Dangerfield’s _Case_ 2. North, _Examen_ 268. - -[370] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 30–36. _Malice Defeated_ 14. Mansell’s -_Narrative_ 57, 58, 62. North, _Examen_ 267. - -[371] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 37–49. Dangerfield’s _Information_ -1680. _Malice Defeated_ 14–18. Mansell’s _Narrative_ 18–40. - -[372] Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_ ii. 265. Sidney, _Letters_ 152, 153. -Halstead, _Succinct Genealogies_ 434–437. North, _Examen_ 261, 262. And -see Burnet ii. 244, 245. Hatton Correspondence v. 201, 202. - -[373] _Malice Defeated_ 15. Examination of Anne Blake, Mansell’s -_Narrative_ 41. - -[374] _Malice Defeated_ 15. - -[375] Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679. - -[376] See below in Shaftesbury and Charles. Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ -30. - -[377] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 39. - -[378] Traill shews the absurdity neatly, though he makes the mistake of -joining Mrs. Cellier with Dangerfield. _Shaftesbury_ 154. - -[379] 7 State Trials 1043–1111. - -[380] Mansell’s _Narrative_ 40. - -[381] Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679. Sidney’s _Diary_, October -7, October 14, in Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 181, 185. - -[382] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1029, 1030. - -[383] Dartmouth MSS. 36. - -[384] Sir W. Temple to the Earl of Essex, October 25, 1673. Essex -Papers. Burnet ii. 31. James (Or. Mem.) i. 530, 536, 537. _Clarendon -Cor._ ii. 467–471. Brusselles Dal. Sig^r Internuncio, March 8/18, 1679. -Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. - -[385] Barillon, July 19/29, October 4/14, 14/24, 21/31, 1680. - -[386] James to Col. Legge, December 11, 1679, January 25, December 14, -1680. Dartmouth MSS. 40, 47, 55. James i. 657. - -[387] James i. 550, 551. - -[388] Temple i. 382. - -[389] Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. - -[390] James i. 554, 556, 574, 659, 660. Dartmouth MSS. 35, 36, 39, 41, -45, 47, 58. Savile Foljambe MSS. 134, 135. - -[391] James to Col. Legge, May 28, 1679, Dartmouth MSS. 33, 34. - -[392] James to the Prince of Orange, May 14, May 29, June 1, 1679. -Savile Foljambe MSS. 129–131. To Col. Legge, July 22, Dartmouth MSS. -36. And see James (Or. Mem.) i. 551. - -[393] _E.g._ Dartmouth MSS. 38, 42, 46, 54. - -[394] Barillon, July 1/11, July 24/August 3, October 21/31, 1680. - -[395] Campana de Cavelli i. 302, 304. - -[396] Vat. Arch. L’Abb^e G. B. Lauri a S. Em.3^a October 23/December -2, 1678. Nunt. di Francia 332. Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio. -May 24/June 3, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. 32095: 196. See -Appendix C. - -[397] Barillon, August 9/19, September 20/30, October 21/31, 1680. - -[398] Vat. Arch. Di Brussells dal Sig^r Internuncio, June 7/17, -September 6/16, October 18/28, November 15/25, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra -66. - -_Ibid._ July 30/September 9. La sera però di detto giorno fattomi -introdurre nel suo gabinetto (del Duca d’Yorch), m’incarico di dar -parte del successo a S. B^{ne}, e di confermargli nuovamente che in -ogni luogo e stato havrebbe sempre vissuto figlio obedientissimo della -S. Sede, e che nell’ animo suo a qualsivoglia altra consideratione o -interesse havrebbe prevaluto il riguardo di conservare la fede, e di -propagarla per quanto sarà in suo potere. - -[399] Foley v. 152, 157. - -[400] _Absalom and Achitophel_ 114–117, 134–141. - -[401] Ranke v. 186. - -[402] John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 19, 1677. “The people about -town call this the Pump Parliament, alluding, as a little water put -into a pump fetches up a great deal, so, etc.” Verney MSS. 469, and see -_The Pump Parliament_ by Sir Charles Sedley. - -[403] Ranke v. 201, 220. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 861–863. C.J. April 4, 1677. -Ralph i. 310–314, 318. Andrew Marvell, _Growth of Popery_, Part I. 149. - -[404] Burnet ii. 155. - -[405] Burnet ii. 179. Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678. - -[406] Sir Edward Carteret provided his rooms at the rent of £60 a year. - -[407] _Secret Services of Charles II and James II_ 3–15. I do not know -if the very comic accounts said to have been presented by Oates and -Bedloe are authentic (L’Estrange, _Brief Hist._ iii. 121–124. Lingard -xii. 363). They are not inconsistent with the men’s character, but -L’Estrange was quite capable of having invented them. In any case they -were not paid. - -[408] State Trials vii. 796, ix. 489, 490, x. 134, 136, 137, 1275, -1299. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 196. Evelyn, _Diary_ October 1, November 15, -1678. Smith, _Intrigues of the Popish Plot_. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ -i. 112. North, _Examen_ 223. _Lives of the Norths_ ii. 180. Hatton -Correspondence i. 198. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 43, 44. I am indebted to -Sir George Sitwell for some of these references, and have ventured to -quote a portion of his admirable description, some strokes of which -however are drawn from sources not beyond doubt. The epithet applied to -the Pope is from “Rawleigh Redivivus.” - -[409] Grey, _Debates_ vi. 296. Barillon, November 25/December 5, 1678. -L.J. xiii. 389–392. C.J. November 28, 29, December 6, 7. Danby’s notes -of Oates’ examination, November 25. Add. MSS. 23043: 5. James to the -Prince of Orange, November 26, 1678. Foljambe MSS. 125. See too House -of Lords MSS. 66. Lord Ossory to the Duchess of Ormonde. Hist. MSS. -Com. Rep. vi. App. 723. James (Or. Mem.) i. 529. Burnet ii. 173, 174. -Even Oldmixon did not believe the accusation. _History of the House of -Stuart_ 618. - -[410] Burnet i. 470–474. In 1671 Burnet propounded the questions; “Is -a woman’s barrenness a just ground for divorce or polygamy; and is -polygamy in any case lawful under the Gospel?” The answer to both was -in the affirmative. - -[411] Sarotti describes him as “un cadavere spirante.” December 12/22, -1679. - -[412] Burnet i. 474, ii. 180. North, _Examen_ 186. Airy, _Charles -II_ 137, 138, 230. The relations between the king and queen became -much better about this time in consequence, one may imagine, of these -intrigues. Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, August 15, 1679: -“The Queen, who is now a mistress, the passion her spouse has for her -is so great....” Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 86. - -[413] Pepys, _Diary_ December 24, 31, 1662. Burnet i. 469, 470. - -[414] Barillon, April 28/May 8, May 5/15, 1679. Temple i. 421, 423, -426, 429. MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322. Burnet -ii. 233. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 173–178. Hatton Correspondence -v. 192. - -[415] Sidney, _Letters_ 52, 53. - -[416] _Ibid._ - -[417] Ralph i. 434. North, _Examen_ 86. Sidney, _Letters_ 52, 90. - -[418] Burnet ii. 235. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1130. North, _Examen_ 79. This -story may be accepted, since North probably had it from his brother the -Chief Justice. And see Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 5, where Henry Sidney -states that Charles supported Lauderdale at the council. - -[419] Barillon, June 12/22, 1679. Sidney, _Letters_ 95–97, 104–107, -112–113. Temple i. 420, 427, 428. North, _Examen_ 81, 82. Burnet ii. -234, 235, 239. S.P. Dom. Charles II 412: 26. Sunderland to Essex, July -1679, 262. Essex to the King, July 21, 1679. - -[420] Sitwell, _First Whig_ 70. - -[421] MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322, 323. -North, _Examen_ 571–575. _Parl. Hist._ iv. App. ix. Ralph i. 476, 477, -483. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 83–89. And see the trial of Benjamin Harris, -the publisher of the Appeal, 7 State Trials 925. Wilson, _Life of -Defoe_, chap. i. Defoe, _Review_ ix. 152. “As to handing treasonable -papers about in coffee-houses, everybody knows it was the original of -the very thing called a coffee-house and that it is the very profession -of a coffee-man to do so, and it seems hard to punish any of them for -it.” - -[422] Sitwell, _First Whig_, 87, 88. - -[423] Barillon, September 4/14, 1679. Temple i. 433. Countess of -Sunderland to Henry Sidney, September 2. Henry Savile to Henry Sidney, -September 11, 1679. Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 122, 140. Sidney, -_Letters_ 143. Ralph i. 477. - -[424] Barillon, July 3/13, 1679, January 12/22, 1680. Dangerfield’s -_Particular Narrative_ 30, 60. _The Case of Thomas Dangerfield_ 5. -Mansell’s _Exact and True Narrative_ 62. Grey, _Debates_ vii. 358, 359, -viii. 136–149. _Gazette_, No. 1476. Ralph i. 496, 497. _Parl. Hist._ -iv. 1233. Le Fleming MSS. 174. - -[425] Burnet ii. 242. Carte, _Life of Ormonde_ ii. 493. Barillon, -September 4/14, 11/21, 15/25, 1679. Temple i. 433–438. Foljambe MSS. -137, 138. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 189–191. _Gazette_ 1449. S.P. -Dom. Charles II 412: 24. Conway Papers, September 11, 1679. Airy, -_Charles II_ 245. James (Or. Mem.) i. 566, 570–580. - -[426] James (Or. Mem.) i. 563. James to the Prince of Orange, Foljambe -MSS. 137. Burnet ii. 243. Hatton Correspondence i. 194. Barillon, -September 15/25. December 1/11, 1679. - -[427] Dal. Sigr. Internuncio Brusselles, June 8, 1679. Arch. Nunt. di -Fiandra 66. Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_, Part II. 276. - -[428] Barillon, December 1/11, 8/18, 1679. Sidney, _Letters_ 165. -Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, November 29, 1679. Hatton Correspondence -i. 203. Ralph i. 484, 497. - -[429] Sidney, _Letters_ 143, 144. - -[430] Temple i. 441. Ralph i. 490–494. Le Fleming MSS. 165. North, -_Examen_ 541–548. Defoe, _Review_ vii. 296. - -[431] Barillon, December 11/21, 15/25, 18/28, 1679. James i. 581. - -[432] Barillon, January 8/18, 12/22, 15/25, 19/29, January 29/February -8, March 11/21, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 587. Ralph i. 494. - -[433] The declaration was made twice, on January 6 and March 3, 1679. - -[434] The author was probably Ferguson. Sec Sprat’s _History of the -Ryehouse Plot_, where a printer’s bill made out to him is printed in -the appendix, one item of the bill being for the Letter. The pamphlet -was published on May 15, 1680. - -[435] S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 103, 105, 107, 118, 120, 131, 132, 229, -231. Informations and examinations concerning the Black Box. _Gazette_, -Nos. 1507, 1520. Somers Tracts viii. 187–208. James I 589. - -[436] Barillon, June 28/July 8, July 1/11, 8/18, 1680. 8 State Trials -179. Burnet ii. 300. - -[437] S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 75, Lord Massareen to Lord Conway. 76, -Francis Gwyn to same, March 23, 1680. Barillon, March 25/April 4, May -17/27, 20/30, July 1/11. Countess of Sunderland to H. Sidney, May 18, -1680. Sidney’s _Charles II_ ii. 60. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 38. - -[438] William Harbord to H. Sidney, April 1680. Sidney’s _Charles -II_ ii. 23. Countess of Sunderland to same, April 16. Sir L. Jenkins -to same, _circa_ May 20. Sir W. Temple to same, April 27. Sidney’s -_Diary_, May 25. _Ibid._ 52, 53, 64, 66. Barillon, October 7/17, 1680. - -[439] Barillon, December 1/11, 11/21, 1679, January 5/15, April 5/15, -July 1/11, 1680. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 82. Sir James Butler to Lord -Craven, March 25, 1680. Temple i. 450. Sir L. Jenkins to Henry Sidney, -July 24, 1680. Sidney’s _Charles II_ ii. 86. A concise account of the -extreme difficulties of the time may be found in a letter from Henry -Sidney to the Prince of Orange, October 7, 1680. Groen van Prinsterer -v. 422. - -[440] Ralph i. 502, 503. Groen van Prinsterer v. 428. Burnet ii. 253. -Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 591–600. And see -Somers Tracts viii. 137. _Articles of Impeachment against the Duchess -of Portsmouth._ - -[441] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1118, 1160–1175, 1291. Beaufort MSS. 112. -Burnet ii. 212, 256. Temple i. 421. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 154, -208, 224, 236. Ralph i. 444. Groen van Prinsterer v. 435, 437. - -[442] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1175–1215. L.J. xiii. 666. Barillon, November -18/28, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 617, 618. Temple i. 453. Halstead, -_Succinct Genealogies_ i. 204. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 192, 197. Burnet ii, -259. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 246–249. James to the Prince of -Orange, November 23, 1680, Groen van Prinsterer v. 440. - -[443] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1215–1295. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 191, Groen van -Prinsterer v. 444. - -[444] Sitwell, _First Whig_ 142. S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 101, Robert -Ferguson to his wife, August 14, 1680. 243, Hugh Speke “for Mr. Charles -Speke at Whitelackington.” 275, James Holloway to the Earl of Essex, -December 14, 1680. - -[445] Charles’ actual words are in doubt, but it is certain that he -received the deputation coldly and sent it away unsatisfied. - -[446] “Instructions for members of Parliament summoned for March 21, -1681, and to be held at Oxford.” - -[447] North, _Examen_ 100–102. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 204. S.P. Dom. -Charles II 415: 37. Answer of the Earl of Essex, January 27, 1681. -66, The Earl of Craven’s proposition, February 14, 1681. “About the -disposing of the king’s forces.” 126, Information of Mr. John Wendham -of Thetford against Wm. Harbord, M.P. 156, Quarters of his Majesty’s -forces, March 22, 1681. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 70. Ralph i. 562, -563. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 144, 145. Klopp II. 308. And see the trial -of Stephen Colledge 8 State Trials 549–724. - -[448] Barillon, January 13/23, 1679. - -[449] Barillon, _passim_. There was however talk of the negotiations in -diplomatic circles. Brosch 452. - -[450] North, _Examen_ 104, 105. Barillon March 28/April 7, 1681. -Beaufort MSS. 83. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 207–211. Ralph i. 570–580. _Parl. -Hist._ iv. 1298–1339. Airy, _Charles II_ 257. Ailesbury, _Memoirs_ i. -57. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 72. “Some are pleased to call it the -Jewish Parliament, it being dissolved on the eighth day, alluding to -that people’s manner of circumcision on the eighth day.” - -[451] Lord Grey’s confession 12, 13, 14. North, _Examen_ 105. - -[452] It is remarkable that every one thought he understood Charles -and that most who opposed him paid in the end the penalty of their -mistake by failure. Only the most acute indeed were able to realise -the strength of the character which they began by thinking weak. -Thus Courtin believed that Charles could do nothing but what his -subjects wanted. Jusserand, _A French Ambassador_ 150. Barillon, with -the possible exception of Gremonville, the ablest of Louis XIV’s -diplomatists, whom Ranke compares to the Spanish ambassador Mendoza of -the time of the League, thought when he first came to England that he -could in every instance measure Charles’ weight in the balance. Before -the Popish Plot had ceased its course, he perceived that he could not. -He writes on January 15/25, 1680: Il est fort difficile de pénétrer -quel est dans le fonds son véritable dessein. Again on September 9/19 -of the same year; Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne a une conduite si -cachée et si difficile à pénétrer que les plus habiles y sont trompés. -And again on January 13/23, 1681: Je ne puis encore expliquer aver -certitude à V.M. l’état des affaires de ce pays-ci. Ceux qui approchent -de plus près du Roi d’Angleterre ne pénètrent point le fonds de ses -intentions. See too Burnet II 409 n. 3, 467 n. - -[453] If Pemberton is counted. - -[454] Pilgrimage of Grace; Insurrection in West; Kent; Wyatt; Rising in -North; Essex; Penruddock; Booth, 1659; Venner; Monmouth. - -[455] See the evidence of Lord Ferrers against Southall at the trial of -Lord Stafford. 7 State Trials 1485. - -[456] Dalton, _Justice_, quoted Stephen, _History of the Criminal Law_, -i. 195. Temp. James I. - -[457] Colquhoun, _Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis_, quoted -Stephen i. 195. - -[458] Ralph i. 399. See also the Statutes: 13 C. II c. 6, 14 C. II c. -3, 15 C. II c. 4. - -[459] 6 State Trials 566–630. - -[460] £1000 was stolen in cash, and over £2000 in jewelry. - -[461] 6 State Trials 572–575. - -[462] By two Germans and a Pole, acting, it was said, under orders from -Count Königsmark, who had been courting Mr. Thynne’s bride. - -[463] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 235, 236. - -[464] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 281, 282. - -[465] This was the recognised appellation of a J.P. in the seventeenth -century. - -[466] House of Lords MSS. 39, under date May 29, 1679. - -[467] 7 State Trials 1471. - -[468] 8 State Trials 525–550. - -[469] Gilbert’s evidence, _ibid._ 531–534. - -[470] 8 State Trials 531. - -[471] _Ibid._ 532. - -[472] Foley v. 891. House of Lords MSS. 89. See also Fitzherbert MSS. -18, 19. - -[473] Foley v. 34. House of Lords MSS. 89. - -[474] Foley v. 883. - -[475] “A true narrative of the imprisonment and trial of Mr. Lewis,” -written by himself. Foley v. 917–928. His account of the trial is -inserted in 7 State Trials 249–260. - -[476] Foley v. 885. 7 State Trials 249, 252. - -[477] Foley v. 96. Catalogue of those who suffered in Oates’ Plot and -on account of their priesthood, taken from Dodd and Challoner. - -[478] 7 State Trials 1131. - -[479] Ralph i. 570. - -[480] See Appendix D, where Giles’ trial is discussed. Lawrence Hyde to -the Prince of Orange, April 16, 1680. “This I say is a very unfortunate -accident to revive men’s fears and apprehensions of the Plot, which -were pretty well asleep, but there is no care or watchfulness can -prevent the folly and wickedness of men that are so given to it.” Groen -van Prinsterer v. 395. - -[481] See Stephen i. 228. - -[482] 7 State Trials 1397–1399. - -[483] Southall’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1467–1471. - -[484] For the following paragraph I have used Gardiner’s _History of -England_ iii. 1–27. - -[485] Essay of Judicature. - -[486] This rule was not without exception. Baron Flowerdue, raised to -the bench in 1684, held office _quamdiu se bene gesserit_. (Prothero, -_Statutes and Constitutional Documents_ 143). And we learn from Coke -(Inst. iv. 117) that the Chief Baron always held office on a permanent -tenure (Prothero cviii.). Of course it made no difference, for good -behaviour in the eyes of the king, with whom the decision rested, was -likely to have much in common with his good pleasure. - -[487] Gneist, _Constitutional History of England_ (trans. Ashworth) 550. - -[488] Clarendon, _Hist. Reb._ (Oxford, 1826) i. 123, 124. - -[489] Gneist 552 n. See _Gardiner_ viii. 208. - -[490] Gardiner ix. 246, 247. Gneist 555. - -[491] L.J. May 6, 1641. _Parl. Hist._ ii. 757. - -[492] In a somewhat similar case the judges under Charles II refused -to give an opinion until the matter had been argued before them by -counsel. The Attorney-General, among other questions put to the judges -at the outbreak of the agitation of the Popish Plot, asked “Whether -there be any evidence against these particular persons besides the -single testimony of Mr. Oates?” To which it was answered that it was -a question of fact, and could only be determined in court. S.P. Dom. -Charles II 407: i. 128. - -[493] Gardiner ix. 306, 307. Gneist 555 n. Hallam (ii. 107) attempts to -uphold the judges’ decision, but Stephen’s argument (i. 362, 363) must -be held to settle the question. - -[494] Gneist 570 n. (2). - -[495] 4 State Trials 445–450. - -[496] Foss, _Judges of England_ vii, 109, 110. Burnet, _Life and Death -of Sir Matthew Hale_. Mr. J. M. Rigg in his article on Hale in the -_Dictionary of National Biography_ doubts the truth of this on the -ground that Penruddock was tried at Exeter, and Hale belonged to the -Midland circuit. Hale however changed his circuit on at least one -occasion. See Foss vii. 112, and the _Gentleman’s Mag._, July 1851, p. -13, where an anecdote is told which shows that Hale had belonged at one -time to the Western circuit. - -[497] North, _Life of Lord Keeper Guildford_ 119. Dryden, _Prose Works_ -(ed. Malone) iv. 156. - -[498] Gneist 600 n. (2). - -[499] 6 State Trials 951–1013. - -[500] See also Hallam iii. 8. Stephen i. 373–375. - -[501] Hale, P.C. i. 143–146. - -[502] Compare the attempt to create a riot among the apprentices in -July 1679, immediately after the trial of the Five Jesuits. - -[503] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 803. Ralph i. 297. North, _Examen_ 139. - -[504] Amos, _The English Constitution in the Reign of Charles II_ 302. - -[505] _Gazette_, May 5, 1680. - -[506] 7 State Trials 926–931. - -[507] _Ibid._ 1111–1130. - -[508] Twyn and two other printers were sentenced to the pillory, -imprisonment, and heavy fines. Amos 249. 6 State Trials 513–539. See -also the trials of Dover, Brewster, and Brooks, which followed on -Twyn’s case, _ibid._ 539–564. - -[509] April 30 to November 28, 1684. Luttrell, _Diary_, printed 10 -State Trials 125–129. - -[510] _Clarendon Correspondence_ i. 2. - -[511] 8 State Trials 193, _i.e._ as resembling the opinions of 1641. - -[512] Gneist 600 n. - -[513] 8 State Trials 194. - -[514] 7 State Trials 1556–1567. - -[515] In this I have constantly used, as will be seen, Sir J. F. -Stephen’s _History of the Criminal Law in England_ (vol. i., especially -chapters viii. and xi.), a work to which I am under the deepest -obligations. - -[516] _History of England_ i. 125. - -[517] See the trial of Ireland, Pickering, and Grove. 7 State Trials -126–129, and 10 State Trials 1087. - -[518] See Raleigh’s Trial, 2 State Trials 18. Jardine, _Crim. Trials_ -421, where the court decided unanimously against Raleigh’s repeated -demand for the production of Lord Cobham, not, according to Sir James -Fitzjames Stephen’s opinion, without fair colour of law. _Hist. Crim. -Law_ i. 335, 336. - -[519] 1 State Trials 869. - -[520] Not indeed without grievous consequences to themselves. Being -brought to question for their verdict, four of them submitted and -apologised at once. The remainder were imprisoned by order of the Star -Chamber and fined heavily. Stephen i. 329. - -[521] 1 State Trials 957–1042. - -[522] Stephen i. 326. - -[523] _Ibid._ 336, 350. - -[524] 2 State Trials 25. - -[525] 4 State Trials 354–356. - -[526] 5 State Trials 1185–1195. - -[527] 6 State Trials 932–936. - -[528] _Ibid._ 938. - -[529] 6 State Trials 697. - -[530] 6 State Trials 605–610. - -[531] 7 State Trials 591–688. And see below 93 _seq._ - -[532] See Lilburn’s Trial. 4 State Trials 1342. - -[533] Stephen i. 358. - -[534] Trial of Hulet, who was said to have been the actual executioner -of Charles I. 5 State Trials 1185–1195. In summing up, Sir Orlando -Bridgeman, L.C.S., said to the jury:—“Gentlemen, you hear what has been -proved on behalf of the prisoner, that is, if you believe the witnesses -that are not upon oath.” Hulet was convicted, but the evidence was -thought so unsatisfactory that the judges afterwards procured a -reprieve. - -[535] See the Lord Chief Justice’s remarks on the witnesses for the -Five Jesuits. 7 State Trials 41. As to the amount of truth in the -allegation see below. - -[536] At the trial of Colledge:—Sergeant Maynard: “It is Mr. Oates’ -saying; it is Mr. Turbervile’s oath.” 8 State Trials 638. - -[537] See _e.g._ the statement of Hyde, L.C.J., at Twyn’s trial in -1663. L.C.J.: “If I did not mistake, you desired to have counsel; was -that your request?” Twyn; “Yes.” L.C.J.: “Then I will tell you, we are -bound to be of counsel with you in point of law; that is, the court, -my brethren and myself, are to see that you suffer nothing for your -want of knowledge in matter of law; I say we are to be of counsel with -you.... To the matter of fact, whether it be so or no; in this case -the law does not allow you counsel to plead for you, but in matter of -law we are of counsel for you, and it shall be our care to see that -you have no wrong done you.” 6 State Trials 516, 517. See also the 5th -Resolution in the case of Sir Harry Vane. 6 State Trials 131. - -[538] See _e.g._ Coleman’s trial. 7 State Trials 14. L.C.J.: “The -labour lies upon their hands, ... therefore you need not have counsel, -because the proof must be plain upon you.” See also Don Pantaleon Sa’s -case. 4 State Trials 466. - -[539] See Colledge’s trial. L.C.J. North: “Counsel you cannot have, -unless matter of law arises, and that must be propounded by you; and -then if it be a matter debatable, the court will assign you counsel; -but it must be upon a matter fit to be argued.” 8 State Trials 570. -Similarly Jones, J., _ibid._ 571. - -At Sidney’s trial Jeffreys, L.C.J.: “If you assign any particular point -of law, then, if the court think it such a point as may be worth the -debating, you shall have counsel.” - -[540] 8 State Trials 579. - -[541] See Burnet ii. 196, 291. Pepys, _Diary_ January 21, 1667. North, -_Life of Guildford_ 195, 196, 291. - -[542] 6 State Trials 570. - -[543] 7 State Trials 463. - -[544] 7 State Trials 1339. That the barristers withdrew is evident from -Winnington’s subsequent remark: “We did perceive his counsel come up -towards the bar and very near him, and therefore we thought it our duty -to speak before any inconvenience happened.” _Ibid._ 1340. - -[545] Sir W. Jones: “My Lords, we do not presume at all to offer our -consent to what time the court shall be adjourned.” L.H.S.; “No, we do -not ask your consent.” - -[546] 7 State Trials 1371–1373. - -[547] 7 State Trials 1544. - -[548] The trial of Hawkins for theft in 1669 is of great interest in -this connection. It was evidently considered to be an extreme piece -of good fortune that the accused was able to prove the conspiracy -against him, and it was only owing to the folly and clumsiness of the -prosecutor that he could clearly prove the perjury. 6 State Trials -922–952. - -[549] Sometimes this gave rise to great hardship, as in Oates’ second -trial for perjury, where a witness named Sarah Paine was summoned, but -the wrong Sarah coming, the mistake was not detected until she was put -in the witness-box. 10 State Trials 1287. - -[550] This however was considered rather unfair at the time. See the -case of Atkins. 6 State Trials 1491. The action of the government and -the judges in Colledge’s case (8 State Trials 570–587) in depriving -the prisoner of papers which leave had been given him to write, that -the crown case might be managed accordingly, strained this practice -still further, and is justly termed by Sir J. F. Stephen “one of the -most wholly inexcusable transactions that ever occurred in an English -court.” _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 406. - -[551] This was certainly so in Newgate and the other London prisons, -but Reading’s intrigue with the Five Popish Lords seems to shew that -the rule was relaxed for the Tower. 7 State Trials 301. - -[552] See the cases of Coleman and Fitzharris. Mrs. Coleman managed -to convey letters to her husband in prison after his arrest. House -of Lords MSS. 8. Mrs. Fitzharris also was used, according to the -information received by the government, to convey messages to her -husband from the leaders of his party. She used, while talking to him -in the presence of a warder, to lower her voice so that he alone could -hear, and then repeat the message in the middle of their ordinary -conversation. Information of Lewis the spy. May 30, 1681. S.P. Dom. -Charles II 415: 334. - -[553] _Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy_ ii. 310. - -[554] That this was recognised at the time is evident from the -attention which they received in the debates in the Commons on the Duke -of York. That on the Lords’ Provision in the Popery bill exempting -the duke was carried on amid cries of “Coleman’s letters! Coleman’s -letters!” 4 _Parl. Hist._ 1044. And see the whole of the Debate on -a Motion for Removing the Duke of York, where they had the greatest -weight. _Ibid._ 1026–1034. - -[555] 7 State Trials 6. - -[556] _Ibid._ 3, 4. - -[557] _Ibid._ 7–13. - -[558] See above 45–48. - -[559] 7 State Trials 70. - -[560] _Ibid._ 16, 17. - -[561] _Ibid._ 18. - -[562] _Ibid._ 22. - -[563] 7 State Trials 18, 19. - -[564] _Ibid._ 30–33. - -[565] _Ibid._ 23, 31. - -[566] _Ibid._ 25. - -[567] Dryden, _Absalom and Achitophel_ 646: “Sunk were his eyes.” -Warner MS. history 104. “Oculi parvi et in occiput retracti.” -L’Estrange, _Hue and Cry after Dr. O._ “His eyes are very small and -sunk.” - -[568] 7 State Trials 25. - -[569] _Ibid._ 25–27. - -[570] 7 State Trials 27–29. L.C.J.: “What did he (Oates) say?” Dolman: -“That he did not well know him.” L.C.J.: “Mr. Oates, you say you were -with him (Coleman) at the Savoy and Wild-House; pray, Sir Thomas, did -he say he did not know him, or had seen Mr. Coleman there?” Dolman: “He -did not know him as he stood there.” Dolben, J.: “Did he say he did not -know Mr. Coleman, or that he did not know that man?” Dolman: “He said -he had no acquaintance with that man (to the best of my remembrance).” - -[571] 7 State Trials 29, 30. - -[572] 7 State Trials 21. - -[573] Oates’ work had certainly been remarkably hard, and his fatigue -was no invention of his own. See the evidence of Sir Thomas Dolman at -Sir George Wakeman’s trial. 7 State Trials 656. Oates was confronted -with Coleman, and charged him with high treason on the night of Monday, -September 30. Dolman: “My Lord, Mr. Oates did appear before the king -and council, I think on the Saturday before which was Michaelmas -eve. The council sat long that morning, the council sat again in the -afternoon, and Mr. Oates was employed that night I think to search -after some Jesuits, who were then taken, and that was the work of that -night. The council I think sat again Sunday in the afternoon. Mr. Oates -was then examined; the council sat long, and at night he was sent -abroad again to search the lodgings of several priests and to find out -their papers, which he did seize upon, and one of the nights in that -season was a very wet night; he went either with a messenger or with -a guard upon him. On Monday morning the council sat again, and he was -further examined, and went abroad; and Monday night Mr. Oates was in as -feeble and weak a condition as ever I saw man in my life, and was very -willing to have been dismissed for that time, for he seemed to be in -very great weakness and disorder, so that I believe he was scarce able -to give a good answer.” - -The whole incident is very similar to that which occurred at Wakeman’s -trial, with the exception that then the evidence went against the -witness, whereas now it was against the prisoner. The conduct of the -court on the two occasions was perfectly consistent. _Ibid._ 651–653. -See below. - -[574] _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 385. - -[575] Compare the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, Fenwick, etc. When -Oates had finished his evidence, Fenwick said: “Pray, my Lord, be -pleased to take notice that this man’s evidence all along is that he -saw such and such letters from such and such persons. They have no -evidence but just that, they saw such and such letters.” 7 State Trials -358. - -[576] 7 State Trials 21, 32. - -[577] As in the case of Dangerfield. 7 State Trials 1110. - -[578] 7 State Trials 359, 411. - -[579] See above 293. - -[580] Fox, _History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II_ 34. - -[581] Gardiner, _History of England_ vii. 323–326. - -[582] 6 State Trials 693. - -[583] One of the women supposed to be bewitched. - -[584] 8 State Trials 1021. _Lives of the Norths_ i. 167. - -[585] An extraordinary instance of the nature of the ideas of the time -on the subject of evidence appears in an examination before the Lords’ -committee of inquiry. Oates complained that the Bishop of Chichester -and Justice Bickley had reviled his evidence. A witness named Nicholas -Covert was examined: “says he was at the public meeting at Chichester, -but he remembers not that anything was said reflecting on Dr. Oates. -The discourse was concerning the Narratives, and somebody there said -that he had contradicted himself twenty-two times.” House of Lords MSS. -146. If a score of self-contradictions were not generally taken as an -objection to a witness, it is hard to imagine what would have been. - -[586] _History of his own Time._ London, 1727, 386. - -[587] Ralph i. 412. - -[588] 7 State Trials 13. - -[589] _Ibid._ 35–53. - -[590] 7 State Trials 59, 60. - -[591] Being asked what he had to say he returned again to the subject: -“As for my papers I humbly hope ... that I should not have been found -guilty of any crime in them but what the act of grace could have -pardoned.”... _Ibid._ 71. - -[592] 7 State Trials 8. - -[593] _Ibid._ 15. - -[594] _Ibid._ 76. - -[595] House of Lords MSS. 8, November 6, 1678. - -[596] House of Lords MSS. 14. - -[597] This misunderstanding is so extraordinary that I was tempted at -one time to adopt the theory that the prosecution was aware of the -existence of the later letters, and suppressed the knowledge from -motives of expedience. Certainly the managers of the prosecutions for -the plot were guilty of conduct which not only would now be thought -unprofessional, but was on any consideration highly suspicious, as for -instance in the suppression of the forged letters sent by Oates and -Tonge to Father Bedingfield (see Ralph i. 384. Sir G. Sitwell, _The -First Whig_ 36), and on a question of honesty simply the balance of -probability might turn against them. But the supposition cannot be -maintained. It was suggested at the time that, if the letters of the -years 1673, 1674, 1675 contained such dangerous matter as appeared from -their perusal, those of the three ensuing years must, had they been -found, have revealed still more horrible schemes. But the force of this -argument was not sufficient to afford a motive for taking the risk of -detection (Ralph i. 412). And although the personality of Shaftesbury, -by whom alone such a scheme could have been worked out, was of great -potency in the committee of the House of Lords, he hardly dominated it -so completely as to render the manœuvre practicable in the presence of -such men as Lord Anglesey, the Marquis of Winchester, and the Bishop of -Bath and Wells (House of Lords MSS. i.). - -[598] See above 312. 7 State Trials 59. - -[599] _Ibid._ 65. - -[600] L.C.J.: “If the cause did turn upon that matter, I would be well -content to sit until the book were brought; but I doubt the cause will -not stand on that foot; but if that were the case it would do you -little good.” 7 State Trials 65. - -[601] 7 State Trials 71. - -[602] _Ibid._ 66–68. Besides this he said several other things, of -which mention will be made later. - -[603] _Ibid._ 70. - -[604] _Ibid._ 78. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 4. Burnet ii. 178. - -[605] Burnet ii. 113. - -[606] Evidence of Carstairs, 6 State Trials 1503. - -[607] Macaulay, _Hist. of England_ i. 237. Lingard xiii. 107, 108. - -[608] Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. 14. Appendix ii. 361. See also Fairfax -Correspondence. Civil Wars (ed. R. Bell) ii. 297. James Babington to -Henry Lord Fairfax, November 20, 1678. “Staley, the goldsmith’s son, -was tried to-day at the King’s Bench, and condemned.” - -[609] Schwerin, _Briefe aus England_ 356. On December 2 (n.s.) he -notes: “Des Goldschmied’s Sohn, von dessen unbesonnenen Reden ich -bereits Mittheilung gemacht, ist gehangen und nachher geviertheilt -worden. Man hatte sich vorher überzeugt, dass er gesagt, dass der -König in England sei der grösste Ketzer und Schelm in der Welt. Darauf -hat er mit der Hand auf die Brust geschlagen, mit den Füssen fünf bis -sechsmal auf die Erde gestampft, und mit ausgestrecktem Arm gesagt. -Dies ist die Hand, die ihn hätte umbringen sollen, der König und das -Parlament glaubten, das alles gethan und vorbei sei, allein die Schelme -wären betrogen.” _Ibid._ 362. Barillon’s testimony is on the same -side: “Le témoin, sur la foi duquel Staley, fils d’un orrèvre, a été -condamné, a accusé le Duc d’Hamilton.” December 16/26, 1678. And Warner -(MS. history 40): “Primus, qui Catholico sanguine Angliam rigavit, -fuit Gulielmus Stalaeus, alterius Gulielmi auri fabri et trapazitae -Londiniensis civis divitis filius.” The act under which Staley was -condemned is 13 Charles II cap. i. - -[610] House of Lords MSS. 77, 78. - -[611] Burnet (ii. 171) speaks of Staley as “the popish banker, who had -been in great credit, but was then under some difficulties”; but this -is one of the rare mistakes he makes in point of fact. - -[612] He disclaimed all such sentiments and did deny the words, but -afterwards said that he had “never with intention, or any thought or -ill-will, spake any word upon this matter.” 6 State Trials 1506, 1508. - -[613] 6 State Trials 1509. Lingard (xiii. 108) states on the authority -of _Les Conspirations d’Angleterre_ that Fromante, who is there called -Firmin, was put into prison to prevent his appearance at the trial; but -the work is by no means above suspicion, and is directly contradicted -on the point. Large extracts from _Les Conspirations d’Angleterre_, -which was published in 1681 and is now extremely rare, are quoted by -Arnauld, _Œuvres_ xiv. 515–535. Arnauld says in a note: “C’est M. -Rocole, ancien chanoine de S. Benoit à Paris, qui en est l’auteur; mais -l’avertissement qui le fait paraître Protestant, n’est pas de lui.” -There is among the State Papers an order in council for the arrest of -Bartholemew Fermin for high treason on account of the Popish Plot, but -without date. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408; i. 110. - -[614] 6 State Trials 1511, 1512. - -[615] Foley v. 233, 234. - -[616] _Ibid._ v. 12. Lingard xiii. 64. _True Narrative of the Horrid -Plot and Conspiracy_, lxxvii. - -[617] Foley v. 233, 244, 245. - -[618] _Ibid._ 223. - -[619] 7 State Trials 91–101. - -[620] _Ibid._ 101–104. - -[621] _Ibid._ 105. - -[622] 7 State Trials 105. L.C.J.; “You must be tried by the laws of -England, which sends no piece of fact out of the country to be tried.” - -[623] There is much evidence to show this. The following instances -are from the same volume of the State Trials:—The Attorney-General -not allowed to read a certificate against the accused 129. Whitebread -not allowed to use Oates’ _Narrative_ 374. Fenwick, Whitebread, and -Harcourt not allowed to use the report of Ireland’s trial. Harcourt -was, in fact, mistaken on the point for which he wished to refer to the -report 360, 384–386. Lord Stafford not allowed to use the council book -as evidence 1440. See also 451, 462, 467, 654. - -[624] 7 State Trials 106–108. - -[625] On April 16, 1679. _Ibid._ 259–310, and see below. - -[626] 7 State Trials 272, 295. - -[627] _Ibid._ 392. - -[628] _Ibid._ 117, 118. Sergeant Baldwin produced the letter, saying, -“We do conceive a letter from one of that party, bearing date about the -same time, concerning Mr. Whitebread’s summons, who was then master of -the company, is very good evidence against them.” - -The prosecution was forced to retract, and Mr. Finch, the junior, was -made to eat his leader’s words: “My Lord, it can affect no particular -person, but we only use it in general.” - -[629] 7 State Trials 120. - -[630] 7 State Trials 315–317. - -[631] Cf. Rookwood’s case 1696. Powell, J.: “Certainly now the jury is -charged, they must give a verdict either of acquittal or conviction.” -Sir T. Trevor, Att. Gen.: “I know what has been usually thought -of Whitebread’s case.” And the trial of Cook, 1696. Powell, J.: -“Whitebread’s case was indeed held to be an extraordinary case.” And -see 7 State Trials 497–500 n, where many instances and opinions adverse -to the decision of the court are collected. - -[632] Hale, P.C. ii. 294. “By the ancient law, if the jury sworn had -been once particularly charged with a prisoner, it was commonly held -they must give up their verdict, and they could not be discharged -before their verdict was given up.... But yet the contrary course hath -for a long time obtained at Newgate, and nothing is more ordinary -than after the jury is sworn and charged with a prisoner and evidence -given, yet if it appears to the court that some of the evidence is -kept back, or taken off, or that there may be a fuller discovery and -the offence notorious, as murder or burglary, and that the evidence, -though not sufficient to convict the prisoner, yet gives the court a -great and strong suspicion of his guilt, the court may discharge the -jury of the prisoner, and remit him to the gaol for further evidence; -and accordingly it has been practised in most circuits of England, for -otherwise many notorious murders and burglaries may pass unpunished, -by the acquittal of a person probably guilty, where the full evidence -is not searched out or given.” “The whole law upon this subject,” says -Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, “was elaborately considered a few years -ago in R. _v._ Winsor (L.R. 1 Q.B. 289), when it appeared, from many -authorities, that the practice had fluctuated.” _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. -397. - -[633] 7 State Trials 98. - -[634] 7 State Trials 122–126. - -[635] _Ibid._ 121, 122. - -[636] _Ibid._ 124. - -[637] 7 _Ibid._ 128. - -[638] 10 State Trials 1243–1281. - -[639] 7 State Trials 388–391. - -[640] _Ibid._ 132. - -[641] _Ibid._ 133–135. - -[642] Stephen i. 399. - -[643] 7 State Trials 138–141. - -[644] 7 State Trials 142–144. Klopp II. 464, app. IV. - -[645] Foley v. 58. - -[646] See “An impartial consideration of these speeches,” etc., 1670, -attributed to John Williams, D.D. “Animadversions on the last speeches -of the Five Jesuits,” etc., 1679. Printed 7 State Trials 543. - -[647] Burnet ii. 201. - -[648] Sidney, _Letters_ 123, 124. The opinion of Ranke, who in his -writings was neither Catholic nor Protestant, lies midway between these -views: “Grässlich ist die lange Reihe von Hinrichtungen Solcher, die -nichts bekannten,” v. 235. - -[649] “The examination of Captain William Bedloe deceased, taken in -his last sickness by Sir Francis North, Chief Justice of the Court of -Common Pleas.” Printed 6 State Trials 1493–1498. - -[650] See Russell’s written Speech, printed at length, Ralph i. 755–757. - -[651] Sitwell, _First Whig_ 153–158. And see Stephen i. 408, 409. - -[652] Stephen i. 449. And see Burnet II. 303, 304. - -[653] Above 328. - -[654] See above 204–209. - -[655] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 363. Order of the king in -council, February 5, 1679. - -[656] 7 State Trials 259, 287, 296. - -[657] _Ibid._ 287–289, 292. - -[658] So Bedloe swore 7 State Trials 271. Burnet (ii. 199) says that -Bedloe made use of Reading’s intrigue to cover his omission to swear -against the Jesuits in the previous December. But Reading never denied -the fact that Bedloe’s account of this part of the transaction was -correct. - -[659] Presumably, from the absence of any Christian name, Mr. George -Speke of White Lackington, M.P. for Somersetshire, a more reputable -person than his sons Hugh and Charles. George Speke had been a royalist -and after the Restoration lived in retirement for many years, but, -following the example of his son-in-law, John Trenchard, turned against -the court and became a leader of the Whig interest in his part of the -country. In 1680 he entertained Monmouth during his western progress. -Fea, _King Monmouth_ 96. - -[660] The date fixed first was March 28, and was afterwards altered. 7 -State Trials 281. - -[661] Evidence of Bedloe, Speke, and Wiggins. _Ibid._ 270–286. - -[662] _Ibid._ 278, 279. - -[663] 7 State Trials 310. - -[664] Colonel Mansell’s _Exact and True Narrative of the late Popish -Intrigue_ 64. - -[665] See Ralph i. 431. Echard 970, 971. Danby, _Memoirs_ 39, 40. - -[666] 7 State Trials 763–812. An Exact and True Narrative of the Horrid -Conspiracy of Thomas Knox, William Osborne, and John Lane to invalidate -the testimonies of Dr. Oates and Mr. William Bedloe. London 1680. - -[667] See below. - -[668] Burnet ii. 200. - -[669] 7 State Trials 881–926. - -[670] This was contradicted and his reputation much debated at the -trial of Lord Stafford eighteen months later; but at the time it was -believed to be the fact. - -[671] Thomas Whitebread, provincial; William Harcourt, rector of the -London province; John Fenwick, procurator for the college at St. Omers; -John Gavan, and Anthony Turner. 7 State Trials 311–418. - -[672] _Ibid._ 340, 1455. This was so far confirmed that Dugdale was -proved to have spoken on Tuesday, October 15, 1678 of the death of a -justice of the peace in Westminster, which does not go far. Dugdale -also declared at Lord Stafford’s trial that on Coleman’s arrest the -Duke of York sent to Newgate to ask if he had made disclosures to -anybody, and when Coleman returned that he had done so only to Godfrey, -the duke gave orders to have Godfrey killed. 7 State Trials 1316–1319. -Burnet ii. 190, 191. And see above 153, n. Burnet says: “The Earl -of Essex told me he swore it on his first examination, December 24, -1678, but since it was only on hearsay from Evers, and so was nothing -in law, and yet would heighten the fury against the duke, the king -charged Dugdale to say nothing of it.” This is a mistake. Dugdale’s -first and second examinations, December 24 and 29, 1678. S.P. Dom. -Charles II 408: II. 49, 22. Dugdale did formally tell the story in his -information, but not until March 21, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 135. - -[673] Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 334–342. - -[674] 7 State Trials 343–349. - -[675] _Ibid._ 119, 355. House of Lords MSS. 15. - -[676] 7 State Trials, 350–357. - -[677] 7 State Trials 359–378. - -[678] “... Three of them, having been apprehended by Sir Will. Waller -at their first coming, told him they were come to be witnesses, and -being asked what they were to witness, they said they must know that -from their superiors.” Sidney, _Letters_ 101. - -[679] Examination of Christopher Townley, April 28, 1679. Fitzherbert -MSS. 151, 152. - -[680] 7 State Trials 371. At the trial of Langhorn another witness was -produced to explain this, but his testimony was unconvincing. - -[681] _Ibid._ 361, 364, 366. Information was also given that Gifford -had admitted in conversation “that his Superior of the College at St. -Omers had sent him over to swear on behalf of the Lords, and that he -must obey, and would, right or wrong.” Examinations of Chamberlayne and -Gouddall. Fitzherbert MSS. 149. - -[682] Examinations of Coulster and Townley. Fitzherbert MSS 151, 152. - -[683] 7 State Trials 396–403. North, _Examen_ 239, 240. 10 State Trials -1183–1188. Smith, _Intrigues of the Popish Plot_. The evil reputation -of these men was unknown at the time of the trial. See Burnet ii. 226. - -[684] 7 State Trials 404–418. - -[685] At the time of the fire of London, Tillotson told Burnet a -story of Langhorn’s methods of business which is too ridiculous to be -believed. Burnet i. 412. - -[686] _True Narrative_ lxxxi. - -[687] 7 State Trials 463–465, 470. - -[688] _Ibid._ 439. - -[689] 7 State Trials 514. - -[690] _Ibid._ 172, 173. - -[691] Sidney, _Letters_ 124. “Wakeman’s trial is put off, as is -believed, to avoid the indecency of the discourses that would have been -made.” - -[692] L.J. xiii. 388–392. C.J. November 28, 29, 1678. Ralph i. 397. -James (Or. Mem.) i. 529. - -[693] Burnet ii. 231. - -[694] 7 State Trials 602–618. - -[695] _Ibid._ 619–623. - -[696] _Ibid._ 624–641. Bedloe however gave no evidence against the -prisoner Rumley. - -[697] 7 State Trials 644–651. Sir J. F. Stephen has strangely missed -the bearing of this evidence, and writes as if it had been decisive in -favour of the prisoners. _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 391. - -[698] The first serious acquittal at least, for the trial of Atkins, -after the conviction of Green, Berry, and Hill for the murder of -Godfrey, was hardly more than formal. - -[699] 7 State Trials 651–653. - -[700] Hatton Correspondence ii. 187. Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, -July 10, 1679. “Mr. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane was bailed yesterday, -and if my Lord Chief Justice hang five hundred Jesuits, he will not -regain the opinion he thereby lost with the populace, to court whom he -will not act against his conscience.” Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 74. - -[701] Verney MSS. 474. - -[702] Burnet ii. 232. _The Narrative of Segnior Francisco de Faria_, -1680, 17, 18. - -[703] Deposition of F. de Faria, March 24, 1681. S.P. Dom. Charles II -415: 159. Verney MSS. 474. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 17, 74. - -[704] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 19. - -[705] 8 State Trials 163–174. Hatton Correspondence ii. 220. - -[706] 7 State Trials 702–706. - -[707] Hatton Correspondence ii. 191, 195, 207–210. - -[708] C.J. ix. 661, 688–692. L.J. xiii. 736–739. Luttrell, _Brief -Relation_ i. 64. - -[709] L.J. xiii. 752. - -[710] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 74, 75. - -[711] See Burnet ii. 196. North, _Examen_ 567, 568. _Lives of the -Norths_, 195, 196. Hatton Correspondence, _passim_. - -[712] Burnet ii. 196. North, _Examen_ 568. - -[713] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 146. “Being with the king at the Duchess -of Portsmouth’s lodgings, my Lord Treasurer being also present, the -king told me he took it (Oates’ story) to be some artifice, and that -he did not believe one word of the Plot.” Reresby, though always -well-informed, was never at this time in possession of real secrets. - -Barillon, October 1/10, 1678. “Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne m’a dit -qu’il ne croyait pas que cette accusation eût un veritable fondement.” - -Shaftesbury, _The present state of the Kingdom at the opening of_ _the -Parliament_, March 6, 1679. “As concerning the plot and the murder of -Godfrey, the king’s discourses and managing are new and extraordinary. -No man can judge by them but that he is in the plot against his own -life; and no man doubts but he is so far in as concerns us all.” -Printed Christie ii. 309. - -[714] Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. “Le Roi d’Angleterre ne me parle -plus comme il a parlé jusqu’à present. Il me dit hier que la déposition -d’un dernier témoin nommé Ducdale lui parassait si peu concertée et -si pleine de faits vraisemblables qu’il ne pouvait plus s’empêcher de -croire à une conspiration contre sa personne. Ce Prince me redit toutes -les raisons qui lui ont fait croire qu’Oats et Benloi sont des parjures -et des imposteurs, mais en même temps il me fit connaître que ce qu’ils -avaient dit de faux n’empêchait pas qu’il n’y eût quelque chose de vrai -qui servait pour fondement à tout ce qu’ils avaient pu inventer d’eux -mêmes.” - -[715] See the trials of Andrew Bromwich, 7 State Trials 715–726, Lionel -Anderson and others, _ibid._ 729–750, Knox and Lane, _ibid._ 763–812, -Lord Castlemaine, _ibid._ 1067–1112. - -[716] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 34. - -[717] See _e.g._ his summing up at Lord Castlemaine’s trial. 7 State -Trials 1408–1412. - -[718] In spite of his own and his brother’s assertions there cannot be -the least doubt of this. North afterwards declared in his memoirs that -he never believed in the Popish Plot, a statement which is belied by -every action and word of his on the bench. - -[719] 7 State Trials 218, at the trial of Green, Berry, and Hill. - -[720] 7 State Trials 69. - -[721] _Ibid._ 133, 134. - -[722] _Ibid._ 218, 411, 642, 1102. 10 State Trials 1170. L.C.J.: “You -may assure yourselves, I will remember whatsoever has been said on the -one side and on t’other as well as I can; the gentlemen of the jury are -men of understanding, and I see they take notes, and I’ll give them -what assistance I can.” Instances might be multiplied. See Stephen i. -377, 566, 567. - -[723] 6 State Trials 701–710. His trial was in 1665. - -[724] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1088. - -[725] 7 State Trials 134. _Absalom and Achitophel_ 120. - -[726] 7 State Trials 678–680. This is another fair specimen. “Never -brag of your religion, for it is a foul one, and so contrary to Christ; -it is easier to believe anything than to believe that an understanding -man may be a papist.” - -[727] These trials in their order of mention will be found:—7 State -Trials 1043. _Ibid._ 959. 8 State Trials 502. 7 State Trials 1162. 8 -State Trials 447. 7 State Trials 1067. 8 State Trials 243. - -[728] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 194. - -[729] See Appendix E. - -[730] The proceedings in Parliament against the five popish lords are -collected in 7 State Trials 1218–1292. - -[731] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 193, 194, North, _Examen_ 218. - -[732] Barillon, November 31/December 9, 1680. “Ce qui se passera dans -ce procès est de grande consequence. Si le comte de Stafford était -absous, la conjuration recevrait une grande atteinte, et quoique le -peuple soit prévenu, il est néantmoins assujetti aux règles et aux -lois, et ne s’en départ pas aisément.” - -[733] _Secret Services of Charles II and James II_ 24. - -[734] Barillon, December 6/16, 9/19, 1680. James i. 640. - -[735] 7 State Trials 1298–1339. - -[736] Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1341–1347. - -[737] Oates’ evidence. _Ibid._ 1347–1350. - -[738] Turbervile’s evidence. _Ibid._ 1351–1355. - -[739] _Ibid._ 1394, 1395. - -[740] 7 State Trials 1397–1400. - -[741] _Ibid._ 1388–1393. - -[742] _Ibid._ 1396–1406. - -[743] _Ibid._ 1407–1415. - -[744] 7 State Trials 1415–1419. - -[745] Stafford admitted afterwards that in recent years he had -constantly used a walking stick, “being lame with weariness.” _Ibid._ -1478. - -[746] _Ibid._ 1419–1434. - -[747] 7 State Trials 1437–1447. - -[748] _Ibid._ 1462, 1463. - -[749] _Ibid._ 1485–1492. - -[750] _Ibid._ 1486–1491. - -[751] 6 State Trials 119. - -[752] 7 State Trials 1519–1529. - -[753] _Ibid._ 1493–1515. - -[754] _Ibid._ 1544–1551. - -[755] Reresby thought that he acquitted himself well, but James said -“it was always his misfortune to play his game worst when he had the -best cards.” James i. 637. - -[756] Barillon, December 16/26 1680. - -[757] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 194. - -[758] Anglesey, _Memoirs_ 9. - -[759] Barillon, November 21/December 1, 1680. “Ce Prince prend souvent -la liberté de se moquer la conjuration, et ne se constraint pas -d’appeller tout haut Oatz et Bedlow des coquins. Il a dit cependant -que les preuves contre le Vicomte de Stafford étaient fortes, et qu’il -pouvait bien n’être pas innocent.” - -[760] Hatton Correspondence ii. 241. - -[761] Barillon, December 9/19 1680. - -[762] _Ibidem._ - -[763] The Earls of Carlisle, Berkshire, and Suffolk. The appearance of -Lord Howard of Escrick on the same side is of no importance on account -of his bad character. - -[764] Anglesey, _Memoirs_ 9. James to Hyde. Clarendon Cor. i. 50. James -to Col. Legge, Dartmouth MSS. 54. Barillon, December 19/29, 1680. - -[765] L.J. xiii. 724. C.J. December 23, 1680. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1261. 7 -State Trials 1562. - -[766] 7 State Trials 1544, 1440–1447, 1342, 1343. - -[767] _Ibid._ 1564–1567. - -[768] Echard 997. Lingard xiii. 247–249. - -[769] Dispatch of Sarotti-Bignola, January 10, 1681. “Tanta è la -impressione de’ popoli della verità della congiura e della reità del -conte (Stafford), che da pochi è stato compatito e molti lo hanno -ingiurato con infami parole.” Quoted Brosch 451. Dispatch of Thun, -January 10, 1681. “Der Henker hat den kopf auf der Bühne herumgetragen -und dem Volke gezeigt, welches darüber ein unausprechliches Freuden-und -frohlockendes Geschrei hat erschallen lassen.” Quoted Klopp II 473, -app. XXII. - -[770] 7 State Trials 1129–1162. - -[771] _Ibid._ 1162. - -[772] _Ibid._ 1133. - -[773] _Ibid._ 1161. - -[774] Evidence of Richmond and Bridges. _Ibid._ 1140, 1142. - -[775] Evidence of Arnold. 7 State Trials 1135–1137. - -[776] Evidence of Phillips. _Ibid._ 1138. - -[777] Evidence of Philpot. _Ibid._ 1145, 1146. - -[778] Evidence of Watkins, Richmond, and Powel. _Ibid._ 1139. - -[779] Evidence of H. Jones and J. Jones. _Ibid._ 1146, 1147. - -[780] Evidence of W. Richmond. 7 State Trials 1140, 1141, and evidence -for the defence. _Ibid._ 1148–1151. - -[781] _Ibid._ 1152–1159. - -[782] _Ibid._ 1160. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 53, 55. S.P. Dom. -Charles II 414: 79. Petition of John Giles. Read in Council, 6 August -1680. - -[783] 7 State Trials 1138, 1146. - -[784] It is evident that the writer was an agent employed by Jenkins -for the purpose. Otherwise the secretary would certainly have noted -from whom and the date on which he received the information. The style -of the report is also evidence of this. - -[785] Stephen i. 393. Macaulay i. 234. - - —————————————————— End of Book —————————————————— - - - - - Transcriber’s Note (continued) - - -When they occur in quoted text and their citations, inconsistencies in -spelling (particularly of names), accenting, hyphenation, abbreviation, -etc., have been left unchanged in this transcription. Minor -typographical errors in the author’s text have been corrected without -note while other changes to his text are as stated below. - - Page xv - “efuge” changed to “refuge” (March 24 Danby takes refuge at - Whitehall.) - - Page 59 - “has” changed to “have” (various ways of procuring success - for the Catholic religion have thus been considered) - - Page 174 - “Monmonth” changed to “Monmouth” (Duke of Monmouth) - - Page 181 - “Trelawney” changed to “Trelawny” (Sir Jonathan Trelawny) - - Page 282 - “thay” changed to “they” (formerly they had feared - dismissal) - -The 785 footnotes have been renumbered and moved from the bottom of -pages to a FOOTNOTES section at the end of the transcription. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POPISH PLOT *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: - -• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - -• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - -• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you “AS-IS”, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ - -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/69912-0.zip b/old/69912-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 412d506..0000000 --- a/old/69912-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/69912-h.zip b/old/69912-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8447a3d..0000000 --- a/old/69912-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/69912-h/69912-h.htm b/old/69912-h/69912-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 58e69fa..0000000 --- a/old/69912-h/69912-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,23366 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html lang="en"> -<head> - <meta charset="UTF-8"> - <title> - The Popish Plot, by John Pollock—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> - <style> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; -} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h1.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} -h3.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -ul.index { list-style-type: none; } -li.ifrst { - margin-top: 1em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} -li.indx { - margin-top: .5em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} -li.isub1 { - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 2em; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: small; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - text-indent: 0; -} /* page numbers */ - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - -.gesperrt -{ - letter-spacing: 0.2em; - margin-right: -0.2em; -} - -em.gesperrt -{ - font-style: normal; -} - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} -img.w100 {width: 100%;} - - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: none; -} - -/* Poetry */ -/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry */ -/* .poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;} */ -.poetry-container {text-align: center;} -.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} -.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} -.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:small; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; -} - -/* === QGC additions to standard CSS === */ - -hr.r10 { width: 10%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 45.0%; margin-right: 45.0%; } - -.blockquot1 { - margin-left: 2em; - margin-right: 0em; -} - -div.footnote p { text-indent: 0em; } - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .6em; - text-decoration: none; -} - -h2 { font-size: 130%; } - -p { text-indent: 1em; } - -.p0 { margin-top: 0em; } -.p1 { margin-top: 1em; } - -.b0 { margin-bottom: 0em; } -.b1 { margin-bottom: 1em; } -.b4 { margin-bottom: 4em; } - -.hanging2 { - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -.hanging5X { - padding-left: 4.5em; - text-indent: -3.5em; -} - -.hanging2X { - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -1em; -} - -.left { text-align: left; } - -.nospacing { - margin-top: 0; - margin-bottom: 0; -} - -table.toc { - font-size: small; -} - -table.time-line { - font-size: small; - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 1em 0; -} - -table.fn328 { - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 0 0; -} - -.tdrt { text-align: right; vertical-align: top; } -.tdrb { text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom; } -.tdlt { text-align: left; vertical-align: top; } -.tdlb { text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom; } - -td.border-bottom { - border-bottom: 1px solid black; - border-collapse: collapse; -} - -.pagenum { font-family: serif; } - -.illowe35 { width: 35em; } - -.small { font-size: small; } -.x-small { font-size: x-small; } - -.bold { font-weight: bold; } - -.noindent { text-indent: 0em; } - -a { text-decoration: none; } -a.underline { text-decoration: underline; } - -/* === Transcriber's notes === */ -.transnote { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: small; -} - -.transnote-end { - background-color: #E6E6FA; - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - color: black; - padding: 0.5em; - margin-bottom: 5em; - font-size: small; - font-family: sans-serif, serif; -} - -p.TN-style-1 { - text-indent: 0em; - margin-top: 1.5em; - font-size: small; -} - -p.TN-style-2 { - text-align: left; - margin-top: 1.0em; - text-indent: -1em; - margin-left: 3em; - font-size: small; -} - -@media print { .transnote { - margin-left: 2.5%; - margin-right: 2.5%; - } -} - -@media print { .transnote-end { - margin-left: 2.5%; - margin-right: 2.5%; - } -} - -.x-ebookmaker .transnote { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; -} - -.x-ebookmaker .transnote-end { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; -} - -/* Poetry indents */ -.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;} - - - </style> -</head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Popish Plot, by John Pollock</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The Popish Plot</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em;'>A study in the history of the reign of Charles II</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: John Pollock</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: January 30, 2023 [eBook #69912]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: deaurider, Quentin Campbell, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POPISH PLOT ***</div> - -<div class="figcenter illowe35 x-ebookmaker-drop"> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/cover.jpg"> - <img class="w100" src="images/cover.jpg" alt=""> - </a> -</div> - -<div class="transnote chapter p4"> -<a id="top"></a> -<p class="noindent center TN-style-1 bold">Transcriber’s Note</p> - -<p class="noindent center TN-style-1">The cover image was created by Thiers Halliwell from elements of the title page and is placed in the public domain.</p> - -<hr class="r10"> - -<p class="noindent center TN-style-1">See the <a class="underline" href="#TN">end -of this document</a> for details of corrections and other changes.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<p class="noindent center bold p4 b4" style="font-size: 180%;">THE POPISH PLOT</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"></div> -<h1 class="nobreak" id="TITLE"><span style="font-size: 75%;">THE</span><br><br> -<span class="gesperrt" style="font-size: 150%;">POPISH PLOT</span></h1> - -<p class="noindent center p2 b4 bold gesperrt"><span style="font-size: 150%;">A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF<br><br> -THE REIGN OF CHARLES II</span></p> - -<p class="noindent center small">BY</p> - -<p class="noindent center p1"><span style="font-size: 120%;">JOHN POLLOCK</span></p> - -<p class="noindent center p1 x-small">FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE</p> - -<p class="noindent center p4 b0">“Some truth there was, but dashed and brewed with lies.”</p> -<p class="noindent center p0"><span style="margin-left: 20em;"><i>Absalom and Achitophel.</i></span></p> - -<p class="p1">“Oh! it was a naughty Court. Yet have we dreamed of it as the period -when an English cavalier was grace incarnate; far from the boor now hustling -us in another sphere; beautifully mannered, every gesture dulcet. -And if the ladies were ... we will hope they have been traduced. But if -they were, if they were too tender, ah! gentlemen were gentlemen then—worth -perishing for!”—<i>The Egoist.</i></p> - -<p class="p1">“Donner pour certain ce qui est certain, pour faux ce qui est faux, pour -douteux ce qui est douteux.”—<i>Mabillon.</i></p> - -<p class="noindent center p4">LONDON:<br> -DUCKWORTH AND CO.<br> -MCMIII</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p class="noindent center p4 small">INSCRIBED TO THE MEMORY OF</p> - -<p class="noindent center b4">LORD ACTON</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">[vii]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE">PREFACE</h2> -</div> - -<p>When I first undertook the study of the Popish Plot -the late Lord Acton wrote to me: “There are three -quite unravelled mysteries;—what was going on between -Coleman and Père la Chaize; how Oates got hold of the -wrong story; and who killed Godfrey.” The following -book is an attempt to answer these questions and to -elucidate points of obscurity connected with them.</p> - -<p>In the course of the work I have received much kind -help from Dr. Jackson and Mr. Stanley Leathes of this -college, from the Rev. J. N. Figgis of St. Catharine’s -College, and from my father; and Mr. C. H. Firth of -All Souls’ College has been exceedingly generous in giving -the assistance of his invaluable learning and experience -to a novice attacking problems which have been left too -long untouched by those better fitted for the task.</p> - -<p>It is only as a mark of the deep gratitude I bear him -that I have ventured to dedicate this book to the memory -of the illustrious man whose death has deprived it of its -sternest critic. Few can know so well as myself how far -its attainment falls short of the standard which he set up. -With that standard before me I can justify myself only -by the thought that I have tried to follow strictly the -injunction: Nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in -malice.</p> - -<p class="right"><span style="margin-right: 2em;">J. P.</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><span class="smcap small">Trinity College, Cambridge, 1903.</span></p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">[ix]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table class="toc"> - <tr> - <td class="tdr" colspan="2"><span class="smcap x-small">page</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Table of Some Events occurring in the History of the -Popish Plot</span>  </td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_xiii">xiii</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 140%;">I. DESIGNS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER I</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Titus Oates</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER II</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Nature of the Designs</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER III</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Oates again</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_70">70</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 140%;">II. SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER I</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Godfrey</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_83">83</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER II</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Bedloe and Atkins</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_106">106</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER III</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Bedloe and Prance</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_117">117</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER IV</span><span class="pagenum" id="Page_x">[x]</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Prance and Bedloe</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_132">132</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER V</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Secret</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_149">149</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 140%;">III. POLITICS OF THE PLOT</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER I</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Government</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_169">169</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER II</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Catholics</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_196">196</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER III</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Shaftesbury and Charles</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_222">222</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 140%;">IV. TRIALS FOR TREASON</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER I</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Magistrates and Judges</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_265">265</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER II</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Criminal Procedure</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_288">288</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">CHAPTER III</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Trials for the Plot</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_304">304</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><span style="font-size: 125%;">APPENDICES</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Appendix A</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_375">375</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Appendix B</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_382">382</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_xi">[xi]</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Appendix C</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_390">390</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Appendix D</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_394">394</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Appendix E</span></td> - - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_400">400</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Materials for the History of the Popish Plot</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_405">405</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">INDEX</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_415">415</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</span></p> - <h2 class="nobreak" id="TABLE_OF_SOME_EVENTS_OCCURRING_IN">TABLE OF SOME EVENTS OCCURRING IN -THE HISTORY OF THE POPISH PLOT</h2> -</div> - -<table class="time-line"> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent">1677.</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">Ash Wednesday</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Titus Oates converted to the Church of Rome.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Enters the English Jesuit college at Valladolid.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Expelled from the college at Valladolid.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 10</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Enters the English Jesuit college at St. Omers.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent">1678.</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Jesuit congregation held at St. James’ Palace.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 23</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates expelled from the college at St. Omers</p></td> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">and returns to London.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 13</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Christopher Kirkby informs the king of a plot -against his life.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 14</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Kirkby and Dr. Tonge examined by the Earl -of Danby.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king goes to Windsor.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 31</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The forged letters sent to Bedingfield at Windsor.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 2</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Tonge introduces Oates to Kirkby at his -lodgings at Vauxhall.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 6</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates swears to the truth of his information -before Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates and Tonge summoned before the Privy Council.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates swears again to the truth of his information -before Godfrey and leaves a copy with him.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates examined at length by the council. -Search for Jesuits begun that night.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Edward Coleman pays a secret visit to Godfrey.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sir George Wakeman before the council.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates again examined by the council and -continues the search for Jesuits at night.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Warrant issued for the arrest of Coleman -and seizure of his papers.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Coleman surrenders to the warrant against<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</span> -him and is placed in charge of an officer. -His house searched and his papers seized.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates examined twice by the council and -again searches for Jesuits.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 1</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king goes to Newmarket.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Coleman’s papers examined by a committee -of the council.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Coleman committed to Newgate.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 12</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey missing.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">News of his disappearance published.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 17</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">His body found in a field at the foot of -Primrose Hill.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 18, 19</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">An inquest held.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 20</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Reward of £500 offered for the discovery of -Godfrey’s murderers.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Meeting of Parliament (seventeenth session -of Charles II’s second or Long Parliament).</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 23</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates at the bar of the House of Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Assurance of protection added to the reward -offered for the discovery of Godfrey’s murderers.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 25–31</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Earl of Powis, Viscount Stafford, Lord -Petre, Lord Bellasis, and Lord Arundel of -Wardour surrender to the warrants out -against them as being, on Oates’ information, -concerned in the Plot.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Test Act passes the Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 30, 31</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates at the bar of the House of Lords.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 1</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Resolution of both Houses of Parliament -with regard to the Plot.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Funeral of Godfrey.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Proclamation commanding Popish recusants -to depart ten miles from London.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Arrest of Samuel Atkins.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 5</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Bedloe surrenders himself at Bristol.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 7</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Bedloe comes to town and is examined by -the king and secretaries. Examination of -Coleman in Newgate.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 10, 18</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Bedloe at the bar of the House of Commons</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 12</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">and at the bar of the House of Lords.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 20</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Test Act passed, but with a proviso exempting -the Duke of York.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of William Staley for -high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates accuses the queen in examination by -Secretary Coventry.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 26</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Staley executed at Tyburn, denying his guilt.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Coleman for high -treason. Bedloe accuses the queen.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xv">[xv]</span></p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates accuses the queen at the bar of the -House of Commons. He is confined by -the king and his papers are seized.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king refuses to pass the Militia bill, -even for half an hour.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 3</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of Coleman.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 5</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The five Popish Lords impeached.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 16</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Supply granted for disbanding the army.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 17</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Ireland, Pickering, -and Grove for high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 19</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Montagu’s papers seized. He produces -Danby’s letters to the Commons, revealing -the secret treaty with Louis XIV.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Miles Prance arrested and recognised by -Bedloe. Impeachment of Danby.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 23</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Prance confesses and accuses Green, Berry, -and Hill of being Godfrey’s murderers.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Dugdale comes forward as a witness.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Prance recants.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Parliament prorogued till February 4.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent">1679.</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Prance retracts his recantation.<br> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Long Parliament dissolved.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Ireland and Grove executed; Pickering -respited till May 25.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 5</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Green, Berry, and -Hill for Godfrey’s murder.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 8</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Atkins is acquitted of the same murder.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of Green and Hill.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of Berry.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 3</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king declares that he was never married -to any woman but Queen Catherine.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 4</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Duke of York leaves for Brussels by -command of the king.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 6</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king repeats his declaration.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The third Parliament meets. Edward -Seymour chosen Speaker, and is rejected -by the king.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 13</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Parliament prorogued for two days.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Serjeant Gregory chosen Speaker.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Parliament votes the Plot to be read. -Prance’s examination read to the Lords.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 22</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Commons resolve to proceed with -Danby’s impeachment.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Danby takes refuge at Whitehall.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 25</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Speech on Scotland by Shaftesbury.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 1</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Bill of attainder voted against Danby.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Bill of attainder passed.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xvi">[xvi]</span></p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 16</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Danby surrenders himself and is committed -to the Tower.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">A supply voted and appropriated for the disbandment -of the army.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king declares a new privy council, devised -by Sir William Temple.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Reading.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Resolution of Parliament against the Duke -of York.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king’s speech concerning the succession.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 3</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews, murdered.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Exclusion bill voted by the Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Exclusion bill read for the first time.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 23, 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Commons attack the system of secret -service money.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 26</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Habeas Corpus Act passed. The -Parliament prorogued to August 14, and -afterwards dissolved against the advice of -the whole council.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Outbreak of the Bothwell Brigg rebellion. -The Covenant proclaimed in the west of Scotland.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 1</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Claverhouse defeated at Drumclog.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Publication of “An Appeal from the City to -the Country.”</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 13</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Whitebread, Fenwick, -Harcourt, Gavan, and Turner (the five Jesuits) for high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 14</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Richard Langhorn -for high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Monmouth starts to suppress the rebellion.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 20</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of the Five Jesuits.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 22</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Covenanters routed by Monmouth at -Bothwell Brigg.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 9</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Samuel Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane, in -prison on account of the Plot, admitted to bail by Scroggs.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 14</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of Langhorn.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 17</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sir Thomas Gascoigne committed to the -Tower on a charge of high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 18</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sir George Wakeman, Marshall, Romney, -and Corker tried for high treason and acquitted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Executions in the provinces of priests on -account of their orders.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 22</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king ill at Windsor.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 23</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Duke of York summoned from Brussels.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Duke sets out from Brussels<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xvii">[xvii]</span></p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 2</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">and reaches Windsor.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 12</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Duke of Monmouth removed from his -commission of Lord General.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Monmouth leaves for Holland.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">James leaves for Brussels, thence to Scotland.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 7</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The new Parliament, meeting, is prorogued -by successive stages to October 1680.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Shaftesbury dismissed from his place at the -council board.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 20</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Dangerfield searches Col. Mansell’s lodgings -and is arrested.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Dangerfield committed to prison on charge -of high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Papers found in Mrs. Cellier’s meal tub.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 9</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Dangerfield pardoned.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 17</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">First great Pope Burning, organised by the -Green Ribbon Club.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 19</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Laurence Hyde appointed First Commissioner -of the Treasury.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 25</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Knox and Lane.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 27</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Monmouth returns to England without leave.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 6</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Archbishop Plunket committed to the castle -at Dublin.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 9</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Petition of seventeen Whig peers for the -sitting of Parliament marks the beginning -of the practice of petitioning.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Proclamation against petitioning.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent">1680.</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 6</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Mowbray and Bolron pardoned.<br> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 9</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Mrs. Cellier accuses Sir Robert Peyton of -high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Oates and Bedloe exhibit articles against -Lord Chief Justice Scroggs.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 31</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Lord Russell, Lord Cavendish, Sir Henry -Capel, and Mr. Powle resign their places on the council.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 5</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Benjamin Harris tried and convicted for a -libel in publishing “An Appeal from the City to the Country.”</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sir Thomas Gascoigne tried for high treason -and acquitted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Duke of York returns from Scotland.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 26</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Declaration of the Scottish Privy Council of -their abhorrence of tumultuous petitions -published in the <i>Gazette</i> marks the beginning -of the “abhorrers’” addresses.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 8</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king and the Duke of York entertained -at a banquet by the Lord Mayor.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Thomas Dare of Taunton fined for seditious -and dangerous words.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xviii">[xviii]</span></p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">April 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Assault on Arnold.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent left">April 26 and June 7</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Declarations published in the <i>Gazette</i> -denying all truth in the rumour of the Black Box.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Indictment of high treason, on Dangerfield’s -evidence, against the Countess of Powis -ignored by the grand jury of Middlesex.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 13</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king ill at Windsor.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">“A Letter to a Person of Honour concerning -the Black Box” published.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Tasborough and Price.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 10</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Conclusion of a treaty between England and -Spain to maintain the peace of Nymeguen.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Mrs. Cellier tried for high treason and -acquitted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 23</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Earl of Castlemaine tried for high treason -and acquitted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 26</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Shaftesbury, with Titus Oates and fourteen -peers and commoners, presents the Duke -of York as a popish recusant.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 14</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Giles for an attempt -to murder Arnold.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 28, 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trials for high treason at York. Lady -Tempest, Sir Miles Stapleton, and Mary -Pressicks acquitted, but Thwing, a priest, convicted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August–October</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Western progress of the Duke of Monmouth.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">August 20</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Death of Bedloe at Bristol.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">September 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Mrs. Cellier for -writing and publishing a libel.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 20</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Duke of York leaves London for -Edinburgh.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Meeting of Charles II’s fourth Parliament.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 26</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Dangerfield at the bar of the House of Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Bedloe’s deathbed deposition read to the -House of Commons. Two members of -the Commons expelled for discrediting the Plot.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">October 30</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Archbishop Plunket brought to London and -committed to the Tower.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 2</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Exclusion bill voted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 10</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Lord Stafford’s trial resolved on by the Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 11</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Third reading of the Exclusion bill in the -House of Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Exclusion bill rejected by the House -of Lords owing to Lord Halifax.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xix">[xix]</span></p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 16</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Halifax proposes the banishment of the -Duke of York.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 17</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Second great Pope Burning.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The House of Commons proceed against Halifax.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">November 24</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Commons vote the impeachment of -Lord Chief Justice North.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent left">November 30–December 7</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Lord -Stafford for high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 15</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sir Robert Peyton expelled from the House -of Commons.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">December 29</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of Stafford.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent">1681.</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 5</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Commons vote the impeachment of -Lord Chief Justice Scroggs and other judges.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 7, 10</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Commons pass resolutions against the -Duke of York, against such as shall lend -money to the crown, against a prorogation.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 10</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Parliament prorogued</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 18</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">and suddenly dissolved.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">January 25</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Sixteen Whig peers present a petition against -a parliament being held at Oxford.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">February 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Edward Fitzharris arrested for writing a -treasonable libel.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 14</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king concludes a secret verbal treaty -with Louis XIV and sets out for Oxford.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 17</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Shaftesbury and other Whig leaders set out -for Oxford with an armed escort.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 21</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Meeting of Charles II’s fifth and last -Parliament at Oxford.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 25</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Commons impeach Fitzharris.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 26</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Exclusion bill voted.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Lords refuse to proceed on Fitzharris’ impeachment.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">March 28</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The Exclusion bill read the first time in the -House of Commons. Parliament suddenly dissolved.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">The king’s declaration justifying the dissolution -answered by “A Just and Modest -Vindication of the Proceedings of the two -Last Parliaments.”</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">May 3</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Archbishop Plunket -for high treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">June 9</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Trial and conviction of Fitzharris for high -treason.</p></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt"><p class="nospacing noindent"> </p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="nospacing noindent">July 1</p></td> - <td class="tdlt"><p class="hanging2 left nospacing">Execution of Plunket and Fitzharris.</p></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak p4 b4" id="DESIGNS_OF_THE_ROMAN_CATHOLICS">DESIGNS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[3]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">TITUS OATES</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Titus Oates</span> has justly been considered one of the world’s -great impostors. By birth he was an Anabaptist, by -prudence a clergyman, by profession a perjurer. From -an obscure and beggarly existence he raised himself to -opulence and an influence more than episcopal, and, when -he fell, it was with the fame of having survived the finest -flogging ever inflicted. De Quincey considered the murder -of Godfrey to be the most artistic performance of the -seventeenth century. It was far surpassed by the products -of Oates’ roving imagination. To the connoisseur of -murder the mystery of Godfrey’s death may be more -exhilarating, but in the field of broad humour Oates bears -the palm. There is, after all, something laughable about -the rascal. His gross personality had in it a comic strain. -He could not only invent but, when unexpected events -occurred, adapt them on the instant to his own end. His -coarse tongue was not without a kind of wit. Whenever -he appears on the scene, as has been said of Jeffreys, we -may be sure of good sport. Yet to his victims he was an -emblem of tragic injustice. Very serious were his lies to -the fifteen men whom he brought to death. The world -was greedy of horrors, and Oates sounded the alarm at the -crucial moment. In the game he went on to play the -masterstrokes were his. Those who would reduce him to -a subordinate of his associate Dr. Tonge, the hare-brained -parson whose quarterly denunciations of Rome failed to -arouse the interest of Protestant London, have strangely<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[4]</span> -misunderstood his character. Tonge was a necessary -go-between, but Oates the supreme mover of diabolical -purpose.</p> - -<p>In the year of the execution of King Charles the First -Titus Oates was born at Oakham in the county of -Rutland. His father, Samuel Oates, son of the rector of -Marsham in Norfolk, had graduated from Corpus College, -Cambridge, and received orders from the hands of the -Bishop of Norwich. On the advent of the Puritan -Revolution he turned Anabaptist, and achieved fame in the -eastern counties as a Dipper of energy and sanctity. In -1650 he became chaplain to Colonel Pride’s regiment, -and four years later had the distinction of being arrested -by Monk for seditious practices in Scotland. The Restoration -returned him to the bosom of the established church, -and in 1666 he was presented by Sir Richard Barker to -the rectory of All Saints’ at Hastings. Shortly before, -his son Titus went his ways to seek education and a -livelihood in the world as a scholar. Ejected in turn -from Merchant Taylors’ School and Gonville and Caius, -Cambridge, he found a refuge at St. John’s College, and -some three years later was instituted to the vicarage of -Bobbing in Kent. “By the same token,” it was remarked, -“the plague and he visited Cambridge at the -same time.”</p> - -<p>Oates was a bird of passage. He obtained a license -not to reside in his parish, and went to visit his father at -Hastings. Long time did not pass before he took wing -again. He had already once been indicted for perjury, -though no further proceedings were taken in the case.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> -Now he conspired with his father to bring an odious -charge against the schoolmaster of Hastings, who had -incurred his enmity. The charge fell to the ground, -Oates’ abominable evidence was proved to be false, and -he was thrown into gaol pending an action for a thousand -pounds damages.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> Escape from prison saved him from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span> -disaster, and he fled to London. As far as is known, -no attempt was made to prosecute him. The men of -Hastings were probably rejoiced at his disappearance. -There was no profit to be made out of such a culprit -as Oates. If he were caught, it would only bring expense -and trouble to the authorities. It was the business of -no one else to pursue the matter. So Oates went free. -Without employment, he managed to obtain the post of -chaplain on board a vessel in the Royal Navy. The -calling was rather more disreputable than that of the Fleet -parson of later times. Discipline on board the king’s -ships was chiefly manifest by its absence; under the -captaincy of favourites from court the efficiency of the -service was maintained only by the rude ability of men -who had been bred in it; and the standard expected from -the chaplain was “damnably low.” Nevertheless Oates -failed to achieve the required measure of respectability. -He was expelled upon the same grounds as he had formerly -urged against the fortunate schoolmaster.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">3</a></p> - -<p>The mischance marked the beginning of his rise. -Again adrift in London, the tide threw him upon William -Smith, his former master at Merchant Taylors’ School. -It was Bartholomew-tide in the year 1676. With Smith -was Matthew Medburne, a player from the Duke of -York’s theatre, and by creed a Roman Catholic. The -two made friends with Oates, and on Medburne’s introduction -he became a member of a club which met twice a -week at the Pheasant Inn in Fuller’s Rents. The club -contained both Catholics and Protestants, discussion of -religion and politics being prohibited under penalty of a -fine.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> Here Oates made his first acquaintance with those -of the religion which he was afterwards to turn to a source -of so great profit. The rule which forbade controversy -applied only to the meetings of the club, and beyond its<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span> -limits discussion between members seems to have been -free. It was perhaps by the agency of some of these that -in the winter of the same year Oates was admitted as -chaplain into the service of the Duke of Norfolk.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> Testimony -to character on the engagement of a servant in the -seventeenth century was probably not severely examined.</p> - -<p>In the house of the great Catholic noble Oates found -himself in the company of priests of the forbidden church. -Conversation turned on the subject of religion, and Oates -lent ear to the addresses of the other side. Though he -wore the gown of an English minister, his faith sat light -upon him, and he did not scruple to change it for advantage. -On Ash Wednesday 1677 he was formally reconciled -to the Church of Rome.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> The instrument for the -salvation of the strayed lamb was one Berry, alias Hutchinson, -a Jesuit whom Oates had afterwards the grace to -describe as “a saintlike man, one that was religious for -religion’s sake.” By others the instrument was thought -to be somewhat weak-minded; at a later date he seceded -to the Protestant faith and became curate in the city, -later still to be welcomed back into the bosom of his -previous church; withal a very pious person, removed -from politics, and much given to making converts. -Neither conversion nor piety alone was an end to Oates. -He soon made his way to Father Richard Strange, provincial -of the Society of Jesus, and notified him of a desire -for admission into the order. Consulting with his fellows, -Strange gave consent to the proposal, and before the end -of April, Oates was shipped on a Bilboa merchantman with -letters to the English Jesuit seminary at Valladolid.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">7</a></p> - -<p>There was little that Oates could hope from a career -as an English parson. Almost any other calling, especially -one that took him abroad, offered better chances. He -probably believed that Jesuit emissaries led a merry life -and a licentious. Perhaps it is true that, as he said, vague -talk in the Duke of Norfolk’s household of the glorious<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span> -future for Catholicism had come to his ears. At least the -times must make him credulous of Catholic machinations. -To his sanguine mind the future would present unbounded -possibilities. On the other side, stout recruits for the -Catholic cause were not to be despised. Oates’ character -was tough, and he was not the man to shrink from dirty -work. Had they known him well, his new patrons would -hardly have welcomed him as a convert. The plausible -humility he aired was the outcome of a discretion which -rarely lasted longer than to save him from starvation. By -nature he was a bully, brutal, sensual, avaricious, and -gifted with a greed of adulation which, in a man of less -impudence, would have caused his speedy ruin. From -earliest youth he was a liar. Yet he was shrewd enough, -and shrewdness and promptitude were qualities not without -a certain value. His vices had not yet grown to be -notorious. So he was taken to serve masters who generally -succeeded in giving their pupils at least the outward -stamp of piety. In person Oates was hideous. His body -was short, his shoulders broad. He was bull-necked and -bow-legged. Under a low forehead his eyes were set -small and deep. His countenance was large and moon-like. -So monstrous was his length of chin that the wide -slit mouth seemed almost to bisect his purple face. His -voice rasped inharmoniously, and he could tune it at will -to the true Puritan whine or to scold on terms with such -a master of abuse as Jeffreys. The pen of Dryden has -drawn a matchless portrait of the man—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Sunk were his eyes, his voice was harsh and loud,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Sure signs he neither choleric was nor proud:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">His long chin proved his wit, his saint-like grace</div> - <div class="verse indent0">A church vermilion and a Moses’ face.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">8</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">This was the tender being whom the Colegio de los -Ingleses took to nurse into a Jesuit.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span></p> - -<p>The project failed of its mark. Five short months -completed Oates’ stay amid the new surroundings. On -October 30, 1677 he was expelled the college and shipped -home, reaching London in November.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">9</a> The sojourn -was in after days utilised to elevate him to the dignity -of doctor of divinity. He had obtained the degree at -Salamanca, he said. The truth was more accurately -expressed in the lines—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">The spirit caught him up, the Lord knows where,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And gave him his Rabbinical degree</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Unknown to foreign university;<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">10</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">for none but priests were admitted by the Catholic Church -to the doctorate, Oates was never a priest, and was never -at Salamanca in his life.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> Though Valladolid had proved -no great success, Oates was unabashed. He returned to -Strange and the Jesuits in London. Protestations were -renewed, and the eagerness of the expelled novice was not -to be withstood. The Jesuits afterwards professed that -they simply desired to keep Oates out of the way. -Whatever their motive, he was given a new trial. The -society furnished a new suit of clothes and a periwig, put -four pounds into his pocket, and sent him to complete -his education at St. Omers. On December 10 he was -admitted into the seminary.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> For one ambitious of an -ecclesiastical career the venture was not fruitful. Long -evidence was given at a later date descriptive of Oates’ -course in the college. In important points it lies under -strong suspicion,<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">13</a> but the picture of his daily doings may<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span> -be taken as faithful. Oates was not a congenial companion -to his fellows. Though a separate table was provided -for him at meals, he went to school with the rest and -attempted to gain their intimacy. He was the source -of continual quarrels, spoiled sport, tried to play the -bully, and sometimes met with the retribution that falls on -bullies. He was reader in the sodality, and enlivened more -serious works, such as Father Worsley’s <i>Controversies</i>, -with interludes from that most entertaining book, <i>The -Contempt of the Clergy</i>.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> He had a pan broken over his -head for insisting at a play by the novices on sitting in -the place reserved for the musicians. On another occasion -he excited the amusement of the college by allowing -himself to be beaten up and down by a lad with a fox’s -brush. Still nobler was an effort in the pulpit, where -he preached “a pleasant sermon,” expounding his belief -that “King Charles the Second halted between two -opinions and a stream of Popery went between his legs.”<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> -Lurid tales of Oates’ conduct were afterwards published -by the Jesuit fathers.<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> What is more certainly true is -the fact that his presence in the seminary rapidly became -embarrassing. On June 23, 1678 he was turned out of -doors, and shook the dust of St. Omers from his feet. -On the 27th he reached London.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">17</a></p> - -<p>When Oates formed his alliance with Dr. Ezrael -Tonge, rector of St. Michael’s in Wood Street, is uncertain. -The point is not without importance. If Oates -came first to Tonge in the summer of 1678, the fact -would be so far in his favour that he may have sought a -good market for wares which he believed to be in some -degree sound. If he took directions from Tonge before -his visit to the Jesuit seminaries, the chance of his sincerity<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span> -would be much diminished. Simpson Tonge, the rector’s -son, afterwards composed a journal of these events. -Unhappily his statements are without value. Hoping for -reward at one time from Oates, at another from his -enemies, Tonge contradicted himself flatly, urging for the -informer that Oates had sought his father only after the -return from St. Omers; against him, that the two had, -during an intimacy of two years, designed the Popish -Plot before ever Oates went abroad.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> Judgment must -therefore be suspended; but it is notable that King -Charles thought the evidence as to the intrigue between -Oates and Tonge unworthy of credence. Simpson Tonge -was taken to Windsor in the summer of 1680 to reveal -his knowledge. He left there papers in which evidence -of the facts was contained. Charles examined them, and -told Sydney Godolphin that “he found them very slight -and immaterial,” and refused to see Tonge again.<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> At -whatever point co-operation began, acquaintance between -the two men was likely enough of long standing. Tonge -had been presented to his living by Sir Richard Barker, -the ancient patron of Samuel Oates. A natural tie thus -existed, now to be developed by circumstances into strong -union. The doctor was an assiduous labourer in the -Protestant vineyard. His fear of Popery amounted to -mania. Volumes poured from his pen in denunciation of -Catholic conspiracies. A catalogue was afterwards made -of Tonge’s library. Its character may be judged from -the titles of the following works:—<i>Massacres threatened -to Prevent, Temple and Tabernacle, Arguments to suppress -Popery.</i><a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> He had co-operated with John Evelyn in -translating <i>The Mystery of Jesuitism</i>, a work which King -Charles said he had carried for two days in his pocket -and read; “at which,” writes Evelyn, “I did not a little<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span> -wonder.”<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> When fame overtook him, Tonge raised the -ghost of Habernfeld’s Plot and spent some ingenuity in -turning the name of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey to <i>Dy’d -by Rome’s reveng’d fury</i>, that of Edward Coleman to <i>Lo a -damned crew</i>. Now he passed a bashful and disappointed -life. Needy and full of silly notions, he divided his time -between the detection of Jesuitry and the study of obscure -sciences. Here was beyond doubt the man to interest -himself in Oates. For Oates had brought back from -beyond seas a prodigious tale, calculated to set the most -unpractical alarmist in action.</p> - -<p>The scope of the disclosure was vast. Written at -length and with the promise of more to come, Oates’ <i>True -and Exact Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy of -the Popish Party against the life of His Sacred Majesty, -the Government, and the Protestant Religion</i> filled a folio -pamphlet of sixty-eight pages. The Pope, said Oates, -had declared himself lord of the kingdoms of England -and Ireland. To the work of their reduction and -government the Jesuits were commissioned by papal briefs -and instructed by orders from the general of the society. -Jesuit agents were at work fomenting rebellion in Scotland -and Ireland. Money had been raised and arms collected. -The hour had only to strike for an Irish port to be -opened to a French force in aid of the great scheme. -The Papists had burned down London once and tried to -burn it again. A third attempt would be no less successful -than the first. Chief of all, a “consult” of the -English Jesuits had been held on April 24, 1678 at the -White Horse tavern in the Strand, to concert means for -the king’s assassination. Charles was a bastard and an -excommunicated heretic. He deserved death, and the -deed was necessary for the Catholic cause. Want of -variety in the instruments chosen should not save him. -He was to be poisoned by the queen’s physician. He -was to be shot with silver bullets in St. James’ Park. -Four Irish ruffians were hired to dispatch him at Windsor. -A Jesuit named Coniers had consecrated a knife a foot in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span> -length to stab him. Great sums of money were promised -by French and Spanish Jesuits and by the Benedictine -prior to whoever should do the work. If the Duke of -York did not consent to the king’s death, the same fate -lay in store for him. In all this Oates had been a confidential -messenger and an active agent. It was only due -to the fact that he had been appointed for the task of -killing Dr. Tonge that the scheme thus carefully prepared -was not put to the test; for Tonge had moved him to -exchange the trade of murderer and incendiary for that -of informer. Thus the great plot was divulged, together -with the names of ninety-nine persons concerned, as well -as those nominated for offices under the prospective -Jesuit government, of whom the most prominent were the -Lords Arundel of Wardour, Powis, Petre, Stafford, -Bellasis, Sir William Godolphin, Sir George Wakeman, -and Mr. Edward Coleman. The falsehood of all this -has been conclusively demonstrated. Not only did Oates -bear all the marks of the liar and never produce the -slightest evidence for what he announced, but much of -his story is contradicted by the actual conditions of politics -at the time. The fact of his conviction for perjury is -widely known and its justice unquestioned. To rebut -his accusations singly would be fruitless, because unnecessary. -Their general untruth has long been known. -Much time was occupied by Oates and Tonge in reducing -their bulk to the shape, first of forty-three, then of eighty-one -articles. Oates took a lodging in Vauxhall, near Sir -Richard Barker’s house, where Tonge dwelt. Together -they drafted and copied until all was prepared. Nothing -lacked but a proper flourish for the introduction of so -grand an event.</p> - -<p>For this a pretty little comedy was arranged. Oates -was to keep behind the scenes while Tonge rang up the -curtain. Nor did Tonge wish to expose himself too -soon to vulgar light. He procured an acquaintance, Mr. -Christopher Kirkby, to act as prologue. Kirkby was a -poor gentleman of good family, interested in chemistry, and -holding some small appointment in the royal laboratory.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span> -Their common taste for science probably accounted for -his relation with Tonge; and since he was known to the -king, he could now do the doctor good service. On -August 11, 1678 Oates thrust a copy of the precious -manuscript under the wainscot of a gallery in Sir Richard -Barker’s house. There Tonge found it, and on the following -day read it to Kirkby, who declared in horror at the -contents that the king should be informed. He would -take this part upon himself, he said. Accordingly on -August 13, as Charles was starting for his accustomed -walk in St. James’ Park, Kirkby slipped a note into his -hand begging for a short audience on a matter of vital -importance. The king read it and called Kirkby to ask -what he meant. “Sire,” returned the other, “your -enemies have a design against your life. Keep within -the company, for I know not but you may be in danger -in this very walk.” “How may that be?” asked the -king. “By being shot at,” answered Kirkby, and desired -to give fuller information in some more private spot. -Charles bade him wait in his closet, and finished his stroll -with composure.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">THE NATURE OF THE DESIGNS</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">For</span> contemporaries the Popish Plot provided a noble -field of battle. Between its supporters and its assailants -controversy raged hotly. Hosts of writers in England -and abroad proved incontestably either its truth or its -falsehood.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> With which of the two the victory lay is -hard to determine. Discredit presently fell on the Plot, -but the balance was restored by the Revolution, when -Oates’ release, pardon, and pension gave again the stamp -of authority to his revelations. From this high estate its -reputation quickly fell. Hume pronounced belief in it to -be the touchstone for a hopelessly prejudiced Whig, Fox -declared the evidence offered “impossible to be true,” -and before the end of the eighteenth century Dalrymple -accused Shaftesbury of having contrived and managed the -whole affair. Since that time little serious criticism, with -the notable exception of Ranke’s luminous account, has -been attempted. Historians have generally contented -themselves with relying on the informers’ certain mendacity -to prove the entire falsehood of the plot which they -denounced. The argument is patently unsound. As -Charles II himself declared, the fact that Oates and his -followers were liars of the first order does not warrant -the conclusion that all they said was untrue and that the -plot was wholly of the imagination.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> The grounds upon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span> -which judgment must be based deserve to be more -closely considered.</p> - -<p>On November 8, 1675 a remarkable debate took place -in the House of Commons. Mr. Russell and Sir Henry -Goodrick informed the House of an outrage said to have -been committed by a Jesuit upon a recent convert from -Roman Catholicism. Amid keen excitement they related -that one Luzancy, a Frenchman, who, having lately come -over to the Church of England, had in the French chapel -at the Savoy preached a hot sermon against the errors of -Rome, had been compelled at peril of his life to retract all -he had said and sign a recantation of his faith. The man -guilty of this deed was Dr. Burnet, commonly known as -Father St. Germain, a Jesuit belonging to the household -of the Duchess of York.<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> The Commons were highly -enraged. “This goes beyond all precedents,” cried Sir -Charles Harbord, “to persuade not only with arguments -but poignards!” He never heard the like way before. -Assurance was given by Mr. Secretary Williamson that -strict inquiry was being made. The king was busy with -the matter. Luzancy had been examined on oath before -the council, and a special meeting was now summoned. -A warrant was out for St. Germain, but the Jesuit had -fled. The House expressed its feeling by moving that -the Lord Chief Justice be requested to issue a second -warrant for St. Germain’s arrest, and yet another in -general terms “to search for and apprehend all priests -and Jesuits whatsoever.”<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">26</a> It was a strange story that -Luzancy told. By Protestants he was said to have been -a learned Jesuit, by Catholics a rascally bastard of a disreputable -French actress.<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">27</a> The two accounts are perhaps -not irreconcilable. At least he was a convert and had -preached. Thereupon St. Germain, as he said, threatened<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span> -him and forced a recantation. Before resorting to this -extreme the Jesuit had tried persuasion. The Duke of -York, he told Luzancy, was a confessed Roman Catholic. -At heart the king himself belonged to the same faith and -would approve of all he did. Schemes were afoot to procure -an act for liberty of conscience for the Catholics. -That granted, within two years most of the nation would -acknowledge the Pope. It was sometimes good to force -people to heaven; and there were in London many -priests and Jesuits doing God very great service. Others -besides Luzancy had been threatened with tales of -Protestant blood flowing in the London streets; and -these, being summoned to the council, attested that the -fact was so. Lord Halifax rose and told the king that, -if his Majesty would allow that course to Protestants for -the conversion of Papists, he did not question but in a -very short time it should be effected.<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">28</a> Two days later a -proclamation was issued signifying that Luzancy was -taken into the royal protection, and St. Germain, with a -price of £200 on his head, fled to France, there to become -one of the most active of Jesuit intriguers.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">29</a> Though the -brandished dagger was likely enough an embellishment of -Luzancy’s invention, it is probable that his story was in -substance true. In December St. Germain found himself -in Paris and in close correspondence with Edward -Coleman, the Duchess of York’s secretary. Such a man -writing within a month from the catastrophe would -certainly, had he been falsely charged, be loud in vindication -of his innocence and denunciation of the villain who -had worked his ruin. St. Germain merely wrote that his -leaving London in this fashion troubled him much. He -had done all that a man of honesty and honour could; -an ambiguous phrase. It was absolutely necessary, more -for his companions and the Catholics’ sake than for his -own, that his conduct should be justified.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">30</a> Evidently St.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span> -Germain was less troubled at the injustice of the charge -against him than incensed at its results. What he wanted -was not that his character might be cleared from a false -accusation, but that the tables might be turned on his -accuser.<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">31</a></p> - -<p>The conduct of St. Germain illustrates well the aims of -the Roman Catholic party in England about the year -1675. Their policy, already undergoing modification, -had root deep in the history of the times.</p> - -<p>For the first thirteen years of his reign Catholics -looked for the advancement of their cause to the king. -During the Civil War none had shown a more steadfast -loyalty than they, and none hailed the Restoration with -greater eagerness. Half a century earlier a considerable -number of the squires of England had been Catholic. -They were a class bound closely to the royal cause both -by tradition and by personal inclination, and though the -operation of the penal laws effectively prevented their -ranks from swelling, they rendered conspicuous service to -the crown in the day of trouble. With their strength -further diminished by death and by confiscation of estates -under the Commonwealth government, their hopes rose -higher at the king’s return. There was much justification -for their sanguine view. The promise of religious -liberty contained in the declaration of Breda was known -to be in accord with Charles’ own desires. He was the -son of a Catholic mother and of a father suspected, however -unjustly, of Catholic tendencies. He was himself -not free from the same suspicion. He was under the -deepest obligations to his Catholic subjects. They had -risked their persons and squandered their fortunes for -him. They had fought and intrigued for him, and -succoured him in distress. He owed them life and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span> -liberty. They had done so much for him that it was not -unreasonable to hope that, as it was not averse to his -wishes, he would do something for them.</p> - -<p>The disappointment of the Catholic expectations was -not long delayed. Whatever promises Charles had made, -and whatever hopes he had fostered, were dependent -upon others, and not upon himself, for fulfilment. The -Restoration was a national work, and it was not in the -power of the king to act openly in opposition to the -nation that had restored him. Since he was not a -Catholic, he was impelled to run no great risk for the -interest of those who were. And it became increasingly -clear that by far the greater part of the nation was in no -mind to tolerate any change which would make for -freedom of life and opinion for the maintainers of a -religion which was feared and fiercely hated by the -governing classes and by the church which aspired to -govern in England. Fear of Roman Catholicism was a -legacy of the dreadful days of Queen Mary and of her -sister’s Protestant triumph. That legacy was a possession -not of one sect or of one party alone. Cavaliers and -Roundheads, Puritans and high churchmen shared it alike. -So long as the Church of Rome was of a warring disposition, -it was vain to expect that the English people would -see in it other than an enemy. The Protestant religion -was too insecurely established in the land and the -memory of sudden changes and violent assaults too recent -for Englishmen to harbour a spirit of liberal charity -towards those who disagreed from them in matters of -faith. The Catholic, who cried for present relief from an -odious tyranny, appeared in their eyes as one who, were -relief granted, would seize any future chance to play the -tyrant himself.</p> - -<p>No less than twelve penal statutes, of tremendous -force, existed to prevent Roman Catholics from exercising -influence in the state.<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">32</a> Had they been strictly executed, -the Catholic religion must have been crushed out of -England; but they were generally allowed to remain<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span> -dormant. Even so they were a constant menace and an -occasional source of more or less annoyance, varying -infinitely according to time and place and the will of the -authorities from an insulting reminder of Catholic inferiority -to cruel and deliberate persecution. The tenor -of these laws was so stringent that among moderate -Protestants there were many who believed that the more -obnoxious and unjust might be removed without placing -a weapon of serious strength in the hands of their opponents. -In the House of Lords a party was formed in favour of -the Catholic and Presbyterian claims and opposed to the -arrogant pretensions of the Earl of Clarendon and his -followers. Clarendon’s wish was for the supremacy of his -own church, but there were already not a few who had -begun to view his position with jealousy. In June 1661 -a committee of prominent Catholics met at Arundel House -to consider their position. They presented a petition to -the Lords protesting against the penalties on the refusal of -Catholics to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, -but after several debates and the lapse of more than -eighteen months it was resolved that “nothing had been -offered to move their lordships to alter anything in the -oaths.” Nevertheless Colonel Tuke of Cressing Temple -was admitted to the bar and heard against the “sanguinary -laws,” and papers on the subject were laid on the table -of the House. The petitioners disclaimed the Pope’s -temporal authority and offered to swear “to oppose with -their lives and fortunes the pontiff himself, if he should -ever attempt to execute that pretended power, and to obey -their sovereign in opposition to all foreign and domestic -power whatsoever, without restriction.” A committee -was appointed to deal with the matter, and acting on its -report the Lords resolved to abolish the writ <i>de haeretico -inquirendo</i> and the statutes making it treason to take orders -in the Roman Church, as well as those making it felony to -harbour Catholic priests and præmunire to maintain the -authority of the Bishop of Rome.</p> - -<p>At this point, when all seemed going well, misfortune -intervened and the hopes of success were dashed to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span> -ground. It was suggested that on account of its known -activity and powers of intrigue the Society of Jesus should -be excepted from the scope of the proposed measure. A -heated controversy was instantly aroused. While Protestants -and many Catholics demanded that the Jesuits -should accept the situation and retire gracefully to win -advantages for their brothers in religion, members of the -society retorted that a conspiracy was on foot to divide the -body Catholic against itself, and that it was not for the -general good to accept favours at the price of sacrificing -the most able and flourishing order of the church. It -soon became evident that the Jesuits were not to be moved. -Their struggle in England had been hard. Their position -among English Catholics was one of great importance. -They would not now surrender it for the sake of a partial -and problematical success from the enjoyment of which -they were themselves to be excluded. The time when -affairs were still unsettled was rather one at which they -should be spurred to greater efforts.</p> - -<p>Without the compliance of the Jesuits the moderate -Catholics could do nothing. A feeling of disgust at the -selfish policy of the society found free expression. It -seemed that its members would never consider the interest -of others before their own. Nevertheless there was no -remedy; the committee at Arundel House was dissolved; -at the request of the Catholic peers the progress of the -bill of relief in the House of Lords was suspended, and -it was never resumed.<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">33</a></p> - -<p>No better fate attended the king’s efforts to make -good the promises he had given at Breda. With the -assurance of support from the Independents and Presbyterians -he had issued late in the year 1662 a Declaration of -Indulgence, suspending all penal laws against dissenters, -Catholic as well as others, by virtue of the power which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span> -he considered inherent in the crown.<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">34</a> The move called -forth a storm of opposition, both against the dispensing -power and against the object for which it was used. To -appease the Commons, Lord Ashley, afterwards Earl of -Shaftesbury, brought in a bill to define and legalise the -royal power to dispense with laws requiring oaths and -subscription to the doctrines of the established church. -The answer of the Commons was an address against the -Declaration,<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">35</a> in the House of Lords Ashley’s bill was -defeated by Clarendon and the bishops, and on March 31, -1663 Parliament addressed the king for a proclamation -ordering all Catholic priests to leave the realm. Charles -never forgave his minister, but he was powerless to resist. -On April 2 he recanted his declaration by issuing the -desired order. A bill to check the growth of popery and -nonconformity passed quickly through the House of -Commons, but was stopped by the influence of the -Catholic peers, and an address for the execution of all -laws against dissenters was voted in its place.<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">36</a></p> - -<p>Thus the penal laws were retained in their full vigour. -And if the enactments against the Catholics were not -removed from the statute book, still less were the causes -which had produced them removed from men’s minds. -Only the establishment of general confidence that the -Catholic religion lacked power to menace the cause of -Protestantism in England and to invade the rights which -were dear to Englishmen could be effective in this; and -confidence, so far from becoming general, shrank to limits -that became ever narrower. In the years that followed, -fear of the advance of Catholicism only increased. Fresh -laws were passed to check it. The House of Commons -voted address after address that the old might be put in -action, petition after petition for the banishment of priests -and Jesuits from court and capital. To their alarm and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span> -chagrin it appeared that all efforts were in vain, and belief -spread that the failure was chiefly due to opposition -emanating from the highest quarters. Instead of aiding -in the accomplishment of the desired object, the influence -of the crown seemed to be directed absolutely to prevent -it. For the king’s policy was one which could only -inspire the nation with a sense of growing distrust.<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">37</a></p> - -<p>Though Charles II had ascended the throne on a wave -of popular enthusiasm, his ideas were widely removed from -those of his subjects. By birth and education his mind -was drawn towards the aims and methods of French -politics, and he leaned away from the Church of England. -With this bias he inherited for Puritanism and the Presbyterians -a dislike strengthened by personal experience. -Coming into England without knowledge of parliamentary -government, his first trial of it was far from encouraging. -He found Parliament intolerant, suspicious, unstatesman-like. -The Commons fenced in the Anglican Church with -severe penal laws against dissent, and gave the king an -income less than the annual expenses of government and -the services by half a million pounds. Charles had been -restored to a bankrupt inheritance, and with every good -intention the Commons failed completely to render it -solvent. Soon their good-will ceased. They were jealous -of the royal expenditure. They did not perceive the royal -wants. They destroyed the existing financial arrangements -and did not replace them with better.<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">38</a> They -desired to carry the Protestant and Parliamentary system -to its logical end in controlling the King’s foreign policy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span> -and directing it against the influence of the Roman -Catholic Church. To Charles this was intolerable. To -be forced to act at the bidding of Parliament was odious -to him. He would be no crowned do-nothing. And -here the fortunes of England touched on those of France. -The schemes of Louis XIV for the expansion and consolidation -of the French kingdom made it imperative that -he should obtain for their prosecution the neutrality, if -not the assistance, of England. He could not devote -his energy to the settlement of his north-east frontier and -the maintenance of his claims on the Spanish empire with -a Protestant country ever ready to strike at his back. He -was therefore always ready to pay for the concurrence of -Charles and with him of England.<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">39</a> The establishment of -the Roman Catholic religion, could it be effected, would -be of material assistance to him. Especially on the -religious side of his policy it would be a powerful support. -Charles, on the other hand, desired to free himself from -the financial control of Parliament and to grant toleration -to the Catholics. He was therefore always ready to be -bought. He was all the better pleased since co-operation -with France brought him into conflict with the Dutch -republic, which he disliked upon commercial and detested -upon dynastic grounds. Toleration Charles found to be -impossible, and he was subjected to constant annoyance -by the attempts of the Commons to control his dealings. -Thus his aims crystallised into a policy of making the -crown supreme in the constitution and establishing the -Roman Catholic faith as the state religion upon the -approved model in France.<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">40</a></p> - -<p>The plan undertaken in concert with his great ally -was not the first effort of Charles to give his ideas effect. -During his exile on the continent various tenders had been -made for papal support; Charles promised in return -conversion and favour to his Catholic subjects; and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span> -within a few years of the Restoration a serious negotiation -was started with Pope Alexander VII. In 1663 Sir -Richard Bellings was sent on a mission to Rome to beg -the bestowal of a cardinal’s hat on the Abbé d’Aubigny, -almoner to the newly-married queen, and cousin to the -king. Charles took the opportunity to propose through -Bellings the formation of an Anglican Roman Church in -England. He was to announce his conversion, the -Archbishop of Canterbury was to be patriarch of the -three realms, and liberty of conscience should be assured -to remaining Protestants. Roman Catholicism would -become the state religion and Rome gain the whole -strength of the English hierarchy.<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">41</a> An understanding -was impracticable and the scheme fell through; but the -renewed solicitations of the English court on Aubigny’s -behalf were successful. In November 1665 he was -nominated Cardinal, and died almost immediately after. -To the hopes of the Catholics his death was a terrible blow. -“The clouds,” wrote the general of the Jesuits on hearing -of it, “which are gathering over Holland, Poland, and -Constantinople are so dense that every prudent man -must see reason to apprehend enormous catastrophes -and storms that will not be ended without irreparable -disasters. But in my mind all these coming evils are -overshadowed by the death of the Abbé Aubigny, which -deprives the Church, for a time at least, of the joy of -beholding an English cardinal of such illustrious blood, -created at the public instances of two queens, and at the -secret request of a king, a prodigy which would, without -doubt have confounded heresy and inaugurated bright -fortunes to the unhappy Catholics.”</p> - -<p>Three years later a still more remarkable embassy than -Bellings’ took place. It is not even in our own day -commonly known that the Duke of Monmouth, reputed -the eldest of the sons of Charles II, had an elder brother. -So well was the secret kept, that during the long struggle<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span> -to save the Protestant succession and to exclude the Duke -of York from the throne, no man ever discovered that -there was another whose claims were better than those of -the popular favourite, and who had of his free will preferred -the gown of an obscure clerk to the brilliant prospect -of favour at court and the chance of wearing the English -crown. For this son, born to the king in the Isle of Jersey -at the age of sixteen or seventeen years, the child of a lady -of one of the noblest families in his dominions, was named -by his father James Stuart, and urged to be at hand to -maintain his rights should both the royal brothers die -without male heirs. He set the dazzling fortune aside and -resolved to live and die a Jesuit. In the year 1668, then -being some four and twenty years old, he entered the house -of novices of the Jesuits at Rome under the name of James -de la Cloche. Towards the end of the same year Charles -wrote to Johannes Oliva, the general, desiring that his son -might be sent to England to discuss matters of religion. -Assuming the name of Henri de Rohan, La Cloche made -for England. He was received by the queen and the -queen mother, and by them secretly taken to the king. -What passed between father and son has never transpired. -La Cloche was sent back to Rome by the king as his -“secret ambassador to the Father General,” charged with -an oral commission and orders to return to England as -soon as it was fulfilled. The nature of that mission is -unknown, and whether or no the young man returned to -England. Trace of embassy and ambassador alike is lost, -and the young prince disappears from history. Yet it may -be that his figure can be descried again, flitting mysteriously -across the life of his father. At the height of the turmoil -of the Popish Plot a certain gentleman was employed to -bring privately from beyond seas a Roman Catholic priest, -with whom the king had secret business to transact. The -king and the priest stayed long closeted together. At -length the priest came out with signs of horror and fear on -his face. Charles had been seized with a fit and, when the -priest would have called for help, to preserve their secret -summoned strength to hold him till the attack had passed.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span> -On Charles’ death two papers on religion were found in -his cabinet and published in a translation by his brother. -The originals were in French, in the form of an argument -addressed by one person to another, and it is suggested, not -without reason, that their author was the same man as the -king’s questionable visitor, and none other than his -own son, who had forgotten his native tongue and had -surrendered fame and country for the good of his soul -and of the Catholic Church.<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">42</a></p> - -<p>One more negotiation was undertaken directly with -Rome. By command of the pope the papal internuncio -at Brussels came to England. He had sent a confidant to -prepare the way, and was assured of welcome at court. -The Venetian envoy offered the hospitality of his house -to the visitor, and arranged an interview with the king. -The queen, the Duke of York, and Lord Arlington were -also present, and the nuncio received promises of the king’s -good intentions towards the Catholics.<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">43</a> The fruits of this -undertaking, had there been any, were spoiled before the -gathering by the intrigue into which Charles had already -entered with Louis XIV. Only under a Catholic constitution, -said Charles, might a King of England hope to be -absolute. He was to live to see the prophecy falsified, and -by his own unaided effort to accomplish what he believed -impossible, but now he showed the courage of his convictions -by attempting to make England Catholic. The -scheme was afoot in the summer of 1669. Nearly a year -passed in its completion, and on June 1, 1670 “le Traité -de Madame” was signed at Dover. Arlington, Clifford, -Arundel, and Sir Richard Bellings signed for England, and -Colbert for France; and Henrietta of Orleans, to whose -skilful management success was due, returned to her -husband’s home to die, leaving a potent influence to carry -on her work—Louise de Kéroualle. Louis’ object in the -treaty was to break the Triple Alliance and carry the war<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span> -to a successful conclusion; that of Charles to make himself -master of England once again under the Catholic banner. -The two kings were to aid each other in men and money. -“It was in reality,” says Lord Acton, “a plot under cover -of Catholicism to introduce absolute monarchy and to -make England a dependency of France, not only by the -acceptance of French money, but by submission to a -French army.”<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">44</a> Charles was to declare himself a Catholic -when he thought fit. In the event of resistance from his -subjects he was to receive from Louis the sum of -£150,000 and a force of 6000 men to bring his country -under the yoke. Lauderdale held an army 20,000 strong -in Scotland, bound to serve anywhere within British -dominions. Ireland under Lord Berkeley was steeped in -Catholic and loyal sentiment. The garrisons and ports of -England were being placed in safe hands. If the scheme -succeeded, the Anglican Church would be overthrown, -Parliamentary government would be rendered futile, and -Charles would be left at the head of a Catholic state and -master of his realm.</p> - -<p>Success however was so far from attainment that no -attempt was made to put “la grande affaire” into effect. -It was decided that Charles’ declaration of Catholicism -should be preceded by his attack in concert with Louis on -the Dutch. War was declared on March 17, 1672. Two -days before, the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending all -penal laws against dissenters, was issued. It sprang from -the desire to obtain the support of dissent for the war and -to pave the way for a successful issue of the Catholic -policy at its close. Arms alone could determine victory -or defeat. If Charles thereafter found himself in a position -to dictate to Parliament, the rest might not prove difficult. -Otherwise there would be little hope of success. But the -war did not justify Charles’ expectations. Dutch tenacity -and the growing hostility in England to the alliance with -France made it certain that the chief objects for which -Charles had sealed the Dover treaty could not be achieved. -When on February 19, 1674 he concluded peace with the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span> -Republic for 800,000 crowns, the honour of the flag -northward from Cape Finisterre, and the retention of all -his conquests outside Europe, the king seemed to have -emerged successfully from the struggle. In fact he had -failed to reach the goal. Unless he gained a commanding -position at home by military success abroad, he could not -hope to put into practice the English part of the programme -drawn up at Dover. It was something that his nephew the -Prince of Orange had ousted the odious republican faction -from power in Holland, and much that the Republic had -been for ever detached from its alliance with France; but -even this was hardly sufficient compensation to Charles -for the abandonment of his policy in England. He had -planned to restore the monarchy to its ancient estate by -means of Roman Catholicism. He had failed, and now -he turned his back finally upon Catholicism as a political -power. He had already been compelled to cancel the -Declaration of Indulgence, and on March 29, 1673 -clearly marked the change by giving the royal assent to -the Test Act. A return to the policy of Anglican -Royalism, which in some ways approached that of -Clarendon, was shaped. The Cabal had been dissipated, -the plans of its Catholic members ruined, its Protestant -members driven into opposition. Charles, guiding foreign -policy himself, and Danby as Lord Treasurer managing -affairs at home, determined to draw all stable elements in -the kingdom round the Church and the Crown, and to -offer a united opposition to the factions and the dissenters. -The famous Non-Resisting Test was the result.<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">45</a> -Here again Charles failed. The opposition of Shaftesbury -rendered abortive the second line of policy by which the -king attempted to restore the full majesty of the crown. -There was nothing left him now but a policy of resistance. -The next move in the game must come from his opponents. -Thus the three following years were spent by Charles -intriguing first with Louis, then with William, seeming to -be on the brink of war and a Protestant policy and always -drawing back. No decisive step could be taken until the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span> -panic of the Popish Plot gave to the country party an -opportunity, which after a three years’ struggle the king -turned to his own account with signal triumph.</p> - -<p>From the moment when he revoked the Declaration of -Indulgence the Catholics had nothing to hope from Charles. -Up to that time Roman Catholic policy in England looked -to him; thereafter he stood apart from it. Throughout -his reign the king had been studying to rise to absolute -sovereignty on the ladder of Catholicism. By the treaty -of Dover he was actively concerned in a conspiracy to -overturn the established church and again to introduce -the Roman Catholic religion into England. He had undoubtedly -been guilty of an act which in a subject would -have been high treason. Although he now dissociated -himself from his former policy, it was not abandoned by -others. The Catholics had been deceived by Charles. -They now fixed their hopes upon his brother, the Duke of -York. Since the king would no longer join with the -Jesuit party, it was determined to go without him. From -that time James became the centre of their intrigues and -negotiations. He was the point round which their hopes -revolved.</p> - -<p>The foundation of the intrigue was laid in the summer -of 1673. Some eighteen months before the duke had -made known to a small circle his conversion to the Roman -Catholic Church.<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">46</a> The step was taken in the deepest -secrecy, and even at Rome was not recognised as final until -some years afterwards, for although James laid down his -office of Lord High Admiral in consequence of the Test -Act, he still continued to attend service in the royal chapel.<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">47</a> -But despite all caution, enough suspicion was aroused by -James’ marriage at the suggestion of the French court with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span> -a Roman Catholic princess, Mary of Modena. It was a -definite sign of his attachment to the French and Catholic -interest, and paved the way for the correspondence which -was afterwards so nearly to procure his downfall. The -duke had for secretary a young man named Edward -Coleman, whom mysterious doings and a tragic fate have -invested with not unmerited interest. Coleman was the -son of an English clergyman. At an early age he was -converted to the Catholic faith and educated by the Jesuits, -and to the furtherance of their schemes devoted the rest of -his life. To the good cause he brought glowing ardour -and varied talents. He was noted as a keen controversialist -and a successful fisherman of souls. The -confidence of three ambassadors from the court of France -argues versatile ability in the man. With Ruvigny -Coleman enjoyed some intimacy; Courtin found him of -the greatest assistance; he discussed with Barillon subjects -of delicacy on his master’s behalf. The ambassadors found -him a man of spirit, adept in intrigue, with fingers on the -wires by which parties were pulled. And they valued him -accordingly. For Coleman undertook the difficult task of -agent between Louis XIV and the mercenary Whigs. -More than three thousand pounds can be traced passing -through his hands. The leaders of the opposition had -their price at some five hundred guineas; but these took -their money direct from the ambassador. Coleman dealt -with the rank and file, and here the gold, which among -the more exalted would have soon been exhausted, probably -went far. He kept a sumptuous table for his friends and -laid up for himself what he gained by way of commission. -Knowledge of foreign languages, a ready pen, and his -Jesuit connection marked Coleman as the man for the -duke’s service. He had all the talents for the post save -one. James’ want of discretion was reflected in his -secretary. Twice Coleman was dismissed; the dismissal -was apparent only, and he continued work as busily as -before. He had occupied himself in writing seditious -letters to rouse discontent in the provinces against the -government. Complaint was made. Coleman was discharged<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span> -from his place by the duke. He was immediately -taken into the service of the duchess in the same capacity. -Some years later his zeal brought him into collision with -the Bishop of London. Compton went to the king and -obtained an order to the duke to dismiss his wife’s secretary. -The French ambassador was much perturbed and pressed -James to afford protection, Coleman received his dismissal -and took ship to Calais. His Jesuit friends sent the news -sadly one to another. His very talents, it was said, had -destroyed him. He was too much in the duke’s counsels. -His enemies could not countenance the presence of a man -of such parts. The duchess chose a new secretary. Within -a fortnight Coleman returned, and in secret resumed his -office. He was in the duke’s confidence and necessary to -him.<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">48</a> Altogether Coleman was not quite the innocent -lamb that he has often been painted.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span></p> - -<p>At the outbreak of the second Dutch war an English -cavalry regiment was sent for the French service under -the command of Lord Duras. Among the officers was -Sir William Throckmorton, an intimate of Coleman and -converted by him to the Catholic faith. Throckmorton -left the regiment and settled in Paris as his friend’s agent. -The two corresponded at length, and by Throckmorton’s -means Coleman was put in communication with Père -Ferrier, Louis XIV’s Jesuit confessor. Ferrier was assured -by Coleman that parliament would force Charles II to -break with France and make peace with the Dutch. The -accuracy of his prophecy gained the confessor’s confidence. -Letters were exchanged and the means to advance the -Duke of York and the Catholic cause in England debated. -Ferrier was the first of Louis’ confessors to play an -important part in politics, and his alliance was an achievement -to be counted to the duke.<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">49</a> Coleman proceeded -to extend his connection in other quarters. Under the -assumed name of Rice the Earl of Berkshire was in communication -with him, urging with doleful foreboding the -overthrow of parliament and the Protestant party.<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">50</a> -Berkshire was Coleman’s sole correspondent known in -England, but on the continent others took up the thread. -In France the Jesuit Sheldon was high in praise of Coleman -and his design. From Brussels the papal internuncio -Albani discussed it somewhat coolly. Meanwhile Coleman’s -relations with Paris had undergone a change. In -May 1675 Sir William Throckmorton died disreputably<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span> -of a wound received in the course of his too eager courtship -of a certain Lady Brown, while his wife yet lived,<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">51</a> -and in December St. Germain, banished from England, -took up his place. More important was the death of -Père Ferrier in September of the same year, for Louis XIV -chose as his confessor Père de la Chaize, the famous Jesuit -whose dealings with Coleman subsequently formed the -heaviest part of the proof against the unlucky intriguer.<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">52</a> -Finally to the list of his political correspondents whose names -are known Coleman added that of Cardinal Howard, better -known as Cardinal Norfolk, at the Roman court.<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">53</a></p> - -<p>Of this correspondence nearly two hundred letters have -been preserved. The insight which they give into the -minds and intentions of their writers is invaluable. They -throw a strong light upon the undercurrent of political -movement at a time when politics were perhaps more -complicated and their undercurrents more potent than at -any time before or after. From them might be detailed -the tenor of the designs undertaken by a great religious -party during a period of fierce struggle. Such reconstruction -from a fragmentary correspondence must always -be difficult. In the case of the Coleman correspondence -the difficulty would be great. That the letters can be -read at all is due to the fact that the key to the cipher in -which they are written was found with them. Not only -were they written in an arbitrary cipher, not to be -elucidated without the key, but in such guarded and -metaphorical language that the meaning can often be caught -only by chance or conjecture.<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">54</a> Parables can easily be -understood after the events to the arrangements for which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span> -they refer; but when no effect follows, the drift is more -obscure. When before the Spanish Armada an English -agent writes from Spain that bales of wool are being stored -in large quantities, muniments of war may be read between -the lines. When Jacobites give notice to their exiled king -that Mr. Jackson need only appear in Westminster Hall -to recover his estate, or that a cargo of the right sort, now -in great demand, must be shipped at once, their meaning -is transparent. But to the obscure terms used by Coleman -and his friends after events afford a slighter clue. -No notion discussed by them was ever tested as a -practicable scheme in action. Neither success nor exposure -sheds light whereby to read their letters. Whatever -is in them must be painfully read as intention alone, -and as intention abandoned. The general ideas however -are plain, and an admirable exposition by Coleman himself -saves the necessity of piecing them together from small -fragments.</p> - -<p>On September 29, 1675 he wrote a long letter to Père -de la Chaize relating in some detail the history of the -intrigues of the previous years.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">55</a> Catholic ascendency in -England and a general peace in favour of France were the -objects for which he had worked. For these the dissolution -of Parliament and money were necessary, money both -to dissolve Parliament and to supply the king’s wants. -Next to Parliament Lord Arlington was the Duke of -York’s greatest enemy; for Arlington was the supporter, -if not the promoter of the Test Act.<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">56</a> In response to this -beginning Père Ferrier had sent a note to the duke -through Sir William Throckmorton. In agreement with -James it was Louis XIV’s opinion that Arlington and -the Parliament formed a great obstacle to their joint -interest; and if the duke could succeed in dissolving the -present Parliament, he would lend the assistance of his -power and purse to procure another better suited to their -purpose. The duke replied to Ferrier in person, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span> -Coleman answered too. Their letters were to the same -effect. The French king’s offer was most generous and -highly gratifying, but money was needed at the moment -as urgently as thereafter, for without money a dissolution -could not be obtained, and without a dissolution everything -done so far would be nugatory. So far as money -went it was possible to consult Ruvigny, the ambassador -in England; further not, for Ruvigny was a Protestant. -Eulogies of Throckmorton and Coleman passed from -Ferrier to James and back, each expressing to the other -his confidence in their agents.<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">57</a> At this time, said Coleman, -Charles II was undecided and felt the arguments for and -against dissolution equally strong. But if a large sum -such as £300,000 had been offered to him on condition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span> -that Parliament should be dissolved, he would certainly -have accepted both money and condition. Peace would -then be assured, with other advantages to follow. Logic -built upon money, wrote Coleman, had more charms at -the court of St. James than any other form of reasoning.<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">58</a> -To obtain this money Coleman and his associates had -worked hard. Not only did Coleman write to Ferrier -about it and talk to Ruvigny about it in London, but he -made Throckmorton press for it in Paris, and press -Pomponne, the French secretary of state, as well as the -confessor. Twice Throckmorton persuaded Pomponne -to speak particularly to Louis on the subject, and once he -sent a memoir for the king’s perusal. Louis returned it -with expressions of great interest in the duke’s cause and -the message “that he should always be ready to join and -work with him.” Also Pomponne was bidden to say that -he had orders to direct Ruvigny “that he should take -measures and directions from the duke,” especially in -what concerned the dissolution of Parliament, Louis, he -said, was most sensible of the need for energy and caution -and gave the greatest consideration to the matter.<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">59</a> At -the same time Sheldon was pressing the French king’s -confessor.<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">60</a> Still the money did not come. One excuse -after another was made. Pomponne declared that so -great a sum as that demanded could not possibly be -spared by Louis; and Throckmorton believed that this -was so; but he was compelled to admit that another -campaign would cost perhaps ten times as much. The -foreign secretary also complained that the duke did not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span> -appear sufficiently in the movement himself. He was -answered by Coleman that James had ceased negotiating -with the ambassador as Ruvigny gave so little help, but -he was in communication with Ferrier. Coleman thought -that Ruvigny’s backwardness was deliberate. Sheldon and -Throckmorton were of the same opinion, and Throckmorton -suggested as an alternative that a subscription -should be raised from the Catholics; £50,000 he thought -might be promised from France, and he hoped for twice -that sum in England.<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">61</a></p> - -<p>While Coleman was begging from the French court -and declaring his exclusive devotion to the interests of -France, he was at the same time urging the papal nuncio -to obtain money from the Pope and the Emperor and -renouncing all designs except that of forwarding the -Catholic cause in the Pope’s behalf. Albani was moderately -enthusiastic. The Emperor commanded him to -assure the Duke of York of the passionate zeal he entertained -for his service and the Catholic cause. The Pope -too would assist in matters in which he might properly -appear. But James must himself point the direction of -the assistance to be granted. Coleman replied that he -had already shewn the way. Money alone was needed to -procure the dissolution of Parliament. Dissolution would -mean peace abroad and Catholic ascendency in England to -the great advantage of the Pope, the Emperor, and the -whole Church. It was incumbent on the Emperor and -more especially on the Pope to open wide the purse for so -fair a prospect.<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">62</a> The nuncio was not however to be -carried away by emotion. Money could not be expended -by the Pope upon such vague expectation. He had others -to think of in greater straits than the English Catholics. -Before the matter could be submitted to Rome more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span> -definite guarantees must be given that the Catholic cause -would really be served. In any case what the Pope could -afford would be nothing in comparison to what was -needed.<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">63</a> Coleman continued to press, even to the point -of Albani’s annoyance.<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">64</a> Repetition of the same arguments -merely met the same reply; and when by command -of the Duke of York Coleman paid a secret visit to -Brussels to interview the nuncio, the result was no better.<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">65</a></p> - -<p>So the shuttlecock was beaten backwards and forwards -between London, Paris, and Brussels. Writing to La -Chaize Coleman naturally made no mention of his correspondence -with the nuncio. Different arguments had to -be used in the two quarters. To Albani Coleman vowed -his undying affection for the Pope, to the Jesuit an extremity -of devotion for French interests. Neither the -one nor the other had the desired effect. Advice and -encouragement were forthcoming, but not pistoles. The -bashfulness of Coleman’s correspondents is not hard to -understand. Albani gave his reasons brutally enough. -Those at the court of Versailles were probably of the same -nature. And here they had additional force, for if on -general grounds the French were unlikely to pay, they -were still less likely to support the Duke of York with -doubtful advantages at a time when they could obtain -their chief object by subsidising his brother the king. No -one of business habits would pour his gold into English -pockets without reasonable expectation of a proportionate -return. The English pocket had the appearance of being -constructed upon a principle contrary to that of Fortunatus’ -purse.</p> - -<p>The scheme for which support was thus begged from -whoever seemed likely to give was not promising to any -but an enthusiast. Money was wanted certainly to bring -Charles to the dissolution of Parliament, an idea which was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span> -constantly in the air at court. The Cavalier Parliament -was an uncompromising opponent of Popery, and the -Catholics bore it a heavy grudge. But dissolution in itself -would hardly improve their own position. The design -reached considerably farther than that. It was no less than -to bribe the king to issue another declaration of indulgence, -appoint the Duke of York again to the office of -Lord High Admiral, and leave the whole management of -affairs to his hands.<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">66</a> In the course of the next year a -new parliament should be assembled, bribed to support the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span> -French and Catholic interest, and the Catholic position in -England would be assured. James was an able and -popular officer and enjoyed great authority in the navy. -Supposing the stroke could be effected, he would occupy a -position not only of dignity but of power to meet any -attack that might be made upon his new state. The -scheme was so far advanced that Coleman drew up a -declaration for the king to issue setting forth his reasons -for a dissolution, and solemnly protesting his intention to -stand by the Protestant religion and the decisions of the -next parliament. That was to be before the end of -February 1675.<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">67</a></p> - -<p>Although Coleman wrote to the nuncio that the -Catholics had never before had so favourable an opportunity, -the design was shortly modified and deferred.<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">68</a> In -its present shape the possibility of putting it to the test -depended upon the good-will of the ministers. After the -dissolution of Parliament their assistance would be necessary. -Without it nothing could be done. If Parliament were -dissolved and the ministers stopped the execution of all -that was to follow, the last state would be worse than the -first. And it now became evident that matters were in -just that case. Whatever the Cabal might have done, it -was certain that those who followed would have no hand -in exalting the Duke of York’s power. Danby, whose -watchword was Monarchy and No Toleration, was now -firmly fixed in authority. Early in February a proclamation -was issued ordering the execution of the penal laws, whetted -against Roman Catholics by the promise of reward to -informers; young men were to be recalled from Catholic -seminaries abroad, subjects were forbidden to hear mass in -the chapels of foreign ambassadors, all English priests -were banished from the kingdom.<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">69</a> The effect of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span> -proclamation was chiefly moral; but the worst consequences -might be expected from the Non-Resistance bill, -now in active preparation for the April session. Should -this be passed, Catholic, Presbyterian, and Whig alike -would be excluded from all part in the management of -affairs, and the royal Church of England would triumph. -The Duke of York’s party veered round and adopted the -cause of parliament as a bulwark for themselves against -the ministerial attack. The moment was critical for all -concerned. A golden age seemed to have arrived for the -Commons. Money was showered lavishly on them. Fortune -rained every coinage in Europe. Danby, the Bishops, -the Dutch, and the Spanish ambassador did battle with -their rouleaux against the Catholics, the Nonconformists, the -French ambassador and theirs. The scenes in Parliament -were unprecedented, and have since scarcely been surpassed. -Swords were drawn and members spat across the floor of -the House. In the House of Lords the king appeared -regularly at the debates to exert a personal influence on his -peers, and was likened to the sun, scorching his opponents. -Here Charles and Danby had the advantage, and after -seventeen days the bill was sent down to the Commons; -but Shaftesbury, who had fought with the utmost resolution, -seized his opportunity to foment the old dispute between -the Houses as to the right of appeal to the Lords, with -such success that the session had to be closed before the -bill could be introduced, Parliament was prorogued, and -the Test vanished for ever.<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">70</a> Coleman and his friends -breathed again and proceeded to adapt their programme -to the new situation. Since dissolution would not help -them, they would mould Parliament to their design. At -the moment the Duke of York’s position was as precarious -as before; but, wrote Coleman to La Chaize, “if he could -gain any considerable new addition of power, all would -come over to him as the only steady centre of our government, -and nobody would contend with him further. Then<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span> -would Catholics be at rest and his most Christian Majesty’s -interest be secured with us in England beyond all apprehensions -whatsoever. In order to this we have two great -designs to attempt the next sessions. First, that which -we were about before, viz. to put Parliament upon making -it their humble request to the king that the fleet may be -put in his royal highness’ care.<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">71</a> Secondly, to get an act -for general liberty of conscience.” Coleman had already -spoken to Ruvigny on the subject; the ambassador was -not enthusiastic, but he admitted the advantages that would -ensue to France. Twenty thousand pounds, thought -Coleman, would ensure success; and success would be -“the greatest blow to the Protestant religion here that -ever it received since its birth.”<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">72</a> La Chaize answered -briefly, promising to give the matter consideration and -desiring to hear more from his correspondent.<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">73</a> Coleman -rejoined in his last letter to the confessor that has been -preserved. He engaged to write whenever occasion arose, -and sent La Chaize a cipher for use between themselves; -and for greater security he would write between lines of -trivial import in lemon juice, legible when held to the fire. -Only that part of the business not relating to religion -could be discussed with Ruvigny, continued Coleman; and -then, coming to the point, “We have here a mighty work -upon our hands, no less then the conversion of three -kingdoms, and by that perhaps the subduing of a pestilent -heresy, which has domineered over great part of this -northern world a long time; there were never such hopes -of success since the death of Queen Mary as now in our -days, when God has given us a prince who is become (may -I say, a miracle) zealous of being the author and instrument -of so glorious a work.... That which we rely upon -most, next to God Almighty’s providence and the favour<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span> -of my master the duke, is the mighty mind of his most -Christian Majesty.”<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">74</a></p> - -<p>The significance of this is beyond doubt. It has been -the custom of historians, quoting the last passage alone, to -belittle its importance as the exaggerated outpouring of a -zealot’s fancy. Taken with the context it is seen to be -something very different. The words only express more -clearly what was often hinted at and half outspoken in -the correspondence which led up to this point. Jesuit -agents and the Duke of York’s confidential secretary, for -such in fact Coleman was, had something more to do than -to entertain themselves by writing at length and in -cipher to all parts of Europe with no other intention than -to express their hopes for the propagation of the Catholic -faith in a manner quite detached from politics, or to discuss -political schemes as matters of speculative interest; -such things are not done for amusement. Coleman’s -phrases are pregnant with real meaning. They are to be -understood literally. The design which his letters sketch -was in substance the same as that afterwards put into -practice when the Duke of York ascended the throne as -James II. Under the guise of a demand for liberty of -worship, it was a design to turn England into a Roman -Catholic state in the interest of France and the Jesuits, -and by the aid of French money. The remark of Halifax -that dissenters only plead for conscience to obtain power -was eminently true of his own time. No less true was it -that those who separated themselves from the religion of -the state aimed at the subversion of it.<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">75</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span></p> -<p>High treason, be it remarked, is the only crime known -to the law in which the intention and not the act constitutes -the offence. The famous statute of Edward III -had defined as the most important treasons the compassing -or imagining of the king’s death, the levying of war -against the king, and adherence to the king’s enemies -within the realm or without.<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">76</a> An act passed at the -height of power of one of the most powerful monarchs -who have reigned in England was insufficient for the -needs of those whose position was less secure. The -severity of repeated enactments under Henry VIII to -create new treasons, and perhaps the difficulty of meeting -attempts against the crown by statutory definition, rendered -this method of supplying the want unpopular and -unsatisfactory. So in the reign of Queen Elizabeth the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span> -extension of the statute of Edward III by construction -became the settled mode of procedure. With the lapse -of time the scope of constructive treason was extended. -Coke laid down that an overt act witnessing the intention -to depose or imprison the king or to place him in the -power of another was sufficient to prove the compassing -and imagining his death. Conspiracy with a foreign -prince to invade the realm by open hostility, declared by -an overt act, is evidence of the same.<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">77</a> Hale held conspiracy, -the logical end of which must be the death or -deposition of the king, even though this were not the -direct intention, to be an act of high treason. To levy -war against the king is an overt act of treason; conspiracy -to levy war is thus an overt act of treason by compassing -the king’s death. To restrain the king by force, to -compel him to yield certain demands, to extort legislation -by terror and a strong hand, in fact all movements tending -to deprive him of his kingly government, whether of -the nature of personal pressure or of riot and disturbance -in the country, are acts of treason. To collect arms, to -gather company, to write letters are evidence of the intention -of the same.<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">78</a> Treason by adherence to the king’s -enemies was equally expansive. Thus it has been held, -says Sir James Stephen, “that to imagine the king’s death -means to intend anything whatever which under any -circumstances may possibly have a tendency, however -remote, to expose the king to personal danger or to the -forcible deprivation of any part of the authority incidental -to his office.”<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">79</a> In 1678 a question was put to the judges -by the Attorney-General: “Whether it be not high treason -to endeavour to extirpate the religion established in this -country, and to introduce the Pope’s authority by combination -and assistance of foreign power?” The judges -were unanimous in their opinion that it was treason.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span><a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">80</a> -And in the case of Lord Preston in 1691 it was held -that taking a boat at Surrey Stairs in Middlesex in order -to board a ship off the coast of Kent, and convey to the -French king papers containing information on the naval -and military state of England, with the purpose of helping -him to invade the realm, was an overt act of treason by -compassing and imagining the death of the king.<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">81</a></p> - -<p>Doubt cannot exist as to the dangerous consequence -of the correspondence carried on by Coleman. Under -the most favourable interpretation it reveals a design to -accomplish again by means of bribery what the English -nation had already rejected as illegal and unconstitutional, -a deed which was said to have broken forty acts of -Parliament,<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">82</a> to give the sanction of authority to a religion -which was banned and to priests who were under -doom of high treason. And the most favourable interpretation -is certainly not the most just. Those “great -designs ... to the utter ruin of the Protestant party,” -which should “drive away the Parliament and the -Protestants ... and settle in their employments the -Catholics,” refuse such a colouring.<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">83</a> At Coleman’s subsequent -trial the Lord Chief Justice told him, “Your -design was to bring in Popery into England and to -promote the interest of the French king in this place.... -Our religion was to be subverted, Popery established, -and the three kingdoms to be converted”;<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">84</a> and what the -Chief Justice said was true. Coleman and the party to -which he belonged had designed “to extirpate the religion -established in this country” by the assistance of money -given by a foreign power. Such an endeavour could not -be undertaken without the commission of high treason. -By the theory of the constitution the king can do no -wrong. Much less can he do wrong to himself. He -cannot be persuaded to perform an act directed against -his own person. Great persuasion or importunity addressed -to the king, says Hale, cannot be held an act of treason, -since an intention must be manifested to restrain or influence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span> -him by force.<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">85</a> But the king cannot be supposed of his -free will to undertake measures having their end, according -to the construction of the statute, in the compassing of his -own death. Nor can he be supposed to be persuaded to -such measures, for both cases involve a contradiction of -himself. No king can be guilty of high treason. Except -by Act of Parliament none in England can divest his office -of any of the full authority pertaining thereto. Persuasion -of the king to do so is by the nature of the case impossible, -whether it be in the form of money or other. Any one -who plans a fundamental change of the constitution, to -be effected by money or other means except by the constitutional -action of Parliament, falls under the penalty for -treason none the less because he may hope for assistance -from the man who is king, since the king cannot be -considered to assist an unconstitutional change. Any one -planning such a change, though he intends to obtain the -king’s assistance, acts against the king’s authority as -much as if he did not so intend, and is therefore guilty of -high treason. Of such possible changes the overthrow of -the Church of England is one, for the king cannot otherwise -than constitutionally join in the subversion of the church -of which he is head, and which he has sworn to maintain. -If he is successfully persuaded to take part in such an act, -the persuasion must be regarded as tantamount to force, -for persuasion of the king to commit treason against -himself is absurd. And the position of a man declaring -his intention to accomplish this change is exactly that of -Coleman and the Jesuit party in England. There can be -no doubt that the subjects who took part with Charles II -in the treaty of Dover were guilty of high treason, none -the less because the man who was king acted in concert -with them. And similarly, none the less because they -expressed the intention of bribing the king to assist their -design, no doubt can exist that Coleman and his associates -were brought by their schemes under the penalty of the -same crime.</p> - -<p>Such was the state of the Roman Catholic designs—the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span> -real Popish Plot—in England at the close of the year -1675. The direction in which they turned during the -next three years is now to seek. At the outset the -chief part of the evidence fails. Until his arrest in -September 1678 Coleman continued his foreign correspondence,<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">86</a> -but in comparison with the letters of earlier -date the portion of it preserved is meagre indeed. Above -all, no such exposition of his schemes as Coleman sent to -La Chaize exists to afford a clue to the tangled and -mysterious allusions with which his letters abound. The -only two of Coleman’s later correspondents whose letters -are extant were St. Germain and Cardinal Howard. The -last written by St. Germain from Paris bears the date -October 15, 1678, but with this exception all his letters -belong to the year 1676. They are partly occupied with -business of slight connection with politics. A scheme -of the Duchess of York for the increase of an English -Carmelite convent at Antwerp was pressed upon the -French court. Rambling intrigues undertaken for the -purpose finally succeeded in breaking down Louis -XIV’s reluctance, the convent was allowed to plant -colonies in the French Netherlands, and the irritation -caused to the duchess by the delay was allayed by a -splendid present of diamonds made her in secret by the -King of France.<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">87</a> St. Germain’s letters also show that -intrigues were being ceaselessly carried on in the French -and Jesuit interest throughout the year 1676 by Coleman -and his party. They do not show at all clearly -of what nature those intrigues were. After the failure -in England caused by his indiscretion Coleman probably -did not accord him full confidence. St. Germain’s -complaints of his treatment were constant; and he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span> -was always in want of money.<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">88</a> Nor does the Italian -correspondence throw much greater light. Cardinal -Howard’s letters extend with somewhat longer intervals -from January 1676 to the end of the following year. -They tell still less of the political intrigues. The business -passing through Howard’s hands was considerable. He -was concerned with the difficult business of keeping the -Duke of York on good terms with the Pope. Coleman’s -endeavours to keep up the pretence that James was not -engaged to French schemes were not uniformly successful, -and on the death of Clement X Howard received definite -orders from home to vote in the conclave with the French -party. Yet the task was accomplished with some adroitness. -Howard was able to persuade the Pope that the -marriage of Mary of York to the Prince of Orange was -not due to her father’s fault, and on another occasion -obtained a letter from James to Innocent XI of such -sweetness that “the good man in reading it could not -abstain from tears.” Sinister rumours were afloat at -Rome of the duke’s Jesuit connection, and repeated -warnings were sent that, if they proved true, his cause -would be ruined. There were even grave doubts as to -the genuine character of his faith. For some time the -troublesome conduct of an English Protestant agent at -Florence occupied Howard’s attention. The Inquisition -bestirred itself in the matter. A triangular correspondence -between Howard, Coleman, and Lord Arundel resulted in -the man’s recall and led them to debate the possibility of -a match between the Princess Anne and the son of the -Duke of Florence. Another source of continual trouble -was Prince Rinaldo d’Este in his quest for a cardinal’s hat. -While his niece, the Duchess of York, backed by a special -envoy from the court of Modena, was worrying the French -ambassador in London for Louis XIV’s support, Coleman -applied directly to Howard at Rome. Promises of consideration -for the matter were all that could be obtained.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span> -The prince, who had no claims other than those of family, -afterwards gained his object by constant importunity. -Courtin had information that the Spanish ambassador had -offered the Duke of York the whole credit of Spain for -the prosecution of Rinaldo’s suit if he would quit the -French interest, and therefore could not risk the result of -a definite refusal; but neither Paris nor Rome manifested -at this time the slightest intention to support the Modenese -pretensions.<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">89</a> Cardinal Howard was in fact the official -correspondent of the English Catholic party at Rome, and -beyond the general business of helping in the amelioration -of Catholic conditions and the improvement of the relations -between different sections of the party, had little to do -with particular schemes that might be fostered by one -or another. Thus the literary evidence on the development -of Roman Catholic policy in England is of the -slightest. Accessible documents give little information. -Nothing can be known exactly. The course of events -between the years 1675 and 1678 cannot be elucidated by -aid of the evidence of those who shaped it. The argument -must be from the known to the unknown.</p> - -<p>To start with, it is known that Coleman’s correspondence -did not cease, as he stated, in the year 1675. -On the contrary, it was maintained down to the day of his -arrest and even beyond.<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">90</a> Among others it is almost -certain that he continued his negotiation with Père de la -Chaize.<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">91</a> The subject of this later correspondence is -debatable. It may have been concerned with a design<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span> -again to establish the Roman Catholic religion in England. -Or it may not; and in this case Coleman’s letters may -have been filled with matters of less importance, such as -are to be found in those of Cardinal Howard. This -alternative however is hardly tenable. Not only are there -allusions in St. Germain’s letters inexplicable except on the -supposition that they refer to the hopes of the Catholics -for the re-establishment of their religion, but the position -of Coleman and the Jesuits rendered a continuance of -their schemes virtually necessary. Early in 1676 St. -Germain wrote that he had urged on La Chaize the -absolute necessity of “vigorous counsels ... to produce -success in the traffic of the Catholics”; in these, he said, -the Duke of York took the lead, and that by the inspiration -of Coleman. A month later he added that Coleman -was incurring reproof at Paris on account of the violent -measures he was said to advocate. The secretary of the -English ambassador tried to ingratiate himself with the -Jesuit by professing great zeal for the duke; was he -sincere, asked St. Germain, and “has the duke all along -trusted him with the secret of his affair”? On Ruvigny’s -return to Paris from his embassy St. Germain had an -interview with him. Ruvigny expressed the opinion that -the intrigues of Coleman and the Jesuits would prove -fatal to James. Their conduct was detestable not only to -Protestants and the government, but to a certain section -of the Catholics also, “because,” said the ambassador, -“they would introduce an authority without limits and -push Mr. Coleman to make such strange steps which must -precipitate them into destruction.”<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">92</a> Had the policy of -which St. Germain was an agent been wholly without -reproach, it would be hard to ascribe an adequate meaning -to expressions like these. Coleman’s anxiety to deny his -correspondence would be equally difficult of explanation. -Curious too would be the comment of Pomponne, the -French minister for foreign affairs; for he undertook to -prove the absurdity of the charges against Coleman by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span> -remarking in ridicule that he had even been accused of -intriguing with Père de la Chaize, a fact the truth of -which was perfectly known to him.<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">93</a> The situation of -affairs argues with still greater force. The Jesuits were -beyond all others the most militant order of the church. -They formed the advance guard in the march against -heresy. They had already borne, and were again to bear, -the brunt of the battle. It was their particular business -to carry war into the enemy’s camp, for this was the reason -as well as the excuse for their existence. They must work, -fight, intrigue against the heretic and the heretic state, or -leave their mission unfulfilled. And Coleman was in the -same position. He was a pupil of the Jesuits, and under -the guise of secretary to the Duchess of York maintained -an active correspondence with agents abroad in the interest -of their chief hope, the duke. Intrigue was his business, -and his conduct of it was made more eager by the keenness -of a convert. No one in the least acquainted with the -history of the Jesuits and with the writings of their -apologists can believe that their method of procedure was -by conversion of individuals alone. The society has -always been in its essence political, and in the troubled -times of the seventeenth century political action of the -exiled, the feared, the reputed traitor was seldom calculated -to avoid the retribution of the laws by which those against -whom it was directed were fenced. The penal laws were -harsh, but harshness was of necessity; and the very -necessity of their harshness begot retaliation; while retaliation -completed the circle by driving into conflict with the -law many who would have been glad to obey in peace and -nurse conscience in quiet.</p> - -<p>The class of Catholics whom Ruvigny found opposed -to the Jesuit policy was large. At the close of the -seventeenth century it probably comprised a majority of -Roman Catholics in England. These were they who -would take the oath of allegiance to their sovereign, -holding it no bar to their faith, the followers of Blackloe, -of Peter Walsh, of John Sergeant, the men who thought<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span> -it no shame to liberalise belief by divorcing it from statecraft, -the adherents of the church but not of the court of -Rome.<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">94</a> The Jesuits had already once in the reign of -Charles II interposed to prevent Roman Catholics in -England from bettering their position, and when persecution -fell on these in the evil days of Oates’ grandeur, they -showed to the astonishment of the society that it had -earned small gratitude from them.<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">95</a> On the question of -the oath of allegiance the English Catholic body was -divided throughout the century. Catholics were willing -to prove their loyalty by taking the oath, but this proof -they were not allowed to give. The fruitless concessions -offered by Charles I showed conclusively that despite all -protestations the papal party would not abandon the -deposing power. Whenever the movement in favour of -the oath seemed to be gaining strength, the whole weight -of the papal court and of the Society of Jesus was thrown -into the scale against it. It was probably the only point -upon which the two were at this time in agreement. The -Earls of Bristol, Berkshire, Cardigan, Lord Stafford, and -Lord Petre actually took the oath, and of these, horrid -thought to the Jesuits, two had for their confessors Benedictines; -Lord Arundel, and for a time the Duke of York, -stood firm in refusal.<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">96</a> The division between the Catholics -was purely political; it marked those on whose loyalty<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span> -reliance could be placed from those who must be suspected -of disloyalty; and the former class suffered for what the -latter alone undertook. The line lay between the Catholic -and the Jesuit parties, between those who would be satisfied -with liberty of conscience and those who would not. -Undoubtedly the Catholic body in England was much -weakened thereby, and government owed not a little to -the moderate Catholics; but however much the execution -of Catholic policy was hampered, its direction was not -diverted. Abstinence from political action was the basis -of the pure Catholic position. The Jesuits held the wires -of politics in their hands and directed the policy. They -too affirmed purity of faith to be their motive. “Prosecution -for matters of conscience,” remarks Halifax, “is very -unjust; but great care ought to be taken that private -conscience is not pleaded against the security of the public -constitution. For when private conscience comes to be a -justifiable rule of action, a man may be a traitor to the -state and plead conscience for treason.”<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">97</a></p> - -<p>Thus it may be accepted that Coleman’s correspondence -between the years 1675 and 1678 was not of an entirely -innocent character, but was concerned with matters of -perilous import for the prosperity of the government and -of the Church of England. Since it was not dropped, the -negotiation must have proceeded either in the same line as -that in which it lay at the end of 1675 or in another. -Did the design drag on a weary course in the feeble hope -of finding a parliament congenial to Roman Catholic ideas -and of obtaining the king’s support in return for a substantial -sum of money: or did the Catholic politicians -change their tactics to discover a better opening? If the -argument is thus far sound, answer can be made without -hesitation. Early in that year Coleman and his party had -found that in the event of a dissolution of Parliament they -could not hope for a third declaration of indulgence and -the reappointment of the Duke of York to the offices -which he had formerly held. The design was thereupon -altered to a scheme for bribing the existing parliament to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span> -petition for the recall to office of James, and to pass an act -for general liberty of conscience. Coleman’s ideas were -based on two miscalculations. He understood neither the -temper of the English people nor the character of Charles -II. The king was to him an amiable debauchee, caring -only for his pleasures and his pocket. A sufficient present -of money would induce him to retire from the management -of affairs and console himself with his mistresses, leaving -the reins of power for his brother to handle. As most -men of his own and after times have thought the same, -Coleman’s mistake is perhaps excusable. Nothing could -be further from the truth. Not money, but power was -what Charles wanted, and in the use of power, not of -money, he was skilled. Any plan grounded upon this -conception of his character was foredoomed to failure. -Equally grave was the other miscalculation, and in this -too Coleman was not peculiar. A man looking back on -the history of the seventeenth century, and guided by the -story of the Revolution, can say with assurance that any -attempt in its latter half to restore Catholicism in England -must have been hopeless of success. The nation which -drove out James II would have driven out another for -the like cause. Charles himself had learnt this in the best -of schools. The fact may have been plain to clear-sighted -statesmen, but to the mass a restoration of the old religion -was looked on as among events that were more than -possible. Here was the root of the deep hatred of -Catholicism cherished by the English nation. Not only -was the event hoped by the one side, but it was feared by -the other. And the hopeful party had more reason to -hope than the fearful to fear. Englishmen might with -justice anticipate intrigues and even plots, but never their -success. But the Jesuit, whose education was continental -and whose ideas were traditional, was unaware of -the change that had passed over England. He was -still inspired by the genius and followed the example -of the dead Robert Parsons. His mind was filled -with the great instances of past times. Henry VIII, -Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth had drawn their subjects<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span> -with them like sheep from one church into another. -Within the memory of man a wave of Puritanism had -swept over the country, tottered, and broken. There -followed a loyal reaction and a court in which strong -elements were Catholic. The people who had so willingly -followed their leaders before might be expected to do so -again. The hope of rebuilding the ruins of Jerusalem was -strong in the belief of its possibility.<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">98</a> Such notions render -the undertaking of Coleman and his party intelligible. But -they were not blinded by prejudice to the obvious meaning -of facts passing within range of their own observation. -One scheme had already been abandoned: the second was -to be abandoned now. For if the former had proved -impracticable, much more so was the latter. To ask the -House of Commons in the year 1676 to pass an act of -religious toleration and to petition in favour of the Duke -of York was to suggest that it should contradict its nature. -The strongest characteristic of the Cavalier Parliament was -its hatred of Roman Catholicism. It had already forced -the retractation of two declarations of indulgence, and had -on several occasions instituted proceedings against the -Catholics. Coleman’s experience perhaps led him to -ascribe an undue importance to the influence of money. -Dishonest members of the country party might accept -bribes from the French king when the course which they -were asked to take would be to the embarrassment of -government, but not all the gold of France would induce -them to put a weapon of such strength into the grasp of -the court as to petition for what they had repeatedly -prevented it from accomplishing. Popery and tyranny, -it was said, went hand in hand. It must soon have -been seen by the Catholic managers that such a policy -was hopeless. If this was not evident at first, it must -have become more than plain when early in April 1676 -the Duke of York took the momentous step of ceasing -to go to the royal chapel, and all England knew that -he was a Catholic. It was the first occasion for a long<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span> -time on which he had acted not in consonance with the -ideas of France. Rome was delighted and recognised -him as a true son, but elsewhere the news was not hailed -with such joy. James had obtained his brother’s consent -only with difficulty. Pomponne marked the withdrawal -of the declaration of indulgence as the beginning of -the troubles that crowded on the royal authority in -England. The duke’s declaration created a notable -addition. The effect of his move was instantaneous. -Throughout the country the feeling roused was intense, -the penal laws were once more put into execution, and -Charles told the French ambassador that if he were to die -the duke would not be allowed to remain in the country -eight days.<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">99</a> It is perhaps to this time that the abandonment -of the second scheme sketched by Coleman to La Chaize -should be referred.<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">100</a> There can at all events be no doubt -that its impracticable nature soon became manifest. It was -therefore along another line that the design proceeded -from the summer of 1676 onwards.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span></p> - -<p>Since the year 1670 various ways of procuring success -for the Catholic religion have thus been considered, adopted, -and abandoned. The policy of the Dover treaty had been -led by Charles. Had it been successful he would have -been left at the head of a Catholic state, controlled and -compact. That had been blown to the winds. The -declaration of indulgence, faint resemblance of the plan -which was to have been put into execution, was the direct -result of royal authority. With its failure the king’s -leadership in the last movement of the counter-reformation -ceased. Then followed the two schemes which Coleman -related to La Chaize. In the one the motive power was -to be the king, backed by the ministers and Parliament; -in the other Parliament, working on the king and -supported by him. When these were deserted, practically -every arrangement in which the king could figure as chief -had been tried. The game of the Dover treaty had been -opened by the king, backed by French force; that of the -declaration by the king’s move alone; Coleman had -suggested action by the king and Parliament, by Parliament -and the king. Unless one of these moves was -made again, Charles would stand in the background of the -game; none would be made again, for each had been -proved ineffective. Even by the last two the object had -been to raise the authority not of the king, but of the -Duke of York. The only remaining possibility was that -the duke should be not only the object, but the leader of -the game. He was the piece with which the move had to -be made.</p> - -<p>In what direction then could the move be made? So -far from being an assistance to the Catholic movement, -Charles was now a direct hindrance to it. He had -abandoned the Catholic interest as a political weapon, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span> -had engaged in a policy of Anglican predominance. -Undoubtedly the design must be conducted behind his -back, but it was impossible not to take count of his -position and influence in the state. Three courses were -left open to the managers of the movement. The king -might be forced to take action on their side, or he might -be thrust away from it, or he might be gradually -elbowed into a position where his personal action -would be negligible. The last course had already -been considered. During the winter of 1674 and spring -of the next year Lord Berkshire and Sir William Throckmorton -had submitted the advisability of adopting a -platform, the chief planks in which should be the -debauchery and political profligacy of the king and the -sobriety and ability of the Duke of York. By this means -they hoped that all the supporters of order and moderation -would be drawn to the duke, James would be surrounded -by a compact and influential party composed of Catholics -and Protestants alike, the whole management of affairs -would eventually fall into his hands, and the king would -be left beyond the range of politics, ousted from their -control, contented with the otiose life of a peaceful rake.<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">101</a> -This however had been discarded for the plans submitted -by Coleman to Père de la Chaize, in turn to be relegated -to the domain of untried political suggestion. The scope -for the design was therefore reduced to the alternatives: -Charles must either be thrust on one side or be compelled -to take action in it himself. As he had already been tried -as a leader and had failed, the latter course would mean -that the plan should run without him, until at the moment -of success he should be forced by the necessity of events -to throw in his lot with the movement. In the former -case the course of events would be exactly similar, save -that the king would not be taken into the scheme at any -point, and the movement would be carried to completion -without him. That both of these courses involved -treasonable schemes is hardly open to doubt. The logical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span> -end of the negotiations in either case was a <i>coup d’état</i>, in -whatever degree, a revolutionary measure.</p> - -<p>In March of the year 1679 the Earl of Berkshire lay -dying in Paris. A month later a man passing under the -name of John Johnson landed at Folkestone, and was -arrested at Dover on his way to London. He was a -certain Colonel John Scott, for whose arrival the authorities -had been on the watch for some time past. Whether or -no he was the same Colonel Scott who acted as an English -spy in Holland during the second Dutch war it is -impossible to say. Latterly he had been attached to the -household of the Prince de Condé, and had commanded a -troop of horse in the French service.<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">102</a> Subsequent events -make it seem likely that orders for the Colonel’s apprehension -were issued by the secretary of state, owing to the -belief that he had information of value to impart. To -the officers at Dover he ascribed his return to England to -a desire to see his native country, but when he reached -London he told a different tale. As the Earl of Berkshire -lay on his deathbed, he sent for Colonel Scott, who had -vainly called a famous physician to his aid, and bade him -take a message to the king. There had been a foolish -and an ill design carried on in England, he said. He was -a good Roman Catholic, and in the Catholic religion he -was minded to die; but some of his faith were swayed by -a giddy madness, and this he blamed. He was neither a -contriver nor a great supporter of the business. He -would not have had a hand in it but that Lord Arundel, -Coleman, and others had told him that it could not -miscarry, and that, if he did not stand with them, evil -would be thought of him. That he ought long before to -have disclosed what he knew he was well aware; personal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span> -duty and the allegiance of every man to his sovereign -should have constrained him to speak; there were bad -men in the matter, Lord Bellasis and others, who spoke -ill of the king and very irreverently. But to his knowledge -there was never talk of killing the king; if there -had been, he would have spoken out. Then Colonel Scott -asked who those others were; but Lord Berkshire begged -for no questions, repeating, “If I had known of approaching -dangers to the king, I should have told him.” -Presently the sick man began to sigh and to weep. -“Friend,” said he, “I see things will go as you will. -For God’s sake promise me you will find some way to tell -the king every word I say, and that though some passages -in letters of mine may look a little oddly, I would have -run any hazard rather than have suffered any injury to -have been done to his Majesty’s person. ’Tis true I -would have been glad to see all England Catholic, but not -by the way of some ill men.” Let the king have nothing -to do with those he had named, nor with Stafford, nor -Powis, nor Petre. Yet he hoped and believed that -matter would not be found against them to take away -their lives.<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">103</a> If Colonel Scott spoke truth, then the foregoing -argument is certainly not quite baseless. And -reason may be given for supposing this to be the case. -At the time when Scott gave his information the fact of -Berkshire’s correspondence with Coleman was not publicly -known. Coleman had already been tried and executed, -and at the trial a number of his letters were read as -evidence against him, but among them none from Lord -Berkshire. Until the publication of the correspondence -by order of the House of Commons this was the only -channel by which particular knowledge of it reached the -world at large. The other letters were not published -until December 1680. It must therefore be supposed -that Scott obtained his knowledge of the earl’s correspondence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span> -privately. The only persons who had private -knowledge on the subject were Lord Berkshire, the -officials in whose custody the letters lay, and Coleman. -Coleman was dead before Colonel Scott came into England, -and the secretary of state by whom he was examined -would have been most unlikely to furnish him with -materials. It must therefore have been from Lord -Berkshire himself that he obtained his information. But, -it may be suggested, Scott may have drawn his bow at a -venture, knowing merely that Berkshire was a prominent -Catholic, and using his name as likely to gain credence for -his story. The weight against this suggestion is heavy. -If Scott had been for all he knew inventing the letters of -which he spoke, he would surely have said more about -them than he did. To mention them in so casual a -manner would have been useless. The simplicity and -directness of his relation points in this matter to its -substantial truth. Another proof of genuineness has still -greater force, the extreme moderation of the whole -narrative. A scoundrel following in the track of Oates -and Bedloe would never have concocted such a story. So -far from being to his advantage, what Scott said might -actually put him into a most unpleasant predicament. -The chief point of the plot which Oates had discovered -was the king’s assassination. The chief agents in it were -said to be the Jesuits. All the informers who came after -spoke to the same effect and tried to spice their tales still -more highly. Scott said not a word about the Jesuits. -He stated on his sole authority, one of the men who -might be expected to know, that no harm was intended to -the king. To some extent what he said is borne out by -Berkshire’s letters. Passages in them must certainly have -looked “a little oddly” to the government, and perhaps -contained matters technically treasonable, but in nothing -do they suggest any personal danger to the king. No -one looking for the rewards of a professional informer -would have acted as Colonel Scott. Nor did he ever seek -these. He never came forward to give evidence against -those condemned for the Plot. His name does not appear<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span> -in the list of secret service money, doled out to the -shameless witnesses for the crown. Nothing more is -known of him.<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">104</a> His information may be accepted as -genuine. Clearly then there was some truth in the -discovery of a Roman Catholic conspiracy in the year -1678. What Lord Berkshire said sketches its essence. -Oates was not after all aiming shafts entirely at random. -During his stay in the Jesuit seminaries in Spain and -Flanders he must have obtained an inkling of what was in -the air, and proceeded to act upon the information to his -best advantage. That the whole truth had little resemblance -to his tale of fire and massacre is certain, but -the tale was not wholly devoid of truth. His vast superstructure -of lies was not without a slight basis of solid fact.</p> - -<p>This conclusion can in some degree be supported from -other sources. Any attempt to reconstruct the part -played by the Catholic reformation in the years preceding -the appearance of Oates must be chiefly conjectural. -Scarcely any evidence on the subject is known, but what -more comes to hand points in the same direction. In -December 1680, as he lay in the Tower under sentence -for high treason, Lord Stafford sent a message by Dr. -Burnet and the Earl of Carlisle to the House of Lords -that he would confess all he knew of the Catholic -intrigues. He was admitted to speak from the bar of the -House. Unfortunately his statement does not refer at all -to the later years of the movement, for when he came to -describe the project debated between Shaftesbury and the -Duke of York for a coalition between the Catholic and -country parties to obtain a dissolution of Parliament and -general toleration, Stafford was stopped hastily at the -mention of the great Whig leader’s name. To a few -more questions put he simply answered no, and was -presently sent back to the Tower. Cut short as it was, -his account is of some value. He admitted that he had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span> -endeavoured to alter the established faith, and gave some -details of the meeting held early in Charles II’s reign at -the Earl of Bristol’s house to discuss the oath of allegiance. -He had always disapproved the policy of the declarations -of indulgence, and marked them as causes of the downfall -of his religion. At one time he almost decided to leave -England and live beyond sea. Others however were not -of his opinion. The Papists and Jesuits had been far too -open in their conduct, he said, and he had even seen a -priest in the House of Lords standing below the bar. All -his fellow peers, excepting the Earl of Bristol, were in -favour of toleration for the Catholics. There was even -talk of a restitution of the church lands, but Stafford -warned the Duke of York that they were in so many -hands as to render any attempt of the kind impracticable.<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">105</a> -All this does not amount to much; nevertheless it shows a -drift in one direction. Other straws are floated down the -same stream. In the summer of 1678, when it was -doubtful whether or no England would declare war on -Louis XIV, Catholics in Ireland were discussing the -chances in that event of a rebellion in their country aided -by France. Calculations were made on the strength of -the French navy, and there was talk of a rising in Scotland -as well.<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">106</a> There were Jesuit missioners in Scotland, -poor and hard worked, and it is possible that Jesuit -influence had been concerned in organising the rebellion -there in the year 1666;<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">107</a> while in 1679 there was serious -consideration of a movement in Ireland under Colonel -Fitzpatrick, who crossed to Brussels during the Duke of -York’s exile there to consult with him.<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">108</a> More definite<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span> -information can be obtained from the case of Père de la -Colombière. The celebrated Jesuit preacher, famed for -his propagation of the cult of the Sacred Heart, was -living in England at the time of the Popish Plot panic, -and acting as confessor to the Duchess of York, Two -Frenchmen, Olivier du Fiquet or Figuère and Francois -Verdier, accused him to the House of Lords of extraordinary -activity in spreading the Catholic religion. La -Colombière had concealed himself, but was discovered, -arrested, and shipped out of the country. Besides the -general charge of caring for the growth of his faith, he -was accused of a close connection with Coleman and Père -de la Chaize. In attempting the conversion of Fiquet, -who was a Protestant, he had used as an argument that -the Duke of York was openly, and the king in secret, -Catholic by faith. Parliament, he said, should not always -be master; in a short time all England would be changed.<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">109</a> -Supposing that these men had wished to make their -accusation a source of gain, they would have charged the -confessor with being a party to the king’s assassination, -or at least to the plot in general. Since they did not, -their statements may be taken as true. Nothing dishonourable -was alleged against La Colombière, but he -plainly harboured the expectation of seeing England before -long Catholic. His hope was shared by others; for in -advising on the establishment of a nunnery by the Yorkshire -baronet, Sir Thomas Gascoigne, the Jesuit John -Pracid wrote on June 9, 1678 to suggest the insertion of -a clause in the deed, depending on the condition: “If -England be converted.”<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">110</a> At most the evidence is slight, -but it seems clear that the Jesuit party was indulging in -hopes considerably more active than they could naturally -have been if wholly unsupported by any plan of action.</p> - -<p>While the schemes of which these traces are to be -found were in the air, Oates was studying and being<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span> -expelled from Valladolid and St. Omers. There were -in Flanders twenty-seven English Roman Catholic -seminaries; five belonged to the Jesuits, and of these the -establishment at St. Omers was the largest. It contained -some thirty professed fathers and a hundred and twenty -scholars.<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">111</a> Probably the best education in Europe was -provided for the boys, and life there was comfortable; -but to the unwilling the seminary became a prison. -Pressure was put upon them to become priests, and communication -with the outside world was carefully restricted. -In a letter preserved from this time a Welsh boy, placed -in the college by a wicked uncle, wrote secretly to his -father begging piteously to redeem him from his great -captivity.<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">112</a> Here, unless he made a prodigious guess, the -most fortunate in history, Oates must have acquired hints -dropped on the subject of the movement in England. -It is not very profitable to speculate on the question -exactly how much truth his vivid imagination concealed. -Possibly a demonstration of force was suggested, organised -by the great Catholic nobles and relying on support for -the Duke of York to be gained in the navy. The fleet -was at the moment being strengthened by the addition of -several capital ships, and in the spring of 1678 was at full -strength in sea service, with complete stores for six -months.<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">113</a> If this were the case, if Arundel, Bellasis, and -Stafford were implicated in the affair, but nothing definitely -arranged so soon as the autumn of 1678, Oates’ diffident -denunciation of these peers and the evident falsehoods -which he, Bedloe, and Dugdale afterwards told in -their statements regarding the Popish army, would be -sufficiently accounted for. Or again, it is possible that -the design included help from France in money, and -perhaps the use of the English regiments employed in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span> -French service. Many of their officers were Irishmen, -and most Catholics.<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">114</a> For this it would be necessary to -wait until peace was definitely concluded in order that -both men and money might be liberated from the calls on -them. Such a supposition would go some way to explain -the “dark, suspicious letter” seized at Coleman’s house -after his arrest, and bearing the date September 18, 1678. -The writer, posting from Paris, informed Coleman that -the peace had broken all their plans, for the French pretended -that since its conclusion they had no need of his -party. Yet there was hope from another quarter. Let -an agent known to him be sent over. “To put our -traffic afoot,” continues the letter, “it’s absolutely -necessary that my friend come speedily over to you, to -converse with you and our other friends, because his -measures are so well taken in Italy, that we can’t miss to -establish this commodity better from those parts than -from any here at present, tho’ hereafter we may find -means and helps from hence too. But it’s most certain, -now is the time or never to put things in order to -establish it with you.”<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">115</a> The letter seems to point to -hopes of early aid from France, since disappointed. In -this case Père de la Chaize, or whoever managed the affair -in France, may have thought that the gold of French -Catholics could be put to better purpose than to assist -their fellows of the faith in England in a forlorn hope. -The likelihood of such a desertion is to some extent -supported by the refusal of the French government in -November 1678 to take any steps to assist the Duke of -York or his party.<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">116</a> But from the scraps of evidence -obtainable it is plain that the design, supposing it to have -been such as is here sketched, had not advanced beyond -the stage of negotiation, ready to be construed into -immediate action.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span></p> - -<p>According to the information which Lord Berkshire -gave to Colonel Scott, no harm was intended to the king; -at least he knew of none. This may well have been; but -at the same time it is necessary to remember that Charles -was at the moment the greatest impediment to the chance -of Catholic success. He was little older than his brother, -and enjoyed far better health. As far as could be judged, -he was by no means likely to be the first to die. He had -definitely adopted a policy adverse to the Catholics. If he -were to die, the charge of revolutionary dealing would lie -at the door of those who should attempt to keep the Duke -of York from the throne. So long as he lived, any attempt -to restore the Roman Catholic religion in England, certainly -any attempt made behind his back, would be a matter of high -treason and against the interests of peace and established -order. This much only can be said with safety, that the -brothers hated each other,<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">117</a> that the death of the king was -talked of in Jesuit seminaries on the continent,<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">118</a> and that -James was not above tolerating, if he did not direct, an -attempt to murder the husband of his daughter.<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">119</a></p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">OATES AGAIN</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Thus</span> the Popish Plot was introduced to the world, “a -transaction which had its root in hell and its branches -among the clouds.”<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">120</a> While Charles proceeded on his -walk, Chiffinch, his confidential valet, refused Kirkby -admittance into the royal bedchamber, not knowing his -business. Kirkby therefore waited in the gallery till -Charles returned and summoned him to ask the grounds -of such loyal fears. Kirkby replied that two men, by name -Pickering and Grove, were watching for an opportunity to -shoot him, and that should they fail, Sir George Wakeman, -the queen’s physician, was employed to use poison.<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">121</a> Oates -and Tonge had committed this piece of information to -paper for him the day before. Asked how he knew this, -Kirkby answered that he had the news from a friend, who -was ready to appear with his papers whenever the king -should command. He had waited to give his warning the -day before, but had failed. Charles ordered him to return -with his friend in the evening. Accordingly between -eight and nine o’clock Kirkby escorted Dr. Tonge to -Whitehall. The doctor brought with him a copy of the -forty-three articles and solemnly presented it to the king, -with a humble request for its safe keeping. He entreated -that only the “most private cabinet” should be acquainted -with the contents; otherwise the secret would leak out, -full discovery of the plot would be prevented, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span> -lives of the discoverers put in hazard. But if under the -guise of chemical students they might have access to his -Majesty until seizure of the conspirators’ letters showed -beyond doubt the truth of their story, all would be well. -Tonge afterwards complained that full discovery was -rendered impossible because the king did not take his -advice. Charles was too busy or too apathetic to attend -to the matter himself. He was going to Windsor on the -morrow, he said, and would leave the inquiry to Lord -Treasurer Danby, on whose ability and honour he placed -all reliance.<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">122</a> Whence did the papers come to Tonge? he -asked. The doctor returned he had found them under -the wainscot in Sir Richard Barker’s house; he did not -know the author, but suspected him to be a man who had -once or twice been there in his absence and had formerly -discoursed with him on such matters as appeared in the -articles. Of his condition too Tonge was uncertain, but -thought he had been among the Jesuits; perhaps, he -suggested, the man had been set on by secular priests or -the Jansenists.<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">123</a> Much the same story was told next day -to the Earl of Danby. Tonge and Kirkby called on him -in the afternoon, and Kirkby, introducing the doctor, was -requested to leave. The Lord Treasurer had read the -information overnight and proceeded to examine Tonge -on the subject. Were the papers originals? No, they -were copies of the doctor’s writing, the originals being in -his custody. He did not know the author, but guessed -who he was. Did he know where to find this man? No, -but he had lately seen him two or three times in the street -and thought it likely they might meet again before long.<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">124</a> -Many were Dr. Tonge’s falsehoods in order to raise an air -of sufficient mystery. Three or four days later he returned -to Danby with the information that his guess at the -authorship of the papers was correct; nevertheless for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span> -secrecy’s sake he was not to give the name, since if the -fact were to become known the informer would be murdered -by the Papists. Danby asked some more particulars. Did -the doctor know Pickering and honest William, as Oates -had called Grove, who were named as the king’s assassins? -Certainly; he could point them out waiting their murderous -chance in St. James’ Park. He did not know their lodging, -but would find it out and inform the earl; for Danby -insisted that they should be arrested forthwith. Leaving -a gentleman of his household in London in communication -with Tonge, Danby drove down to Windsor and told the -king all that had passed. He urged that one of the secretaries -of state should issue a warrant for the apprehension of -the dangerous persons and that the whole matter should be -brought before the council, but Charles would not hear of -it. On the contrary, he commanded Danby not even to -mention the affair to the Duke of York, only saying that -he would take great care of himself till more was known. -The Treasurer left Windsor for his house at Wimbledon -and sent directions that Lloyd, the gentleman whom he -had trusted, should bring him whatever news occurred.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">125</a> -Meanwhile Oates was consorting with his Jesuit acquaintances, -and even obtained supplies from them; somewhat -to their discredit, seeing that he had twice been expelled -from Jesuit colleges.<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">126</a> In the intervals he concocted -additional information, which Tonge took to Kirkby to -copy and Kirkby gave to Lloyd for Danby’s perusal.</p> - -<p>Despite Tonge’s assurance that Pickering and Grove -might be captured in St. James’ Park with their guns, the -inquiry seemed as far from reaching solid ground as ever. -All that the doctor could do was to point out Pickering to -Lloyd in the chapel at Somerset House. It was offered as -an excuse for Grove’s absence that he had a cold. Something -better than this was obviously required. So one -night Tonge went to Wimbledon himself and informed -Danby that the assassins were bound for Windsor the next -morning; he would arrange for Lloyd to travel in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span> -same coach with them and procure their arrest on arrival. -The Treasurer started at once and slept that night at -Windsor, laying his plans for the capture; but when the -coach drove in, lo! Danby’s gentleman stepped out alone. -The others had been prevented from coming by an unforeseen -accident. Within two days at furthest however, as -Lloyd brought word from Tonge, they would be sure to -come. Curiously enough the ruffians failed a second time. -On this occasion they were riding and one of the horses -had hurt his shoulder. The most that Tonge could -manage was by way of addition to the information already -lodged. Although Pickering and Grove had been stopped -from attacking the king at Windsor, they had all but -made the attempt in London. Unfortunately the flint of -Pickering’s pistol was loose and he dared not fire: and for -this he suffered a penance of thirty lashes. The story was -afterwards improved, for Pickering had missed a rare -chance not only once, but three times. Now his flint was -loose, on another occasion he had no powder in the pan, -on a third he had loaded with bullets only and no powder. -It might be suspected too that the discovery of the plot -was no longer a secret; for Oates, going one day to see -Whitebread, the Jesuit provincial, had been met with abuse -as a traitor and even with blows. Clearly the Duke of -York, who had seen Kirkby come from his first interview -with the king, had mistaken him for Oates and told his -confessor of the accident.<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">127</a> The doctor’s efforts were vain. -By no device could Charles be moved to take interest in the -matter. Danby was alarmed by the idea that he was the -only man beside his master to whom Tonge’s disclosures were -known, thinking perhaps that if ill came it might go hard -with himself, and urged that they might be communicated -to others; but the king had already come to the conclusion -that the conspiracy was fictitious, and after the ridiculous -excuses offered by Tonge for the absence of the supposed -assassins was all the more positive in his refusal to order a -formal inquiry. He should alarm all England, he said,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span> -and put thoughts of killing him into the minds of people -who had no such notions before.<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">128</a></p> - -<p>Oates and Tonge now planned a bolder stroke. On -August 30 Danby received news from Tonge, for Oates -was at this time still unknown to him, that letters telling -of treasonable designs had been sent to Father Bedingfield, -the Duke of York’s Jesuit confessor, and might be intercepted -at the Windsor post-office. Danby instantly -returned to Windsor and showed Tonge’s letter to the -king. He was met by the announcement that Bedingfield -had already been at the post-office. The confessor had -found a packet awaiting him. It contained four letters, -ostensibly from priests of his order known to him but not -in their hands, and a fifth in the same style. All were -apparently of dangerous concern, full of mysterious phrases -which seemed of no good meaning. Bedingfield took the -letters to the duke, who showed them to the king. Thus -when Danby arrived at Windsor his news was stale. Charles -believed still less in the existence of a real plot. The letters -were transparent forgeries. Purporting to be written by -different persons, from different places, at different dates, -they bore a curious likeness one to another. The paper -on which they were written bore the same watermark and -appeared to have been cut from one sheet. In every case -the name signed was misspelt. Throughout, the writing -was disfigured by the same blemishes of style and spelling. -Only one of the letters contained a single stop, and that -seemed to have been made accidentally. Oates professed -afterwards that the handwriting was disguised and that the -writers made mistakes on purpose, should the letters be -intercepted, to lull the reader to false security. A Jesuit -in London, who scented the discovery of the plot, had sent -warning to Bedingfield, and the confessor had handed his -letters to the duke with the express intention of showing -them to be counterfeit and himself to be innocent. Thus, -declared the informer with indignation, they had been -made to appear the work of forgery. So far as the last -goes, Oates spoke the truth. They were patently the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span> -composition of himself and his confederate. A tribute to -the unscrupulous energy of those who adopted the plot for -political purposes is paid by the fact that these letters were -suppressed and never brought forward as evidence, although -three of the men who were supposed to have written them -were afterwards tried for treasons of which, had they been -genuine, the letters would have afforded strong proof. -Oates met the rebuff by going at Kirkby’s instigation to -swear to the truth of his story before a London magistrate. -But at court the intriguers were badly received. Kirkby -and Tonge called several times on the Treasurer, only to -be refused admittance, and when Charles met his old -acquaintance he passed by him without word or look.<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">129</a></p> - -<p>At this moment a sudden move of the Duke of York -threw the game into the hands of Oates. With his usual -want of tact James demanded an inquiry into the matter -by the privy council. What difference this actually made -to the course of subsequent events it is hard to calculate, -for Oates was clever enough to place himself in a position -not wholly dependent on the action of government, but -at least it smoothed his way at the moment. The act of -the duke was that of applying the bellows to the seed of -a mighty conflagration. At the meeting of Parliament -Danby was accused of having tried to stifle the plot; -unjustly, for he too had urged investigation. For some -time Charles withstood their instance. Danby alone he -could have resisted, but when James, whose occasions for -importunity were better than those of the Treasurer, added -his demand, the king gave way and, against his better -judgment, consented. Oates was still occupied in enlarging -and copying his information when on the evening of -September 27 Kirkby brought word from Lloyd that -Tonge was summoned to go with him to the council. -The council had already risen and their appearance was -postponed till the next morning. Tonge asserted that he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span> -would have been better pleased had the inquiry been longer -delayed that yet more of the plot might have been discovered. -His feelings must really have been of some -relief at the opportunity afforded, tempered with suspicion -of the council’s intention towards himself. Taking the -precaution to place his information beyond reach of -danger by leaving a sworn copy with the magistrate who -had attested his oath, Oates accompanied his friend to -Whitehall. Some ten days earlier Charles had been made -acquainted with the informer’s name. The opinion of the -government was that Tonge had no other end in view than -to obtain a deanery. That notion must have been rudely -dispelled by Oates’ appearance at the council board.<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">130</a></p> - -<p>Dr. Tonge was the first to enter and, kneeling, handed -a petition for pardon for himself and Oates, together with -a list of the plotters and their lodging. He was asked -who Oates was. An acquaintance of short standing, he -answered. He had been a chaplain in the navy on board -Sir Richard Ruth’s ship, but having given information of -some miscarriages had received hard dealing from the -privy council. In point of fact this was the occasion -when he had been summarily ejected from the service. -As Tonge begged excuse from reciting what he knew -further of the plot, an abstract he had made of Oates’ -information was read. Oates was called and examined on -the contents of the papers. The council sat long, and he -was heard at length. His statements were of so general a -character that little criticism could be made, but the board -was sufficiently satisfied to authorise the informer to search -for the men he had named as conspirators. As night fell, -he issued forth armed with warrants and officers. Before -morning Father Ireland, procurator of the province of the -Society of Jesus, Fenwick, agent for the college at St. -Omers, Pickering, and other Jesuits were in Newgate. -Oates returned to the council on the morning of Sunday, -being Michaelmas day, to continue his examination. This<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span> -time the king was present. Oates was made to repeat all -he had said the day before. He had named in his narrative -Don John of Austria as not only cognizant of the -plot, but active in it. What was he like? asked Charles. -Tall and graceful, with fair hair, Oates replied promptly. -Charles had seen Don John and knew him to be short, -fat, and dark. Oates said that he had seen Père de la -Chaize pay in Paris ten thousand pounds as the price for -the king’s death. The victim now asked in what part of -Paris. In the Jesuits’ house close to the Louvre, was the -answer. Again Oates had committed himself, for there -was no such house in that position. The letters sent to -Bedingfield at Windsor were produced. Oates skated -over the thin ice as best he could, declaring that Jesuits -used to make their letters appear foolish to conceal their -meaning. He pursued his tale with unbroken confidence. -Arundel and Bellasis were mentioned. Charles remarked -that those lords had served him faithfully, and that without -clear proof he would not credit anything against them. -Oates protested to God that he would accuse none falsely; -he did not say that they were partners in the plot, only -that they were to have been acquainted with it. His -whole behaviour was of a piece with this. Loud in general -accusations, he refused to bring particular charges against -persons who might appear to contradict him successfully. -Whenever he was pressed, he drew back and hedged. -The king ended the meeting by exclaiming that he was a -most lying knave.<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">131</a></p> - -<p>Oates’ credit was rudely shaken. Nevertheless the -matter could not be dropped without further investigation. -The informer managed to cover his mistakes by the suggestion -that he had himself been deceived. He had misspelt -the name of Louis XIV’s confessor, calling him Le -Shee; but in an age of loose spelling, when Barillon wrote -of Shaftesbury as Schasberi, and Cardinal Howard’s name -was spelt Huart by a papal nuncio, this was not of great<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span> -weight. Oates had evidently lied, but perhaps he had -spoken some truth. His assurance and readiness had been -such as to amaze the council. Charles himself was taken -aback, and though he gave no credence to the informer’s -story, felt that great care was necessary for the discovery -of the truth. Falsehood has not been unknown in the -seventeenth and other centuries as a prop to even a good -cause. At all events persons, against whom serious charges, -not disproved, had been made, could not be allowed to -remain at large. So on the second night in succession -Oates was sent his rounds with a guard, sleepless and defying -the stormy weather. Before dawn most of the Jesuits -of eminence in London lay in gaol. At one point the -party encountered a check. Oates led his men to arrest -Whitebread, the provincial, at the residence of the Spanish -ambassador. The ambassador’s servants resisted the intrusion, -and the next day Count Egmont and the Marquis -Bourgemayne lodged a complaint with the secretary of -state. Material compensation was not to be had, but an -ample apology; and the soldiers with Oates were said to -have been drunk and were punished.<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">132</a> Of greater importance -than persons was a find of papers. A warrant had -been signed at the council board for the arrest of Coleman. -When the meeting rose the Earl of Danby noticed that -direction for seizing his papers had been omitted. He -hastily caused another warrant for this purpose to be -drawn, and obtained the five requisite signatures just in -time that a messenger might be dispatched the same evening. -Coleman’s house was searched, and, besides others, a -deal box containing the most important of his letters was -found in a secret recess behind a chimney. Danby could -boast with justice, when he was accused of having acted in -the French and papist interest, that but for his action the -chief evidence of the schemes of both in England might -never have come to hand. The Duke of York, against -whom they told heavily, would never forgive him, he said.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span> -Coleman surrendered himself on Monday morning, and -was put under the charge of a messenger with only Oates’ -accusation against him. He managed to send word to the -French ambassador that nothing would be found in his -papers to embarrass him. A cruel awakening from the -dream was not long delayed. When his letters came to -be read, the lords of the council looked grave and signed -a warrant for his commitment. Coleman disappeared into -Newgate.<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">133</a></p> - -<p>On Monday, September 30, Oates was again examined -before the council, and again coursed London for Jesuits. -The town was by this time thoroughly alarmed. Coleman’s -papers were regarded by the council as of high -importance. They shewed at any rate that Oates had -known of his correspondence with La Chaize, and seemed -evidence of a serious state of affairs. In the streets they -were taken as proof of his every statement. Catholics -who had sneered at the disclosure began to realise that the -charges against Coleman were heavy and that he was in -danger of his life.<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">134</a> The Protestant mob of London was -convinced that the charges against all accused were true. -The Duchess of York started on a visit to the Princess of -Orange in Holland. It was said that she was smuggling -guilty priests out of the country. A fever seemed to be -in men’s minds. Freedom of speech vanished. To doubt -the truth of the discovery was dangerous. Opinions -favourable to the Catholics were not to be uttered -without risk. The household of the Duke of York was -in consternation, and James himself gloomy and disquiet. -Orders were sent into the country to search the houses of -Catholics for weapons. Sir John Reresby hurried to town -with his family to be on the scene of a ferment the greatness -whereof none but an eye-witness could conceive.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span> -“In fine,” wrote Lord Peterborough, “hell was let loose; -malice, revenge, and ambition were supported by all that -falsehood and perjury could contrive; and lastly, it was -the most deplorable time that was ever seen in England.” -Oates was hailed as the saviour of the nation and was -lodged with Dr. Tonge in Whitehall under a guard. -“One might,” exclaimed North, “have denied Christ with -less contest than the Plot.” To add to the general confusion -the king left for the races at Newmarket, scandalising -all by his indecent levity. During his absence Dr. -Burnet paid Tonge a visit in his lodgings at Whitehall. -He found the poor man so much uplifted that he seemed -to have lost the little sense he ever had. Oates appeared -and was introduced. He had already received a visit from -Evelyn. The courtier found him “furiously indiscreet.” -Burnet received the flattering intelligence that he had been -specially marked by the Jesuits for death; the same had -been said of Stillingfleet; but the divines thought the -compliment cheap when they found that it had been paid -also to Ezrael Tonge. The informer burst into a torrent -of fury against the Jesuits and swore he would have their -blood. Disliking the strain, Burnet turned the conversation -to ask what arguments had prevailed upon him to -join the Church of Rome. Whereupon Oates stood up -and, laying his hands on his breast, declared: God and -his holy angels knew that he had never changed, but that -he had gone over to the Roman Catholics to betray them.<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">135</a> -The perjurer might well triumph. The days of his glory -were beginning. On October 21 Parliament met. Before -that time Godfrey, the magistrate before whom Oates had -sworn to the truth of his deposition, was dead amid -circumstances of horror and suspicion, and the future of -the informer with his hideous accusations was assured.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak p4 b4" id="SIR_EDMUND_BERRY_GODFREY">SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I2">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> death of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey has passed for -one of the most remarkable mysteries in English history. -The profound sensation which it caused, the momentous -consequences which it produced, the extreme difficulty of -discovering the truth, have rendered Godfrey’s figure -fascinating to historians. Opinion as to the nature of his -end has been widely different. To the minds of Kennet, -Oldmixon, and Christie the Catholics were responsible. -North declared that he was murdered by the patrons of -Oates, to give currency to the belief in the Plot. Sir -James Fitzjames Stephen hazards that Oates himself was -the murderer, and is supported by Mr. Traill and Mr. -Sidney Lee. L’Estrange was positive that he committed -suicide. Lingard and Sir George Sitwell have given the -same verdict. Ralph, Hallam, Macaulay, Ranke, and -Klopp pronounce the problem unsolved. Hume has pronounced -it insoluble. All have admitted the intricacy of -the case and its importance. None has been able without -fear of contradiction to answer the question, “What was -the fate of Sir Edmund Godfrey?” On the answer to -this question depends to a great extent the nature of the -final judgment to be passed upon the Popish Plot. If -Godfrey met his death at the hands of political assassins, -the weight of the fact is obvious. If he was murdered by -the Roman Catholics, much of the censure which has been -poured on the Protestant party misses the mark; if by -Protestant agents, that censure must be redoubled before -the demands of justice are satisfied. If he committed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span> -suicide, or was done to death in a private cause, the -criminal folly of many and the detestable crime of a few -who in the cause of religious intolerance fastened his -death upon the innocent were so black as to deserve -almost the same penalty.</p> - -<p>Scarcely ever has a fact so problematical been attended -by such weighty results. Sir Edmund Godfrey left his -house on October 12, 1678. On October 17 his corpse -was found in the fields at the foot of Primrose Hill. -From that moment belief in the Popish Plot was rooted -in the mind of the nation. The excitement throughout -the country rose to the mark of frenzy. Godfrey’s death -seemed clear evidence of the truth of Oates’ sanguinary -tales, and the prelude to a general massacre of Protestants. -It became an article of faith that he had been murdered -by the Catholics. To deny it was to incur the most -awkward suspicion. No man thought himself safe from -the same fate. Every householder laid in a stock of arms. -Posts and chains barricaded the streets of the city. Night -after night the Trained Bands stood to arms and paraded -the town as if an insurrection were expected before morning. -During the winter which followed, wrote Shaftesbury, -“the soberest and most peaceable of the people have, either -in town or country, hardly slept for fear of fire or massacring -by the Papists.” Alderman Sir Thomas Player -declared that when he went to bed “he did not know but -the next morning they might all rise with their throats -cut.” And this state of things continued, as sober Calamy -remarked, “not for a few weeks or months only, but -for a great while together.” It was regarded as most -fortunate that the Protestants did not seek to avenge -Godfrey and anticipate their own doom by exterminating -the Roman Catholics.<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">136</a></p> - -<p>Upon the death of a London magistrate was grounded -the firm conviction of the reality of the Popish Plot, under<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span> -cover of which the Whig party was all but successful in -deranging the legitimate succession to the throne, and even -perhaps in overturning the monarchy itself. Of the -instruments by which Shaftesbury turned the Plot to this -end, none was more powerful than the belief in Godfrey’s -murder. In one connection or another that event appeared -in almost all the state trials of the two following years, in -the debates in Parliament, in the pulpit, on the stage.<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">137</a> -The part which it played in the electioneering methods of -the Whigs was still more formidable, and Godfrey’s corpse -was a central figure in the grand annual ceremonies of -Pope Burning, which were arranged by the Green Ribbon -Club.<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">138</a> Without the mystery of Godfrey’s death it is -possible that the agitation of the plot would have burnt -itself out in the course of a few months. As it was, the -fuel was fanned into a blaze of unexampled fierceness, -which did not die down until nearly three momentous years -in English history had passed.</p> - -<p>No one undertaking the study of this problem is likely -to underrate the difficulty of the task. To find a solution -is obviously a matter of great importance; but it is also a -matter in which small success may reasonably be expected.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span> -The door of the secret has remained unopened for so long. -The door is not one which can be forced, and the key is -missing. It would be worse than sanguine to hope for its -discovery after a light search. Nevertheless there is some -hope. “When a door-key is missing,” says Dr. Gardiner, -“the householder does not lose time in deploring the -intricacy of the lock; he tries every key at his disposal to -see whether it will fit the wards, and only sends for the -locksmith when he finds that his own keys are useless. -So it is with historical inquiry.... Try, if need be, one -hypothesis after another.... Apply them to the evidence, -and when one fails to unlock the secret, try another. -Only when all imaginable keys have failed, have you a -right to call the public to witness your avowal of incompetence -to solve the riddle.”<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">139</a> In the case of the Gunpowder -Plot Dr. Gardiner tried the key afforded by the -traditional story and found that it fitted the lock. With -the secret of Sir Edmund Godfrey’s death the method -must be different. There is no traditional story to test. -What seems more remarkable is that no determined attempt -has been made to construct a consistent theory to fill the -empty place. Contemporaries who approached the question -answered it according to their prejudice, and selected -only such evidence as would support their preconceptions. -Later historians who have answered definitely have arrived -at their conclusions by considering the balance of general -probability in the matter, and have supported them from -the contemporaries whose evidence lies on the side to -which the balance seems to them to fall. No one has -formed a hypothesis to explain the facts and tested it by -all the evidence, in whatever direction it seems to point. -The following study is an attempt to accomplish this. It -would be impertinent to suppose that it offers a perfect -key to fit the lock. But it offers a key with which trial -may be made, and which may not be found altogether of -the wrong size and shape. There is at least a hypothesis -to be tested. If it jars with established fact, this will be -detected. If the test reveals assumptions which are beyond<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span> -the scope of legitimate imagination, it must be discarded. -At least its abandonment will be because it has been shown -to be inconsistent with the facts of the case. It will then -leave the way clear for the same test to be applied to -another theory.</p> - -<p>Sir Edmund Berry—and not Edmundbury—Godfrey -was a justice of the peace for the county of Middlesex and -the city of Westminster. He came of a Kentish family -of some wealth and of good repute in the county. His -elder brother, father, and grandfather had all been justices -of the peace before him, and he was popularly said himself -to be “the best justice of the peace in England.” He -had been educated at Westminster and Christ Church, -Oxford, had spent some time in travelling abroad, was a -member of Gray’s Inn, and owned a prosperous business -as merchant of wood and coal in Hartshorn Lane, near -Charing Cross.<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">140</a> To the public he had long been known. -During the ghastly year when London was in the grip of -the plague and all who could fled to the pure air of the -country, Godfrey stayed at his post in town. London -was given up to the dying, the dead, and their plunderers. -In the midst of the chaos Godfrey went about his duties -with redoubled energy and conspicuous gallantry. Numerous -thefts from corpses were traced to a notorious ruffian. -A warrant was issued for his apprehension. The wretch -took refuge in the pest-house, whither none would follow -him. Godfrey himself entered the forbidden spot and -took the man alone. As an appropriate punishment he -sentenced him to be whipped round the churchyard which -he had robbed. It was of this time that his friend Dr. -Lloyd spoke: “He was the man (shall I say the only -man of his place?) that stayed to do good, and did the -good he stayed for.... His house was not only the seat -of justice, but an hospital of charity.”<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">141</a> The king was not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span> -slow to recognise good service, especially when the recognition -was not expensive. Charles gave Godfrey a knighthood -and a silver tankard, inscribed with an eulogy of the -service which he had done during the plague and the great -fire.<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">142</a> Three years later Godfrey roused sentiments of a -less grateful character in his sovereign. Sir Alexander -Frazier, the king’s physician, owed the justice £30 for -firewood. Godfrey issued a writ against the debtor; but -Frazier took the matter before the king, the bailiffs were -arrested, and together with the magistrate were committed -to the porter’s lodge at Whitehall. Charles was so much -angered at the interference with his servant that he had -the bailiffs flogged, and was scarcely restrained from -ordering the infliction of the same punishment on Godfrey -himself. “The justice,” writes Pepys, “do lie and justify -his act, and says he will suffer in the cause for the people, -and do refuse to receive almost any nutriment.” To the -great wrath of the king, Godfrey was supported by the -Lord Chief Justice and several of the judges. After an -imprisonment of six days Charles was forced to set the -magistrate at liberty and to restore him to the commission -of the peace from which his name had been struck off.<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">143</a></p> - -<p>A portrait of Godfrey belongs to the parish of St. -Martin in the Fields.<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">144</a> It shows the bust of a spare man, -dressed in a close-fitting coat of dark material, a high -lace collar, and a full-bottomed wig. The head is large, -the forehead wide and high, the nose hooked, the chin -strong and prominent. The frank eyes and pleasant -expression of the firm lips belie the idea of melancholy. -Godfrey’s height was exceptional, and his appearance -made more striking by a pronounced stoop. He -commonly wore a broad-brimmed hat with a gold band, -and in walking fixed his eyes on the ground, as though in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span> -deep thought. Now and again he wiped his mouth with -a handkerchief. “He was a man,” writes Roger North, -“so remarkable in person and garb, that, described at -Wapping, he could not be mistaken at Westminster.”<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">145</a> -Godfrey moved in good society. He numbered the Earl -of Danby among his acquaintance, was on terms of -friendship with Sir William Jones and the Lord Chancellor, -and counted Gilbert Burnet and Dr. Lloyd among his -intimates.</p> - -<p>Early in 1678 he was ordered to the south of France -for the benefit of his health. He stayed for some months at -Montpellier, and there admired the construction of the -great canal which Louis XIV was undertaking to connect -the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">146</a> Late in the summer -Godfrey returned to England and resumed his magisterial -duties in London. It was scarcely beyond the ordinary -scope of these when on September 6 three men entered his -office and desired him to swear one of them to the truth -of certain information which he had committed to writing. -The three were Titus Oates, Dr. Tonge, and Christopher -Kirkby. The paper contained Oates’ famous information -drawn up in forty-three articles. Oates made affidavit to -the truth of the contents, and his oath was witnessed by -his two friends and attested by Godfrey. They refused -however to allow the magistrate to read the information -in detail, “telling him that his Majesty had already a true -copy thereof, and that it was not convenient that it should -be yet communicated to anybody else, only acquainting -him in general that it contained matter of treason and -felony and other high crimes.” Godfrey was satisfied, -and the three men departed without more ado.<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">147</a> Oates -professed afterwards to have taken this course as a -safeguard for himself and his discovery from the vengeance -of the Jesuits. His motive was far more probably to form -a connection apart from the court, where he had been -poorly received. At this point, so far as Godfrey was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span> -concerned, the matter rested. He was relieved of -responsibility by the fact that the information had been -forwarded to the king, and there were no steps for him -to take. But on the morning of Saturday, September 28, -Oates appeared before him again. Kirkby and Tonge had -been summoned to the council the previous evening, but -before they could be fetched the council had risen after -giving orders that they should attend the next day. -During the last three weeks the informer and his allies had -felt their distrust of the council become more acute. -While Oates had been engaged in writing copies of his -information, Tonge had on several occasions been refused -admittance to the Lord Treasurer. They believed that -the discovery was neglected, and probably suspected that -the summons to Whitehall was the prelude to discredit and -imprisonment. To guard against this they determined to -remove the matter from the discretion of the council. -Two copies of the information, now in the form of eighty-three -articles, were laid before Godfrey, who attested Oates’ -oath to the truth of their contents. One Godfrey retained -in his possession, the other was taken by Oates to the council -at Whitehall.<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">148</a></p> - -<p>Godfrey was now in the centre of the intrigue. His -eminence and reputation for the fearless performance of -his duty had no doubt directed Oates to select him as the -recipient of the discovery. The fact that he was known -to have resisted pressure from court with success on a -former occasion made it likely that he would not submit to -be bullied or cajoled into suppressing the information if, as -Oates feared, the court had determined on this. He would -certainly insist upon making the facts public and would -force an inquiry into the matter. As a matter of fact -Oates and Tonge were mistaken, for the council proposed -to investigate the case thoroughly. Even so, it was from -their point of view a good move to lay the information -before Godfrey. It would appear to be evidence of Oates’ -desire to act in a straightforward manner and frankly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span> -according to the law. But in doing so they introduced a -complication of which they were probably unaware. -Godfrey was not only remarkable for his ability as justice -of the peace, but for the tolerance with which he dealt -between the parties and creeds with which the business of -every magistrate lay. He was credited with sound -principles in church and state, but he did not find it -inconsistent with these to allow his vigilance to sleep on -occasion. The penal laws against dissenters were not to -his mind, and he refrained from their strict execution. -He “was not apt to search for priests or mass-houses: so -that few men of his zeal lived upon better terms with the -papists than he did.” Dr. Lloyd put the matter in his -funeral sermon: “The compassion that he had for all men -that did amiss extended itself to all manner of dissenters, -and amongst them he had a kindness for the persons of -many Roman Catholics.” Among these was Edward -Coleman, secretary of the Duchess of York, who was now -accused by Oates of high treason.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">149</a> The intimacy between -the two men exercised a profound influence upon the -course of after events, which Oates could not have foreseen. -After Godfrey’s disappearance his connection with Coleman -became known; but at the time it was only apparent that -Godfrey was an energetic magistrate who possessed the -somewhat rare quality of being impervious to court -influence. That he was upon friendly terms with the -Roman Catholics was, for the informer’s purpose, of little -moment. Oates was in search of support outside the -council-chamber, and Godfrey offered exactly what he -wanted. In case the government wished to suppress the -discovery of the plot, Godfrey was not the man to acquiesce -in such a design on account of private considerations.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span></p> -<p>On Saturday, October 12, Sir Edmund Godfrey left -his house in Hartshorn Lane between nine and ten o’clock -in the morning. That night he did not return home. -The next day Godfrey’s clerk sent to inquire at his -mother’s house in Hammersmith. Obtaining no news -there, the clerk communicated with his master’s two -brothers, who lived in the city. They sent word that -they would come to Hartshorn Lane later in the day, -and enjoined the clerk meanwhile to keep Godfrey’s -absence secret. In the evening Mr. Michael and Mr. -Benjamin Godfrey appeared at their brother’s house, and set -out in company with the clerk upon a round of inquiry. -That night and all Monday they continued the search, but -could nowhere obtain tidings of the missing man. On -Tuesday the brothers laid information of Godfrey’s -absence before the Lord Chancellor, and in the afternoon -of the same day the clerk publicly announced his disappearance -at a crowded funeral.<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">150</a> Up to this time the -fact was unknown except to Godfrey’s household and -near relatives. It was afterwards asserted by those who -wished to prove his suicide that the secret had been kept -in order to prevent discovery of the manner of his death. -The law directed that the estate of a person dying by his -own hand should be forfeited to the crown, and to prevent -the forfeiture Godfrey’s family concealed the fact. Sir -Roger L’Estrange devoted some effort to establish this.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span><a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">151</a> -He was however so unwise as immediately to demolish -his case by collecting evidence to show that the dead -man’s brothers had approached the Lord Chancellor, “to -beg his lordship’s assistance to secure their brother’s -estate, in case he should be found to have made himself -away.”<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">152</a> Certainly, if the Godfreys had known his -suicide and had been moved to conceal it in order to save -his estate, the last person in the world to whom they would -have admitted their motive was the Lord Chancellor. -L’Estrange’s sense of the contradictory was small. Not -only did he commit this blunder, but he was at considerable -pains to show that the fact of Godfrey’s disappearance -was never concealed at all; on the contrary, the news was -bruited about the town as early as the afternoon of the -day on which Sir Edmund left his house, in order to raise -a cry that he had been murdered by the Roman Catholics.<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">153</a> -He did not consider that, as the only persons who had -first-hand news of Godfrey’s absence were members of -his family, the rumour must have emanated from themselves;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span> -whereas he persisted at the same time that their -one object was to keep the fact secret. There was good -reason why the family should be unwilling to publish Sir -Edmund’s disappearance until they had, if possible, some -clue to his whereabouts or his fate. A man of his prominence -and consideration could not vanish from the scene -without giving rise to reports of an unpleasant nature. -When for expedience sake his brothers announced that -he was missing and brought the matter to the notice of -government, there sprang into being tales which any -persons of repute would have been glad to avoid, none -the less because they perhaps believed that some of them -might be true. On the Wednesday and Thursday following -stories of Godfrey’s adventures were rife. He had -chosen to disappear to escape creditors, to whom he owed -large sums of money. As no creditors appeared this -notion was exploded.<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">154</a> He had been suddenly married in -scandalous circumstances to a lady of fortune. He had -been traced to a house of ill repute, now in one part of -the town, now in another, and there found in the midst -of a debauch. With one of these last stories the Duke of -Norfolk went armed to Whitehall, and was so ill-advised as -to announce it for a fact. But gradually, as none of them -gained support, the rumour spread that Godfrey had been -murdered. It was reported that he had been last seen at -the Cock-pit, the Earl of Danby’s house; then at the -Duke of Norfolk’s residence, Arundel House; then at -St. James’, the Duke of York’s palace; even Whitehall, it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span> -was said, was not spared.<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">155</a> The general belief was, “the -Papists have made away with him.” Everywhere the -missing magistrate afforded the main topic of conversation. -The government was occupied with the case. Michael -and Benjamin Godfrey were summoned before the -council, and there was talk of a proclamation on the -subject.<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">156</a></p> - -<p>Before further steps could be taken definite news -came to hand. On Thursday, October 17, a man, who -could never afterwards be found, came into the shop of a -London bookseller in the afternoon with the information -that Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey had been found dead -near St. Pancras’ Church with a sword thrust through -his body. A Scotch minister and his friend were in the -shop and carried the news to Burnet.<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">157</a> The report was -correct. At two o’clock in the afternoon two men were -walking across the fields at the foot of Primrose Hill, -when they saw, lying at the edge of a ditch, a stick, a -scabbard, a belt, and a pair of gloves. Pushing aside the -brambles, they found a man’s corpse in the ditch, head -downwards. With this discovery they proceeded to the -Whitehouse Inn, which stood in a lane not far off. John -Rawson, the innkeeper, offered them a shilling to fetch -the articles which they had seen on the bank, but rain -had begun to fall, and they decided to wait till it should -cease. By five o’clock the rain had stopped, and Rawson, -with a constable and several of his neighbours, set out, -guided by the men who had brought the news. They -found the body at the bottom of the ditch resting in a -crooked position; “the left hand under the head upon -the bottom of the ditch; the right hand a little stretched -out, and touching the bank on the right side; the knees -touching the bottom of the ditch, and the feet not touching<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span> -the ground, but resting upon the brambles”: through -the body, which hung transversely, a sword had been -driven with such force that its point had pierced the back -and protruded for the length of two hand-breadths. In -the ditch lay the dead man’s hat and periwig. The -constable called the company to notice particularly the -details of the situation. They then hoisted the corpse -out of the ditch, and to facilitate the carriage withdrew -the sword; it was “somewhat hard in the drawing, and -crashed upon the bone in the plucking of it forth.” The -body was set upon two watchmen’s staves and carried to -the Whitehouse Inn, where it was placed upon a table. -As they came into the light the men recognised, what -they had already guessed, that the dead man was Sir -Edmund Berry Godfrey. A note of the articles found -was taken. Besides those brought from the bank and -the ditch, a large sum of money was found in the pockets.<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">158</a> -On the fingers were three rings. Leaving two watchmen -to guard the body, the constable and half a dozen others -rode off to Hartshorn Lane. There they found Godfrey’s -brothers and his brother-in-law, Mr. Plucknet. Towards -ten o’clock at night the constable returned to the inn with -Plucknet, who formally identified the body. Rawson and -Brown, the constable, then took him to view the place -where it had been found, by the light of a lantern. The -same night the brothers Godfrey sent to Whitehall to -notify what had passed, and a warrant was issued for the -summons of a jury to take the inquest.<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">159</a></p> - -<p>On the following morning a jury of eighteen men and -Mr. Cooper, coroner of Middlesex, met at the Whitehouse. -At the instance of some officious tradesmen the coroner -of Westminster offered his services also, but they were -properly refused.<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">160</a> The jury sat all day, and as the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span> -evidence was unfinished, adjourned in the evening. On -Saturday, October 19, the inquest was continued at the -Rose and Crown in St. Giles’ in the Fields, and late at -night the verdict was returned: “That certain persons to -the jurors unknown, a certain piece of linen cloth of no -value, about the neck of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, then -and there, feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, -did tie and fasten; and therewith the said Sir -Edmundbury Godfrey, feloniously, wilfully, and of their -malice aforethought, did suffocate and strangle, of which -suffocation and strangling he, the said Sir Edmundbury -Godfrey, then and there instantly died.”<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">161</a> Stripped of its -cumbrous verbiage the jury gave a verdict of murder by -strangling against some person or persons unknown. -They were determined in this chiefly by the medical -evidence.<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">162</a> Testimony was given at great length on the -position and appearance of the corpse in the ditch. A -number of people had examined the body and the spot -where it was found. Five surgeons and two of the king’s -apothecaries formed professional opinions on the subject. -At the inquest only two of the surgeons gave evidence, -but the testimony of the others, taken at a later date, -entirely supported their judgment. To points of fact -there was no lack of witnesses.</p> - -<p>Godfrey’s movements were traced to one o’clock on -the afternoon of Saturday, October 12. At nine o’clock -in the morning one of the jurymen had seen him talking -to a milk-woman near Paddington; at eleven another had -seen him returning from Paddington to London; at one -Radcliffe, an oilman, had seen him pass his house in the -Strand, near Charing Cross.<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">163</a> It was proved that on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span> -Tuesday there had been nothing in the ditch where -Godfrey’s corpse was found two days later.<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">164</a> Further -evidence of this was given at the trial of Thompson, Pain, -and Farwell in 1682 for a libel “importing that Sir -Edmund Bury Godfrey murdered himself,” Mr. Robert -Forset was then subpœnaed to appear as a witness, but -was not called. He deposed before the Lord Mayor that -on Tuesday, October 15, 1678 he had hunted a pack of -harriers over the field where the body was found, and that -his friend Mr. Harwood, lately deceased, had on the next -day hunted the hounds over the same place and along the -ditch itself; on neither occasion was anything to be seen -of cane, gloves, or corpse.<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">165</a> An examination of the body -revealed remarkable peculiarities. From the neck to the -top of the stomach the flesh was much bruised, and seemed -to have been stamped with a man’s feet or beaten with -some blunt weapon.<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">166</a> Below the left ear was a contused -swelling, as if a hard knot had been tied underneath. -Round the neck was a mark indented in the flesh, merging -above and below into thick purple creases. The mark -was not visible until the collar had been unbuttoned. The -surgeons’ opinion was unanimous to the effect that it had -been caused by a cloth or handkerchief tightly tied, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span> -that the collar had been fastened over it.<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">167</a> The neck was -dislocated.<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">168</a> The body was lissom, and in spots on the -face and the bruised part of the chest showed signs of -putrefaction. Two wounds had been inflicted on the -breast. One pierced as far as a rib, by which the sword -had been stopped. From the other, which was under the -left breast, the sword had been extracted by the constable; -it had been driven through the cavity of the heart and had -transfixed the body.<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">169</a> These facts were suggestive, but -the point which deservedly attracted most attention was -the striking absence of blood from the clothes of the dead -man and the place where his corpse had been found. In -spite of the rain the ditch, which was thickly protected by -brambles and bushes, was dry, and would certainly have -shewn marks of blood if any had been there. The -evidence is positive that there was none. Brown, the -constable, Rawson, and Mr. Plucknet examined the spot -with lanterns on the night of Thursday, October 17. -Early the next morning the ditch was searched by several -other persons. At no time did it contain traces of any -blood whatever. A few yards to the side of the ditch the -grass was stained with blood and serum which had oozed -from the wound in the back after the withdrawal of the -sword. Some stumps, over which the men carrying the -body to the inn had stumbled, were stained in the same -way. As they had entered the house the body had been -jerked against the doorpost; similar marks were found -there; and when it was set on the table there was a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span> -further effusion of blood and serum which dripped upon -the floor of the inn parlour. With the exception of the -part of the shirt which covered the wound at the back, -the clothes of the dead man were without any stain of -blood.<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">170</a> The importance of this is obvious. A sword -driven through the living heart must produce a great -discharge of blood. The clothes of a man thus killed -would be saturated with blood. The ground on which he -lay would be covered with it. Only in one case would -this not happen. If the sword plugged the orifice of the -wound in such a way as wholly to stop the flow of blood -from it, the quantity which escaped would be inconsiderable. -In the case of Sir Edmund Godfrey this could not -have taken place. L’Estrange says: “The sword stopped -the fore part of the wound, as tight as a tap.”<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">171</a> But the -only manner in which he could suggest that Godfrey -committed suicide was by resting his sword on the edge of -the bank beyond the ditch and falling forward on it.<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">172</a> It -is impossible to believe that if he had killed himself in this -manner the sword should not have been disturbed or -twisted by his fall. As he fell, it must have been violently -wrenched, the wound would have been torn, and the -ensuing rush of blood have flooded the ditch and his body -lying in it.<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">173</a> Apart from L’Estrange’s bare word, there is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span> -no reason to believe that the wound was plugged by the -blade of the sword. This would have been in itself a -remarkable circumstance; and the fact that there is no -evidence to the point, when every other detail was so -carefully noted, raises a presumption that the statement -was untrue. Even if it had been the case, the second -wound would still afford matter for consideration. It -would be sufficiently strange that a man wishing to end -his life should bethink himself of falling on his sword only -after bungling over the easier way of suicide by stabbing -himself. But it is hardly credible that a considerable -flesh wound should be made and the weapon withdrawn -from it without some flow of blood resulting; and there -was no blood at all on the front of Godfrey’s body or on -the clothes covering the two wounds. The surgeons and -the jury who trusted them were perfectly right in their -conclusion. There can be no substantial doubt that the -wounds found on Godfrey’s body were not the cause of -his death, but were inflicted at some time after the event. -As a dead man cannot be supposed to thrust a sword -through his own corpse, he had certainly been murdered. -When this point was reached, the nature of his end was -evident. The neck was dislocated and showed signs of -strangulation. Clearly the magistrate had been throttled -in a violent struggle, during which his neck was broken -and his body hideously bruised. The clerk proved that -when his master went out on the morning of October 12 -“he had then a laced band about his neck.” When the -body was found, this had disappeared. Presumably it was -with this that the act had been accomplished.</p> - -<p>That the murder was not for vulgar ends of robbery<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span> -was proved by the valuables found upon the body. -Another fact of importance which came to light at the -inquest shewed as clearly that it was dictated by some -deeper motive. The lanes leading to the fields surrounding -Primrose Hill were deep and miry. If Godfrey had -walked thither to commit suicide, his shoes would have -told a tale of the ground over which he had come. When -his body was found the shoes were clean.<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">174</a> Upon this was -based the conclusion that Godfrey had not walked to -Primrose Hill on that day at all. It was clear that he -had been murdered in some other place, that the murderers -had then conveyed his body to Primrose Hill, had -transfixed it with his sword, and thrown it into the -ditch, that the dead man might seem to have taken his -own life.</p> - -<p>The result of the inquest was confirmed by what -passed some years later. In the course of the year 1681 -a series of letters were published in the <i>Loyal Protestant -Intelligencer</i>, purporting to prove that Sir Edmund Godfrey -had committed suicide. Thompson, Pain, and Farwell, -the publisher and authors of the letters, were tried before -Chief Justice Pemberton on June 20, 1682 for libel and -misdemeanour. The accused attempted to justify their -action, but the witnesses whom they called gave evidence -which only established still more firmly the facts elicitated -at the inquest. Belief in the Popish Plot was at this time -on the wane throughout the country, and at court was -almost a sign of disloyalty. The men were tried in the -fairest manner possible, and upon full evidence were -convicted. Thompson and Farwell were pilloried and -fined £100 each, and Pain, whose share in the business had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span> -been less than theirs, escaped with a fine.<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">175</a> None but -those who were willing to accept L’Estrange’s bad testimony, -assertions, and insinuations could refrain from -believing that Godfrey’s death was a cold-blooded murder. -Even some who would have been glad to credit his suicide -were convinced. The king certainly could not be suspected -of a desire to establish belief in the murder. When news -of the discovery of the body first reached him, he thought -that Godfrey had killed himself.<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">176</a> But when Dr. Lloyd, -who went with Burnet to view the body at the Whitehouse -Inn, brought word of what they had seen, Charles was, -to outward appearance at all events, convinced that this -could not have been the case. He was open enough in -his raillery at the witnesses of the plot, but he never used -his witty tongue to turn Godfrey’s murder into a suicide.<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">177</a></p> - -<p>The rumours which had before connected the magistrate’s -disappearance with the Roman Catholics were now -redoubled in vigour.<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">178</a> Conviction of their truth became -general. The Whig party under the lead of Shaftesbury -boomed the case. Portrait medals of Godfrey were struck -representing the Pope as directing his murder. Ballads -were composed in Godfrey’s memory. Sermons were -preached on the subject. Dr. Stillingfleet’s effusion ran -into two editions in as many days, and ten thousand copies -were sold in less than a month.<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">179</a> An enterprising cutler -made a special “Godfrey” dagger and sold three thousand -in one day. On one side of the blade was graven: -Remember the murder of Edmond Bury Godfrey; on -the other: Remember religion. One, ornamented with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span> -a gilt handle, was sent to the Duke of York. Ladies of -high degree carried these daggers about their persons and -slept with them beneath their pillows, to guard themselves -from a similar doom. Others as timid followed the lead -of the Countess of Shaftesbury, who had a set of pocket -pistols made for her muff.<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">180</a> The corpse of the murdered -magistrate was brought to London in state, and lay -exposed in the street for two days. A continual procession -of people who came to gaze on the sight passed -up and down. Few who came departed without rage, -terror, and revenge rooted in their hearts. On October 31 -the body was borne to burial at St. Martin’s in the -Fields. Seventy-two clergymen walked before; above a -thousand persons of distinction followed after. The -church was crowded. Dr. Lloyd, afterwards Dean of -Bangor and Bishop of St. Asaph, himself a friend of -Godfrey, preached a funeral sermon from the text: -“Died Abner as a fool dieth?” It consisted of an -elaborate eulogy of the dead man and an inflammatory -attack upon the Roman Catholics. To crown the -theatrical pomp of this parade, there mounted the pulpit -beside the preacher two able-bodied divines, to guard his -life from the attack which it was confidently expected -would be made. “A most portentous spectacle, sure,” -exclaims North. “Three parsons in one pulpit! Enough -of itself, on a less occasion, to excite terror in the audience.”<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">181</a> -There was one thing still lacking. As yet no evidence -had appeared to connect any one with the crime. On -October 21 a committee of secrecy was appointed by the -House of Commons to inquire into the Popish Plot and -the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. On the 23rd a -similar committee was established by the House of Lords.<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">182</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span></p> - -<p>The secretaries of state and the privy council were -already overwhelmed with work which the investigation -of the plot had thrown upon their shoulders. For -ten days the committees laboured at the inquiry, and -examined some dozens of witnesses without drawing -nearer to the desired end. Nothing appeared to throw -light upon the subject. Every clue which was taken up -vanished in a haze of rumour and uncertainty. There -seemed every probability that the murderers would escape -detection. But information was soon to be forthcoming -to shed a ray of light upon the scene.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II2">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">BEDLOE AND ATKINS</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">On</span> October 20 a proclamation was published offering a -pardon and the reward of £500 to any one whose evidence -should lead to the apprehension and conviction of the -murderers. Four days later a second proclamation was -issued containing in addition to these a promise of protection -to the discoverer of the culprits. It is easy to -point out that this course offered temptations to perjury -and to sneer at the motives of the government, but it -must be remembered that in the days when the police -were a force of the future it was only by obtaining an -accomplice in the crime to give evidence that criminals -could in many cases be brought to justice. The proclamations -took effect. At five o’clock in the afternoon -of Friday, November 1, Samuel Atkins was arrested at the -offices of the Admiralty in Derby House for being concerned -in the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. Atkins -was clerk to Samuel Pepys, the secretary of the navy board. -He was arrested on the evidence of a certain Captain -Charles Atkins. The two men were not related by blood, -but were acquaintances, and “for name-sake have been -called cousins.” Captain Atkins had laid information -before Henry Coventry on October 27.<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">183</a> Three days -later he made the same relation to the privy council, and -on Friday, November 1, swore to his statement before Sir -Philip Howard, justice of the peace for the county of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span> -Middlesex. He deposed: “That in Derby-house, being -in discourse with Samuel Atkins (clerk of Mr. Pepys, -secretary of the Admiralty), the said Samuel did say that -Sir Edmundbury Godfrey had very much vilified his -master, and that if he lived long would be the ruin of -him; upon which the said Samuel did ask this examinant -whether he did think Child to be a man of courage and -secrecy; to which this examinant did reply that the said -Child had been at sea, and had behaved himself very well, -as he had been informed; upon which the said Samuel bid -this examinant send the said Child to his master, Mr. -Pepys, but not to him the said Samuel, for that he would -not be seen to know anything of it. This examinant did -endeavour to find out the said Child, but did not meet -with him till the day after the discourse had happened -between him and Samuel Atkins, at the Three Tobacco -Pipes in Holborn, where this examinant did tell Child that -Secretary Pepys would speak with him; and the next time -that this examinant did see the said Child (after he had -given him that direction) he, the said Child, did endeavour -to engage the said examinant to join him in the murder of -a man.”<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">184</a> The quarrel between Pepys and Godfrey, he -said further, was occasioned by the discovery of the Popish -Plot.<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">185</a></p> - -<p>Samuel Atkins was immediately carried before the -committee of inquiry of the House of Lords. The -conduct of the committee reflected anything but credit -upon its members. An account of the proceedings in his -case was afterwards drawn up by Atkins for Mr. Pepys.<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">186</a> -In the course of them he had been subjected to great -annoyance and ill-treatment; he had been imprisoned for -a considerable length of time, and had been tried for his -life. Every motive was present to induce him to be unfair -towards the instigators of his prosecution. Even if he -were perfectly honest in drawing up his account, it could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span> -hardly be an accurate relation of what took place. The -careful literary form in which it is written shows that he -arranged it elaborately and revised it often. Since his -papers were twice taken from him in prison, he must have -composed it afterwards from memory.<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">187</a> But after full -allowance is made for this, the statement probably represents -with considerable truth what took place. It was not -written for publication as a controversial pamphlet, but for -Pepys’ private information. Atkins was likely therefore -to attempt as far as possible to tell the truth. Moreover -the conclusions to be drawn from it are supported by a -consideration of the evidence produced in the case and -the trial in which it ended.<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">188</a></p> - -<p>Atkins indignantly denied the whole story. He was -several times called before the committee, and received -considerable attention from the Earl of Shaftesbury -himself, its most prominent member. Noble lords and -reverend bishops alternately coaxed him to confess and -threatened him with the awful consequences of a refusal. -Plain hints were given to him that both he and his master -must certainly be papists, and that he had only to admit -their complicity in Godfrey’s murder to gain liberty, -pardon, and prosperity. In the intervals he was remanded -to Newgate to reflect upon the best means of getting out -of it. Before he knew what reception his revelations -would find with the parties, Oates had taken care to -exonerate the Duke of York from all concern in the plot. -It would be a fine stroke for Shaftesbury, with whose -schemes this did not at all accord, if he could implicate -the duke in the murder. If only Atkins could be brought -to accuse Pepys, the duke, under whom he had worked -for many years at the Admiralty, would offer an easy mark.</p> - -<p>That this was Shaftesbury’s real object can hardly be -doubted. Captain Atkins was known to be a person of -disreputable character, and gave his evidence in the most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span> -suspicious manner.<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">189</a> When the man Child was produced -he did not know Samuel Atkins by sight, and was unable -to say anything about the matter.<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">190</a> The captain was -treated by the committee with consideration. Although -some show was made of pressing him in examination on -his statements, the pressure was removed as soon as it -appeared that his embarrassment was likely to lead to -awkward consequences to his patrons.<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">191</a> He was sent to -interview his namesake in Newgate in the hope of extorting -admissions in the course of conversation, and seemed to -have been posted with fresh charges against Pepys and -the Duke. He was evidently prepared to spice and expand -his evidence in this direction whenever it seemed -desirable.<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">192</a> But before the time arrived for this, a new -witness appeared upon the scene.</p> - -<p>On Wednesday, October 30, a man named William -Bedloe wrote from Bristol to Henry Coventry, secretary -of state, signifying that he had information to give concerning -the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey, and desiring -aid and protection in coming to London. The next day -he wrote in a similar strain to Secretary Sir Joseph -Williamson. Both the secretaries answered him. To -make sure that he should not think better of his project -and escape, Williamson wrote to the mayor of Bristol -enclosing a communication for Bedloe, while Coventry -addressed his reply to Bedloe and enclosed a letter to the -mayor with orders to give whatever assistance might be -necessary.<a id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">193</a> Bedloe gave himself up forthwith to the -mayor and was sent post-haste to town. On November -7 he made a deposition before the council and was examined -in the presence of the king; on the 8th he was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span> -examined by the Lords’ committee and made a statement -at the bar of the House.<a id="FNanchor_194" href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">194</a> It has constantly been said -that at his first examination Bedloe denied all knowledge -of the Popish Plot, and after professing to speak only to -Godfrey’s murder, the next day expanded his information -to embrace more general topics; and it is told that the -king on hearing this exclaimed, “Surely this man has -received a new lesson during the last twenty-four hours.<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">195</a>” -The story is a mere fiction. In his first deposition he -“acquainted the Lords that he had several things to communicate -to them which related to the plot, and that he -was able to confirm several passages which Mr. Oates -had discovered concerning the plot.”<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">196</a> Examined on -this, he gave a long account of the military operations to -be taken by the Roman Catholics; Chepstow Castle was -to be surrendered to Lord Powis, who was to command -an army of twenty thousand “religious men” shipped from -Spain; a similar number were to sail from Flanders to -join Lord Bellasis at Bridlington Bay. He had known -this for four years, and had been employed by the Jesuits -in London to carry letters to Douay, Paris, and Madrid.<a id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">197</a> -As far as Bedloe’s character is concerned the matter is immaterial, -for another lie from his mouth would scarcely -add weight to the scale of his perjury; but it is important -not to exaggerate the folly and credulity of the government, -and here at least it has been maligned. This was -little more than a support for Oates’ story in general. -The more remarkable part of Bedloe’s information dealt -with the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. All that need -be extracted from it at this point is his evidence against -Atkins. Godfrey, he swore, had been murdered on -Saturday, October 12, in Somerset House, the queen’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span> -palace. He was himself to have been one of the party to -do the deed, but failed to come at the right time. Soon -after nine o’clock on Monday night he had been taken -by one of the murderers to see the dead body in the room -where it had been laid. There, in a small company, he -saw by the light of a dark lantern, standing near the -corpse, two men “who owned themselves, the one to be -Lord Bellasis’ servant, and the other to be Mr. Atkins, -Pepys’ clerk.”<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">198</a> The account which was communicated -to the Lords concludes: “The same time Mr. Atkins -being called in before Mr. Bedloe, Mr. Bedloe saith that -he is in all things very like the person he saw in the room -with Sir Edmundbury Godfrey’s dead body; and he doth -verily believe it was him that owned himself to be Pepys’ -clerk; but because he never saw him before that time, he -cannot positively swear it, but he doth verily believe him -to be that man.”<a id="FNanchor_199" href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">199</a> According to Atkins’ own account -Bedloe’s charge against him at this meeting was still more -vague. Bedloe was asked if he knew the accused. Turning -to Atkins he said, “I believe, Sir, I have seen you -somewhere, I think, but I cannot tell where; I don’t -indeed remember your face.” “Is this the man, Mr. -Bedloe?” asked the Duke of Buckingham. “My Lord,” -returned the informer, “I can’t swear this is he; -’twas a young man, and he told me his name was Atkins, -a clerk, belonging to Derby House; but I cannot swear -this is the same person.”<a id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">200</a></p> - -<p>Bedloe was a man of evil character. He had been in -the service of Lord Bellasis, and had subsequently held a -commission as lieutenant in a foot company in Flanders.<a id="FNanchor_201" href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">201</a> -He was of a type not uncommon in the seventeenth -century, one of the vast crowd who lived a roving life of -poverty and dishonesty, travelling from one country to -another, in many services and under many names, living<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span> -upon their own wits and other people’s money, men for -whom no falsehood was too black, no crime too gross to -be turned to profit, men without truth, without shame, -without fear of God or man. Bedloe was afterwards -known to be notorious throughout Europe. He had -been imprisoned in Spain for obtaining money under false -pretences. He had been imprisoned in the Marshalsea for -debt. He had been sentenced to death for robbery in -Normandy, but had escaped from prison. When the -agitation of the Popish Plot broke out he had only lately -been released from Newgate. He had passed himself off -on the continent as a nobleman, and had swindled his way -from Dunkirk to Madrid. In Flanders his name was -Lord Newport, in France he called himself Lord Cornwallis, -in Spain Lord Gerard.<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">202</a> When he was examined -before the House of Lords he denied without reservation -that he knew Titus Oates.<a id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">203</a> The government made inquiries -behind his back. His mother, his sister, and a -friend were examined by the Bishop of Llandaff on -Bedloe’s behaviour between November 2 and 5, when he -had stayed at his mother’s house at Chepstow. It -appeared that he had discoursed to them about the plot, -and had announced his intention of discovering the -murderers of Godfrey; but he also told them that he had -known Oates intimately when they were together in -Spain.<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">204</a> This might have led to unfortunate consequences. -Bedloe attempted to recover the slip by saying that he -had known Oates personally, but not by that name, since -at Valladolid he had called himself Ambrose. Oates supported<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span> -him by the statement that he had been acquainted -with Bedloe in Spain under the name of Williams.<a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">205</a> The -recovery was not sufficient, for Bedloe had told his family -that he had known Oates by the same name; but the -unsystematic method of examination came to the informer’s -aid, and the fact passed at the time unnoticed. His denial -of Oates’ name and recognition of his person took place -before the House of Lords, while the facts which proved -his perjury in this only came to the notice of the privy -council. When examinations of the same persons on the -same or different points might be conducted by the secretaries -of state, by the privy council, at the bar of the -House of Lords, at the bar of the House of Commons, or -before the secret committee of either one house or the -other, and when it was the business of nobody to dissect -and digest the results of this mass of raw evidence, it can -hardly be a matter of surprise that contradictions went -undetected and lying statements unrebuked.</p> - -<p>In spite of this false step Bedloe was a man of some -ingenuity and even moderation. In his evidence against -Atkins he had left the way open to advance, if possible, -and charge Pepys’ clerk more fully with being implicated -in the murder, or to retreat, if necessary, and protest with -a profusion of sincerity that he had been hoaxed. He -was far too careful to run the risk of definitely accusing -any one with having been in a certain place at a certain -time until he was sure that his reputation would not be -ruined by running upon an alibi. The tactics which he -employed were justified by their success. After the -examination of Friday, November 8, Atkins was sent -back to Newgate and heavily ironed. On the following -Monday Captain Atkins was again sent to him in prison -and exhorted him to be cheerful and confess his guilt. -This interview was the prelude to a visit on the next day -from four members of the House of Commons, headed by -Sacheverell and Birch. They went over the whole case to -the prisoner, pointed out the extreme danger in which he -was situated, urged him with every argument to confess,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span> -and declared that his refusal would be held to aggravate -the crime of the murder. Atkins remained obdurate, and -the four left him with serious countenances, Sacheverell -saying as he went away that the prisoner was “one of the -most ingenious men to say nothing” whom he had ever -met.<a id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">206</a> Since nothing was to be gained in this fashion it -was determined to bring Atkins to trial. The date seems -to have been fixed for Wednesday, November 20, the day -before the conviction of Staley. When the day came the -case was postponed. Atkins remained in Newgate, and -was allowed pen, ink, and paper to compose his defence. -The fact was that the committee had received intelligence -that Atkins could produce good evidence of an alibi for -the evening of October 14, the only point at which the -evidence of Bedloe touched him. He had in the meantime -by the help of his friends collected witnesses, and the -crown was unable to face the trial without knowing what -statements they would make. When Atkins had committed -enough to writing, his papers were seized, and -gave to the prosecution detailed information on the subject.<a id="FNanchor_207" href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">207</a> -On December 13 his witnesses were summoned -before the committee of the House of Lords. They -proved to be Captain Vittells of the yacht <i>Catherine</i> and -five of his men. They were examined at length. On -Monday, October 14, Atkins had sent word to Captain -Vittells that he would bring two gentlewomen, his friends, -to see the yacht. At half-past four o’clock in the afternoon -they appeared at Greenwich, where the vessel lay, -and came aboard. The captain took them to his cabin, -and they drank a glass of wine. The wine was good, the -company pleasant, and they stayed drinking till seven -o’clock. Atkins then sent away his boat and returned to -supper. After supper they drank again, and the gentlemen -toasted the ladies, and the ladies toasted the gentlemen, -till night had fallen and the clock pointed to half-past<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span> -ten. By this time they were all, said the captain, -pretty fresh, and Mr. Atkins very much fuddled. Captain -Vittells put his guests, with a Dutch cheese and half a -dozen bottles of wine as a parting gift, into a boat belonging -to the yacht and sent them to land. The tide flowed -so strongly that the men rowing the wherry could not -make London Bridge, but set Atkins and the two ladies -ashore at Billingsgate at half-past eleven o’clock, and -assisted them into a coach. “Atkins,” said one of the -sailors, “was much in drink, and slept most of the way -up.”<a id="FNanchor_208" href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">208</a> He must have blessed the fate that led him to -joviality and intoxication on that evening. It was obvious -that he could not have been soberly watching Sir Edmund -Godfrey’s corpse at Somerset House when he was at the -time named by Bedloe, and for two hours after, first -hilarious and then somnolent at Greenwich. The evidence -was unimpeachable. The only fact revealed by a somewhat -sharp examination was that some of the sailors had -signed a paper for the information of Mr. Pepys stating -at what time they had left Atkins. One of them admitted -that he could not read, but added immediately that he was -a Protestant. In the seventeenth century sound religious -principles covered a want of many letters.</p> - -<p>At this point the case rested. A true bill had already -been found against Atkins by the grand jury, but it was -not until Tuesday, February 11, 1679 that he could -obtain a trial.<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">209</a> Important developments had in the -meantime taken place, and Atkins was no longer the -game at which the plot-hunters drove. On the day before -he was brought to the bar three men were convicted of -the same murder for which he was indicted on two counts, -both as principal and as accessory. The former of these -was now dropped, and Atkins was tried only as an accessory -to the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. The centre of -interest in the case had moved away from him and Mr.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span> -Pepys and the Duke of York, and the same evidence -originally preferred against him was produced in court -without addition. The case for the prosecution was -lamentably weak. Captain Atkins swore to his previous -story at greater length, but without any new statement of -importance.<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">210</a> Bedloe followed with the story of the man -who gave his name as Atkins at the meeting over -Godfrey’s corpse; but whereas he had formerly seemed -willing to recognise Atkins without much difficulty, he -now professed himself entirely unable to swear to his -identity. “There was a very little light,” he said, “and -the man was one I was not acquainted with.... So that -it is hard for me to swear that this is he. And now I am -upon one gentleman’s life, I would not be guilty of a -falsehood to take away another’s. I do not remember -that he was such a person as the prisoner is; as far as I -can remember he had a more manly face than he hath, -and a beard.”<a id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">211</a> The crown evidence was so feeble that it -was never even proposed to call the man Child. An -attempt was made to show that Atkins was a Roman -Catholic, but failed ignominiously.<a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">212</a> The prisoner called -Captain Vittells and one of his men, who proved an alibi -in the most decisive manner; the Attorney-General threw -up his case, and the jury without leaving the bar returned -a verdict of not guilty.<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">213</a> Sir William Jones was anxious -that no one should go away with the opinion that the -king’s evidence had been disproved. The Lord Chief -Justice supported him. He pointed out that Bedloe had -not been contradicted, and that every one who appeared -at the trial might speak the truth and the prisoner yet be -perfectly innocent.<a id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">214</a> What he did not say, and what -neither he nor many others thought, was that Bedloe -might equally be telling the grossest falsehoods.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III2">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">BEDLOE AND PRANCE</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> change in the situation had been caused by the -appearance of a witness whose evidence about the murder -was of the greatest weight, and whose position in the -intrigues of the Popish Plot has always been of some -obscurity. Bedloe’s information was already of a startling -character. It was as follows. Early in October he had -been offered by two Jesuits, Walsh and Le Fevre, the -sum of £4000 to assist in killing a man “that was a great -obstacle to their designs.” He gave his word that he -would do so, but when on Friday, October 11, Le Fevre -told him to be ready at four o’clock the next day to do -the business, he became nervous and failed to be at the -place of meeting. On Sunday he met Le Fevre by accident -in Fleet Street, and by appointment joined him -between 8 and 9 o’clock <span class="allsmcap">P.M.</span> the next day in the court of -Somerset House. Le Fevre told Bedloe that the man -whom he had been engaged to kill was dead and his corpse -lying in the building at that moment. Bedloe was taken -into a small room to see the body. Besides himself and -Le Fevre there were also present Walsh, the man who -called himself Atkins, a gentleman in the household of -Lord Bellasis, and a person whom he took to be one of -the attendants in the queen’s chapel. A cloth was thrown -off the body, and by the light of a dark lantern he recognised -the features of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. It was -agreed to carry the corpse to Clarendon House, and to -take it thence by coach to the fields at the foot of Primrose -Hill. Bedloe promised to return at eleven o’clock to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span> -assist, but went away intending to meddle with the business -no more. The next day he happened to meet Le Fevre -in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Le Fevre began to rebuke him -for breaking his word. Bedloe answered that he had been -unwilling to come because he had recognised the dead -man. Le Fevre bound him to secrecy and then proceeded -to tell him how the murder had been committed. Under -pretence of making a further discovery of the plot, the -two Jesuits and Lord Bellasis’ gentleman had persuaded -Godfrey to come into Somerset House with him. They -then set upon him and with two others dragged him into -a room in the corner of the court. A pistol was held to -his head and he was threatened with death unless he would -surrender the examinations which he had taken concerning -the plot. If they could obtain these, said Le Fevre, fresh -examinations would have to be taken, the originals could -then be produced, and the contradictions which would -certainly appear between the two would exonerate the -plotters and convict the informers of falsehood in the eyes -of the world. Godfrey refused, saying that he had sent -the papers to Whitehall. Upon this they seized him, -held a pillow over the face until he was nearly stifled, and -then strangled him with a long cravat. On Monday -night, after Bedloe had gone away, the murderers carried -the body out into the fields and placed it where it was -found with the sword run through it.<a id="FNanchor_215" href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">215</a></p> - -<p>Bedloe’s evidence varied greatly on points of detail. -The amount of the reward which he was offered varied -from two guineas to four thousand pounds; the time at -which Godfrey was killed from two o’clock to five; the -day on which his corpse was removed from Monday to -Wednesday. Sometimes he was stifled with one, at others -with two pillows. Once Bedloe said that the body was -placed in the room where the Duke of Albemarle lay in -state, while according to another statement it was hidden -in the queen’s chapel. When his evidence was heard in -court, a multitude of further alterations was introduced.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span> -In all the different versions of his story however there -appeared with but little variation the statement that -Godfrey had been murdered in Somerset House in the -course of the afternoon on Saturday, October 12, by the -means or at the direction of three Jesuits, Walsh, -Pritchard, and Le Fevre, and that on the night of the -following Monday he had seen the body lying in Somerset -House in the presence of these three, and of a man whom -he thought to be a waiter in the queen’s chapel.</p> - -<p>Of all those mentioned only one fish had been netted, -and it was certain that even he could not be brought to -land. At the trial of Atkins the Attorney-General -darkly hinted that had it not been for the conviction on -the previous day, the prisoner would have been indicted -as a principal in Godfrey’s murder, and would probably -have been condemned.<a id="FNanchor_216" href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">216</a> But it may be doubted that this -was more than a piece of bravado. The evidence of -Captain Atkins was worth nothing; that of Bedloe little -more. If the informers had expanded and defined their -information to an extent unparalleled even in the history -of the Popish Plot, where such things were not rare, it -would hardly have produced much effect. The evidence -produced for Atkins’ alibi was too strong to be seriously -shaken. By the middle of November the investigation -into the murder had thus come to a halt. Proclamations -were out for the rest of the men accused by Bedloe, but -there seemed to be every probability that they would -escape. If Atkins were brought to trial and acquitted, -consequences which would be serious to the policy of -the Whigs on the committees of secrecy might ensue. -Consequences almost as serious were to be expected in the -event of his being released without a trial. In either one -case or the other the failure to obtain a conviction for the -murder of Godfrey would be damaging to their cause. -They had staked much on the cards, and it seemed as if -the game was going against them. Unless fortune came -to their aid, the murder of which there had been so much<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[120]</span> -talk would go unpunished, and the sensation which it -created would die down.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the public mind was occupied on other -points. The trials of Staley, Coleman, and Ireland for -high treason filled the greater part of one excited month.<a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">217</a> -Almost till Christmas the great murder case made no -progress. Just then, when it must have seemed less than -likely after the lapse of eight weeks and after the only -hopeful trail had disappeared that any substantial advance -should be gained, an extraordinary incident occurred. -There was living in Covent Garden a Roman Catholic -silversmith, by name Miles Prance, who did a fair business -with those of his own religion and was occasionally -employed by the queen. He was a friend of the Jesuits -who had been imprisoned on account of the plot and, -being in liquor one day at a tavern, had declared loudly -“that they were very honest men.” Suspicion was -aroused, and on inquiry it was found that he had slept -away from his house for three nights about the time of -Godfrey’s disappearance. In point of fact this had been -before the date of the murder, and Prance’s subsequent -connection with the case was due to this initial mistake. -His landlord laid information, and on Saturday, December -21, Prance was arrested for being concerned in Godfrey’s -murder. He was taken into the lobby of the House of -Commons and was there waiting until the committee was -ready to examine him, when Bedloe happened to pass -through. His eye fell upon Prance and he cried out -without hesitation, “This is one of the rogues that I saw -with a dark lantern about the body of Sir Edmond Bury -Godfrey, but he was then in a periwig.”<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">218</a> Prance was -taken before the committee of the House of Lords and -strictly examined. He denied knowing Walsh, Pritchard,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[121]</span> -or Le Fevre. He denied that he was guilty of Sir -Edmund Godfrey’s death and that he had assisted in -removing his body. When he spoke of Fenwick and -Ireland in the coffee-house he was drunk. He had not -worn a periwig once in the last ten years, but he owned -one at home which had been made twelve months since -from his wife’s hair. He had not been to the queen’s -chapel at Somerset House once a month. After denying -that he had received money from Grove, he confessed that -Grove had paid him for some work. He first denied, -but afterwards admitted that he had hired a horse to ride -out of town. He had intended to leave London to -escape the oaths administered to Roman Catholics, but -had in the meantime been arrested.<a id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">219</a> Prance was committed -a close prisoner to Newgate, and was lodged in the -cell known as the condemned hole. There he remained -during the nights of December 21 and 22. On the -morning of Monday, December 23, he sent a message to -the committee of inquiry offering on the assurance of -pardon to confess. By order of the House of Lords the -Duke of Buckingham and other noblemen were sent to -Newgate with the promise of pardon and to take his -examination.<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">220</a> At the same time the Commons ordered -that the committee of secrecy or any three of them should -examine Prance in prison, and acquaint his fellow-prisoners -in Newgate with the king’s assurance of pardon -consequent on discoveries relating to the plot.<a id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">221</a> Prance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span> -confessed that he had been engaged in the murder and -had much information to give on the subject. He was -examined by the lords, and on the next day repeated his -deposition before the privy council. At the beginning -of October one Gerald, or Fitzgerald, an Irish priest -belonging to the household of the Venetian ambassador, -had approached him on the subject of putting out of the -way a man whose name was not divulged. About a week -later he learned that this was Sir Edmund Godfrey. Two -other men were also concerned in the matter. Green, a -cushion-layer in the chapel at Somerset House, and -Laurence Hill, servant to Dr. Gauden, the treasurer of the -queen’s chapel. They told him that Godfrey was to be -killed, “for that he was a great enemy to the queen or her -servants, and that he had used some Irishmen ill.” Lord -Bellasis, said Gerald, had promised a reward. Prance -consented to their proposals, the more readily because he -had a private grudge against the magistrate. During the -next week they watched for an opportunity to waylay -Godfrey, and on Saturday, October 12, “did dodge him -from his house that morning to all the places he went to -until he came to his death.”<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">222</a> The same day the king -ordered the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Ossory -to accompany Prance to Somerset House and examine -him on the spot where he said that the murder had taken -place. There he entered into a detailed account of the -crime. At about nine o’clock at night<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">223</a> Godfrey was -coming from St. Clement Danes down the Strand, followed -by Hill, Green, and Gerald. Hill walked on ahead, and -as Godfrey came opposite the water-gate of Somerset -House begged him to come into the court and put an -end to a quarrel between two men who were fighting. -The magistrate turned in through the wicket, with Hill,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span> -Green, and Gerald following them. Prance, who was waiting -inside, came to the gate to keep watch. The others -went down the court until they came to a bench in the -right-hand corner close to the stable-rails, where Berry, -the porter of Somerset House, and an Irishman, whose -name Prance did not know, were sitting. Green crept up -close behind, and when they had reached the bench threw -a large twisted handkerchief round Godfrey’s neck and -pulled it tight. The three other men set upon him and -dragged him down into the corner behind the bench. -Green knelt upon his chest and pounded it, and then -wrung his neck round until it was broken. This, said -Prance, Green had told him a quarter of an hour afterwards -when he came down from the gate to see what had -happened. The body was carried across the court, -through a door in the left-hand corner, from which a -flight of stairs led to a long gallery. From the gallery a -door opened on to a flight of eight steps, leading into -Hill’s lodgings. In a small room to the right of the -entrance the body was set on the floor, leaning against the -bed. There it remained for two days. On Monday night -at nine or ten o’clock the same men removed the corpse -to another part of Somerset House, “into some room -towards the garden.” As it lay there Prance was taken -by Hill to see it. He could not say if he had seen -Bedloe there, but Gerald and Green were present. -Thence twenty-four hours later the body was taken back, -first to a room near Hill’s lodging, and on Wednesday -evening to the same room in which it had been at first. -At midnight Hill procured a sedan chair, and Godfrey’s -corpse was put inside. Berry opened the gate of the -court, and Prance, Gerald, Green, and the Irishman -carried the chair as far as the new Grecian Church in -Soho. There Hill met them with a horse, upon which the -body was set. Sitting behind the body. Hill rode off in -company with Green and Gerald, and deposited it where -it was found, having first transfixed it with the sword.</p> - -<p>Having taken his examination, Monmouth and Ossory -bade Prance guide them to the places he had mentioned.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span> -Without hesitation he led the way to the bench, and described -with assurance the manner in which the murder had -been committed. Then he shewed the room in which the -body had first been laid, and conducted his examiners to -every spot of which he had spoken with unerring direction. -To this process there was one exception. Prance could not -find the room in which he said the corpse had been -placed on the night of Monday 14. The three passed -up and down, into the corner of the piazza, down a flight -of steps, up again, across the great court which lay towards -the river, into and out of several rooms, but without success. -The room could not be found. Finally Prance desisted -from the search, “saying that he had never been there but -that once, when Hill conveyed him thither with a dark -lantern, but that it was some chamber towards the garden.” -Monmouth and Ossory returned to the council-chamber -with the report of Prance’s examination, upon which the -council made a note, “that the said particulars were very -consonant to what he had spoken at the board in the -morning, before his going.”<a id="FNanchor_224" href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">224</a> The council sat again in the -afternoon. Green, Hill, and Berry were summoned. All -denied with emphasis the charges which Prance had made -against them, and denied that they knew Sir Edmund -Godfrey. Green and Hill admitted knowing Father -Gerald, and Green identified the Irishman mentioned by -Prance as a priest named Kelly. In one point Hill confirmed -Prance’s evidence. While they had been in his -lodgings that morning, Monmouth and Ossory had -examined Mrs. Broadstreet, the housekeeper of his master, -Dr. Gauden. She affirmed that Hill left the lodgings at -Michaelmas to move into a house of his own in Stanhope -Street. When Prance said she was mistaken, since Hill<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[125]</span> -had not left his rooms in Somerset House until a fortnight -after Michaelmas, Mrs. Broadstreet contradicted him -angrily. Hill now declared that in the middle of October -he had been busy making arrangements for the move; on -the day of Godfrey’s disappearance he was still occupied -with his landlord in drawing up terms of agreement, and -the agreement was not concluded until the Wednesday -following.<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">225</a></p> - -<p>In addition to his evidence about Godfrey’s murder, -Prance made a statement concerning the plot. Fenwick, -Ireland, and Grove, he said, had told him that “Lord Petre, -Lord Bellasis, the Earl of Powis, and Lord Arundell were -to command the army.” As more decisive evidence had -already been given against all these, his information was of -little consequence. He also desired to be set at liberty, -that he might be able to discover some persons connected -with the plot whose names were unknown to him. The -request was naturally refused, but Prance was removed -from the dungeon and Hill was confined there in his -place.<a id="FNanchor_226" href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">226</a> Within forty-eight hours from this time Prance -had recanted his whole story. On the evening of -Sunday, December 29, Captain Richardson, the keeper -of Newgate, received an order of council to bring Prance -before the Lords’ committee for examination. Prance -was in a state of great agitation and begged to be taken -to see the king. Charles received him in the presence -of Richardson and Chiffinch, his confidential valet. -Prance fell upon his knees and declared that the whole of -his evidence had been false, that he was innocent of the -murder, and the men whom he had accused as far as he knew -were innocent too. The next day he was taken before the -council and persisted that he knew no more of Godfrey’s -murder than was known to the world. He was asked if -any one had been tampering with him and answered, No. -Hardly had he been taken back to Newgate when he -begged Captain Richardson to return to the king and say -that all his evidence had been true, and his recantation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[126]</span> -false.<a id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">227</a> From this he again departed and reaffirmed his -recantation. He was heavily ironed and a second time -imprisoned in the condemned hole. Here he remained -until January 11, 1679, when to complete the cycle of -his contradictions he once more retracted his recantation -and declared that the whole of his original confession was -true.</p> - -<p>On February 10, 1679 Green, Berry, and Hill were -brought to the bar of the Court of King’s Bench to be -tried upon an indictment for the murder of Sir Edmund -Berry Godfrey. The prosecution began by evidence to -shew that for some days before his disappearance Godfrey -had been in a state of alarm. Oates swore that Godfrey -had complained to him of the treatment he had received -in consequence of having taken his deposition; on the one -hand those who wished to accelerate the discovery of the -plot had blamed him for not being sufficiently eager in its -prosecution; those, on the other, who were endangered -by Oates’ revelations had threatened the magistrate for the -action which he had taken. Godfrey told Oates that “he -went in fear of his life by the popish party, and that he -had been dogged several days.” The testimony of Oates -carries no greater weight on this than on any other occasion, -but he was supported by another and a more respectable -witness. Mr. Robinson, chief protonotary of the court -of common pleas, gave evidence of Godfrey’s disturbance -of mind. The two had met on October 7, and Robinson -questioned the magistrate about the depositions which he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[127]</span> -had taken. Godfrey replied that he wished that another -had been in his place, for he would have small thanks for -his pains; the bottom of the matter had not yet been -reached, he said; and then, turning to Robinson, exclaimed, -“Upon my conscience I believe I shall be the first martyr,”<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">228</a> -This was the prelude by which the evidence of Prance and -Bedloe was introduced. Bedloe retold the story to which -he had treated the council, the committee, and the House -of Lords. This time it differed in almost every point of -detail from the statements which he had previously made. -The Jesuits who tempted him into the murder had sent -him about a week before to effect an acquaintance with -Godfrey. There were several separate schemes on foot to -dispatch the justice. After seeing the body upon Monday -night he had gone away and never seen the murderers -again. The Jesuits told him that Godfrey had been -strangled, but how he did not know. His account of his -many interviews with Le Fevre were hopelessly at -variance with what he had said about them before.<a id="FNanchor_229" href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">229</a> But -as the rules of legal procedure did not admit as evidence -depositions and reports of testimony given elsewhere, it -was impossible to convict the witness of these alterations. -Bedloe’s evidence too shewed striking points of difference -from that of Prance, who preceded him, even after he had -toned it into better accord. The prisoners, excited and -ignorant, unused to sifting evidence and wholly unskilled -in examining witnesses, failed altogether to detect and -point out the discrepancies.</p> - -<p>The evidence given by Prance was, on the contrary, -remarkably consistent with the information which he had -furnished on other occasions. He went through all the -incidents which he had detailed first to the council and -then on the spot to the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl -of Ossory. He described each point with perfect decision -and answered the questions put to him without hesitation. -The only point on which he showed uncertainty was when -he was asked to describe the room in which the body lay -on the night of October 14. He said frankly, “I am<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[128]</span> -not certain of the room, and so cannot describe it.” In -one particular alone did a statement vary from his previous -evidence. He had told the council that on the morning -of the fatal Saturday Green had called at Godfrey’s house -and inquired if he was at home.<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">230</a> Now he said that he -could not be certain whether it was Green or Hill who -went to Hartshorn Lane.<a id="FNanchor_231" href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">231</a> His motive in altering the -distinct statement is not far to seek. Elizabeth Curtis, -who had been maid at Godfrey’s house, was called as a -witness. She testified that on the morning of October 12 -Hill came to see her master and had conversation with him -for several minutes. He wore the same clothes, she said, -in which he appeared in court; and Hill admitted that he -had been dressed in the same way on that day. Green -had come to Hartshorn Lane about a fortnight before to -ask for Godfrey, but on the date of his disappearance Hill -was there alone.<a id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">232</a> The suspicion is difficult to stifle that -Prance had some knowledge of the evidence which the -maid would give, and altered his own in order not to -contradict it. When he afterwards published his <i>True -Narrative and Discovery of several Remarkable Passages -relating to the Horrid Popish Plot</i>, he simply stated in -accordance with the evidence of Curtis that it was Hill -who spoke with Godfrey on that morning.<a id="FNanchor_233" href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">233</a> In some other -points Prance’s evidence was supported by independent -witnesses. He had spoken of meetings held by Gerald, -Kelly, the prisoners, and himself at a tavern with the sign -of the Plow, where he was enticed to be a party to the -murder. The fact that they were frequenters of the Plow -was proved by the landlord of the inn and his servant.<a id="FNanchor_234" href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">234</a> -About a fortnight after the murder Prance had entertained -a small party at the Queen’s Head Inn at Bow. Gerald -was there, and a priest named Leweson, and one Mr. -Vernatt, who was described as being in service to Lord -Bellasis. They were joined by a friend of Vernatt, named -Dethick, and dined on flounders and a barrel of oysters.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[129]</span> -According to Prance’s statement Vernatt should have been -present at the murder, but as he had been prevented, Gerald -furnished the company with an account of the manner in -which it had been accomplished. While the talk ran -thus, Prance heard a noise outside the door. Opening -it suddenly, he caught the drawer eavesdropping and sent -him off with threats of a kicking.<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">235</a> This was confirmed -by the evidence of the drawer. He had listened at the -door and heard Godfrey’s name mentioned, and one of the -party had threatened to kick him downstairs.<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">236</a> Several -important witnesses were called for the defence. Mary -Tilden, the niece of Dr. Gauden, and his housekeeper, -Mrs. Broadstreet, gave evidence that Hill was at home on -the evening of the murder and the following nights, when -he was accused of being busy with the body, and that the -corpse was never brought to their lodgings. The judges -continually bullied and sneered at the witnesses. The -room in which Prance said the body was laid was described -by Sir Robert Southwell as “an extraordinary little place.” -Mrs. Broadstreet said that it was impossible for a corpse -to be placed there without their knowledge. On this Mr. -Justice Wild told her that it was very suspicious, and -Dolben remarked, “It is well you are not indicted.” -The hostile attitude of the court was not mollified when -it appeared that there was some confusion in the evidence -of both witnesses. Mary Tilden stated that during the -time when they were in town she had never been out of -the lodgings after eight o’clock in the evening. “When -were you out of town?” asked Mr. Justice Jones. “In -October,” the witness answered. The judge pointed out -that October was just the month in question. Mistress -Tilden said that she had made a mistake; she had meant -to say that they were out of town in September. She said -too that there was only one key to the door of the -lodgings; but Prance declared, and was not contradicted, -that in her examination before the Duke of Monmouth, -Mrs. Broadstreet had admitted that there were several.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[130]</span> -The latter made the mistake of saying that Hill occupied -the rooms until a fortnight after Michaelmas, whereas she -had before sworn, as Sir Robert Southwell testified, that -he left them in the first week in October.<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">237</a> The workman -who had been employed at Hill’s new house in Stanhope -Street proved that he had been in Hill’s company from -nine to two in the afternoon of Saturday, October 12, and -a neighbour that Hill had been at his house from five to -seven o’clock on the same evening.<a id="FNanchor_238" href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">238</a> Green called for his -defence his maid, his landlord, and the landlord’s wife. -The maid testified that Green was always at home before -nine o’clock at night; James Warrier and his wife that -he was within doors in their company till after ten o’clock -on the night of October 12. Mrs. Warrier however -made the mistake of saying that this was a fortnight after -Michaelmas day, which it was not, and so raised a doubt -that the evidence was directed to a time a week later than -the date in question.<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">239</a> The most weighty evidence for the -defence was produced by Berry in the persons of the -sentries who had kept guard at the gate of Somerset -House on the night of Wednesday, October 16. On that -night Prance swore that Berry had opened the gate to let -the sedan chair containing Godfrey’s corpse pass out. -From seven to ten o’clock Nicholas Trollop had kept -guard, Nicholas Wright from ten to one, from one to four -Gabriel Hasket. During the first watch a chair had been -carried into Somerset House, but all three men were -confident that none had been carried out. They were -equally positive that at no time had they left the beat to -drink at Berry’s house or with any one else. If the gate -had been opened and a sedan taken through, it would -certainly have been seen by the soldier on duty. Berry’s -maid also testified that her master had come in that evening -at dusk and had remained at home until he went to bed at -midnight.<a id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">240</a> The only part of the evidence for the prisoners -to which the Lord Chief Justice devoted attention in his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[131]</span> -summing up was the testimony of the sentries. He remarked -to the jury that it was a dark night and that the soldier -might not have seen the gate opened, or, having seen, might -have forgotten, Scroggs went over the evidence of Bedloe -briefly and of Prance at length, and delivered a harangue -on the horrors of the Plot, of which Godfrey’s murder, he -said, was “a monstrous evidence.” After a short deliberation -the jury returned a verdict of guilty against all the -prisoners. The Chief Justice declared if it were the last -word he had to speak in this world he should have pronounced -the same verdict, and the spectators in court met -his announcement with a shout of applause.<a id="FNanchor_241" href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">241</a></p> - -<p>On February 11 Green, Berry, and Hill came up to -receive sentence, and ten days later Green and Hill were -hanged at Tyburn, denying their guilt to the last. Berry, -who was distinguished from them by being a Protestant, -was granted a week’s respite. To the indignation of -Protestant politicians he made no confession, and when he -was executed on February 28, declaring his innocence to -the end, a rumour was spread that the court party had -gained him to a false conversion in order to give the -Roman Catholics the chance of saying that he at least -could not have lied in hope of salvation.<a id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">242</a> It was afterwards -remembered that by an extraordinary coincidence -Primrose Hill, at the foot of which Godfrey’s body was -found, had in former days borne the name of Greenberry -Hill.<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">243</a></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[132]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV2">CHAPTER IV</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">PRANCE AND BEDLOE</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">At</span> this point the atmosphere begins somewhat to clear. -Two trials have been discussed, and the result is seen that -the two chief witnesses at them were guilty of wilful perjury. -Bedloe contradicted himself beyond belief. Although it -was by no means clear at the time, the men convicted upon -the evidence of Prance were certainly innocent. This has -since been universally recognised. Yet the verdict against -them was not perverse, and small blame attaches to the -judges and jury who acted on the evidence of Prance. -For all they knew he was speaking the truth. The -witnesses for the defence were uncertain in points of time -to which they spoke, and Prance was to a certain extent -corroborated by independent evidence. On the case which -came into court the conviction was certainly justifiable. -It is now possible to see that the verdict was wrong. -The motive which Prance alleged for the crime was weak -in the extreme, and his subsequent conduct supports the -fact of his perjury. Although an absolute alibi was not -proved for any of the accused at the time of the murder, -a considerable body of evidence came near the point, and -an alibi was proved both for Green and for Hill at the -time when Prance stated that each was engaged in dogging -Sir Edmund Godfrey to his death. The sentries proved -that the body had not been removed in the manner which -Prance described. The evidence of the inmates of Hill’s -house proved that it had not been placed where Prance -affirmed. Green, Berry, and Hill were wrongfully put to -death.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[133]</span></p> - -<p>From this point it is necessary to start upon the pursuit -of the truth, and before starting it is well to take a view -of the situation. Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey disappeared -on Saturday, October 12. Five days later his body was -found in a field near Primrose Hill. He had been -murdered, and the crime was committed for some motive -which was not that of robbery. He was murdered moreover -not where his corpse was found, but in some other -place from which it had afterwards been conveyed thither. -Whoever was the criminal had placed the body in such a -way that those who found it might attribute the magistrate’s -death to suicide. Two witnesses appeared to give evidence -to the fact of the murder. These two were the only men -who ever professed to have direct knowledge on the subject. -They both accused innocent men, told elaborate falsehoods, -and contradicted one another. Their stories were so unlike, -and yet had so much in common, that the fact must -be explained by supposing either that there was some truth -in what they said, or that one swore falsely to support the -perjury of the other. The relation between the two is the -point to which attention must be devoted in order to trace -the interaction of their motives and to determine whether -both or neither or one and not the other knew anything -about the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey.</p> - -<p>Nearly eight years after these events, in the second -year of the reign of King James the Second, Miles Prance -pleaded guilty to an indictment of wilful perjury for having -sworn falsely at the trial of Green, Berry, and Hill.<a id="FNanchor_244" href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">244</a> Later, -when L’Estrange was writing his work on <i>The Mystery -of Sir E. B. Godfrey Unfolded</i>, Prance sent to him an -account of the manner in which his evidence had been -procured. He was, he said, wholly innocent and wholly -ignorant of the murder. Before his arrest he knew no -more of Godfrey, Bedloe, or any one else concerned than -was known to the world at large. His arrest took place -upon Saturday, December 21. During the nights of -Saturday and Sunday he lay in irons in the dungeon in -Newgate. Early on the Sunday morning he was disturbed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[134]</span> -by the entrance of a man, who, as Prance declared, laid a -sheet of paper beside him and went out. Soon after -another entered, set down a candle, and went out. By -the light of the candle Prance read the paper; “wherein,” -says L’Estrange, “he found the substance of these following -minutes. So many Popish lords to be mentioned by -name; fifty thousand men to be raised; commissions -given out; officers appointed. Ireland was acquainted -with the design; and Bedloe’s evidence against Godfrey -was summed up and abstracted in it too. There were -suggestions in it that Prance must undoubtedly be privy -to the plot, with words to this purpose, you had better -confess than be hanged.” In the evening of the same day -he was taken to Shaftesbury’s house and examined by the -earl. The Whig leader threatened him with hanging if -he would not confess and acquiesce in what had been -suggested to him in the paper. He could resist no -longer, he said, “and so framed a pretended discovery in -part, with a promise to speak out more at large if he might -have his pardon.” A paper containing this was given him -to sign, and he was sent back to Newgate, where he made -a formal confession the next day. Clearly, thought Prance, -the men who came into his cell, and left instructions for -the evidence which he was to give and a light by which -to read them, had acted under orders from Shaftesbury.<a id="FNanchor_245" href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">245</a> -This is what Prance and L’Estrange had to say about this -first confession. Before examining it further it will be -proper to consider Prance’s condition between that time -and the date when after numerous manœuvres he finally -returned to it. On December 30 he appeared before the -council and recanted his confession. For nine days there -seems to have been no development. Prance lay in the -dungeon and adhered to his last statement. But on -January 8 Captain Richardson, the keeper of Newgate, -and his servant, Charles Cooper, appeared before a committee -of the privy council with information that Prance -was feigning madness. When he was fettered he behaved -the more sensibly. It was ordered accordingly that he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[135]</span> -should be kept in irons and that Dr. Lloyd, the Dean of -Bangor, should be asked to visit and converse with him.<a id="FNanchor_246" href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">246</a> -On January 10 a similar order was given for the admittance -of William Boyce, an old friend of Prance, to be with him -in prison. Cooper passed two nights with the prisoner. -His sleep was irregular, and he spent long periods raving -and crying out that “it was not he murdered him, but -they killed him.” In spite of his wild talk Prance seemed -to behave rather as if he wished to be thought mad than -as if he actually were so; he ate heartily, used a bed and -blankets which had been given him, and adjusted his dress -with care.<a id="FNanchor_247" href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">247</a> Boyce also visited him, and found him sometimes -reasonable, at others apparently out of his senses. -Once he found him lying at full length on the boards of -his cell and crying, “Guilty, guilty; not guilty, not guilty; -no murder”; but when he first went to the prison Prance -met him quietly and said, “Here am I in prison, and I -am like to be hanged. I am falsely accused.” Shaftesbury’s -threats had terrified him for the safety of his life, -but he was anxious to learn that Green, Berry, and Hill -had not been set at liberty, and in a conversation of January -11 told Boyce “that he would confess all if he were sure -of his pardon.”<a id="FNanchor_248" href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">248</a> On Friday, January 10, Dr. Lloyd -visited Newgate and found Prance in a very wretched -condition. The weather was intensely cold, and the -prisoner suffered severely from it, despite the covering -with which he had been provided. He was very weak -and denied his guilt sullenly, but after a time begged -Lloyd to come again the next day, when he would tell -everything that he knew.<a id="FNanchor_249" href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">249</a> Accordingly on the evening -of January 11 the dean returned, and Prance was brought -to him by the hall fire. For some time he remained -stupefied by the cold; he was without a pulse and seemed -almost dead; but after warming himself at the fire threw<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[136]</span> -off the lethargy and conversed with Lloyd briskly and -with freedom. The dean reported to the council: “He -appeared very well composed and in good humour, saying -that he had confessed honestly before, and had not wronged -any of those he had accused.” He proceeded further to -tell of a plot to murder the Earl of Shaftesbury, and said -that a servant of Lord Arundel, one Messenger, had -undertaken to kill the king. Lloyd warned him to be -careful of speaking the truth; Prance protested that he -would do nothing else. When he had finished his confession -he asked to be lodged in a warmer room and to -have the irons knocked off.<a id="FNanchor_250" href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">250</a> From that time onward he -remained steadfast to his first confession. Writing many -years later, when everybody connected with the Plot had -fallen into discredit and Prance had pleaded guilty to the -charge of perjury, Lloyd assured L’Estrange that he had -never believed the informer’s evidence. In this he was -deceived by his after opinions, for at the time he told -Burnet that it was impossible for him to doubt Prance’s -sincerity.<a id="FNanchor_251" href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">251</a> Lloyd did not escape the calumny which -pursued every one who refused to be an uncompromising -supporter of all the evidence offered in the investigation -of the Plot. He expressed himself doubtful as to the -guilt of Berry and thought that Prance might have made -a mistake of identity. It was immediately said that Berry -had made horrible confessions to him, and that he had -been pressed at court not to divulge them.<a id="FNanchor_252" href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">252</a></p> - -<p>Prison life in the seventeenth century was hard. -Prisoners were treated in a way that would now be considered -shameful, and Prance did not escape his share of -ill-treatment. He was kept in the cell reserved for felons -and murderers. According to the general practice he was -heavily ironed. Until his life was thought in danger he -had nothing but the boards on which to lie. The greatest -hardship arose from the cold, against which there was no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[137]</span> -real provision. But there is no evidence that Prance -more hardly used than his fellow gaol-birds. A detestable -attempt was afterwards made to prove that he had -been tortured in prison to extract confessions from him. -In the course of the year 1680 Mrs. Cellier, the Roman -Catholic midwife of otherwise dubious reputation, published -a pamphlet entitled “Malice Defeated; or a Brief -Relation of the Accusation and Deliverance of Elizabeth -Cellier.” The work was an attack upon the prosecutors -of the Popish Plot, conducted with all the coarse weapons -of seventeenth-century controversy. Incidentally she -called the crown witnesses “hangman’s hounds for weekly -pensions.” On September 11 she was indicted for a -malicious libel and tried before Baron Weston and the -Lord Mayor. The libel lay in her open declaration that -Prance was put on the rack in Newgate and that Francis -Corral, who had been imprisoned on suspicion of complicity -in Godfrey’s murder, was subjected to intolerably -ill treatment and active torture in Newgate in order to -make him confess his guilt.<a id="FNanchor_253" href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">253</a> The charges which Mrs. -Cellier made were not only outrageous but ridiculous, -and were so improbable as not to deserve detailed discussion. -Witnesses were called for the prosecution who -proved their complete falsity, and Mrs. Cellier’s counsel -virtually threw up his brief. Not only did the keeper of -Newgate deny everything in the publication relating to -himself, but the parties who had been mentioned in it -were summoned as witnesses and gave decisive evidence. -Prance denied the whole story and, what was of greater -value than his word, made the pertinent remark that, had -he been used in such a way as Mrs. Cellier suggested, -Dr. Lloyd must certainly have known about it. The -man Corral had been kept out of court by the defence, -but he had already denied all Mrs. Cellier’s allegations in -a deposition made before the Lord Mayor. His wife -had made a similar deposition and, being now called as a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[138]</span>witness, wholly refused to support the statements of the -accused. Her husband had been treated hardly, as were -all prisoners, but Mrs. Cellier’s charges of torture and -brutality were false. She had been allowed to see her -husband occasionally and to send him food constantly, -and he had been given a charcoal fire in his cell to protect -him from the cold weather. Mrs. Cellier had offered to -support them both, apparently on the understanding that -they should acquiesce in what she had said.<a id="FNanchor_254" href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">254</a> Another -important witness proved the falsehood of many statements -made in the publication, and after a lengthy -summing up of the evidence by Baron Weston the jury -without difficulty returned a verdict of guilty against the -prisoner. Mrs. Cellier was sentenced to stand three -times on the pillory, to a fine of a thousand pounds, -and to imprisonment until the fine was paid.<a id="FNanchor_255" href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">255</a> Eight -years later the same charges were repeated by Sir Roger -L’Estrange and were supported by Prance, to whose -objects this line of conduct was now better suited. The -evidence which L’Estrange collected was exactly similar -to that which Mrs. Cellier had obtained, and equally -worthless. Not only the result of the trial, but the -essential improbability of the facts alleged makes it -certain that these allegations were absolutely devoid of -truth.<a id="FNanchor_256" href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">256</a> Dr. Lloyd, who was well acquainted with the -hard treatment accorded to Prance, saw no evidence that -it exceeded the common practice of the prison, and disbelieved -the gruesome stories which were industriously -spread abroad.<a id="FNanchor_257" href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">257</a></p> - -<p>Whether or no Prance was subjected to illegitimate<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[139]</span> -and illegal pressure after his recantation in order to secure -his adherence to the earlier confession is a question of -less importance than how that confession was obtained. -Prance’s subsequent account has already been given. It -remains to be considered whether that was true or false. -Apart from the rest of the evidence produced at the trials -of the Popish Plot, that of Prance exhibited one remarkable -peculiarity. All the other witnesses altered and -rearranged their stories with constant facility to suit the -conditions in which they found themselves at any moment. -Among this rout of shifting informations the evidence of -Prance offers an exception to the rule of self-contradiction. -In all but a few particulars it remained constant. Other -witnesses invariably put out feelers to try in what direction -they had best develop their tales. The methods of Oates, -Atkins, and Bedloe are notorious instances of this. Prance -produced the flower of his full-blown. Its bouquet was -as strong when it first met the air as at any later time. -The evidence which he gave to Godfrey’s murder in his -first confession was as decisive and consistent in form -as after constant repetition, recantation, and renewed -asseverance. Almost all the other witnesses at their first -appearance told stories which were loose, haphazard, -inconsequent. Prance’s story was from the beginning -minute and elaborate. He spoke of places in great detail -and afterwards pointed them out. He gave a coherent -account of what had happened at each spot. On these -points he did not contradict himself. The evidence -which he proceeded to give about the Plot in general -throws his account of Godfrey’s death into high relief. -His later information was exactly similar in character to -that offered by all the other witnesses. It was vague and -incoherent and full of absurdities. The contrast to the -elaboration and detail of his previous evidence is striking.</p> - -<p>Compared with Bedloe’s account of the murder the -testimony of Prance shows another noteworthy feature. -The evidence of the two men hardly covers the same -ground at all. In almost every particular it offers remarkable -points of difference. Up to the date of October<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[140]</span> -12 the two stories run in different lines altogether. According -to Prance two priests, named Gerald and Kelly, -had, by means of menace and abstract arguments, induced -him to join with them and four others, Green, Hill, Berry, -and Vernatt, in the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, -on the score that “he was a busy man and going about to -ruin all the Catholics in England.”<a id="FNanchor_258" href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">258</a> One Leweson, a -priest, was also to have a hand in the business. Bedloe’s -tale on the contrary was that Le Fevre, Pritchard, Keynes, -and Walsh, four Jesuits, had employed him to effect an -introduction to Godfrey for them. Le Fevre afterwards -offered him £4000, to be paid by Lord Bellasis through -Coleman, if he would undertake to kill “a very material -man” in order to obtain some incriminating papers in his -possession, without which “the business would be so -obstructed and go near to be discovered” that the great -Plot would come to grief.<a id="FNanchor_259" href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">259</a> At this point the stories begin -to converge, and at the same time retain strikingly different -features. Prance’s account ran that on October 12 Gerald, -Green, and Hill decoyed Godfrey as he came down the -Strand from St. Clement’s into Somerset House at about -9 o’clock in the evening under pretence of a quarrel. -Green, Gerald, Hill, and Kelly then attacked him. Green -strangled him with a twisted handkerchief, knelt with all -his force upon his chest and “wrung his neck round,” -while Berry and Prance kept watch.<a id="FNanchor_260" href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">260</a> On the nights of -Saturday and Sunday the body was left in Hill’s lodgings -in Somerset House, and on Monday was removed to -another room across the court. There Hill shewed it to -Prance by the light of a dark lantern at past 10 o’clock at -night: “Gerald and Hill and Kelly and all were there.”<a id="FNanchor_261" href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">261</a> -Prance had no knowledge of seeing Bedloe in the room. -At midnight on Wednesday, October 16, the corpse was -placed in a sedan chair and carried, as Prance said, by -Gerald, Green, Kelly, and himself as far as Soho Church. -Hill met them there with a horse, on which he put the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[141]</span> -body and rode with it to Primrose Hill.<a id="FNanchor_262" href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">262</a> Bedloe’s finished -account gave a picture very unlike this. He stated that -on Monday, October 14, between 9 and 10 o’clock <span class="allsmcap">P.M.</span> -Le Fevre took him to a room in Somerset House and -showed him the body of the murdered man lying under a -cloak. He recognised the body to be that of Sir Edmund -Godfrey. Besides Le Fevre he only saw in the room -Walsh, a servant of Lord Bellasis, the supposed Atkins, -and another man whom he had often seen in the chapel -and afterwards recognised as Prance.<a id="FNanchor_263" href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">263</a> The next day Le -Fevre described the murder to him in detail. Before 5 -o’clock in the afternoon of October 12 Le Fevre, Walsh, -and Lord Bellasis’ gentleman had brought Godfrey from -the King’s Head Inn in the Strand to Somerset House -under the pretext of taking him to capture some conspirators -near St. Clement’s Church. They took him into -a room and, holding a pistol to his head, demanded the -informations which he had taken. On his refusal they -stifled him with a pillow and then strangled him with his -cravat.<a id="FNanchor_264" href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">264</a> On Monday night the murderers agreed with -Bedloe “to carry the body in a chair to the corner of -Clarendon House, and there to put him in a coach to -carry him to the place where he was found.”<a id="FNanchor_265" href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">265</a> Two -accounts of the same facts could hardly be imagined to -differ more from one another than the stories of Prance -and Bedloe. To state the matter briefly, Bedloe swore -that Godfrey was murdered in one place, at one time, in -one manner, for one motive, by one set of men; Prance -swore that he was murdered in another place, at another -time, in another manner, for another motive, by another -set of men. Both Prance and Bedloe swore that they had -seen the body of Sir Edmund Godfrey at nearly the same -time in a room in Somerset House on the night of Monday, -October 14, but Prance swore only to the presence of the -men whom he had named as the murderers, while Bedloe -swore only to the presence of the men whom he had named,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[142]</span> -with the addition of “the other person he saw often in the -chapel,” whom he afterwards recognised to be Prance.</p> - -<p>What then becomes of Prance’s statement that the -only source of his information was the paper introduced -into his cell on the morning of December 22, and containing -the substance of Bedloe’s evidence? He professed that -it was solely from this that his elaborate confession of -December 23 and 24 was drawn, and that it was arranged -not only by the connivance, but absolutely at the direction -of the Earl of Shaftesbury. Nor was this all. He told -L’Estrange further that after he had been forced to retract -his recantation his friend Boyce had acted as agent of -Bedloe and Shaftesbury in bringing his evidence into line -with that of Bedloe. On one point he refused to yield; -he would not own that he had worn the periwig of which -Bedloe had spoken; but for the rest, according to his own -account, he made no difficulty.<a id="FNanchor_266" href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">266</a> The story is glaringly -inconsistent with the facts. So far from agreeing first or -last with Bedloe, Prance contradicted him in almost every -possible point. If it was true that, as he said, he was -wholly ignorant of the murder and concocted his confession -from minutes of Bedloe’s evidence which were given to -him, the confession would have worn a very different -colour. His only object was to save his neck and get out -of Newgate. He would certainly have taken the material -with which he was provided, and have simply repeated -Bedloe’s tale with so much alteration as was necessary to -make himself a partner in the murder. He had no motive -to do anything else. Even alone he could hardly have -missed the point, and by his own statement did not. -Under the astute guidance of Shaftesbury there could be -no possible danger of bungling. Instead of this being the -case he acted in a fashion which, if he spoke the truth, -would have been inconceivable. Not only did he not tell -the same story as that which he professed was his only -guide, but he told a tale so entirely different that neither -Bedloe’s name nor the name of a single man given by -Bedloe was mentioned in it at all. The idea of collusion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[143]</span> -between the informers in this way must be discarded. It -is impossible that it should be true.</p> - -<p>The story was adorned with another flourish which -Prance did not himself venture to adopt. On his arrest -he was met by Bedloe in the lobby of the House of -Commons and there charged by him with complicity in -the murder. L’Estrange declared that Bedloe had first -made inquiries about him and had seized the opportunity -to take a good view of him under the guidance of Sir -William Waller.<a id="FNanchor_267" href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">267</a> But it would be little good to Bedloe -to act in this way in accusing a man who might for all he -knew refuse to give evidence, or give evidence which -would not corroborate his own. The more definitely he -accused Prance, the more difficult would be his own -position if Prance should not support him. He must -certainly have assured himself beforehand that Prance -would make a good witness. Assurance might have been -gained either by arranging that Prance should be informed -of what was expected before his arrest, or by -the knowledge that Shaftesbury would see to the matter -afterwards. Both conjectures are in the same case. The -latter has been shewn to be wide of the mark. For the -same reasons the former must be thought equally inaccurate. -Further than this the comparison between the -evidence of Prance and Bedloe shows conclusively that -the two did not arrange beforehand to give false evidence -about the murder. Perjurers may be as stupid as other -men, and an awkward muddle might have ensued; but -two men arranging a profitable piece of perjury would -hardly be at the pains to contradict each other’s evidence -in every particular. Also, between the date of Bedloe’s -first information and Prance’s confession there intervened -a period of seven long weeks. If there had been previous -collusion between the two. Prance would have come -forward far sooner than four days before Christmas.</p> - -<p>Out of the total number of possible hypotheses which -may be advanced to account for the relation between -Prance and Bedloe two are thus disposed of. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[144]</span> -witnesses did not arrange together to give evidence of -Godfrey’s murder. Nor was Prance furnished with the -information which he was wanted to give and then subjected -to such pressure that he was compelled to acquiesce -in it. What then are the remaining explanations which -may be put forward? The notion that Bedloe, on seeing -Prance in custody on December 21, proceeded to denounce -him at a venture in the bare hope of getting some support -from him may be dismissed briefly. It would in any one -have been a mad action to expose himself to the risk that -Prance could prove an alibi, but for Bedloe to take such -a course would have been more than improbable. When -at a former date he accused Atkins of complicity in the -murder, he used the greatest caution to obviate this risk. -Until he knew whether or no Atkins could prove an alibi -he would make no positive charge at all. The fact that -his caution was justified would only make him more careful -to avoid being caught in a trap similar to that which -he had only just avoided. A more probable supposition -is that Bedloe had made sufficient inquiries to be sure that -Prance could not prove an alibi, and then denounced him, -as if on the spur of the moment. This is a theory which -has likelihood in its favour and deserves to be well weighed. -Bedloe, it is supposed, had given entirely false information -about the murder. After his failure to secure the conviction -of Atkins he was compelled to turn in another -direction. Looking round, his eye fell upon Prance as a -suitable tool. He made careful inquiries as to his opportunity -and ability to bear false witness, found that Prance -would be unable to make out an alibi, and denounced him -dramatically at Westminster. Prance was clapped into -prison and, without having any notes of Bedloe’s evidence -given him, was so terrified by the two nights which he spent -in the dungeon in Newgate that he concocted a false story -and then made confession of it. There is certainly something -to be said in favour of this view. It was common -talk that Godfrey had been murdered in Somerset House, -and Bedloe was well known to have said as much. Prance -was well acquainted with the place and the people belonging<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[145]</span> -to it. He had at least as fair a chance as another of -making a plausible account of the murder. He was in -considerable danger and in great discomfort. He had -already lost his liberty and bade fair to lose his life for -speaking the truth. It was natural enough that he should -renounce his honesty and spin a tale to save his skin. He -could make use of knowledge which would render it unlikely -that he should be caught tripping. He had heard -Bedloe say that he saw him on the Monday night standing -by the body with a dark lantern, so that he could place -this incident in his story without hesitation. The publicity -of the manner of Godfrey’s death would enable him to -speak with equal certainty as to the actual murder.</p> - -<p>Here is a plausible enough theory of the relation -between the witnesses and the manner in which Prance’s -evidence was procured. Unfortunately there are considerable -difficulties in the way of its acceptance. If Prance was -enabled by the words which he heard Bedloe speak to -place the incident of October 14 in his narrative, he was -also enabled to make a connection with Bedloe himself -at that point. As according to the hypothesis this was his -only knowledge of the details of Bedloe’s information, he -would have been eager to make the most of it. It would -have been the first point for him to clutch. On the contrary, -Prance did nothing of the kind. He did not mention -Bedloe’s name at all. The question why he did not is, if -this theory be true, unanswerable. Bedloe too went to the -trouble of spending four valuable weeks in his search for -a suitable instrument to bear out his story. If that was -the case it is surely strange that he should not have attempted -to make certain that the man whom he obtained -at last should be more or less acquainted with the tale -which he was to corroborate. To do this after the arrest -would probably be very difficult, but as a previous step -it would be by no means so hard. Oates and Bedloe had -many disreputable friends, by profession Roman Catholics, -who could have easily effected an introduction to Prance -and have held conversation the meaning of which would -after his arrest be plain. Instead of this Bedloe on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[146]</span> -hypothesis preferred to run the risk of having his whole -story contradicted. These are objections of weight; but -a still greater lies in the nature of the evidence which -Prance gave on his confession. He had been in a very -cold dungeon for thirty-six hours at most, from the -evening of December 21 to the morning of December 23. -If he was unprepared for Bedloe’s charge, his mind must -have been in a turmoil of conflicting emotions. Yet within -this time he evolved a story so detailed, elaborate, connected, -and consistent that he never afterwards found the need to -alter it materially. For such a task phenomenal powers of -memory, imagination, and coolness would be demanded. A -man of Prance’s station, suddenly thrown into a horrible -prison on a false charge, cannot be supposed to have been -endowed with such a wealth of mental equipment. If he -had possessed a tithe of the powers which in this case -would have been necessary, he would have made sure of -cementing a firm connection in his narrative between -himself and Bedloe.</p> - -<p>This consideration then has reached the result that the -relation between the two men is not only inexplicable on -the theory just discussed, but that it is inexplicable except -upon the ground that there was more in Prance’s evidence -than a work of mere fancy. Within the space of thirty-six -hours, and with every condition adverse to clear and -connected thought, he could not have produced the evidence -which he gave on December 23 and 24 unless it had been -based upon some reality in fact. On December 24 he -was taken to all the places of which he had spoken, and -went to each, describing the transaction on the spot in a -manner perfectly consonant with what he had said under -examination elsewhere. The consistence of his story, its -readiness, the minuteness of its detail point to the certainty -that he was speaking, not of incidents manufactured to -order, but of facts within his knowledge. Prance was in -fact a party to the murder.<a id="FNanchor_268" href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">268</a> From this it is a sure deduction<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[147]</span> -that when Bedloe denounced him in the lobby of the -House of Commons he was not, as L’Estrange asserted, -making a move in a game which had been arranged -beforehand, but had on the contrary really recognised the -man and on the instant made an accusation not wholly -devoid of truth. Bedloe too must therefore have known -something about the murder. It would be an unbelievable -coincidence that, if Bedloe were wholly ignorant, he should -chance to choose, out of all London, one of the few who -were not.</p> - -<p>It now becomes evident what part of Prance’s evidence -was true and what false. The three men whose conviction -for the murder he procured were certainly innocent. -Almost with equal certainty it can be said that he was not -speaking at random. The truth of what he affirmed lay -therefore in the facts and the manner of the transaction -which he described. The murder had taken place at -Somerset House in the way which he related, but he -fastened the crime upon men who were guiltless of -Godfrey’s death. The extent of Bedloe’s information -also can be calculated. On every point of time and place -he had prevaricated and contradicted himself beyond -measure. On none of these is his testimony of the -slightest value. Nevertheless he was possessed of enough -knowledge to accuse definitely a man who was actively -concerned in the crime and could relate the facts as they -happened. Clearly he had become acquainted with the -persons who were guilty of the murder. The probability -then is that those whose names he first gave directly were -the culprits. Prance he did not know by name, but by -sight alone. From the beginning he had always spoken -of “the waiter in the queen’s chapel,” or of the man whom -“he saw often in the chapel.” If this had been a chance -shot, he would afterwards have identified this man with -Green, who actually answered to the description. Instead -of this he recognised him in the person of Prance. As he -only mentioned the fact incidentally and did not insist -upon it as a circumstance in his favour, his word on the -point is the more deserving of credit. If Prance himself<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[148]</span> -was a party to the murder he must have known the real -authors of it. He must have accused the innocent not -from necessity but from choice, and in order to conceal -the guilty. As he was expected and supposed to corroborate -Bedloe’s evidence, his most natural course was -to introduce into his story all those whom Bedloe had -named. He carefully avoided mentioning any of them. -No other reason is conceivable except that he knew -Bedloe to have exposed the real murderers, and that he -wished to shield them. What then was the motive of the -crime, and how did this extraordinary complication arise?</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[149]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V2">CHAPTER V</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">THE SECRET</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey</span> was an intimate friend of -Edward Coleman, secretary to the Duchess of York. At -the time of the murder Coleman lay in Newgate under an -accusation of treason, and had so lain for a fortnight. He -was therefore never examined on the subject of his friend’s -death. The omission was unfortunate, for Coleman could -probably have thrown some light upon the nature of the -magistrate’s end.<a id="FNanchor_269" href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">269</a> It was constantly said, and the statement -has often been repeated, that when Oates left a copy -of his information with Godfrey on September 27, Godfrey -at once wrote to Coleman an account of the charges -contained in it to give the Duke of York warning of the -coming storm.<a id="FNanchor_270" href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">270</a> The story was extensively used by those -who wished to prove that Godfrey had been murdered by -the supporters of the Plot, or that he had committed -suicide from fear of a parliamentary inquiry into his -conduct. He had not only this reason for fear, urged -L’Estrange, but he had concealed the fact of Oates’ discovery -to him for nearly a whole month; this was the -meaning of Godfrey’s enigmatical expressions of apprehension, -and his fear, combined with constitutional melancholy, -drove him to take his own life.<a id="FNanchor_271" href="#Footnote_271" class="fnanchor">271</a> Whether or no he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[150]</span> -suffered from depression is not a question of importance, -since it has been proved that he did not commit suicide, -but was murdered. The rest of the argument is equally -unsound. When Godfrey took Oates’ first deposition on -September 6, he had no copy of the information left with -him and knew that it had already been communicated to -the government.<a id="FNanchor_272" href="#Footnote_272" class="fnanchor">272</a> As for the fact that Godfrey had sent -an account of Oates’ revelations to the Duke of York, it -would be absurd to suppose that plans of vengeance were -harboured against him on this score, for the duke had -been acquainted with the matter since August 31, when -the forged letters were sent to Bedingfield at Windsor, so -that the information he received from Godfrey was unimportant.<a id="FNanchor_273" href="#Footnote_273" class="fnanchor">273</a> -As this was a fact of which the Lord -Treasurer was perfectly aware, the suggestions of North -and Warner, the Jesuit provincial, that Godfrey had been -threatened and finally dispatched by order of Danby, on -account of his officiousness in making a communication to -the duke, fall to the ground at the same time.<a id="FNanchor_274" href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">274</a> Taken -in this sense the words in which Godfrey foreshadowed -his doom are meaningless. He had assured Mr. Robinson -that he believed he should be the first martyr. “I do -not fear them,” he added, “if they come fairly, and I -shall not part with my life tamely.” He declared to -Burnet his belief that he would be knocked on the head. -To his sister-in-law he said, “If any danger be, I shall be -the first shall suffer.” He had told one Mr. Wynnel that -he was master of a dangerous secret, which would be fatal -to him. “Oates,” he said, “is sworn and is perjured.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[151]</span><a id="FNanchor_275" href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">275</a> -Clearly Godfrey was labouring under an apprehension of -quite definite character. He was in possession of secret -information concerning Oates’ discovery and believed that -it would cost him his life. What this secret was is now -to seek. The nature of it must show why danger was to -be apprehended and from what quarter.</p> - -<p>The statement that Godfrey wrote to Coleman to -acquaint him with Oates’ accusations is not quite correct. -Burnet notes: “It was generally believed that Coleman -and he were long in a private conversation, between the -time of his (Coleman’s) being put in the messenger’s -hands and his being made a close prisoner.”<a id="FNanchor_276" href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">276</a> Such a -conversation in fact took place, though it was earlier -than Burnet thought. Coleman surrendered to the -warrant against him on Monday, September 30.<a id="FNanchor_277" href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">277</a> Two -days before he came to the house of Mr. George Welden, -a common friend of himself and the magistrate. Welden -sent his servant to Godfrey’s house with the message -that one Clarke wanted to speak to him. It was the -form arranged between them for use when Godfrey was -in company and Coleman wished to see him. Godfrey -went to Mr. Welden’s and there had an interview with -Coleman. “When Mr. Coleman and Sir Edmondbury -were together at my house,” said Welden, “they were -reading papers.”<a id="FNanchor_278" href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">278</a> It can hardly be doubted what these -papers were. The date was Saturday, September 28, the -day on which Godfrey had taken Oates’ deposition. -In that Oates had made charges of the most serious -nature against Coleman; and Coleman was Godfrey’s -friend. The papers can scarcely have been other than -Godfrey’s copy of the deposition. Godfrey had probably -sent at once to Coleman to tell him what had passed. -This much may be gathered from the reports of letters -which he was said to have sent to Coleman and the Duke -of York. Coleman then met him at Welden’s house, -and together they went through Oates’ information,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[152]</span> -“Oates,” said Godfrey, “is sworn and is perjured.” -This alone was hardly a secret so dangerous as to make -him fear for his life. Many believed it. It was not an -uncommon thing to say. The most grievous consequence -that could ensue would be to gain the reputation of a -“bloody papist,” and possibly to be threatened with implication -in the Plot. Such an opinion could not conceivably -lead to fears of assaults by night and secret assassination. -But there was one particular in which knowledge of Oates’ -perjury might be very dangerous indeed. No doubt -Coleman pointed out Oates’ long tale of lies through -many articles of his deposition. There was one which he -certainly would not omit. The cardinal point in the Plot, -according to Oates’ revelation, was a Jesuit congregation -held on April 24, 1678 at the White Horse Tavern in -the Strand, where means were concerted for the king’s -assassination. At all the trials of the Jesuits Oates came -forward to give evidence to this point. It was of the -first importance. Oates’ statement was false. No congregation -had met on that day at the White Horse -Tavern. His perjury is more easy to prove here than in -most other particulars, for it is certain that the Jesuit -congregation was held on April 24 in a different place. -It was held at St. James’ Palace, the residence of the -Duke of York. More than five years afterwards James -II let out the secret to Sir John Reresby.<a id="FNanchor_279" href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">279</a> Up to that -time it had been well guarded. It was of the utmost -consequence that the fact should not be known. Had it -been discovered, the discredit into which Oates would -have fallen would have been of little moment compared -to the extent of the gain to the Whig and Protestant<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[153]</span> -party. To Shaftesbury the knowledge would have -meant everything. Witnesses of the fact would certainly -have been forthcoming, and James’ reception of the Jesuits -in his home was a formal act of high treason. The Exclusion -bill would have been unnecessary. James would -have been successfully impeached and would have been -lucky to escape with his head upon his shoulders. Charles -would hardly have been able to withstand the outcry for -the recognition of the Protestant duke as heir to the -throne, the Revolution would never have come to pass, -and the English throne might to this day support a -bastard Stuart line instead of the legitimate Hanoverian -dynasty. Besides the Duke of York and the Jesuit party -one man only was acquainted with this stupendous fact. -It is hardly credible that Godfrey met Coleman on -September 28, 1678 with any other object than to discuss -with him the charges made by Oates. Still less is it -credible that Coleman failed to point out Oates’ perjury -in this matter. It need not be supposed that a definite -statement passed from him. A hint would have sufficed. -In some way, it may be conjectured, Coleman disclosed to -the magistrate that which he should have concealed. Such -understandings are abrupt in origin but swift in growth. -Beyond doubt the secret, the shadow of which Godfrey -saw stretching across the line of his life, was that the -Jesuit congregation of April 24 had been held in the -house and under the patronage of the Duke of York.<a id="FNanchor_280" href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">280</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[154]</span></p> - -<p>And hence arose the perplexity and depression of mind -from which he is said to have suffered during the last days -of his life. He was possessed of information which, if -published, would infallibly ruin the cause of the Duke of -York and of the Catholics, to whom he was friendly. It -had come to him in private from his friend, and to use it -might seem an act almost of treachery. Yet with these -sentiments Godfrey’s duty as a magistrate was in absolute -conflict. It was undoubtedly his business at once to -communicate his knowledge to the government. Not -only was it illegal not to do so, and highly important -that such a weighty fact should not escape detection, but -Godfrey found himself at the centre of the investigation -of Oates’ discovery, and to reveal his news was probably -the only way of exposing Oates’ perjury. Nor did -Godfrey underestimate the danger into which this knowledge -brought him. He feared that he would be assassinated. -The Jesuits were confronted with the fact that a -secret of unbounded value to their enemies had come into -the hands of just one of the men who could not afford, -however much he might wish, to retain it. Godfrey was, -by virtue of his position as justice of the peace, a government -official. He might take time to approach the point -of revealing his information, but sooner or later he would -assuredly reveal it. All the tremendous consequences -which would ensue could not then be prevented or -palliated. The only possible remedy was to take from -Godfrey the power of divulging the secret. His silence -must be secured, and it could only be made certain by the -grave. To the suggestion that the motive to the crime -was not sufficient, it need only be answered that at least -nine men preferred to die a horrible and ignominious<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[155]</span> -death rather than prove their innocence and purchase life -by telling the facts.<a id="FNanchor_281" href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">281</a> Godfrey’s death was no ludicrous -act of stupid revenge, but a clear-headed piece of business. -It was a move in the game which was played in England -between parties and religions, and which dealt with issues -graver than those of life and death.</p> - -<p>So far the matter is clear. Sir Edmund Godfrey was -an intolerable obstacle to the Jesuit party. He was in -possession of a secret the disclosure of which would -utterly ruin them. He recognised himself that his life -was in danger and went in expectation of being assassinated. -His murder was, like Charles the First’s execution, -a cruel necessity. Two men gave evidence as to his -death. The one, Bedloe, contradicted himself beyond -belief. Nevertheless he was able to recognise and accuse -the other, Prance, whose minute and consistent descriptions -of time and place mark him as a partner in the crime. -The inference therefore is sound that, as Bedloe accused -correctly a man whom he knew by sight and not by name, -some of the men whose names he gave directly in his -account of the murder were probably the real criminals. -These were Le Fevre, the Jesuit confessor of the queen, -Charles Walsh, a Jesuit attached to the household of Lord -Bellasis, and Charles Pritchard, a third member of the -Society of Jesus. With them were associated the Roman -Catholic silversmith, Miles Prance, whom Bedloe recognised -as the man whom he had taken for a waiter in the -queen’s chapel, and a servant of Lord Bellasis, whom he -named as Mr. Robert Dent.<a id="FNanchor_282" href="#Footnote_282" class="fnanchor">282</a> Strictly, it is only a matter -of conjecture that these men undertook the deed, but it is -supported by considerable probability. They were singularly -unfitted for the task. Godfrey had to be killed and -his corpse to be disposed in such a way that the crime -might not be traced to its true source. The men to do -this were not professional criminals. They did not know,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[156]</span> -what constant experience has demonstrated, that the most -apparently simple crimes are the hardest to bring home to -their authors. Their proper course was to waylay the -magistrate in the darkness of a narrow street, strip his -body of every article of value, and leave it to be supposed -that the murder had been committed for a vulgar robbery. -Instead of this they determined to dispose the corpse in -such a way that Godfrey might be thought to have committed -suicide. The disposal would need time, and to -gain the time necessary it was needful that they should -choose a spot to which they could have free access, and -where they would be undisturbed. As the most secret -spot known to them they chose exactly that which they -should have most avoided, the queen’s palace, Somerset -House. To decoy Godfrey was not difficult, for, contrary -to the practice of the day, he went abroad habitually -without a servant.<a id="FNanchor_283" href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">283</a> The court of Somerset House was -not, as the Duke of York afterwards declared in his -memoirs, crowded with people; on the contrary, it was -understood that the queen was private, and orders were -given that visitors were not to be admitted in their -coaches.<a id="FNanchor_284" href="#Footnote_284" class="fnanchor">284</a> The queen’s confessor and his friends however -could doubtless secure an entrance. Here Godfrey was -murdered, and in Somerset House his body remained for -four nights. In what place it was kept cannot be decided. -Hill’s lodgings were certainly not used. Perhaps the spot -chosen was the room in the same passage where Prance -said that the body had lain during one night.<a id="FNanchor_285" href="#Footnote_285" class="fnanchor">285</a> The drops -of white wax which Burnet afterwards saw must have here -been spilt upon the dead man’s clothes. Godfrey himself -never used wax candles.<a id="FNanchor_286" href="#Footnote_286" class="fnanchor">286</a> On Wednesday night the body<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[157]</span> -was removed from Somerset House and carried to the -field in which it was found. That it was not taken -through the gate is made certain by the sentries’ evidence. -It must therefore have been carried through a private -door. Thence it was taken in a carriage to the foot of -Primrose Hill; marks of coach wheels were seen in the -ground leading towards the spot in a place where coaches -were not used to be driven.<a id="FNanchor_287" href="#Footnote_287" class="fnanchor">287</a> Godfrey’s sword was driven -through his body, and the corpse was left lying in the -ditch, where it was found next day.</p> - -<p>In lodgings near Wild House lived four men. Two -of them were Le Fevre and Walsh, parties to the murder -of Sir Edmund Godfrey; the others were Captain William -Bedloe, “the discoverer of the Popish Plot,” and his coadjutor, -Charles Atkins. Atkins had declared before the -secretary of state that he lodged at Holborn, but Bedloe -let the truth appear in his examination. As it was a slip, -which he immediately tried to cover, and he was far from -bringing it forward as a point in his favour, his statement -may be accepted.<a id="FNanchor_288" href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">288</a> Bedloe was thus in daily contact with -two of the criminals. He was on terms of intimacy with -them. They went about in his company and confided in -him enough to allow him to be present at secret celebration -of the mass.<a id="FNanchor_289" href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">289</a> From this quarter Bedloe’s information was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[158]</span> -derived. It is easy to conjecture how he could have -obtained it. Walsh and Le Fevre were absent from their -lodgings for a considerable part of the nights of Saturday -and Wednesday, October 12 and 16. Bedloe’s suspicions -must have been aroused, and either by threats or cajolery -he wormed part of the secret out of his friends. He -obtained a general idea of the way in which the murder -had been committed and of the persons concerned in it. -One of these was a frequenter of the queen’s chapel whom -he knew by sight. He thought him to be a subordinate -official there. If he went afterwards to the chapel to discover -him he must have been disappointed, for the man -occupied no office. He had failed to learn his name. It -was only by accident that nearly two months later he met -Prance and recognised him as the man he wanted. As he -had no knowledge himself of the murder and could not -profess to have been present at it, he devised the story -that he had been shewn the body as it lay in a room in -Somerset House on the night of October 14. At this -point he introduced the name of Samuel Atkins. Le -Fevre and Walsh had in the meantime disappeared, and -Bedloe was left without any fish in his net. Doubtless -the fact that Charles Atkins was his fellow-lodger suggested -the idea of implicating Pepys’ clerk. Samuel -Atkins was well known to his namesake and had in times -past given him considerable assistance.<a id="FNanchor_290" href="#Footnote_290" class="fnanchor">290</a> Charles Atkins -now shewed his gratitude by arranging with Bedloe to -accuse his benefactor of complicity in Godfrey’s murder.</p> - -<p>Prance’s conduct is now easy to explain. He was -denounced by a man who, as he had good reason to know, -was not a party to the crime and could have no certain -knowledge of it. If he could shew a bold front and -stoutly maintain his perfect innocence all might be well. -But to do this meant to expose himself to the danger of -being hanged. Bedloe had moreover named other of the -real criminals. They might yet be taken and the secret -be dragged from them. This at any cost must be prevented. -So Prance determined to pose as the repentant<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[159]</span> -convert and to shield the real culprits by bringing to -death men whom he knew to be innocent. His knowledge -of the crime enabled him to describe its details in -the most convincing manner, while his acquaintance with -the circle of Somerset House enabled him to fit the wrong -persons to the facts. No doubt, when he was once out of -the condemned cell, he felt that he would prefer to keep -free of the business altogether. Perhaps too he was not -without shame and horror at the idea of accusing innocent -men. He recanted. A recantation moreover, if he could -persevere in it, might succeed in shattering Bedloe’s credit -as well as his own and in diverting the line of inquiry -from Somerset House. Pressure was immediately put -upon him, he was forced to retract and to return to his -original course of action. In this he was perfectly successful. -Not only was the investigation removed from a -quarter unpleasantly near to the Duke of York, but -Prance manipulated his evidence so cleverly that even the -keen inquisitors who sat on the parliamentary committees -never for a moment suspected that the germ of truth for -which they were seeking was not contained in his but in -Bedloe’s information. After the appearance of Prance that -was relegated to a secondary position; but as Bedloe gained -the reward of £500 offered for the discovery of the -murder, was lodged in apartments at Whitehall, and -received a weekly pension of ten pounds from the secret -service fund, he had no reason to be dissatisfied with the -result. Prance too received a bounty of fifty pounds -“in respect of his services about the plot.”<a id="FNanchor_291" href="#Footnote_291" class="fnanchor">291</a> The fact that -the murder was sworn to have taken place in Somerset -House was not without danger to the queen herself. At -Bedloe’s first information she acted a prudent part. She -sent a message to the House of Lords expressing her grief -at the thought that such a crime could have taken place -in her residence, and offered to do anything in her power -that might contribute to the discovery of the murderers. -When an order was given to search the palace, she threw<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[160]</span> -open the rooms and in every way facilitated the process. -The course which she adopted was most wise. The Lords -were touched by her confidence and voted thanks for her -message.<a id="FNanchor_292" href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">292</a> Her confessor, who had been accused by -Bedloe, was not charged by Prance. In spite of the libels -which assailed her she was never again molested on the -matter.<a id="FNanchor_293" href="#Footnote_293" class="fnanchor">293</a></p> - -<p>Prance’s attitude as it has here been sketched accorded -entirely with the rest of his evidence. In his examination -before the council he began his story; “On a certain -Monday.”<a id="FNanchor_294" href="#Footnote_294" class="fnanchor">294</a> When he was taken by Monmouth and -Ossory to Somerset House he said “that it was either -at the latter end or the beginning of the week” that -Godfrey had met his death.<a id="FNanchor_295" href="#Footnote_295" class="fnanchor">295</a> The significance of this is -clear. No one wishing to construct a false account of the -murder could possibly have made these statements. It -was notorious that Godfrey had disappeared upon Saturday, -October 12. To postpone the date of the murder would -be to add a ludicrous difficulty to the story. This is -exactly what Prance wanted to do. If only he could be -branded as a liar and thrust ignominiously out of the -circle of inquiry, his dearest object would be accomplished. -Other statements in his information make it certain that -this was the case. After naming Monday night as the -time of the murder, he went on to say to the council -that the body lay in Somerset House for four days, -and was then carried away on the night of Wednesday. -Reckoning at the shortest, the fourth day from Monday -night was Friday, twenty-four hours after Godfrey’s body -was found. Reckoning backwards from Wednesday, the -fourth day was Saturday, when Godfrey was missed. -Prance was therefore deliberately falsifying his evidence -in point of time when he named Monday. A similar -result is obtained from his examination by the Duke of -Monmouth. In that he said that the day of the murder<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[161]</span> -was either at the latter end or the beginning of the week. -He further said “that the body lay in Somerset House -about six or seven days before it was carried out.” -Counting the week-end from Friday to Tuesday, six days -from either of those or the intermediate points brings the -calculation at least to Thursday. At the same time Prance -declared that the body was removed at midnight on -Wednesday. It is evident that he was trying to throw -dust in the eyes of the investigators. These tactics were -in vain, and he was forced to tell the story in point of -time truthfully. As for the fictitious view of the body -on the night of October 14, Prance simply told Bedloe’s -story with as little variation as possible, with the exception -that he did not mention Bedloe at all. Bedloe had -landed himself in hopeless confusion when he was taken -to Somerset House to shew the room where it had taken -place.<a id="FNanchor_296" href="#Footnote_296" class="fnanchor">296</a> Prance did not attempt to point it out.</p> - -<p>Prance did not stop at his evidence on the subject of -the murder, but went on to give information as to the -Plot. Unless he had done so he could hardly have hoped -to escape from prison, for it would seem incredible to the -authorities that he should know so much and yet not -know more. Perhaps too he was bitten with the excitement -and glory of an informer’s life. His evidence was -not however calculated to assist materially the party -whose interest it was to prosecute the plot. He had -already aroused annoyance by contradicting Bedloe’s -evidence concerning the murder.<a id="FNanchor_297" href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">297</a> He now proceeded -to spin out a string of utterly ridiculous stories about the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[162]</span> -Jesuits and other Roman Catholics. All that was important -in his evidence was hearsay or directed against -men who had already to contend against weightier accusations. -He declared that Fenwick, Ireland, and Grove had -told him that four of the five Popish lords were “to -command the army.”<a id="FNanchor_298" href="#Footnote_298" class="fnanchor">298</a> They had for some time past -been in prison in the Tower on far more direct charges. -At the trial of Ireland and Grove Prance was not produced -as a witness at all. At the trial of Whitbread, -Fenwick, and Harcourt he made the same statement. -Fenwick had told him also that he need not fear to lose -his trade in the case of civil war, for he should have -plenty of work to do in making church ornaments.<a id="FNanchor_299" href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">299</a> -These stories were again retailed at the trials of Langhorn -and Wakeman.<a id="FNanchor_300" href="#Footnote_300" class="fnanchor">300</a> When he was summoned as a witness -against Lord Stafford he could say no more than that one -Singleton, a priest, had told him “that he would make -no more to stab forty parliament men than to eat his -dinner.”<a id="FNanchor_301" href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">301</a> Much of his evidence about the Plot was so -ludicrous that it could never be brought into court at all. -Four men were to kill the Earl of Shaftesbury and went -continually with pistols in their pockets. One Bradshaw, -an upholsterer, had said openly in a tavern that it was no -more sin to kill a Protestant than to kill a dog, and that -“he was resolved to kill some of the busy lords.” It was -the commonest talk among Roman Catholics that the -king and Lord Shaftesbury were to be murdered. It was -equally an ordinary subject of conversation that a great -army was to be raised for the extirpation of heretics. A -surgeon, named Ridley, had often told him “that he -hoped to be chirurgeon to the Catholic army in England”; -and when he complimented one Moore, a servant of the -Duke of Norfolk, upon “a very brave horse” which he -was riding, “Moore wished that he had ten thousand of -them, and hoped in a short time that they might have -them for the Catholic cause.” In his publication Prance -added to this a disquisition on the immorality of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[163]</span> -secular priests, among whom he had at the time two -brothers.<a id="FNanchor_302" href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">302</a> So tangled and nonsensical a tale could be a -source of strength to no prosecution. Dr. Lloyd was -alarmed at the extent and facility of Prance’s new information.<a id="FNanchor_303" href="#Footnote_303" class="fnanchor">303</a> -Bishop Burnet thought, “It looked very -strange, and added no credit to his other evidence that -the papists should thus be talking of killing the king as -if it had been a common piece of news.<a id="FNanchor_304" href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">304</a> And Warner, -the Jesuit provincial, characterised Prance’s later evidence -as of little scope and less weight.”<a id="FNanchor_305" href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">305</a></p> - -<p>To how many persons Prance’s real position in the -tortuous intrigues which circled round the murder of Sir -Edmund Godfrey was known is a question very difficult -to answer. By the Jesuit writers on the Plot his character -is treated with a moderation foreign to their attacks on -the other informers. He is to them “a silversmith of -no obscurity,” and “by far less guilty than the rest -in the crimes of their past lives.”<a id="FNanchor_306" href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">306</a> It is hard to think -that some of them were not acquainted with the part -which he had played. There are stronger indications -that within a select circle his true character was appreciated. -When James II came to the throne Prance was -brought to trial for perjury, and on June 15, 1686 -pleaded guilty to the charge. The court treated him to -a lecture in which his conduct was compared favourably -to that of Oates, who had remained hardened to the end, -and promised to have compassion on a true penitent. He -was sentenced to pay a fine of a hundred pounds, to be -three times pilloried for the space of an hour, and to be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[164]</span> -whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. The last and heaviest -part of the punishment, the flogging, under which Oates’ -iron frame had nearly sunk, was remitted by the king’s -command.<a id="FNanchor_307" href="#Footnote_307" class="fnanchor">307</a> There is considerable reason to believe that -the trial was collusive and the result prearranged. That -Prance should confess himself perjured is easy to understand: -to understand why Prance’s sentence was lightened, -unless it was in reward for good service done, would be -very difficult. All the reasons which had worked before -for the exculpation of the Roman Catholics from the -guilt of Godfrey’s murder were now redoubled in force. -Oates had already suffered for his crimes. The Popish -Plot, as Sir John Reresby told James, was not only dead, -but buried. To overthrow the Protestant story of -Godfrey’s death would be to throw the last sod upon its -grave. This was much; but James was not the man to -forego without reason the sweetest part of his vengeance -upon the witness who had set up that story. The rancour -with which he pursued Oates and Dangerfield seemed to -have completely vanished when the turn came to Prance. -Prance had certainly diverted the investigation from James’ -personal neighbourhood; but Oates had been saved nothing -of his terrible punishment by the fact that he had cleared -the Duke of York in his first revelation of the plot. The -harm done by Dangerfield to the Catholic cause was -nothing compared to that accomplished by Prance, if -the surface of events told a true tale. Dangerfield was -whipped, if not to death, at least to a point near it. But -Prance was let off the lash. Without the flogging -his sentence was trifling. James had no love for light -sentences in themselves. His action is only explicable on -the ground that he was acquainted with the truth, and -knew how valuable an instrument Prance had proved -himself.</p> - -<p>One man at least could have told him the facts: -Father John Warner, late provincial of the Jesuits in -England and confessor of the king. Less than three -years later, when the storm of revolution burst over the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[165]</span> -Catholic court and drove its supporters to seek a penurious -refuge on the continent, a shipload of these was setting -out from Gravesend in mid December. They were -bound for Dunkirk with as many valuables as they -could carry with them. Before they could set sail, -information was laid and an active man, aided by the -officers of the harbour, boarded the vessel. The last -passengers were being rowed out from shore. They were -arrested in the boat and carried back with the others -seized on the ship. They were Father Warner and Miles -Prance. While the officers were busy in caring for the -captured property, their prisoners escaped. Warner made -his way to Maidstone and by means of a forged passport -crossed the Channel. Prance was soon after retaken in -the attempt to follow under a false name. The vessel on -board which he was found was seized, but those on her -were discharged, and Prance was probably successful in his -third endeavour to reach the continent.<a id="FNanchor_308" href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">308</a> Supposing that -Prance had been the Protestant puppet which he has been -believed, this was queer company in which to find him. -He had attacked Warner’s religion, accused his friends, -and brought to death those of his faith by false oaths. -His confession of perjury would hardly weigh down the -scale against this. At least he was not the man whom -Warner would choose as a travelling companion on a -journey in which detection might at any moment mean -imprisonment and even death. The risk that Prance -would turn coat again and denounce him was not inconsiderable. -Prance’s conduct too was remarkable. Why -should he fly from the Revolution? True, he had confessed -that his accusations of the Catholics were false, and -he could not expect great gratitude from the party in -power; but he had only to retract his words once more, -on the plea that his confession had been extorted against -his will, to live in safety, at any rate, if not with prosperity. -Away from England, surrounded by those whom -he had wronged, the future before him was hopeless.</p> - -<p>The supposition cannot be supported. Prance’s position<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[166]</span> -in the politics of the plot is not easy to set in a clear -light. The attempt made here to do so at least offers a -hypothesis by which some of the difficulties are explained. -The last phase of the informer’s career, at all events, -becomes intelligible. Prance had been throughout one -of the most astute and audacious of the Jesuit agents, and -Warner must have been perfectly aware of the fact.</p> - -<p>The success of Godfrey’s murder as a political move -is indubitable. The Duke of York was the pivot of the -Roman Catholic schemes in England,<a id="FNanchor_309" href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">309</a> and Godfrey’s -death saved both from utter ruin. Nevertheless it was -attended by gravely adverse consequences. If the fact -of the Jesuit congregation at St. James’ Palace had become -known, nothing could have saved the duke. But the -crime which prevented this gave an impetus to the pursuit -of the Plot and a strength to the Whig party, so great -that it all but succeeded in barring him from the throne -and establishing a Protestant dynasty. Godfrey’s fame -rose almost to the height of legend. On a Sunday in the -February after his murder a great darkness overspread -the face of the sky of London. The atmosphere was so -murky that in many churches service could not be continued -without the aid of candles. It was said that in -the midst of the gloom in the queen’s chapel at Somerset -House, even while mass was being said, the figure of Sir -Edmund Berry Godfrey appeared above the altar. Thereafter -the place went by the name of Godfrey Hall.<a id="FNanchor_310" href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">310</a></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak p4 b4" id="POLITICS_OF_THE_PLOT">POLITICS OF THE PLOT</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[169]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I3">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">THE GOVERNMENT</p> - - -<p class="noindent">“<span class="smcap">The</span> English nation are a sober people,” wrote Charles -I to his abler son, “however at present infatuated.” -Charles II had greater right than ever his father to believe -that his subjects were mad. The appearance of Oates and -the death of Godfrey heralded an outburst of feeling as -monstrous as the obscure events which were its cause. -From the sense of proportion they had displayed in the -Civil War the English people seemed now divorced and, -while they affected to judge those of “less happier lands” -fickle and tempest-tossed, let the tide of insobriety mount -to the point of complete abandonment. Public opinion -was formed without reason. The accumulated suspicion -and hatred of years swelled into an overpowering volume -of tumultuous emotion. Scarcely the most sane escaped -the prevailing contagion of prejudice and terror. None -could tell where the spread would stop.</p> - -<p>The times were in a ferment when Parliament met on -October 21, 1678. In his speech from the throne the -king gave notice to the Houses that information had been -laid of a Jesuit conspiracy against his life, and he and the -Lord Chancellor following promised a strict inquiry. The -government wished to keep the investigation clear of -Westminster, recognising the danger of parliamentary -interference;<a id="FNanchor_311" href="#Footnote_311" class="fnanchor">311</a> but the Commons were of another mind.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[170]</span> -They returned to their house, and business was begun by -members of the privy council. Motions were made to -take the king’s speech into consideration, for the keep of -the army, and the court party tried first to turn the -attention of the house to the need for money. The -question was about to be put, while country members sat -in amazement. Suddenly one rose to his feet and in a -speech of fire brought to debate the subject that was in -the mind of every man present. He admired, he said, -that none of those gentlemen who had spoken nor any -others of the house who held great places at court should -speak one word of the Plot, though his Majesty’s life and -government were exposed to manifest danger; the property, -liberty, lives, and, yet dearer, the religion of all were -embarked in the same bottom; that neither an army nor -money, in however vast sums, could protect a prince from -the knife of a villain the murder of two Kings of France -testified; and was the prisoner Coleman, so inconsiderable -a person, to be thought the chief agent in a design of such -importance, of such deep intrigues and tortuous ways -But a few days before Sir Edmund Godfrey had been -done to death. Were a spaniel lost, inquiry was made in -the <i>Gazette</i>: now a worthy gentleman had been barbarously -murdered in discharge of his duty, and no search -was undertaken for the criminals. The privy council, -declared the speaker, was cold in its pursuit; let the great -council of the land proceed with greater vigour.<a id="FNanchor_312" href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">312</a> Parliament -threw itself into the case with immediate determination. -Committees were appointed to consider ways and means -for the preservation of the king’s person, to inquire into -the Plot and Godfrey’s murder, a bill was prepared to -disable papists from sitting in either house of Parliament, -addresses were made for the removal of all popish recusants -from London and for a day of solemn fast, which was -accordingly appointed by proclamation for November 13. -Oates and Bedloe were heard with their expansive tales at -the bars of both houses, and on the 1st of November a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[171]</span> -joint resolution was voted that “there hath been and still -is a damnable and hellish Plot, contrived and carried on -by Popish Recusants, for the assassinating and murdering -the King and rooting out and destroying the Protestant -religion.”<a id="FNanchor_313" href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">313</a></p> - -<p>Consternation was not expressed in debate alone. -Gallant members were in alarm as well for themselves as -for their sovereign. Sir Edward Rich informed the Lords’ -committee of an apprehension he had for some time felt -that both houses of Parliament were to be blown up. A -beggar at the Great Door was arrested on suspicion that -he was an Irish earl’s son. Great knocking had been -heard underground in the night hours. Sir John Cotton, -who owned a cellar beneath the Painted Chamber, was -requested to have his coals and faggots removed from so -dangerous a spot, and the Duke of Monmouth generously -lent guards to stand watch until a strict examination could -be made. Accompanied by the Masters of the Ordnance -and an expert builder. Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Jonas -Moore conducted the inspection. They reported the lower -structure of the house to be in an extremely dangerous -state. The walls were mostly seven feet thick and contained -many secret places. Vaults ran all the way from -the Thames under Westminster Hall. By the help of -neighbours who owned the cellars any one could introduce -a store of gunpowder within four and twenty hours. -Without a guard their lordships could have no security. -Orders were given for the adjoining houses and vaults to be -cleared, for the cellars to be opened one into another, and -sentinels to patrol them night and day under command of -a trusty officer. It was even doubted whether Parliament -had not better remove to Northumberland House. Still -as neither knocking nor the beggar were seen to produce -ill effects, nothing further was done, and Sir Edward Rich -found himself derided as a lunatic.<a id="FNanchor_314" href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">314</a> Beyond Westminster -the terror ran no less high. A report came to town that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[172]</span> -St. John’s College, Cambridge, had been burnt down and -three priests taken with fireballs in their possession. The -new prison at Clerkenwell was fired and some priests -immured there hailed as the obvious incendiaries. Somerset -House was searched by Lord Ossory, who was promptly -said to have found a hundred thousand fireballs and hand-grenades, -A poor Venetian soapmaker was thrown into -prison on the charge of manufacturing similar infernal -machines; but on examination his wares turned out to be -merely balls of scent. Dread of fire seemed to have -touched the limit when Sir William Jones sent an express -from Hampstead with orders to move his store of firewood -from the front to the back cellar of his house in -London that it might be less near the malign hands -of Jesuits. And from Flanders came the disquieting -rumour that if, as was expected, the Catholics in England -were destroyed in the turmoil, the burghers of Bruges -had prepared the same fate for English Protestants in -their town.<a id="FNanchor_315" href="#Footnote_315" class="fnanchor">315</a></p> - -<p>Into the midst of so fierce a storm Charles II and his -government were thus suddenly thrown. It had broken -over their heads almost without warning. September had -passed with a clear sky; October was not out before the -elements had massed their forces against the king’s devoted -servants and were threatening to overwhelm the land with -a gigantic catastrophe. In August Charles had at his -control a formidable army and in his pocket the sum of -£800,000, with the added satisfaction of seeing removed -by the general peace a fruitful opportunity for his political -opponents: before December the throne on which he -sat seemed tottering to its fall. The servants of the crown -faced the situation with admirable fortitude. English -statecraft of the Restoration period was a haphazard school.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[173]</span> -Since the fall of Clarendon integrity of dealing had ceased -to be an ideal for English politicians. Common honesty, -the saving grace of party principle, fled from a scene where -could be witnessed the sight of offices bought and sold -with cheerful frankness and votes bidden for as at an -auction without shame. The king’s chief minister lent -himself to a policy of which he heartily disapproved. The -king’s mistresses were notable pieces in the game played -at court. A quarrel between them might be expected to -influence the fate of incalculable futures. General want -of method reduced the public services to chaos. The -salaries of ambassadors fell into long arrear; clerks in the -offices of the secretaries of state petitioned vehemently for -their wages; the very gentlemen waiters were forced to -urge that either their diet or money in its stead should -not be denied them.<a id="FNanchor_316" href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">316</a> Nevertheless the nation throve on -a habit of inspired disorder. Lord Treasurer Danby -increased the royal revenue wonderfully. The Stop of -the Exchequer, a breach of faith which convulsed the city, -scarcely sufficed to shock the national credit. The growth -of trade and commerce was completely changing the -aspect of England, and wealth increased rapidly. Able -and painstaking men such as Sir Joseph Williamson, Sir -William Temple, Henry Coventry, Sir Leoline Jenkins, -and in a lesser degree Samuel Pepys and the Earl of -Conway, conducted the changeful administration of affairs -with industry and circumspection. Want of order did not -disturb them, for they were used to none; and secretaries -of state were accustomed to pursue their royal master -with business in bed, at his after-dinner dose, and even to -still more remote places of retreat.<a id="FNanchor_317" href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">317</a> A continual shifting -of the horizon prepared them for unexpected events. -Without brilliant parts they learned to confront steadily -situations of difficulty and danger. That which now met<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[174]</span> -them was not without precedent. It had become almost -a tradition of Charles’ government to expect the worst -without ceasing to hope for the best. From the Restoration -onwards alarms had been frequent and a spirit of -revolt, even of revolution, in the air. Venner’s insurrection -and the trouble in Scotland served during the earlier -years to make plain that stability was not assured, and it -was not only events on the surface that denoted uneasiness. -In 1673 and the following year attention was occupied by -a mysterious affair, never probed to the bottom, in which -Edmund Everard, later perjured as an informer at the -time of the Popish Plot, was charged with a design to -poison the Duke of Monmouth and other persons of -quality, and himself confessed his ill intention, having -apparently been tutored by some of the experts in that art -who flourished across the channel; with the result that he -was thrown into the Tower, and was able four years after -to boast of having been the first to discover the Plot and -to charge the authorities with stifling it in his person.<a id="FNanchor_318" href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">318</a> -Other problems trod upon the heels of this in quick succession. -Throughout the years 1675 and 1676 the government -shewed anxiety lest a fresh sectarian movement was on -foot. A great riot made in the former year by the London -prentices drew watchful eyes upon reputed fanatics. -Considerable information was collected in the provinces, -and judges on circuit earned golden praise by proving -their attachment in word and deed to the established -church. At Worcester a man of notorious opinions -stood his trial for treason, but the jury acquitted him on -the ground of madness, and despite plain speaking from -the bench held to their verdict. Dark hints reached the -government that on the first meeting of Parliament after -the long prorogation an attempt would be made to seize -the king and his brother and “order all things securely.” -Somewhat later Compton, Bishop of London, furnished -the Lord Treasurer with particulars of conventicles held -by Anabaptists and other dangerous dissenters in the city<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[175]</span> -and in Southwark, amounting to the number of sixteen, -and for the most part frequented by between one and -three hundred persons; while from another source Danby -learned that the total of a few of the London congregations -rose to over four thousand souls.<a id="FNanchor_319" href="#Footnote_319" class="fnanchor">319</a></p> - -<p>At the same time other adversaries of the church were -not neglected. Already in the spring of 1676 report was -rife of papists laying in supplies of arms, and a gentleman -of Hereford was charged by a number of witnesses with -having declared that, had a recent account of the king’s -sickness or death continued but one day longer, the Duke -of York would have been proclaimed, and rather than -allow the duke to want men he would have raised a troop -of horse at his own expense. Orders were sent to the -deputy lieutenant of the county to keep stricter watch -over the Roman Catholics of whom such tales were told.<a id="FNanchor_320" href="#Footnote_320" class="fnanchor">320</a> -Repeated proclamations against the bold and open repair -to the chapels of foreign ambassadors for the purpose of -hearing mass and of the maintenance by them of English -priests were doubtless caused by political need, but the -same reason cannot account for private directions given -by the king to Secretary Coventry to obtain information -as to the extent and nature of the correspondence carried -on with foreign parts by Edward Coleman. Instructions -were issued for his letters to be intercepted, and some -dozen were seized, but among them, unfortunately for -all concerned, none of high importance. Although no -find was made, the fact that search should have been -thought necessary denotes in the government a real sense<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[176]</span> -of the working underground.<a id="FNanchor_321" href="#Footnote_321" class="fnanchor">321</a> Shortly before, Danby had -caused the bishops to make returns of the proportion of -Roman Catholics and other dissenters to conformists in -their several dioceses, and that from the Bishop of -Winchester is preserved. Dr. Morley had been advised -that the motive was a fear of the result should the laws -against conventicles be fully executed, as it was suspected -that the number of those to be suppressed exceeded -that of the suppressors. He was delighted to -reply that the fear was groundless. Out of nearly -160,000 inhabitants in the diocese of Winchester 140,000 -conformed to the Church of England, and of the remainder -only 968 were classed as popish recusants; while -the bishop’s pious belief that the odds in favour of his side -would be equally great elsewhere was confirmed by an -abstract of the returns for the whole province of Canterbury -setting down the complete number of papists at -11,870. Other accounts gave the number of Catholics -in London alone as 30,000, and their real strength in -England remains unknown; but Danby had to admit to -the French ambassador, when he spoke of the alarm -caused by the Duke of York’s conduct, that they did -not muster in all more than twelve thousand.<a id="FNanchor_322" href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">322</a> Though -he did not lose sight of Catholic movements and provided -himself with detailed accounts of their less known leaders -in London,<a id="FNanchor_323" href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">323</a> the Lord Treasurer clearly entertained keener -fears of danger from the other side.</p> - -<p>So corrupt and able a statesman as the Earl of Danby -could not fail of being an object of attack when the panic -of the Popish Plot swept over the country. The one -party accused him of having contrived the whole affair to -sustain his credit by a persecution of the Catholics and an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[177]</span> -increase of the army, the other of stifling it to save the -Duke of York, his former patron.<a id="FNanchor_324" href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">324</a> In truth he had done -neither the one nor the other. When Tonge’s information -first came to hand he had regarded it carefully and wished -to sift the matter with caution. As likelihood grew stronger -that the doctor was a liar, Danby became cooler towards -him; so cool indeed that Tonge and his associates fell into -a fright for the prosperity of their future and sought help -elsewhere. Yet he realised the necessity for watchfulness, -and it was due to his energy that Coleman’s papers were -seized.<a id="FNanchor_325" href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">325</a> This attitude was hardly changed by the meeting -of Parliament. The Lord Treasurer was a consistent -opponent of the French and Roman Catholic interest. -His constant endeavour was to draw Charles into union -with Parliament and foreign Protestant powers against the -pretensions of Louis XIV, and he thought that unless the -king obtained foreign aid and set himself to a regular -conquest of his country this was the only way to avoid -complete division and debility at home;<a id="FNanchor_326" href="#Footnote_326" class="fnanchor">326</a> but though these -were his hopes, he was ready at the very moment of urging -them to support his master’s private policy abroad in a -wholly contrary spirit, and so caused his own fall; for -when Charles wrote to Paris for money from the French -king, Danby executed his orders, thus leaving his handwriting -to be produced against him. The fate that forced -the Lord Treasurer to act on instructions he detested was -bitter. Nevertheless he was not prepared to sacrifice office<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[178]</span> -for principle. He continued to obey orders and to hold his -place. Retribution fell on him. The immoral character -of his conduct reaped a full reward; but it must be remembered -that at a time when the king was master of his -servants as well in fact as in name, there was something in -Danby’s plea that the monarch’s command in matters of -peace and war and foreign policy was absolute to his -minister, and not open to question. Immoral or not, the -danger of Danby’s course was obvious, for powerful enemies -at home and abroad were eagerly waiting the moment to hurl -the forerunners of prime ministers from his eminent seat.</p> - -<p>The opportunity had at last arrived. Feared and hated -by the opposition for his policy of Anglican predominance -at home, by the French government as a chief supporter -of Protestant resistance on the continent, by both for the -army which might be used against either, Danby found -himself assailed by a combination of the Whig leaders -and the French ambassador. He had refused the place of -secretary of state to Ralph Montagu, ambassador in Paris, -and the latter was now recalled from his post by Charles -owing to a discreditable intrigue he had formed with the -Duchess of Cleveland, abandoned and living in France. -Nor did the disgrace end there, for Montagu’s name was -struck off the list of the privy council. With him he -brought back to England letters written by Danby to -demand subsidies from Louis. His intentions could not -yet be foreseen, but the indications of public events were -enough to cause the Treasurer grave anxiety. An atmosphere -of plot and disturbance surrounded the court, and -while information poured in, little exact evidence could be -extracted from it. Money either to pay or to disband -the army there was none; the fleet was equally without -provision, and Parliament was tender of voting supplies -lest they should be misused. The Commons had imprisoned -Secretary Williamson for issuing commissions to -popish recusants, and were highly incensed when on the -next day Charles calmly released him: worst of all, they -were preparing a bill to raise the militia of the whole -kingdom without possibility of its disbandment for a period<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[179]</span> -of six weeks. Danby believed that under cover of the -universal excitement sinister designs against the Duke of -York and himself were in the air. Many were of opinion, -he wrote to Sir William Temple, that those who called for -inquiry into the Plot had objects nearer their hearts that -they were pursuing under its cover. Yet he was so overwhelmed -with business that he hardly had time to review -the situation in his mind and consider the best course to -pursue.<a id="FNanchor_327" href="#Footnote_327" class="fnanchor">327</a></p> - -<p>Suddenly the bolt fell as if from the blue. Danby -was warned by Sir John Reresby of danger impending -from Montagu’s side. He had in vain attempted to -manage the ambassador’s exclusion from Parliament; -Montagu was defeated at Grinstead by the Treasurer’s -candidate, and narrowly won a seat for Northampton on -a contested election. Had he failed he could scarcely -have dared fortune, but privilege of Parliament secured -him from the enmity of the powers. Roused to immediate -action, the minister attempted a counterstroke. -Montagu had held unauthorised communication with -the papal nuncio at Paris, and Danby charged him before -the council with his malpractice, swiftly sending a warrant -to seize his papers. But here the adroit statesman met -more than his match. In the midst of the disturbance -caused to the Commons by the king’s message on the -subject, Montagu quietly remarked that he believed the -search a design by abstracting evidence to conceal the -misconduct of a great minister of which he had knowledge. -He had in fact removed the documents from his -other papers and placed them in safe keeping; and on the -following day they were triumphantly produced to the -House as evidence of Danby’s popery, treachery, and subservience -to the interests of the King of France. For -Montagu had been bought by Barillon and Shaftesbury, -and promised Louis XIV for a hundred thousand crowns<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[180]</span> -to procure the Treasurer’s ruin within six months. At a -moment when all Protestants in the realm were crying in -horror at the danger threatening their religion, the spectacle -was exhibited of the king’s chief minister hurled from -power by the French ambassador in conjunction with the -leaders of the Protestant party for his too powerful support -of the Protestant cause and the Anglican constitution. -The man who had reorganised the royal finance, and had -persistently advocated a national policy in the cause of -English commerce and the English crown, vanished from -the scene, accused of treachery to all three and under the -stigma of having robbed his master and left twenty-two -shillings and ten pence in an exchequer which, after -payment for a vast addition to the navy, was actually -stocked with over a hundred thousand pounds.<a id="FNanchor_328" href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">328</a> Charged -with plotting, the Treasurer was himself the victim of a -plot as base and planned by men as unscrupulous as are -known to the annals of English politics. The rest of the -story is thrice-told; how Danby was impeached and defended -himself, pardoned and raised to a marquisate, how -he lay hid in Whitehall while the bill of attainder was being -passed, how he saved his head by surrendering four days -before the attaint had force, and passed from the intrigues -of the Popish Plot to an imprisonment of five years in the -Tower, whence he was released in the day of his master’s -triumph. Many years after, when Danby published his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[181]</span> -letters, he took occasion to prove himself no less unscrupulous -than his enemies by judiciously altering the words, -“I approve of this letter,” which stood in the king’s -writing at the foot of the most incriminating sheet, to those -which in their yet more exonerating form have become -famous; “This letter is writ by my order—C. R.” Meanwhile -his opponents triumphed, and Montagu was even -successful in obtaining from the French king as much as -half the reward promised for his perfidy.<a id="FNanchor_329" href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">329</a></p> - -<p>The fall of the Lord Treasurer swelled the difficulties -of the government without disconcerting its policy. -Though the opposition could score so great a success, -there was no thought of giving up the main issue. The -scheme of the militia bill was struck to the ground, for -Charles declared that he would not comply with it for so -much as the space of half an hour; he had not forgotten -that the home forces might be used against other than -foreign enemies. The Whig party was inspired with -rage. Ten days before it had met with a still more -serious rebuff. On November 20 the bill disabling -Roman Catholics from sitting in Parliament was passed -by the Lords, but with a proviso excepting the Duke of -York by name from its action. James had won his point -only by tears and incredible exertion, and the opposition -expected confidently to throw the proviso out in the -Commons. A furious debate took place. Supporters of -the duke were assailed with cries of “Coleman’s letters! -Coleman’s letters!” High words were bandied across -the floor of the House, and Sir Jonathan Trelawny, on -the court side, was committed to the Tower for boxing -the ears of Mr. Ash, a country member, and calling him -a rascal. Yet to the bitter disappointment of its opponents -the government was successful, and the saving<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[182]</span> -clause passed by a majority of two votes. The French -ambassador thought that James could have hardly escaped -from a greater danger.<a id="FNanchor_330" href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">330</a> Another was already looming -darkly against him out of the cloudy future. Early in -the session of Parliament Shaftesbury, supported by -Halifax, Essex, and Barlow, now Bishop of London, had -demanded the Duke of York’s dismissal from the king’s -presence and counsels. Lord Russell moved an address -to the same effect in the Commons. In the debate which -followed Sacheverell, acting on the report of Coleman’s -examination that he had himself drawn up, gave the first -direct hint of the memorable project of the Exclusion -bill. Might not the king and Parliament, he asked, -dispose of the succession to the crown of England?<a id="FNanchor_331" href="#Footnote_331" class="fnanchor">331</a> The -idea struck immediate root. It was the obvious point to -which all that had gone before tended. The exclusion of -James was to be the touchstone of English politics for -two years, and the lines on which parties were to be -divided by it showed themselves at once. King Charles -did not delay to make his view of the situation plain. -He told Danby in private that he would not object to -pare the nails of a popish successor, but that nothing -should induce him to see his brother’s right suffer injury; -and with more dignified language and thanks for the -care manifested for his personal safety informed Parliament -of his readiness to join in all possible ways and -means to establish the Protestant religion in firm security. -Subjects might be assured that he would assent to any -bills presented to safeguard them during the reign of his -successor, with this ominous condition only, that none -should diminish the just powers of the throne or tend to -impeach the right of succession and the descent of the -crown in the true line.<a id="FNanchor_332" href="#Footnote_332" class="fnanchor">332</a> On the other side the Whig<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[183]</span> -lords, with whom Halifax was still at this time allied, had -adopted the notion and persuaded Barillon that an attack -upon the duke was the best way to attain his end. The -ambassador was not wholly convinced but, since the resistance -he could make to their plan would be useless, went -the way of his friends and lent them judicious assistance. -At least the Frenchman’s policy proved successful. His -objects were to overthrow Danby and force Charles to -disband the army which might perhaps be used against -France. Danby fell; and on the very day when the -warrant was sent to seize Montagu’s papers, the Commons -voted a supply for the purpose of paying off all the troops -raised in the course of the preceding year. A month -later, as a last attempt to save his minister, Charles dissolved -the Cavalier Parliament after an unbroken existence -of eighteen years.</p> - -<p>The elections for the new parliament were fought -amid intense excitement and with peculiar energy. Both -parties exerted their utmost powers to gain the day. The -contest was the sole subject of conversation. Purse and -pen and all other imaginable means of influence were -employed without stint to elevate the intelligence and -debase the morals of the electors of England. At this -time began the ingenious practice of splitting freeholds to -multiply votes. Under the guidance of Shaftesbury -pamphlets urging the Exclusion as the only means of -safety for the nation flooded the country. Lord Russell, -one of the most honest of his party, was elected for -two counties. Drunkenness and bribery were everywhere -notorious. At Norwich “a strange consumption -of beer” was noted by Sir Thomas Browne. Sir -William Waller, a magistrate famed for his success -in priest-hunting, won a seat at Westminster at no -less a cost, as those on his own side reported, than of -a thousand pounds. At the Bedfordshire polls the -same interest carried the day for six times that sum. -Everywhere the Whigs were victorious. When the -result came to be known, it was found that the government -could rely upon a mere handful of twenty or thirty<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[184]</span> -votes in the new parliament as against a hundred and fifty -in the old.<a id="FNanchor_333" href="#Footnote_333" class="fnanchor">333</a></p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the disastrous complexion of affairs -Charles began the session on March 6, 1679 with considerable -success. Outside the circle of politicians the -chief cause of alarm to the nation was the continued existence -of the army. The king had decided to remove the -ground of fear by undertaking the actual disbandment of -his troops. To this end he demanded from the Commons -the accomplishment of the offer made by the last parliament. -On April 16 a supply of over £206,000 was voted -and appropriated for the purpose, and the disbandment -began at once.<a id="FNanchor_334" href="#Footnote_334" class="fnanchor">334</a> Before many months had passed a source -of apparent strength and real weakness to the government -was thus removed. Accusations of arbitrary rule lost -much of their force; for those who now indulged in the -charge were not only open to the retort, which could be -levelled at them before, that their insistance was insincere, -but found themselves in a far less good position to reply. -It was perhaps with more personal pleasure that Charles -defeated the Commons in an altercation that took place at -the opening of Parliament over their choice of a Speaker, -Edward Seymour, a wealthy and profligate Devonshire -landowner, who had served in the chair in the late House -of Commons, was noted for an able opponent of the -court and in particular of Lord Danby. The government -determined to effect a change, and named for Speaker Sir -Thomas Meres, a member of the Whig party, as less -likely to give offence than one from the court side. The -Commons however elected Seymour again, and he, having -wind of the king’s intention to grant the formal request<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[185]</span> -made by all Speakers to be relieved of their dignity, on his -presentation omitted the customary words; but the Lord -Chancellor replied for Charles that he could not allow -such talent to be wasted on the post, having other employment -for him, and sent Seymour and the rest of the -Commons back to choose another. High was the indignation -of the House, which sat for a whole week headless, -combative, and remonstrating. One ardent member declared: -“This is gagging the Commons of England and, -like an Italian revenge, damning the soul first, then killing -the body.” A representation was made to the king, protesting -that his action was without precedent and the -Commons only within their rights, and a second to justify -the first, which Charles had told them was mere waste of -time. In answer the king prorogued Parliament for two -days. When it again assembled, the matter was allowed -to drop. Neither Seymour nor Meres was proposed, but -Serjeant Gregory, of a more neutral disposition, who was -elected and approved without difficulty.<a id="FNanchor_335" href="#Footnote_335" class="fnanchor">335</a> Though the -Commons professed to be satisfied, since they had established -their right to a free choice, the honours lay in reality -with Charles, who had successfully rejected a freely chosen -candidate objectionable to himself.</p> - -<p>The beginning of the parliament was prophetic of -what was to come. At the time no cause could seem -lower than that of the court. The Whigs had swept the -country at the elections. Everything at Whitehall, at the -exchequer, in the services, was in disorder and disrepair. -The royal household still clamoured for unpaid wages. -The whole nation was in a ferment. Men’s minds were -painfully divided by the project of exclusion. Innumerable -cabals, intriguing one against another, troubled the -surface of politics and clouded the depths. No one could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[186]</span> -tell what designs and what dangers any moment might -bring forth. Above all no one could gauge the king’s -intentions. Uncertainty reigned everywhere, and it seemed -as if the opposing forces had but to make one push and -thrust aside the resistance of government, order England -as they would, and reign in peace.<a id="FNanchor_336" href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">336</a> A somewhat different -light is shed by after events on “the very melancholy -aspect” which Sir John Reresby noted in the kingdom. -In spite of the clamour raised on all sides against feebleness -and irresolution, the government had marshalled its -strength with some adroitness. Danby was in the Tower. -The army was in the act of being disbanded. The treasury -was put into commission, and the Earl of Essex, -whose austerity and popular sympathies could not but -inspire some measure of confidence, named as first commissioner. -Before Parliament assembled the Duke of -York at his brother’s command had left the kingdom, -and was watching events with wrath and foreboding, but -with little influence, from across the Channel. Nothing -that could betoken a conciliatory spirit in the court had -been omitted. There followed a move still more important -as a check to the unbridled Commons. The committee of -secrecy had just been instructed to consider methods of -impeachment of the five Popish lords, when on April 21 -the king announced to Parliament that he had chosen a -new privy council. The scheme he went on to outline, -though attributed at the time to divers other heads, had -its origin in the elegant fancy of Sir William Temple.<a id="FNanchor_337" href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">337</a> -That excellent ambassador and gardener, returning from a -mission to the Hague, found the turbulence of the state -and the dangers surrounding the king such that he -promptly set to considering how he might devise some -advantage to his master’s service. Diplomatic experience -and a natural bent to theoretical statesmanship were more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[187]</span> -prominent in his mind than knowledge of the practical -expedients which must temper the keenness of political -ideas in action. He saw Parliament daily encroaching, -as it seemed to him, on the royal prerogative; he saw the -king drawing apart from his people; he feared an open -rupture which might throw the state into convulsion. -On these considerations he evolved the notion of a third -authority, which, standing midway between the two, should -act at the same time as a cushion and as a link. The -instrument he found in the privy council. By reducing -the number from fifty to thirty Temple hoped that business -would be discussed by the whole board, cabals and secret -understandings avoided. Members were no longer to be -of one party only, or allied in ambition; on the contrary, -fifteen places should go to officers of state, fifteen to -popular leaders from both houses of Parliament; and -since he observed authority to follow land, Temple -arranged that the total income of the several members -should amount to £300,000, a sum to be compared not -unfavourably with that of the House of Commons, which -was estimated at a third as much again. By such a council -the king’s policy would be ably regulated. Its composition -would give confidence even to the most hostile parliament. -Neither by Parliament nor by king could its -authority be lightly disregarded. In the event of a breach -between the two the council would be rich enough to assist -the finances of the state. At the same time the king -could be certain, by means of the votes of his fifteen -officers, that he would not be forced to act against his own -interests. The project won instant approval. Essex considered -that it pointed a return to the happy days of the -Restoration; Lord Sunderland, now secretary of state in -place of Sir Joseph Williamson, was favourably impressed; -the Lord Chancellor declared it was as a thing from heaven -fallen into his majesty’s breast. The Chancellor’s remark -had an unwitting point. Though the scheme was of -Temple’s conception, Charles made it his own by a characteristic -touch. He consented to the inclusion of Halifax -in the new council only after some pressure, for he disliked<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[188]</span> -and perhaps feared the great Trimmer. It was therefore -with amazement that his advisers heard the king name -Lord Shaftesbury. Still more amazing, Charles positively -insisted on the earl’s inclusion as an extraordinary member -of the council and its president. Temple was compelled -to submit, not without protest. It was an act which should -have given pause to optimists. None the less the news of -the scheme was hailed with general applause. Bonfires -were lighted in the city, the East India Company’s stock -rose rapidly, Barillon did not conceal his mortification, -and the Dutch republic marked the occasion by the -appointment of one of its most able ministers as ambassador -to St. James’; only the House of Commons viewed -the matter in an unexpected light and with dissatisfaction. -While the French feared a bond of union between the -hostile parties in England and old Cavaliers that the king -had delivered himself into the hands of his enemies, the -Whigs held sullenly aloof from rejoicing, or proclaimed -that they were being led into a trap. The Earl of Essex -had already lost credit with his friends by serving on the -commission for the treasury, and those of the party who -took places on the council found that glances were cast -askance at them as betrayers of their trust.<a id="FNanchor_338" href="#Footnote_338" class="fnanchor">338</a></p> - -<p>To most eyes the situation as affected by the change -of council was far from clear. The king himself held the -key to it. Whether or no Temple’s scheme was really -practicable, Charles did not intend to try. He had gained -a point by dissolving his old council, which was filled with -friends of Danby.<a id="FNanchor_339" href="#Footnote_339" class="fnanchor">339</a> Another and a greater advantage -was that signified by the choice of Shaftesbury as president -of the new. His friends thought the king guilty of a -lamentable piece of feebleness. Had the council been -meant to consult it would perhaps have been so. But<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[189]</span> -this was far from Charles’ design. “God’s fish!” he said -to an intimate, “they have put a set of men about me, but -they shall know nothing, and this keep to yourself.” -Evidently the diplomatic constitution had no grand future -before it. And so it proved. Within a short time the -author was actively disregarding his own principle by forming -one of a cabinet of four with Sunderland, Essex, and -Halifax, to arrange matters before they came before the -council and Parliament; while Charles, as good as his -word, kept his own counsel and acted without the advice -either of them or of the board at large, on one notable -occasion against its will and to the great displeasure of the -popular members. In Parliament the Whig councillors -continued their opposition as fiercely as ever, but at the -council board they had little influence. The position -rapidly became impossible. It can hardly be doubted -that this was Charles’ exact intention. He had achieved -a double success. He had seemed to give the Whig -leaders a chance of reforming the government, while in -fact he had only driven them to greater exasperation. In -the eyes of the nation he had offered a compromise, secure -in the knowledge that it would not be accepted. The trick -which the Commons feared had been played to a nicety. -For this their chiefs had only to thank themselves. Had -they acted on their suspicion and refused places on the -council, their conduct would in this have been faultless. -But the bait was too tempting to be rejected. They -accepted the offer of office, intending from this new -post of vantage to pursue their old plans. Their duplicity -gained nothing. The king had provided for the result, -and their failure could only seem due to the deceit and -intolerance with which they had repulsed his good intentions. -On October 15, 1679 Shaftesbury was dismissed -from the council in consequence of his agitation against -the Duke of York, and three months later Russell, -Cavendish, Capel, and Powle, his four most prominent -allies on the board, tendered their resignation by his -advice. Charles accepted it in the words, “With all my -heart.” The famous scheme was thus finally abandoned.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[190]</span> -Temple withdrew from politics to his garden and his -library. Essex quitted the treasury and openly joined -the opposition. Only Halifax, after retirement to the -country, remained in the king’s service.<a id="FNanchor_340" href="#Footnote_340" class="fnanchor">340</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile the tide in Parliament ran high against the -government. The new constitution had hardly begun its -career before the Commons on April 27 settled to consider -how they might best preserve his Majesty’s person from -the attacks of papists. Impotent attempts made by -members in the court interest to divert the debate only -increased its keenness, and the House passed from stage to -stage of fiery enthusiasm until on Mr. Hampden’s motion -it was unanimously declared that “the Duke of York -being a papist and the hopes of his coming such to the -crown have given the greatest countenance and encouragement -to the present conspiracies and designs of papists -against the king and the Protestant religion.” With the -addition that James had been the unwilling cause of the -Plot, the House of Lords adopted the motion as it stood. -This was the prelude to the piece to come. On Sunday, -May 11, when daylight had gone out with talk, a resolution -was carried, those against it refusing to have their -votes taken, “that a bill be brought in to disable the -Duke of York to inherit the Imperial Crown of this -realm.” It was followed by the ferocious declaration of -the Commons that they would stand by his Majesty with -their lives and fortunes and, should he come to any violent -death (which God forbid!), revenge it to the utmost upon -the Roman Catholics. Four days later the Exclusion bill -was introduced and read for the first time. On May 21 -it passed the second reading and was committed. The -threatening aspect of these events could not be mistaken. -The Commons were fierce and pertinacious. Danby’s -discomfiture was followed by an attack on Lauderdale and -by another, still more violent, on the system of secret<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[191]</span> -service money. “Extraordinary heats” broke out on the -question whether bishops had or having should retain their -right to sit in judgment upon peers arraigned on a capital -charge, for the trial of the five Popish lords was expected, -and the strength of the spiritual peers was a matter of -grave consideration to those who hoped for an adverse -verdict. Many were the indecencies, records Burnet, that -arose on this occasion both in town and in country. Shaftesbury -was expecting an easy triumph. Suddenly all came -to an end. The king had information that the common -council of the city was about to offer public assistance to -the Commons in their efforts for the preservation of the -Protestant faith, and that an inflammatory remonstrance on -the subject of the Plot lay ready for presentation in the -House. His mind was made up. With the cheerfulness -characteristic of him he seemed to be thinking of nothing, -when on May 26 he summoned the Commons to his -presence and without warning declared a prorogation of -three months. Eight weeks later Charles dissolved the -Little Parliament of Westminster against the advice of -almost the whole of his council. The blow fell with -crushing effect upon the Whig party. Shaftesbury swore -openly that he would have the heads of those who had -counselled it.<a id="FNanchor_341" href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">341</a> Yet this uproarious session produced one -good thing. Before proroguing Parliament the king -gave his assent to the Habeas Corpus Act, its solitary -record on the statute book. How near that sheet was to -being blank may be told by the fact that this measure, of -weighty importance in the history of England, only passed -its third reading in the House of Lords because the Whig -teller in joke counted one very fat lord as ten.<a id="FNanchor_342" href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">342</a></p> - -<p>Neither Parliament nor the privy council as a whole -can properly be said at this time to have been the government -of the country. Under the old system the council<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[192]</span> -was a large and chiefly honorary body, the business of -which was regularly transacted by a few of its members. -By Sir William Temple’s construction it became a miniature -of the House of Commons as in the days when the -government could count upon about half the votes with -an occasional majority. Though those who carried on -affairs might be privy councillors, there were also many -councillors who made it their chief business to prevent -them from doing so. The parliament of 1679 was still -less to be classed with the government than its predecessor. -Here the Commons hardly disguised an overmastering -wish to obstruct the administration by others until it fell -wholly into their own hands, and to force on the government -a policy framed in the country and strongly disapproved -at court. The humour of the Commons -seemed to infect the Lords also. The alarm and activity -of the upper house throughout the panic of the Plot -almost equalled those of the Commons; and it was by -great exertion alone that the court could carry the day -even when the gravest interests were at stake. The -English state presented at the moment a striking appearance. -Since the beginning of the modern world government -in England has been with scant exception by consent, not -only in the sense that in every case force is ultimately on -the side of the governed, but by virtue of the fact that -the English government has had nothing on which to rely -but the consent of the nation. Two famous examples had -already shown how hard of execution other methods must -be. Mutual agreement between parts of the frame was -necessary to its usefulness. But now it seemed as if this -was no more. Variance had sprung up and silently grown -until it became direct opposition. Government and -governed were divided by an openly contrary spirit. It -was a question how far Charles’ government could allow -the division to widen without being engulfed in it. On -the one side were ranged the forcible and callous statesmen -who had organised the country party in the old Cavalier -Parliament and transformed its soul to Whiggism; the -country gentlemen, formerly staunchest adherents of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[193]</span> -government, the class from whom now its keen opponents -were drawn; religious dissenters; high-principled republicans; -malcontents of every kind; the squirearchy, -the magistracy, the Church of England.<a id="FNanchor_343" href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">343</a> On the other -there met this formidable array a mere handful of men, -dependents of the court or trained officials zealous to -perform their duty and to uphold the traditions of English -politics. The government was formed of the king and -his servants, chief among them the secretaries of state. -Apart from these support for the king’s policy was -meagre indeed.</p> - -<p>The work which fell on the secretaries’ shoulders was -immense. Throughout the winter which followed Oates’ -revelations a perpetual stream of reports, warnings, informations -poured into their offices. From all quarters came -disturbing news. Alarms of armed men exercising in -bands at night were constant. Spanish forces were said -to have landed in Ireland and the French in Scotland. -Tynemouth Castle was reported blown up by gunpowder. -Five thousand Spaniards were in Wales. A combined -French and Spanish fleet was only prevented by a storm -from landing at Milford Haven. The king’s ships at -Chatham and elsewhere were to be burnt and thus facilitate -the passage of troops from Dunkirk, while Hull and other -seaports were ready to receive the invaders. Gentlemen -rode up from Yorkshire with wild tales of “the crack and -noise” in those parts, and in the West Riding the militia -was called out against imaginary foes. Vast fears came -from Cheshire of strange persons and a private post,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[194]</span> -denoting no good intentions. An English doctor wrote -from Amsterdam telling how he had overheard conspirators -planning the king’s destruction for the month -of April, and had barely escaped being murdered for -his indiscretion.<a id="FNanchor_344" href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">344</a> All this and a vast mass of the same -description demanded instant attention, decision, and -answer. Frivolous accusations against reputed papists -and plotters were innumerable. A well-wisher sent from -Vienna as a present to the king an antidote of astonishing -excellence against possible poisons. A still more ingenious -correspondent forwarded a scheme to turn the tables on -the pope by “assaulting the city of Rome on that side -where the Vatican palace stands and bringing away the -library.”<a id="FNanchor_345" href="#Footnote_345" class="fnanchor">345</a> In Ireland, where the Duke of Ormonde’s -sober government preserved admirable order, long reports -were drawn up for the instruction of the secretaries at -Whitehall, and these too had to be perused.<a id="FNanchor_346" href="#Footnote_346" class="fnanchor">346</a> London -alone, apart from the turmoil caused by Godfrey’s death, -provided heavy work. Order had to be taken for safeguarding -the palace; twenty doors leading into St. James’ -Park were blocked and a sewer grated. Protestants and -Catholics posted mutual accusations to Whitehall until -the secretaries were at their wits’ end how to deal with -them. On the prorogation of Parliament in May, bills -were distributed urging the prentices to take arms and -demand the trial of the lords in the Tower. The guards -at the palace were doubled, strong watches posted, and -every precaution taken. A few weeks before it had been -thought necessary to send two companies of dragoons to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[195]</span> -Portsmouth,<a id="FNanchor_347" href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">347</a> The whole country seemed on the verge -of insurrection. In December Charles thought he saw -signs of a rebellion brewing. A few months later Danby -drew up a memorandum in the Tower which clearly shewed -that he was of the same opinion. He suggested that the -king should take up his residence out of London and call -Parliament to meet him away from the capital, the stronghold -of his opponents’ power. Touch should be kept with -the troops disbanded. All who had served against the -king in the Civil War could be forced to register their -names. The navy might be officered by men who would -have influence on the sailors. Lastly and most significant, -the Tower should be secured.<a id="FNanchor_348" href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">348</a></p> - -<p>Such and so multifarious were the doings of members -of the government. Yet they were members only. The -head was the king’s, the policy his, and to him its ultimate -failure or success must be ascribed.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[196]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II3">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">THE CATHOLICS</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Of</span> the five hundred Cavalier gentlemen who fell in the -Civil War more than one-third were Catholics,<a id="FNanchor_349" href="#Footnote_349" class="fnanchor">349</a> The -remnant of the class that had once been the most -dignified and the wealthiest in England was thrown by -the Popish Plot into the fiercest persecution known to -its history. For the first time a real attempt was made -to put the penal laws into full force. All over the -country the prisons were filled, houses of Roman -Catholics searched for arms, their estates confiscated. -Fourteen men were executed for high treason in the Plot, -three for Godfrey’s murder. Eight Catholic priests -suffered on account of their orders under the statute of -Queen Elizabeth which made it treason for a subject -to take orders from the Church of Rome and, returning -to England, to remain there upwards of forty days. -Five died in prison. Thirty more were condemned to -death, but were reprieved, and of these sixteen died in -confinement.<a id="FNanchor_350" href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">350</a> The actual figures are enough, but they -do not complete the tale of suffering. Nothing is told -by them of the persecution less than to death, the -harrying of men and women for conscience’ sake, the -cruel blight fallen on the lives of hundreds because of -the crimes and follies of intriguers who turned religion -to be an affair of politics. The odour of mystery and -the fear of foreign assault which Catholic designs had -for years aggravated had worked in the minds of Englishmen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[197]</span> -with so strong a ferment that, were there much or -little of truth in the Plot, it needed only an opportunity -for hardly concealed terror and hatred finally to burst -restraint.<a id="FNanchor_351" href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">351</a> On all sides the lot of Catholics was pitiable. -Those in London who were not imprisoned were banished -from the capital. As many as thirty thousand were said -to have fled. In the country fresh persecution awaited -them. Justices of the peace had orders to execute strictly -the laws against recusants, the Lord Chancellor to weed -the commission of those who did not. Popish books and -relics were diligently sought out, seized, and burnt. The -library, papers, and vestments of Father Harcourt, rector -of the Jesuit College in London, went to make a public -bonfire. Wild House, the residence of the Weld family -near the Strand, and a noted resort of Roman Catholics, -was ransacked and twenty-seven chests of goods haled -from a grotto in the garden. Houses of eminent Catholics -all over the kingdom were searched and searched again, -and sometimes almost destroyed by the efforts of officers -to find hidden priests. Catholic merchants found themselves -bankrupt. Everywhere Catholics were driven from -home and livelihood, reduced to beggary. Only the -Penderels, Huddlestone the priest, and others who had -helped the king in his flight from Worcester escaped -the general fate. Charles’ gratitude procured for them -exemption from the action of the laws.<a id="FNanchor_352" href="#Footnote_352" class="fnanchor">352</a> For the rest -only good fortune could mitigate the horrors of that -time. Those in prison had nothing on which to subsist -but the charity of friends. Seized at inns, in secret -retreats, on beds of sickness, they were hurried through -rain or snow to dreadful cells without money or a -sufficient supply of clothes. The Duke and Duchess of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[198]</span> -York, Lord Castlemaine, and other noble Catholics made -great efforts for their fellows in religion. Yet to relieve -the vast mass of suffering no private aid could suffice. -Many were reduced to the greatest distress. Some even -died of want. Priests, hunted from one to another more -painful hiding-place, were put to every shift to evade -capture. For days they lay, cramped and hungry, in -holes within walls, behind chimneys, even fastened up -beneath tables, while their pursuers tore up the floors, -broke down the walls, dug up the garden walks within -a few yards of them. When they ventured forth to -escape, it was in the depth of winter, through ice and -mud, and in the teeth of midnight storms. Nor were -the pious alone objects of attack. The most irreligious -of their religion were not spared. Long-stored enmity -and an insatiable desire for novelty caught at victims -of whatever character. The Duchesse Mazarin, who -lived only for play and her light loves, was accused of -being a party to the Plot. Where the end would come -no man could say. All the Catholics in the service of -the royal family who could took ship for the continent. -The Duchess of York wrote to her brother that she -could not describe the hundredth part of the trouble into -which they were plunged. Many abjured their faith or -at least took the condemned oaths of allegiance and -supremacy. Pilate and Herod, wrote the Jesuit Warner -to his general, were banded with the heretic priests against -his society and the Catholics. A few weeks later he -added: “Hope itself is scarce left us.”<a id="FNanchor_353" href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">353</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[199]</span></p> - -<p>In no part of the country was persecution more bitter -than in Yorkshire. Even before the time of the Popish -Plot Catholics in the country had been subjected to -considerable annoyance, and when “the great crack and -noise” of the event burst on the astonished ears of the -world they became at once the object of vehement attack. -Inquisition was made in all parts for priests and recusants. -The cells of York Castle, of which the condition was -notorious in an age of notorious prisons, were filled. To -priests and their relatives particular attention was paid. -Soon two scoundrels, by name Mowbray and Bolron, came -forward to give evidence of the preparations of papists to -aid in the grand design discovered by Oates. Bolron had -been manager of coal-pits on the estate of Sir Thomas -Gascoigne, an aged baronet and representative of the -ancient family of Barnbow Hall in the West Riding, and, -being suspected of fraud, was threatened with a prosecution -for felony by Lady Tempest, the baronet’s daughter. -Mowbray was a servant in the same family discharged on -suspicion of theft. Thus the two had every reason to -plot revenge. Bolron swore that Sir Thomas, together -with his daughter, Sir Miles Stapleton, several other -gentlemen, and his nephew, a priest named Thwing, had -signed a resolution to kill the king and had offered a -thousand pounds to whoever should do the deed. -Mowbray added that they had intended to burn London -and York to the ground. The Yorkshire magistrates -refused to act on the information of known criminals, -but Bolron went to town and found in Shaftesbury -an inquisitor who would not consent to see the matter -dropped.<a id="FNanchor_354" href="#Footnote_354" class="fnanchor">354</a> Sir Thomas was tried at Westminster, but -acquitted by a jury of Yorkshire gentlemen. Sir Miles -Stapleton and Lady Tempest stood their trial at York. -They also were acquitted, but upon the same discreditable -evidence Thwing was convicted and on October 23, -1680 suffered the penalty for high treason. In spite of -the fact that three juries had disbelieved his word Bolron -was able by permission of the House of Commons to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[200]</span> -produce an ingenious forgery, entitled “The Papists’ -Bloody Oath of Secrecy and Litany of Intercession,” -which after repeated exposure and the lapse of more than -two centuries is still sometimes taken for true by his more -gullible, if less malignant, successors. For the moment -the acquittal of Gascoigne and his friends stayed the flow -of blood, but the Yorkshire Protestants shewed effectively -by their conduct at the Revolution that their feelings -remained unchanged.<a id="FNanchor_355" href="#Footnote_355" class="fnanchor">355</a></p> - -<p>While persecution fell indiscriminately on those who -confessed the creed of the Roman Church, it was not to -be expected that all should view their troubles alike. -The lead given in the speech from the throne was freely -followed. It was a Jesuit plot, said the king. It was a -Jesuit plot, cried Catholics who were not under the -influence of the order. The society has seldom drawn -the affection of many outside its own ranks in any age, and -in the seventeenth century incurred the hatred of almost -all parts of the English Catholic body. Constant intrigues -set the secular priests, members of the other -orders, and, it can hardly be doubted, a large number of -laymen against its restless and selfish policy. The result -was plain. For the doings of the society every one had -now to suffer. In the midst of fierce trouble it was not -against the government but against the Jesuits that -Catholic resentment was shewn. Jesuits were everywhere -scouted, railed at for their pernicious principles, scarce -treated civilly in the company they sought. There was -even rejoicing at their downfall. At last old scores would -be paid off; at last all the juggles and intrigues at court -would find their due reward in public shame. The Jesuit -historian sighs with meek grief at the additional burden -the society was compelled to bear.<a id="FNanchor_356" href="#Footnote_356" class="fnanchor">356</a> It was perhaps not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[201]</span> -only political intrigues that roused the displeasure of -laymen. Though many of the priesthood were men of -saintly temper and bore affliction with constancy and -admirable effort on behalf of their brethren, there were -also black sheep among them. Scandal caused by priests -who thronged the court was of long standing. In the -opinion of the more discreet their behaviour was such as -to cause harm rather than good to the Catholic religion -in England.<a id="FNanchor_357" href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">357</a> The case of St. Germain was notorious. -Great disrepute was brought on the Society of Jesus by the -story of Godfrey’s murder: had the real facts been known -they would have been more damaging still. Yet more -unfortunate, since it brought laughter with it, was the case -of Father John Gavan, the famous martyr and Jesuit who -was likened to “an angel of God” and his voice in -preaching to “a silver trumpet”; for, having done battle -in youth with the lust of the flesh, he was seized at the -height of his reputation in the stables of the Imperial -ambassador, where he was hiding with a woman who -passed as his wife and their son.<a id="FNanchor_358" href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">358</a></p> - -<p>It was the distressing fate of so prized a member of -the society to be a cause of dissension and scandal. Even -his death at Tyburn did not make an end. The no less -famous Dr. John Sergeant, who had passed a long career -in controversy against Jesuit and Protestant divines, came -forward to blacken Gavan’s memory. Sergeant had -already given trouble to the Roman officials by his teaching -on the oath of allegiance.<a id="FNanchor_359" href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">359</a> With the prosecution of -the Popish Plot the movement in favour of the oath -naturally grew in strength among moderate Catholics;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[202]</span> -the formula had been many times condemned at Rome; -and it was heard with dismay at the curia that the Duke -of Norfolk had flouted authority and taken the oath, -presumably to obtain more easily a pass to go beyond -seas.<a id="FNanchor_360" href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">360</a> With others of his order Gavan had written -against the oath and, though he pronounced in his speech -from the gallows against the notion that kings might be -killed at the pope’s command, would not surrender the -theory of the deposing power.<a id="FNanchor_361" href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">361</a> Soon after his execution -Sergeant came to Henry Sidney, ambassador at the Hague. -He knew nothing of the Plot, but offered to prove that -according to the teaching of a certain Jesuit the queen -might lawfully kill the king for his unfaithfulness. Sidney -brought the priest to London, where on October 31, 1679 -he was examined by the king in council. A few months -later the council again received his information and that -of another priest, David Morris, who had been educated -at St. Omers and the English Jesuit College in Rome. -The Jesuit of whom they spoke was Gavan. It seemed -that he had expressed the opinion complained of to a lady -living in Brussels. By order of the House of Commons -the depositions were printed and obtained a wide circulation. -The spectacle of two priests informing against a -brother in orders was calculated to afford grave scandal -to Catholics and equal satisfaction to Protestants. Considerable -pains were taken by the Jesuits to upset the -credit of the story, and the rector of the college at Liège -wrote an account containing a denial of the fact by the -lady in question; but the compiler of the <i>Annual Letters</i> -for the year 1680 was unfortunate in choosing to cast -doubt upon her credibility, thus leaving the matter as -much open to question as before.<a id="FNanchor_362" href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">362</a> The division in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[203]</span> -Catholic body of which this was a symptom was a source -of undoubted weakness: all the efforts to crush those in -favour of the oath were unavailing, and lively agitation -was caused by the certain news that the Duke of York -himself had pledged his allegiance by it, seduced thereto -by the example of so many born Catholics who upheld -its lawfulness.<a id="FNanchor_363" href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">363</a> However much it might be denied in -public controversy, the refusal to allow the oath to -Catholics was indissolubly bound up with the claim to -the papal power of deposition. About the same time a -priest whose name is given as Forstal maintained that the -king might be deposed at the command or at least with -the participation of the pope. James questioned the -nuncio at Brussels on the subject, and received answer -that the error lay not in the opinion held, but in the -choice of so inopportune a moment to express it, since -the worst consequences might be expected. No doubt -the matter was in debate, but the meaning to be drawn<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[204]</span> -from the prelate’s reply was obvious, for he did not -think it worth while to argue the point further. The -priest guilty of such rashness was induced to withdraw -for a time to a monastery in Westphalia. Prudence was -above all things necessary in the cause of the church.<a id="FNanchor_364" href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">364</a></p> - -<p>The Catholic body was thus divided within itself when -the odium into which it had fallen was enhanced by the -obscure intrigue known as the Meal Tub Plot. It was -a time when Catholics could afford to take few risks in -their conduct. Besides direct charges against them they -lay under the imputation of more than one attempt to -confound their accusers by means as base as those used -against themselves; two brothers of Prance, who was not -distinguished by the world from other informers, were -secular priests; Jennison, a follower in the train of Oates, -had a brother in the Society of Jesus, who lay dying in -Newgate, and was thought to be a wealthy country gentleman -appearing for honesty’s sake to enlighten his fellow-countrymen; -strong suspicion attached to witnesses who -came to speak for the Jesuits at their trials.<a id="FNanchor_365" href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">365</a> It might -therefore be expected that the more Catholics loved their -religion, the more carefully would they refrain from -adding to the frightful hostility already shewn against it. -Nevertheless it was at this moment that some of their -leaders, not without influence or repute, undertook to -retaliate on their enemies by weapons of more than -questionable worth. Whether they were the first movers -in the affair or entered it on the invitation of others was -the question.</p> - -<p>In March 1679 a young man of infamous character -who went by the name sometimes of Willoughby, sometimes -of Dangerfieid, lay in the debtor’s side of Newgate. -Having been in gaol for the best part of a year, he began -to turn his thoughts to means of getting out, and proceeded<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[205]</span> -to draw articles of complaint against Captain -Richardson, the keeper of Newgate, for his treatment of -prisoners. This came to the ears of another gaol-bird, -Mrs. White, who, fancying Dangerfield’s ability, on her -discharge imparted the fact to a friend on the look-out -for an assistant of talent. Her friend was Mrs. Cellier, -whose name and character have become notorious in a -swarm of pamphlets and reports of trials of the time. -She was the wife of a French merchant and pursued the -profession of midwife, and assuredly of something else, -within a circle of Roman Catholic notables. She was -employed to collect alms for the relief of those of her -religion in prison for the Plot. She had been concerned -in the unsavoury case of Knox and Lane, who were put -up to defame Oates’ character.<a id="FNanchor_366" href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">366</a> When witnesses were -sent over from St. Omers to give evidence at the trials, -it was at her house that they were lodged and fed by -Lord Castlemaine. The Duchess of York had used her -services to no small extent. She was in fact a regular -agent of the Catholic nobles in political intrigue, and in -close connection with the Countess of Powis, whose -husband, together with the Lords Petre, Arundel, Stafford, -and Bellasis, was in the Tower on a charge of high treason, -a woman of bold and active spirit and devoted to the -Duke of York. The conduct of Mrs. Cellier was not -such as to inspire confidence in the purity of her intentions. -Armed with Mrs. White’s information she repaired -to one Gadbury, an astrologer, for Dangerfield’s horoscope, -pretending that she wished for a man to collect her -husband’s debts. To suppose that any sane person could -use one of Dangerfield’s stamp for the purpose would be -absurd: it was certainly for other purposes that he was -wanted. Their character soon became apparent. For -there was in Newgate a prisoner named Stroud, a friend -of Bedloe and thought capable of proving that the Earl -of Shaftesbury was suborning witnesses against the lords -in the Tower. Dangerfield was employed to make him -drunk and learn what he could. So well did he perform<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[206]</span> -his task that Mrs. Cellier paid his debts, whether to the -amount of five pounds, as she, or of seven hundred, as he -said, and obtained his release. He was a handsome fellow -enough, and found favour in her eyes. It was now the -month of June. Dangerfield was maintained by his friend, -and earned his wages by doing the work of messenger -for the witnesses sent from beyond seas for the defence of -the Five Jesuits, who stood their trial at this time.<a id="FNanchor_367" href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">367</a></p> - -<p>Clad in a decent suit, with money in his pocket, and -the friend of Mrs. Cellier’s bosom, Dangerfield began to -go about the town. He was taken to Powis House and -introduced to the Countess. He took notes at the trials -of Wakeman and Langhorn and carried them to Lord -Powis in the Tower. Indeed his appearance was so -pleasing and his recommendation so high that he was -allowed to take up his abode at Powis House, and even -to sit with Lady Powis at table.<a id="FNanchor_368" href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">368</a> And now the serious -business began. One Nevil, alias Payne, a writer of -libellous pamphlets, was retained by Mrs. Cellier with -others of his trade for the service of Lady Powis. Dangerfield’s -talents were added to the band, which carried on a -lively production of ballads and pamphlets, such as “The -Transforming of Traitors into Martyrs,” “The Presbyterian -Unmasked,” “The Ballad of the Popish Plot,” -“The Danby Reflections,” and an edition of the Five -Jesuits’ dying speeches, all launched against the Presbyterians. -Dangerfield was an attorney’s son and, having -been bred a clerk, could write with some smartness. At -the same time he was employed to go the round of coffee-houses -frequented by old Presbyterians and new Whigs, -to pick up what scraps of information against them he -could.<a id="FNanchor_369" href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">369</a> The result was most satisfactory. Lists of names<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[207]</span> -were obtained from the drawers. By means of Gadbury, -Dangerfield was introduced to Sir Robert Peyton, the great -Whig merchant whose apostasy was the first blow to -the Whig cause. He thought of joining the King’s Head -Club himself, but was dissuaded on learning that he would -be required to pay a subscription of one or two guineas. -He began to find out the habits of Shaftesbury’s partisans. -Presently there appeared between Dangerfield and Mrs. -Cellier those papers, the authorship of which each fastened -upon the other, bearing witness to the existence of a -Presbyterian plot. According to Mrs. Cellier’s account -Dangerfield brought the notes to her; they were written -at the dictation of Lady Powis, was what he said. That -point may be discussed later. It is at any rate certain -that Lady Powis was acquainted with their contents and -ready to act upon them. She took Dangerfield to her -son-in-law, the Earl of Peterborough, Lord Peterborough -to the Duke of York, the Duke of York to the king, and -the papers, which contained an account of an extensive -movement planned by Shaftesbury and Monmouth, were -seen by all. The budget was headed “The State of the -Three Kingdoms.” The names of the leaders were noted -down, commissions were stated to have already been -granted, and a scheme for a revolutionary government was -sketched. James gave the captain, as Dangerfield was -styled by himself and Lord Peterborough, twenty guineas -in reward for his zeal; the king added forty more and -turned him over to Secretary Coventry. As earnest of his -good faith, Dangerfield produced two letters addressed to -Shaftesbury by Sir Richard Bulstrode, the minister at -Brussels. They were on indifferent subjects; but how -came they in Dangerfield’s possession? Coventry was -dissatisfied with the affair, and told the captain that if he -were to be believed, something more material must be -forthcoming. Dangerfield pressed for a general warrant -to search, but on the advice of Chief-Justice North was -refused. Evidently other means must be tried.<a id="FNanchor_370" href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">370</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[208]</span></p> - -<p>On October 22 Dangerfield, having given notice of a -parcel of Flanders lace smuggled into the country by one -Colonel Mansell, obtained a warrant to search his lodgings, -which were in the same house as his own. That is to say, -Dangerfield had specially engaged rooms under Mansell’s -roof. The colonel was named in his list as quartermaster -of the prospective Presbyterian army. Under Dangerfield’s -guidance the customs’ officers went through the -rooms, but could find nothing. He begged them to look -behind the bed and, when nothing came thence, himself -darted behind, pulled out a packet of papers, and began -to cry “Treason.” The officers took their find to a -justice of the peace, who, having regard to the suspicious -circumstances, acted upon the maxim, He who hides can -find, and issued a warrant for Dangerfield’s apprehension. -An investigation was immediately ordered by the council. -On the next day, as Dangerfield was waiting to be examined, -an officer of the Mint happened to pass and, recognising -in him an old offender, had him arrested for coining -false money. When Henry Coventry appeared in the -council-room he was met by the somewhat surprising -intelligence that his informer was in custody as a forger -and coiner, and was known for a noted criminal. A -thorough examination made the truth of the charges -certain, besides bringing to light the fact, unfortunate for -the captain, that he had stood twice in the pillory, had -only escaped a third dose of the same punishment by -breaking prison, and was in fine a mischievous and -notorious rascal. It was proved beyond doubt that he -had himself disposed the papers, containing a plain account -of the so-called Presbyterian Plot, in Mansell’s room and, -since there were no contraband goods there at all, had -only brought the customs’ officials to perform what the -refusal to grant a search warrant had prevented him from -doing otherwise. As the result on October 27 Dangerfield -was committed to Newgate. He had in the meantime -sent a note to Mrs. Cellier, and by her assistance was -let out for a couple of days on bail. Thus the authorities -were enabled to follow Dangerfield’s committal by a search<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[209]</span> -at Mrs. Cellier’s. Here on October 29 Sir William -Waller found two bundles of papers, one behind the -kitchen boiler, the other at the bottom of the meal tub, -whence on this account the name of the plot was derived. -One contained a copy of Dangerfield’s letter to the king, -offering to make yet greater disclosures; the other and -larger proved to be a considerable amplification of the -story he had told on his first introduction at court. Fearing -that the captain would betray her, Mrs. Cellier had a -message conveyed to him with the encouraging words, -which she boasted as her motto, “I never change,” and -was immediately after carried to the Gatehouse. The -Lady Errant, as she became known by her enemies, declared -afterwards that her fear was lest Dangerfield should -falsely use their connection to his own advantage. Whatever -its nature, her fear was justified; for on October 31 -he desired to be taken before Sir Robert Clayton, then -Lord Mayor, and made confession that the Presbyterian -Plot was, in a word invented by himself, a Sham destined -to cover the intentions of the papists and to ruin their -adversaries. The papers found in the meal tub, besides -the treasonable letters he had put behind Colonel Mansell’s -bed, were dictated to him by the Countess of Powis, and -approved by Lord Peterborough and Mrs. Cellier. He -had resisted the bribe of £2000 offered him by Lord -Arundel to murder the king, but had undertaken to the -Earl of Powis to assassinate Lord Shaftesbury for a quarter -of that sum. Divers attempts had actually been made on -the Whig leader; twice he had been himself to the earl’s -residence, Thanet House in Aldersgate Street, and once -Mrs. Cellier went in person, only to meet with failure. -All this had been with the knowledge and at the direction -of Roman Catholic priests. The next day Dangerfield -was taken before the council and affirmed the truth of his -statement.<a id="FNanchor_371" href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">371</a></p> - -<p>In the tangle of accusations and informations which -followed and were laboriously examined at the council<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[210]</span> -board, either side tried to throw the blame of the intrigue -on the other. Protestants were jubilant at the detection -of another Catholic plot, and swore by the whole truth of -Dangerfield’s confession. Catholics declared that the affair -was designed by Lord Shaftesbury to injure the Duke of -York, and that their leaders had been deceived by the -captain, who had led them step by step to catastrophe and -hid the treasonable packet at Colonel Mansell’s with the -sole intention that his own sketch of the Presbyterian -designs might be discovered in Mrs. Cellier’s meal tub.<a id="FNanchor_372" href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">372</a> -The intricacy of these events will probably never be wholly -developed. Every one concerned was ready to lie in his -own interest. Every one of the principals did lie, it can -hardly be doubted. Many committed perjury; and some -were probably suborned to perjure. The tale of complex -untruth and base endeavour is one that threatens to become -dreary. Nevertheless there are indications of the truth on -which a general opinion may be based. This is certain, -that Dangerfield, perilous rogue as he was known to be, -was taken from prison by Mrs. Cellier, the confidante of -Lady Powis, supported in her house and at her cost. He -was employed in maintaining the cause of their religion, -his employment was known to Lord Peterborough, a friend -of the Duke of York, and he was introduced to the duke -by him as an active agent against their common enemies. -By their account they took from him the tale of a Presbyterian -plot; by his own he invented it at their direction. -Were the Catholic statements accepted as true, they would -convict the duke’s party of most gross folly in trusting a -man of character so depraved: more than that, for the -man had been paid to play the spy and, it was admitted by -his employers, had been given hints that it would be good -to discover plots of the nature of that which he retailed to -them; and to accept such a story without investigation, -when it was known that the teller had orders beforehand<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[211]</span> -to collect materials, argues at least some disingenuity. -Nor is this all. There is reason to think that in some -essentials Dangerfield’s confession contained the truth. -Supposing that, as Lord Peterborough and his friends -declared, the captain had only hidden his parcel behind -Mansell’s bed in order to be detected, he would at least -have taken the trouble to make discovery of evidence -against Mrs. Cellier certain. The papers concocted between -them were in his possession, and he had only to hide -them without her knowledge where they could be easily -found by an officer. On the supposition that he meant to -turn informer against the Catholics their discovery at Mrs. -Cellier’s was necessary to his success. Without it there -would be no more than his bare word to shew that they -had employed him at all. As evidence the find of papers -was invaluable to him. Yet he did not even attempt to -supply that evidence. So far from concealing the incriminating -notes himself, he gave them to Mrs. Cellier to dispose -as she thought best. The natural thing for her to -do was to burn them and, for all Dangerfield knew, she -might have done so. For whatever reason she preferred -the other course. She gave the papers to her servant to -hide, and it was the servant who placed them in the regions -of the kitchen where they were found by Sir William -Waller.<a id="FNanchor_373" href="#Footnote_373" class="fnanchor">373</a> Dangerfield could not possibly have known of -their concealment or even of their preservation. The fact -that Mrs. Cellier chose to conceal the evidence against her -rather than deliver it to the council, which would have -been her best course had she been wholly innocent, or -burn it to destroy the traces of her guilt, if she were -guilty, tells nothing; for on Dangerfield’s arrest she hoped -that he would still be faithful to her, and was not in any -case so clean of hand as to court an inquiry into the nature -of the services she had from him. She may well have -hoped that their connection would escape notice. But -beyond this it is plain that, even if she was not aware of -Dangerfield’s intention to fix the odium of a fictitious plot<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[212]</span> -on the Protestant party, her relations with him were of so -intimate a kind that only wilful ignorance could have saved -her from knowledge of it. She knew of the treasonable -papers in Colonel Mansell’s room and, when a search -warrant could not be procured, it was she who advised -Dangerfield to have recourse to the customs house.<a id="FNanchor_374" href="#Footnote_374" class="fnanchor">374</a> At -least one who was closely acquainted with the Catholic -leaders and could not be suspected of prejudice declared -the whole affair to be a design of persons zealous for the -Duke of York. Lord Peterborough and Lady Powis, -wrote the French ambassador, thought to render a great -service by bringing forward a man who would give evidence -against the Earl of Shaftesbury. They had merely tried -to use tools similar to those by which their enemies were -thought to have achieved success.<a id="FNanchor_375" href="#Footnote_375" class="fnanchor">375</a></p> - -<p>Though it was admitted that Dangerfield had tried to -fit the Protestants with a forged plot and highly probable -that the Catholics had a hand in the forgery, there is yet -something to be said on the other side. The Presbyterian -plot was a fiction; but there was a basis of Dangerfield’s -story that was not fictitious. An actual movement, the -lines of which are partly known, was at the moment being -concerted by the Whig leaders. The list of those concerned -in the plot drawn up by Dangerfield contains the names -of many undoubtedly implicated, and of many afterwards -guilty of the treason of the Rye House Plot, which grew -out of the designs at this time.<a id="FNanchor_376" href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">376</a> Another fact is of importance. -To strengthen his story in the eyes of the secretary -of state, Dangerfield produced two letters belonging to -Lord Shaftesbury.<a id="FNanchor_377" href="#Footnote_377" class="fnanchor">377</a> In his confession he declared he had -stolen these on one of the occasions when he went to kill -the earl. There is no need to linger over the tales of -attempted assassination. Improbable as they were in -themselves, they are set beyond the bounds of credibility -by the informer’s halting narrative and the ridiculous<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[213]</span> -excuses he alleged for failure.<a id="FNanchor_378" href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">378</a> Nevertheless his production -of the letters makes it evident that he had been with the -Whig leader. There can be no doubt that he had some -knowledge of the Whig designs. Most likely he was -intriguing with both parties at the same time in order to -see which he could with greater profit betray, and ended -by betraying both, though the Catholics, since they had -trusted him the more, were more severely affected by the -results of his treachery. In the course of the next year -Mrs. Cellier and the Earl of Castlemaine were tried for -high treason. Lady Powis too had been committed to the -Tower, but the bill against her was ignored by the grand -jury. Both cases rested largely upon the evidence of -Dangerfield, against whom records of crime were produced -by the defence. As his pardon did not cover a felony of -which he had been convicted, Mrs. Cellier was formally -acquitted on the ground that he was no good witness and -that only one other appeared against her; and when the -pardon was afterwards corrected, the jury before whom -Castlemaine was tried refused to believe the word of a man -who bore the accumulated weight of sixteen convictions, -guilty of “six great enormous crimes,” and pronounced a -verdict of not guilty after an absence of only a few minutes -from the box.<a id="FNanchor_379" href="#Footnote_379" class="fnanchor">379</a> Few will be found to quarrel with the -judgment of the Lord Chancellor, who told Dangerfield: -“You are a fine fellow, first to come to his Majesty and -there tell him one story, then to my Lord Powis, and from -thence to my Lord Shaftesbury’s, discovering to one what -discourse you held with the other; and thus to bring one -story to the council, another to the Earl of Shaftesbury.”<a id="FNanchor_380" href="#Footnote_380" class="fnanchor">380</a></p> - -<p>The Duke of York’s conduct in the Meal Tub Plot -was characteristic of him. He had brought Dangerfield -to the king and by his imprudence was the cause of much -suspicion and distrust. No one felt certain how the affair -would turn out. People thought that James would “never<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[214]</span> -leave off tampering.”<a id="FNanchor_381" href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">381</a> He was a man with the smallest -aptitude for diplomacy. He was able neither to let events -take their course without interference nor by fingering -ever to improve them. He was always for action of a -decided and generally a tactless kind. While he persistently -endeavoured to make others change their views, his own -were held with an obstinacy that nothing could uproot. -His continual desire for activity was one of the difficulties -which most hampered Charles II’s policy. Apart from his -itch for management and a preference shared with other -politicians of the time for underhand dealing his very -presence at court was as a trumpet call to his enemies. -His severance from the Church of England was a -severance from the English people likewise. The -Church of Rome was traditionally held the enemy of -the nation. It was responsible for many of the doubts -and difficulties of the restored monarchy. Its action -was coupled in the general mind with the aggression of -foreign foes. For the heir to the throne at such a time -to go over to it was an act of great hardiness. Nor could -he do so without himself being proclaimed an enemy of -the people and disloyal to his duty. The horror expressed -at the notion that James should depart from the faith -which his father had signed with blood was increased by -contemplation of the results attending the step. The -Roman Catholic religion, it was said, introduced an -<i>imperium in imperio</i> and, were it settled in England, -would at once destroy the liberties and drain the wealth -of the country.<a id="FNanchor_382" href="#Footnote_382" class="fnanchor">382</a> It seemed as if the duke must have -some deep and sinister motive in his mind to leave the -religion that had been won by so much blood. Many -princes had changed their faith for reason of state, but the -instance of one who departed from the church of the people -against the clearest command of expedience and, as it -seemed to them, the no less clear showing of reason was -unparalleled. And the subtle influence of Jesuits who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[215]</span> -had wrought this in him was feared as well in the present -as for the future. So long as the duke remained at the -king’s right hand there was the added terror that he would -shape the royal policy in the direction whither he would -direct it himself from the throne. Nothing could be -devised to cure the distrust aroused by his attitude, except -that he should return to the Protestant religion or withdraw -from the king’s presence. The latter was tried with -success, the former without. By the advice of Danby, -when it was certain that the elections for the parliament -of 1679 were unfavourable to the court, James was -unwillingly sent out of England and ordered to take up -his abode in Brussels.<a id="FNanchor_383" href="#Footnote_383" class="fnanchor">383</a> Episcopal powers of persuasion -had already been tried on him in vain. Before he set -out another attempt was made, with the like result. It is -to the credit of his courage that no prospect of advantage -could bring him to surrender his faith. The bishops -brought forward every available argument, but were unable -to boast any satisfaction. Rome was hopeful that he -would withstand all similar proposals.<a id="FNanchor_384" href="#Footnote_384" class="fnanchor">384</a> As the prosecution -of the Popish Plot drove the storm higher against the -court and the Catholics, the pressure put on James to -recant his faith increased. A year later when the duke -was in London during the prorogation a strong attempt -was made by his friends. They knew that his conversion -would mean the greatest embarrassment to the host of -enemies who built high upon his opposition to the national -temper. Should he consent they would be compelled to -change all their plans and perhaps fail to find another -weapon strong enough to serve the same purpose. At -least he would be able to remain at court. Charles spoke -forcibly on the subject. A more powerful advocate was -found in the duchess, who despite James’ gross and -notorious profligacy exercised some influence on him and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[216]</span> -wished at any price to escape a third exile. Months went -by and the agitation continued. James seemed to be -weakening. As the day fixed for the meeting of Parliament -drew near, the gossip of Whitehall had it that he would -come over. Expectation was disappointed. On the day -before the session opened the duke and duchess set sail -for Edinburgh, as Catholic as ever.<a id="FNanchor_385" href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">385</a> There was nothing -to be gained from him by argument. Nor was he to be -driven. Even Charles’ threat that unless he went to -church the Exclusion bill should be passed failed to move -him. Conscience and honour forbade him equally to deny -and to dissemble his religion. Besides, if he were to -consent, Shaftesbury would only put about that he had a -dispensation from the pope and was still a Catholic at heart. -His mind was fixed. By God’s grace he was determined -“never to do so damnable a thing.”<a id="FNanchor_386" href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">386</a></p> - -<p>James’ mind was fixed on other points as well. He -could not understand that time had any value in the -struggle between men or delay any merit. The king’s -policy of waiting was wholly unintelligible to him. Ultimate -success seemed to him to depend upon immediate -triumph, and for immediate triumph he was ready to -stake everything. Each concession, each dilatory advance, -each deceptive retreat appeared as sure tokens that he and -the monarchy were on the verge of ruin, about to be -hurled together into the abyss. There was little enough -of sympathy between the brothers, who made a public -show of friendship and in private kept secrets to themselves. -When he afterwards compiled the memoirs of his life, -James was able to exhibit some calmness in discussing -their relations; for, as he said, the king was sensible that -their interest was at bottom the same against common -adversaries, since “his chief security lay in having a -successor they liked worse than himself.” “He resolved -therefore,” continued the writer, “to stick to the main -chance, and suffer no diminution in the prerogative during<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[217]</span> -his time; however, he thought it necessary to yield as far -as he could to convince the world of his sincerity, and to -put his enemies so much in the wrong (without parting -with any essential thing) as that, if they forced him to -break, he might have friends enough to assist him.”<a id="FNanchor_387" href="#Footnote_387" class="fnanchor">387</a> At -the time this series of penetrating afterthoughts did not -cross the duke’s mind. He had so little conception of -Charles’ aim and point of view as to be in constant terror -that he would be abandoned to the wrath of the opposing -forces. He conceived himself, like his son-in-law the -Prince of Orange, to be dealing with a volatile being of -pleasure, and crying, as the captain of a ship to his -helmsman in a storm: Steady, steady, steady.<a id="FNanchor_388" href="#Footnote_388" class="fnanchor">388</a> Only -positive commands and elaborate assurances, to which -even then he attached little weight,<a id="FNanchor_389" href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">389</a> could induce him to -leave the court at moments of crisis when his presence -was likely to have the worst possible effects. He could -never think that his absence would not serve only to -embolden his enemies. Present, he was continually interfering -and making unwise suggestions. Absent, he did -not cease pressing for his recall.<a id="FNanchor_390" href="#Footnote_390" class="fnanchor">390</a> Nor did he cease from -Belgium and Scotland to press on the king counsels of -desperation. Anything tainted with moderation had to -his nostrils the odour of surrender. He had not been -two months at Brussels before he was urging Charles to -steps which he knew must mean civil war. Ireland, -Scotland, the fleet, the guards, the garrisons, were still in -the king’s hand. The Prince of Orange had given -assurance that he would be on the side of royalty. Let -Charles cease to countenance Monmouth and the party -with him, let him think on the fate of Edward II, Richard -II, and the king his father. “Now or never,” wrote the -duke, “is the time to save the monarchy.”<a id="FNanchor_391" href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">391</a> This was -of a piece with all his advice. All things, he thought,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[218]</span> -tended to a republic. Sir William Temple’s council -seemed to him to make the king little better than a Doge -of Venice, and to leave him so little support that the -Exclusion bill could hardly be resisted, a calamity by -which the house of Stuart would be “absolutely ruined -and given up.” A short time after he expressed the -opinion that if Charles would not submit to be less than -a Doge of Venice a rebellion would be the necessary result. -By June 1679 he was writing; “Things have been let -go to that pass that the best I can expect is very great -disorders, and unless something very vigorous is done -within a very few days, the monarchy is gone.”<a id="FNanchor_392" href="#Footnote_392" class="fnanchor">392</a> Five -months, six months, a year later the same counsel was -being reiterated.<a id="FNanchor_393" href="#Footnote_393" class="fnanchor">393</a> While Charles remained cool and undismayed -in the midst of pressing danger, every fresh -event abashed the mind of James.<a id="FNanchor_394" href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">394</a> He could not appraise -facts at their true worth, since he was without insight; -devoid of imagination, he was unable to attribute to others -powers he lacked himself. His very friends spoke against -his unenlightened zeal, and the pope favoured him and -his wife each with a brief on the subject.<a id="FNanchor_395" href="#Footnote_395" class="fnanchor">395</a> It was the -beginning of that stream of protest which afterwards -marked with increasing volume the course of his downfall.</p> - -<p>Advice to others to act boldly is not uncommon. But -James was ready on occasion to act on his own behalf. -In May 1679 there appeared at Brussels one Colonel -Fitzpatrick, a man of brave counsel and of great repute -among his countrymen the Irish. He had come to -arrange a rising in Ireland. The Catholics were groaning -under an intolerable yoke and would follow him. By a -small amount of assistance from foreign powers the coasts -could be seized, arms and munitions landed, and success -assured. Fitzpatrick was said to have for his project the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[219]</span> -consent of the Irish Catholic clergy and to have carried -letters of recommendation into France before coming to -Flanders. But French policy was opposed to assisting -James in the formation of a strong party and the money -was not to be obtained. Rather than run the risk of -increasing hostility in England by the Colonel’s presence -near him, James dismissed him. With much murmuring -Fitzpatrick left Brussels.<a id="FNanchor_396" href="#Footnote_396" class="fnanchor">396</a> Though this proposal had to -be refused, James kept the idea constantly before his -mind. The more certain that the king’s refusal to accept -his violent advice became, the more his thoughts turned -to the possibility of violence without the king’s participation. -With the approach of Parliament in the winter of -1680 the notion became further developed. James -believed that open force alone could re-establish the royal -authority, on the security of which he felt his own safety -to rest. If he could compel his brother to act, a final -rupture might be precipitated. His enemies would be -forestalled, and out of the civil war that would ensue the -power of the throne might issue triumphant. It was his -policy to push matters to the point of extremity. When -he was ordered from London to avoid the session he took -northwards with him the intention to see to his own -interest. Should the attack on him be pushed further, he -thought to unite parties in Scotland in the royal cause and -by exciting trouble there and in Ireland to bring the struggle -to a head. Then he believed that a larger party than -many imagined would be on his side in England.<a id="FNanchor_397" href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">397</a></p> - -<p>On the success of the Duke of York depended all the -hopes of Roman Catholics for the future of their religion -in the English realm. He was their secular head and -the turning-point of their plans. His movements were -watched with the keenest interest by the authorities of the -church. Patience, prudence, and persistence was the policy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[220]</span> -they advocated. Exhortations to obedience, expressions -of attachment and submission passed continually between -him and his spiritual patrons. The papal nuncio at -Brussels informed him of the deep concern that the -Catholic religion had in his cause, and received the gratifying -assurance that he would make it his first care to -propagate the true faith by every means at his disposal.<a id="FNanchor_398" href="#Footnote_398" class="fnanchor">398</a> -How James fulfilled that promise is well known. However -much devotion he expressed to the wishes of the -Holy Father, his heart was more at one with the Society -of Jesus than with the court of Rome. He chose Jesuits -for his confessors, begged emoluments for them, took their -policy for his guide. While his course drew from the -Jesuits inexhaustible and still unexhausted praise, it was -met by a series of remonstrances waxing in indignation -from the pontiff. In the year 1687 fifty candidates for -orders in the society were being prepared for work in the -English province. King James, it is said, informed Father -John Keynes, the provincial, that double or treble that -number would be necessary to accomplish what he destined -for Jesuit hands.<a id="FNanchor_399" href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">399</a> The result declared his wisdom. The -mystery of the Revolution was that William of Orange, a -Protestant invading the realm of a Catholic monarch, had -the support of the Catholic emperor at the instigation -of the pope. From the fierce battle of the Popish Plot -Charles II tore a prize to deliver to the man by whose ill-judged -efforts he had most nearly been robbed of it. At -his death he left a kingdom compact, loyal, prosperous, -ready to carry on the traditions that had been built up<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[221]</span> -with labour and in the teeth of disaster. When that day -came James behaved in perfect accord with his character. -Within four years he had thrown away the fruits of a -struggle that had lasted for a quarter of a century, and -paid the penalty of folly and invincible obstinacy by the -dragging existence of a pretender, an exile, a dependent, -and a criminal.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[222]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III3">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">SHAFTESBURY AND CHARLES</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Of</span> all men whose reputation was made or raised by the -Popish Plot, none have since maintained their fame at so -even a height as John Dryden. His person but not his -name suffered from the changes of fortune, and at a -distance of more than two centuries the sum of continuous -investigation has little to add to the judgments passed on -his times by the greatest of satirists. The flashes of -Dryden’s insight illumine more than the light shed by -many records. In politics, no less than in society, his -genius had ample room. The Plot gave him a subject -worthy of a master:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Some truth there was, but dashed and brewed with lies</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To please the fools and puzzle all the wise:</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Succeeding times did equal folly call</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Believing nothing or believing all.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">This plot, which failed for want of common sense,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Had yet a deep and dangerous consequence;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">For as, when raging fevers boil the blood.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">The standing lake soon floats into a flood,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And every hostile humour which before</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Slept quiet in its channels bubbles o’er;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">So several factions from this first ferment</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Work up to foam and threat the government.<a id="FNanchor_400" href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">400</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The lines are a witness against the two great parties whose -intrigues were woven to menace the security of the English -state. Oates’ false oaths ruined the hopes of the Roman -Catholics: the designs of the English Whigs were -grounded on them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[223]</span></p> - -<p>Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, was the -first statesman to learn the art of organising support for -policy from an entire nation. His course in life was -determined by the belief that it is the business of a politician -to succeed, and to that mass of mankind which is -of the same opinion he should be at once apostle and -martyr. No means which made for the end he had in -view came amiss to his hand; by using good and bad -alike, he won the power of drawing round him men who -could make some show of virtuous conduct in company -with scoundrels of the choicest villainy; and he used them -with infinite address. From the age of twenty years he -had lived in the glare of public life, ever rising on the -tide, true to his own principles and false to all whom in -their interest he could serviceably betray. In the Civil -War he fought for the king and served him well. As a -member of Barebones’ Parliament he was for Cromwell -against the Saints. When the Protector threw the lot -for absolute rule, it was in him that parliamentary government -found its keenest supporter. To this course Shaftesbury -remained faithful. The throne on which “foolish -Ishbosheth” sat became more rickety under his attacks. -When that shadow of his father vanished from the scene, -he strove with success against the despotism of the army. -He was sent by the Convention Parliament as one of the -two commissioners to invite Charles II to return to his -kingdom. Under the restored monarchy Shaftesbury -found a fair and a wider field for the exercise of talents -which he devoted to the cause of religious and political -freedom and commercial enterprise. At his request John -Locke drew for the state of Carolina a constitution in -which toleration was a prominent idea. In the office of -Lord Chancellor he earned an abiding reputation for -speed and purity of justice. He was an ardent foe of -the Dutch republic, the threatening rival of English -prosperity. He opposed the Stop of the Exchequer. -As the last act in the service of government he counselled -the Declaration of Indulgence, for when that was withdrawn -there was nothing more to hope from the crown in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[224]</span> -fight for liberty. At last he knew the Catholic tendency -of the king and, learning perhaps the dupe that he had -been made by the Treaty of Dover, flung himself into the -bitterest opposition.</p> - -<p>The foundation of the Whig party may be referred to -the year 1675, when the French ambassador first contracted -an alliance with a cabal consisting of four lords, -Buckingham, Wharton, Ogle and, chief among them, -Shaftesbury,<a id="FNanchor_401" href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">401</a> From that time onwards Shaftesbury -enjoyed a growing ascendency over his partners. The -fight over the bill of Non-Resistance brought them closely -together; their victory, though it was by an artifice, gave -them strength. But while the new party gained followers -in Parliament and support in the country, it was some -time before further success was achieved. The Cavalier, -otherwise known by the nicknames of the Pensioned and -the Pump, Parliament depended too much on the court -to allow the possibility of complete triumph to the opposition.<a id="FNanchor_402" href="#Footnote_402" class="fnanchor">402</a> -Away from Westminster the terror of popery, -with a Catholic successor to the crown in view, dominated -the country, and on this basis the programme of the -Whigs was constructed. Popery and slavery, to quote -Shaftesbury’s memorable phrase, went hand in hand. -The Whigs aimed at securing the liberties of the nation -and reducing the Catholic religion to impotence. The -overthrow of Danby with his policy of Anglican supremacy, -the dissolution of the House of Commons which -lavish and ingenious corruption had bound to his side, -the destruction of the Catholic strength in the House of -Lords, the downfall of the Duke of York; these were -the main ideas in their system. Yet so long as the Lord -Treasurer led the Commons by his purse-strings they -were unable to mark progress in the open, however much -they might gain behind the scenes. So the next two<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[225]</span> -years brought only failure. When Parliament met in -February 1677 after a prorogation of fifteen months, the -Whigs, resting their case on an obsolete statute of Edward -III, elected to argue that after so long an interval it had -no legal existence. The move resulted in immediate -victory to the government, and Buckingham, Shaftesbury, -Salisbury, and Wharton, the chief movers in the Lords, -being ordered to ask pardon of the House for their -offence, and refusing, were sent to the Tower. Thus, -said Marvell, a prorogation without precedent was to be -warranted by an imprisonment without example. Danby -was strong enough to obtain an unconditional vote of -£600,000. When however he introduced a bill for the -better securing of the Protestant religion in case of a -Catholic heir to the throne, though its drastic provisions -passed the Lords easily enough, the mere fact that it -seemed to legalise such a state of things roused against -it the fury of the Commons, who threw it out, with the -added indignity of noting in their journal, Because the -body of the bill was contrary to the title.<a id="FNanchor_403" href="#Footnote_403" class="fnanchor">403</a> After a few -weeks three of the imprisoned peers made submission and -were set at liberty; but Shaftesbury still lay in the Tower -when in November the government reckoned another -stroke to its credit in the marriage of William of Orange -and Mary of York. It was not until February 1678 that -he was released. To human reckoning it seemed as if the -Whig cause was lost. Danby was firmer in power than -ever, the royal marriage bade fair to conciliate the nation, -the peace of Nymeguen was approaching its tardy conclusion. -Well-informed persons believed that the leaders -of the opposition were about to confess their defeat and -bid farewell to politics.<a id="FNanchor_404" href="#Footnote_404" class="fnanchor">404</a> Eight months later an auspicious -wind blew Titus Oates on to the scene, and the aspect of -affairs was completely changed.</p> - -<p>There have not been wanting either among his contemporaries -or in later times some to assert that Oates<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[226]</span> -was procured and his story directed by the Earl of -Shaftesbury. Once and again the case has broken down. -Neither is there the slightest evidence for the notion, nor -has it the least intrinsic probability. So clear a head as -Shaftesbury’s could never have been guilty of that -monstrous stupidity. Clumsy forgery, feeble promises, -lame excuses, bald melodrama characterised the informer’s -entry into public life. The tale he told was full of gross -improbabilities. And with what truth it contained Shaftesbury -could not have been acquainted. But what makes -certainty still more certain is that on his first appearance -Oates was so little sure of support from any quarter that -he not only exonerated the Duke of York from complicity -in the plot, but was so disobliging to the Whigs as to -name him for a possible victim. The king at first thought -he saw traces of Shaftesbury’s hand, but was soon convinced -that he erred. Before they had time to gauge the situation -the Whigs laughed at the Plot as an artifice for keeping -the army on foot.<a id="FNanchor_405" href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">405</a> Yet though he had no claim to be -Oates’ tutor, Shaftesbury welcomed him with alacrity. -Fortune as if from heaven had fallen at his feet, and he -prepared to make the most of it, and at the same time -to vindicate the penetration of Colbert Croissy, who -had called him “le plus fourbe, le plus injuste, le plus -malhonnête d’Angleterre.”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">The wished occasion of the plot he takes,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Some circumstance he finds, but more he makes;</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">and, since the making of circumstance lies as well in the -reception as in the invention of facts, justice must be -admitted to the second line equally with the first. Circumstance -was exactly what Shaftesbury could provide. He -created the atmosphere for Oates to work in.</p> - -<p>The miscreant who a few weeks before had been -begging from the Jesuit fathers rose to an undreamed -height of luxury and influence. Repeated addresses from -the Commons obtained for him lodgings which he shared<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[227]</span> -with Dr. Tonge in Whitehall.<a id="FNanchor_406" href="#Footnote_406" class="fnanchor">406</a> The modest sum of -£12 a week allotted him “for dyett and expenses” was -eked out by occasional gifts of £50 “as of free gift -and royal bounty” and the payment of long bills incurred -for his witnesses at trials. Within twelve months the -total amount made out to him reached the figure of -£945 : 8 : 10. Yet Oates was but one of a host whom the -popular fury enabled to batten on the royal resources; and -during the same period the accounts of the secret service -money, disbursed almost exclusively to informers, showed -an expenditure of nearly £5000.<a id="FNanchor_407" href="#Footnote_407" class="fnanchor">407</a> The Salamanca doctor -made the most of his luck. Robed like a bishop and -puffed with insolence he became the darling of the Whig -party. He set up as “a solemn housekeeper” and kept -a fine table. Each morning there waited at his lodgings -to dress him two or three gentlemen who vied for the -honour of holding his basin. He was received by the -primate at Lambeth. The Bishop of Ely welcomed him as -a frequent guest at dinner and was unable to set bounds -to the brutality of his conversation, till Sir John Reresby -administered a merited rebuke. He received the public -thanks of the House of Lords. The House of Commons -made the Duke of Monmouth responsible for his safety, the -Lord Chamberlain for his lodging, the Lord High Treasurer -for his nourishment. His sermons were public events, his -person followed by admiring crowds. Popular odes were -composed in his honour, popular dinners were given him -in the city, designs represented him knocking the tiara -from the head of “that infallible fop, the pope,” or more -exalted still, as an angel looking down from heaven. -Among English merchants abroad his health was drunk -next to that of the king. Everywhere he was courted,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[228]</span> -fêted, acknowledged. “Whig peers,” writes Sir George -Sitwell, “supported him by their subscriptions. Whig -peers welcomed him to their houses in London and in -the country. Whig peers rolled him down in their coaches -to aid by his unblushing presence the election of Whig -candidates, Whig peers defended him in council and -flocked to support him at his trials, while their political -followers were engaged in threatening and hustling the -witnesses.”<a id="FNanchor_408" href="#Footnote_408" class="fnanchor">408</a> Oates had become for the moment the -representative of the aspirations of the Whig party.</p> - -<p>In this the influence of Shaftesbury is clearly visible. -Though he did not procure Oates’ appearance, it cannot -be supposed that the informer’s subsequent steps were -without his knowledge and approval. At his first -examination by the council Oates had declared that he -knew no more than he had said against any person of -what quality soever. Within two months he thought -better of his memory in a way that points to refreshment -from another source. The wife of one of the gentlemen -of the bedchamber was entrusted with a message that, -if the king would give way to it, Oates had somewhat -to swear against no less a person than the queen. The -royal leave was granted. On November 25 therefore -Oates declared to the king in full council that if all -other attempts upon his Majesty’s life had failed the -queen was to have been employed to murder her -husband. Three days later he appeared at the bar of -the House of Commons and raised his strident voice -with the words, “I do accuse the queen for conspiring -the death of the king and contriving how to compass it.” -It was a ludicrous invention of having heard the queen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[229]</span> -in conversation with certain Jesuits approve the plan for -Charles’ assassination and promise to assist it. Bedloe -had a similar story, which the Lords also heard as well -as that of Oates. When they asked what the two had -meant by keeping back their information, Oates replied -that by “no other person of quality” he had meant none -other of the peers. Bedloe said he had forgotten. The -House of Commons, stirred by their deep affection and -care for the royal person, voted an immediate address -for the removal of the consort and her household from -Whitehall, and sent to beg the Lords’ concurrence; but -the Lords, dissatisfied with the depositions laid before -them, refused, under protest of Shaftesbury and two of -his followers, to join in the vote. Their consideration -had been won by the queen’s behaviour on the subject -of Godfrey’s murder, and they refused to allow her to -be molested. In public she bore herself bravely, but -her intimates knew how greatly she had been distressed -by the attack. By an order from the king Oates was -placed in strict confinement, his papers were seized, his -servants dismissed, and free access to his rooms restrained. -A strong remonstrance was prepared by the Commons, -and Charles closed the incident by restoring the villain -to his former liberty.<a id="FNanchor_409" href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">409</a></p> - -<p>The attack on the queen affords a clue to the ideas -of both adversaries in the great battle that was being -waged in the English state between authority and revolution. -Mrs. Elliot, wife of Elliot of the bedchamber, -had been the agent who took Oates’ message to the -king. She had also spoken to Tonge, and in a significant -statement to the House of Lords confessed she had been -sent to him by Lady Gerard of Bromley. The mention<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[230]</span> -of this lady’s name throws a ray of light on the doubtful -intrigue, for she was in close connection with the Whig -leaders; and were it in any case permissible to suppose -that Oates had acted without assurance of support in -bringing forward a charge of so delicate a nature, her -appearance in the background would make it certain -that this was not so. It may be taken that the move -was directed from the headquarters of the Whig party. -What then was the object? Catherine had never played -any part whatever in politics. In obtaining favour for -those of her religion she had held strictly to the terms -of her marriage treaty. After the first shock at her -husband’s faithless impudence she had passed her time -in gaiety, dancing, and frivolity. Only one end could -be served by attempting to prove her a party to the Plot. -It was to obtain her divorce and to marry the king to -a wife who should bear him Protestant children. The -knowledge of Catherine’s childlessness had given rise -before to talk of a similar project.<a id="FNanchor_410" href="#Footnote_410" class="fnanchor">410</a> If it could actually -be brought to completion and Charles beget a Protestant -heir to the throne, there seemed a fair chance that the -clouds which hung over the future of England would -be dispelled. Desire for power alone did not then -actuate Shaftesbury, but a purer hope for his country’s -prosperity. For had the scheme of divorce borne fruit -and the Duke of York, with all the unrest and insecurity -that his presence denoted, been removed from the -succession by the appearance of a child who could -hardly have been educated except as a Protestant, -Shaftesbury could not have hoped himself to exercise -a decisive influence on the king’s policy. The storm -gave Shaftesbury his power; when calm returned it -would dissolve. This is his claim to real statesmanship. -He was willing, it must be believed, to sacrifice power to -principle, and to plan, though with odious implements,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[231]</span> -advantage to the nation, while he contemplated for -himself a relapse into insignificance. What followed -under Charles II’s successor justified his position. Swift -changes transformed his schemes and drove him to -counsels of extremity, but the Revolution suspends -judgment against him. The principle he embodied was -that which William the deliverer came to England to -save from utter ruin, the reasoned liberty of thought -and action. For that he worked and made others work -without sparing, bribed while his own hands were clean -of gold, joined while his private life was pure with -profligates of unrestrained license; for that he planned -murder and brewed rebellion; for that he “fretted the -pigmy body to decay”;<a id="FNanchor_411" href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">411</a> for that he died. This -particular proposal was not without recommendation. -It was the simplest way out of the difficulty. It could -cause no political commotion in the country. No -principle would be overset by it nor any tradition -overruled. It might be supposed to be not unpalatable -to Charles. The English Reformation had followed one -divorce; another might have rendered the English -Revolution unnecessary. There was not however the -smallest chance of success, for the king was unalterably -opposed to anything of the sort. Badly as he had -behaved to Catherine, he was not without gratitude -and affection for her and was constant in his resolution -not to add to his other faults the graver one of desertion.<a id="FNanchor_412" href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">412</a> -Further, Charles was determined to let the royal power -suffer injury in no respect. When the subject of the -accusation prepared against the queen was first broached, -he said privately that he was willing to give Oates line -enough. It was the secret of the king’s whole policy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[232]</span> -during the agitation of the Plot. He was playing the -Whig party as a skilful angler plays his fish. Each -length of line run out seemed to be the last of his reserve. -Throughout his reign Charles had been striving to restore -the power of the monarchy in England. Now it looked -as if all his efforts had been in vain. His opponents -appeared about to gain the final victory. The king’s -only chance was to let them exhaust themselves by the -violence of their onslaught.</p> - -<p>Having failed in one direction, Shaftesbury’s attention -was promptly turned to others. A difficulty confronting -him in his hope of excluding the Duke of York from the -succession was the choice of a substitute. The scheme of -Charles’ divorce and second marriage would have overcome -this, but when that was dashed it became necessary -to pursue the question further. At the time when -Clarendon was chief minister, his opponents and among -them the Duke of Buckingham proposed, in order to -remove his son-in-law James, whose influence was thought -to support him, that the Duke of Monmouth, the eldest -of Charles’ sons living in England, should be declared -legitimate and heir to the crown.<a id="FNanchor_413" href="#Footnote_413" class="fnanchor">413</a> The idea had created -agitation at other times as well; and now Shaftesbury -infused fresh life into it by adopting the bastard’s cause -and supporting him with a powerful following. It was -this which rent the Whig party and destroyed its chance -of success. Up to a certain point Shaftesbury could carry -the other leaders. Halifax was at one with him on the -treatment of the Plot, for he said that it must be handled -as if it were true, whether it were so or no, and told Sir -William Temple that, unless he would concur in points -so necessary for the people’s satisfaction, he would brand -him everywhere as a papist. He demanded that Catholic -priests should without receiving public warning be submitted -to the rigours of a law unenforced since the reign -of Elizabeth. He was willing to join with Shaftesbury -in planning such steps as the French ambassador thought -would tend to the entire annihilation of the royal authority<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[233]</span> -and reduce England to a republic under kingly forms. -But when it became apparent that Shaftesbury had adopted -the cause of the graceful, popular, feather-headed Duke -of Monmouth, Halifax drew away to the king’s side and -took with him “the party volant,” which boasted with -the proud title of Trimmers to hold the balance in the -constitution. With them for the moment were also the -more respectable of the old Presbyterian party under the -lead of Lord Holles.<a id="FNanchor_414" href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">414</a> If the nation was divided by the -Exclusion bill, those in favour of the project were divided -among themselves by the problem in whose favour exclusion -should be. Of the two claimants to consideration -the Prince of Orange in virtue of his wife and his mother -had obviously the better title. On the other hand it was -thought that his father-in-law the Duke of York might -have a dangerous influence over him; and there were -fears that the republican party in Holland would in alarm -cast itself into the hands of Louis XIV and thus ruin -still more irretrievably the interests it was desired to -preserve. The reasons against the Duke of Monmouth -were evident. To alter the succession for the son of a -prostitute, for the duke’s mother was a woman of low -character, could not but cause offence to many. Still -more would resent the violation of the rights of an heir -who had done nothing to forfeit them but adhere to the -dictates of his conscience. Henry VIII had more than -once altered the succession by act of Parliament, but -though he declared his children bastards, they had yet -been got in lawful wedlock. When it came to the point -of a struggle, the Duke of York would have a good -rallying cry. Monmouth was nevertheless secure of a -strong party; all who were opposed to James for religion’s -sake, who were many, and all Scotland, which grew daily -more exasperated under the unpopular government of -Lauderdale. It may be believed that the weakness no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[234]</span> -less than the strength of Monmouth’s position appealed -to Shaftesbury. The Whig power lay not in support of -the right, but in the constituencies, above all in London, -where the sentiments by which Monmouth found favour -had their strongest hold. Monmouth was moreover a -man open to influence. Were the Duke of York successfully -excluded, Shaftesbury was more likely to find room -for the exercise of his talents under the rule of James’ -nephew than under that of his son-in-law, William of -Orange. Of the two Monmouth gave far better promise -to the earl that he would retain his power in the country -and regain it in the government. Shaftesbury took his -measures accordingly. Yet the Whig prospect looked by -no means assured. Dissension in the party was widespread. -“I must confess,” wrote Algernon Sidney, summing up -the arguments on the one side and on the other, “I do -not know three men of a mind, and that a spirit of -giddiness reigns amongst us, far beyond any I have ever -observed in my life.”<a id="FNanchor_415" href="#Footnote_415" class="fnanchor">415</a></p> - -<p>The prorogation of Parliament in May 1679 filled the -nation with ill humours. Members rode down to their -country seats in high discontent. Alarm was general and, -wrote Sidney significantly, “they begin to look more -than formerly unto the means of preserving themselves.”<a id="FNanchor_416" href="#Footnote_416" class="fnanchor">416</a> -Scarcely were they clear of Westminster before news came -that the Scottish Covenanters were up in arms and in -possession of Glasgow. The outbreak was not unwelcome. -Nor was it unexpected. As early as the beginning of -the month Sidney had information that a rising might -be expected at any moment. A few weeks before an -inflammatory speech was delivered by Shaftesbury in the -House of Lords; he charged the government with -fomenting discord in Scotland by its evil rule, and declared -that in England popery was to have brought in slavery, -but in Scotland, while slavery went before, popery was to -follow. By the next post, it was said, forty copies of his -speech were carried up north to hearten the malcontents<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[235]</span> -by the knowledge that they were favoured by a party in -England. The subject was freely discussed by the Whigs -in London. Even if they were not in direct communication -with the rebels, there can be no doubt that they had -let it be known on which side their sympathies lay,<a id="FNanchor_417" href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">417</a> The -events of the ill-fated rebellion of Bothwell Brigg do not -belong to this story. It did not fail for want of effort -on the part of those who had encouraged its authors. -Lauderdale had been attacked by an address of the -Commons, and a deputation under the Duke of Hamilton -now arrived to plead against him before the king. -Charles remarked that “they had objected many damned -things he had done against <i>them</i>, but there was nothing -objected that was done against <i>his</i> service.” When the -revolt came up for discussion at the council, Lord -Russell rose and expressed his wonder that war had not -begun long ago rather than that it should have come at -last, “since his Majesty thought fit to retain incendiaries -near his person and in his very council.” Lauderdale -begged leave to retire, but the king turned to Russell -with the words, “No, no. Sit down, my Lord. This -is no place for addresses.”<a id="FNanchor_418" href="#Footnote_418" class="fnanchor">418</a> Charles, who boasted with -some justice that he understood Scotch affairs better than -any of his advisers, was for the immediate suppression of -the rising by force. He was opposed by those who felt -their interest advanced by its continuance. The Duke of -Hamilton and his friends gave assurance that peace might -be restored without bloodshed if only such men were -employed as were acceptable to the nation. Shaftesbury -did not conceal his desire that the rebels might at least -be successful in obtaining a change of government. The -Presbyterians and other sectaries were united in their -hopes for their brethren in Scotland, and pamphlets were -strewn about the town inciting the people to prevent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[236]</span> -the court from making preparations of war. By the -suggestion of the Duke of Monmouth as commander-in-chief -of the forces, the king gained his point. Shaftesbury -had argued that English troops could not legally be sent -to serve in Scotland. Glad to avail himself of the prestige -his puppet would win from the campaign, he now consented -to the arrangement, hoping that the duke would -carry powers not only to beat but to treat with the rebels; -more might perhaps be gained by negotiation than by -arms. In this he was nearly successful. While the commission -giving to Monmouth full powers was signed, -Lauderdale sat silent. As the council rose he followed -the king into his bedchamber and begged him, unless he -wished to follow his father, to rescind that part of the -commission which might be used to encourage rebellion in -Scotland and raise another in England. “Why did you -not argue this in council?” asked Charles. His gross -but able administrator answered with emphasis, “Sire, -were not your enemies in the room?” To the great -disappointment of Monmouth and the Whigs as well as -the Covenanters, peremptory orders were sent after him -that he should not treat but fall on them at once. -Shaftesbury’s party discovered that they had been tricked. -Lord Cavendish and Lord Gerard refused to serve under -their commissions; Mr. Thynne declined to receive one; -Lord Grey of Werke resigned his command of the horse. -Even after Monmouth had started an attempt was made -to obtain his recall and, had time allowed, a monster -petition in favour of the rebels, to be signed by many -peers and gentlemen and all the principal householders -of London, was prepared for presentation to the king. -Charles made use of the event, by an order which had -the additional advantage of creating a difference between -the Earls of Essex and Shaftesbury, to raise a troop of -two hundred guards to be about his person.<a id="FNanchor_419" href="#Footnote_419" class="fnanchor">419</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[237]</span></p> - -<p>The copies of Shaftesbury’s speech intended for such -fatal use in Scotland were said to have been made in the -Green Ribbon Club.<a id="FNanchor_420" href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">420</a> That famous society, founded in -the year 1675, quickly acquired ascendency over the -Whig party. To-day it has been almost forgotten; its -influence was unknown to the classic historians of England, -who were in politics mostly Whig; but during seven -tumultuous years of English history it played a part that -can only be compared to the work of the more notorious -Jacobin organisation of a century later across the Channel. -The club met at the King’s Head Tavern at the corner of -Chancery Lane and Fleet Street. Its character may be -known at once from the fact that its members organised -and paid for the imposing ceremonies of pope burning, by -which the most fiendish lies of Oates were yearly sustained -and the worst passions of the London mob, a word, it may -be noted, itself derived from the club, systematically -inflamed. Oates himself was a member, and Aaron Smith, -his legal adviser; and under the leadership of Shaftesbury -the club was filled with men of the same kidney, who -crowded on to the balcony with pipes in their mouths and -wigs laid aside to witness the papal holocaust with which -each great procession ended opposite their windows. -Here was the fountain of the inner counsels of the Whig -party and the seat of its executive. Within the walls of -the club the decision had been taken to agitate for the -dissolution of Parliament after the long prorogation of -1677; here a few years later the Rye House conspiracy was -schemed; here the actual assassination plot was hatched. -Over the country the Green Ribbon Club enjoyed a -profound influence. It was the centre of the party -pamphleteers who devoted keen ability to incite the nation -and defame the government, and their productions were -scattered far and wide by means of a highly effective -service of correspondents. While policy was debated and -action resolved by the chiefs of the club, their agents at -the coffee-houses in London and throughout the country -obeyed orders from headquarters. At the elections their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[238]</span> -activity was unparalleled. Tracts poured into the constituencies. -Industrious agents attacked the character of -the court candidates and firmly organised the national -opposition. It was the Green Ribbon Club which introduced -the “Protestant flail” to London and clothed -the town in silk armour as a defence against the expected -daggers of papists. The club almost usurped the functions -of Parliament. Many members of that body belonged to -it, attended its consultations, took their cue from its -decisions. Agents thronged the lobby of the House of -Commons, posting members with arguments for debate, -whipping in sluggards to a division, carrying the latest news -back to the club. Men of all classes and various character -belonged to the society, broken scoundrels and wealthy -statesmen, pious enthusiasts and tired profligates, the -remains of the Cromwellian party, the forerunners of the -Revolution, poets, aldermen, country gentlemen, assassins, -bound together in a common league of animosity against -Charles II and his government, not a few traitors to that -bond itself. Scarcely a name of note on the Whig side is -absent from the list, which contained Shaftesbury and Monmouth, -Buckingham, Ireton, Slingsby Bethel, Sir William -Waller, the Spekes, the Trenchards, Howard of Escrick, -Sir Robert Peyton, Russell, Holles, and Algernon Sidney. -With the lapse of time the counsels of the club became -more violent; and the most infamous of political tracts, -“An Appeal from the Country to the City,” which spread -deliberate and abominable lies to incite the nation to rebellion, -and urged the Duke of Monmouth to strike with force -for the crown, not because he had a right to it, but because -he had none, was written by Robert Ferguson, nicknamed -the Plotter, himself a member, Shaftesbury’s <i>âme damneé</i>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[239]</span><a id="FNanchor_421" href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">421</a> -More than a third of the whole number of members -of the club were concerned in the Rye House Plot. -Sixteen or eighteen took an active part in Monmouth’s -invasion. After the Revolution they obtained their -reward. Shadwell, the poet of the club, was made laureate -in place of Dryden. Aaron Smith became Chancellor of -the Exchequer to King William. Lord Grey of Werke, -basest of traitors, was given office and an earldom. Sir -John Trenchard was made secretary of state. Dukedoms -were conferred upon the Earls of Bedford and Devonshire -and a marquisate upon Lord Mulgrave. Ireton became -lieutenant-colonel of dragoons and gentleman of the -horse to the king. Oates was pilloried and pensioned. -Speake, Ayloffe, Rouse, Nelthrop, and Bettiscomb were -hanged.<a id="FNanchor_422" href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">422</a></p> - -<p>In August 1679 the chance of the Green Ribbon Club -seemed to have arrived. After a hard game of tennis the -king took a chill in walking by the river-side at Windsor. -Fever ensued, and a horrible fear that Charles lay on his -death-bed struck at men’s hearts. The cry rose everywhere -that he had been poisoned. The Duchess of Portsmouth -was accused of having done the black deed. Amazement -and horror were universal. People looked upon any ill -that should happen to the king, said Sir William Temple, -as though it were the end of the world. The privy -council was obliged to take action to prevent an overwhelming -rush of inquirers into the royal bedchamber. -Algernon Sidney returning to town found the general -apprehension such that, had the king died, there was no -extremity of disorder that might not be expected. “Good -God!” wrote Henry Savile from Paris, “what a change -such an accident would make! the very thought of it -frights me out of my wits. God bless you and deliver us -all from that damnable curse,”<a id="FNanchor_423" href="#Footnote_423" class="fnanchor">423</a> There were indeed good<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[240]</span> -grounds for the fears so poignantly expressed. The Duke -of York, who had been sent from the country in February, -was still beyond seas. Monmouth had returned from -Scotland, puffed with success in having pacified the Covenanters. -Shaftesbury divided the court and seemed to -have the nation at his back. If the king died, he was -prepared to make a bold push for fortune. The second -declaration of Monmouth, published in the following -reign, made mention of a consult held at this time “for -extraordinary remedies.” No copy of the declaration can -now be traced, but it was seen and the fact noted by David -Hume. That consult decided upon notable measures. -Early in the course of the next year Sir Robert Peyton -was accused by Mrs. Cellier and Gadbury the astrologer -of treasonable practices, and was examined before the privy -council. Though he denied his guilt, he let it be understood -that the charge was not baseless and confessed to -the House of Commons that he had been intriguing with -the Duke of York. His old associates turned against -him, and Peyton was expelled the House; but his object -was accomplished and he went over to the court side, -to find a reward for his perfidy in the favour of -James. No definite accusation was made against the -heads of the popular party, but the extent of the -Whig plans became vaguely known. On the news of -the king’s illness preparations had been quickly made -for insurrection. Money was collected and old Cromwellian -officers engaged. A large force would have -been in the field at a few days’ notice. Had Charles -died at Windsor the leaders of the movement were -ready to seize the Tower, Dover Castle, and Portsmouth, -and to arrest the Lord Mayor and those privy -councillors who should offer to proclaim the Duke of -York king.<a id="FNanchor_424" href="#Footnote_424" class="fnanchor">424</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[241]</span></p> - -<p>The government was not idle in face of the danger. -With the consent of the king Sunderland, Halifax, and -Essex, most unstable of triumvirates, summoned the -duke from Brussels. Leaving his wife and children, James -set out in disguise and reached Windsor on September 2 -without being recognised by more than two persons on -the way. Charles received him with admirably feigned -surprise. The danger was past; Jesuits’ powder, the -modern quinine, had already restored the king to the -point of eating mutton and partridges, and within ten -days he was again discussing important business with the -French ambassador. Another issue of events had been -expected. If the worst had taken place, the Lord Mayor -and aldermen had concerted means to declare the duke -their sovereign. Fortunately for the nation the Whigs -were deprived of the chance to decide whether they or the -government held the stronger hand. On the contrary -the hopes raised by the king’s illness brought on them a -serious rebuff. Once in England James, who had continually -pressed for his recall and thought his brother’s -behaviour was driving the country to ruin, shewed no -desire to depart again. It was represented to him that his -absence was for the king’s advantage, and he consented to -leave; but on conditions, for Sunderland suggested that -Monmouth, whom his father’s danger made yet more -arrogant and his uncle’s unexpected arrival sulky and -furious, should quit the country too. James after a brief -visit to Brussels took coach for Scotland, but Monmouth, -to the delight of the court party deprived of his office of -captain-general of the forces and his command of the -horse guards, for Holland. There was some thought of -his attempting to refuse, but milder counsels prevailed -and he was persuaded that a willing submission would -serve to invest him in the eyes of the people with the -character of a martyr. The generalship was abolished -and the business of the office handed over to Sunderland. -Yet another slight was put upon the Whig -party. Sir Thomas Armstrong, the intimate agent of -Monmouth and a fierce opponent of the Duke of York,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[242]</span> -was banished from the king’s presence and court for -ever.<a id="FNanchor_425" href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">425</a></p> - -<p>As the year 1679 wore away the disturbance of the -kingdom seemed to increase. A rising had been expected -as the result of James’ return to England, and alarms of -the same nature were raised when the king paid a visit to -London after his recovery. Guards were set in Covent -Garden and Lincoln’s Inn Fields; barges and an escort -two hundred strong were in readiness to carry the royal -party to the Tower in case of a tumult; but no stir was -made and the day passed quietly. Fears of the vaguest -character were abroad. “I am very confident,” wrote -Charles Hatton, “you will suddenly hear very surprising -news, but what I am unable to inform you as yet.” At -the back of men’s minds the feeling was growing that the -Whigs could not attain their object except by plunging -the country into civil war.<a id="FNanchor_426" href="#Footnote_426" class="fnanchor">426</a> The agitation became greater -than ever when at the end of November the Duke of -Monmouth returned without leave to England. He -entered London at midnight to the sound of ringing bells -and by the light of a thousand bonfires, crackling almost -at the palace doors. His popularity seemed unbounded. -Crowds followed him in the streets and stopped passers to -drink his health. Nell Gwyn, cheered by the crowd as -“the Protestant whore,” entertained him at supper. He -struck from his arms the bar sinister, which denoted the -maimed descent: it was a fashion among the royal -bastards, for the Duke of Richmond, Charles’ son by -Louise de Kéroualle, who was thought to have intentions -on the queen’s throne for herself, had done the same, -and displayed the lions of England without diminution.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[243]</span><a id="FNanchor_427" href="#Footnote_427" class="fnanchor">427</a> -The king was incensed, refused to see the pretender, -deprived him of all his offices, ordered him to quit -London. Monmouth at length obeyed, but it was to -make a royal progress through the west of England, -captivating the people and laying the foundations of the -support for his hapless attempt against his uncle’s crown.<a id="FNanchor_428" href="#Footnote_428" class="fnanchor">428</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile the question arose when Parliament should -meet. The elections had not much altered the complexion -of the House of Commons, but it was noted that while -the Whigs held their own in the counties and great corporations, -the court began to gain in many small boroughs.<a id="FNanchor_429" href="#Footnote_429" class="fnanchor">429</a> -On the appointed day in October Charles first prorogued -and then adjourned Parliament till the following January. -Shaftesbury attempted to force the king’s hand by appearing -in company with sixteen other peers to present a -petition that set forth the danger in which the monarch, -the religion, and the government of England lay, and -their prayer that his Majesty would make effectual use of -the great council of the realm. Charles replied he would -consider it, and heartily wished that all others were as -solicitous as himself for the good and peace of the nation. -Three days later he shewed the meaning of his answer by -proroguing Parliament, without the advice of the council, -to November 1680. He followed the stroke by summoning -the Lord Mayor and aldermen to his presence to -enforce on them their duty of preserving the peace and -preventing ill-disposed persons from pursuing the ends of -discord under cover of petitioning. The surprise of the -Whigs was intense. Only one thing was left for them to -do. They went on petitioning. Petitions, prepared in -accordance with Shaftesbury’s instructions, bombarded the -king from all over the country. A proclamation issued -to denounce merely had the effect of redoubling them.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[244]</span> -Charles’ own answers were far more effective. The men -of Wiltshire presented a petition as from their county, but -lacking the sanction of the grand jury were rated as a -company of loose and disaffected persons. The petitioners -from London and Westminster were told by Charles that -he was the head of the government and would do as he -thought best; while to the Berkshire gentlemen he replied, -“We will argue the matter over a cup of ale when we -meet at Windsor, though I wonder my neighbours should -meddle with my business.” In one case alone Charles -had the worst of a passage of arms. When a citizen of -Taunton offered him a petition, the king asked how he -dared do so? To which the man replied, “Sir, my name -is Dare.” The government was not behindhand in dealing -with the situation. To shew that the petitioners did -not represent the country, an immediate flood of counter -addresses poured in, expressing confidence in the king’s -wisdom and abhorrence of the petitioners. Petitioners -and abhorrers divided the nation, and it was by no other -godfather than Titus Oates that the latter party, by a -name famous in English history, was christened Tory.<a id="FNanchor_430" href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">430</a> -In this clamorous contest the king gained an undeniable -success. But success did not bring repose. Watchfulness -was more severely needed than ever. To calm suspicion -the penal laws were once more sharpened against -the Catholics. Additional garrisons were thrown into -the Tower and Tilbury Fort. Portsmouth and Sheerness -were strengthened. London remained quiet, but the -Christmas festivities were suspected of unfortunate possibilities. -There was talk of threatening Shaftesbury with a -prosecution.<a id="FNanchor_431" href="#Footnote_431" class="fnanchor">431</a></p> - -<p>Instead of a prosecution Shaftesbury was drawn into -a negotiation with the court. The French ambassador -learned with agitation that the earl went secretly by -night to Whitehall to discuss terms of settlement with the -king. Shaftesbury offered to let drop the Exclusion bill<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[245]</span> -and assure Charles an ample revenue for the rest of his -life if he would consent to a divorce and to marry a -Protestant. The king should make a show of resistance, -to be overborne by apparently irresistible pressure, the -country would be satisfied, and peace return to the land. -Charles made believe that he viewed the notion with -favour. Only Lord Holles and very few others were -admitted to knowledge of what was passing. Soon -Lauderdale, whose character and career were particularly -displeasing to the Presbyterians, was added to their -number. Holles drew back, then fell ill, and the scheme -languished. Nevertheless Shaftesbury hoped for success. -Suddenly his hopes were shattered. On January 29, -1680 Charles brought the matter to an end by declaring -to the council that, since the Duke of York’s absence had -not produced the desired effect, he was about to recall him -to England. A royal yacht left immediately for Edinburgh -to convey him thence. On February 24 James -arrived in London. The recorder of the city presented -him with a complimentary address. A sumptuous banquet -was given the royal brothers by the Lord Mayor. To -crown the display a grand illumination was arranged to -testify the extraordinary joy all good subjects were supposed -to feel.<a id="FNanchor_432" href="#Footnote_432" class="fnanchor">432</a> Shaftesbury might well harbour resentment -at the artifice of which he had been a victim.</p> - -<p>In the “Appeal from the Country to the City” the -Duke of Monmouth was recommended by name to be -the saviour of the people, since he who had the worst title -was like to make the best king. Between that, the project -of the queen’s divorce, and the pretence that Monmouth -was in fact the legitimate heir to the throne the minds -of Whig politicians wavered. The last idea had already -risen to such prominence that, when the Duke of York -left the kingdom in March, a solemn declaration was -drawn from Charles that he had never married or made -any contract of marriage with any other woman than his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[246]</span> -wife, Queen Catherine, then living.<a id="FNanchor_433" href="#Footnote_433" class="fnanchor">433</a> For greater security -the king’s signature was attested by his councillors and -the deed enrolled in Chancery. Shaftesbury had no sooner -emerged from his defeat of the midnight meetings at -Whitehall than the fable sprang into renewed life. -Mysterious tales were bruited abroad of a certain black -box, which, if found, should contain the contract of -marriage between the king and Lucy Walters, mother of -the Duke of Monmouth. The box was said to be in the -possession of Sir Gilbert Gerard. If it did not contain -the actual contract, at any rate there lay in it a certificate -from the hand of Dr. Cosens, late Bishop of Durham, -who had solemnised the marriage. Others had it that -one Dr. Clare, an eminent royalist parson, had read the -service. At least the ceremony had been witnessed by a -judge and three other persons of quality. The story -attained such proportions that an extraordinary meeting -of the council was held. Sir Gilbert Gerard was called to -state what he knew. It appeared that he knew nothing. -He had never seen either contract or box, and had no -knowledge whatever of anything of the sort. The -rumour was traced to a maternal aunt of the late Lucy -Walters: who had set her on could only be conjectured. -It cannot be doubted that the tale emanated from the -office of the Whig party. The authors of it were men -of versatility. Sir Gilbert Gerard’s statement seemed to -have dissolved the myth, but within a few weeks the -appearance of a pamphlet entitled “A Letter to a Person -of Honour concerning the Black Box” brought the facts -again into question.<a id="FNanchor_434" href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">434</a> The whole account of the black -box, affirmed the letter, was a mere romance, an ingenious -device of the Duke of York to sham and ridicule the -marriage, which indeed had no relation to it, for with the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[247]</span> -exposure of the box the true history would at the same -time fall into discredit. It was notorious that assurance -of Monmouth’s legitimacy had been given to the Countess -of Wemyss before she disposed her daughter in marriage -to him. In a letter from the king to Mrs. Walters, -intercepted by Cromwell’s officers, he had addressed her -as wife. And it was beyond doubt that she had actually -received homage from many of the royalist party. Many -copies of this pamphlet were scattered in the Exchange -and dispersed throughout the kingdom. It had an instant -effect. On June 7 another declaration was published by -the king, condemning the libel, denouncing its falsehood, -and forbidding all subjects on pain of the utmost rigour -of the law to utter anything contrary to the royal pronouncement. -The result was a second “Letter to a -Person of Honour,” in which Charles’ word was contradicted -and his motives traduced. All the former statements -were repeated, some arguments added, and the -pamphlet ended by the modest proposals, “That Parliament, -being admitted to sit, may examine this affair, -whereof they alone are competent judges; and that the -Duke of York may be legally tried for his manifold -treasons and conspiracies against the king and kingdom,” -which treasons were set out at length in thirty-four -articles.<a id="FNanchor_435" href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">435</a> To carry the war still further into the enemies’ -camp, on June 26 Shaftesbury appeared in Westminster -Hall in company with the Earl of Huntingdon, Lord -Grey, Lord Gerard, Lord Russell, Lord Cavendish, and -nine commoners to present the Duke of York to the -grand jury as a popish recusant and to indict the Duchess -of Portsmouth for a national nuisance. With them went -Titus Oates, invested as it were with a representative -authority on behalf of the Whig party. That both -charges were true is certain; but the action of the Whigs -was dictated by a purely partisan spirit, and Chief Justice<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[248]</span> -Scroggs, judging the fact so, discharged the jury before -they could find a bill. Four days later the attack was -repeated in another court, and with the same result. The -judges only followed their chief’s example. James -appeared downcast and knew well what danger he ran. -His adversaries seemed to be throwing off the mask, -strong in the support of which they were assumed to be -conscious. When it was told to Shaftesbury that the -king had railed at him and his party as seditious rebels, -he replied aloud and in public, “The king has nothing -to do but take the pains to punish rebels and seditious -persons. We will keep with the bounds of the law, and -we shall easily find means by the law to make him walk -out of the kingdom.” There were not many who could -boast of having the last laugh in a game with Charles. -Not many months after, when the law by which he held -was put into operation against the Whig leader, Charles -heard that Shaftesbury had accused him of suborning -perjurers, and thereupon very pleasantly quoted a Scotch -proverb. Veiled in the decency of a learned language it -ran: “In die extremi judicii videbimus cui podex nigerrimus -sit.”<a id="FNanchor_436" href="#Footnote_436" class="fnanchor">436</a></p> - -<p>Violent distempers were now feared on all sides. -Partisans of the Prince of Orange were intriguing keenly -on his behalf. In the spring of the year Charles was ill -again, and the several parties hastily met to concert action. -“God keep the nation,” wrote Dorothy Sidney, “from -the experiment what they could have done.” The danger -may be gauged by the fact that, had the king’s illness -continued, three hundred members of the Commons were -determined to remain sitting despite the prorogation. A -considerable movement was detected among the London -prentices. The date of May 29 had been fixed for a large -meeting to be held under pretence of burning the Rump; -four or five thousand men had pledged themselves to -attend, but information was laid, the leaders arrested, -and the outbreak apprehended by the court did not take<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[249]</span> -place.<a id="FNanchor_437" href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">437</a> Those of the opposite party were no less alarmed. -Their chief enemy, James, was holding a brilliant court -and still maintained himself against them. Shaftesbury -left town for Easter, fearing a personal attack. Mr. -William Harbord looked abroad to spy some safe retreat. -Sir William Waller fled to Holland, thence to Italy, -pursued by the watchful eye of the government. On the -pretext of Catholic intrigues, the city guards were doubled.<a id="FNanchor_438" href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">438</a> -A penetrating observer might have perceived a change -drawing over the spirit of the times. While the Whig -attack, far from having spent itself, grew only the more -fierce, and a final struggle with authority seemed imminent, -the nation had begun to reflect upon the turn of events. -If passion was exasperated by the last bold step against the -Duke of York, it shewed too the extremity to which his -opponents were driving. Thereafter could be no thought -of reconciliation: they must either ruin him or themselves -end in ruin. It was not without some justice that -Charles I called the English sober. As the future was -dimly shaped to men in shadows of high misfortune, the fear -of open strife and loss of all they had given so much to gain -in recalling Charles II to the throne of his fathers weighed -more heavily upon them. Innate reverence for authority, -standing to the letter of its rights, returned in some of its -ancient force. Though they were willing to see the royal -prerogative curbed, there was no sympathy for those who -would strike against its existence. And in the party -which fostered terror and maddened the nation by the -Popish Plot were not a few to whom this was the object, -Independents and other sectaries, fierce republicans who -had fought through the Civil War and might not be -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[250]</span>sorry at the chance of fighting through another. It was -felt that the least accident might throw everything into -confusion. People began at length to test the stories -circulated for their consumption. Tales “that Holborn -should be burnt down and the streets run with blood” -were no longer accepted on the mere statement. The -Irish Plot, loudly denounced about this time by Shaftesbury, -found small credence except from the London mob, -and even in London the busy merchants who feared disorder -exercised an influence of restraint. At the end of -July Sir Leoline Jenkins was able to write: “Letters -from several parts beyond the seas do tell us that we are -represented there as if we were already in a flame. God -be praised! ’tis no such matter. All things are as still -and peaceable as ever they were, only we are pelted at with -impudent, horrid libels.” Evidently the English nation -was in no humour for a second civil war.<a id="FNanchor_439" href="#Footnote_439" class="fnanchor">439</a></p> - -<p>The king met Parliament on October 21, 1680. -James was again on his way to Edinburgh, induced to -withdraw himself by a promise of full support, but inwardly -persuaded that he was lost. Seven of the council -had favoured the journey, eleven were against it. “Since -he has so many friends for him,” said Charles, “I see he -must go.” In spite of gay hearts the royal prospect was -not bright. The king had tried a bout with the Whigs -over the city elections, and was forced to accept their -choice; and the Duchess of Portsmouth, fearful of an -attack on herself and with a heavy bribe in her purse, had -gone over to the side of his enemies.<a id="FNanchor_440" href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">440</a> The session opened<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[251]</span> -with turbulence almost unexampled even in the hot times -that had passed. For discrediting the Plot in the last -parliament, a member had been expelled by the Commons. -He was now followed by two others. Petitioning was -voted to be the right of the subject. Abhorrers were -violently attacked. Charles had long expressed his -willingness for any compromise that should leave his -brother the title of king when he came to the throne, -and offered Expedients, the effect of which would be to -take all power from the hands of the sovereign. Similar -proposals were made by others also. Halifax suggested -that the duke should be banished for five years, Essex an -association in defence of the Protestant religion, Shaftesbury -would still be satisfied by a divorce. Otherwise he stood -firm for Exclusion. James viewed the Expedients alike -with horror, and the Commons rejected them with insult. -Once let a popish king have the title, it was said, and he -would take the power too. “Expedients in politics are -like mountebanks’ tricks in physic,” cried Sir William -Jones. The bill, the bill, and nothing but the bill, was -the cry. Colonel Titus summed the matter up neatly. -“You shall have the Protestant religion,” he said, “you -shall have what you will to protect you, but you must -have a popish king who shall command your armies and -your navies, make your bishops and judges. Suppose -there were a lion in the lobby, one cries: Shut the door -and keep him out. No, says another, open the door and -let us chain him when he comes in.” The metaphor -became popular in verse:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">I hear a lion in the lobby roar;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And keep him out?—or shall we let him in</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To try if we can turn him out again?<a id="FNanchor_441" href="#Footnote_441" class="fnanchor">441</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">On November 4 the Exclusion bill was introduced,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[252]</span> -heralded by denunciations of James. The violence of -the debates beggars description. If swords were not -drawn, their use was not forgotten. The prospect of -civil war was freely mooted. “The case, in short, is -this,” exclaimed Mr. Henry Booth, “in plain English, -whether we would fight for or against the law.” Sir -William Jones pursued, “The art of man cannot find out -any remedy as long as there is a popish successor and the -fears of a popish king.” He was answered by Colonel -Legge, a personal friend of the Duke of York: “There -has been talk in the world of another successor than the -duke, in a Black Box; but if Pandora’s box must be -opened, I would have it in my time, not in my children’s, -that I may draw my sword to defend the right heir.” -On November 11 the bill was passed, and four days later -with a mighty shout was carried to the Lords by Russell, -followed by a great body of the Commons. To signify -the attitude of the city, he was accompanied by the Lord -Mayor and aldermen. At the debate which followed -Charles was present. He heard the passionate attacks of -Shaftesbury, the grave force of Essex’s oratory. He -witnessed the treachery of Sunderland, who joined his -enemies. He heard Monmouth urge Exclusion as the -only safety for the king’s life, and broke in with a loud -whisper, “the kiss of Judas.” He saw Halifax rise to -champion the right, and heard him speak fifteen or sixteen -times and carry the day by his inexhaustible powers of -wit, sarcasm, and eloquence. At nine o’clock in the -evening, after a debate of six hours, the bill was thrown -out by sixty-three votes to thirty.<a id="FNanchor_442" href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">442</a> It was a memorable -victory.</p> - -<p>The fury of the Commons exceeded all bounds. -Supplies were refused. Votes and addresses were passed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[253]</span> -against Halifax, against Jeffreys, Recorder of London, -against Lord Chief Justice North, against placemen and -pensioners, against the judges, against James. “No -sooner does a man stand by the king but he is attacked,” -wrote the duke to William of Orange. To the attack -against Halifax Charles answered suavely that “he doth -not find the grounds in the address of this House to be -sufficient to induce him to remove the Earl of Halifax.” -He told Reresby: “Let them do what they will, I will -never part with any officer at the request of either House. -My father lost his head by such compliance; but as for -me, I intend to die another way.” And Halifax took -occasion to say to Sir John: “Well, if it comes to a war, -you and I must go together.” A bill for a Protestant -association for the government of the country with -Monmouth at its head was being prepared, when on -January 10, 1681 the king suddenly prorogued and then -dissolved Parliament, leaving twenty-two bills depending -and eight more already ordered. The next parliament -was summoned for March 21, and according to the old -advice of Danby not in the capital, but at Oxford.<a id="FNanchor_443" href="#Footnote_443" class="fnanchor">443</a></p> - -<p>Charles’ wisdom in this course cannot be questioned. -Before the last session Ferguson the Plotter had returned -from concealment in Holland. An agent of Essex was -busy in London concerning “the linen manufacture,” for -which he had enrolled three or four hundred men and -spent as much as a thousand pounds. Hugh Speke sent -down to the country to have his horse ready. “Get him -in as good case as you can,” he wrote, “for God knows -what use I may have for him and how suddenly.” There -is reason to think that Shaftesbury had been planning to -place Parliament under control of the city.<a id="FNanchor_444" href="#Footnote_444" class="fnanchor">444</a> London had -always armed the Whigs with the possibility of support<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[254]</span> -other than parliamentary. The removal of Parliament to -Oxford made it certain that the coming struggle would -be fought on ground favourable to the king. No sooner -was Charles’ determination known than Shaftesbury, -Monmouth, and Essex, together with thirteen other peers, -presented a petition shewing that evil men, favourers of -popery and enemies of the happiness of England, had -made choice of Oxford as a place where the Houses would -be daily menaced by the swords of papists who had crept -into the ranks of the king’s guards, and making their -humble prayer and advice that the parliament should sit -at Westminster as usual. “That, my lord, may be your -opinion,” returned the king to Essex; “it is not mine.”<a id="FNanchor_445" href="#Footnote_445" class="fnanchor">445</a> -The Whigs promptly set to making the elections their -own. Nothing was omitted to secure their success. -Instructions from the Green Ribbon Club directed events -in all parts of the country. Members bound themselves -to prosecute the Plot, to demand restriction of the king’s -power to prorogue and dissolve Parliament, to support -the Exclusion, the right of petitioning, the Association.<a id="FNanchor_446" href="#Footnote_446" class="fnanchor">446</a> -When the means of man were exhausted, supernatural -powers were called to assist. On the one side and on the -other were raised ghosts, who foretold doom to their -opponents. The city of London elected its old representatives. -They were begged to refuse supplies and -assured that in pursuit of their ends they should have the -support of the citizens’ lives and fortunes. A host of -scribblers, libellers, and caricaturists poured into Oxford. -A rumour was spread that the city would be the scene of -a massacre. The Whig chiefs rode down attended by -bands of armed retainers. Guards of townsmen accompanied -members from the boroughs. The Londoners -appeared in a great company with bows of blue satin in -their hats, on which were woven the inscription: “No -Popery! No Slavery!” Tory crowds met them at the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">[255]</span> -gates, red-ribboned, brandishing clubs and staves, and -crying, “Make ready! Stand to it! Knock ’em down! -Knock ’em down!” In the midst of his life-guards, -among whom Essex had failed at Charles’ polite request -to point out the creeping papists, the king drove from -Windsor. Information had come to hand of a plot to -kidnap him at Oxford. Measures were taken accordingly. -A regiment was moved up to the Mews in case -of an attack on Whitehall. The constable of the Tower -was advised to hold himself in readiness. Attention was -given to Lambeth Palace and the forts on the Thames. -The cannon at Windsor were looked to, and Lord -Oxford’s regiment was posted along the Windsor road, -should Charles be compelled to retreat. “If the king -would be advised,” said Halifax, “it is in his power to -make all his opponents tremble.”<a id="FNanchor_447" href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">447</a> It was what he had -come prepared to do.</p> - -<p>Since the fall of Danby, Charles had lived in a state -of poverty. Scarcely any supplies were furnished by Parliament. -None came from France. His resources were at -one moment so low that he even thought of recalling his -ministers from the courts of foreign princes.<a id="FNanchor_448" href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">448</a> At the -same time thousands of pounds were being absorbed by -the informers against popish plotters, tens of thousands -by the royal mistresses. The treasury was in the hands -of Laurence Hyde, second son of Lord Chancellor -Clarendon. That he was able to pay the way is a source -of wonder and admiration. Such a state of affairs could -not last for ever, and Charles had recourse to the mine -whence he had drawn so much wealth before. Though -Louis XIV had gained his immediate object by turning<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[256]</span> -against his cousin, he felt as time went on that the tools -he used might destroy his own work. His constant -desire was to keep England in such a position that, if she -would, she could not thwart his plans. For this he had -joined the Whigs against Danby. From the same motive -his ambassador supported Shaftesbury in his advertisement -of Monmouth and bribed not only members of -parliament, but city merchants and Presbyterian preachers. -But there was a point beyond which he could not follow -this line. It would be as little to his interest to see -Charles’ authority overthrown and English policy directed -by a Protestant parliament as to contend with Charles -adopting and leading the same policy. Therefore in the -autumn of 1679 Barillon had tried to come to an agreement -with Charles. He offered the sum of £200,000 for -three years but, attempting to get more than the king -was willing to give, found the proposal fall to the ground. -Charles threw himself on to the side of the allies against -France and in July of the following year concluded a -treaty with Spain to resist the pretensions of Louis. -Alarmed by the violence of the Commons and realising -that their hostility to France could not be cured by gold, -Barillon again broached the subject. The king hung -back until just before the dissolution of the last parliament -at Westminster and by skilful play obtained what -he wanted. A verbal treaty was concluded in the queen’s -bedroom, between the bed and the wall. Charles agreed -to disengage himself from the Spanish alliance and to -prevent the interference of Parliament. In return he was -to receive from Louis an amount equivalent to twelve and -a half million francs in the course of the next three years. -So close was the secret kept that besides the two kings -only Barillon, Laurence Hyde, and the Duke of York -had knowledge of the treaty.<a id="FNanchor_449" href="#Footnote_449" class="fnanchor">449</a> Though he was tight -bound by it for the matter of foreign policy, Charles had -attained his object. Except for the advancement of his -power at home and to quicken the growth of English<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[257]</span> -commerce he did not care for foreign politics. So long -as he could turn Louis’ ambition to his own advantage -he was satisfied. This the new treaty accomplished, and -although Louis too gained handsomely by it, he was -obliged to confess the victory not altogether his by the -complete reversal of his policy of the last four years -in England. Charles met Parliament strong in the -consciousness of his independence.</p> - -<p>The session that now opened gave little hope of a -peaceful end. Meeting on March 21, the Houses listened -to a speech of studious moderation from the throne. -Charles promised consent to any means whereby under -a Catholic successor the administration should remain -in Protestant hands, but what he had already said with -regard to the succession, by that he would abide—there -should be no tampering with that. There could be no -mistake as to his attitude. “I, who will never use -arbitrary government myself,” he said with a proud lie, -“am resolved never to suffer it in others.” Charles -could well offer a compromise, for he knew it would never -be accepted. The two parties, it was said, were like hostile -forces on opposite heights. The Commons refused the -Expedients. They adopted the cause of a wretch named -Fitzharris, whose obscure intrigue, by whomever directed, -was certainly most base and most criminal, and tried to -turn him into an engine of political aggression. It was -evident that they meant to force the king to abandon -James and recognise the Duke of Monmouth. Shaftesbury -once more tried negotiation. In conversation with -Charles in the House of Lords he pressed him in the -public interest and for the peace of the nation to accept -the position and give way. The king returned: “My -Lord, let there be no self-delusion, I will never yield and -will not let myself be intimidated. I have the law and -reason on my side. Good men will be with me. There -is the church,” and he pointed to where the bishops sat, -“which will remain united with me. Believe me, my -Lord, we shall not be divided.” It was an open declaration -of war. On March 26 the Exclusion bill was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[258]</span> -voted. Monday, March 28, was fixed for the first -reading. On Sunday the king busied himself with -preparing the Sheldonian theatre for the Commons, who -complained that Convocation House was too small; he -viewed the plans, strolled among the workmen, congratulated -himself on being able to arrange for the better -comfort of his faithful subjects, and made all show of -expecting a long session. That night his coach was -privately sent a stage outside Oxford with a troop of -horse. Next morning he was carried as usual to the -House of Lords in a sedan chair, followed by another -with drawn curtains, seeming to contain a friend. When -the king stepped out his friend was found to be a change -of clothes. He had come to make his enemies tremble. -At the last moment an accident nearly wrecked the scheme. -The wrong robes had been brought. Hastily the chair -was sent back for the robes of state, while Charles held -an unwilling peer in conversation that he might not -give the alarm. Then, when all was ready, he swiftly -took his seat on the throne and, without giving the Lords -time to robe, summoned the Commons to attend. As Sir -William Jones was in the act of appealing to Magna Carta -as the safeguard of the subject’s right, the Black Rod -knocked at the door. The Commons thronged eagerly -through the narrow passages to the king’s presence, the -Speaker leading with Russell and Cavendish at either -hand. They thought they had come to receive Charles’ -surrender. When the tumult was calmed the king -spoke; “My lords and gentlemen, that all the world -may see to what a point we are come, that we are not like -to have a good end, when the divisions at the beginning -are such, therefore, my Lord Chancellor, do as I have -commanded you.” Finch thereupon declared Parliament, -which had lived for exactly one week, to be dissolved, and -Charles immediately left the throne. As he reached his -dressing-room he turned to a friend, his eyes gleaming, -with the remark that it was better to have one king than -five hundred. He made a short dinner and, leaving by -the back stairs, drove off in Sir Edward Seymour’s coach<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[259]</span> -to where his own was waiting. That night he was in -Windsor.<a id="FNanchor_450" href="#Footnote_450" class="fnanchor">450</a></p> - -<p>The dissolution scattered the opposition as a gust of -wind the leaves of a tree in autumn. Shaftesbury in vain -attempted to hold the Houses together. His followers in -the Lords remained for an hour under pretence of signing -a protest, while messengers were dispatched urging the -Commons to fulfil their promises. But they were too -much cowed by the stroke. They feared “if they did not -disperse, the king would come and pull them out by the -ears.” Presently they fled. In a quarter of an hour the -price of coaches in the town doubled. Oxford had the -appearance of a surrendered city disgorging its garrison.<a id="FNanchor_451" href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">451</a> -And with their flight the history of the Popish Plot comes -to an end. On that the Whigs had staked all, and they -had lost. The country was alienated by their violence and -rapacity and fearful of the horrors of civil war. Once -deprived of their means of action in Parliament they could -do nothing but go whither the king drove them, to plot -frank rebellion without the shadow of legality. Up to -this point Shaftesbury had led a bold attack, not without -good hope of success. Now he was left to sustain the -defence, stubborn and keen, but in the end incapable of -avoiding ruin. The tide had at last turned, and Charles, -who since the first appearance of Oates had borne with -unexampled equanimity a series of the most fierce assaults, -found himself upon a pinnacle of triumph, his enemies -lying crushed beneath his throne until he should goad -them to complete disaster. Had he struck twelve months -sooner the country would in all likelihood have been on -their side; but he had gauged the temper of his people -correctly and knew now that they would be with him. -The history of these years is in brief the history of Charles<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[260]</span> -II’s reign, the history of a long struggle for the power of -the crown. In the panic of the Popish Plot and the wild -agitation of the Exclusion bill that struggle, exasperated by -the Dover treaty and the Catholic intrigues, came to a head. -Its consequence was the Rye House Plot, the perfection of -Whig failure. In that struggle too the conflicting principles -found their absolute exponents in the two wittiest and two -of the most able statesmen in English history, each gifted -with a supreme political genius, each exclusive of the other, -each fighting for personal ascendency no less than for an -idea, for principle no less than for power, Charles II and -the Earl of Shaftesbury. Without a grasp of this the -history of the times cannot be understood, and for this -reason some historians have found in them, and more have -left, a mere tangle of helpless chaos. Of the two Charles -had the better fortune in his life, Shaftesbury after death. -For Shaftesbury, ruined, disappointed, embittered at the -loss of all his hopes, was yet the father of the Revolution: -all that Charles had gained was thrown away by his less -worthy brother. But the personal triumph of the king -was unique. While to the world he seemed a genial -debauchee, whose varied talents would have fitted him -equally to be a chemist, shipwright, jockey, or dancing-master, -the horseman, angler, walker, musician, whose -energy tired while his company delighted the most brilliant -of English courts, more admirable than Crichton had he -not been more indolent, he laboured in an inner life at a -great endeavour and, chiefly by letting himself be misunderstood, -achieved it.<a id="FNanchor_452" href="#Footnote_452" class="fnanchor">452</a> He restored the crown to its ancient -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[261]</span>place in the state, whence his father and his grandfather -had let it fall. He gave Parliament just enough rope to -hang itself.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak p4 b4" id="TRIALS_FOR_TREASON">TRIALS FOR TREASON</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[265]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I4">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">MAGISTRATES AND JUDGES</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> trials of the Popish Plot have remained the most -celebrated in the annals of our judicial history. Their -reports occupy three volumes of the State Trials and -more than two thousand pages of crowded print. They -contain twenty-two trials for treason, three for murder or -attempt to murder, eleven for perjury, subornation of -perjury, libel, and other misdemeanours. They gave rise -to proceedings in Parliament against two Lord Chief -Justices, and against two judges of the Court of King’s -Bench. They are a standing monument to the most -astounding outburst of successful perjury which has occurred -in modern times. It is due to their connection with these -trials that posterity has branded the names of three<a id="FNanchor_453" href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">453</a> -judges with lasting infamy, and that fourteen men executed -as traitors have earned the reputation of martyrs. Not -only are they filled and brimming with the romance of life -and death, but there lies locked within them the kernel of -that vast mass of treason, intrigue, crime, and falsehood -which surrounds and is known as the Popish Plot. -Strangely enough, therefore, they have been little studied -and never understood.</p> - -<p>The consequence of this has been unfortunate. Instead -of going to the fountain-head for information, historians -have for the most part contented themselves with relying -on accounts supplied by writers on the one side or the -other, sources which are always prejudiced and usually -contradictory. To extract truth from the mutual opposition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[266]</span> -of two lies is an ingenious and useful task when -evidence is not forthcoming at first hand; but it is a -method less accurate than the examination of original -authorities when these can be consulted. Nor is there -only an obligation to devote attention to the trials -themselves; they cannot be judged alone: and historians -have not escaped error when, although they have studied -the trials immediately within view from the actual reports, -they have neglected to read them in the light of the -preceding practice of the English courts of law, and to -ground their opinions upon the whole judicial system -which gave them their peculiar character, and of which they -were an inseparable part. To appreciate properly the -significance of the trials they must not be taken apart from -their setting, and it is necessary before passing judgment -upon the events recorded in them to review the past which -lies behind them and the causes which influenced their -nature.</p> - -<p>The judicial system of England in the latter half of the -seventeenth century was very different from its descendant -in the twentieth. Its nature had been determined by the -course of political events which moulded it into a form as -unlike to that of two centuries after as the later Stuart -constitution was to the Victorian.</p> - -<p>Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, -from the time when Henry VIII broke the political power -of Rome in England until the day when the last revolution -destroyed the influence of the Jesuits in English politics, -the English state lived and developed in an atmosphere -charged with the thunderstorm and resonant with the -note of war. War against foes within the land and -without was the characteristic condition of its existence. -Besides conflict with foreign powers, war and rebellion, -constant in Scotland and almost chronic in Ireland, may -be counted in eight reigns three completed revolutions, -ten<a id="FNanchor_454" href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">454</a> armed rebellions, two great civil wars, and plots<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[267]</span> -innumerable, all emanating from within the English nation -alone. From beyond seas enemies schemed almost without -ceasing to overturn religion or government or both as -they were established at home. There is no need to -wonder that the English government was a fighting -machine. In this light it was regarded by all men. Where -government is now looked on as a means of getting necessary -business done, of ameliorating conditions of life, and -directing the energy of the country to the highest pitch of -efficiency, two centuries and a half ago it was anxiously -watched as an engine of attack or defence of persons, -property, and conscience. The first duty of government -is to govern; to guard the tranquillity of the society over -which it is set, to anticipate the efforts of malignants -against the social security, and to punish crime, the commission -of which it has been unable to prevent. This is -at all times a heavy burden; but its weight is redoubled -when private gives way to public crime, and the criminal -turns his strength against the state itself. For acts directed -against society in its corporate being are fraught with far -more danger than those which touch it indirectly, however -great their magnitude, not only because the consequences -of the successful act in the former case are vital, but also -because the restless class from which the actors are drawn -commands a higher ability than that containing men to -whom crime is a means to private gain, and is endowed -with a reckless hardihood which springs from the certainty -of detection and retribution in case of failure. In the -seventeenth century this class was numerous, and the difficulties -of guarding against it great. The state was always -in danger, the government always battling for its own life -and the safety of society, the morrow always gloomy for -the success of their cause. To be for or against the -government was the shibboleth which marked the peaceable -man from the revolutionary. To be “counted to be -a very pernicious man against the government”<a id="FNanchor_455" href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">455</a> was -sufficient to weigh against the credibility of a witness<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[268]</span> -before the highest tribunal of the kingdom. Therefore it -was that far wider scope could then be allowed to acts of -administration than ought to be allowed in peaceful times, -and that the government might be sure of support for its -bad as well as its good measures when they appeared to -be directed towards the doing of rough justice on individuals -whose presence was felt to be a common danger. -It could be assumed that the means adopted for this -purpose would not be too closely scrutinised.</p> - -<p>Government was from necessity a fighting machine. -But it was a machine so ill adapted for fighting that its -action, far from attaining to mechanical precision and -gravity, was coarse, spasmodic, questionable, and was -driven to atone for want of ease and regularity by displaying -an excess of often ill-directed energy. The means -ready to the hand of the administration were scanty. -Without an army, without police, without detectives, the -order maintained in the country practically depended upon -the goodwill of the upper and middle classes. The police -of the kingdom consisted of watchmen in the cities and -boroughs; in the country, of parish constables. Both -were notoriously inefficient. The type of watchmen with -which Londoners were familiar in the opening years of the -seventeenth century is sufficiently known from the character -of Dogberry. About the same time the parish constables -were distinguished for being “often absent from -their houses, being for the most part husbandmen, and so -most of the day in the fields.”<a id="FNanchor_456" href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">456</a> As late as 1796 the -watchmen of London were recruited by the various authorities -from “such aged and often superannuated men living -in their respective districts as may offer their services,” -and were recognised to be feeble, half-starved, lacking the -least hope of reward or stimulus to activity.<a id="FNanchor_457" href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">457</a> Without an -excessive strain on the imagination it may be conjectured -that in the intervening period the police system did not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[269]</span> -rise to a high pitch of perfection. In the capital the -king’s guards and the city trained bands were available -forces, but in the provinces the only body on which reliance -could be placed for the execution of justice was formed by -the sheriff’s officers or in the last resort the cumbrous -militia. Even the militia could not be maintained under -arms for more than twelve days in the year, for although -the force of any county might be kept on foot for a longer -period by the king’s special direction, the Lord Lieutenant -had no power to raise money with which to pay the men.<a id="FNanchor_458" href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">458</a> -The only practicable instrument of government for the -defence of the state was the judicial system of the country. -As there was no method known for the prevention of -crime by an organised force of police, and no deterrent -exerted on would-be criminals by the existence of a standing -body of soldiery, the only possible weapon to be used -against them was to be found in the law courts. It -followed that the judges and justices of the peace not only -fulfilled the judicial and magisterial functions which are -known to modern times, but constituted as well an active -arm of the administration.</p> - -<p>The justices of the peace combined in their persons -the characters, which have since been distinguished, of -prosecutor, magistrate, detective, and often policeman. -They raised the hue and cry, chased malefactors, searched -houses, took prisoners. A justice might issue a warrant -for the arrest, conduct the search himself, effect the capture, -examine the accused with and without witnesses, -extract a confession by alternately cajoling him as a friend -and bullying him as a magistrate, commit him, and finally -give damning evidence against him at his trial. Such was -the conduct of Alderman Sir Thomas Aleyn in the case of -Colonel Turner, tried and convicted for burglary in 1664.<a id="FNanchor_459" href="#Footnote_459" class="fnanchor">459</a> -The alderman examined Turner in the first place, and -charged him point-blank with the offence. He then -searched his house. In this he was unsuccessful, but the -next day, owing to information received, tracked the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[270]</span> -colonel to a shop in the Minories, where he was found in -possession of money suspected to be part of the stolen -property.<a id="FNanchor_460" href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">460</a> Aleyn carried him to the owner of the stolen -goods, upon whose engagement not to prosecute Turner -confessed that he knew where the plunder was concealed, -and by a further series of artifices induced him to surrender, -through the agency of his wife, part of the missing -jewelry. On this he committed both Colonel and Mrs. -Turner to Newgate, and finally appeared at their trial to -tell the whole story of his manœuvres in considerable -detail and with the greatest composure.<a id="FNanchor_461" href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">461</a> Twenty years -later, as Sir John Reresby was going to bed one night, he -was roused by the Duke of Monmouth’s page to play a -similar part. Mr. Thynne had been shot dead as he was -driving in his coach along Pall Mall,<a id="FNanchor_462" href="#Footnote_462" class="fnanchor">462</a> and Sir John was -summoned to raise the hue and cry. He went at once to -the house of the murdered man, issued warrants for the -arrest of suspected persons, and proceeded to investigate -the case. From a Swede who was brought before him he -obtained the necessary information, and set out to pursue -the culprits. After giving chase all night and searching -several houses, he finally took the German officer who had -been a principal in the murder in the house of a Swedish -doctor in Leicester fields at six o’clock in the morning, -and was able to boast in his diary that he had performed -the somewhat perilous task of entering the room first and -personally arresting the captain.<a id="FNanchor_463" href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">463</a> On another occasion -Reresby deserved well of the government by his action in -an episode connected with the Rye House Plot. Six -Scotchmen had been arrested and examined in the North, -and were being sent in custody to London by directions of -one of the secretaries of state. Sir John however was -led to suspect that the examination had not been thoroughly -conducted and stopped the men at York. He examined<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[271]</span> -them again and extorted confessions of considerable importance, -which he was then able to forward to the secretary -in company with the prisoners.<a id="FNanchor_464" href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">464</a></p> - -<p>Instances to illustrate the nature of these more than -magisterial duties might easily be multiplied. The agitation -caused by the Popish Plot was naturally a spur -to the activity of justices throughout the country. -Especially was this the case in the west of England, where -the Roman Catholics had their greatest strength. In -Staffordshire Mr. Chetwyn, in Derbyshire Mr. Gilbert, -in Monmouthshire Captain Arnold were unflagging in -their efforts to scent out conspiracy and popery. In -consequence of information laid before the committee of -the House of Lords Mr. Chetwyn, in company with the -celebrated Justice Warcup,<a id="FNanchor_465" href="#Footnote_465" class="fnanchor">465</a> searched Lord Stafford’s house. -Tart Hall, for a secret vault in which some priests were -said to be concealed. The search was unsuccessful, but -the vigorous manner in which it was conducted is testified -by Chetwyn’s furious exclamation “that if he were the -king, he would have the house set fire to, and make the -old rogues come forth.”<a id="FNanchor_466" href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">466</a> The same magistrate also would -have assisted in the work of obtaining Dugdale’s confession, -had he not been absent in London at the time.<a id="FNanchor_467" href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">467</a></p> - -<p>To Henry Gilbert, justice of the peace for Derbyshire, -belonged the merit of tracking, arresting, and -obtaining the conviction of George Busby, Jesuit, for -being a Romish priest, at the Derby Assizes of 1681.<a id="FNanchor_468" href="#Footnote_468" class="fnanchor">468</a> -The evidence which Gilbert gave is very instructive as to -the scope of a magistrate’s duty.<a id="FNanchor_469" href="#Footnote_469" class="fnanchor">469</a> As early as January -1679 William Waller had come to search Mr. -Powtrel’s house at West Hallam, where the Jesuit was -said to be concealed, but was dissuaded on Gilbert’s -assurance that he had already been over the place several<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[272]</span> -times in vain and believed Busby to have escaped from -England. Since then however trustworthy information -had come to hand that he was still in hiding. Gilbert -first reconnoitred the house under the pretext of buying -wood for his coal-pits. He then went away, returned -with a constable and five or six other men and, fortified -by the news that Busby had been seen in the garden -only a few moments before, conducted a thorough search, -which resulted in the discovery of various priestly vestments, -an altar, “a box of wafers, mass-books, and divers -other popish things.”<a id="FNanchor_470" href="#Footnote_470" class="fnanchor">470</a> This was on March 1, 1681. A -fortnight later, in spite of some opposition from Mr. -Justice Charlton, who was on circuit for the spring assizes, -Gilbert sent the prize, which by law should have been -burnt, back to West Hallam, in the hope of lulling the -priest to a false security. On the same night he went to -gather the fruits of his manœuvre. Posting men round -the house, he made a noise and then waited to see “if -they could spy any light, or hear any walking in the lofts -or false floors.”<a id="FNanchor_471" href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">471</a> A constable and further assistance was -summoned, and about midnight Gilbert tapped at a -window and demanded admittance. It was refused, and -after a proper interval the constable broke in the door -and the whole party entered the house. The priest’s -chamber was found in disorder; the fire had been lately -extinguished, the bedclothes were lying about the room -in heaps, and the mattress, which had been turned, was -cold on the top, but warm underneath. This was the -prelude to a thorough examination of the house. The -spies in the garden had heard the priest’s footsteps near -a corner under the roof as he retreated to his hiding-place. -From one until ten in the morning of March 16 -the search was carried on, Gilbert tapping on the plaster -inside with his sword and the others meeting him by -knocking on the tiles and walls from the other side. -Hope was nearly abandoned when the searchers were -spurred by the jeers of the people of the house to one -last effort. At length they were rewarded. Sounding<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[273]</span> -the roof inch by inch, they came upon a spot near -some chimney stacks where the knocks from the two -sides did not tally; breaking open the tiles, they -discovered a priest’s hole, and in it Busby, whom Mr. -Gilbert forthwith bore off in triumph and committed to -Derby gaol.</p> - -<p>These exploits were no doubt typical of the range of -activity common to busy justices of the peace throughout -the kingdom. Important business passed through their -hands, and they felt their position likewise to be important. -They were an energetic body of men and spared not -themselves, nor their neighbours, nor those against whom -their action was directed in the execution of their duty -as government officials. Each was sure to be in his way -a local magnate, and thus the influence which the government -exerted on the justices was through them spread -widely over the country. Well known among provincial -magistrates, and still more active than the two above -mentioned, was Captain Arnold, whose name appeared in -the commission of the peace for Monmouthshire. It -was this Arnold who in 1679 assisted Dr. Croft, Bishop -of Hereford, in his attack on the Jesuit college at Combe, -near Monmouth. The college was dispersed and ten -horse loads of books, seized in it, were removed to the -library of Hereford Cathedral.<a id="FNanchor_472" href="#Footnote_472" class="fnanchor">472</a> In December of the -previous year he had been instrumental in the arrest of -Father Pugh, formerly of the Society of Jesus, and in the -seizure of papers and valuables belonging to Hall, another -member of the society.<a id="FNanchor_473" href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">473</a> But Arnold exhibited something -more than the zeal proper to an energetic and business-like -justice. He was a keen adherent to the Whig and -extreme Protestant party. In addition to the usual -government reward of £50 for the apprehension of a -Jesuit, he offered £200 from his own resources for each -capture.<a id="FNanchor_474" href="#Footnote_474" class="fnanchor">474</a> He made friends with the missioners and then<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[274]</span> -procured their own dependents to give evidence against -them. He armed bodies of servants to assist him in his -expeditions, and brought the unfortunate priest whom -Oates had named as prospective Bishop of Llandaff -triumphantly into Monmouth at the head of a dozen -horsemen.<a id="FNanchor_475" href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">475</a> Chief among his performances was the capture -of two well-known Jesuits, David Henry Lewis and Philip -Evans, popularly dubbed Captain. Lewis was taken by -Arnold in person, Evans through his agency. Against -both he produced the witnesses and managed the evidence.<a id="FNanchor_476" href="#Footnote_476" class="fnanchor">476</a> -Both were convicted of high treason under the statute -of Elizabeth, for being priests in orders received from the -see of Rome. Evans was executed at Cardiff on July 22, -Lewis at Usk on August 27, 1679.<a id="FNanchor_477" href="#Footnote_477" class="fnanchor">477</a> In the summer of -1680 Arnold’s name leaped into notoriety in London, -when on July 16 John Giles was brought to the bar at -the Old Bailey “for assaulting and intending to despatch -and murder John Arnold, one of his Majesty’s justices -of the peace.”<a id="FNanchor_478" href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">478</a> This incident however, which raised -Arnold’s importance so high with the Whig party that -his popularity bade fair to rival even that of the murdered -Sir Edmund Godfrey,<a id="FNanchor_479" href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">479</a> affords strong grounds for doubting -the candour of motive in his official alertness; for there is -reason to believe that no attempt whatever was made upon -his life, and that the whole affair was trumped up in a -most discreditable manner with a view to establishing more -firmly the reputation of the Protestant party and the guilt -of the Roman Catholics.<a id="FNanchor_480" href="#Footnote_480" class="fnanchor">480</a> One more, and this again a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[275]</span> -characteristic instance, may suffice to illustrate the varied, -almost intriguing, nature of a magistrate’s position and -the inquisitorial side which did not completely disappear -from his duty until far into the nineteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_481" href="#Footnote_481" class="fnanchor">481</a> At -Lord Stafford’s trial the three justices who had examined -Dugdale immediately after his arrest in December 1678 -were called by the prisoner to prove that the witness had -then absolutely denied all knowledge of the Plot.<a id="FNanchor_482" href="#Footnote_482" class="fnanchor">482</a> To -rebut this evidence the managers of the prosecution called -William Southall, coroner of the county of Stafford. This -man, who was not even a magistrate and occupied the -least judicial position known to the law, had taken the -opportunity of some legal business which was to be transacted -between a cousin of his and Dugdale to undertake -a little private examination of the latter on his own behalf -in the hopes of obtaining information about the Plot. -According to his own account Southall acquitted himself -with some skill and, by assuming a knowing air as if -convinced of Dugdale’s guilt and playing upon his hopes -of pardon and reward, managed to extract from him a -material confession. With this he repaired, not to the -justices of the peace by whom Dugdale had originally -been examined, but to three different magistrates, and in -their company was present the next day at a detailed -examination of Dugdale, who then swore to nearly the -same evidence as he now gave at the trial of Lord -Stafford.<a id="FNanchor_483" href="#Footnote_483" class="fnanchor">483</a> Whether this story was true, or, as is suggested -by the ease of Southall’s success where others naturally -better qualified had failed, the interview and its result was -arranged beforehand between the two men, is at this point -immaterial; for honest or fraudulent, the coroner’s behaviour -was accepted as a matter of course, and without -the least hint that there was any irregularity in the action -of an inferior official going behind the backs of his -superiors, and finally transferring so delicate a matter out<span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[276]</span> -of their cognisance altogether into the hands of a third -party.</p> - -<p>Such were the functions of the justices of the peace in -the seventeenth century, and so wide was the reach of the -magisterial arm stretched out as a weapon in the service -of the administration of government. And if the justices -filled so important a position, still more important was -that assumed by the king’s judges. The justices were -able administrators, dealers of small mercy to the evildoer, -guardians of the peace in the name of which their -commissions ran; but the judges took a place in the -foremost rank as great officers of state. The character of -their office had been determined by the famous conflict -between James I and Lord Chief Justice Coke which -came to a head in 1616 and ended in Coke’s dismissal.<a id="FNanchor_484" href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">484</a> -The Chief Justice’s endeavour had been to erect the bench -into an independent tribunal, founded on the ruins of -broken agreement between king and Commons, and -occupying the position of arbitrator and guardian of the -constitution midway between the two. To the king and -to Bacon, who advised him, this seemed intolerable; to -James, because the ideal of absolutism which guided his -mind could not admit in the state a constitutional oracle -other than himself; to the Attorney-General, because his -liberal instincts, wide statesmanship, and knowledge of -political requirements made clear the impracticable nature -of Coke’s ideas, the bonds of crabbed technicality with -which they sought to shackle the future, their essential -conservatism. Coke’s parchment knowledge, too good -for James, was not good enough for Bacon. If Bacon -inclined towards administrative absolutism, and Coke -represented in the struggle the majesty of the law, -assuredly the law for which the Chief Justice fought, for -ever seeking guidance in the records of the past, was unfit -to mould the future of a great nation. So when Coke -fell, characteristically enough, over a sordid squabble into -which a question of principle was inappropriately dragged,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[277]</span> -his fall demands our sympathy perhaps, but hardly our -regret. Regret at a victory in the personal cause of the -monarch and the check given to the forward march of -constitutional progress is profitless. Between the ideas of -Bacon and Coke there was no middle course open at the -moment when a choice became necessary. It was impossible -to avoid the conclusion that the judges must either become -an independent power in the state, an irresponsible -tribunal to which constitutional questions of the highest -importance should be referred for decision in strict accordance -with the rules of the Court of King’s Bench, or be -content to remain in subservience to the crown, supporters -of the king’s prerogative, and administrators of his policy. -The expedient, which has since made the way plain, of -the constitutional supremacy of the Commons of England -was then unborn, and as yet in the light of practical affairs -inconceivable. The Lord Chief Justice, “toughest of -men,” and too stubborn to yield, was broken; but his -brethren on the bench gave way and offered assurances of -their good conduct for the future and of their devotion to -the royal will. James took the opportunity of the lecture -which he read to the judges in the star chamber to compare -their behaviour in meddling with the prerogative of -the crown to the atheism and blasphemy committed by -good Christians in disputing the word of God.</p> - -<p>Thus the judges became, according to Bacon’s wish, -“lions, but yet lions under the throne,” and carried themselves -very circumspectly not to “check or oppose any -points of sovereignty.”<a id="FNanchor_485" href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">485</a> Of their regularity in this -course there can be no doubt, for if any lapsed into forbidden -ways, a judge he speedily ceased to be. His -appointment was <i>durante beneplacito</i><a id="FNanchor_486" href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">486</a> and revocable at the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[278]</span> -will of the king; and the king took full advantage of -his power. The example offered by the case of Coke was -not left long in isolation. The government was engaged -in the hopeless attempt to uphold the constitution of the -Tudor monarchy at a time when the nation had outgrown -it, and had opened a war to the death with the progressive -tendency of Parliament. In such a struggle the judges -were the king’s strongest weapon, and as a weapon that -turns uselessly in the hand, the recalcitrant judge was -discarded without scruple. When the better class of -judges questioned the legality of acts of government they -met with the same fate as their rugged predecessor. -Under Charles I two Lord Chief Justices were dismissed -and Chief Baron Walter was suspended from office. -Judicial offices of consequence were filled with “men of -confidence,” men who enjoyed the confidence of the king -and quickly lost that of every one else.<a id="FNanchor_487" href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">487</a></p> - -<p>In their support of the crown by technical legality and -practical injustice the courts lost all repute as temples of -the law. Even that high royalist, Lord Clarendon, -recognised that reliance upon such means was a cause of -weakness, not of strength, and that men ceased to respect -judicial decisions when they were used to cloak the designs -of government. “When they saw,” he writes, “in a -court of law (that law that gave them a title to the possession -of all they had) reason of state urged as elements of -law, judges as sharp-sighted as secretaries of state, and in -the mysteries of state, ... they had no reason to hope -that doctrine, or the promoter of it, would be contained -within any bounds. And here the damage and mischief -cannot be expressed that the crown and state sustained -by the deserved reproach and infamy that attended the -judges; there being no possibility to preserve the dignity, -reverence, and estimation of the laws themselves but by -the integrity and innocency of the judges.”<a id="FNanchor_488" href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">488</a> To the -thorough supporter of the administration the matter -appeared in a different light. When the two dissenting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[279]</span> -judges gave way under pressure and adhered to the report -of the majority in favour of ship-money, they were told -by Lord Wentworth that it was the greatest service the -legal profession had rendered to the crown during this -period.<a id="FNanchor_489" href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">489</a></p> - -<p>For good or evil the work of reducing the bench to an -arm of the administration had been done, and from this -political degradation it did not recover for nearly three-quarters -of a century, until William III was seated on the -throne and the judges became independent of the crown.</p> - -<p>The stirring events of the great rebellion, the Protectorate, -and the Restoration, which so profoundly -affected the life and institutions of the nation in other -ways, touched the bench but slightly. In the early -months of the Long Parliament a resolution was passed -by both houses of Parliament to the effect that the -judges’ appointments should be for the future <i>quamdiu -se bene gesserint</i>, and on January 15, 1641, the king -gave effect to this by a declaration that they should no -longer hold office at the pleasure of the crown but -during good behaviour. For twenty-four years the -improvement was maintained in theory; in practice the -old system kept its hold unshaken. During the short -remainder of Charles I’s reign the judges were concerned -on only two occasions in affairs of state. These were -however enough to demonstrate that the change in the -manner of their appointments had by no means the -result of rehabilitating the character of the bench and -restoring to it the quality, which it had long lacked, of -independence. One of the first acts of the Long Parliament, -after dealing with the vital question of ship-money, -was to turn upon the judges who had lent the weight -of their names to the decision which pronounced its -legality. Finch was violently attacked as a traitor in -the House of Commons, and his impeachment voted with -scarcely a dissentient voice. The Lord Keeper preferred -the path of safety to that of dignity and fled to Holland -on board a royal vessel, leaving the impeachment to be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[280]</span> -formally concluded in his absence. At the same time -proceedings were commenced against six other judges -who had sat at Hampden’s trial.<a id="FNanchor_490" href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">490</a> The effect of this was -immediate. Only once again did the judges come into -prominence before the outbreak of the Civil War. Scarcely -five months after Finch’s impeachment the House of -Lords demanded their opinion whether or no the articles -against Strafford amounted to making him guilty of -treason. Without hesitation they replied unanimously -that upon the articles which the Lords had voted to be -proved it was their opinion that the Earl of Strafford -did deserve to undergo the pains and penalties of high -treason by law.<a id="FNanchor_491" href="#Footnote_491" class="fnanchor">491</a> Not only was their conduct in delivering -this extra-judicial opinion decidedly irregular,<a id="FNanchor_492" href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">492</a> but their -decision was in flagrant opposition to the clearest dictates -of justice and rules of law, for the accusations against -Strafford cannot be regarded as tantamount, or even -approaching, to a substantial charge of treason.<a id="FNanchor_493" href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">493</a> The -fault lay not in their intelligence, but in the system which -had made their honesty an asset in the treasury of -government, and had robbed them of their ability to -judge facts in the light of law and reason without -reference to principles of statecraft or the struggle of -parties. It was not upon the merits of the case that -their decision was based now that it was unfavourable -to the administration, any more than their favourable -decisions had been based upon the merits of cases when -the administration was in power: the only difference<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[281]</span> -was that formerly they had feared dismissal from the -service of an angry sovereign as the result of an independent -opinion, whereas now they feared impeachment -at the hands of the angrier Commons.</p> - -<p>Under the Commonwealth and the Protectorate the -bench fared no better. In October 1649 all judges and -other officers of the law, down to the very clerks of -the courts, who had shown themselves hostile to the -Parliament and in sympathy with the monarchy, were -summarily dismissed, and their posts filled by men in -whom trust could be reposed. Even this was not sufficient. -In affairs of state justice was at a still greater -discount under the Protectorate than under the monarchy. -The cause of right was pleaded in vain when it came -into collision with the power and plans of the Protector. -“For not observing his pleasure” judges were rebuked, -suspended, dismissed. Special judicial commissions were -appointed to do his work; obnoxious attorneys and -critical counsel were imprisoned.<a id="FNanchor_494" href="#Footnote_494" class="fnanchor">494</a> The jury which -acquitted Lilburn after “the furious hurley-burleys” of -his second trial were sharply examined on their conduct -by the Council of State.<a id="FNanchor_495" href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">495</a> Moreover the new appointments -to the bench in spite of all care were not entirely -satisfactory to Cromwell’s government. The judges still -exhibited a bent which must have been far from pleasing -to the republicans. Sir Matthew Hale withdrew as far -as possible from all political trials and refused to sit -on Penruddock’s trial after the collapse of the rising at -Salisbury.<a id="FNanchor_496" href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">496</a> Surely it is this rather than the respectability -of their characters that should explain how it came about -that at the Restoration nine out of the fifteen republican<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[282]</span> -judges then in office were found acceptable to the new -government.</p> - -<p>The character of the bench was no more altered by -the Restoration than by the rebellion. If the traditions -of forty years had clung too closely to be shaken off by -those who might perhaps wish to be rid of them, they -were not likely to be removed ten years later by those -whose interest it was to retain them. The only practical -difference was that the judges, whose duty as partisans of -the government had been sealed by time and recognised -by all who were concerned in the government, could -now return to their more natural sphere as servants of -the crown as well. Thenceforward until the end of the -Stuart monarchy they were indispensable as allies of the -king, protectors of the administration, shining examples -of loyalty well applied and labour serviceably directed. -They possessed moreover the signal advantage of being -able to enforce the example which they inculcated. Those -who did not obtained an evil reputation at court; and -Sir Matthew Hale was looked at askance as one who was -suspected of not lending a whole-hearted support to the -government.<a id="FNanchor_497" href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">497</a> Even the theoretical advantage which had -been gained by the Long Parliament now disappeared. -Charles II took advantage of the lengthy prorogation of -1665 quietly to reintroduce appointments “at the good -pleasure” of the crown.<a id="FNanchor_498" href="#Footnote_498" class="fnanchor">498</a></p> - -<p>There was however some change for the better. A -large majority of the nation was for the first time for -thirty years united in sympathy with the government. -The universal desire was for peace and stability. The -great constitutional questions which had rent the kingdom -and distracted the bench lay for the moment at rest. -Government was no longer divided against itself; what -was now found in opposition was not a combination of -popular feeling with constitutional principle, to crush -which the law must be strained by a serviceable judiciary, -but a discredited party of fanatics and dissenters, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[283]</span> -dregs of a defeated rebellion, against whom the law could -be directed legally and to the satisfaction of the vast -majority of the king’s subjects.</p> - -<p>The demand therefore for that cast of mind which -under Charles I had been the peculiarity of a successful -judge no longer existed for Charles II. When definitions -of law were no longer needed to support the crown in -opposition to the other legitimate elements of the constitution, -and when the government was in close accord with -the people, there was no temptation to subject the law to -such strains as it had formerly been made to bear in the -effort to galvanise into life a system which had already -died a natural death. Perhaps it was less that judges had -become more scrupulous than that the objection to their -scruples had disappeared. To whatever cause they were -due, it is certain that the reign of Charles II was marked -by the renewal of decisions which must have been obnoxious -to the government. No doubt these are not to -be found in particular cases which were regarded as of -high consequence, but the tendency is perfectly visible, -and in one instance at least proved to be of profound -importance. This was the trial of Penn and Meade in -1670, for by the proceedings which arose from it was -finally established the principle that a jury has an absolute -right to give such a verdict as it thinks proper without -being open to question therefore by any other person or -authority whatsoever.<a id="FNanchor_499" href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">499</a> The Quakers had been indicted -for an unlawful assembly, and the jury before whom they -were tried, in spite of repeated direction and shameful -abuse from the Lord Mayor and the Recorder, found a -verdict of not guilty. For this the court sentenced the -jurymen to a fine of forty marks apiece and imprisonment -until the fine was paid. Bushell, the foreman, and his -fellow-jurors obtained a writ of habeas corpus, and the -point was argued at length on the return to the writ. -Ten judges out of twelve affirmed the absolute discretion -of the jury to believe or disbelieve the evidence given according -to the dictates of conscience, and not only were the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[284]</span> -jurymen discharged from custody without paying the fine, -but no attempt has ever been made since to contest the -principle thus established.<a id="FNanchor_500" href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">500</a></p> - -<p>One further instance may be noted. In 1675 a consultation -of all the judges but two was held to decide a -case which was submitted to them by the Attorney-General. -A great riot had been made a month before by the weavers’ -apprentices in various parts and suburbs of London by -way of protest against the increased introduction of looms -into their trade; the looms had been broken, a large -amount of property destroyed, and several persons injured. -The Attorney-General now wished to indict the rioters -for high treason; but the judges were divided, five for, -five against the opinion that treason had been committed, -and in spite of the evident anxiety of the government to -proceed against the apprentices on the graver issue, the -Attorney-General had to be content with laying the -indictments for a riot and obtaining convictions for the -lesser offence.<a id="FNanchor_501" href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">501</a> When it is remembered that the London -apprentices perpetually drew upon themselves the watchful -eye of the government by their obnoxious politics, and -that a trade riot was always suspected of being the forerunner -of a sectarian revolt, it is evident that the decision -of the judges meant considerable annoyance, if not an -actual rebuff, to the government.<a id="FNanchor_502" href="#Footnote_502" class="fnanchor">502</a></p> - -<p>The general usefulness of the bench was not however -impaired by such exceptions. The judges still formed -one of the most important parts of the administrative -machinery. They were consulted by the government, -gave advice, and put into effect the results of their advice. -They supplied the king during the long prorogation of -1675 with the pretext which he required for the suppression -of the coffee-houses.<a id="FNanchor_503" href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">503</a> Before the trial of the regicides they -had held a conference with the king’s counsel, Attorney,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[285]</span> -and Solicitor-General to resolve debatable points which -were likely to arise in the course of the trials.<a id="FNanchor_504" href="#Footnote_504" class="fnanchor">504</a> When -the Licensing Act expired in 1679, the judges were ordered -by the king to make a report concerning the control of -the press. Their unanimous decision was “that his -Majesty may, by law, prohibit the printing and publishing -of all newsbooks and pamphlets of news whatsoever, not -licensed by his Majesty’s authority, as manifestly tending -to a breach of the peace and disturbance of the kingdom”;<a id="FNanchor_505" href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">505</a> -and their preaching was put into practice before many -months had elapsed at the trials of Harris<a id="FNanchor_506" href="#Footnote_506" class="fnanchor">506</a> and Carr,<a id="FNanchor_507" href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">507</a> the -former of whom was sentenced to the pillory and a fine of -£500, and the latter to the suppression of the newspaper -which he owned.</p> - -<p>Actions for libel had always afforded a wide field for -the exercise of administrative authority. Under the -Clarendon <i>régime</i> the sentence pronounced by Chief-Justice -Hyde upon Twyn, the printer, had fully sustained the -traditions of the trials of Prynne, Bastwick, and Lilburn.<a id="FNanchor_508" href="#Footnote_508" class="fnanchor">508</a> -With the multiplication of political pamphlets after 1678 -trials and convictions for libel became frequent. Within -two years six important prosecutions of authors, printers, -or publishers were instituted, and not only resulted almost -always in the infliction of heavy punishments, but offered -at the same time opportunities for many caustic and edifying -remarks from the bench. Some time after, the number -of trials for political libels and seditious words held within -the space of seven months actually mounted to the total -of sixteen.<a id="FNanchor_509" href="#Footnote_509" class="fnanchor">509</a></p> - -<p>The advantage of lectures thus delivered in court on -general politics and the duties of a good subject was of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[286]</span> -considerable value to the government. In this part of -their duties the judges rivalled even the courtly eloquence -of divines whose chief occupation was the advocacy of the -doctrine of non-resistance. On his elevation to the bench -in October 1676 Sir William Scroggs “made so excellent -a speech, that my Lord Montague, then present, told the -king he had since his happy restoration caused many -hundred sermons to be printed, all which together taught -not half so much loyalty; therefore as a sermon desired -his command to have it printed and published in all the -market towns in England.”<a id="FNanchor_510" href="#Footnote_510" class="fnanchor">510</a> It was afterwards made a -ground for proceedings in Parliament against Scroggs that -he had publicly spoken “very much against petitioning, -condemning it as resembling 41, as factious and tending -to rebellion, or to that effect”<a id="FNanchor_511" href="#Footnote_511" class="fnanchor">511</a> and it was said that Sir -Robert Atkyns was dismissed from the bench for contradicting -a dictum of the Chief Justice while on circuit, -“that the presentation of a petition for the summoning of -Parliament was high treason.”<a id="FNanchor_512" href="#Footnote_512" class="fnanchor">512</a> Similar behaviour was -also made the subject of complaint against Mr. Justice -Jones.<a id="FNanchor_513" href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">513</a> Even the courteous Lord Chancellor Finch, in -delivering sentence upon Lord Stafford, undertook to -prove by the way that Godfrey had been murdered, and -London burnt, by the papists.<a id="FNanchor_514" href="#Footnote_514" class="fnanchor">514</a> But most of all the influence -and importance of the judges was shown in trials -for treason. In those days state trials were not merely -impartial inquiries into the question whether or no certain -persons had committed certain acts, the nature of which -was under examination: they were life-and-death struggles -of the king and his government against the attacks of -those who wished to subvert them. It was the business of -those engaged in them to see that the king’s cause took -no hurt. In this light they were universally regarded, -and to this end their conduct was undertaken. Judges -and jurors alike were engaged in the recognised task of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[287]</span> -the defence of the state. To the hearers it was no quaint -piece of antiquated phraseology when the clerk of the -crown addressed the prisoner arraigned at the bar for high -treason: “These good men that are now called, and here -appear, are those which are to pass between you and our -sovereign lord the king, upon your life and death”; it -was a sober expression of vivid truth. The jury stood -between the king’s life and the intrigues of a defeated -malefactor. Of his innocence they were indeed ready to -be convinced, but it would require strong evidence to convince -them. In his guilt their belief was already strong. -They can scarcely have refrained from regarding themselves -less as agents employed in the cause of truth to -examine without prejudice the merits of the case before -them than as executors of an already predetermined justice.</p> - -<p>And here the weight of the judge’s authority was preponderant. -He directed those heavy advantages which -weighed on the side of the king and against the prisoner. -The stringent system of preliminary procedure, which -rendered extreme the difficulty of properly preparing his -case beforehand, his isolation when actually upon trial, -and the unsympathetic atmosphere by which he was surrounded, -and of which the counsel for the prosecution -were ready to take advantage to press every point home, -combined to render the accused almost helpless against the -crown. Even when administered with mercy the system -was severely favourable to the prosecution; and the adverse -rules which hemmed in the prisoner were generally worked -to the utmost. To understand these clearly, it will be -necessary to pass shortly in review the history of criminal -procedure in the English courts of law, and the developments -which led to its state at the time of the trials for the -Popish Plot.<a id="FNanchor_515" href="#Footnote_515" class="fnanchor">515</a></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[288]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II4">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> Reformation, as in almost all other branches of -modern history, constitutes the starting-point at which the -study of public procedure must be begun. Rather it -would be true to say that in this as in other subjects it -should form the starting-point. Unfortunately the necessary -materials are here wanting. The State Trials, which -afford not only the greatest quantity but the finest quality -of evidence on the judicial history of England, are printed -from reports which do not begin before the reign of Queen -Mary in 1554. From that date until our own day they -are continuous, and form the greatest collection of historical -documents in the English language. From that -date too the history of criminal procedure in modern -England may be said to begin. Throughout the seventeenth -century the courts of law occupy for the student of -history a position of singular importance. They were the -scenes not only of profound constitutional struggles, but -of brilliant and deadly political contests.</p> - -<p>The study of criminal procedure is therefore indispensable -to an understanding of the numerous historical -problems which have been worked out in the courts of -law; especially to an understanding of those, not few, -which have been worked to a conclusion, but not to a -solution.</p> - -<p>The difference between the procedure in criminal cases -as it exists to-day and as it existed two centuries and a half -ago is but little known. It is the more difficult to understand -because it is witnessed by few great landmarks in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[289]</span> -history of the administration of justice, and owes its existence -to no promulgation of new codes or rules to which a -triumphant finger may be pointed. Rather the new system -has emerged from the old by a procession of unconsidered -changes, at different times, of varying importance, the -results of which have come to be so universally known -and approved, that to the backward glance they seem to -be not the outcome of long experience, but inextricable -parts of a system which has existed from all time. The -essential change has been one of conduct less than of -opinion, and is to be found rather in an altered point of -view than in any variation of practical arrangements.</p> - -<p>The evolution of the forms under which trials were -conducted during the later Stuart period was slow and -unpronounced. The all-pervading activity of the Tudor -privy council in affairs of state had left a deep imprint -upon the course of English justice, and one from which it -did not soon free itself. It was then that the courts gained -the inquisitorial character which they did not lose until -after the restoration of the monarchy, and it was not until -the Puritan Revolution that the judicial authority of the -council, which had grown to such a height of severity in -the preceding half century, was swept away. During that -time the privy council played a part of high importance -in political trials. When a suspected criminal was to be -brought to justice a stringent preliminary inquiry was -held. The accused was examined on oath and in secret -by the council. His examination was taken down in -writing and might afterwards be produced against him -under the name of a “confession.” The investigation -here made had the greatest weight. “In point of fact,” -says Dr. Gardiner, “these preliminary investigations -formed the real trial. If the accused could satisfy the -privy council of his innocence, he would at once be set -at liberty. If he failed in this, he would be brought -before a court from which there was scarcely a hope of -escape.”<a id="FNanchor_516" href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">516</a> As a rule he did fail. The privy councillors -were not apt to waste their time on persons who were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[290]</span> -not brought before them as suspect on good grounds, or -objectionable for reason of state. Innocence moreover -would be little protection to a prisoner in the latter case, -for the political grounds against him would be unaffected -by any scrutiny of evidence. If the accused was committed -by the council, it was with no bright prospect -before his eyes. Until the day of his trial he was kept -close prisoner. He had no notice of the witnesses who -were to be called against him or of the evidence which -they would give. Nor was the evidence for the prosecution -the only point in which the prisoner was at a disadvantage, -for he was not allowed to call witnesses to set -up a case for himself. This at least seems to have been -the fact; but even had theory permitted the appearance -in court of witnesses for the prisoner, in practice the -difference made would have been trifling, for he certainly -had no means of procuring their attendance or, supposing -they came, of ascertaining what they would say. Even at -the close of the seventeenth century, when witnesses for -the defence were recognised and encouraged by the courts, -great difficulty was experienced by prisoners in procuring -the attendance of the right persons, and, when these came, -they sometimes gave evidence on the wrong side.<a id="FNanchor_517" href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">517</a> The -accused was brought into court in absolute ignorance of -what would be produced against him, and was compelled -to defend himself on the spur of the moment against -skilled lawyers, who had been preparing their case for -weeks or perhaps months beforehand. Neither before or -at the trial was he allowed the aid of counsel or solicitor. -On being brought to the bar, the prisoner was treated -in such a way as to rob him almost of the possibility -of escape. During his confinement examinations -had been made of all other suspected persons, and their -depositions had been taken. Not only could these now -be produced in court against him, but the confessions of -accomplices, when these could be found, were regarded as -specially cogent evidence. No one, it was said, could have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[291]</span> -so great a knowledge of the crime as the accomplices of -the criminal—a remark, it must be admitted, which, at a -time when there existed no organised force of police, was -not without some show of justice. No doubt such men -were of bad character, but then it was not to be expected -that one could raise the curtain on scenes of such ill-odour -without coming into questionable company. The prisoner -was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses brought -against him and had not even the right to confront them -in court face to face.<a id="FNanchor_518" href="#Footnote_518" class="fnanchor">518</a></p> - -<p>In a trial of any intricacy the case for the crown was -usually divided between several counsel. Each worked -out his part minutely before giving place to the next, -partly by making direct statements, partly by a string of -questions addressed to the prisoner. The trial was thus -resolved into a series of excited altercations between the -accused and the counsel for the crown. The success with -which the defence was conducted depended entirely upon -the skill and readiness displayed by the prisoner himself. -At his trial for treason in 1554<a id="FNanchor_519" href="#Footnote_519" class="fnanchor">519</a> Sir Nicolas Throckmorton -maintained for close upon six hours a wordy conflict -with Sergeant Stamford and the Attorney-General, -and acquitted himself so well that the jury after deliberating -for two hours returned a verdict of not guilty.<a id="FNanchor_520" href="#Footnote_520" class="fnanchor">520</a> The -Duke of Norfolk, convicted of high treason in 1571, -was set an even harder task, for he was compelled to -deal successively with no less than four eminent counsel -who had undertaken different parts of the case against -him.<a id="FNanchor_521" href="#Footnote_521" class="fnanchor">521</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[292]</span></p> - -<p>Apart from the opening speeches of the crown -lawyers and the summing up of the evidence by the judge -at the end of the trial, there was little room for any display -of fine oratory, and practically none for the sentimental -appeal to the jury which at a later date became so prominent -a feature in the courts. Every point was argued -by the opposing parties in a close and acrimonious -conversation, which had at least the merit of throwing -light from every possible point of view on the subject in -hand. In this the judges presiding did not take much -part, nor was the summing up regarded as of special -importance; but explanatory remarks, and questions on -points which seemed to the judges to have been overlooked, -were occasionally interposed from the bench.<a id="FNanchor_522" href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">522</a></p> - -<p>But what weighed most heavily of all against the -prisoner was the fact that rules of evidence, as they are -understood at the present time, were practically unknown. -The only distinction recognised was between the evidence -of an eye-witness to the actual crime and everything else. -If other than eye-witnesses were admitted, there seemed to -be no reason why the most insignificant evidence upon -hearsay of facts, however remotely connected with -those alleged in the charge, should not be produced -against the prisoner. Even the production of the -originals of documents relied upon as evidence for the -prosecution was not required.<a id="FNanchor_523" href="#Footnote_523" class="fnanchor">523</a></p> - -<p>This was a fault in criminal procedure which persisted -until at least the end of the seventeenth century and -exercised a supreme influence upon the course of justice. -Grave attention and decisive weight was given to evidence -which in modern times would not be allowed to come into -court at all. The most irrelevant detail was freely -admitted against the prisoner. At Raleigh’s trial in 1603 -one Dyer, a pilot, swore that when he was at Lisbon he -had accidentally met a man who said that Cobham and -Raleigh would cut King James’ throat before he could be -crowned.<a id="FNanchor_524" href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">524</a> Evidence of a still more remarkable character<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[293]</span> -was given at the trial of Benjamin Faulconer for perjury -in 1653. After the charge had been proved, witnesses -were called to testify to a variety of facts startlingly unconnected -with the case. They swore that the prisoner -had been guilty of using bad language, that he had drunk -the devil’s health in the streets of Petersfield, and that he -had “a common name for a robber on the highway.”<a id="FNanchor_525" href="#Footnote_525" class="fnanchor">525</a> -All this was allowed as good evidence to raise a presumption -of his guilt. Instances of the lax rules of evidence -in force might be multiplied. At Hulet’s trial for having -been executioner of Charles I witnesses were admitted for -the defence to testify that they had heard Brandon, the -hangman, say that he had himself cut off the king’s head. -On the other hand the evidence for the prosecution -chiefly consisted of the testimony of persons who swore -that they had heard Hulet admit the truth of the charge.<a id="FNanchor_526" href="#Footnote_526" class="fnanchor">526</a> -The trial of Hawkins for theft before Sir Matthew Hale -in 1669 is still more notable. Not only was evidence -allowed to prove for the prosecution that Hawkins had -committed, and for the defence that he had not committed, -two other thefts wholly unconnected with the case before -the court,<a id="FNanchor_527" href="#Footnote_527" class="fnanchor">527</a> but the prisoner, who was a country parson, -was permitted to produce a certificate signed by over a -hundred of his parishioners, to the effect that the prosecutor -was “a notorious Anabaptist, an enemy to the Church of -England, and a perfect hater of all ministers of the same, -but in particular most inveterate and malicious against -Robert Hawkins, clerk, late minister of the church -of Chilton,” and going on to express their belief in -the innocence of Hawkins and the dishonesty of the -prosecutor.<a id="FNanchor_528" href="#Footnote_528" class="fnanchor">528</a></p> - -<p>The trials of Colonel Turner for burglary and of the -Suffolk witches, who were condemned in the year 1665, -afford perhaps the strongest instances of the slight extent -to which the principles of evidence were understood. In -the former the chief part of the evidence given by Sir<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[294]</span> -Thomas Aleyn, the principal witness, was concerned with -what other people had done and said, and would by -modern methods have certainly been ruled out; in the -latter the smallest apprehension of the value of testimony -would have resulted in an abrupt termination of the case, -for nothing which by courtesy could be called evidence -was produced against the wretched old women who were -being tried for their lives, and their conviction was -obtained partly on the strength of a statement by Dr. -Browne of Norwich, author of the <i>Religio Medici</i>, as to -the nature of witches and their relations with the devil, -no single word of which could have been spoken in a -modern court of justice.<a id="FNanchor_529" href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">529</a> It was a state of things, due -to lack of experience and of scientific vision, which prevailed -until after the Revolution and exerted a powerful -influence against the accused. In other points however -criminal procedure in the English courts underwent -changes of considerable importance. From the reign of -Queen Mary until the Puritan Revolution it had remained -almost unaltered, but during the Commonwealth and Protectorate -several modifications were introduced. An -apparently spontaneous change, inaugurated by no legislative -enactment, bore witness to the fact that the view in -which criminal trials were regarded was insensibly shifting -from the ancient to the modern standpoint. The -inquisitorial nature of the old trial was gradually disappearing. -Chief among the differences which may be -noted as having arisen is the fact that the prisoner was no -longer systematically questioned in court. When he was -questioned, it was now, if he were innocent, in his favour. -His examination was no longer what it had been in the -days of Elizabeth and James I, the very essence of the -trial. Questions were still put to him, but now they were -directed by the judges and not by the prosecution. The -process was of no greater scope than was demanded by the -necessities of the defence of a prisoner who has not the -assistance of counsel. It was used as a natural means of -arriving at the truth of statements made on one side or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[295]</span> -the other, and served to set in a clear light the strong and -weak points of the defence. At the trial of the Turners, -who were guilty, a lengthy examination of the prisoners -by the court succeeded in shewing the great improbability -of statements in their story, and tended directly to the -conviction of the colonel.<a id="FNanchor_530" href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">530</a> On the other hand, in the -case of Sir George Wakeman, who was innocent, the -triangular series of questions between judge, witness, and -prisoner had an effect which was by no means unfavourable -to the accused.<a id="FNanchor_531" href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">531</a> The prisoner moreover could, if he -wished, refuse to answer questions put to him.<a id="FNanchor_532" href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">532</a></p> - -<p>Two other results of the changing spirit of the times -may be found in the criminal courts. Witnesses for the -prosecution were now always brought face to face with the -accused, unless reason such as would be valid to-day was -given to the contrary; and the prisoner was not only -allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him, but to -call evidence in his own behalf.<a id="FNanchor_533" href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">533</a> The value of cross-examination -to the defence was doubtless an important -advance in theory; practically it was greatly impaired by -the natural difficulties, which to an untrained man are -almost insuperable, of cross-examining witnesses without -proper instruction. But the power of calling witnesses for -the defence was in practice as well a gain of immense -magnitude.</p> - -<p>With these changes the procedure of Tudor times was -handed on to the restored monarchy, and was retained -without alteration until the end of the Stuart dynasty. -The position of a person on trial, bettered as it was, was -pitiable. The bench received the prisoner’s witnesses with -the utmost suspicion and treated them as if they were -proved to be accomplices in his crime. It was pointed -out to the jury that they were not upon oath. At the -trial of one of the regicides in 1660 it was even hinted -that their evidence might be disbelieved on this ground<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[296]</span> -alone.<a id="FNanchor_534" href="#Footnote_534" class="fnanchor">534</a> Later practice demanded that the jury should be -directed to notice the fact and warned that witnesses not -upon oath deserved no less credit for this reason; but -opportunity was generally taken to slight their evidence -in other ways. If the prisoner’s witnesses were Roman -Catholics, it was pointed out that their evidence might be -tutored.<a id="FNanchor_535" href="#Footnote_535" class="fnanchor">535</a> If not, the counsel for the prosecution could -easily make an opening to call attention to the fact that -mere words for the prisoner ought not to weigh as heavily -as sound oaths for the king, and he would not be hastily -checked by the court.<a id="FNanchor_536" href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">536</a> Theoretically, the court was “of -counsel for the prisoner” in matters of law;<a id="FNanchor_537" href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">537</a> practically, -as this conflicted with the judges’ duty to the king and -their watch over his life, the prisoner was allowed to shift -for himself. To justify the denial of counsel to the -accused, the argument was constantly used that, in order -to convict him, the proof must be so plain that no counsel -could contend against it.<a id="FNanchor_538" href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">538</a> Honestly enough, no doubt,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[297]</span> -this was the theory; but in practice the slightest complication -of facts or the most awkward piece of perjury -could not fail to render the prisoner in his eagerness and -ignorance helpless to unravel the skein which was being -wound round him.</p> - -<p>In particular matters of law counsel might be assigned -to argue such points as the court thought fit, but only -when they had been proposed to the court by the prisoner -himself.<a id="FNanchor_539" href="#Footnote_539" class="fnanchor">539</a> When Colledge at his trial for high treason -retorted that without the aid of counsel he could not tell -what points to submit for argument, he was told by the -Attorney-General that ignorance of the law was an excuse -for no man.<a id="FNanchor_540" href="#Footnote_540" class="fnanchor">540</a></p> - -<p>In countless ways the system worked, in accordance -with the tradition of many years, in favour of the king -and in glaring disfavour of the prisoner. Peculiar cruelty -on the part of the judges has continually been assumed -as an explanation of this. In reality recourse need be -had to no such hypothesis. The judges handled the -means which had come down to them as legitimate, without -necessarily indulging the rare vice of spontaneous inhumanity -which has been attributed to them by historians. -They did their work and performed their duty as it came -in their way; and the work of a judge in state trials in -the seventeenth century was to modern eyes neither -dignified nor pleasant. Nor, although their names are -linked to no distinction in the annals of the law, were the -judges, whose patents ran “during the good pleasure” of -King Charles II, men devoid of talent. Lawyers were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[298]</span> -raised to the bench by influence at court, since all offices -of state were to be obtained by favouritism; but their -appointments were seldom devoid of some foundation of -solid attainments. Some, like Scroggs, were by nature -brilliant; others, like North and Pemberton, had grounded -their fortunes on many years of laborious industry.<a id="FNanchor_541" href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">541</a> Such -men, whose minds were not bent to reverence of the law -by severe learning in it, were likely to be influenced by -their position as lawyers less than by that as officers of -state, and to regard their oaths as constraining them -rather to the service of the crown than to an absolute -pursuit of justice. Sometimes the rules under which they -worked themselves prevented them from doing right to -prisoners. They were unable, for instance, to summon or -to protect witnesses for the defence, for their power ended -with the confines of the court. When Colonel Turner -on his trial in 1664 told the bench that his witnesses had -sent him word that they did not dare to come without an -order, the Chief Justice replied, “When witnesses come -against the king, we cannot put them to their oaths, much -less precept them to come.”<a id="FNanchor_542" href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">542</a> At the trial of Langhorn, -the Roman Catholic lawyer, for the Popish Plot, Lord -Castlemaine complained to the court that the prisoner’s -witnesses were being threatened and assaulted by the mob -outside and dared not “come to give their evidence for -fear of being killed.” The judges were indignant and -declaimed loudly against the “very horrid thing,” but -they were powerless to do more than to threaten the -offenders with severe punishment, if the earl could produce -or point to them. As this was naturally impossible, -nothing could be done.<a id="FNanchor_543" href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">543</a></p> - -<p>The inability of the court to allow real favour to the -accused receives constant illustration from the trial of -Lord Stafford. It might have been expected that a -venerable peer, standing to be judged by his peers and -surrounded by his relatives and old acquaintances, would<span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[299]</span> -receive an amount of respect and favour which was denied -to meaner folk. But this was far from being the case. -In spite of the evident desire of the Lord Chancellor, who -presided in the capacity of Lord High Steward, to allow -to the accused every advantage that was consistent with -his duty, he found it impossible to contest against the -managers of the prosecution in their demand that the -rules should be exerted against him in all their usual -harshness. Time after time the counsel pressed home -points of procedure which lay in their favour. It roused -the indignation of Jones and Maynard that the barristers -retained by Lord Stafford to be his counsel on matters of -law stood so near him that they might be suspected of -wishing to prompt him in matters of fact, and they were -forced to move to a greater distance from the prisoner.<a id="FNanchor_544" href="#Footnote_544" class="fnanchor">544</a> -When at the end of the second day of the trial Finch -urged that before further proceedings a day’s rest should -be given to the prisoner to recover from his great physical -fatigue, the managers withstood his proposal eagerly. -The Lord High Steward asked what inconvenience would -ensue. They could suggest none of consequence, but -said that the delay would be highly unusual and that it -was a most unreasonable thing to demand. Jones’ zeal -was such that he exposed himself to a well-deserved snub -from the court.<a id="FNanchor_545" href="#Footnote_545" class="fnanchor">545</a> Without being in the least abashed he -pursued his speech and finally carried the point triumphantly.<a id="FNanchor_546" href="#Footnote_546" class="fnanchor">546</a> -A similar violation of the maxim <i>De vitâ hominis -nulla est cunctatio longa</i>, which the Lord Chancellor quoted -on this occasion, occurred during the trial of Lord Russell, -when Chief Justice Pemberton would have granted a short -respite to the prisoner but for the opposition of the prosecuting -counsel. “Mr. Attorney, why may not this trial<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[300]</span> -be respited till the afternoon?” To which the Attorney-General -rudely replied, “Pray call the jury”; and -Pemberton had nothing for it but to say to the prisoner, -“My Lord, the king’s counsel think it not reasonable to -put off the trial longer, and we cannot put it off without -their consent.” On the last day of Lord Stafford’s trial -the court again displayed its weakness as a protector of -the accused. Owing to the prisoner’s excessive weakness -and failure to make his voice heard, the Lord High -Steward ordered a clerk to read the paper from which he -was struggling to propose certain points of law to be -argued. The managers immediately objected. It was -contrary to custom and might be turned into a dangerous -precedent. Finch was compelled to give way to their -harsh insistence, and Stafford, tottering with fatigue, to -make an effort which was almost beyond his strength.<a id="FNanchor_547" href="#Footnote_547" class="fnanchor">547</a></p> - -<p>The old criminal trial of the English courts had been -conducted strictly on the inquisitorial method of procedure, -a system admirably contrived for the conviction of -the guilty, but by no means so successful in ensuring the -acquittal of the innocent. Of this character it was robbed -by the Puritan Revolution, which rendered the administrative -methods of continental nations odious to the -English mind. But in its place nothing so complete or -logical remained. The changes which were then introduced, -beneficent as they were, did not institute an order -capable, in the interest of justice and of the state, of -guaranteeing the discovery of the truth or of safeguarding -the rights of the individual. The rigorous system of -preliminary procedure, the denial of counsel to assist the -accused, the ignorance of the art of cross-examination and -of the science of sifting evidence, combined to set judge, -jury, and prisoner alike at the mercy of every man of -villainy sufficient to swear away a man’s life by a false -oath, and of impudence sufficient to brazen out his -perjury.<a id="FNanchor_548" href="#Footnote_548" class="fnanchor">548</a> Not until greater knowledge of the principles<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[301]</span> -of judicial administration was gained by a long and harsh -experience, and until a more stable state of society produced -the possibility of treating accused persons with the -generosity which is characteristic of modern criminal -procedure, were these evils remedied.</p> - -<p>Society, as it was in the latter half of the seventeenth -century, could neither afford nor pretend to be generous -to the prisoner at the bar. In these latter days when a -man comes to be tried, the jury are told that it is their -first duty to believe him innocent until he is proved to be -guilty. The burden of that proof lies heavily upon the -shoulders of those who conduct the prosecution. Whatever -doubt may exist is counted to the benefit of the -accused. He is treated throughout with studied consideration. -But when the fourteen men who died for the -Popish Plot were brought to the bar, all this was unheard -of. Then the prisoner came into court already in the -minds of all men half proved an enemy to the king’s -majesty, and one to whom no more advantage than was -his strict right could be allowed. To the satisfaction of -one jury, indeed, he had been actually proved guilty, for -the grand jurors “for our Lord the King” had presented -upon their oaths that the prisoner “wilfully, feloniously, -and of his malice aforethought” had committed the crime -for which he was arraigned. Why should he be accounted -innocent, to whose guilt at least twelve good men and -true had positively sworn? The presumptive innocence -of the accused is a modern fiction which has tacitly grown -up in a society conscious that its strength is too firm to be -shaken by the misdeeds of single offenders, and therefore -willing that any individual suspected of offence against its -laws shall retain all the advantages on his own side. -Before this stage was reached, men thought otherwise. -In the seventeenth century society and government were -unstable and liable to sudden shocks. A comparatively -trifling event might set the balance against the reign of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[302]</span> -law and order, and consequently the law meted out hard -measure to those who came into contact with it. As soon -as the accused was committed for trial he was sent to -close confinement, from which he did not emerge until he -was brought to the bar. Unless by extraordinary favour, -he was allowed neither counsel nor solicitor to assist in -the preparation of his defence. He was not allowed to -see his witnesses before they came into court.<a id="FNanchor_549" href="#Footnote_549" class="fnanchor">549</a> All the -papers which he wrote in prison were taken from him.<a id="FNanchor_550" href="#Footnote_550" class="fnanchor">550</a> -The utmost he might claim was that one of his friends -should visit him in order to summon the proper witnesses -for his defence. Even these interviews, in any case of -importance, could be held only in the presence of the -jailor, that the prisoner might be cut off from all means of -illicit intercourse with the outer world,<a id="FNanchor_551" href="#Footnote_551" class="fnanchor">551</a> a precaution which -was justified by the fact that, when all possible care had been -taken, prisoners still found means underhand to receive communications -which would have been prizes of considerable -value to the government if they had been intercepted.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[303]</span><a id="FNanchor_552" href="#Footnote_552" class="fnanchor">552</a> -The age which knew the penal laws as active measures -of administration, which was divided from the tragedy -at Fotheringay by less than a hundred years and -from the Gunpowder Plot by scarcely more than the span -of a man’s life, which had only recovered from the successive -shocks of revolution and restoration to wait -expectantly for the day when rebellion would have to be -met once again, and on which within the ten ensuing years -did burst another rebellion and a second revolution, could -hardly be expected to rate the safety of society more lightly -than the life of one who, at the best, was surrounded by -incriminating circumstances. Even so late and well-ordered -a man as Paley believed that it was better for the -innocent to die than for the guilty to go free.<a id="FNanchor_553" href="#Footnote_553" class="fnanchor">553</a></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[304]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III4">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center small b1">TRIALS FOR THE PLOT</p> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Such</span> was the state of society and the procedure of the -English courts when Edward Coleman was brought to -the bar of the Court of King’s Bench on November 27, -1678 to be tried on the charge of high treason. The -trial was a test case. In point of importance it was chief -among the series of trials for treason which arose from the -Plot, for all the others which followed to some extent depended -from this. If Coleman had been acquitted, there -could have been no more to come. His letters formed, -as they still form, the weightiest part of the evidence -against the Roman Catholic intriguers,<a id="FNanchor_554" href="#Footnote_554" class="fnanchor">554</a> and had they not -secured his conviction, the Jesuits, Mr. Langhorn, Lord -Stafford, and Archbishop Plunket would have gone unconvicted -also. By his condemnation the way was opened by -which they were sent to the scaffold, the innocent and the -guilty alike, without favour or discrimination.</p> - -<p>In the words of Sir George Jeffreys, Recorder of -London, the indictment set forth “that the said Edward -Coleman, endeavouring to subvert the Protestant religion -and to change and alter the same, and likewise to stir up -rebellion and sedition amongst the king’s liege people and -also to kill the king,” did hold certain correspondence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[305]</span> -with “M. la Chaise, then servant and confessor to the -French king.”<a id="FNanchor_555" href="#Footnote_555" class="fnanchor">555</a> In point of fact the indictment lays by -far the greater stress on the former of these counts. The -murder of the king is mentioned, but not insisted upon. -The charges against Coleman are summed up in the accusation -of a plot “to bring and put our said sovereign lord -the king to final death and destruction, and to overthrow -and change the government of the kingdom of England, -and to alter the sincere and true religion of God in this -kingdom as by law established; and wholly to subvert -and destroy the state of the whole kingdom, being in the -universal parts thereof well-established and ordained; and -to levy war against our said sovereign lord the king -within his realm of England”; and the letters in which he -endeavoured to obtain aid and assistance for these objects -are mentioned in particular.<a id="FNanchor_556" href="#Footnote_556" class="fnanchor">556</a> Sergeant Maynard and Sir -William Jones, Attorney-General, followed and opened -the evidence for the crown. They too touched on the -charge of killing the king and the evidence which Oates -was prepared to give on the subject, but dwelt most -heavily on Coleman’s correspondence with Throckmorton, -Cardinal Howard, and Père de la Chaize. “The prisoner -at the bar,” said Maynard, “stands indicted for no less -than an intention and endeavour to murder the king; for -an endeavour and attempt to change the government of -the nation, so well settled and instituted, ... and for an -endeavour to alter the Protestant religion and to introduce -instead of it the Romish superstition and popery.”<a id="FNanchor_557" href="#Footnote_557" class="fnanchor">557</a> The -matter could not be better or more briefly stated. The -substantial charge against Coleman lay, not in the actual -attempt of which he was accused to murder the king, but -in the designs which he had formed to alter the established -course of government and religion, as settled in the -kingdom. By the recognised construction of the statute -of Edward III such an attempt was held to include -“imagining the king’s death,” and was as much high -treason as an assassination plot of the most flagrant<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[306]</span> -character.<a id="FNanchor_558" href="#Footnote_558" class="fnanchor">558</a> All that was required was that the intention -should be proved by an overt act, and the portion of -Coleman’s correspondence which had been seized afforded -the plainest proof of his designs. This was the real -offence which lay at his door, and for this he was legally -and properly condemned to suffer the penalties of high -treason. “Mr. Coleman,” said the Chief Justice after -the verdict had been delivered, “your own papers are -enough to condemn you.”<a id="FNanchor_559" href="#Footnote_559" class="fnanchor">559</a></p> - -<p>The case for the prosecution was opened by the -evidence of Titus Oates. After an admonition from the -bench to speak nothing but the truth, permission was -given him to tell his story in his own way. In the course -of a long examination by the Chief Justice he reaffirmed -the startling evidence which he had given before the two -Houses of Parliament, and which had already become a -powerful weapon in the Whig armoury. He deposed -that he had carried treasonable letters from Coleman and -various Jesuits in London to the Jesuit College at St. -Omers; that he had carried to Père de la Chaize a letter -written by Coleman in thanks for a promise from the -confessor of £10,000 to be employed in procuring Charles -II’s death;<a id="FNanchor_560" href="#Footnote_560" class="fnanchor">560</a> that Coleman had in his hearing expressed -approval when he was told that the Jesuits had determined -to kill the king;<a id="FNanchor_561" href="#Footnote_561" class="fnanchor">561</a> and that Coleman had been engaged in -distributing throughout the kingdom copies of certain -instructions sent to the Jesuit Ashby concerning the -assassination of the king, in order to give heart to those -of their party who were not on the scene of affairs.<a id="FNanchor_562" href="#Footnote_562" class="fnanchor">562</a> In -the medley of wild accusations against the Jesuits and -other Roman Catholics, which Oates mingled with this -evidence against Coleman, the main point, as in his previous -examinations, was the Jesuit consult held, he swore, at -the White Horse Tavern in the Strand on April 24, 1678, -to concert means for the death of the king. After the -consult had broken up into smaller committees, it was at -that which met at Wild House that Coleman had, according<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[307]</span> -to Oates, given his formal approval to the project. Later, -in a letter which Oates professed to have seen, he had -expressed the desire “that the duke might be trepanned -into this plot to murder the king.”<a id="FNanchor_563" href="#Footnote_563" class="fnanchor">563</a> Bedloe’s evidence, -which followed, was of the same nature, though not so wide -in scope or so decisive in character.<a id="FNanchor_564" href="#Footnote_564" class="fnanchor">564</a> He swore to treasonable -correspondence between the Jesuits in London and -Paris, to treasonable words which he had heard Coleman -speak, to treasonable consults in Paris at which Coleman -was not present, and on hearsay from Sir Henry Tichbourn -bore out Oates’ statement that Coleman had received -a patent to be secretary of state under the new Jesuit -<i>régime</i> in England.<a id="FNanchor_565" href="#Footnote_565" class="fnanchor">565</a> This closed the oral evidence for -the crown, and it was against this that Coleman directed -the only part of his case which could be called a defence. -He objected to Oates that his testimony was entirely -untrustworthy. At the examination before the privy -council, Oates had neither known nor accused him personally; -yet now he pretended to be his intimate and conversant -with all his plans.<a id="FNanchor_566" href="#Footnote_566" class="fnanchor">566</a> Oates replied quickly that, -when he was confronted with Coleman at the council -board, the candles in the room gave so dim a light that -he was unable to swear positively to his identity. “I -then said,” he declared, “I would not swear I had seen -him before in my life, because my sight was bad by -candle-light, and candle-light alters the sight much.... -I cannot see a great way by candle-light.” Here the -monstrous ugliness of Oates’ features came to his aid in -a strange fashion. His eyes were set so deep in the -sockets that they were universally noted as being out of -the common. Contemporary descriptions of him all mark -this feature as striking.<a id="FNanchor_567" href="#Footnote_567" class="fnanchor">567</a> There must have been signs of -something perhaps almost unnatural about them, which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[308]</span> -would lend colour to the idea that he needed a strong -light to see clearly. His reply on the present occasion -has been universally treated by historians with ridicule, -but it is difficult to believe that it seemed so to spectators -and even possible that there was some truth in what he -said. The answer at all events was taken, and the court -passed to what was in fact the more important point, -Coleman’s assertion that Oates had not charged him before -the privy council with what he had since brought forward. -“The stress of the objection,” said the Chief Justice, -“lieth not upon seeing so much, but how come you that -you laid no more to Mr. Coleman’s charge at that time?” -To this the witness had no sufficient answer. His memory -failed him completely. He declared with many turns and -qualifications that he had not felt bound “to give in more -than a general information against Mr. Coleman,” and -that he would have spoken in greater detail had he been -urged. But he had been so wearied by two sleepless -nights spent in tramping round the town to take prisoners -that the king and council were willing to let him go as -soon as possible. Unfortunately he let slip that he had -accused Coleman in particular with writing treasonable -newsletters to inflame the country.<a id="FNanchor_568" href="#Footnote_568" class="fnanchor">568</a> Upon this the court -seized. If he had been able to charge Coleman with this -malodorous correspondence, why had he not been able to -accuse him of any of the far graver acts of treason which -he now laid to his charge Oates was thereupon subjected -to a severe examination by the bench. The questions -were constantly put to him: “Why did you not accuse -Mr. Coleman by name? You were by when the council -were ready to let Mr. Coleman go almost at large? Why -did you not name Mr. Coleman at that time? How came -you (Mr. Coleman being so desperate a man as he was, -endeavouring the killing of the king) to omit your -information of it to the council and to the king at both -times?”<a id="FNanchor_569" href="#Footnote_569" class="fnanchor">569</a> Oates’ answers were the reverse of satisfactory. -He became loud in protestation, swore that he had been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[309]</span> -so tired that he could scarcely stand, and appealed to the -king to attest what had passed at his examination; but -the Chief Justice kept close to the point and drove him -from one position to another, until he seemed ready to -take refuge in silence. The saviour of the nation was -within an ace of a catastrophe which would have wrecked -his whole future career when the prisoner restored the -balance by a false move. Turning from the witness, -Scroggs asked Coleman if he had any further question to -put. With maladroitness singular in a man of his experience, -Coleman reverted to the incident of the candles and -Oates’ inability to recognise him at the council. The -question was threshed out minutely, for Coleman thought -that he had found in Sir Thomas Dolman, clerk to the -privy council, a witness who could prove that Oates had -not only failed to recognise him, but had denied acquaintance -altogether with the person of Mr. Coleman. This -however Sir Thomas could not do, and the matter was -left exactly where it was before: the evidence only shewed -that Oates had not been able to identify as Coleman the -man with whom he was confronted.<a id="FNanchor_570" href="#Footnote_570" class="fnanchor">570</a> This Oates had -already admitted and explained. But the examination of -Dolman naturally led the court to call upon Sir Robert -Southwell, another of the council clerks, to state his version -of what had happened. From his evidence it appeared -that at the examination before the council Oates had -charged Coleman by name with having in person paid -£5000 out of £15,000 to Sir George Wakeman as a fee -for poisoning the king.<a id="FNanchor_571" href="#Footnote_571" class="fnanchor">571</a> This was a fact which Oates -had not mentioned in his evidence at the trial, when he -only swore that Coleman considered £10,000 too small<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[310]</span> -a sum for such a great work, and had advised that Sir -George Wakeman should be paid half as much again.<a id="FNanchor_572" href="#Footnote_572" class="fnanchor">572</a> -He had moreover forgotten altogether that he had given -any evidence of the sort before the council. On this no -remark was made either by the court or by the prisoner. -The omission however to point out his lapse of memory -as of weight against the witness is patent of a genuine -explanation. Clearly no possible amount of fatigue would -have justified Oates in the eyes of the judges for having -failed at his examination by the council to charge Coleman -with treason of which he afterwards accused him; but it -was a very different thing, and perfectly reasonable, to -consider that the great exertions which he had undergone -might fairly explain his forgetfulness of the charge which -he had then actually made.<a id="FNanchor_573" href="#Footnote_573" class="fnanchor">573</a> The question had been -reduced to the issue whether or no Oates had then charged -Coleman with the high crimes of which he was now giving<span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[311]</span> -evidence. This was now indisputably determined in favour -of the witness and against the prisoner.</p> - -<p>The first reflection upon this scene which occurs to the -mind of one who comes to study it in the twentieth century -is that in a modern court it could scarcely have taken place -at all. It seems as if the elaborate care taken to discuss -particular omissions and contradictions in Oates’ evidence -was only so much waste of time, for to the modern eye -the whole bulk was of a character which would now be -considered wholly inadmissible as good testimony. Writing -of the evidence of the other informers as well as of -Oates throughout the trials, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen -says: “No one accustomed to weighing evidence can -doubt that he and the subordinate witnesses were quite as -bad and quite as false as they are usually supposed to have -been. Their evidence has every mark of perjury about it. -They never would tie themselves down to anything if they -could possibly avoid it. As soon as they were challenged -with a lie by being told that witnesses were coming to -contradict them, they shuffled and drew back and began -to forget.”<a id="FNanchor_574" href="#Footnote_574" class="fnanchor">574</a> The evidence which Oates gave against the -accused consisted largely in his swearing that he had -carried letters from one person to another, which upon a -mental comparison with yet more letters, he recognised to -be in the handwriting of a third person, being in this case -that of Coleman.<a id="FNanchor_575" href="#Footnote_575" class="fnanchor">575</a> Or that he had been told by Coleman of -treasonable letters which he had written into the country -to encourage the Catholic party. Or again, that he had -been told by other persons that at a consult, from which he -himself had been absent, various treasonable designs were -formed and approved; or that it was generally understood -among the conspirators that the accused had done this, -that, or the other. Even definite facts sworn by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[312]</span> -witness, as for instance when Oates swore that he had seen -Coleman pay an extra guinea to the messenger who -carried £80 to four Irishmen as payment for the king’s -death, and when Bedloe swore that he had heard Coleman -say that “if there was an hundred heretical kings to be -deposed, he would see them all destroyed,”<a id="FNanchor_576" href="#Footnote_576" class="fnanchor">576</a> were statements -which did not receive and were scarcely susceptible -of corroboration. Nowadays it is an established principle -that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not -to be acted upon, and the direct evidence of witnesses in -the Popish Plot, even when it was most definite and -precise, would without exception have fallen under this -rule. But in the seventeenth century the rule was -unknown. Practically any statement made on oath in the -witness box was accepted unconditionally, unless the -witness was either contradicted by better evidence or else -proved to be no “good witness.” The competence of a -witness was technically destroyed only by a record of -perjury proved against him, but the credibility of evidence -was a question for the judgment of the jury; and where -the witness had been convicted of other crimes the jury -sometimes disbelieved his word.<a id="FNanchor_577" href="#Footnote_577" class="fnanchor">577</a> The evidence of accomplices -was not only admitted but highly prized. That it -should be uncorroborated excited no wonder, for it was -regarded as a remarkable piece of fortune to obtain it at -all. To our minds the dead weight of an oath seems to -be of far less account in determining the trustworthiness of -evidence than its intrinsic probability and the degree to -which it is corroborated by other circumstances, but in the -judgment of the seventeenth century an oath carried all -before it. A remarkable illustration of this is received -from the trial of the Five Jesuits in 1679. Fenwick -objected that the evidence against him was wholly -uncorroborated. “All the evidence that is given,” he said, -“comes but to this, there is but saying and swearing. -I defy them all to give one probable reason to satisfy any -reasonable uninterested man’s judgment how this could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[313]</span> -be.” “You say there is nothing but saying and swearing,” -answered the Chief Justice, “but you do not consider what -you say in that matter. All the evidence and all the -testimony in all trials is by swearing. A man comes and -swears that he saw such a bond sealed, or heard such -words spoken; this is saying and swearing; but it is that -proof that we go by, and by which all men’s lives and -fortunes are determined.... Mr. Fenwick,” he added in -summing up to the jury, “says to all this: there is nothing -against us but talking and swearing; but for that he hath -been told (if it were possible for him to learn) that all -testimony is but talking and swearing: for all things, all -men’s lives and fortunes are determined by an oath; and -an oath is by talking, by kissing the book, and calling God -to witness to the truth of what is said.”<a id="FNanchor_578" href="#Footnote_578" class="fnanchor">578</a> Fenwick’s -cosmopolitan education here gave him the advantage. By -the light of experience he is seen to have been in advance of -the times in England, but for the law and practice of the -English courts his contention was vain. He was asking -that the court should in his case lay down a rule which -half a century later was new to the English mind.</p> - -<p>The ignorance which was thus displayed of the proper -nature of testimony has constantly been considered as a -mark of atrocious ferocity and cowardly time-service in -the judges of the period. Such a view is entirely -erroneous. The evidence accepted at political trials did -not differ in character from that acted upon at trials the -causes of which were remote from politics. Fortunately -there are means by which this can be proved exactly. It -is fortunate, for it is improbable that the same type of -perjured evidence should appear in any other than a -political trial. Of perjured evidence there was no doubt -plenty at every assize, as is witnessed by the case of the -Rev. Mr. Hawkins,<a id="FNanchor_579" href="#Footnote_579" class="fnanchor">579</a> where a considerable dose was nearly -swallowed without being detected. But in this style of lie -there was not the same boldness, the same play of fancy, -the same overriding of the limits of likelihood which has -rendered the acceptance of Oates’ evidence unintelligible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[314]</span> -to historians except on the supposition of monstrous -immorality in the judges and juries. “Witnesses,” -writes Fox, “of such a character as not to deserve credit -in the most trifling cause, upon the most immaterial facts, -gave evidence so incredible, or, to speak more properly, -so impossible to be true, that it ought not to have been -believed if it had come from the mouth of Cato; and -upon such evidence, from such witnesses, were innocent -men condemned to death and executed.”<a id="FNanchor_580" href="#Footnote_580" class="fnanchor">580</a> Such a state -of things, thought Fox and many after him, is not to be -explained on any supposition other than that of wilfully -wicked blindness to the truth, and can hardly be paralleled -in modern history. There is however, if not a parallel, -at least a very great similarity between the evidence offered -at the trials for the Popish Plot and that taken at another -series of trials of almost the same date, to find which no -one need go further than a different page in the same -volume of reports. The same tangled farrago of wild -nonsense with which Oates and his fellow-witnesses filled -the courts is, on another plane, almost exactly reproduced -in the witch trials of the seventeenth century.</p> - -<p>In the first half of the century the numbers of women -who had been condemned and hanged as witches may -be counted almost by dozens,<a id="FNanchor_581" href="#Footnote_581" class="fnanchor">581</a> and in the reign of -Charles II at least five wretched creatures were put to -death for practices in the black art. What is here noteworthy -about their trials is that they exhibit just the -same characteristics as the trials for the Popish Plot. -The monstrous evidence offered by the witnesses and the -credulity displayed by the court at the trials of the -Suffolk witches in 1665 and of the Devon witches -seventeen years later at least equalled, if they did not -surpass, anything which is recorded of political cases of -the same age. Two instances will suffice to demonstrate -the truth of this. At the trial at Bury St. Edmunds, -Margaret Arnold gave evidence as to the children who -were said to have been bewitched: “At another time<span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[315]</span> -the younger child, being out of her fits, went out of -doors to take a little fresh air, and presently a little -thing like a bee flew upon her face and would have gone -into her mouth, whereupon the child ran in all haste -to the door to get into the house again, screeching out -in a most terrible manner; whereupon this deponent -made haste to come to her, but before she could get to -her, the child fell into her swooning fit, and at last with -much pain, straining herself, she vomited up a twopenny -nail with a broad head; and after that the child had -raised up the nail, she came to her understanding and, -being demanded by this deponent how she came by this -nail, she answered ‘that the bee brought this nail -and forced it into her mouth.’”<a id="FNanchor_582" href="#Footnote_582" class="fnanchor">582</a> The information of -Elizabeth Eastchurch against Temperance Lloyd, one -of the three women condemned in 1682, is a fair specimen -of the evidence which was, in the words of Fox, “impossible -to be true,” and which was nevertheless accepted -and acted upon by the courts. “The said informant -upon her oath saith. That upon the second day of this -instant July, the said Grace Thomas,<a id="FNanchor_583" href="#Footnote_583" class="fnanchor">583</a> then lodging in -this informant’s said husband’s house, and hearing of -her to complain of great pricking pains in one of her -knees, she the said informant did see her said knee, and -observed that she had nine places in her knee which had -been pricked, and that every one of the said pricks -were as though it had been the prick of a thorn. Whereupon -this informant afterwards, upon the same 2nd day -of July, did demand of the said Temperance Lloyd -whether she had any wax or clay in the form of a picture -whereby she had pricked and tormented the said Grace -Thomas? Unto which the said Temperance made answer -that she had no wax or clay, but confessed that she had -only a piece of leather which she had pricked nine -times.”<a id="FNanchor_584" href="#Footnote_584" class="fnanchor">584</a></p> - -<p>When it is considered that the former of these trials<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[316]</span> -was conducted by Lord Chief Justice Hale, the most -famous and according to all testimony the most moderate -judge of his time, it becomes brilliantly clear that it was -not only by incompetent judges, as the nature of the -cases makes it clear that it was not only in political trials, -that unsound evidence was accepted as genuine, but that -the common knowledge of the times did not discriminate -in any appreciable manner between evidence which is, -and that which ought not to be, sufficient to procure the -conviction of prisoners. Without adornment the fact -is that evidence which to modern ears is bad, to those -of judges and juries of the seventeenth century seemed -perfectly good.<a id="FNanchor_585" href="#Footnote_585" class="fnanchor">585</a> One further point of similarity between -the evidence given at witch trials and at trials for the -Plot may be noted. Credence was given to flimsy tales -of the devil and his practices, if not solely, at least all -the more readily because such ideas were current in the -popular mind, and scarcely more than a hint was needed -for their embodiment as concrete facts. The same may -be said of the revelations of the Popish Plot. For years -men had expected nothing more certainly and had feared -nothing more keenly than a great onslaught of Catholicism -upon their own religion. What they now heard seemed -only a just realisation of their prophecies. “They had,” -says Bishop Parker, “so familiarly accustomed themselves -to these monstrous lies, that at the first opening of Oates’ -Plot they with a ready and easy credulity received all -his fictions; for whatsoever he published, they had long -before expected.”<a id="FNanchor_586" href="#Footnote_586" class="fnanchor">586</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[317]</span></p> - -<p>It is necessary to lay stress upon this aspect of the -evidence given by the witnesses at Coleman’s trial, since -at all those which followed it reappeared with little -variation; but to Coleman himself it was not of the first -importance. Sixteen letters selected from his correspondence -with Roman Catholics abroad were read at -length,<a id="FNanchor_587" href="#Footnote_587" class="fnanchor">587</a> and formed the heaviest part of the case against -him. From them the nature of his schemes was plainly -visible. It was of little moment to him that they were -taken as establishing the reality of the nightmare which -Oates had sketched. Without anything in common with -the blood and thunder tales which that miscreant poured -forth, they contained more than enough of treasonable -matter to cost the prisoner his head. It was impossible -for him to deny the letters. All he could do was to say -that he had meant no harm, and to express the hope -that they would not be found to bear out the charge of -high treason. “I deny the conclusion, but the premises,” -he admitted, “are too strong and artificial.”<a id="FNanchor_588" href="#Footnote_588" class="fnanchor">588</a> Chief -among the correspondence read were three letters to -and one from Père de la Chaize and the declaration -which Coleman had drawn up to justify the prospective -dissolution of Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_589" href="#Footnote_589" class="fnanchor">589</a> On the subject of these an -important discussion took place between Scroggs and the -prisoner. Coleman insisted that there was nothing in -his letters to justify the accusation that he had planned -the death of the king; he might have used extravagant -expressions; but if all the letters were considered -together, surely it would be evident that, so far from -designing any ill to the king and the Duke of York, -his sole aim had been to exalt their power as high as -possible. The Chief Justice pointed out that the letters -openly declared, almost in so many words, an intention -to overthrow the religion and government of the country -by the help of foreign power; to say that he had -attempted this for the benefit of the king was merely -to offer a feeble excuse for his fault; with that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[318]</span> -court had nothing to do. Coleman again began to -explain his point of view in a rather muddled fashion. -People said that he had made use of the duke’s name -without leave in his negotiations; was it likely that he -had been so foolish as to imagine that his friends abroad -would expend their money without the certainty that -it was for the duke’s service; still more, was it likely -that the duke would use any sum thus obtained to the -disservice of the king? “I take it for granted,” he -continued “(which sure none in the world will deny), -that the law was ever made immediately subject to the -king or duke; and consequently to the duke, I cannot -think this will ever be expounded by the law of England -or the jury to be treason.” At this point the Chief -Justice interrupted him impatiently. “These vain inconsequential -discourses” served but to waste the time -of the court. The plain truth was that the prisoner -had formed a design “to bring popery into England, -and to promote the interest of the French king in this -place”;<a id="FNanchor_590" href="#Footnote_590" class="fnanchor">590</a> a fact which Coleman had not even attempted -to deny. What Scroggs meant, and what, had he been -a better judge, he would have made clear to the prisoner, -was that such designs, according to the law which it -was his duty to administer as it had been handed down -to him, were technically evidence of high treason, whether -or no they included an actual plot to kill the king; -but he was so much irritated by Coleman’s feeble efforts -to say that this was not or ought not to have been so, -that he neglected altogether to explain the matter, with -the result that when Coleman came up for judgment -on the following day he shewed that he was still in the -dark about it.<a id="FNanchor_591" href="#Footnote_591" class="fnanchor">591</a></p> - -<p>Concerning Coleman’s letters a curious point arose at -the trial. In opening the evidence for the crown Sergeant<span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[319]</span> -Maynard had remarked that the correspondence found at -the prisoner’s house extended only “to some part of the -year 1675; from 1675 unto 1678 all lies in the dark; -we have no certain proof of it, but we apprehend he had -intelligence until 1678.”<a id="FNanchor_592" href="#Footnote_592" class="fnanchor">592</a> The Chief Justice took the -subject up: “Mr. Coleman, I will tell you when you will -be apt to gain credit in this matter.... Can mankind -be persuaded that you, that had this negotiation in 1674 -and 1675, left off just then, at that time when your letters -were found according to their dates? Do you believe -there was no negotiation after 1675 because we have not -found them?” The prisoner replied, “After that time (as -I said to the House of Commons) I did give over corresponding. -I did offer to take all the oaths and tests in -the world that I never had one letter for at least two -years; yea (that I may keep myself within compass), I -think it was for three or four.”<a id="FNanchor_593" href="#Footnote_593" class="fnanchor">593</a> After he had delivered -sentence on the next day, Scroggs adjured the condemned -man to confess that he had continued to correspond with -agents abroad during the last three years. “I am sorry, -Mr. Coleman,” he said, “I have not charity enough to -believe the words of a dying man; for I will tell you -what sticks with me very much: I cannot be persuaded, -and nobody can, but that your correspondence and -negotiations did continue longer than the letters that we -have found, that is, after 1675.” “Upon the words of a -dying man and the expectation I have of salvation,” was -Coleman’s answer, “I tell your lordship that there is not -a book or a paper in the world that I have laid aside -voluntarily.” Scroggs urged that he might have burnt -them. “Not by the living God,” returned the prisoner.<a id="FNanchor_594" href="#Footnote_594" class="fnanchor">594</a> -Coleman lied. The correspondence which he carried on -with Paris and Rome, even in the fragmentary state in -which it has been preserved, extended beyond the end -of the year 1675. Between December in that year and -December 1676 he received fifty letters from St. Germain -at Paris, and a letter from the same quarter, dated October<span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[320]</span> -5, 1678, was seized on delivery after Coleman’s arrest. -From January 1676 to January 1678 a correspondence -was steadily maintained between Coleman and Cardinal -Howard at Rome either personally or by his secretary -Leybourn, and a letter from Leybourn seized on its -arrival bore the date October 1, 1678. Shortly before, a -“very dark, suspicious letter,” dated September 28, 1678, -had been seized on delivery. Coleman even received letters -from Italy after his arrest by the help of his wife. The -last doubts on the subject are resolved by the evidence of -his secretary, Jerome Boatman, taken before the committee -of the House of Lords: “I was employed to write home -and foreign news. The correspondence was held on until -my master was taken. There came letters by post since -my master was taken. I delivered the letters to my -mistress to carry to my master after he was under the -messenger’s hands.”<a id="FNanchor_595" href="#Footnote_595" class="fnanchor">595</a> Belief in the dying vows of the -Jesuits and their friends is perhaps scarcely strengthened -by Coleman’s conduct in this matter. It is remarkable -that the means taken for the preparation of the case were -so haphazard that the crown lawyers had no knowledge -of such valuable material as was in the hands of the -committee of the upper house; and it is small testimony -to the capacity of the noble lords who negotiated the -business of the committee with the Attorney-General<a id="FNanchor_596" href="#Footnote_596" class="fnanchor">596</a> -that the latter should have been entirely ignorant of its -existence.<a id="FNanchor_597" href="#Footnote_597" class="fnanchor">597</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[321]</span></p> - -<p>Throughout his trial Coleman was treated neither -more nor less fairly than any other prisoner in any crown -case of the period. The practice of the day weighed -heavily against him. He did not receive nor could -he expect any favour from it. Neither was he met by -any special disfavour on political or any other grounds. -One point of his defence however should undoubtedly -have received more consideration than it did. Oates -had charged him with paying a guinea as an extra fee -for the king’s murder, “about the 21st day of August.”<a id="FNanchor_598" href="#Footnote_598" class="fnanchor">598</a> -Almost at the end of the trial, after the final speeches for -the prosecution, Coleman announced that if his diary were -fetched from his lodgings he could prove that he had been -out of town from the 10th of August until the last day of -the month.<a id="FNanchor_599" href="#Footnote_599" class="fnanchor">599</a> His servant was called, but was unable to -do more than say generally that he had been away from -London during part of August. With the book, said -the prisoner, he would be able to prove his statement -exactly; but the Chief Justice would not allow it to be -brought, on the ground that even if what he said were -true, little would be gained to him.<a id="FNanchor_600" href="#Footnote_600" class="fnanchor">600</a> This was no doubt -true. Apart from the evidence of Oates, the testimony -of Bedloe and his own letters were enough to hang the -prisoner, and if Oates’ word had been shaken in this -point it would have been but little benefit to Coleman. -But a great mistake was made by the court. To have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[322]</span> -proved a perjury against Oates so early in his career of -witness would have inflicted a lasting injury on his -character and redoubled the force of the catastrophe -which befell him at the trial of Sir George Wakeman -eight months later. This was not however apparent at -the time, and the Chief Justice’s determination, due to -the lateness of the hour and the small extent to which -the prisoner’s interest was actually involved, is easy to -understand. When he came up to receive judgment -the next day Coleman produced the diary,<a id="FNanchor_601" href="#Footnote_601" class="fnanchor">601</a> but it was -then too late and the chance was gone.</p> - -<p>Scroggs proceeded at once to recapitulate the evidence -to the jury. What was important in his summing up -was almost entirely concerned with the meaning and -weight of Coleman’s letters.<a id="FNanchor_602" href="#Footnote_602" class="fnanchor">602</a> He pointed out acutely -that the construction which the prisoner put upon them -and the feeble explanation which he gave of his designs -were repugnant to common sense and could not be -entertained. “For the other part of the evidence,” he -terminated abruptly, “which is by the testimony of the -present witnesses, you have heard them. I will not -detain you longer now, for the day is going out.”<a id="FNanchor_603" href="#Footnote_603" class="fnanchor">603</a> The -jury went from the bar and returned immediately with -the verdict of Guilty. On the following day Coleman -received sentence as usual in cases of high treason, -and five days after was executed at Tyburn. As the -cart was about to be drawn away he was heard -to murmur, “There is no faith in man.” A rumour -spread throughout the town that until the end he -had expected to receive a pardon promised by the -Duke of York, and that, finding himself deceived, he -had died cursing the master whom he had so diligently -served.<a id="FNanchor_604" href="#Footnote_604" class="fnanchor">604</a></p> - -<p>Coleman was not the first man to suffer for the Popish<span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[323]</span> -Plot. On November 26, the day Coleman was brought -to trial, William Staley, a Roman Catholic goldsmith, had -undergone a traitor’s death at Tyburn. Staley was accused -by two scoundrels of having in a public tavern uttered -words which announced his intention of taking away the -king’s life. The chief witness was a wretch named Carstairs, -who had eked out a precarious livelihood by acting -as a government spy on conventicles in Scotland.<a id="FNanchor_605" href="#Footnote_605" class="fnanchor">605</a> Two -others of the same kidney corroborated his evidence. -They swore that Staley had entered a cookshop in Covent -Garden to dine with a French friend named Fromante, -and had there burst into a rage against the king; the -old man, Fromante, his friend, said “that the king of -England was a tormentor of the people of God, and he -answered again in a great fury, ‘He is a great heretic and -the greatest rogue in the world; here is the heart and -here is the hand that will kill him.’... In French the -words were spoken, he making a demonstration stamping -with his foot: ‘I would kill him myself.’”<a id="FNanchor_606" href="#Footnote_606" class="fnanchor">606</a> By an act -passed early in Charles II’s reign, “malicious and advised -speaking” had been made an overt act of high treason, -and on this Staley was indicted. Over his sentence historians -have gone into ecstasies of horror, on the ground -that it is impossible to believe that “a great Roman -Catholic banker” in the position of Staley should have -spoken such words.<a id="FNanchor_607" href="#Footnote_607" class="fnanchor">607</a> Staley however was not the banker, -but the banker’s son, and was not therefore of the same -highly responsible age and position as has been supposed. -“Young Staley,” as he is called in a letter of the time,<a id="FNanchor_608" href="#Footnote_608" class="fnanchor">608</a> is -identified by Von Schwerin, ambassador of the Great Elector -to the court of Charles II. On November 19 he writes: -“Auch ist der Sohn eines sehr reichen Goldschmieds -gefänglich eingezogen worden, weil er bei einem Gelage—wiewohl<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[324]</span> -in trunkenem Zustande—Reden geführt hat: die -Conspiration sei noch nicht ganz entdeckt, so habe er noch -Hände den König zu ermorden.”<a id="FNanchor_609" href="#Footnote_609" class="fnanchor">609</a> But the decisive -evidence on the point is the fact that William Staley’s -father, the banker, was alive some three weeks after he -should, according to the received account, have been -hanged and quartered. On December 18 his clerk and -cashier were examined before the committee of the House -of Lords on the subject of a reported connection between -their master and Sir George Wakeman. The cashier had -been in his service for seven years. The next day Mr. -Staley, as ordered, himself attended the committee, -bringing with him “the books wherein he has kept his -accounts the last two years.”<a id="FNanchor_610" href="#Footnote_610" class="fnanchor">610</a> Obviously this man had -been head of the firm for more than the previous month, -and the account given by the Brandenburg envoy is -correct.<a id="FNanchor_611" href="#Footnote_611" class="fnanchor">611</a></p> - -<p>To hold that the words attributed to Staley by the -witnesses at the trial were spoken “advisedly and maliciously” -was undoubtedly to drive the act as far as it -would go against the prisoner; but that they were spoken -seems almost certain. He hardly denied that he had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[325]</span> -called the king a rogue and a heretic.<a id="FNanchor_612" href="#Footnote_612" class="fnanchor">612</a> His only explanation -of the words to which Carstairs swore was that instead -of saying “I would kill him myself,” he had said “I -would kill myself.” The difference between the words -<i>Je le tuerais moi-même</i> and <i>Je me tuerais moi-même</i> is small -enough to account for an easy mistake made by a hearer, -but it was unfortunate for Staley that, as was pertinently -remarked by the Attorney-General, the latter would not -make sense in the context. Still more damning was the -prisoner’s omission to call as a witness for his defence -Fromante, who had taken part in the conversation, and -could, if Staley had been innocent, have cleared the point -in his favour; but although every facility was given him -for doing so, he refused either to call his friend or to -make use of the copy of his previous examination, which -the Attorney-General offered to lend him.<a id="FNanchor_613" href="#Footnote_613" class="fnanchor">613</a> The case was -not terminated even by Staley’s sentence and death. In -consideration of his exemplary conduct in prison, where -he “behaved himself very penitently, from the time of his -conviction until the time of his execution, which was -attested by the several ministers which visited him during -that time,” leave was given by the king that his body -should be delivered to his friends after execution for -private burial. With great want of tact, and “to the -great indignity and affront of his Majesty’s mercy and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[326]</span> -favour, the friends of the said Staley caused several masses -to be said over his quarters, ... and appointed a time for -his interment, viz. Friday, the 29th of November 1678, in -the evening, from his father’s house in Covent Garden, at -which time there was made a pompous and great funeral, -many people following the corpse to the church of St. -Paul’s, Covent Garden, where he was buried”: in consequence -of which an order was given for the disinterment -of the body, and to vindicate the majesty of justice his -quarters were affixed to the city gates and his head set up -to rot on London Bridge.<a id="FNanchor_614" href="#Footnote_614" class="fnanchor">614</a></p> - -<p>A fortnight after Coleman’s execution, Whitebread, -Fenwick, Ireland, Pickering, and Grove were brought to -the bar of the Old Bailey. Thomas White or Whitebread, -alias Harcourt, was a man sixty years of age. He had -been educated at St. Omers, became a professed father in -the Society of Jesus in 1652, and was chosen provincial of -the English province at the beginning of the year 1678.<a id="FNanchor_615" href="#Footnote_615" class="fnanchor">615</a> -It was by his means that Oates had entered the Jesuit -College at St. Omers after expulsion from Valladolid, and -it was he who Oates swore had boxed his ears on learning -that the plot was betrayed.<a id="FNanchor_616" href="#Footnote_616" class="fnanchor">616</a> Fenwick, less well known by -his real name Caldwell, was ten years his junior. He had -joined the English mission from Flanders in 1675, and -was now the London agent for the college at St. Omers. -Both were noted in the society for their success in the -missionary field.<a id="FNanchor_617" href="#Footnote_617" class="fnanchor">617</a> Ireland, alias Ironmonger, had come -into England in 1677 as procurator of the province.<a id="FNanchor_618" href="#Footnote_618" class="fnanchor">618</a> All -five were accused by Oates of being principals in the plot -and privy to the king’s death. Pickering, a Benedictine, -and Grove, a Jesuit lay-brother, were named as the actual -agents in one of the schemes for his assassination. Oates’ -evidence was long and highly coloured. He had been -sent over by the Jesuits to murder Doctor Tonge. He -had seen instructions for the murder of the Bishop of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[327]</span> -Hereford and Dr. Stillingfleet. He had been in the thick -of a scheme of Fenwick’s contrivance to raise rebellion in -Scotland and Ireland. Whitebread had sealed commissions -for the popish army under the seal of Johannes Paulus de -Oliva, general of his order. Fenwick had been present -when Coleman paid the famous guinea to quicken the -message which was to be fatal to the king. All the -prisoners had been present at the consult on April 24, -1678, when a resolution to kill the king was signed by at -least forty persons, Pickering was to have thirty thousand -masses and Grove £1500 for the deed. They had dogged -the king in St. James’ Park, and had twisted the silver -bullets of their carbines that the wound made might be -incurable. Charles would infallibly have been shot had -not the flint of Pickering’s pistol been loose, and Pickering -had undergone penance of thirty lashes for his carelessness. -To use their own words, “they did intend to dispose of -the duke too, in case he did not appear vigorous in promoting -the Catholic religion.”<a id="FNanchor_619" href="#Footnote_619" class="fnanchor">619</a> To all this there was little -to be said. The prisoners put some questions to Oates, -and were in turn slightly questioned by the court. All -that appeared was that Grove had known Oates more -intimately than he wished to represent, and that the witness -had borrowed from both Grove and Fenwick money -which had naturally never been repaid.<a id="FNanchor_620" href="#Footnote_620" class="fnanchor">620</a> Fenwick however -offered to bring a document from St. Omers, under -the seal of the college and attested by unimpeachable witnesses, -that Oates had been at the seminary at the time -when he swore that he was present in London at the -consult at the White Horse Tavern. This was refused -by the court without hesitation. Fenwick exclaimed -bitterly that the judges seemed to think there was no -justice out of England.<a id="FNanchor_621" href="#Footnote_621" class="fnanchor">621</a> But in supposing that a special -piece of unfairness was directed against himself and his -friends he was mistaken. It was a regular and unbroken -rule of the court that no evidence could be brought, if -such an expression may be used, from outside the trial.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[328]</span> -Such evidence as reports of other trials, the journals of the -Houses of Parliament, the minutes of the privy council -was allowed to be used on neither side. It was one of the -points in which the practice of the day pressed hardly on -the accused, but the judges could not, as Scroggs truly -said, “depart from the law or the way of trial.” The -theory of the law was that the evidence at a trial might be -disproved by the defence, or its value might be destroyed -if the witness were proved not to be competent; but -neither could it be shaken by such a document as Fenwick -proposed to produce,<a id="FNanchor_622" href="#Footnote_622" class="fnanchor">622</a> nor could evidence afterwards be -called against it to shake the credit of a witness at a -previous trial. To effect this the witness must be indicted -and convicted for perjury and the record of his conviction -proved. Every trial stood by itself, and everything alleged -at it had to be proved or disproved on the spot, either by -direct evidence or by judicial records sworn at the trial to -be correct.<a id="FNanchor_623" href="#Footnote_623" class="fnanchor">623</a></p> - -<p>Bedloe was then called. He began by giving evidence -of the Plot in general, in pursuit of which he had been -employed, he swore, for the last five years to carry letters -between Jesuits and monks in England, Ireland, and -France, and Sir William Godolphin and Lord Bellasis.<a id="FNanchor_624" href="#Footnote_624" class="fnanchor">624</a> -But of the prisoners in particular he could only speak to -Ireland, Pickering, and Grove. Whitebread and Fenwick -he knew by sight alone. At the trial of Reading he confessed -that this was a lie.<a id="FNanchor_625" href="#Footnote_625" class="fnanchor">625</a> There he explained that he -would have borne witness before against the two Jesuits -had not Reading been intriguing with him at the time,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[329]</span> -and that he kept back his evidence in order to lead the -attorney deeper into the business.<a id="FNanchor_626" href="#Footnote_626" class="fnanchor">626</a> Not only was this -admitted by the court as sufficient justification of his -conduct, but at their later trial, when Bedloe gave -decisive evidence against them, Whitebread and Fenwick -hardly made any objection to his credibility upon -this ground.<a id="FNanchor_627" href="#Footnote_627" class="fnanchor">627</a></p> - -<p>One witness having failed, the prosecution attempted -to supply his place by reading a letter written to summon -a father of the society to the Jesuit congregation which -the provincial had fixed for April 24. But this the Chief -Justice would not permit. The letter was from Edward -Petre, afterwards confessor to James II, to William -Tunstall. It had been found with Harcourt’s papers and -did not mention Whitebread’s name at all. The contents -might substantiate Oates’ evidence as to the date of the -congregation, but they could not conceivably be construed, -as the crown lawyers suggested, into evidence touching the -prisoners. Scroggs’ opposition prevented the manœuvre, -and after a strong warning to the jury he allowed the -letter to be read, “to fortify the testimony of Mr. Oates, -that there is a general plot: it is not applied to any -particular person.”<a id="FNanchor_628" href="#Footnote_628" class="fnanchor">628</a></p> - -<p>It was now apparent that the crown had only one witness -against the two chief of the accused, which in a case -of high treason was not sufficient to procure a conviction. -Thereupon Scroggs, with the approval of the other judges, -discharged the jury of Whitebread and Fenwick and -recommitted them to prison.<a id="FNanchor_629" href="#Footnote_629" class="fnanchor">629</a> Six months later they were -again tried and executed for the same treason. Whitebread -then urged that he had been given in charge once, that on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[330]</span> -the insufficient evidence he should have been acquitted, -and that he ought not to be tried again; but the whole -court held without hesitation that the objection was -baseless.<a id="FNanchor_630" href="#Footnote_630" class="fnanchor">630</a> Afterwards this decision was held up to scorn, -and has since often been condemned;<a id="FNanchor_631" href="#Footnote_631" class="fnanchor">631</a> but it was grounded -upon good authority and supported by the general practice -of the courts.<a id="FNanchor_632" href="#Footnote_632" class="fnanchor">632</a></p> - -<p>The three remaining prisoners proceeded to make their -defence. Beyond repeated assertions of their innocence -this amounted, as far as Pickering and Grove were concerned, -to little. Ireland made a better effort. Oates had -sworn that he was in London in August of the year 1678 -and present at a treasonable meeting in Harcourt’s rooms.<a id="FNanchor_633" href="#Footnote_633" class="fnanchor">633</a> -The prisoner now called evidence to contradict this. His -mother and his sister testified that he had left town<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[331]</span> -on August 3 and did not return until the middle of -September. Sir John Southcot’s coachman swore that he -had been at various places in Staffordshire and on the way -thither, in company with his master, from August 5 until -the third week in that month, and another witness gave -evidence that he had seen Ireland at Wolverhampton -shortly after St. Bartholomew’s day, and again on the -7th and the 9th of September.<a id="FNanchor_634" href="#Footnote_634" class="fnanchor">634</a> To rebut this the -prosecution called a woman who belonged to the household -of Lord Arlington. She had once been in the service of -Grove, the prisoner, and had at that time seen Ireland -constantly and waited upon him with letters from her -master. She now swore positively that she had seen him -in London at the time when the king went to Windsor -in August. By the evidence of Sir Thomas Dolman this -was calculated to be the 13th of the month.<a id="FNanchor_635" href="#Footnote_635" class="fnanchor">635</a> Oates again -took the opportunity to swear that Ireland was in town -on the 1st or 2nd of September. It was an unfortunate -interruption, for it formed the perjury assigned in the -indictment upon which he was convicted at his second -trial six years afterwards.<a id="FNanchor_636" href="#Footnote_636" class="fnanchor">636</a> Only one more witness was -produced. Sir Denny Ashburnham, member of Parliament -for the borough of Hastings, was called by Ireland to -testify to Oates’ character. Instead however of damaging -the informer’s credit, he came forward to say that, although -he might have had little respect for Oates’ veracity in the -days of his youth, the manifold circumstances by which -his testimony was now supported had entirely convinced -him of the truth of his statements; “and,” said he, “I -do think truly that nothing can be said against Mr. Oates -to take off his credibility”;<a id="FNanchor_637" href="#Footnote_637" class="fnanchor">637</a> which was of small value -from the point of view of the defence.</p> - -<p>The prisoners complained bitterly that they had been -allowed neither time nor facility to produce their witnesses. -At Oates’ second trial for perjury on May 9, 1685 there -were called for the prosecution no less than forty-five -witnesses, who proved conclusively where Ireland had been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[332]</span> -on every day but one between August 3 and September -14, 1678, the dates when he left and when he returned to -London.<a id="FNanchor_638" href="#Footnote_638" class="fnanchor">638</a> Five months after Ireland’s execution, Whitebread, -Fenwick, and Harcourt called at their trial, to prove -the same points, ten witnesses, whose evidence covered a -considerable part of the time in debate,<a id="FNanchor_639" href="#Footnote_639" class="fnanchor">639</a> Had he been able -himself to call even those ten, not to say the whole number -afterwards collected, it can scarcely be doubted that their -evidence must have procured his acquittal and have given -birth to the reaction against Oates which every additional -conviction postponed. As it was, there were for the defence -only four witnesses, two of whom were intensely interested -in the prisoner’s acquittal, against the hitherto unshaken -credit of Oates himself and the testimony of a disinterested -person called to support him. Scroggs put the point quite -fairly to the jury,<a id="FNanchor_640" href="#Footnote_640" class="fnanchor">640</a> and the jury chose to disbelieve the -prisoner’s witnesses. The real hardship lay, not in the -prejudice of the court or the violent speech which the -Chief Justice appended to his summing up of the evidence,<a id="FNanchor_641" href="#Footnote_641" class="fnanchor">641</a> -but in the fact that the accused were kept wholly in the -dark as to the evidence which was to be produced against -them. The practice of the law, as it is still the theory,<a id="FNanchor_642" href="#Footnote_642" class="fnanchor">642</a> -made it impossible for the accused to defend himself -with certainty against the evidence which might be -brought against him. The preparation of his defence -had to be undertaken in the dark and conducted at -random.</p> - -<p>On the same day Ireland, Pickering, and Grove -received sentence of death from Jeffreys, as Recorder of -London, in a speech which wavered between pure abuse -and a sermon which would have done credit to the most -strenuous divine.<a id="FNanchor_643" href="#Footnote_643" class="fnanchor">643</a> More than a month later Ireland and -Grove were executed at Tyburn. Had Ireland’s execution -been postponed, an insurrection was feared. Pickering -was respited by the king for so long that the indignant Commons -on April 27, 1679 petitioned urgently that the law<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[333]</span> -might take its course on the man who “did remain as yet -unexecuted, to the great emboldening of such offenders, -in case they should escape without due punishment;” -and on May 25 Charles sent a message to the House by -Lord Russell to say that the sentence should have effect.<a id="FNanchor_644" href="#Footnote_644" class="fnanchor">644</a> -All three died protesting their innocence to the last.</p> - -<p>Round the dying vows of the fourteen men who were -executed for the Plot controversy raged hotly. To Roman -Catholics their solemn denials seemed so conclusive that -they fancied the effect must be the same on others too.<a id="FNanchor_645" href="#Footnote_645" class="fnanchor">645</a> -When it became apparent that such earnest assertion was -met with frank unbelief, they attributed the fact to the -black malice and the wicked prejudice of heretical hearts. -To Protestants, on the other hand, the protestations of -the Jesuits were clearly the logical result of their immoral -doctrines. If anything, they afforded a further confirmation -of guilt. Able pamphleteers undertook to prove -that according to the principles of their order “they not -only might, but also ought to die after that manner, with -solemn protestations of their innocency.”<a id="FNanchor_646" href="#Footnote_646" class="fnanchor">646</a> Protestant -pulpits reverberated with demonstrations that the Jesuits -would not “stick at any sort of falsehood in order to their -own defence.” Good Bishop Burnet was shocked at the -violence of his brother divines and “looked always on -this as an opening of their graves, and the putting them -to a second death.”<a id="FNanchor_647" href="#Footnote_647" class="fnanchor">647</a> Few however were of his mind, -and Algernon Sidney expressed the common opinion -when he wrote to his cousin: “Those who use to extol -all that relates to Rome admire the constancy of the five -priests executed the last week; but we simple people find -no more in it than that the papists, by arts formerly -unknown to mankind, have found ways of reconciling -falsehood in the utmost degree with the hopes of salvation, -and at the best have no more to brag of than that they<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[334]</span> -have made men die with lies in their mouths.”<a id="FNanchor_648" href="#Footnote_648" class="fnanchor">648</a> Party -spirit could not fail to be aroused in its most virulent -form by the speeches of the condemned men, and to seize -upon them as evidence on either side. They were, in -point of fact, evidence for neither one party nor the other. -Oaths sworn in such a manner were wholly worthless.</p> - -<p>As Bedloe lay on his death-bed in the autumn of -1680 he reaffirmed with every protestation of truth, and -as he hoped for salvation, the ghastly mass of perjured -evidence by which he had sworn away the lives of men. -His conscience was clear, he said, and “he should appear -cheerfully before the Lord of Hosts, which he did verily -believe he must do in a short time.”<a id="FNanchor_649" href="#Footnote_649" class="fnanchor">649</a> Three years later -the man who has been held up to posterity as the most -truthful of his age died, calling God to witness his -innocence of the treason for which he was condemned.<a id="FNanchor_650" href="#Footnote_650" class="fnanchor">650</a> -Yet Lord Russell was a member of the Council of Six -and had engaged actively in the preparation of an -extensive rebellion. He was an intimate friend of the -men who hatched the actual Rye House Plot. If he was -unaware that the king’s life was aimed at directly and -indirectly, it was because he had deliberately shut his eyes -to the tendency of his own schemes and those of his -associates.<a id="FNanchor_651" href="#Footnote_651" class="fnanchor">651</a> This must be the test of the value of such -declarations. The unbounded immorality with which the -politics of the reign of Charles II were stamped so -clouded the minds of men that truth became for them -almost indistinguishable from falsehood. They had only -not reached the point of view of the native of Madras, -who said of the value of death-bed confessions: “Such -evidence ought never to be admitted in any case. What<span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[335]</span> -motive for telling the truth can a man possibly have when -he is at the point of death?”<a id="FNanchor_652" href="#Footnote_652" class="fnanchor">652</a></p> - -<p>Mention has already been made of the trial of Reading.<a id="FNanchor_653" href="#Footnote_653" class="fnanchor">653</a> -This was the first of a series of important cases -which were conducted in the course of the ensuing year. -Briefly, they were trials of Roman Catholics for fraudulent -endeavours, in the words of the time, to stifle the Plot. -Not to speak of the notorious Meal Tub Plot, the most -determined and unscrupulous effort of the Roman Catholic -party to remove the accusation of treason from themselves -to their opponents,<a id="FNanchor_654" href="#Footnote_654" class="fnanchor">654</a> there may be noticed four distinct -attempts to impair by fraudulent and criminal means the -evidence offered for the crown. As early as February -1679 information was laid before a committee of the -privy council that an Englishman named Russell, who -belonged to the household of the French ambassador, had -endeavoured to suborn witnesses to invalidate the credit -of Oates and Bedloe, and had offered the sum of £500 -for the purpose. The council addressed to the ambassador -a request for the delivery of the accused to stand his trial; -but the case did not come into court, probably because -Russell had either absconded or been shipped abroad.<a id="FNanchor_655" href="#Footnote_655" class="fnanchor">655</a> -The incident was kept secret and produced no consequences. -But within twelve months three other -attempts of the same nature were proved against Roman -Catholic agents and exercised a considerable influence -against their party. The trials of Reading for a trespass -and misdemeanour, of Knox and Lane for a misdemeanour, -and of Tasborough and Price for subornation of perjury -must not be overlooked in forming a judgment on the -events of which the courts of justice were the chief scene.</p> - -<p>Nathaniel Reading was a Protestant attorney of some -standing in his profession. Thirty years before he had -been secretary to Massaniello in the insurrection at Naples, -and was now living in London and enjoying a fair practice.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[336]</span> -He had been the friend and legal adviser of Lord Stafford -for several years, numbered other gentlemen of title and -repute among his acquaintance, and was of a position to -receive an invitation to dinner from the Lieutenant of -the Tower when he went to visit his client in prison.<a id="FNanchor_656" href="#Footnote_656" class="fnanchor">656</a> -During the Hilary term of 1679 he had been engaged in -procuring the discharge on bail of several prisoners for the -Plot, and had gone by leave of the secret committee of -the House of Lords to advise the lords imprisoned in the -Tower on the like subjects. In the course of his negotiations -for them he had become acquainted with Oates and -Bedloe, and acted as counsel for the latter in obtaining -his pardon from the king. Bedloe was constantly in his -company, and the two talked frequently of the nature of -the Plot and the witness’ charges against the prisoners.<a id="FNanchor_657" href="#Footnote_657" class="fnanchor">657</a> -In public Reading exhorted Bedloe to reveal all his knowledge -and bring the guilty to justice, but in private conversation -suggested that it might be profitable to reduce -his evidence against certain of those incriminated. The -plot was blown to the winds, the king’s life out of danger, -Bedloe would be able to feather his own nest, and no -harm would be done. Bedloe promised to consider the -matter and, as earnest of his good intentions, withdrew his -evidence against Whitebread and Fenwick.<a id="FNanchor_658" href="#Footnote_658" class="fnanchor">658</a> At the same -time he carried the news of the intrigue to the committee -of secrecy. Prince Rupert, the Earl of Essex, and Mr. -Speke<a id="FNanchor_659" href="#Footnote_659" class="fnanchor">659</a> were informed of the business, and Bedloe was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[337]</span> -advised to continue his negotiation in the hope of extracting -something of importance. Reading had in the meantime -gone to the lords in the Tower and brought from -them promises of ample reward if Bedloe would consent -to save them. A meeting was appointed for March -29, to make the final arrangements.<a id="FNanchor_660" href="#Footnote_660" class="fnanchor">660</a> Before Reading -appeared, Speke and another witness were hidden in the -room in such a position that they could overhear every -word which passed between the two men. They heard -Bedloe ask, “What say my lords in the Tower now?” -Reading replied that Lord Stafford had promised to settle -an estate in Gloucestershire on the informer, and that he -had orders to draw up a deed to that effect and sign it ten -days after Lord Stafford’s discharge from prison. The -Earl of Powis, Lord Petre, and Sir Henry Tichbourne -also promised rewards if Bedloe would procure their -acquittal. Bedloe then drew up an abstract of his -evidence against the lords, and Speke saw Reading take -the paper to deliver to them in the Tower. Two days -later the attorney met Bedloe by appointment in the -Painted Chamber at Westminster and gave him in answer -to this a corrected version of the evidence which the -accused had drawn up for his actual use at their trials. -Bedloe without looking at the paper handed it at once to -Mr. Speke, who carried it to a committee room in the -House of Lords for examination.<a id="FNanchor_661" href="#Footnote_661" class="fnanchor">661</a> This paper was read -in court, and proved to contain an amended version of -Bedloe’s testimony so vague and slight that it could not -have possibly been of any use to the prosecution.<a id="FNanchor_662" href="#Footnote_662" class="fnanchor">662</a></p> - -<p>Reading’s defence was sufficiently feeble. He was -treated by the bench with the greatest indulgence and -allowed to make a lengthy and unsupported discourse on -Bedloe’s character. It is noteworthy that he objected to -the witness not on the ground that he had perjured himself -in holding back evidence at the trial of Whitebread,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_338">[338]</span> -Fenwick, and Ireland, but on account of treasonable -practices, which were covered by his pardon. He protested -that the first proposal of the intrigue came from -Bedloe, and that he only joined in it to prevent the -shedding of innocent blood. The estate in Gloucestershire -spoken of had been promised by Lord Stafford to himself, -if he obtained his acquittal, and not to Bedloe, though -hardly it seemed without the understanding that the -informer was to have some share in it. He would have -thought it a crime not to engage in the business; it was -a duty which he owed to God and his country. By saying -this he practically confessed to the whole indictment, -and after a concise summing up the jury immediately -returned a verdict of guilty. Reading was sentenced to -be pilloried, to pay a fine of £1000, and to imprisonment -for one year.<a id="FNanchor_663" href="#Footnote_663" class="fnanchor">663</a></p> - -<p>The case of Knox and Lane was a still more disreputable -affair. Thomas Knox was in the service of Lord -Dumblane, the Earl of Danby’s son. John Lane and one -William Osborne were servants to Titus Oates. These -two were discharged by Oates in April 1679, Lane, -who had some acquaintance with Dangerfield, was lodged -by him and Mrs. Cellier under an assumed name at the -house of the Countess of Powis.<a id="FNanchor_664" href="#Footnote_664" class="fnanchor">664</a> At Dangerfield’s -suggestion they approached Knox on the subject of the -charges which Oates had made against the Lord Treasurer.<a id="FNanchor_665" href="#Footnote_665" class="fnanchor">665</a> -Knox agreed to their suggestion, and together they -arranged the details of the scheme. Osborne and Knox -lodged information that Oates had conspired with Bedloe -to bring false accusations against Lord Danby, while Lane -charged his master with using obscene language concerning -the king and with the commission of an unnatural -crime. But under examination Knox and Lane broke -down, and all three were driven to confess that there was -not a word of truth in the story which they had concocted.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[339]</span> -Osborne fled the country, and his two accomplices were -clapped into gaol. News however was brought to Lane -as he lay in prison that Knox was prepared to stand by -his original story. He forthwith retracted his confession, -and on November 19, 1679 indictment was brought -against Oates “for an attempt to commit upon him the -horrid and abominable sin of sodomy.” The grand jury -ignored the bill, and a week later the two miscreants were -brought to the king’s bench bar on the charge of “a -conspiracy to defame and scandalise Dr. Oates and Mr. -Bedloe; thereby to discredit their evidence about the -horrid Popish Plot.” After a long trial, in which the -defendants were treated with all fairness and in which -each attempted to throw the blame on the other, the jury -returned a verdict of guilty without leaving the bar. -The prisoners were sentenced to fine and imprisonment, -and Lane in addition to stand for an hour in the pillory. -The verdict was received with a shout of applause, -“many noblemen, gentlemen, and eminent citizens,” adds -the account which was drawn up under Oates’ direction, -“coming with great expectations of the issue of this trial, -which was managed with that justice, impartiality, and -indifference between the king and the defendants, that -some have been heard to say they could never believe a -plot before, but now they were abundantly satisfied.”<a id="FNanchor_666" href="#Footnote_666" class="fnanchor">666</a></p> - -<p>The labyrinthine nature of the intrigues connected -with the Popish Plot is amply illustrated by these two -trials. The third case presents less intricacy, but no less -dishonesty. In January 1680 John Tasborough and -Anne Price were tried for subornation of perjury in -having offered a bribe to the informer Dugdale to retract -the evidence which he had given at the trial of Whitebread, -Harcourt, and Fenwick. Mrs. Price had been a -fellow-servant with Dugdale in the household of the -Roman Catholic peer, Lord Aston. On the night before<span class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[340]</span> -the trial of the five Jesuits<a id="FNanchor_667" href="#Footnote_667" class="fnanchor">667</a> she came to him and begged -him not to give evidence against Father Harcourt, who -was her confessor. When the trial was over she renewed -her solicitations, offering him the reward of £1000 and -the Duke of York’s protection if he would recant -what he had then sworn. Dugdale was introduced to -Tasborough, a gentleman belonging to the duke’s household.<a id="FNanchor_668" href="#Footnote_668" class="fnanchor">668</a> -Meetings were held at the Green Lettice Tavern -in Brownlow Street and at the Pheasant Inn in Fullers-rents. -Tasborough confirmed the promises made by -Mrs. Price. The informer was to sign a declaration that -all his evidence had been false, to receive £1000 in cash, -and to be maintained abroad by the Duke of York. The -name of the Spanish ambassador was also mentioned. -But Dugdale, as Bedloe before him, had secreted witnesses -at these interviews. The intriguers were arrested, and -the whole story was proved beyond the possibility of -doubt at their trial.<a id="FNanchor_669" href="#Footnote_669" class="fnanchor">669</a> Tasborough was sentenced to the -fine of £100, Price to the fine of twice that sum. -All parties at the trial were at considerable pains to -exonerate the Duke of York. There was in fact no -direct evidence against him; but it is improbable that -the culprits had been using his name entirely without -authority. They must have known that Dugdale would -not put his name to the recantation without substantial -guarantee for the reward, and certainly neither was in a -position to pay any sufficient part of the sum mentioned -from his own resources.</p> - -<p>The evidence which Dugdale should have retracted -was considerable. His reputation was still undamaged. -He had been steward of Lord Aston’s estate at Tixhall, -in Staffordshire, was thought to have enjoyed a fair -reputation in the county, and to have been imprisoned -in the first instance for refusing to take the oaths of -allegiance and supremacy.<a id="FNanchor_670" href="#Footnote_670" class="fnanchor">670</a> Although he had laid information<span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[341]</span> -before the privy council as early as December 1678, -it was not until the trial of the Five Jesuits<a id="FNanchor_671" href="#Footnote_671" class="fnanchor">671</a> on June 13 -of the year following that he appeared in court. The -case for the prosecution was opened, as usual, with the -evidence of Oates, He reaffirmed the story which he had -told at the trial of Whitebread, Fenwick, and Ireland, -and gave similar evidence against Harcourt, Gavan, and -Turner. Dugdale was then called. He swore to treasonable -consults held at Tixhall in September 1678, where -Gavan and Turner were present, to treasonable letters -between Whitebread, Harcourt, and others, and to a -letter dispatched from London by Harcourt on October -20, 1678, addressed to Evers, another Jesuit, and containing -the words “This night Sir Edmond Bury Godfrey -is dispatched.”<a id="FNanchor_672" href="#Footnote_672" class="fnanchor">672</a> The death of the king was to be laid -at the door of the Presbyterian party. A general massacre -of Protestants was to follow, “and if any did escape -that they could not be sure of were papists, they were to -have an army to cut them off.”<a id="FNanchor_673" href="#Footnote_673" class="fnanchor">673</a> Bedloe followed with -the evidence which he had before suppressed against -Whitebread and Fenwick, and swore similarly to the -treason of Harcourt. Some trifling evidence from Prance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_342">[342]</span> -closed the first part of the case for the crown.<a id="FNanchor_674" href="#Footnote_674" class="fnanchor">674</a> But -almost more important than the oral testimony were two -letters which were read in court. The one was a note -from Edward Petre, containing a summons to the congregation -fixed for April 24, 1678; the other a letter -from Christopher Anderton, dated from Rome, February -5, 1679, in which occurred the following sentences: -“We are all here very glad of the promotion of Mr. -Thomas Harcourt; when I writ that the patents were -sent, although I guess for whom they were, yet I know -not for certain, because our patrons do not use to discover -things or resolutions till they know they have -effect. And therefore in these kind of matters I dare -not be too hasty, lest some might say, a fool’s bolt is -soon shot.” Both had been found among Harcourt’s -papers several days after Oates was examined by the -privy council.<a id="FNanchor_675" href="#Footnote_675" class="fnanchor">675</a> They seemed to confirm his evidence in -a remarkable manner. He had constantly spoken of the -Jesuit design; the former of the letters contained the -same word and enjoined secrecy on the subject. The -latter seemed to refer to the patents which Oates had -declared were sent to the commanders of the popish -army. The prisoners explained that the “design” of the -congregation was but to settle the business of their order -and to choose a procurator to undertake its management -at Rome. As for the patents, Anderton had meant to -say <i>Literae Patentes</i>, and referred only to Harcourt’s -patent as new provincial. <i>Literae Patentes</i>, contended -the court, when used in reference to one person, meant a -patent; but when the phrase was translated patents, it -necessarily pointed at more than one. Oates, said the -Chief Justice, interpreted the matter more plainly than -the accused.<a id="FNanchor_676" href="#Footnote_676" class="fnanchor">676</a></p> - -<p>The Jesuits proceeded to make their defence. Sixteen -witnesses were called to prove that Oates had been at St. -Omers from December 1677 to June 1678, and had not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_343">[343]</span> -left the college at the time when he swore that he was -present at the consult in London. This was the perjury -upon which he was convicted at his first trial in 1685. -Five witnesses were called to testify that Gavan had not -been in town in April 1678; ten, that Ireland had been -in the country in August and September of the same year. -Very similar evidence to that now given was accepted six -years later by the court to substantiate the charge against -Oates, but at the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, and -Fenwick it was disbelieved. The witnesses were examined -in detail and gave an elaborate account of the life at the -seminary. But the story which they told was not altogether -satisfactory. Under examination they shuffled -and prevaricated. Sometimes they contradicted one -another on points of time. They came prepared to speak -to the date of the consult and the time immediately -before and after it. When questions were put about -dates less closely concerned, they seemed unwilling to -answer. One, who declared that he had left Oates at -St. Omers on taking leave for England to go to the -congregation, was confounded when Oates reminded him -that he had lost his money at Calais and had been compelled -to borrow from a friend. Another confused the -old and new styles. A third stated that whenever a -scholar left the college the fact could not but be known -to all his fellows. He was immediately contradicted by -Gavan, who said that care was taken that the comings -and goings of the seminarists should be unnoticed.<a id="FNanchor_677" href="#Footnote_677" class="fnanchor">677</a> A -rumour was spread abroad that witnesses had been tutored, -and was repeated by Algernon Sidney in a letter to Paris.<a id="FNanchor_678" href="#Footnote_678" class="fnanchor">678</a> -For once rumour was not at variance with truth. Sidney’s -information was perfectly correct. Three of the lads -from St. Omers were arrested on their arrival in London -by Sir William Waller, and their examinations were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_344">[344]</span> -forwarded by him to the secret committee of the House -of Commons. One of these was Christopher Townley, -alias Madgworth, alias Sands, who had been a student in -the seminary for six years. He admitted that “his instructions -from the superior was to come over and swear -that Mr. Oates was but once from the college at St. -Omers, from December 1677 to June following.” Of -his own knowledge he could say no more than that he -had been in the seminary all the time during which Oates -was there; “the said Mr. Oates might be absent from -St. Omers in that time for several days and at several -times, but not absent above one week at a time, this -examinant being lodged in the college where Mr. Oates -was, but did not see him daily.”<a id="FNanchor_679" href="#Footnote_679" class="fnanchor">679</a> At the trial he did -not scruple to say that he had seen and talked with Oates -on every day throughout April and May and that, if -Oates had ever been absent, he must certainly have known -it.<a id="FNanchor_680" href="#Footnote_680" class="fnanchor">680</a> Nor was this all. At his examination he deposed -that Parry, Palmer, and Gifford were all absent from St. -Omers while Oates was an inmate of the college. At the -trial Gifford, Palmer, and Parry were produced to give -evidence of their personal knowledge that Oates had been -there the whole of the time.<a id="FNanchor_681" href="#Footnote_681" class="fnanchor">681</a> No credence whatever can -be given to such witnesses. It is worthy of remark that -they were housed and entertained by no other than Mrs. -Cellier, who was afterwards deeply concerned both in the -Meal Tub Plot and in the case of Knox and Lane, and -was pilloried for an atrocious libel in connection with the -murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.<a id="FNanchor_682" href="#Footnote_682" class="fnanchor">682</a> No doubt can -exist on the subject of Oates’ repeated and astounding<span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[345]</span> -perjuries. It is as little open to doubt that the witnesses -who were opposed to him at this trial were almost equally -untrustworthy. They were in fact very cleverly parroted. -If his infamy remains undisturbed, the unctuous indignation -with which it was denounced by the Jesuits, at the -very moment when they were employing means as unhallowed -as his own to controvert his statements, at least -entitles them to a place by his side in the pillory of -history.</p> - -<p>Even at this point the false evidence given at this -terrible trial was not ended. The crown produced seven -witnesses to prove that Oates had been in London at the -end of April and the beginning of May 1678. Of these -the only two who gave evidence of any weight were Smith, -who had been Oates’ master at Merchant Tailors’ School, -and Clay, a disreputable Dominican friar, whom Oates -had taken out of prison. Both were afterwards proved -to have been suborned by Oates and to have perjured -themselves.<a id="FNanchor_683" href="#Footnote_683" class="fnanchor">683</a></p> - -<p>The Jesuits concluded their defence with speeches of -real eloquence. Scroggs summed up the evidence in an -elaborate speech and strongly in favour of the crown; and -after a quarter of an hour’s absence the jury returned to -court with a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners.<a id="FNanchor_684" href="#Footnote_684" class="fnanchor">684</a></p> - -<p>On the next day Richard Langhorn was indicted at the -Old Bailey for practically the same treason as that for -which the Five Jesuits were convicted. Langhorn was -a Roman Catholic barrister of considerable eminence.<a id="FNanchor_685" href="#Footnote_685" class="fnanchor">685</a> -He was the legal adviser of the Jesuits, and conducted for -them much business which would now more naturally -pass through the hands of a solicitor. Oates consequently -named him as an active agent in the Plot and prospective<span class="pagenum" id="Page_346">[346]</span> -advocate-general under the new government.<a id="FNanchor_686" href="#Footnote_686" class="fnanchor">686</a> His trial -was a continuation of the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, -and Fenwick, and exhibited all the same characteristics, of -perjury on the one side, on the other of prevarication and -falsehood. The same evidence was developed at length, -and with the same result. Two fresh points of importance -alone occurred. To Oates’ great alarm the hostess -of the White Horse Tavern in the Strand was called by -the defence. Oates had sworn that as many as eighteen or -twenty Jesuits had met together there in one room at the -congregation of April 24. The woman now declared that -no room in her house would hold more than a dozen persons -at the same time, and that when a parish jury had once -met there the jurors had been compelled for want of space -to separate into three rooms. This would undoubtedly -have produced an effect, had not three of the spectators -in court immediately risen to swear that there were two -rooms in the inn which were large enough to hold from -twenty to thirty people without crowding them unduly. -An unfavourable impression concerning the evidence for -the defence was created, and the king’s counsel was able -to score an effective point.<a id="FNanchor_687" href="#Footnote_687" class="fnanchor">687</a></p> - -<p>Of greater weight than this was a portion of Bedloe’s -evidence. He swore that he went one day with Coleman -to Langhorn’s chambers in the Temple, and from the outer -room saw the lawyer transcribing various treasonable -letters brought by Coleman into a register at a desk in his -study within.<a id="FNanchor_688" href="#Footnote_688" class="fnanchor">688</a> The nature of cross-examination was so -imperfectly understood at the time that Langhorn did -not attempt to question the witness on the shape of his -rooms or to shake his credit by calling evidence to the -point. In his memoirs, which were published in the -course of the same year, he wrote the following comment -on Bedloe’s statement: “Every person who knows my -said chamber and the situation of my study cannot but -know that it is impossible to look out of my chamber -into my study so as to see any one writing there,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[347]</span> -and that I never had at any time any desk in my -study.”<a id="FNanchor_689" href="#Footnote_689" class="fnanchor">689</a> This was supported by other evidence. -When Oates and Bedloe exhibited in 1680 “articles of -high misdemeanours” against Scroggs before the privy -council, they charged him in one that at the previous -Monmouth assizes he “did say to Mr. William Bedloe -that he did believe in his conscience that Richard -Langhorn, whom he condemned, died wrongfully.” To -which the Chief Justice answered “that at Monmouth -assizes he did tell Mr. Bedloe that he was more unsatisfied -about Mr. Langhorn’s trial than all the rest; and the -rather, that he was credibly informed, since the trial, that -Mr. Langhorn’s study was so situated that he that walked -in his chamber could not see Mr. Langhorn write in his -study; which was Mr. Bedloe’s evidence.”<a id="FNanchor_690" href="#Footnote_690" class="fnanchor">690</a></p> - -<p>This was not the first incident which shook the credit -of the witnesses in the Chief Justice’s mind. He had in -the meantime received a still more striking proof of their -worthlessness. On July 18, four days after the execution -of Langhorn and nearly a month after that of the Five -Jesuits, Sir George Wakeman, in company with three -Benedictines, was brought to trial at the Old Bailey. -Wakeman was accused of having bargained with the Jesuits -for £15,000 to poison the king. The other three were -charged with being concerned in the Plot in various -degrees. Feeling had run so high after the last two -trials that the case was postponed from the end of June -for nearly three weeks, that it might have time to cool.<a id="FNanchor_691" href="#Footnote_691" class="fnanchor">691</a> -Interests were at stake which had not been present in the -previous trials. In November of the year before, Oates -and Bedloe had accused the queen of high treason, and -Oates had sworn that Sir George Wakeman, who was her -physician, had received from her a letter consenting to -the king’s death.<a id="FNanchor_692" href="#Footnote_692" class="fnanchor">692</a> The queen was now implicated with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_348">[348]</span> -Wakeman, and the trial was regarded as the prelude to an -attack on herself.<a id="FNanchor_693" href="#Footnote_693" class="fnanchor">693</a></p> - -<p>Before the crown lawyers opened the direct attack, witnesses -were, as usual, produced to testify to the reality of -the plot. Prance and Dugdale reaffirmed their previous -evidence, and Jennison, himself the brother of a Jesuit, -swore that he had met Ireland in London on August 19, -1678, thus proving to the satisfaction of the court that -Ireland had died with a lie in his mouth.<a id="FNanchor_694" href="#Footnote_694" class="fnanchor">694</a> The prosecution -then came to the prisoners. Oates told again the -story how he had heard the queen at a meeting at Somerset -House consent formally to the plot for murdering the -king, and swore that he had seen a letter from Wakeman -to the Jesuit Ashby, which was occupied chiefly with a -prescription for the latter during his stay at Bath, but -mentioned incidentally that the queen had given her -approval to the scheme. He had also seen an entry in -Langhorn’s register of the payment of £5000 made by -Coleman as a third part of Wakeman’s fee and a receipt -for it signed by Wakeman himself.<a id="FNanchor_695" href="#Footnote_695" class="fnanchor">695</a> Bedloe gave evidence -which would prove equally the guilt of the queen and her -physician, and both swore to the treasonable practices of -the other prisoners.<a id="FNanchor_696" href="#Footnote_696" class="fnanchor">696</a> To rebut this, Wakeman produced -evidence to prove that he had not written the letter for -Ashby himself, but had dictated it to his servant Hunt. -The letter was addressed to Chapman, an apothecary at -Bath, who read it and then tore off and kept the part -containing the prescription. Hunt proved that the letter -was in his handwriting and was corroborated by another -servant in Wakeman’s household. Chapman proved that -the body of the letter was in the same handwriting as the -prescription, that it contained nothing about the queen or -any plan for the king’s murder, and that Oates had given -an entirely inaccurate account of the prescription, which -was so far from ordering a milk diet, as Oates had sworn<span class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[349]</span> -that milk would have been not far removed from poison -for a patient who was drinking the waters at Bath. -Scroggs was afterwards accused of having grossly favoured -the prisoner in order to curry favour at court; but the -manner in which this evidence was received is an absolute -proof to the contrary. The bench held, in a way that -now excites surprise, but at the time did not, that Oates -had meant that the milk diet was prescribed for Ashby -before he went to Bath, and was therefore not at all inconsistent -with drinking the waters while he was there; -and that Wakeman might easily have written two letters -on the same subject. No doubt, said the judges, the -witnesses for the defence spoke the truth. What had -happened was that Sir George had dictated one letter, -which consisted of nothing but medical directions, and of -which the apothecary and the other witnesses spoke; but -he must certainly have written another, containing the -treasonable words to which Oates swore. The court -treated the matter as if this were beyond a doubt. To -the prisoner’s objection that he was unlikely to have -written two letters to convey the same instructions, Mr. -Justice Pemberton replied, “This might be writ to serve -a turn very well”; and Scroggs closed the discussion by -remarking, “This your witnesses say, and you urge, is -true, but not pertinent.”<a id="FNanchor_697" href="#Footnote_697" class="fnanchor">697</a> Shortly before Wakeman -turned to his fellow-prisoners and said, “There is my -business done.” He knew that in all human probability -he would be condemned. Suddenly, without any warning, -there occurred the most unexpected event, which, in a -dramatic moment unsurpassed by the most famous in -history, shattered the credit of Oates and produced the -first acquittal in the trials for the Popish Plot.<a id="FNanchor_698" href="#Footnote_698" class="fnanchor">698</a> Sir Philip -Lloyd, clerk to the privy council, was asked to state with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_350">[350]</span> -what Oates had charged the prisoner at his examination -before the council. The evidence deserves to be given -in Sir Philip’s own words: “It was upon the 31st of -September,” he stated; “Mr. Oates did then say he had -seen a letter, to the best of his remembrance, from Mr. -White to Mr. Fenwick at St. Omers, in which letter he -writ word that Sir George Wakeman had undertaken the -poisoning of the king, and was to have £15,000 for it; -of which £5000 had been paid him by the hands of Coleman. -Sir George Wakeman, upon this, was called in -and told of this accusation; he utterly denied all, and did -indeed carry himself as if he were not concerned at the -accusation, but did tell the king and council he hoped he -should have reparation and satisfaction for the injury done -to his honour. His carriage was not well liked of by the -king and council, and being a matter of such consequence -as this was, they were willing to know further of it; and -because they thought this evidence was not proof enough -to give them occasion to commit him, being only out of -a letter of a third person, thereupon they called in Mr. -Oates again, and my Lord Chancellor desired Mr. Oates -to tell him if he knew nothing personally of Sir George -Wakeman, because they were in a matter of moment, and -desired sufficient proof whereupon to ground an indictment; -Mr. Oates, when he did come in again and was -asked the question, did lift up his hands (for I must tell -the truth, let it be what it will) and said, ‘No, God forbid -that I should say anything against Sir George Wakeman, -for I know nothing more against him.’ And I refer -myself to the whole council whether it is not so.”</p> - -<p>Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane Hill, marching -against Macbeth, or the duke uncloaking to Angelo -could not create a greater sensation. “My lord,” cried -Sir George Wakeman, “this is a Protestant witness too.” -Oates began to bluster. He remembered nothing of all -this. He did not believe that any such question was asked -him at the council board. If there had been, he was in -such a state of exhaustion after being deprived of his rest -for two nights in succession that he was not in a condition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[351]</span> -to answer anything. “What,” returned Scroggs, “must -we be amused with I know not what for being up but -two nights?... What, was Mr. Oates just so spent -that he could not say, I have seen a letter under Sir -George Wakeman’s own hand?” The informer swore -that to his best belief he had spoken of the letter; or if -he had not, he believed Sir Philip Lloyd was mistaken; -or if not that, he was so weak that he was unable to say -or do anything. Then he completely lost control of himself -and broke out recklessly: “To speak the truth, they -were such a council as would commit nobody.” “That -was not well said,” put in Jeffreys quickly. “He reflects -on the king and all the council,” cried Wakeman. At -this the wrath of the Chief Justice burst out on the perjured -miscreant. “You have taken a great confidence,” -he thundered, “I know not by what authority, to say -anything of anybody”; and becoming more grave, pointed -out the decisive importance of what had been proved -against him, Oates did not open his mouth again during -the rest of the trial.<a id="FNanchor_699" href="#Footnote_699" class="fnanchor">699</a></p> - -<p>The case still dragged on its weary length. Numerous -other witnesses were called to prove and disprove points -of varying importance and connection with the matter at -issue. All the prisoners against whom Oates and Bedloe -had sworn made long speeches and discoursed on a -hundred irrelevant topics. Marshal, the Benedictine, -lectured the court and delivered an impassioned harangue -on the injustice of the English nation and on the future -state. He was stopped and, beginning again, drew down -on himself from Scroggs a violent rebuke in which he -declared his belief that it was possible for an atheist to be -a papist, but hardly for a knowing Christian to be a -Christian and a papist. When the heated wrangle which -followed was ended, the Chief Justice summed up, setting -the evidence on both sides in a clear light and pointing -out where its strength lay against the prisoners, but plainly -intimating his opinion that the revelation made by Sir -Philip Lloyd went far to invalidate Oates’ testimony. As<span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[352]</span> -the jury were leaving the box Bedloe broke in: “My -lord, my evidence is not right summed up.” “I know -not by what authority this man speaks,” said Scroggs -sternly. After the absence of about an hour the jury -returned. Might they, they asked, find the prisoners -guilty of misprision of treason? “No,” replied Jeffreys, -the Recorder, “you must either convict them of high -treason or acquit them.” “Then take a verdict,” said -the foreman; and returned a verdict of not guilty for all -the prisoners.</p> - -<p>Scarcely was the trial over when a storm broke upon -the head of the Lord Chief Justice. He had already -earned the hatred of the ferocious London mob by -accepting bail for Mr. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane, -who were in prison on account of the Plot.<a id="FNanchor_700" href="#Footnote_700" class="fnanchor">700</a> Now the -feeling against him amounted to positive fury. Sir George -Wakeman, after visiting the queen at Windsor, fled the -country to escape the effects of the popular rage.<a id="FNanchor_701" href="#Footnote_701" class="fnanchor">701</a> -Scroggs stood his ground. The London presses teemed -with pamphlets against him. <i>Some observations upon -the late trials of Sir George Wakeman</i>, etc., by Tom -Ticklefoot; <i>The Tickler Tickled</i>; <i>A New Year’s Gift -for the Lord Chief in Justice</i> are among those which -deserve to be remembered for their especial virulence. -The Portuguese ambassador had the egregious folly to -call publicly upon Scroggs the day after the trial and to -thank him for his conduct of the case.<a id="FNanchor_702" href="#Footnote_702" class="fnanchor">702</a> It was immediately -said that the Chief Justice had been bribed. A -barrel packed with gold had been sent to him. “Great -store of money” had been scattered about. The jury had -been bribed. A good jury had been impanelled, but was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[353]</span> -never summoned, and a set of rascals was chosen in its -place.<a id="FNanchor_703" href="#Footnote_703" class="fnanchor">703</a> When Scroggs went on circuit for the autumn -assizes he was met in the provinces with cries of—A -Wakeman, a Wakeman; and at one place a half-dead -dog was thrown into his coach.<a id="FNanchor_704" href="#Footnote_704" class="fnanchor">704</a> Early in the year -following Oates and Bedloe exhibited thirteen articles -against the Chief Justice before the privy council, and -Oates declared that “he believed he should be able to -prove that my Lord Chief Justice danced naked.” On -January 21 Scroggs justified himself in a set reply of great -skill and wit, and the informers met with a severe rebuff.<a id="FNanchor_705" href="#Footnote_705" class="fnanchor">705</a> -His other traducers were treated with no greater courtesy. -At the opening of the courts for the Michaelmas term of -1679 Scroggs made an able speech of eloquence, distinction, -and almost sobriety, in which he grounded his belief -in the Plot on the correspondence of Coleman and -Harcourt and vindicated the integrity of the judicial -honour; and on May 20, 1680 one Richard Radley was -fined £200 for saying that the Chief Justice had “received -money enough from Dr. Wakeman for his acquittal.”<a id="FNanchor_706" href="#Footnote_706" class="fnanchor">706</a> -In September 1679 he was received with great favour at -the court at Windsor and in December caused horrid -embarrassment to Lord Shaftesbury and several other -Whig noblemen, whom he met at dinner with the Lord -Mayor, by proposing the health of the Duke of York and -justifying his own conduct on the bench.<a id="FNanchor_707" href="#Footnote_707" class="fnanchor">707</a> In January -1681 he was impeached by the Commons. When the -articles of his impeachment were brought up to the House -of Lords he was treated, to the indignation of the Whig -party, with great consideration and favour; but although -the lords refused even to put the question “whether there -shall now be an address to the king to suspend Sir William -Scroggs from the execution of his place until his trial be -over?” he was absent from court at the beginning of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[354]</span> -Hilary term, and did not take his place upon the bench -during the rest of the term.<a id="FNanchor_708" href="#Footnote_708" class="fnanchor">708</a> Three days after the -opening of the Oxford parliament Scroggs put in his -answer to the impeachment. He denied the truth of the -articles exhibited against him severally, and insisted that -the nature of the facts alleged in them was not such as -could legally be made the ground for a charge of high -treason. He prayed the king for a speedy trial.<a id="FNanchor_709" href="#Footnote_709" class="fnanchor">709</a> Copies -of his answer and petition were sent to the House of -Commons, but before further proceedings could be taken -Parliament was dissolved on March 28, and the impeachment -was blown to the winds in company with other Whig -measures of greater importance and still less good repute. -The Chief Justice was not left long in the enjoyment of -his triumph. In April 1681 Charles removed him from -the bench and appointed Sir Francis Pemberton to be -Chief Justice in his place. The move was no doubt -directed by the approaching trial of Fitzharris. For this -was undertaken in the teeth of the bitter opposition of -the Whig party, and it was expedient that a man who -was already odious to Shaftesbury’s adherents should not -endanger the success of the crown by his presence on the -bench on so important an occasion. The late Chief Justice -was compensated by an annual pension of £1500 and the -appointment of his son to be one of “his Majesty’s counsel -learned in the law.”<a id="FNanchor_710" href="#Footnote_710" class="fnanchor">710</a></p> - -<p>Sir William Scroggs, Chief Justice of the court of -king’s bench, was a man of a type not uncommon in the -seventeenth century. He was vulgar and profligate, a -great winebibber, stained by coarse habits and the ignorant -prejudices common to all of his day but the most temperate -and learned, but a man of wit, shrewdness, strong character, -and master of the talents which were necessary to secure -success in the legal profession as it then was.<a id="FNanchor_711" href="#Footnote_711" class="fnanchor">711</a> The prominent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[355]</span> -position into which he was brought by the trials for -the Popish Plot has earned for him a reputation for evil -second in the history of the English law courts only to -that of Jeffreys. He has been accused of cowardice, -cruelty, time-service, of allowing his actions on the bench -to be swayed by party spirit, and of using his position -with gross injustice to secure the conviction of men who -were obnoxious to the popular sentiment. These charges -cannot be substantiated. When the evidence of interested -partisans by whom he was lauded or abused is stripped -away, they rest on two grounds: the fact that he presided -at trials where men were condemned for the Popish Plot, -and at one where men were acquitted of similar charges; -and the nature of his speeches in court at those trials. It -was said that he obtained the acquittal of Sir George -Wakeman because he realised that the king “had an ill -opinion” of the Plot, and because he had been told that -the popular leaders had no support at court; and that he -had taken an opposite course at the previous trials because -he believed the contrary to be true.<a id="FNanchor_712" href="#Footnote_712" class="fnanchor">712</a> These statements -have passed for truth ever since they were made, and have -been repeated by one writer after another. They were in -fact feeble attempts to explain what their authors did not -understand. They are contradicted not only by the -statements of other contemporaries, which are of small -weight, but by the whole course of the Lord Chief Justice’s -action and the circumstances by which he was surrounded. -From the very outbreak of the Popish Plot it was notorious -in official circles that the king discredited the evidence -offered by the informers.<a id="FNanchor_713" href="#Footnote_713" class="fnanchor">713</a> It is absurd to suppose that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_356">[356]</span> -Scroggs was ignorant of the fact. If anything, Charles -was rather more inclined to believe in the Plot in the -spring of 1679 than on Oates’ first revelations.<a id="FNanchor_714" href="#Footnote_714" class="fnanchor">714</a> No -judge could possibly have expected to gain favour at -court by an exhibition on the bench of zeal which was -directed against the court. Still more absurd is it to -suppose that a man in the position of the Lord Chief -Justice should have imagined that the Earl of Shaftesbury -exercised a favoured influence over the king’s mind. Nor -does Scroggs’ conduct on the bench afford good ground -for these accusations. His behaviour in the test case, the -trial of Sir George Wakeman, was exactly the same as it -had been in all the previous trials, and exactly the same -as it was at the later trials over which he presided, whether -they were of priests charged with treason on account of -their orders, of persons charged with treason in the Plot, -or for offences of a less high character.<a id="FNanchor_715" href="#Footnote_715" class="fnanchor">715</a> It is scarcely -surprising to hear that after the attack made on him by -Oates and Bedloe, “whensoever either of them have -appeared before him, he has frowned upon them, spoke -very frowardly to them and reflected much upon them.”<a id="FNanchor_716" href="#Footnote_716" class="fnanchor">716</a> -Nevertheless he treated their evidence quite fairly. The -rule was that only a conviction of perjury could disqualify<span class="pagenum" id="Page_357">[357]</span> -a witness, and Scroggs enforced it without prejudice.<a id="FNanchor_717" href="#Footnote_717" class="fnanchor">717</a> -Throughout he had the entire support of the other -judges, and not least that of Chief Justice North.<a id="FNanchor_718" href="#Footnote_718" class="fnanchor">718</a> His -mind was filled, equally with theirs, with the fear and -horror of popery, and as the chief part of the speaking -fell to his lot he expressed this more often and more -emphatically than his brethren. But he made up his -mind on the merits of each case in accordance with the -evidence which was then given and with the stringent and -unjust rules of procedure which had been handed down -to him. Scroggs was neither a judge of remarkable merit -nor a lawyer of learning, but on the evidence which was -brought before him, and which was not then, as it would -be now, rendered incredible by its own character, he did -in a rough manner sound justice.</p> - -<p>For the violence and brutality of his speeches there can -be no more excuse than for the coarseness and violence of -all speech and action in the age in which he lived. But his -words must not be judged alone, nor must his manner of -speech be considered peculiar. Language in the latter half -of the seventeenth century was harsh and exaggerated to -a degree hardly comprehended to-day. Scroggs constantly -launched forth into tirades against the Roman Catholic -religion, full of heated abuse. Sometimes he attributed to -the Jesuits, at others to all papists, the bloody, inhuman, -abominable doctrine that murder, regicide, and massacre -were lawful in the cause of religion. “Such courses as -these,” he declared, “we have not known in England till -it was brought out of their Catholic countries; what -belongs to secret stranglings and poisonings are strange -to us, though common in Italy.”<a id="FNanchor_719" href="#Footnote_719" class="fnanchor">719</a> He told Coleman, -“No man of understanding, but for by-ends, would have -left his religion to be a papist.... Such are the wicked<span class="pagenum" id="Page_358">[358]</span> -solecisms in their religion, that they seem to have left -them neither natural sense nor natural conscience: not -natural sense, by their absurdity in so unreasonable a -belief as of the wine turned into blood; not conscience, by -their cruelty, who make the Protestants’ blood as wine, -and these priests thirst after it; Tantum religio potuit -suadere malorum?”<a id="FNanchor_720" href="#Footnote_720" class="fnanchor">720</a> The onslaught on Ireland, Pickering, -and Grove was still more virulent: “I would not -asperse a profession of men, as priests are, with hard -words, if they were not very true, and if at this time it -were not very necessary. If they had not murdered kings, -I would not say they would have done ours. But when -it hath been their practice so to do; when they have -debauched men’s understandings, overturned all morals, -and destroyed all divinity, what shall I say of them? -When their humility is such that they tread upon the -necks of emperors; their charity such as to kill -princes, and their vow of poverty such as to covet -kingdoms, what shall I say to them?... This is a -religion that quite unhinges all piety, all morality, and all -conversation, and to be abominated by all mankind.”<a id="FNanchor_721" href="#Footnote_721" class="fnanchor">721</a> -Yet Scroggs’ language was no stronger than that of his -brothers on the bench. Jeffreys in sentencing Ireland, -Wild in sentencing Green, Jones in sentencing Tasborough -attained an exactly similar style. At the trial of Penn and -Mead in 1670 the court was at least equally ill-mouthed, -and nothing ever heard in a court of justice surpassed the -torrents of venomous abuse which Coke, as Attorney-General, -poured upon the head of Raleigh at his trial in -1603. One fact in judicial procedure exercised an immense -influence on the nature of speeches from the bench. -The judges took no notes.<a id="FNanchor_722" href="#Footnote_722" class="fnanchor">722</a> In summing up the evidence -they relied solely upon memories developed for this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_359">[359]</span> -purpose to an extent which seems almost marvellous. But -another result besides this remarkable mental training was -that in his summing up the judge had no set form by -which to direct himself. There was not the constraint -which comes from the necessity of following a definite -guide on prosaic slips of paper. It followed that the -whole of this part of his work was far more loose and -undefined than it has come to be since the additional -burden of taking notes has been imposed. Not only -could he, but it was natural that he should, break off from -the course of the evidence to interpose comments more or -less connected with it; and in the days of little learning -and violent religious prejudice, the judge’s comment was -likely to take the form of abuse of the creed which he did -not profess.</p> - -<p>Men of the seventeenth century habitually expressed -their thoughts with a coarseness which is disgusting to the -modern mind. A man named Keach, who had taught -that infants ought not to be baptized, was indicted for -“maliciously writing and publishing a seditious and venomous -book, wherein are contained damnable positions contrary -to the book of common prayer.”<a id="FNanchor_723" href="#Footnote_723" class="fnanchor">723</a> At his speech at the -opening of Parliament in 1679 Lord Chancellor Finch -likened the Roman Catholic priests and their pupils to -“the Sons of Darkness,” and declared that “the very -shame and reproach which attends such abominable -practices hath covered so many faces with new and strange -confusions, that it hath proved a powerful argument for -their conversion; nor is it to be wondered at that they -could no longer believe all that to be Gospel which their -priests taught them, when they saw the way and means -of introducing it was so far from being Evangelical.”<a id="FNanchor_724" href="#Footnote_724" class="fnanchor">724</a> -Other parties were equally violent; and on two separate -occasions Shaftesbury swore that he would have the lives of -the men who had advised the king to measures obnoxious to -his party. The most notorious of all Scroggs’ utterances, -an acrid sneer at the doctrine of transubstantiation:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_360">[360]</span> -“They eat their God, they kill their king, and saint the -murderer,” is paralleled almost exactly by Dryden’s -couplet:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Such savoury deities must needs be good.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">As served at once for worship and for food;<a id="FNanchor_725" href="#Footnote_725" class="fnanchor">725</a></div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">and Dryden, who at this time belonged to the court and -high church party, became within five years himself a Roman -Catholic. The whole literature of the time bears witness -to the fact that such language was scarcely beyond the -ordinary. It was a convention of the age and must be -accepted as such. There would be no greater mistake -than to attribute to words of the sort too great an influence -on action. The results which attended them were -unimportant. Of all Chief Justice Scroggs’ harangues -the most consistently brutal and offensive was that -directed at Marshal, at the trial of Sir George Wakeman.<a id="FNanchor_726" href="#Footnote_726" class="fnanchor">726</a> -Yet it was followed immediately by a fair summing up and -the acquittal of the prisoners.</p> - -<p>Only one other case demands attention in this review -of the trials for the Popish Plot. The trial of Elizabeth -Cellier for high treason belongs rather to the history -of the Meal Tub Plot; those of Sir Thomas Gascoigne, -Sir Miles Stapleton, Thwing, and Pressicks to the -provincial history of the Plot; that of Archbishop -Plunket to its history in Ireland. The acquittal of Lord -Castlemaine is chiefly important as an episode in the -infamous career of Dangerfield, the informer. The -proceedings against Fitzharris belong rather to the -history of Whig conspiracy against the crown, the -transition to which they mark.<a id="FNanchor_727" href="#Footnote_727" class="fnanchor">727</a> But the trial of Lord -Stafford calls for more lengthy notice. It was the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_361">[361]</span> -last of the treason trials for the main Popish Plot, and -ranks in importance with the weightiest of those which -went before. More than two years had now elapsed since -the beginning of the ferment caused by the Plot. -During that time it had exercised a magic over men’s -minds. This influence was now suffering a decline. The -acquittals of Wakeman, Lord Castlemaine, and Sir -Thomas Gascoigne had wrought the mob to fury -against the court and the Roman Catholics, but they -had also sown doubts in the judgment of intelligent -persons as to the credit of the informers and the truth -of the facts to which they swore. At the end of -the year 1680 it was doubtful, said Sir John Reresby, -“whether there were more who believed there was any -plot by the papists against the king’s life than not.”<a id="FNanchor_728" href="#Footnote_728" class="fnanchor">728</a> -The situation of the Whig party was critical. Their -violent espousal of the Plot and the concentration of all -their efforts upon the propagation of ultra-Protestant -designs had brought about the result that, should the -Plot be discredited before they had gained their object -in excluding the Duke of York from the succession to -the throne, their power would vanish into thin air. To -stave off a day of such evil and to re-establish on its -former firm footing the general belief in “the bloody -designs of papists,” the trial of Giles for the bogus -attempt on Captain Arnold’s life had been undertaken.<a id="FNanchor_729" href="#Footnote_729" class="fnanchor">729</a> -With the same object Lord Stafford was brought to -trial. His imprisonment had already lasted for two -years and two months.<a id="FNanchor_730" href="#Footnote_730" class="fnanchor">730</a> He was now brought to the -bar in preference to any of the other four noblemen who -had been imprisoned with him because, as was believed -at court, his advanced age and bodily infirmity rendered -him a more easy prey to the rancour of the House of -Commons.<a id="FNanchor_731" href="#Footnote_731" class="fnanchor">731</a> On all sides the case was regarded as of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_362">[362]</span> -utmost importance. If the prisoner were condemned the -Whigs would gain a great advantage. If he were -acquitted, the prosecution of the Plot, which was their -sole weapon, would suffer a disastrous check.<a id="FNanchor_732" href="#Footnote_732" class="fnanchor">732</a></p> - -<p>Stafford’s trial was conducted upon a scale befitting -its consequence. Seven days were occupied in its process, -a length which was at the time unprecedented. As -many as sixty-one witnesses were called on the one side -and on the other. For those who appeared for the -prosecution the cost of summons and entertainment -amounted to a hundred pounds.<a id="FNanchor_733" href="#Footnote_733" class="fnanchor">733</a> The court of the Lord -High Steward was held in Westminster Hall. Round -the hall were arranged galleries, from which privileged -persons watched the proceedings with the keenest interest. -From her seat in a private box the Duchess of Portsmouth -exerted her charms upon the members of the House of -Commons stationed near her, distributing “sweetmeats -and gracious looks.” Another box was reserved for the -queen. In a third sat the king, a constant attendant -during every day of the trial.<a id="FNanchor_734" href="#Footnote_734" class="fnanchor">734</a> Opposite the bar was -the seat of the Lord High Steward, and near by were -placed the managers of the prosecution, Sir William Jones, -Sergeant Maynard, Winnington, Treby, Trevor, Powle, -the most distinguished lawyers of the House of Commons.</p> - -<p>On November 30, 1680, his sixty-ninth birthday, -Thomas Howard, Lord Viscount Stafford, was brought -to the bar. That nothing might be omitted against -the prisoner, the managers called witnesses to prove -the reality and general designs of the Popish Plot. -The whole story was gone into at immense length. -Oates, Dugdale, Jennison, a secular priest named John -Smith, and Bernard Dennis, a Dominican friar, gave a -volume of evidence to the point. The records of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_363">[363]</span> -conviction of nineteen persons for treason and other -charges connected with the Plot, beginning with Coleman -and ending with Giles, were proved and the record of -Coleman’s attainder was read. Thus the whole of one -day was occupied.<a id="FNanchor_735" href="#Footnote_735" class="fnanchor">735</a> On the following morning the -managers proceeded to call witnesses to the treason of -Lord Stafford. The mass of evidence which they gave -may be reduced to three points. Dugdale swore that -at a certain meeting held at Tixhall, in Staffordshire, -about the end of August or the beginning of September -1678, the accused had given his full assent to the plot -for taking away the king’s life, and in September had -offered him the sum of £500 to be the actual murderer.<a id="FNanchor_736" href="#Footnote_736" class="fnanchor">736</a> -Oates swore that he had seen letters to various Jesuits, -signed Stafford, containing assurances of his zeal and -fidelity to the design; that the prisoner had in his -presence received from Fenwick a commission constituting -him paymaster-general of the forces; and that, in conversation -with Fenwick, Lord Stafford had said he did -not doubt that “Grove should do the business,” adding -with reference to the king, “he hath deceived us a -great while, and we can bear no longer.”<a id="FNanchor_737" href="#Footnote_737" class="fnanchor">737</a> Lastly -Turbervile, a new witness, swore that after a fortnight’s -acquaintance with the prisoner in Paris, in the year 1675, -he had directly proposed to him to kill the king of -England, who was a heretic and a rebel against Almighty -God.<a id="FNanchor_738" href="#Footnote_738" class="fnanchor">738</a> Round these charges the contest was waged -hotly. Lord Stafford and his witnesses doing battle against -the managers and theirs. On the third day the attack -was directed on Dugdale. A servant of Lord Aston -proved that the informer had lived in bad repute at -Tixhall, that he was discharged from his post of steward, -that he ran away to escape his creditors, was caught and -imprisoned for debt, and that he had sworn by God -that he knew nothing of any plot.<a id="FNanchor_739" href="#Footnote_739" class="fnanchor">739</a> The last was confirmed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_364">[364]</span> -by the magistrates who had arrested Dugdale -for debt. He had then been examined about the Plot -and denied all knowledge of it. Only two days later -he made a full confession.<a id="FNanchor_740" href="#Footnote_740" class="fnanchor">740</a> Two servants of the accused -were called to prove the nature of the interview in which -Dugdale swore that Lord Stafford offered him £500 to -kill the king. Every circumstance of it was fully -explained. The witnesses had been in the room the -whole time, and deposed that the conversation had -turned upon nothing more serious than the chances of -a horse-race in the neighbourhood.<a id="FNanchor_741" href="#Footnote_741" class="fnanchor">741</a> Other Staffordshire -men testified to Dugdale’s evil reputation, and two -artisans of Tixhall stated that Dugdale had offered them -separately money to swear against Lord Stafford.<a id="FNanchor_742" href="#Footnote_742" class="fnanchor">742</a></p> - -<p>Of Oates’ evidence little could be made for the -defence, but Stafford was able to point out that after -having solemnly declared to the House of Lords that -he could accuse no other persons “of whatsoever quality -they be,” he had proceeded to charge the queen herself -with high treason.<a id="FNanchor_743" href="#Footnote_743" class="fnanchor">743</a></p> - -<p>Again Dugdale was called and cross-examined on -his deposition of December 24, 1678, which was read -from the journal of the House of Lords. In that he -had said “that presently after one Howard, almoner to -the queen, went beyond seas, he was told by George -Hobson (servant to the said Lord Aston) that there was -a design then intended for the reformation of the government -of the Romish religion.” He now swore that he -did not know Hobson before the latter came into Lord -Aston’s service in 1678. Stafford seized upon this -as evidence either that Dugdale was lying, or that his -information, sworn two years before, was false. Dugdale -contended that the meaning of the clause “was that -Hobson told me that presently after almoner Howard -went over, there was such a design carrying on.” It is -a testimony to the obscurity of the style of ordinary -English prose at the end of the seventeenth century<span class="pagenum" id="Page_365">[365]</span> -that the court held, in apparent opposition to common -sense and common justice, that the construction which -Dugdale gave to the sentence was not only possible, but -the more probable.<a id="FNanchor_744" href="#Footnote_744" class="fnanchor">744</a></p> - -<p>Turbervile, the third of the informers, was met in -his evidence by numerous contradictions. It was proved -that in his original deposition he had altered two dates -the day after having sworn to their accuracy. Both in -his deposition of November 9, 1680 and at the trial in -the course of examination he had sworn that he had -constantly seen Lord Stafford in Paris during a fortnight -in 1675 when Stafford was ill with gout, and that the -prisoner then pressed him to undertake the murder of -the king. Two of Lord Stafford’s servants who had -been with him in Paris now proved that they had never -once seen Turbervile during that time, and that their -master had not been ill or lame with gout for at least -seven years.<a id="FNanchor_745" href="#Footnote_745" class="fnanchor">745</a> Material evidence was brought against -the witness on other points. He had sworn that at the -end of 1675 Lord Stafford had returned to England by -Calais, sending him by Dieppe. The contrary was now -proved by an independent witness. It was also proved -by a French servant belonging to the household of Lord -Powis that Turbervile had lodged with him in Lord -Powis’ house in Paris at a time when he professed to -be in fear for his life of the earl himself, and by his -brother, John Turbervile, that whereas he had sworn -that Lord Powis threatened to have him disinherited, he -had not at any time had even a remote chance of any -inheritance whatsoever.<a id="FNanchor_746" href="#Footnote_746" class="fnanchor">746</a></p> - -<p>On the fourth day of this ponderous trial Lord -Stafford closed his main defence. He pointed to the -turpitude of Oates’ character, and spoke with emotion -of his abhorrence that a man guilty of such immorality -as to profess a change of religion which he did not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_366">[366]</span> -experience should be allowed to give evidence against -a peer among his peers. “I appeal to your lordships,” -he cried, “whether such ... is not a perjured fellow, -and no competent witness? No Christian, but a devil, -and a witness for the devil.” Even Oates himself was -flustered and had to be restrained by the managers from -breaking into excesses.<a id="FNanchor_747" href="#Footnote_747" class="fnanchor">747</a></p> - -<p>The prosecuting Commons however were undismayed. -They called a swarm of witnesses to set up the character -of the informers and to destroy that of witnesses for -the defence. It was proved by word of mouth and the -production of letters that servants of Lord Aston, Lord -Bellasis, and Mr. Heveningham had attempted to -suborn persons to give false evidence against Dugdale.<a id="FNanchor_748" href="#Footnote_748" class="fnanchor">748</a> -The new witnesses were in turn contradicted by the -defence, and this wonderful series of contradictions was -carried still one step further when fresh evidence was -called to corroborate them.<a id="FNanchor_749" href="#Footnote_749" class="fnanchor">749</a></p> - -<p>On the fifth day Lord Stafford summed up his -defence. He laid special stress on the infamous character -of his accusers and his own clean record, the points in -which the witnesses had been contradicted, and the -general improbability of the charge. His speech was -badly received. The opportunity of a slight pause was -seized by Lord Lovelace to spring to his feet and -denounce with indignation the presence in court of a -well-known Roman Catholic.<a id="FNanchor_750" href="#Footnote_750" class="fnanchor">750</a> Moreover the prisoner -made a grave tactical mistake in proposing for argument -a number of points of law, of which some were frivolous -and others had already been authoritatively determined. -Of these the only one which could be considered material -was the question whether or no in a case of high treason -two witnesses were necessary to prove each overt act -alleged, since the witnesses against Lord Stafford had -sworn separately, and never together, to the commission -of several acts. This had in fact been determined in the -case of Sir Harry Vane,<a id="FNanchor_751" href="#Footnote_751" class="fnanchor">751</a> but now with remarkable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_367">[367]</span> -consideration for the prisoner the opinion of the assembled -judges was taken: it was unanimous to the effect that -the evidence of two separate witnesses to two distinct acts -constituted a proof of high treason. The other points -were easily disposed of by Jones and Winnington.<a id="FNanchor_752" href="#Footnote_752" class="fnanchor">752</a></p> - -<p>In a speech of great ability Sir William Jones -answered the accused. Here especially the professional -training of the managers had weight. With the ease -and decision of a practised lawyer the leader ran over -the trial, setting the strong points of the prosecution in -a clear light and minimising the value of the defence. -His zeal was evident, but hardly unfair. If here and -there a statement overshot the mark of strict accuracy, -the effect of his speech was only enhanced by the patience -with which he submitted to correction from the prisoner. -Concluding with a short but powerful address, he demanded -that the court should do “that justice to your -king and country as to give judgment against these -offenders, which will not only be a security to us against -them, but a terror to all others against committing the -like offences.”<a id="FNanchor_753" href="#Footnote_753" class="fnanchor">753</a> On the night of Saturday, December 4, -Stafford petitioned to be heard again in his defence. -His request was granted, but the rambling speech to -which the court listened on the Monday following was -calculated to produce any effect rather than that of -advancing his cause. The managers only found it -necessary to reply very briefly before the court adjourned -to consider its verdict.<a id="FNanchor_754" href="#Footnote_754" class="fnanchor">754</a></p> - -<p>At eleven o’clock on the next morning the votes were -taken. Thirty-one peers pronounced Lord Stafford innocent, -fifty-five guilty. The verdict was not unexpected. -Stafford had conducted his defence so feebly as to make his -acquittal improbable.<a id="FNanchor_755" href="#Footnote_755" class="fnanchor">755</a> Physical weakness accounted largely -for this; but he had made the mistake of speaking as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_368">[368]</span> -much as possible, and his remarks were halting, nebulous, -indecisive. On the night before the verdict was delivered -Barillon wrote that there was every appearance that it -would be adverse to the accused.<a id="FNanchor_756" href="#Footnote_756" class="fnanchor">756</a> Sir John Reresby was -staggered by the evidence for the prosecution, and only -maintained his belief in Stafford’s innocence by fixing his -mind firmly on the depravity of the witnesses.<a id="FNanchor_757" href="#Footnote_757" class="fnanchor">757</a> Anglesey, -Lord Privy Seal, afterwards pressed hard for Lord -Stafford’s pardon, but at the trial he felt constrained -to vote against him, “secundum allegata et probata.”<a id="FNanchor_758" href="#Footnote_758" class="fnanchor">758</a> -Even Charles, although he knew that Oates and his crew -were liars and publicly called them rascals, thought that -the evidence against the accused was strong, and that he -might well be guilty;<a id="FNanchor_759" href="#Footnote_759" class="fnanchor">759</a> and the Countess of Manchester, -who was present at the whole trial, wrote to Lady Hatton -before the verdict was known, that the charge “was so -well proved that I believe not many was unsatisfied, except -those that were out of favour with the party might wish it -other ways.”<a id="FNanchor_760" href="#Footnote_760" class="fnanchor">760</a> Charles was present in Westminster Hall -while the peers delivered their verdict, and took notes of -the sides on which they voted. When it became evident -that the majority were for condemnation, his face to those -who were near him shewed profound disappointment.<a id="FNanchor_761" href="#Footnote_761" class="fnanchor">761</a> -Whether or no he believed in Stafford’s innocence, the -conviction was a blow to the king’s cause. But the votes -were not directed by political considerations alone. These -would probably have ensured an acquittal. If Charles -had exerted his personal influence on the court, an -acquittal would have been certain.<a id="FNanchor_762" href="#Footnote_762" class="fnanchor">762</a> The peers gave -judgment on what seemed to them the merits of the case. -Three eminent members of Lord Stafford’s family voted for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_369">[369]</span> -the death.<a id="FNanchor_763" href="#Footnote_763" class="fnanchor">763</a> The same verdict was delivered by the Lord -Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Oxford, Lord -Maynard, and the Duke of Lauderdale. Among the -thirty-one who found for the accused were such staunch -Whigs as Lord Holles, Lord Lucas, and the Earl of -Clarendon. All these, had party spirit directed the votes, -must have determined to the contrary. The fact must be -faced that so late as December of the year 1680, more -than two years after Oates’ first revelations, and after the -disclosure at Wakeman’s trial had rendered certain the -fact of his perjury, many of the most honourable and -intelligent men in the kingdom sincerely accepted as -credible the evidence offered against Lord Stafford, and as -earnest of their belief sent to the scaffold one of their own -number, a man bowed down with years and infirmity, the -victim of miscreants supported by the enemies of the king, -for the false plot against whose life he was now to die. It -was a memorial to all time of the ignorance of the -principles of evidence and the nature of true justice which -characterised their age.</p> - -<p>Sentence as usual in cases of high treason was -pronounced on the condemned man, but at the request of -the peers the king commuted the penalty to beheading -alone. Efforts were made to obtain a pardon, but without -avail. Charles was determined to let the law take its -course that he might not be said to balk the ends of -justice.<a id="FNanchor_764" href="#Footnote_764" class="fnanchor">764</a></p> - -<p>The sheriffs disputed the validity of the warrant for -Stafford’s decapitation and requested the advice of the -House of Commons on the following questions: “Can -the king, being neither party nor judge, order the -execution? Can the lords award the execution? Can the -king dispense with any part of the execution? If he can<span class="pagenum" id="Page_370">[370]</span> -dispense with a part, why not with all?” To the -ingenuity of Sir William Jones was due the studied insult -offered to Charles in the answer of the House: “The -house is content that the sheriffs should execute William, -late Viscount Stafford, by severing his head from his -body.”<a id="FNanchor_765" href="#Footnote_765" class="fnanchor">765</a> The excitement which prevailed in London was -intense. Throughout the trial Stafford had been hooted -in the streets on his way to and from the Tower. Angry -brawls arose between the witnesses and the crowd at the -doors of Westminster Hall. When Dugdale swore that -the prisoner had offered him £500 to kill the king, a -savage hum arose in the precincts of the court itself and -drew a severe rebuke from the Lord High Steward.<a id="FNanchor_766" href="#Footnote_766" class="fnanchor">766</a> On -December 29, 1680 Stafford was led to the scaffold. From -the place of execution he read a lengthy speech, which was -published in print on the same afternoon, asserting his -innocence and vindicating his religion.<a id="FNanchor_767" href="#Footnote_767" class="fnanchor">767</a> His words fell on -deaf ears. A vast crowd was assembled to witness his -death. Almost all historians have repeated the assertion -that the spectators were touched and answered with cries -of, “We believe you, my Lord; God bless you, my -Lord.”<a id="FNanchor_768" href="#Footnote_768" class="fnanchor">768</a> The story is a mere fable. Lord Stafford died -with howls of execration of the bigoted London mob -ringing in his ears. The cries with which he was met -testify relentlessly that the belief in his guilt was firmly -fixed in the mind of the nation.<a id="FNanchor_769" href="#Footnote_769" class="fnanchor">769</a> The Popish Plot was -not yet a thing of the past. But the result of Lord -Stafford’s trial was not altogether what was expected.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_371">[371]</span> -Shaftesbury and his party indeed gained a temporary -victory, but the ultimate triumph was to the king. His -steadiness, restraint, and readiness for compromise contrasted -favourably with the intolerance and unconciliating -attitude of the Whigs. Their game was played for the -crown and, when their rejection of all offers short of that -made their motive plain to the nation, Charles had the -nation at his back. The violence with which they -attempted to force the king’s hand alienated public feeling. -He was able to dissolve the Oxford Parliament in -safety, and the Whigs were driven to plan open rebellion -and the treason of the Rye House Plot.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak p4 b4" id="APPENDICES">APPENDICES</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_375">[375]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_A">APPENDIX A</h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent center"><span class="smcap">Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers</span> xi. 393</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">April 29, 1679. Dover. Francis Bastwick to Henry -Coventry.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">This</span> day I received advice of one Col. Scott coming from -Folkestone to take horse here for London, and on his arrival I -seized him and sent for the Comm. of the passage. His examination -I send you enclosed, upon which we found cause to commit -him (which was accordingly done by the deputy mayor) into safe -custody until we had further orders from one of his Majesty’s -principal secretaries what to do with him. He owns himself to be -the same person we have had orders for several months past to -seize at his landing. Col. Strode, deputy formerly, had an order -to seize Col. Scott as I remember from Mr. Secretary Coventry, -but I am not certain but Col. Strode or his deputy are at present -in the place.</p> - -<p>I am your most humble servant Fran. Bastwick. I desire -your speedy answer when you have acquainted my L<sup>d</sup>. Sunderland. -Col. Scott has been found in many contrary tales, and went at his -landing by the name of John Johnson.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 396</p> - -<p>From the examination of Colonel Scott at Dover, April 29, -1679. That he is a pensioner to the prince of Condi, and hath -formerly commanded the prince of Condi’s regiment of horse in -the French service. And that the said prince of Condi sent him -over in September last in order for the surveying of several parcels -of lands and woods in Burgandie and Picardie was the occasion -of his going over.</p> - -<p>That the occasion of his return is to see his native country, -and his profession is a soldier. The said Colonel offered to take -the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and the test.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_376">[376]</span></p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 397</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Undated. Paper headed: An account of what the Earl of -Barkeshire desired Colonel John Scot to communicate to -His Ma<sup>ty</sup>. with what passed before the discourse. (Endorsed -by Coventry in the same words.)</p> -</div> - -<p>The Earl of Barkeshire, that had lain long of a languishing -sickness in Paris, was pleased to let me know he desired to advise -with me about a physician. This was in March last. I told his -lordship I was acquainted with an able man of our own nation, -and one of the college of physicians in London, but I was of -opinion his Lordship’s Roman Catholic friends would not approve -of him because he was not only a strict protestant, but one that -did publicly defend the doctrine of the church of England, and as -publicly declare the English Roman Catholics were prosecuted on -just grounds. His Lordship said that mattered not, he should not -dispute that point with him, nor did he value any man the worse -for differing from him in judgment, and that he was not so strait-laced -as others of his opinion, and did commit himself to the -charge of the said Doctor Budgeon; but it did prove too late, for -this gentleman soon told his Lordship what condition he was in, -and he came to my lodgings and signified to me his Lordship’s -great desire to speak with me, telling me his Lordship in all -human probability could not live long; and I waited upon his -Lordship the morning following, and he having commanded his -servants out of the chamber, and to suffer nobody to come in till -he called, spake to me as I remember these very words:—</p> - -<p>Colonel Scot, you are my friend; I must commit a secret to -you; there has been a foolish and an ill design carried on in -England: I don’t tell you the Roman Catholic religion is a -foolish business, for it is the faith I will die in, but ’tis the giddy -madness of some of that religion I blame. I knew nothing on’t -till my Lord Arundel, Mr. Coleman, and others told me the -business could not miscarry, and that I should be looked upon as -an ill man if I came not in in time, and truly I believed them. I -was none of the contrivers, I was not consulted with till towards -the latter end of the day, nor did I ever hear anything mentioned -about killing the king; if I had, I would have discovered it, and -so indeed I ought to have done what I did know, as well for the -personal obligations I had to his Majesty as that which my allegiance -obliges me to, and every man too; for my Lord Bellasis is -an ill man; he and others were accustomed to speak ill of the king, -indeed very irreverently.</p> - -<p>Then I asked his Lordship who those others were; but he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_377">[377]</span> -answered, prithee, good Colonel, ask me no questions; if I had -known of approaching dangers to the king, I should have told -him. He then fetched a great sigh and wept, but presently said, -Friend, I see things will go as you will; for God’s sake promise -me you will find some way to tell the king every word I say, and -that though some passages in letters of mine may look a little -oddly, I would have run any hazard rather than have suffered any -injury to have been done to his Majesty’s person: ’tis true I -would have been glad to have seen all England Catholic, but not -by the way of some ill men. My Lord Stafford was all along a -moving agent, and was here in France about the business; the -man of himself is not very malicious. My Lord Powis his covetousness -drew him in further than he would have gone. I believe -and hope there will hardly be found matter against them to take -away their lives, but pray the king from a poor dying man not to -have to do with any of those four Lords I have named, for they -love not his person.</p> - -<p class="b0">My Lord Peeter has always had a great love and reverence for -the king’s person; ’tis true this last wife of his is foolishly -governed by priests and influences him; but he was ever averse -to all things of intrigue in this matter. I need not desire -you to be secret, your own safety will oblige you. My Lord -Cardigan and others being at the door and calling to this Lord, -the servants were ordered to let them in, and before them he said, -pray don’t forget the hundredth we spake of, nor the business -at Rohan. I was there once more with the Doctor, but he grew -exceeding deaf; he said only then to me: Colonel, don’t forget -what I said to you for God’s sake. This is the very manner he -spake it.</p> - -<p class="right p0"><span class="smcap" style="margin-right: 2em;">John Scot.</span></p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 171</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">December 23, 1676. Hague. A letter, unsigned. Note -by Coventry at head—To one Johnson: at foot—shewed -his Maj. 23rd of Dec. 76.</p> -</div> - -<p>In my last I made some observations to you of the working of -the old spirit in the Popish party: at this time will now only add -that the same seemeth not to be restrained to England.... The -popish humour beginneth to spread itself over the English regiments, -especially the regiment lately Col. Tanwicke. One Wisely -is made Col., being Lieut. Col. before. Archer the major is made -Lieut. Col., both Irish Papists, and the rest of the officers are -generally papists and mad Irish, and for aught we know for -the most part recommended by the Duke of York. Now albeit<span class="pagenum" id="Page_378">[378]</span> -this be true that this congregating of Papists together in a body -be in the dominion of another state, yet it is true they are subjects -of England and in regard to the ... circumstances of England -in my poor opinion worthy the public notice.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 506</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Undated. Letter without address or signature; deciphered -from numbers written in very light ink in place of all -important words, so that all those in the decipher stand -between the lines.</p> -</div> - -<p>Col. Scot doth send his letters by way of Mons. Gourville, in -whose chamber he writes them, so that I see little hopes of doing -what you know, though the undertaker doth still insist for the -contrary. I am ready for the journey, hoping Mr. Secretary will -be so just as to spare naming me till that service is done, for I -should be sorry to trust any other who I do know to have contrived -my being disliked in this court. A lady of quality, my -good friend, returned yesterday from Bretagne and assures a great -arming upon those coasts and an army of forty thousand men -ready to ship at Nantes, Brest, etc., whenever commanded to -sea, to save (as they report) the K. of England from destruction. -The lady, if there were no disguise in the outward state of things -in England (which many do think there is), might I think be -brought to use her knowledge for his Majesty’s service, but my -hands are tied, and you know how things stand with you.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 313</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">May 21 1678. St. Malo. Thomas Kelly to Mr. William -Talbot in Corn Market, Dublin.</p> -</div> - -<p class="b0">I pray you to pay to Mr. John Plunket the sum of 89 pounds -sterling by the review of this letter; in doing so you will satisfy -your creditor. Made the 21st of May at St. Malo, 1678.</p> - -<p class="right nospacing p0"><span class="smcap" style="margin-right: 2em;">Thomas Kelly.</span></p> - -<p>[The above is in plain dark ink. What follows is light and -indistinct; the characters were evidently written in milk or lemon-juice, -and made visible by being held to the fire.]</p> - -<p>When I came from Paris to St. Germaine where I stayed -some time and among other speeches I heard in dophin [<i>sic</i>] -Chamber from some which were there that if the English should -make war against them they should easily excite a rebellion both<span class="pagenum" id="Page_379">[379]</span> -in Scotland and Ireland, and sending by some Marshal of France -10 men of war with all things necessary for to make up 2000 -soldiers in Ireland and that, by the help of some skillful Irishmen, -and under their conduct all the Irish should be, they may easily -overcome all Ireland. This was the discourse of those gentlemen -in Dorphin [<i>sic</i>] Chamber, but whether it comes to effect or not I -cannot tell.... [Goes on to give particulars of the numbers and -strength of the French navy on the north coast.]</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi, 310</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">July 6, 1678. Kimper. David Neal to John Plunket at -sign of the Ship in the Corn Market in Dublin.</p> -</div> - -<p>[Of the same character as the last. The letter, in black ink, -is frivolous. Interlined in light writing as follows.]</p> - -<p>I have been over all places where I was bound, but the fairest -places is Brest, and afterwards Havre and St. Malos for merchants. -The names of them that are capable to serve I did send long since. -All other places are nothing after these places neither is there any -man of war in them other places unless they should stay for a day -or two expecting to convoy others.... [Gives other particulars -of ships and a list of names of captains of French men of war. -Concludes—]</p> - -<p>If you please I intend to go home since the time is past whenever -I was engaged, neither will my friends have me to apply -myself to it. Your resolution hereupon I will willingly see as -soon as possible, for I have not much money to stay long in ... country -as dear as this is.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 317</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">June 17, 1678. Rochford. Walter B—— à Monsieur Patric -Roch à la place au blé à Dublin. (Endorsed in -Coventry’s hand): Mr. Burke.</p> -</div> - -<p>[Of the same nature as the last two, and in the same handwriting.] -There is nothing here worthy of relation only that all -the people of this country is very desirous to have war against you, -and specially all the seamen desire no other thing but it.... -[Further particulars of French ships, mostly merchant vessels. -One passage in the black ink deserves to be noted.] This is the -fourth letter which I did write to your honour without receiving -any answer.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_380">[380]</span></p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. 204</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">April 14, 1678. St. Omers. Sam Morgan to his father. -(Copy of same 205.)</p> -</div> - -<p>(Endorsed in Coventry’s hand.) Send to Doc<sup>t</sup>. Lloyd to learn -where Morgan the father liveth, and how I may write to him.—Mr. -Morgan the father lives at Kilkin in Flintshire near the -Bp. of Bangor.</p> - -<p>Honoured Father! These are next to my humble duty unto -yourself and my mother to acquaint you with my present condition. -I am here entered in a College called Flamstead amongst good -gentlemen, and am well beloved of them all. The place is very -good for meat and drink and other necessaries, but my fear is and -am in good measure satisfied that my uncle intends me for a priest. -He spoke nothing unto me as yet, but I partly understand that he -is of that opinion, which when I considered on is clean against -my conscience. I daily see and know what they are, and am -utterly dissatisfied with and condemn the principles and practices -of their diabolical opinions, for I dare not call it religion. If you -would be pleased to call for me home I think I should be very -well; for now (I thank God) I got more learning here since I -came than I should have gotten anywhere in Wales in 7 or 8 -years. I have competent skill in Greek and Latin, and can write -a little of both: if you would be pleased to take me home, I -should thank my uncle for my learning, and let him take whom -he thinks fit for his priest.</p> - -<p class="b0">I must stay here 18 years yet, and God knows who would be -alive then; and for all that, if I were like to be a comfort to my -friends, I would stay with all my heart, though I utterly abhor -their ways. If you intend to take me home it must be done -within this two years at furthest; otherwise it will be too late; -and if you be of that resolution put two strokes in the bottom of -your letter; be sure you mention it not publicly in my letter, -for then the Reader, which is the master of the house, will come -to know it; for there is not a letter that comes in or goes out of -the house but he has the perusal of it, but now I write this and -deliver it privately to an honest man that set out this day hence; -so that the master knows nothing of it. No more but that you -would use some means to redeem me from this great captivity, -who am in extraordinary haste.</p> - -<p class="right p0" style="margin-right: 2em;">Your dutiful son,<br> -<span class="smcap">Sam Morgan</span>. -</p> - -<p><span class="smcap" style="margin-left: 2em;">Joseph Lane.</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_381">[381]</span></p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">P.R.O. Roman Transcripts. Vat. Arch. Nunt. -di Francia</span> 332</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">December 2, 1678. L’Abb<sup>e</sup> G. B. Lauri à S. EM<sup>za</sup>.</p> -</div> - -<p>Ancor che lo stato presente d’Inghilterra, e la risposta datami -la settimania passata dal Sig<sup>r</sup> di Pomponne non mi facessero sperare -cos’ alcuna di buono intorno all’ assistenza richiesta a favore del -Sig<sup>r</sup> Duca di Yorch; nondimeno a proporzione della premura di -N.S. e dell’ importanza dell’ affare, ne rimovai le instanze al -suddetto ministro Martedì passato, nel qual giorno per questi e per -altri negozii pendenti mi portai à Varsaglia; egli soggiunsi che -il credito talvolta e l’assistenza del Re di Francia avrebbe potuto -ristabilire il partito del Sig<sup>r</sup> Duca di Yorch e de’ Catholici di quel -regno, quando S. M<sup>ta</sup> si fosse dichiarata per loro. Rispose tuttevia -il Sig<sup>r</sup> di Pomponne che tutti i Catholici d’Inghilterra ò erano -imprigionati ò erano stati discacciati di Londra. Il med<sup>mo</sup> Sig<sup>r</sup> -Duca di Yorch restava escluso dall’ essercizio delle sue cariche, e -tutti indifferemente venivano osservati in maniera che il dichiararsi -nello stato presente per loro altre non sarebbe stato che un accrescergli -le persecuzioni, e finir di ruinare il partito Catholico di quel -regno; per queste ragioni avere stimato S. M<sup>ta</sup> che non sia tempo -di prestar l’assistenza richiesta, mentre il cambiamento delle cose -faceva ogni conoscere che tal consiglio non era pin utile, come -ragionevolmente avra per altro potuto stimarsi prima che succedessero -le mutazioni accennati. Io dunque essendo cosi cambiate di -faccia le cose d’Inghilterra, ed incontrando que le scritte difficoltà, -tralascierò di fare altre istanza per quest’ affare finche da V.S., -informata che sia delle cose che passano, mi vengano nuovi -comandamenti.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_382">[382]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_B">APPENDIX B</h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent center"><span class="smcap">Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers</span> xi. 237</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">October 28, 1678. Copy of the letter sent to Mr. Sec. -Coventry subscribed T. G. Concerning the murder of -Sir Edmond Bury Godfrey.</p> -</div> - -<p class="b0">This is to certify you that upon his Majesty’s Declaration I -have been both at Whitehall and at your own house these three -days together, and never can be admitted to come to the speech of -your worship. Whereupon I thought fit to give you an account -what it is I can declare, which is as follows:—Being on Tuesday -the 15th, of this instant October, in a victualling house in White -Friars I chanced to hear two persons a discoursing, the one saying -to the other that if he would go down to Billingsgate he would -treat him there with wine and oysters, whereupon the other replied -and said: “What you are uppish then are you?” Upon which -words he swore, God dampe him (<i>sic</i>), he had money enough, and -draws a bag out of his pocket and says. There were fifty pounds. -Whereupon the other party was very inquisitive to know how he -came by it, and did importune him very much, and at the last he -told him that if he would swear to be true to him and never discover, -he would tell him. Whereupon he did make all the imprecations -and vows that could possibly be that he would never -discover, whereupon he told him that the last night he with three -men did murder Sir Edward Bury Godfrey and he had that £50 -for his pains, and said that he believed he could help him to some -money if he would go along with him on the morrow night -following. Upon these words the other asked him where it was -done and who the other three was that was with him, and he told -him that he murdered him at Wild House, and the other three -that was concerned with him was gentlemen. Two belonged to -my Lord Bellasis, and the other to my Lord Petres, but of the -Monday before, there was a court held at Wildhouse and there -they tried him, and there was a man like a priest who passed -sentence of death upon him; and likewise he asked him how he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_383">[383]</span> -came to be concerned in it, and he told him that there was a -broker that lodged in Eagle Court in the Strand that spoke to him -of it: so this is all I can testify of, but only that I can give some -account in what a barbarous manner they murdered him. This -man’s name is Hogshead, he liveth (?) at the Temple and Whitefriars -very much. So, Sir, if you please to give orders to your -servant, and let me come to the speech of you, I will come and -make oath of it, and with this proviso that I may have the liberty -to make a fuller discovery of it, I not being anything out of pocket -myself; I desire your answer to-morrow morning to be left at the -place mentioned in my former letter, and withal desire it may be -more private than the last.</p> - -<p class="noindent right p0 b0"> -<span style="margin-right: 4em;">Your humble servant to command,</span><br> -<span style="margin-right: 2em;">T. G.</span> -</p> - -<p class="noindent left p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 2em;">From the Temple this</span><br> -<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">28th instant 1678.</span> -</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Coventry Papers</span> xi. p. 235. Coventry’s answer to this.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">October 28, 1678. To his very loving friend T. G. these.</p> -</div> - -<p>(Note added by Coventry below the address): This letter -was sent to the Rainbow Coffee House, but never called for, and -was brought back by Col. Vernon.</p> - -<p class="b0">I have yours, and am abundantly satisfied with it, but know not -how to answer it at large. Will you tell me by what name I -shall subscribe it to you; whether your own or another it matters -not so you are sure to receive it. If you enquire for one Mr. -Evans at my house to-morrow or any morning he shall bring you -to me, when I will give you my best advice and assistance in what -you desire.</p> - -<p class="noindent right p0"> -<span style="margin-right: 12em;">I am,</span><br> -<span style="margin-right: 4em;">Your humble servant,</span><br> -<span class="smcap" style="margin-right: 1em;">Henry Coventry.</span> -</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Brit. Mus. Add. MSS.</span> 11058: 244</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Nov. 7, 1678. Mr. Bedloe’s confession before his Majesty of -the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.</p> -</div> - -<p>He saith that the Saturday Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was -missing, about two in the afternoon as he (Godfrey) was going -home, two or three gentlemen met him and said they could discover -some persons near the Strand Bridge that were agitators in -the Plot, upon which Sir E. Godfrey showed great readiness, but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_384">[384]</span> -they desired him to walk into a houseyard till a constable was got -ready; but Sir E. Godfrey had scarce made two or three turns -but several people rushed out upon him and stopped his mouth; -two friars and some of Lord Bellasis’ servants executing the same, -and having carried him into an inner chamber demanded of him -Mr. Oates his deposition, promising they would save his life if he -would render it to them; yet their design was to have taken -away his life though he had given them that satisfaction. Sir -Edmund Berry told them that the king and council had them, -and therefore he could not possibly do what they desired. Upon -which expression they began to use him inhumanly and barbarously, -kneeling upon his breast till they thought he was dead; -but they opened his bosom and found his heart panted; then they -took a cravat and tied it hard about his neck, and so ended his -life. He says further that he came too late to be assistant in the -murder, for he found him strangled and lying dead on the floor, -but presently received an account from the actors in what manner -it was performed. His corpse was laid at the high altar of the -Queen’s chapel, and continued there till they had consulted a way -for removing the same secretly from thence.</p> - -<p>He further saith that two guineas were the reward promised -among the undertakers, and on Wednesday following the corpse -was conveyed in a sedan to Lord Bellasis’ house, and from thence -carried in a coach to the place where it was found. He also -acquainted the Lords that he had several things to communicate -to them which related to the Plot, and that he was able to confirm -several passages which Mr. Oates had discovered concerning the -plot, but he desired leave to give his testimony in writing, that so -he might make no other discovery than what he could be able to -testify.</p> - -<p>Actors: Mr. Eveley, Mr. Leferry, Jesuits; Penchard and -Atkins, laymen; the keeper of the Queen’s chapel and a vally de -chambre to the Lord Bellasis.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">P.R.O. S.P. Dom. Charles II</span> 407: ii. 29. <span class="smcap">Longleat -MSS. Coventry Papers</span> xi. 272–274.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">7th Nov. 1678. Before his Majesty.</p> -</div> - -<p>Mr. Bedloe informs,</p> - -<p>A contrivance between Charles Wintour and the governour of -Chepstow Castle, and Mr. Charles Milbourn and Mr. Vaughan of -Cont ... and his son, to be in arms when my Lord Powis -would in Cardiganshire, to give up the castle to Mr. Charles -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_385">[385]</span>Wintour and army of 20<sup>m</sup> men.</p> - -<p>Mr. Thimbleby in Lincoln: under Lord Bellasis was to have -20<sup>m</sup> men. 20<sup>m</sup> religious men were to meet at S<sup>t.</sup> Jago to come -over into Wales from the Groin, and meet Lord Powis and the -aforesaid gentlemen in arms.</p> - -<p>20<sup>m</sup> out of Flanders to meet Lord Bellasis and Mr. Thimbleby: -to land at Burlington Bay. Has known this by being four years -among them.</p> - -<p>Qu. What proofs.</p> - -<p>Resp. Has lived among the Jesuits four years, and had all he -had from them, etc.</p> - -<p>Has been in Spain. Employed from five Jesuits to Sir W. -Godolphin, Stapleton, Latham, Le Fere, Cave and Sheldon.</p> - -<p>Cave and Le Fere sent him to Doway last summer 12 months. -20 months since, and thence by Paris, etc., to Madrid.</p> - -<p>Le Fere told him of this design.</p> - -<p>Lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, where Walsh the priest -lodges, near Wild House.</p> - -<p>Mr. Selvyns at the back door of the Palgrave’s Head will show -where Captain Atkins lodges, and consequently where Le Fere.</p> - -<p>Le Fere is an Englishman, calls himself a Frenchman. The -passage of the 20<sup>m</sup> men from Flanders was to be from Newport.</p> - -<p>As to Sir Edmond Godfrey; was promised 2000 guineas to be -in it by Le Fere, my Lord Bellasis’ gentleman, and the youngest -of the waiters in the Queene’s chapel, in a purple gown and to -make the people orderly. They did not tell him at first who was -to be killed nor till he was killed.</p> - -<p>They murdered him in Somerset House in the corner room, -the left hand as you come in, near Madame Macdonnel’s lodgings, -and near the room where the duke of Albemarle lay in state.</p> - -<p>Stifled him with a pillow, then he struggling they tied a cravat -about his neck and so strangled him.</p> - -<p>Le Fere told him so, having sent for him by a footman in a -blue livery to Somerset House in the walk under the dial. ’Twas -done in hopes the examinations he had taken would never come -to light.</p> - -<p>Obj. The King. The parties were still alive to give the -informations.</p> - -<p>Resp. In hopes the second informations taken from the parties -would not have agreed with the first, and so the thing would have -been disproved and made it not be believed. For this reason the -Lord Bellasis advised it. Coleman and my Lord Bellasis advised -to destroy him.</p> - -<p>The informant was born at Chepstow, bred up an indifferent -scholar. His friends all protestant since the world began. Went -into the Prince of Orange’s army, where finding the religious<span class="pagenum" id="Page_386">[386]</span> -houses kind and obliging, he hearkened to their arguments, etc., -and so was persuaded.</p> - -<p>Was never an officer in the Prince of Orange’s army. Was -designed to be lieutenant to Vaudepert, a captain. Employed -some time to make levies in England from Holland, etc.</p> - -<p>My Lord Bellasis’ gentleman is he that waits on him in his -chamber, and none other dresses him but he. Middle stature. -Little whiskers like a Frenchman.</p> - -<p>The Trappan. They persuaded Godfrey that if he would go a -little way into the Strand they would make out a great discovery -to him. He called a constable and appointed him to meet him at -Strand bridge with power, in the interim of which they persuaded -him, Godfrey, to walk into Somerset House, where walking with -two of them, the Lord Bellasis’ gentleman and a certain Jesuit -whom he knows not, others came and with gloves stopped his -mouth and hurried him into the room.</p> - -<p>The Informant escaped yesterday fortnight by the coach from -the Talbot in the Strand to Bristol. Coming to Bristol sent for -his mother, and upon her blessing she charged him to discover -whatever he knew. Will take his oath and the Sacrament of all -this. Has had racks of all this for a year in his conscience. -Would have gotten from them three months ago when the king -was at Windsor, they about the time whispering something, but -not so as to let him know it.</p> - -<p>Conyers is a Jesuit, and Pridgeot, and Lewis. Sir John -Warner was in the Plot. Le Fere, Keimes, Welsh, Lewis, -Pridgeot.</p> - -<p>Keimes is in the north of Scotland or beyond the sea. Went -two months ago into the north; was with Le Fere the night before. -He went to Ernham to Mr. Thimbleby and so northwards.</p> - -<p>Mr. Welsh, the chapel-keeper, Le Fere, my Lord Bellasis’ -servant, strangled him.</p> - -<p>The Chapel keeper carried him off. They carried him off in a -chair about Piccadilly and so on to the fields.</p> - -<p>He did not see him after he was dead.</p> - -<p>Le Fere sent to him by a foot-boy immediately afterwards to -tell him of it.</p> - -<p class="b0">Wintour told him two years ago that if he would keep private -so great a design, he should be governour to Chepstow Castle, etc. -My Lord of Worcester has kept a very ingenious gunsmith, one -David Winkett, in his house for many years to make arms. Mr. -Charles Price, steward to my Lord of Worcester, took them off -from time to time and disposed of them to my Lord Powis. Mr. -Christall, my Lord Powis’ servant, told him my lord had the finest -arms of that man’s making, etc.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_387">[387]</span> -Mr. Jones, a sugar baker on College Hill, can tell where his -the informant’s brother is. His brother was with him in Spain, -and wondered how he could live as he did.</p> - -<p class="noindent left p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 2em;">Le Fere.</span><br> -<span style="margin-left: 2em;">Lord Bellasis’ gentleman.</span><br> -<span style="margin-left: 2em;">The usher of the Queen’s chapel, etc.</span> -</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Lords Journals</span> xiii. 343</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Bedloe’s statement at the bar of the House of Lords. Die -Veneris 8 die Novembris.</p> -</div> - -<p>The Lord Treasurer reported by his Majesty’s directions, -“That yesterday one William Bedlowe was examined at Whitehall -concerning the discovery of the murder of Sir Edmond Bury -Godfrey, and that his Majesty had given order he should be -brought to give this house an account thereof.”</p> - -<p>Who being brought to the Bar and had his oath given him, -made a large narrative to this effect.</p> - -<p>“That he was born in Monmouthshire and was of the Church -of England till within these two years, that by Persuasion and -Promises from the Jesuits he was drawn over to them: that he is -not in orders. He knows that Sir E. B. Godfrey was murdered -in Somerset House, on the Saturday, by Charles Walsh and—Le -Fere Jesuits, and two laymen, one a gentleman that waits on the -Lord Bellasis, the other an underwaiter in the Queen’s Chapel. -That he saw the body of Sir E. B. Godfrey, after he was murdered, -before he was carried out, and Le Fere told him ‘He was stifled -between two pillows,’ and he was offered 2000 guineas to be one -of the three to carry out the body, which was kept either in the -room or the next where the D. of Albemarle lay in state: That -the Chairmen who carried out the body on Monday night at nine -of the clock are retainers to Somerset House; but he knows them -not.”</p> - -<p>He saith “That Walsh and Le Fere and Pritchard told him -‘that the Lord Bellasis employed them in this business.’”</p> - -<p>He said further “That Walsh and Le Fere informed him -‘That the Lord Bellasis had a commission to command Forces -in the North, the Earl of Powis in S. Wales, and the Lord -Arundell of Warder had a commission from the Pope to grant -commissions to whom he pleased’: That Coleman had been a -great agitator in the design against the King; And that he, asking -the Jesuits ‘Why they had not formerly told him what they had -designed concerning the king’s death?’ they answered him -‘That none but whom the Lord Bellasis gave directions for were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_388">[388]</span> -to know of it.’ He desired he might have time to put the whole -narrative into writing (which he had begun).</p> - -<p>“And being asked if he knew Titus Oates, he denied it.”</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">P.R.O. S.P. Dom. Charles II</span> 408: ii. 47</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Prance’s examination before the Council. The notes are in -Sir Joseph Williamson’s handwriting. Dec. 24, 78. -Prance called in, etc.</p> -</div> - -<p>On a certain Monday—with a twisted handkerchief—in the -corner near the stables. Carried him into a house in the dark -entry, leading up out of the lower court into the upper. Left at -that house where Hill lived then, two days, in the dark entry—by -the water-gate. There Hill and Gerald and the cushion-man -(Green) carried him away. About ten Hill told this informant -to go to the other side of the house. Green told him that he -thought he had broke his neck before he was carried into Hill’s -house. After that, 4 days after. Hill carried him and shewed him -the place where he lay with a dark lanthorn about 9 o’clock—and -Hill brought him back to his house. Green and Gerald were -there—and not having conveniency for keeping him in his own -house, conveyed him into another house on the other side.—Hill -procured a sedan, and had him carried in a sedan from Hill’s out -at the end gate of the upper court. This was Wednesday night.—Was -carried as far as the Greyhound in the Soho. He was one -that carried him. Green and Gerald and Irishman who lay over -the stables in certain lodgings that Green has there.—From Hill’s -house first he was carried somewhere to the other side of the -house, towards the garden, and Hill met them about the new -church with a horse, and he was set upon that horse and carried -away, and the sedan was left in one of the new houses when they -came back. He came back to his house, and Hill went with the -body. Green, Gerald, and the Irishman went also with the body.—Gerald -said to him that my Lord Bellasis engaged them to the -thing, and said there would be a reward, not yet. Does not know -my Lord Bellasis.—Killed him because he loved not the Queen -or her servants, therefore Green and Hill, etc.—One Owen in -Bloomsbury was in the shop where he changed £100.—Two or -three went to his house to ask after him, the maid answered he -was not within, etc. They found him out and dogged him, till -he came over against the water-gate, came from St. Clement’s, -about 9 o’clock, etc. Hill, etc., dogged him. He was not there.—Two -feigned a quarrel in the gate, and he was called in to -appease the quarrel.—He knew Gerald a year and a half. Hill<span class="pagenum" id="Page_389">[389]</span> -upon five years. Green about a year, etc.—Hill was without and -prayed Godfrey to walk in to quiet the quarrel. He walks within -the gate (?) and the upper Court.—Knows not if any guard at the -gate. Knows not if any company. About 9 at night—He was -strangled in the upper court on the stable side in a corner that is -railed (?). He struggled. Carried in at the water-gate.—He had -the £100 in gold from Owens in Bloomsbury. Being to go out -of town as a papist he got this informant to get it for him. It -was nothing to this ... [a line very indistinct]. He stood -at the water-gate while he was strangled. Bury the porter stood -the other way, he watched also there.—Hill dwells in Stanhope -Street, keeps a victualling house.</p> - -<p>As to the Plot. Was in Ireland’s chamber. Groves, Fenwick -were there. Ireland said there would be 50<sup>m</sup> men in arms. So -Fenwick. Two or three days after Groves came to his house to -buy two swords.—Said my Lords Powis, Bellasis, Peters, Arundell -should become councillors.—That Bellasis, Powis, Arundell were -to govern the army.... [Some words indistinct].</p> - -<p>One Le Fere came to his shop to ask for a silver sword hilt. -Knows not who he is more than that he is.—Knows not Walsh, -Pritchard, nor Le Fere not by the names.—50<sup>m</sup> men.—They -hoped Cath. Rel. would be established in a little time, etc.—Heard -nothing of the killing of the King, etc.—Godfrey was kept -from the time of his being killed in a sitting posture, etc.—One -Mr. Moore, servant to the D. of Norfolk, being on a great horse, -etc., would we had 10<sup>m</sup> of them, etc.—His ill-will to Godfrey -(that the Queen could not protect her servants)—Knows nothing -of the plot nor of any person in it.—That one—a Messenger -belonging to Lord Arundell said—He hoped the R. C. Rel. would -before long flourish in England.</p> - -<p>Has declared everything he knows, everything, etc.—Green, -Hill, etc., said Godfrey had used some Irishman ill—Owen knows -nothing of all this that he learns (?).—Saw Ireland last at Will’s -coffee house in Covent Garden and Dr. Southwell were drinking -with him in his own house the night before Pickering was -taken, etc.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_390">[390]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_C">APPENDIX C</h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent center"><span class="smcap">Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers</span> xi. 148</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Lord Windsor to Henry Coventry. July 8, 1676.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">I was yesterday at the trial of Studesbury of Broadly at -Worcester assizes, where Judge Atkyns sat upon the bench. The -treason was fully proved against him according to that information -I did send you. The judge took occasion by advice of those -justices which were upon the bench to make the trial long, the -better to discover whether he were distracted or not: upon the -whole examination and by the answers he made to the many -questions that were asked him, it was the opinion of all that sat -upon the bench (which were many) that he was very sensible and -in no way mad, but in justifying Venner’s action and holding the -worst of the fanatic opinions, and often using their ranting way of -talking; he said he held a halberd at the trial of the late King, and -repeated some of his words with Bradshaw’s answers to them, and -said the putting of Venner and his associates to death was murder. -The chief witness against him (besides his own confession) was -one Harrington, an anabaptist mentioned in the first examination, -which Harrington being asked if he did judge Studesbury mad -upon the first discourse he had with him (which held near an -hour) when he would have advised him to take arms against the -King, he declared he found nothing of that mind in him, but -thought he designed to ensnare him; yet notwithstanding all this -the jury found him a madman. Upon that the judge told them -that he and all that sat with him were of a contrary opinion and -desired them to withdraw and consider better of’t, which they -did do and came in again of the same opinion, one of them saying -that if he were not mad he would not have said what he did.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Brit. Mus. Add. MSS.</span> 28042: 19</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Memorandum by the Marquis of Danby. (Endorsed) -Mem<sup>d.</sup> (7–8/9.)</p> -</div> - -<p>To put forth a declaration. To examine the present state of the -revenue: to consider about stop of payment and when: what is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_391">[391]</span> -yet to come in upon the accounts and at what times: To know -what is due to the ships abroad: at what times those ships are -expected: in what state the victualling is. In what hands the -militia; the justices of the peace: the judges. When the dissolution -ought to be: what preparation for a new Parliament and -when: About the sheriffs: the next Lord Mayor: the Cinque -Ports: the Port towns by the commissioners of the customs, of -treasury, of Navy: who have a particular interest in Borrows. -To consider what grateful things may be done in this interval of -Parliament: what should be said in the declaration upon the -dissolution: for these q<sup>e</sup> Sir R. W. (Weston) and let the journals -of the Commons be searched for their proceedings in this last -session: To consider wherein they have exceeded all the due -limits of their own power as in imprisonment of men who are not -their members, etc., and meddling with the King’s prerogatives -and private accounts, etc.: To keep Lord Roberts by some encouragement: -About another Attorney-General, viz.: Sir R. W. -(Weston) (which is of main importance): what change of -Councillors. In what condition all the garrisons are as to their -fortifications: what number of forces and where placed after the -disbanding: to inquire into the riots at the last elections. How -conventicles should be inquired after, and what penal laws should -be put in execution: who to be in the Treasury and in the -treasury of the Navy: what can be done for the suppressing of -seditious prints and papers: About directing somebody to write -both about the present state of things to give the world a better -impression of them than they are now possessed with and to give -constant weekly accounts of what is done at any time which may -be for the satisfaction of men’s minds. Q. Whether the Plot not -triable out of Parliament. Q. About securing the arms of all -who have been officers in the late Rebellion. To take their -names and abodes in all counties. Q; how for to take notice of -them and dissenters from the Church how busy they have appeared -of late and what reasonable cause of danger to the government -from them. Parliament to be called to some other place: -the King to reside out of London: Tower to be well secured: -L<sup>d</sup> Ossory sent to the Navy: that to be officered so as to have -influence upon their men: To have a control to know justly -when the army is all disbanded and whether there be any remains. -About the Tower in case of insurrection: To take some course -about the reasons of the Commons which are printed, (?) to suppress -them and to have something writ to satisfy the people.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_392">[392]</span></p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Brit. Mus. Add. MSS.</span> 32095; 196</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">(Paper endorsed) Popish Plot. This paper was presented -to the King by the D. of York, Oct. 20<sup>th</sup> 1679.</p> -</div> - -<p>That in or about May or June last Col. Fitzpatrick delivered -to the Pope’s internuncio at Brussels a letter or paper subscribed -by four R. C. bishops, two of which were Plunket archbp. of -Armagh, and Tyrel bp. of Clogher, recommending the said Fitzpatrick -for the only person fit to be entrusted general of an army -for establishing the R. C. religion in Ireland under the French -sovereignty, which paper after coming to the internuncio’s hands -was seen by several clergy and laymen, known to Father Daly, -procurator, F. O’Neill, commissary. F. Macshone, guardian of -the Irish Franciscans, and F. Macmahone alias Matthews, Prior of -the Dominicans in Lovain, among whom ’tis also said that Fitzpatrick -carried such another instrument into France, where he -first arrived from Ireland and whence he went into Flanders, -where he resolved to settle at Brussels. But he was forced to -remove thence by his R.H. commands, which he obeyed not -without much regret and murmuring.</p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">P.R.O. Roman Transcripts. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di -Fiandra</span> 66</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hanging2">Di Brusselles dal Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, May 24/June 3, 1679.</p> -</div> - -<p>In Ibernia, dove il numero de’ Cattolici è molto maggiore -che quello de’ Protestanti, ha gran seguito e autorità il Colonello -Fitzpatrice, onde il Duca d’Jorch a mostrato haverlo veduto malvolontieri -venire à Brusselles, per dubbio che il Parlamento pigliando -gelosia del ricorso di lui à S. A. Reale prenda motivo di -maggiormente inasprirsi contro la medesima, contro di essa, e -contro il Duca d’Ormond. N’è perciò egli partito per Olanda à -titolo di veder quel paese, ma precedentemente ha tenuta una -segreta conferenza col Sig<sup>r</sup> Duca d’Jorch, dopo la quale mi ha -lasciato intendere soffrirsi troppo patientemente da S. A. Reale -l’audacia de’ Parlamentarii, e doversi di gia pensare almeno à modi -di respingerla quando la temerità loro e la debolezza del Rè -d’Inghilterra passasse à porre in esecutione il projetto della sua -diseredatione. Toccante l’Ibernia ha detto chiaramente essere -insofferibile il giogo sotto l’oppressione del quale gemono quei -Cattolici, e ha aggiunto che apprendendosi per massima naturale<span class="pagenum" id="Page_393">[393]</span> -il difendersi in qualsivoglia maniera, non dubita egli che non -fussero per commoversi tutti concordemente, non solo se il Sig<sup>r</sup> -Duca d’Jorch ma se qualunque barbaro Principe con qualque -denaro, e con assistenza di pochi vascelli si accostasse alle spiaggie -dell’ Isola, e portasse armi e munitioni da guerra à quelli habitanti.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_394">[394]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_D">APPENDIX D</h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent">“<span class="smcap">The</span> trial of John Giles at the Old Bailey, for assaulting and -attempting to murder John Arnold, Esq.,” is a case which presents -some difficulty.<a id="FNanchor_770" href="#Footnote_770" class="fnanchor">770</a></p> - -<p>Arnold’s character for activity against the Roman Catholics -has already been mentioned. The way in which this trial is regarded -materially affects the answer to the question whether or -no he exceeded the legitimate bounds of his magisterial duty. If -Giles was rightly convicted, the excess was not great; if wrongly -and the attempt on Arnold’s life was a sham, not only did Arnold -lend himself to a criminal and most disreputable intrigue, but all -his other actions must be more severely judged. The case was -as follows. Arnold had accused Mr. Herbert, a Roman Catholic -gentleman of Staffordshire, of speaking seditious words against -the king and government.<a id="FNanchor_771" href="#Footnote_771" class="fnanchor">771</a> They were both ordered to appear -before the privy council on April 16, 1680.<a id="FNanchor_772" href="#Footnote_772" class="fnanchor">772</a> On the day before -that date it was alleged that Giles, who was a friend of Herbert,<a id="FNanchor_773" href="#Footnote_773" class="fnanchor">773</a> -attempted to murder Captain Arnold. For this Giles was tried -on July 7, before Jeffreys, the Recorder of London, and convicted -after what seemed to be a singularly fair trial. The case for the -prosecution was that, as Arnold was going between ten and eleven -o’clock on the night of April 15 to see his solicitor, he was -assaulted in Bell-yard, Fleet Street, by the accused and one or two -other persons, and but for the appearance of the neighbours would -have been murdered. Giles had spoken disrespectfully of the Plot -and the Protestant religion, had been seen to dip handkerchiefs in -the blood of the Jesuit Lewis who was executed the year before at -Usk,<a id="FNanchor_774" href="#Footnote_774" class="fnanchor">774</a> and was supposed to have attacked Arnold in revenge for the -part he had played in the capture of Evans. Arnold himself gave -evidence of the fact. He swore that he had been dogged by two -or three men into Bell-yard. One of these went by him and then -stood still while the magistrate passed. By the light of a candle -which a woman was holding at the door of a neighbouring house -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_395">[395]</span>Arnold saw the man whom he afterwards recognised to be the -prisoner. As he crossed a lane which ran into the yard, a cloak was -thrown over his head and he was knocked down into the gutter, -though not before he had time to draw his sword. As he lay on -the ground the men stabbed at him with their swords. He was -cut in the face, the arm, and the stomach, but the men were unable -to pierce the bodice of whalebone which he wore under his coat. -One of them cried, “Damme, he has armour on; cut his throat.” -A light in Sir Timothy Baldwin’s house, hard by, and a boy -coming into the yard with a link disturbed the murderers and -they made off. As the cloak was pulled from his head, Arnold -again recognised the prisoner by the light of the link. The men -swaggered away and one turned back to call, “Now, you dog, -pray for, or pray again for the soul of Captain Evans.”<a id="FNanchor_775" href="#Footnote_775" class="fnanchor">775</a></p> - -<p>The evidence called to support and to oppose this was very -contradictory. It was sworn that, talking about the affray at a -tavern next day, Giles said, “God damn him, God rot him, he -had armour on”; but the witness admitted that he might have -said, “God rot him, he had armour on, they say.”<a id="FNanchor_776" href="#Footnote_776" class="fnanchor">776</a> The prisoner -declared that he merely told it as a common piece of news that -Arnold would have been killed had he not worn armour, and -called a witness who affirmed that this was so, that Giles had -called the attempt “a cruel assassination” of which he was sorry -to hear, and had made use of no oaths at all.<a id="FNanchor_777" href="#Footnote_777" class="fnanchor">777</a> Evidence was given -for the crown that Giles had hurried through Usk on May 5, -saying that he was afraid of being arrested for the assault on -Arnold, and at a cutler’s shop where he went to have a sword -mended said he had been fighting “with damned Arnold.”<a id="FNanchor_778" href="#Footnote_778" class="fnanchor">778</a> This -was contradicted by the Mayor of Monmouth, who proved that -Giles had not hurried through Usk, but stayed there several hours; -and by the cutler’s apprentice, who proved that when the prisoner -was asked, “How came your sword broke? Have you been fighting -with the devil?” so far from speaking the words alleged, he -had answered, “No, for I never met with Arnold.”<a id="FNanchor_779" href="#Footnote_779" class="fnanchor">779</a> A great -deal of evidence was given concerning the prisoner’s movements -on the night of April 15. He had passed the evening in company -at various taverns, and had finally gone to sleep at the King’s -Arms in St. Martin’s Lane; but as the witnesses arrived at the -times o’clock to which they deposed by guess-work alone, their -evidence was naturally contradictory; and it seems now quite impossible -to know certainly whether Giles was, as the prosecution -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_396">[396]</span>contended, seen last at ten o’clock and did not go to bed till one -in the morning, or, as the witnesses for the defence stated, had been -in company till the hour of eleven or twelve.<a id="FNanchor_780" href="#Footnote_780" class="fnanchor">780</a> According to the -evidence therefore, which Jeffreys summed up at length and with -moderation,<a id="FNanchor_781" href="#Footnote_781" class="fnanchor">781</a> it was open to the jury to find either for or against -the prisoner, and after deliberating for half an hour they returned -a verdict of guilty. Giles was sentenced to the fine of £500 and -to be pilloried three times. On July 26 he was pilloried in -Lincoln’s Inn Fields and was pelted so severely that his life was in -danger; and when the remainder of the sentence was carried out -in Holborn and the Strand, he had to be protected from the mob -by a guard of constables and watchmen.<a id="FNanchor_782" href="#Footnote_782" class="fnanchor">782</a></p> - -<p>The real case against Arnold and in favour of the prisoner did -not come into court. Sir Leoline Jenkins, secretary of state, -employed an agent to draw up a report on the subject. The -report was confined entirely to the assault itself and did not discuss -the movements of either Arnold or Giles before or afterwards. It -is notable that Arnold himself was the only witness as to the -manner of the attack and the incidents connected with it, and -that the important part of his evidence was wholly uncorroborated. -Although he wished to deny the fact, he was well acquainted with -Giles, who had been his chief constable, and probably knew -enough of his movements to lay a false charge against him without -running too great a risk of detection.<a id="FNanchor_783" href="#Footnote_783" class="fnanchor">783</a> Jenkins’ information -throws a curious light upon his evidence. It does not afford proof -that Arnold lent himself to a bogus attempt on his life, but it raises -strong suspicion that this was the case. There was no motive -for the reporter not to tell the truth in points of fact. His -deductions are lucid and apparently sound. The government -probably refrained from bringing forward the new material owing -to the intense opposition which the effort to obtain Giles’ -acquittal would have raised. I quote the most important portion -of the minute at length from the S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 245. -The paper is undated, but from internal evidence is seen to have -been composed before the trial. It is without title, but is endorsed -by Jenkins: “Mr. Arnold and about his being assassinated.”<a id="FNanchor_784" href="#Footnote_784" class="fnanchor">784</a></p> - -<p>“1. Mr. Arnold was found near two at night April 15th, -1680 sitting in the dirt, wounded, leaning his head against the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_397">[397]</span>wall, some four yards within Jackanapes Lane, and immediately -upon crying out, Murther.</p> - -<p>“2. Quaere:—the manner of the assault. When and -where he received his wounds; whether before his crying out -or just at the time: what words passed on the one side and on -the other, and concerning their going away laughing and -triumphing.</p> - -<p>“3. He was struck down, muffled in a cloak, and they -stamped upon his breast; and yet he was found with a white hat -on his head, no dirt upon it, and his clothes only dirty where he -sat; though the land was fouler at that time than ordinary.</p> - -<p>“4. Two pricks in his arm, the one so just against the other, -that it seemed to be one wound; and yet hard to imagine how it -should pass, for the bone.</p> - -<p>“5. Upon his crying out, a woman held a candle from a -window just over him, and two of the neighbours’ servants went -immediately to him; but neither could see nor hear of anybody -near him.</p> - -<p>“6. If wounded before he cried out, ’tis a wonder that one -of these boys should not hear either the blows or the scuffle; -especially standing within 6 or 7 yards of him in the street, and -having a duskish view of his body so long before he cried out, -till upon his knocking at the door of the Sugar-loaf for drink, a -servant of the house came downstairs, took his errand, went down -for drink and came up again, in the meantime.</p> - -<p>“7. Or if before this boy knocked, ’tis a wonder that upon -that knocking he did not immediately cry out for succour, hearing -people within distance of relieving him.</p> - -<p>“8. If he was stunded when they left him, how could he take -notice of what they said, and that they went laughing and -triumphing away? Beside the danger of being heard into Sir -Timothy Baldwin’s house, on the one side, and Mrs. Camden’s on -the other, that looked just on to the place.</p> - -<p>“9. If he could not be heard to cry out because he was -muffled, how should he hear what the ruffians said? For they -durst not speak so loud as he might cry; neither with a cloak -over him could they well come at his throat.</p> - -<p>“10. If they meant to kill him, they might have stabbed the -knife into his throat; as well as have cut him; or having him -down they might well have thrust him into his belly when they -found the sword would not enter his bodice.</p> - -<p>“11. There was no blood seen upon the ground neither where -he lay, or thereabouts.”</p> - -<p>The balance of probability seems to be undoubtedly that -no attempt whatever was made on Arnold’s life, and that he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_398">[398]</span> -deliberately engaged in a worse than dishonest scheme to inflame -popular prejudice against the Catholics.</p> - -<p>This result supports the evidence received from other quarters. -The opinion at court and of the king himself was that the attack -on Arnold was a part of the Whig political machinery. Barillon, -writing on April 26/May 6, 1680, says:—“Ce prince (Charles -II) n’est sans inquiétude, il voit bien par ce qu’il s’est fait sur le -prétendu assassinat de Arnold que ses ennemis ne se rebuttent pas -et qu’ils veulent de temps à temps faire renaître quelque occasion -d’animer le peuple contre les Catholiques.”</p> - -<p>In his manuscript history of the Plot (118) Warner gives the -following account of the affair: “Supra dictum nihil magis commovisse -plebem quam Godefridae eirenarchae caedes. Tentandam -alterius caedem visum, eundem ad finem et aptus visus Arnoldus -personam in ista tragicomica fabula sustineret, et Londini ... qui -tum versabatur. Omnibus ad eam exhibendam paratis, designata -hora ix vespertina, nocte illumi. Cum ergo biberet cum sociis -in taberna publica, monitus a famulo instare tempus, quod ad -causidicum condixerat, se statim inde proripit et conjicit in -obscurissimam [sic] angiportum, destinatam scenam. Illic magnis -clamoribus civium opem implorat; a papistis sibi structas insidias, -sicarios ibi expectasse, jugulum haurire voluisse, sed errante ictu -mentum vulnerasse; eos fuga elapsos, ubi cives convenire vidissent; -eorum neminem sibi notum sed unum in tibia laesum; hunc ex -vulnere, reliquos ejus indicio comprehendi posse. Hoc xix -Aprilis contigit. Hinc tragice debacchant in Catholicos factiosi, -Oate praeeunte: legum beneficio juste privari qui leges susque -deque haberent; gladio utendum in publicos sicarios, internecione -delendos, ut ne catulus quidem reliquatur; averruncandam semel -pestem omnium vitae imminentem. Inventae una nocte omnes -Catholicorum domus cruce cretacea signatae, percussoribus -indiciae, ubi hospitarentur. Nihil deesse visum quam qui signum -daret: hoc saluti fuit Catholicis sub cruce militantibus, cruce -signatis. Brevi motus ipsi subsiderunt, dum constitit leniter -tantum perstrictam cutem; nec constare a se, an ab alio id factum; -nemo vero Catholicus erat, in quem facinoris invidia derivaretur. -Testati chirurgi neminem in tota civitate vulnus in tibia habere. -Unus tandem inventus in familia Powisii qui attritam lapsu tibiam -oleo lenibat. Hic tentatae caedis arcessitur coram consilio regio -inde ad Arnoldum deducitur. Sed cum hic eum non accusaret, et -ipse probaret se navem conscendisse Brillae xix Aprilis (id est, -eodem die quo tentatum facinus) et tantum tertio post die -Londinum appulisse, et ipse demissus est, et Arnoldi fictae querimoniae -cum risu transmissae.”</p> - -<p>Strangely enough, Warner seems to have known nothing about<span class="pagenum" id="Page_399">[399]</span> -the arrest and trial of Giles. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, judging -from the report of the trial, regards the attempt to murder -Arnold as an act of revenge for the magistrate’s energy against the -Roman Catholics, and quotes it in support of Macaulay’s suggestion -that Sir Edmund Godfrey was murdered by some Catholic zealot -for a similar motive.<a id="FNanchor_785" href="#Footnote_785" class="fnanchor">785</a> In the face of the probability that no real -attack was made on Arnold, this support falls to the ground. It -is far more likely that the rumours at court that Oates had -murdered Godfrey to gain credit for the plot suggested to Arnold -or his wire-pullers the method of continuing the credit of the -Whig party by the shameful means of a bogus attempt on his -own life.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_400">[400]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_E">APPENDIX E</h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent center p2"><span class="smcap">Penal Laws in Force against Roman Catholics</span>, 1678</p> - -<p class="hanging5X left">1. 1 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 1 (Act of Supremacy), 1559.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>No foreign potentate shall exercise ecclesiastical power - in the Queen’s dominions.</p> - - <p>All the Queen’s servants, all temporal and eccles. - officers, all with degrees in the universities shall take the - oath of supremacy.</p> - - <p>None shall maintain the jurisdiction of any foreign - potentate in the Queen’s dominions under penalty of fine - and imprisonment for the first offence, for the second of - Præmunire (<i>i.e.</i> to be put out of the King’s protection - and forfeit all goods and chattels to the crown), for the - third of high treason.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">2. 5 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 1, 1562.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>None shall maintain the jurisdiction of the Bishop of - Rome within the Queen’s dominions under penalty of - Præmunire.</p> - - <p>Two judges of assize or justices of the peace in sessions - have power to hear and determine this offence.</p> - - <p>All members of Parliament, schoolmasters, attorneys, - officers of the courts, etc., shall take the oath of supremacy - on penalty of Præmunire for the first and high treason - for the second offence of refusal.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">3. 13 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 1, 1571.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All obtaining or putting in use any Bull of absolution - or reconciliation from the church of Rome shall be guilty - of high treason, their concealers of misprision of treason, - their comforters of Præmunire. All bringing into the - Queen’s dominions crosses, beads, etc., shall be guilty of - Præmunire.</p> -</div> - - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_401">[401]</span></p> - -<p class="hanging5X left">4. 23 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 1, 1581.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All persons pretending to have power to absolve the - Queen’s subjects from their natural obedience and converting - them to the church of Rome shall be guilty of - high treason, and their aiders and maintainers of misprision - of treason. None shall say mass under penalty of two - hundred marks’ fine and a year’s imprisonment, or hear - mass under penalty of one hundred marks’ fine and a year’s - imprisonment.</p> - - <p>Every person above sixteen years of age who forbears to - attend church regularly (according to the Act of Uniformity - 1 Eliz. c. 2 § 3) shall forfeit to the Queen the sum of - £20 monthly.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">5. 27 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 2, 1584.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All Jesuits, seminary priests, or priests in orders from - the see of Rome, being born within the Queen’s dominions - and returning into or remaining in them, shall be guilty - of high treason.</p> - - <p>All others educated in Roman Catholic seminaries and - not yet having received orders shall be guilty of high - treason, unless they return within six months after proclamation - made in London and take the oath of - supremacy. Penalty for concealing a priest or Jesuit - for more than twelve days, fine and imprisonment during - pleasure.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">6. 29 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 9, 1587.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All Popish recusants shall, on conviction, pay into the - exchequer twenty pounds a month: in default, two-thirds - of their goods and two-thirds of their lands shall be forfeited - to the Queen.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">7. 35 <i>Eliz.</i> <i>cap.</i> 2, 1592.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All Popish recusants above sixteen years of age shall, - on conviction, repair to their usual dwellings and not - remove thence more than five miles, on pain of forfeiting - all goods, lands, and annuities.</p> - - <p>A Popish recusant, not having land worth twenty marks - and goods worth forty pounds yearly, and not complying - with this, shall abjure the kingdom, or not abjuring the - kingdom, shall be adjudged a felon.</p> - - <p>A Jesuit or priest refusing to answer shall be committed - to prison until he do answer.</p> - - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_402">[402]</span></p> - - <p>All married women shall be bound by this act, save only - in the case of abjuration.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">8. 1 <i>Jac. I</i>, <i>cap.</i> 4, 1603.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All statutes of Queen Elizabeth confirmed and appointed - to be put in execution. The heir of a Popish - ancestor, not conforming before the age of sixteen years, - shall suffer the penalties of the above statutes and forfeit - two-thirds of his land to the King to answer the arrears of - twenty pounds a month, according to the act of 23 Eliz. - cap. 1.</p> - - <p>None shall send a child beyond seas to be instructed in - the Roman Catholic religion, on pain of the fine of one - hundred pounds.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">9. 3 <i>Jac. I</i>, <i>cap.</i> 4, 1606.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>The recusant that conforms shall receive the sacrament - within one year of his conforming and once in every year, - on pain to forfeit for the first offence twenty pounds, for - the second forty, and so on. In forementioned cases the - King may at will refuse the twenty pounds a month from - a Popish recusant and take the two-thirds of his lands, - saving only the recusant’s mansion-house.</p> - - <p>The Bishop of the diocese or the justices of the peace - may tender the oath of allegiance to any persons (except - noblemen), being eighteen years of age and being convicted - or indicted for recusancy.</p> - - <p>Penalty for refusal to take the oath, Præmunire.</p> - - <p>To withdraw the King’s subjects from their natural - obedience, to reconcile them to the church of Rome, or to - move them to promise it, is high treason.</p> - - <p>None shall be punished for his wife’s offence.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">10. 3 <i>Jac. I</i>, <i>cap.</i> 5, 1606.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>Informers discovering any harbouring Popish priests or - hearing mass shall have a third of the forfeiture due for the - said offences, or if the whole exceeds £150, then £50.</p> - - <p>No Popish recusant shall come to court on pain of the - fine of a hundred pounds, or to London or within ten - miles of it, unless a tradesman, on pain of the same fine, - half to the King, half to the informer.</p> - - <p>No Popish recusant shall practise law, medicine, or hold - office in any court, ship, castle, or fort on pain of the same - fine.</p> - - <p>None whose wife is such shall hold any office in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_403">[403]</span> - commonwealth unless he educates his children as Protestants - and takes them to church.</p> - - <p>A married woman, being a Popish recusant, must conform - a year before her husband’s death, or forfeit two-thirds - of her jointure and be incapable of administering her - husband’s estate.</p> - - <p>Popish recusants must be married in open church by an - Anglican minister, and must cause their children to be - similarly baptised on pain of the fine of one hundred - pounds, to be divided between the King, the prosecutor, - and in the latter case the poor of the parish.</p> - - <p>Popish recusants must be buried in the Anglican churchyard, - on pain of a fine of twenty pounds from the executors.</p> - - <p>Popish recusants are disabled from presenting to benefices, - and from being executors, administrators, or - guardians.</p> - - <p>Two justices of the peace have power to search the - houses of all Popish recusants, and of all whose wives are - such, for Roman Catholic books and relics, to burn and - deface them.</p> - - <p>By warrant from four justices all arms, gunpowder, and - ammunition belonging to Popish recusants may be seized.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">11. 7 <i>Jac. I</i>, <i>cap.</i> 6, 1609.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>Popish recusants may be required by justices of the peace - (or if barons and baronesses by three privy councillors) to - take the oath of allegiance. Penalty for refusing, Præmunire - and imprisonment until the oath is taken. Those - refusing shall be incapable of holding any office and of - practising law, medicine, surgery, or any liberal science for - gain.</p> - - <p>A married woman, being a Popish recusant, and not - conforming within three months after conviction, may be - imprisoned by warrant of two justices of the peace (or if a - baroness, of a privy councillor or bishop) until she conform, - unless the husband pay £10 monthly, or forfeit a third of - all his lands.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">12. 3 <i>Car. I</i>, <i>cap.</i> 2, 1627.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>None of the King’s subjects shall go, or send, or cause - to be sent any one to be trained beyond seas in the Roman - Catholic religion, or pay any money for the maintenance - of others for that purpose, on pain of forfeiting all his - goods, lands, and chattels, and being disabled from prosecuting - any suit at law.</p> -</div> - - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_404">[404]</span></p> - -<p class="hanging5X left">13. 16 <i>Car. II</i>, <i>cap.</i> 4, 1664. (The Conventicle Act, -directed against all Nonconformists.)</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All meetings, other than those of the family, of more - than five persons declared to be unlawful and seditious conventicles.</p> - - <p>Penalty for first offence, a fine of £5 or imprisonment - for 3 months; for second, a fine of £10 or imprisonment - for 6 months; for third, transportation for 7 years, or a - fine of £100.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">14. 17 <i>Car. II</i>, <i>cap.</i> 2, 1665. (The Five Mile Act, directed -against all Nonconformists.)</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>No person preaching in an unlawful conventicle or - meeting to approach within 5 miles of any corporation - sending members to Parliament, without having taken an - oath “that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever - to take arms against the King.”</p> - - <p>No such person shall teach in any public or private - school.</p> - - <p>Penalty for not complying, a fine of £40.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">15. 25 <i>Car. II</i>, <i>cap.</i> 2, 1673.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>All persons holding office, civil or military, or having - command, or receiving pay in whatever capacity in the - service or household of the King or the Duke of York, - shall before a specified date appear in the court of Chancery - or King’s Bench or of their respective counties openly to - take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.</p> - - <p>And the said officers shall receive the sacrament of the - Lord’s Supper according to the usage of the church of - England on or before August 1, 1673 in some parish - church upon some Lord’s Day.</p> - - <p>Penalty for refusing to take the oaths, incapacity to hold - any office or position of trust either civil or military, and - for executing office after refusal, incapacity to prosecute - any suit at law and fine of £500.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging5X left">16. 30 <i>Car. II</i>, <i>cap.</i> 1, 1678.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - <p>No peer or member of the House of Commons shall sit - or vote until he has taken the oaths of allegiance and - supremacy and subscribed to a declaration that the worship - of the church of Rome is idolatrous.</p> - - <p>Penalty for peers and members offending, disability to - hold office and a fine of £500.</p> - - <p>Provided that this does not extend to the Duke of York.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_405">[405]</span></p> - <h3 class="nobreak" id="MATERIALS_FOR_THE_HISTORY_OF">MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF -THE POPISH PLOT</h3> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent left">1. <i>Manuscripts.</i></p> - -<p>Public Record Office.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>State Papers Domestic, Charles II 407–416. The -state papers of the period have not been calendared and -are preserved in loose bundles, some of which are ill -arranged. Thus in referring to the S.P. Dom. Charles -II 407, I have been compelled to add <i>e.g.</i> i. 285, ii. 23, -as there are two sets of papers in the bundle bearing the -same numbers.</p> - -<p>State Papers, Ireland 339.</p> - -<p>Transcripts from Paris: dispatches of the French -ambassadors.</p> - -<p>Transcripts from the Vatican archives in Rome.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1">British Museum.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>Additional MSS.: 11,058, 17,018, 24,136, 28,042, -28,053, 28,054, 28,093, 34,195.</p> - -<p>Harl. MSS.: 3790, 4888, 6284.</p> - -<p>Land. MSS.: 1235.</p> - -<p>Stowe MSS.: 144, 180, 186, 302.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1">Longleat.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>MSS. belonging to the Marquis of Bath. Coventry -Papers xi. xx. lx. By the generous permission of the -Marquis of Bath and the courtesy of the authorities at the -British Museum I have been enabled to use these important -papers (of which an unsatisfactory account will be found in -the appendix to the 4th report of the Hist. MSS. Com.) in -the Manuscript department of the Museum. I am greatly -indebted to Mr. S. Arthur Strong, librarian of the House -of Lords, for his kind offices in obtaining access to the -papers for me.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_406">[406]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>I have also to express my thanks to Mr. Warner and -Mr. Bickley of the British Museum, and to Mr. Hubert -Hall and Mr. Salisbury of the Record Office for much -kind help and courtesy shewn to me during my work in -their departments. The manuscripts in the Vatican -archives of which I have made use were copied for me by -Mr. Bliss, who most generously interrupted his other work -to make the transcripts.</p> -</div> - -<p class="hanging2X p1">Cambridge University Library: “Persecutionis Anglicanae -et Conjurationis Presbiterianae Historia.” Autore P. -Warner, S.J., Regi Jacobo II<sup>do</sup> a sacris. 181 pp. fol. -Letter-book of John Warner, S.J.</p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>These manuscripts, of which the former is the more -important, have, I believe, never been used before. They -were seen by Henry Foley, compiler of the Records of the -English Province, S.J., but do not appear to have been used -by him. A notice of them is so deeply buried in his -laborious and unordered work (v. 289) that it has escaped -the notice of the author of Warner’s life in the <i>Dictionary -of National Biography</i>. Foley left inside the cover of -Warner’s <i>History</i> a note, which I quote below. Few are -likely to agree with him that it is “probably the best, the -fullest, and the most truthful ever recorded.” The account -of the Jesuit father is naturally prejudiced in favour of his -society and partakes of the nature of a martyrology. -There are nevertheless points of considerable interest contained -in it. The euphuistic style of Warner’s writing -marks him as a man of learning and culture.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center p1"><i>Note by Henry Foley. 13 Nov. 1876.</i></p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>“The original draft of this valuable MS. in the hand -of the Rev. Father John Warner, S.J., is in the British -Museum, Harlean MSS. 880.</p> - -<p>“It is closely written, divided into 8 chapters—f.c. 4<sup>to</sup> -[<i>sic</i>]. The writing is so bad that it is difficult to make it -out.</p> - -<p>“Father Warner succeeded Father Thomas Whitbread, -who suffered at Tyburn 30 June 1679, as Provincial of -the English Province, S.J., and remained in that office for -three years.</p> - -<p class="b0">“In 1686 he was appointed confessor to King James II. -He died at the court of St. Germains the 2nd of Nov. -1692, aet. 64. He was a very learned man and wrote -several controversial works.</p> - -<p class="right p0">“<span class="smcap" style="margin-right: 2em;">Henry Foley.</span></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_407">[407]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p>“The history of these terrible times is probably the -best, fullest, and most truthful ever recorded. The learned -author was upon the spot and had his own personal share -in the sufferings.</p> - -<p>“The facts recorded are fully borne out by the <i>Litterae -Annuae, Prov. Angl. S.J.</i> of the time, and likewise by contemporary -writers. <i>Vide</i> Echard, <i>Hist. Engl.</i>, etc.</p> - -<p>“One new fact is ascertained—that the meeting of the -Fathers in London (upon the affairs of their body) was -not held, as sworn by Oates and his associates, at the -White Horse Tavern, Strand, but at St. James’ Palace, the -residence of the Duke of York. The Fathers who were -tried and suffered death could have proved this upon the -trial, but were silent, preferring death to the danger of -compromising the Duke.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent left p1">2. <i>Printed Documents and Sources.</i></p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p class="hanging2">Historical Manuscripts Commission: appendices to 1st -Report (Lefroy MSS.); 4th Report (Bath MSS.); 7th -Report, Part II. (Verney MSS.); 11th Report, Part II. -(House of Lords MSS. 1678–1688); 11th Report, Part V. -(Dartmouth MSS.); 12th Report, Part VII. (Le Fleming -MSS.); 12th Report, Part IX. (Beaufort MSS.); 14th -Report, Part VI. (Fitzherbert MSS.); 14th Report, Part -IX. (Lindsey MSS.); 15th Report, Part II. (Elliot Hodgkin -MSS.); 15th Report, Part V. (Savile Foljambe MSS.).</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Ailesbury (Thomas, Earl of): Memoirs. Written by himself. -Ed. W. E. Buckley. Roxburgh Club. 1890.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Arnauld (Antoine): Œuvres, 42 tomes. T. xiv. Apologie -pour les Catholiques. Paris et Lausanne. 1775–1783.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Avrigny (Hyacinthe Robillard d’), de la campagnie de Jésus: -Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire universelle de l’Europe. -Paris. 1757.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Anglesey (Earl of): Memoirs. London. 1693.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Bedloe (William): Narrative and Impartial Discovery of the -horrid Popish Plot. London. 1679.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Calamy (Edmund): An Historical Account of my own Life. -Ed. J. T. Rutt, London. 1829.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Campana de Cavelli (Marquise de): Les Derniers Stuarts à -St. Germain en Laye. Paris. 1871.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Clarke (Rev. J. S.): Life of King James the Second. -London. 1816.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Dalrymple (Sir John): Memoirs of Great Britain and -Ireland. Edinburgh. 1771.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_408">[408]</span></p> - -<p class="hanging2">Danby (Earl of): Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of -Danby. London. 1679.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— Copies and extracts of some letters written to and from -the Earl of Danby (now Duke of Leeds) in the years -1676, 1677, and 1678, with some particular remarks upon -them. Published by his Grace’s direction. London. -1710.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— Memoirs relating to the Impeachment of Thomas, Earl -of Danby (now Duke of Leeds) in the year 1678. -London. 1710.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Evelyn (John): Memoirs. London. 1827.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Grey (Hon. A.): Debates of the House of Commons. -London. 1769.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Florus Anglo-Bavaricus. Liège. 1685.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Groen van Prinsterer: Archives de la Maison d’Orange -Nasau. 2nd série. T. v. Utrecht. 1861.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Hale (Sir Matthew): Historia Placitorum Coronae. London. -1736.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Halstead (Robert): Succintes Genealogies. London. -1685.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Hatton Correspondence. Camden Society. Ed. M. Thompson. -1878.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Journals of the House of Lords.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Journals of the House of Commons.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Jurieu (Pierre): La Politique du Clerge de France. 1681.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">L’Estrange (Roger): Brief History of the Times. London. -1687, 1688.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Luttrell (Narcissus): Brief Historical Relation of State -Affairs. Oxford. 1857.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Kirkby (Christopher): A Complete and True Narrative of -the Manner of the Discovery of the Popish Plot to his -Majesty. London. 1679.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">North (Roger): Examen, London. 1740.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— Lives of the Norths. Ed. Jessopp. London. 1890.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Oates (Titus): True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and -Conspiracy. London. 1679.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Orléans (Pierre Joseph d’): History of the Revolutions in -England under the family of the Stuarts. London. -1722.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Palmer (Roger), Earl of Castlemaine [ascribed to; see -Wheatley’s note to Pepys’ Diary, Dec. 1, 1666]: The -Catholique Apology, with a reply to the answer.... -By a person of honour. 3rd Edition, much augmented. -1674.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Parliamentary History iv. London. 1808.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_409">[409]</span></p> - -<p class="hanging2">Pomponne (Marquis de): Memoires. Ed. Mavidal. Paris. -1860, 1861.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Prance (Miles): True Narrative and Discovery. London. -1679.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Reresby (Sir John): Memoirs. Ed. Cartwright. London. -1875.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Sidney (Algernon): Letters to the Honourable Henry -Savile, ambassador in Paris in the year 1679. London. -1742.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Sidney’s Charles II. Ed. Blencowe. London. 1843.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Smith (William): Intrigues of the Popish Plot. London. -1685.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Schwerin (O. von): Briefe aus England über die Zeit von -1674 bis 1678. Berlin. 1837.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Secret Service Expenses of Charles II and James II. Camden -Society. Ed. J. Y. Akerman. 1851.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Somers Tracts vii. viii. London. 1812.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">State Trials 6, 7, 8, 10. Cobbett’s Collection. London. -1809.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Treby (Sir George): A collection of letters. London. 1681.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— The second part of the collection of letters. London. -1681.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Temple (Sir William): Works. Edinburgh. 1754.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Welwood (James): Memoirs. London. 1718.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Wood (Anthony à): Life and Times. Oxford. 1892.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent left p1">3. <i>Histories and Biographies, etc.</i></p> - -<div class="blockquot1"> - -<p class="hanging2">Acton (Lord): The Secret History of Charles II. Home -and Foreign Review i. 146.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Airy (Osmund): The English Restoration and Louis XIV. -London. 1888.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— Charles II. London. 1901.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Boero (Giuseppe): Istoria della Conversione alla Chiesa -Catholica di Carlo II, Rè d’Inghilterra. Roma. 1863.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Brosch (Moritz): Geschichte von England. Gotha. 1892.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Burnet (Gilbert): History of My Own Time. Ed. Airy. -Part I. Oxford. 1897, 1900.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Campbell (Lord): Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England. -London. 1856–1857.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— Lives of the Chief Justices of England. London. -1849–1857.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Carte (Thomas): An History of the Life or James, Duke of -Ormond. London. 1736.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Chantelauze (Régis de): Le Père de la Chaize. Paris. -1859.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_410">[410]</span></p> - -<p class="hanging2">Christie (W. D.): Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of -Shaftesbury. London. 1871.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Cooke (G. W.): History of Party. London. 1836.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Courtenay (T. P.): Life of Sir William Temple. London. -1836.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Cretineau Joly (J.): Histoire politique, religieuse, et literaire -de la compagnie de Jésus. Paris. 1844.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Douglas (R. K.); Article on Titus Oates in Blackwood’s -Magazine. February. 1889.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Echard (Laurence): History of England. London. -1707.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Foley (Henry): Records of the English Province of the -Society of Jesus. London. 1879.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Forneron (H.): Louise de Kéroualle, Duchesse de Portsmouth. -Paris. 1886.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Fox (Charles James): History of the Early Part of the -Reign of James II. London. 1808.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Foxcroft (H. C.): Life and Letters of Halifax. London. -1898.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Gentleman’s Magazine: January 1866. Article on the -conversion of Charles II.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— July 1848. Notes on Sir E. B. Godfrey.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">—— September 1849. Notes on the Popish Plot.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Gneist (Rudolf): History of the English Constitution. -Trans. Ashworth. London. 1891.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Hallam (Henry): Constitutional History of England. -London. 1884.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Hargrave (Francis): Opinion and Argument in support of -Lady A. S. Howard’s right to the new Barony of -Stafford. 1807.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Harris (Dr. William): Historical and Critical Account of -the Life of Charles II. London. 1814.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Irving (H. B.): Life of Judge Jeffreys. London. 1898.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Jesse (J. H.): The Court of England under the Stuarts. -London. 1855.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Kennet (Dr. White): A Complete History of England. -London. 1706.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Klopp (Onno): Der Fall des Hauses Stuart. Wien. 1875–1888.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Lingard (John): History of England. London. 1831.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Macpherson (James): History of Great Britain. London. -1775.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Macaulay (Lord): History of England. London. 1849.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Madden (R. R.): History of the Penal Laws enacted -against Roman Catholics. London. 1847.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_411">[411]</span></p> - -<p class="hanging2">Oldmixon (John): History of England during the Reigns of -the House of Stuart. London. 1730.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Parker (Samuel): History of his Own Time. London. -1727.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Parkinson (Father): The Yorkshire Branch of the Popish -Plot. The Month xviii. 393.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Ralph (James): History of England. London. 1736.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Rapin Thoyras (Paul de): Histoire d’Angleterre. La Haye. -1724–1736.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Ranke (L. von): Englische Geschichte. Leipzig. 1877.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Russell (Lord John): Life of William Lord Russell. -London. 1853.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Shaw (W. A.): The Beginnings of the National Debt. -Owens College, Manchester, Historical Essays. Ed. -J. F. Tout and J. Tait. London. 1902.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Sitwell (Sir George Reresby): The First Whig. Privately -printed. 1894.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Seccombe (T.): Titus Oates in <i>Twelve Bad Men</i>. London. -1894.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Spillmann (Joseph) S. J.: Die Blutzeugen aus den Tagen -der Titus Oates-Verschwörung. Freiburg i. B. 1901.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Stephen (Sir J. F.): History of the Criminal Law in -England. London. 1883.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Traill (H. D.): Shaftesbury. London. 1888.</p> - -<p class="hanging2">Wilson (Walter): Life and Times of Defoe. London. -1830.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak p4 b4">INDEX</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="chapter"> - <p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_415">[415]</span></p> - <p class="noindent center bold" style="font-size:115%;" id="INDEX">INDEX</p> -</div> - - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Albani, papal internuncio, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alexander VII, Pope, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aleyn, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_269">269–270</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anderton, Christopher, S.J., <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anglesey, Lord Privy Seal, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anne, Princess, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arlington, Lord, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Armstrong, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arnold, Captain, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arnold, Margaret, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arundel of Wardour, Baron, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ashburnham, Sir Denny, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ashby, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atkins, Captain Charles, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atkins, Samuel, <a href="#Page_106">106–116</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atkyns, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aubigny, Abbé d’, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Bacon, Francis, <a href="#Page_276">276–277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Barillon, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Barker, Sir Richard, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bedford, Duke of, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bedingfield, Father, S.J., <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bedloe, William, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109–148</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_157">157–160</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his character, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bellasis, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bellings, Sir Richard, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Berkeley, Lord, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Berkshire, Earl of, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Berry, porter of Somerset House, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boatman, Jerome, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bobbing, Kent, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bolron, Robert, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boyce, William, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Breda, Declaration of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bristol, Earl of, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Broadstreet, Mrs., <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Browne, Dr., <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Buckingham, Duke of, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bulstrode, Sir Richard, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burnet, Gilbert, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Busby, George, S.J., <a href="#Page_271">271–273</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Cardigan, Earl of, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carlisle, Earl of, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carr, trial of, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Castlemaine, Earl of, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Catherine, wife of Charles II, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229–231</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347–348</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cavendish, Lord, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cellier, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_137">137–138</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205–213</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chaize, Père de la, S.J., <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chapman, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Charles II, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223–260</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his policy, <a href="#Page_23">23–25</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29–30</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chepstow, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chetwyn, Mr., <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Child, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clarendon, Earl of, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clayton, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clement X, Pope, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clifford, Lord, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cloche, James de la (James Stuart), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coffee-houses, suppression of, <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coke, Lord Chief Justice, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276–277</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colbert, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coleman Correspondence, <a href="#Page_34">34–36</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_416">[416]</span>Coleman, Edward, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59–60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his trial, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304–322</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colledge, trial of, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colombière, Père de la, S.J., <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Compton, Bishop of London, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conway, Earl of, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cooper, Charles, <a href="#Page_134">134–135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Corral, Francis, <a href="#Page_137">137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cotton, Sir John, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Courtin, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coventry, Henry, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Criminal procedure, <a href="#Page_288">288–303</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Croissy, Colbert, quoted, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Curtis, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Danby, Earl of, Lord Treasurer, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71–75</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176–181</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his policy, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dangerfield, Thomas (Willoughby), <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">De Quincey, on murder of Godfrey, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deane, Sir Anthony, <a href="#Page_352">352</a> and <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Declaration of Indulgence, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dennis, Bernard, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Devon witches, trial of, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Devonshire, Duke of, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dolman, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_309">309</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dover, Treaty of, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dryden, John, quoted, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dugdale, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340–341</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Duras, Lord, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Eastchurch, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elliot, Mrs., <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Essex, Earl of, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Este, Prince Rinaldo d’, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evans, Philip, S.J., <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evelyn, John, <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Everard, Edmund, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evers, S.J., <a href="#Page_341">341</a> and <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Exclusion Bill, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257–258</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Faulconer, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_293">293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fenwick (Caldwell), S.J., agent at St. Omers, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312–313</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ferguson, Robert, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ferrier, Père, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Finch, Sir John, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fiquet, Olivier du, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fitzharris, trial of, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fitzpatrick, Colonel, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218–219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fletcher, W. M., <a href="#Page_100">100</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Forset, Robert, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fox, quoted on witnesses, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Frazier, Sir Alexander, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fromante, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Gadbury, astrologer, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gardiner, Dr., and Gunpowder Plot, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gascoigne, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gauden, Dr., <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gavan, John, S.J., <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gerald, Father, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gerard, Lady, of Bromley, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gerard, Lord, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gerard, Sir Gilbert, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gilbert, Henry, <a href="#Page_271">271–273</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Giles, John, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Godfrey, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83–166</a> <i>passim</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his secret, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Godfrey, Michael, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Godolphin, Sydney, <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Godolphin, Sir William, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Goodrick, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Green, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123–124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Green Ribbon Club, <a href="#Page_237">237–238</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gregory, Serjeant, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grey of Werke, Lord, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grove, W., lay-brother, S.J., <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Habeas Corpus Act, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Habernfeld’s Plot, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hale, Sir Matthew, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halifax, Viscount, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hamilton, Duke of, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harbord, Sir Charles, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harbord, William, <a href="#Page_249">249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harcourt, William, Rector of the London College, S.J., <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his trial, <a href="#Page_340">340–345</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harris, trial of, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hastings, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hatton, Charles, <a href="#Page_242">242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hatton, Lady, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hawkins, Robert, trial of, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Henrietta of Orleans, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">High Treason, <a href="#Page_45">45–48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hill, Lawrence, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123–126</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131–132</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hobson, George, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_417">[417]</span>Holles, Lord, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Howard, Cardinal (Norfolk), <a href="#Page_34">34</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Howard, Sir Philip, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hulet, trial of, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Huntingdon, Earl of, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hyde Laurence, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Innocent XI, Pope, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ireland (Ironmonger), Father, S.J., <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330–332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ireton, Lieut.-Col., <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">James I., <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jeffreys, Sir George, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jenkins, Sir Leoline, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jennison, informer, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jennison, Thomas, S.J., <a href="#Page_204">204</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Jesuit congregation at St. James’ Palace, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">John of Austria, Don, <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jones, Sir William, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Justices of the peace, <a href="#Page_269">269–287</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Kelly, Father, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Keynes, John, S.J., <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kirkby, Christopher, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70–75</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Knox, Thomas, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338–339</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Lane, John, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338–339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Langhorn, Richard, trial of, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345–347</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lauderdale, Duke of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">L’Estrange, Sir Roger, <a href="#Page_13">13</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Le Fevre, Father, S.J., <a href="#Page_117">117–119</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Legge, Colonel, <a href="#Page_252">252</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leopold I, Emperor, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lewis, David Henry, S.J., <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lloyd, Dr., <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lloyd, Sir Philip, <a href="#Page_349">349–351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lloyd, Temperance, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Locke, John, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Louis XIV, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255–257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lovelace, Lord, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lucas, Lord, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Luzancy, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Manchester, Countess of, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mansell, Colonel, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marshal, O.S.B., <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marvell, Andrew, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maynard, Sergeant, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mazarin, Duchesse, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meal Tub Plot, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Medburne, Matthew, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meres, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monmouth, Duke of, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123–124</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Montagu, Ralph, <a href="#Page_178">178–181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morley, Dr., Bishop of Winchester, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morris, Father David, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mowbray, Laurence, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mulgrave, Marquis of, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Non-Resistance Bill, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Norfolk, Duke of, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Norfolk, Duke of (1571), his trial, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">North, Chief Justice, <a href="#Page_357">357</a></li> - -<li class="indx">North, Roger, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nymeguen, Peace of, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Oates, Samuel, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oates, Titus, <a href="#Page_3">3–13</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70–80</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89–91</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225–231</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306–314</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342–353</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362–369</a> <i>passim</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Ogle, Lord, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oliva, Johannes Paulus de, General, S.J., <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orange, Mary, Princess of, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orange, William, Prince of, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ormonde, Duke of, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Osborne, William, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ossory, Earl of, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123–124</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oxford, Earl of, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Parsons, Robert, S.J., <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pemberton, Chief Justice, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Penal statutes against Romanists, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Penn and Meade, trial of, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pepys, Samuel, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107–109</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a> and <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Peterborough, Earl of, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Petre, Edward, S.J., <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Petre, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Peyton, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pickering, lay-brother, O.S.B., <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plucknet, Mr., <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plunket, Archbishop, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pomponne, Marquis de, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Portsmouth, Duchess of, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Powis, Countess of, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Powis, Earl of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_418">[418]</span>Pracid, John, S.J., <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prance, Miles, <a href="#Page_120">120–148</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158–166</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Preston, Lord, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Price, Anne, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339–340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prison life in seventeenth century, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pritchard, Charles, S.J., <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pugh, Father, S.J., <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Radley, Richard, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Raleigh, Sir Walter, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rawson, John, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reading, Nathaniel, trial of, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335–338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reresby, Sir John, <a href="#Page_152">152</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rich, Sir Edward, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Richardson, Captain, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Roman Catholics, persecution of, <a href="#Page_196">196–221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rupert, Prince, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Russell, Lord, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ruvigny, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rye House Plot, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">St. Germain, Father (Dr. Burnet), S.J., <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a></li> - -<li class="indx">St. James’ Palace, Jesuit meeting at, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">St. Omers, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Salamanca, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Salisbury, Earl of, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sarotti, quoted, <a href="#Page_18">18</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Savile, Henry, quoted, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scott, Colonel John, <a href="#Page_61">61–64</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scroggs, Chief Justice, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317–319</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352–359</a> <i>passim</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Sergeant, Dr. John, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Seymour, Edward, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shadwell, poet laureate, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shaftesbury, Earl of, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223–260</a> <i>passim</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Sheldon, Father, S.J., <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ship-money, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sidney, Algernon, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sidney, Henry, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sitwell, Sir George, <a href="#Page_13">13</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Aaron, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, John, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, William, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Somerset House, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Southwell, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_124">124</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Southwell, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Speke, George, <a href="#Page_336">336</a> and <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Speke, Hugh, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stafford, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his trial, <a href="#Page_153">153</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298–300</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360–371</a> <i>passim</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Staley, William, his trial, <a href="#Page_323">323–326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stapleton, Sir Miles, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a> <i>note</i>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Strange, Richard, Provincial, S.J., <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stuart, James (De la Cloche), <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Suffolk witches, trial of, <a href="#Page_293">293–294</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sunderland, Earl of, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Tasborough, John, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339–340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tempest, Lady, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Temple, Sir William, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Test Act, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thomas, Grace, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, Pain, and Farwell, trial of, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Throckmorton, Sir Nicolas, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Throckmorton, Sir William, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thwing, Father, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thynne, Mr., <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tichbourne, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tilden, Mary, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Titus, Colonel, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tonge, Dr. Ezrael, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70–80</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_89">89–90</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tonge, Simpson, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Tory, origin of name, <a href="#Page_244">244</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Townley, Christopher, <a href="#Page_344">344</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade riot, <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trelawny, Sir Jonathan, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trenchard, Sir John, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tuke, Colonel, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tunstall, William, S.J., <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Turbervile, John, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Turner, Anthony, S.J., <a href="#Page_341">341</a> and <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Turner, Colonel, <a href="#Page_269">269–270</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Twyn, printer, sentence on, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Valladolid, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vane, Sir Harry, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Verdier, Francois, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vernatt, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vittells, Captain, <a href="#Page_114">114–115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Wakeman, Sir George, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his trial, <a href="#Page_347">347–352</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Waller, Sir William, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Walsh, Charles, S.J., <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Walters, Lucy, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_419">[419]</span>Warcup, Justice, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Warner, John, S.J., <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Warrier, James, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watchmen, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Welden, George, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wemyss, Countess of, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wharton, Lord, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">White, Mrs., <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Whitebread (White or Harcourt), Thomas, Provincial, S.J., <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his trial, <a href="#Page_326">326–330</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340–345</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Williamson, Sir Joseph, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">York Castle, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">York, Duchess of, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - -<li class="indx">York, James, Duke of, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213–221</a> <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a> <i>note</i></li> -</ul> - - -<p class="noindent center small p4">THE END</p> - -<p class="noindent center small p4"><i>Printed by</i> <span class="smcap">R. & R. Clark, Limited</span>, <i>Edinburgh</i>.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="footnotes"> - - <div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</h2> - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">1</a> 7 State Trials 128. Evidence of Sir Denny Ashburnham, <i>ibid.</i> - 1097.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">2</a> Anthony à Wood, <i>Life and Times</i> ii. 417. 7 State Trials 1094.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">3</a> Burnet ii. 157.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">4</a> Smith, <i>Intrigues of the Popish Plot</i> 4. Oates, <i>Narrative</i> 35, 36. - It was at this house that Baxter was insulted in 1677 by a Catholic - gentleman, who accused him of having been tried at Worcester for the - murder of a tinker. Baxter’s <i>Relation</i> iii. 179.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">5</a> Burnet ii. 157. 7 State Trials 1320.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">6</a> 7 State Trials 1320.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">7</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1096, 1320, 1321. Burnet ii. 157. Foley, <i>Records</i> v. 12.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">8</a> <i>Absalom and Achitophel</i> 646–649. Father John Warner describes - Oates in similar terms: “Mentis in eo summa stupiditas, lingua balbutiens, - sermo e trivio, vox stridula et cautillans, plorantis quam - loquentis similior. Memoria fallax, prius dicta nunquam fideliter - reddens, frons contracta, oculi parvi et in occiput retracti, facies plana, - in medio, lancis sive disci instar, compressa, prominentibus hic inde - genis rubicundis nasus, os in ipso vultus centro, mentum reliquam - faciem prope totam aequans, caput vix corporis trunco extans, in - pectus declive, reliqua corporis hisce respondentia, monstro quam - homini similiora.” MS. history 104.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">9</a> <i>Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami à Paris</i>, 1679. 7 State Trials 1322.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">10</a> <i>Absalom and Achitophel</i> 657–659.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">11</a> Sir William Godolphin to Henry Coventry, on information - obtained in Spain, November 6/16, 1678, Longleat MSS. Coventry - Papers lx. 264.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">12</a> 7 State Trials 358, 1322. Burnet ii. 158. <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> - 93.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">13</a> See below in Trials for Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">14</a> <i>The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy and Religion - enquired into.</i> By John Eachard, D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, - Cambridge, 1670.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">15</a> 7 State Trials 360–375. 10 State Trials 1097–1132.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">16</a> <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 93, 94, 95.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">17</a> 7 State Trials 324, 1325, <i>Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami à - Paris</i>. <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 95.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">18</a> Simpson Tonge’s Journal, S.P. Dom. Charles II 409: 39. - Simpson Tonge to L’Estrange, <i>Brief Hist.</i> i. 38. Simpson Tonge’s - Case, House of Lords MSS. 246–249.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">19</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 185. Sydney Godolphin to Sir - Leoline Jenkins, September 25, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">20</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 409: 36.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">21</a> Evelyn, <i>Diary</i> January 25, 1665.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">22</a> Simpson Tonge’s Journal S.P. Dom. Charles II 409: 39. - Simpson Tonge to the King, <i>ibid.</i> 414: 139. Simpson Tonge to - L’Estrange, <i>Brief Hist.</i> i. 38. Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True Narrative</i> - 1. <i>Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of Danby</i> 14. <i>Brief Hist.</i> - ii. 100–125. Burnet ii. 158. North, <i>Examen</i> 170. Ralph i. 382, - 542. In this account of Oates and the revelation of the Plot I have - made considerable use of Mr. Seccombe’s monograph on Titus Oates - in <i>Twelve Bad Men</i>, and of Sir George Sitwell’s study of <i>The First - Whig</i>. I am unable however to follow these writers, and especially - Sir George Sitwell, to whom I am much indebted for a loan of his - book, in placing much reliance upon witnesses on the Catholic and - Tory side. These labour under as great a bias as their opponents, - and on some points are convicted of falsehood. This applies in - particular to the evidence of L’Estrange and Simpson Tonge, upon - whose authority the story of the deliberate concoction of the Plot by - Oates and Dr. Tonge rests. That Tonge was a fanatic and Oates a - villain is unquestioned; and it is probably as just to call Tonge - villain and Oates fanatic. But that their rascality took this form is - not proved. Simpson Tonge was also a rascal, and his repeated contradictions, - in the hope of gain from both parties, make it impossible - to discover the truth from him. In the winter of 1680 L’Estrange - challenged Oates (<i>Observator</i> i. 138) to prosecute young Tonge for - defamation of character. The challenge passed unnoticed; but the - fact proves nothing, for however many lies Tonge had told, Oates - was not then in a position to risk a rebuff or to court an inquiry into - his own conduct. And L’Estrange’s bare assertion is no proof of the - truth of the fact asserted. The way I have treated this, as all other - doubtful evidence in the course of this inquiry, is always to disbelieve - it, unless it is corroborated from other sources, or unless the facts - alleged are intrinsically probable, and the witness had no motive for - their falsification. When the test is applied to the present case, I - believe that no other result than that stated above can be obtained.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">23</a> See, for instance, <i>La Politique du Clergé de France</i>, by Pierre - Jurieu. Arnauld, <i>Apologie pour les Catholiques, Le Jesuite sécularisé</i>, - and <i>La Critique du Jesuite sécularisé</i>, Cologne, 1683.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">24</a> Barillon, January 16/26, 1680. See below in Trials for Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">25</a> He was wrongly said to be the Duchess’s confessor. Sarotti, - October 26/November 4, 1678. Ven. Arch. Inghil. 65.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">26</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 780, 781, 782. C.J., November 8, 1675.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">27</a> <i>Ibid.</i> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 98, 99. Ralph i. 292. Verney MSS. - 466. Foley i. 276 <i>seq.</i> Lingard xii. 278–282. Antoine Arnauld, - <i>Œuvres</i> xiv. 532, 533. Foley i. 276, 277. Wood, <i>Fasti Oxon.</i> (ed. - Bliss 1815–20) ii. 350.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">28</a> Ralph i. 292. Verney MSS. 466. Burnet ii. 104.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">29</a> Ruvigny, November 7/17, 8/18, 1675.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">30</a> Fitzherbert MSS. 112, 76; St. Germain to Coleman, December - 3/13. 1675; January 5/15, 1676.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">31</a> Sarotti, who might have been expected to have heard of the - case favourably to St. Germain, writes of him simply as “un Padre - Jesuita che fu capellano della medesima Signora Duchessa e già tre - anni in circa fuggì, ritrandosi a Parigi per le differenze ch’ hebbe con - un ministro Calvinista della casa del Signor di Rouvigny,” October - 26/November 4, 1678, as above.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">32</a> See Appendix E.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">33</a> L.J. xi. 276, 286, 299, 310. Kennet, <i>Register and Chronicle</i> 469, - 476, 484, 495. Orleans, <i>History of the Revolutions in England</i> 236. - <i>Letter from a Person of Quality to a Peer of the Realm</i>, 1661. <i>Collection - of Treatises on the Penal Laws</i>, 1675. Continuation of Clarendon’s <i>Life</i>, - by himself, 140, 143.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">34</a> December 6, 1662. Kennet, <i>Register and Chronicle</i> 848–891. - Baxter’s <i>Life</i> ii. 429.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">35</a> February 27, 1663.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">36</a> July 25, 1663. C.J. Feb. 27, 28, April 27, May 30. L.J. - xi. 478, 482, 486, 491, 558, 578. Clarendon 245–249. James i. 428.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">37</a> For a general statement of the Catholic case see <i>The Catholique - Apology</i>, attributed to the Earl of Castlemain, and on the other side - <i>An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in - England</i>, by Andrew Marvell.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">38</a> Ranke iv. 323. W. A. Shaw, “The Beginnings of the - National Debt,” <i>Owens College, Manchester, Historical Essays</i>. Mr. - Shaw’s remarkable essay throws a flood of light on the financial - difficulties of the early part of the reign. He considers the year 1667, - when the Commons attacked the administration and voted a commission - to examine public accounts, to be the point beyond which patriotic - action could be expected on the part neither of the Commons nor of - the king.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">39</a> Ruvigny, January 17/27, 1675: “Que les finances du roi ne - pouvaient pas mieux être employées qu’à la destruction d’un puissant - ennemi, qui soutenait tous les autres.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">40</a> As to the date of Charles’ conversion see Ranke iv. 383, 384.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">41</a> Ranke iv. 384–386. <i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i>, January 1866. Lord - Acton, “Secret History of Charles II,” <i>Home and Foreign Review</i> i. 146. - Hallam ii. 387.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">42</a> Acton, <i>op. cit.</i> <i>Gentleman’s Mag.</i> January 1866. Boero, <i>Istoria - della Conversione alla Chiesa Cattolica de Carlo II</i>. Welwood, <i>Memoirs</i> - 146.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">43</a> Brosch 420, n. Ranke v. 88.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">44</a> <i>Lectures on Modern History.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">45</a> April 1675.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">46</a> Clarke, <i>Life of King James II</i> i. 440, 629. In referring to - this work I adopt Lingard’s plan of mentioning it simply as “James,” - except where the passage referred to is based, as here, upon James’ - original memoirs, when I refer to it as “James (Or. Mem.).” Klopp - i. 235. Foley i. 272 <i>seq.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">47</a> Cardinal Howard to Coleman, April 18, 1676. Treby i. 85. - Courtin, April 2, 1676.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">48</a> Ruvigny, August 19/29, 1675. Courtin, October 9/19, 1676, - January 11/21, 15/25, 1677. Barillon, December 17/27, 1677. - Giacomo Ronchi, October 3/13, 1678, in Campana de Cavelli i. 233. - Longleat MSS. Strange to Warner, December 28, 1676; Bedingfield - to Warner, December 28, 1676; Coleman to Whitehall, January 1, - 1677; Mrs. Coleman to Coleman, January 1, 1677, January 4, 1677; - Coventry Papers xi. 245, 246, 247. MS. diary of Lord Keeper - Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 199, 200. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1035. Hist. MSS. - Com. Rep. i. Ap. 56. <i>Floras Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 136. Forneron, <i>Louise - de Keroualle</i> 136, 161, 179. Ralph i. 272. Burnet ii. 51, 99.</p> - - <p>Coleman is described by Warner, MS. history 41: “Hunc - proxime secutus est Edwardus Colemannus, serenissimae Ducissae - Eboracensi a secretis, in haeresi educatus, quam detectis erroribus - ejuravit, et totus in Catholicorum partes transiit, quas exinde promovit - pro virili, magno zelo sed impari prudentia. Magnum a natura sortitus - est et festivum ingenium, cui dum nimium indulgeret, et liberrimis - censuris quae parum a satyris abessent curules perstringeret, divûm - nulli parcens, multorum, praecipue, Danbaei, offensam incurrit, a - quibus tandem oppressus est.”</p> - - <p>The imputation that he diverted the Frenchmen’s gold to his own - use was put upon Coleman by Whig historians. Of this his character - has been cleared by Sir George Sitwell (<i>First Whig</i> 25, note). The - Whig Committee of the House of Commons appointed to examine - Coleman reported his confession “that he had prepared guineas to - distribute among members of Parliament, but that he gave none and - applied them to his own use” (C.J. November 7, 1678). The committee - was composed of men who themselves received money from the French - ambassador, and therefore had the strongest motive to conceal the facts. - But the truth slipped out two years later in a speech made in the House - by Mr. Harbord (December 14, 1680). Coleman, he said, did confess - “that he had twenty-five hundred pounds from the French ambassador - to distribute amongst members of Parliament, and your committee - prudently did not take any names from him, it being in his power to - asperse whom he pleased, possibly some gentlemen against the French - and Popish interest.” The prudence of the committee in attributing - to Coleman statements which he never made is also indubitable.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">49</a> Coleman to Ferrier, June 29, 1674. Ferrier to Coleman, - September 25, 1674. Coleman to Ferrier in answer to above. - Coleman to La Chaize, September 29, 1675. Treby i. 1, 3, 6, 109. - Chantelauze, <i>Le Père de la Chaize</i> 4.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">50</a> Berkshire to Coleman, March 24, 1675. Treby i. 103.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">51</a> Throckmorton to Coleman, April 27, May 1, 1675. Fitzherbert - MSS. 70. Burnet ii. 103.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">52</a> Chantelauze, <i>Le Père de la Chaize</i> 4. See below in Trials for - Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">53</a> In 1672 Howard was appointed bishop-elect of England with a - see “in partibus” but not consecrated. In 1675 he was created - cardinal by Clement X, and in 1679 nominated by Innocent XI - Cardinal Protector of England and Scotland.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">54</a> Some of the letters could not be deciphered; see for instance - Albani to Coleman, January 12, 1675. Treby i. 121.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">55</a> Treby i. 109–116.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">56</a> Colbert, November 10/20, 1673, on the information of St. - Évremonde. Mignet, <i>Negotiations</i> iv. 236.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">57</a> Treby i. 110. Ferrier to Coleman, September 25, 1674; and - Coleman’s answer to Ferrier, Treby i. 3, 6. The Duke of York to - Ferrier, Treby i. 119. This last letter Coleman declared at his - examination in Newgate to have been written by himself in the duke’s - name and without his knowledge. 7 State Trials 54. There is however - no reason to accept his statement as true. Answering Ferrier’s letter - Coleman writes, “His royal highness has received the letter that you - sent him by Sir William Throckmorton, which he has answered to - you himself.” Treby i. 3. Supposing Coleman to have told the truth - to his examiners, he must have forged the letter, a work of considerable - difficulty, since James’ writing would certainly have been well known - at the French court. Throckmorton and Coleman must also in this - case have conspired to divert Ferrier’s letter to James and never - deliver it; for there could be no reason for the duke to meet with a - marked rebuff a letter so flattering to him and written in his interest, - and unless he refused to send an answer, Coleman would have no - motive to forge one. Nor can it be supposed that Coleman carried on - his correspondence without the duke’s knowledge. Beyond the - certainty that Coleman was in James’ confidence, this is plain from - the fact that on several occasions either Coleman’s correspondent - desires him particularly to show his letter to the duke or he mentions - that he has done so. And Coleman had the strongest motive to shield - his master by taking on himself the authorship of the letter. That he - was believed is probably due to Oates’ careful exoneration of the duke - from concern in the Plot at a time when he was not certain of a - favourable reception for his story. Another misunderstanding would - be welcomed by Coleman. This letter was said at the time to have - been addressed to La Chaize, and the belief would suit Coleman, - since the letter would be less likely to be connected with his own - written to Ferrier at the same time. The confessor to whom it was - sent was certainly Ferrier and not La Chaize, for Throckmorton, who - is mentioned in it, was dead some months before the latter came to - court. The erroneous idea was probably owing to the manner in - which Ferrier is spoken of in the letter in the third person, an use - common with the writers in this correspondence.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">58</a> Treby i. 110, 111, 112.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">59</a> Treby i. 112. Coleman to Throckmorton, February 1, 1675. - Treby ii. 1. Throckmorton to Coleman, November 28, December 1, - 1674. Fitzherbert MSS. 50, 51. Same to same, February 13, 1675. - Treby i. 73.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">60</a> Sheldon to Coleman, July 13, 1675. Treby i. 49.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">61</a> Treby i. 112. Throckmorton to Coleman, December 8, December - 22, 1674, January 19, 1675. Fitzherbert MSS. 51, 62, Treby i. 66. - Coleman to Throckmorton, February 1, 1675. Treby ii. 1. Sheldon - to Coleman, July 13, 1675. Treby i. 45.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">62</a> Albani to Coleman, August 4, 1674. Coleman to Albani, August - 21, 1674. Treby i. 21: 7.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">63</a> Albani to Coleman, October 19, 1674. Treby i. 23.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">64</a> Coleman to Albani, October 23, 1674. Albani to Coleman, - January 12, 1675. Treby i. 12, 25.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">65</a> Fitzherbert MSS. 113. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1024, 1025. Burnet - ii. 104.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">66</a> Coleman to Throckmorton, February 1, 1675.—“The duke having - the king wholly to himself, he would no longer balance between the - different motives of his honour and the weak apprehensions of his - enemies’ power; but then the duke would be able to govern him - without trouble, and mark out to him what he ought to do for the - establishment of his grandeur and repose. For you well know that - when the duke comes to be master of our affairs the King of France - will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire. How - shall we get this parliament dissolved? ... by the King of France - and the help of three hundred thousand pounds. This parliament is - revengeful to the last degree, and no man that offends them must think - to escape. But as for a new parliament that will be better natured - and will doubtless accord to his Majesty all that he shall need for his - occasions. And this for very good reason, since they will more depend - upon his Majesty upon other accounts than his Majesty upon them for - money. And to conclude where we began, the duke by the dissolution - will be all-powerful” (Treby ii. 1, 2, 3).</p> - - <p>Coleman to Albani, August 21, 1674.—“So that if the duke can - happily disengage himself of those difficulties wherewith he is now - encumbered, all the world will esteem him an able man, and all people - will entrust him in their affairs more willingly than they have done - formerly. And the king himself, who hath more influence on the East - India Company (Parliament) than all the rest, will not only re-establish - him in the employment he had before, but will put the management - of all the trade into his hands. We have in agitation great designs, - worthy the consideration of your friends, and to be supported with all - their power, wherein we have no doubt but to succeed, and it may be - to the utter ruin of the Protestant party” (Treby i. 78).</p> - - <p>Coleman to Albani, October 2, 1674.—“If the duke can shew to - the king the true cause of all these misfortunes and persuade him to - change the method of their trade, which he may easily do with the - help of money, he will without difficulty drive away the Parliament - and the Protestants who have ruined all their affairs for so great a - time, and settle in their employments the Catholics, who understand - perfectly well the nature of this sort of trade” (Treby ii. 6).</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">67</a> Treby ii. 21–25.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">68</a> Coleman to Albani, October 2, 1674. Treby ii. 6.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">69</a> Coleman to Albani, February 12, 1675. Treby ii. 8. John - Leybourn, president of the English College at Douay, to Cardinal - Albani, June 17, 1675. Vat. Arch. Misc. 168. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 673, - 674. Brosch 431, 432.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">70</a> Ranke v. 184, 185, 186. Airy, <i>The English Restoration</i> 235, 236, - 237. Brosch 432. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 715 <i>seq.</i> Schwerin, <i>Briefe aus - England</i> 24. Andrew Marvell, <i>Growth of Popery</i>. Treby i. 114.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">71</a> This is awkwardly expressed. What they were about before was - to have the duke put again over the fleet, but not to have this done - at the request of Parliament; for it was then the object to have - Parliament dissolved.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">72</a> Treby i. 116. Sec also Coleman to Albani, February 12, 1675. - Treby ii. 8.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">73</a> Treby i. 117.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">74</a> Treby i. 117, 118.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">75</a> Halifax, <i>Maxims of State</i>:—</p> - - <p><span class="allsmcap">XXIII.</span>—The Dissenters of England plead only for conscience, but - their struggle is for power; yet when they had it, have always denied - to others that liberty of conscience which they now make such a - noise for.</p> - - <p><span class="allsmcap">XXVI.</span>—They that separate themselves from the Religion of the State - and are not contented with a free Toleration, aim at the Subversion of - it. For a conscience that once exceeds its bounds knows no limits, - because it pretends to be above all other Rules.</p> - - <p>The dangerous nature of Coleman’s correspondence was recognised - at the time by sensible people, as well Catholics as Protestants. - Barillon, October 3/13: “On trouve dans les papiers de ceux qui ont - été arrêtés beaucoup de commerces qui paraissent criminels en - Angleterre, parce qu’il s’agit de la religion.” October 10/20, 1678: - “On continue toujours ici la visite des papiers du Sieur Coleman.... - Tous les gens raisonnables croyent que la conjuration contre la - personne du Roi de la Grande Bretagne n’a aucun véritable fondement. - Les commissaires du conseil qui instruisent l’affaire parlent de - la même manière sur cela, mais en même temps ils disent qu’il paraît - un commerce fort dangereux pour l’État avec les étrangers. Qu’il - s’emploie de grandes sommes pour soutenir les cabales et pour - augmenter la religion catholique, et que par les lois d’Angleterre la - plupart de ceux qui sont arrêtés sont criminels. Ils parlent bien plus - affirmativement du Sieur Coleman. On a trouvé dans ses papiers des - minutes de toutes les lettres qu’il écrivait à Rome, en France, et - ailleurs. On prétend qu’il y a quantités de projets qui tendent à la - ruine de la religion protestante en Angleterre et à l’établissement - d’une autorité souveraine en Angleterre et d’un changement de - gouvernement par le papisme.”</p> - - <p>Il Nuntio di Vienna al Nuntio in Francia, Nimega, October - 18/28, 1678: “Al Colman oltre l’ insufficienti imputationi de complicità - s’adossa hoggi corrispondenza per altri capi criminali, che lo - mettono in gran pericolo della vita.” Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia 329.</p> - - <p>J. Brisbane to Henry Coventry, October 14/24, 1678.—M. de - Pomponne and M. Courtin treat the whole matter of the plot <i>en - ridicule</i> and say that “le pauvre Coleman est mort seulement pour - être Catholique.” February 11, 1679.—Finds that those who did not - long ago canonise Mr. Coleman, do now acknowledge his execution - to have been a just punishment. Bath MSS. 242, 243.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">76</a> 25 Edward III St. 5, c. 1.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">77</a> Third Institute 6, 12, 14.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">78</a> Hale, <i>P.C.</i> i. 109, 110.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">79</a> <i>History of the Criminal Law</i> i. 268. See on the whole subject - Stephen i. 241–281 and Hale, <i>P.C.</i> i. 87–170.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">80</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 128.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">81</a> 12 State Trials 646.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">82</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 519.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">83</a> See above.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">84</a> 7 State Trials 60, 67.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">85</a> Hale, <i>P.C.</i> i. 110.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">86</a> Evidence of Jerome Boatman, his secretary, House of Lords - MSS. 8.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">87</a> St. Germain to Coleman, March 28, April 8, April 15, September - 6, 1676. Treby i. 32, 40. Fitzherbert MSS. 81. Treby i. 42, ii. 18. - Courtin, March 23, April 1, July 16, August 11, August 13, 1676. - Pomponne to Ruvigny, April 1, 1676. Both Ruvigny and Courtin - were in London at this time.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">88</a> St. Germain to Coleman, January 15, 29, February 1, 5, 8, - March 18, April 13, November 18, 1676. Fitzherbert MSS. 76, 78, - 79, 96, 107. Treby i. 30, 32, 35.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">89</a> Leybourn, Howard’s secretary, to Coleman, May 16, June 20, - September 5, September 21, 1676, June 25, July 10, July 16, - August 6, 1677, January 1, 1678. Fitzherbert MSS. 102, 103, 104, - 105. Treby i. 94, 95, 96. Howard to Coleman, March 1, April 18, - 1676. Treby i. 81, 85. Courtin, March 13/23, March 22/April 1, - April 3/13, April 10/20, July 6/16, November 9/19, November - 22/December 2, November 30/December 10, 1676. Correspondence - later on the same subject March 29, April 8, 1679; the Duke of - York to the Pope; the Duchess to the Pope. Vat. Arch. Epist. - Princ. 106. The internuncio at Brussels to the Pope. Nunt. di - Fiandra, 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">90</a> See below in Trials for Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">91</a> Above, 43.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">92</a> St. Germain to Coleman, January 29, April 15, July 25, 1676. - Treby i. 30, 43. Fitzherbert MSS. 80.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">93</a> <i>Mémoires du Marquis de Pomponne</i> i. 538.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">94</a> This distinction was widely recognised, see 7 State Trials 475. - Ralph i. 91, note. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 274. It corresponded in the ideas - of the time to the difference between a simple Roman Catholic and - “a Jesuited Papist.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">95</a> Stafford’s statement; House of Lords MSS. 43. Burnet i. 346. - Foley v. 19.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">96</a> Foley v. 80. John Leybourn, April 19/29, 1674; same to Cardinal - Albani, June 7/17, 1675. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Inghilterra and Misc. 168.</p> - - <p>Pietro Talbot (the Jesuit Archbishop of Dublin), Primate de - Irlanda al Nuntio F. Spada, Nuntio in Parigi, April 3/13, 1675. - Nunt. di Francia, 431. “V. S. Ill<sup>ma</sup> si compiaccia de aggiungere - le inchiuse propositioni del Sig<sup>n</sup> Giovanni Sargentio alle altre sue; - tutte (come V. S. Ill<sup>ma</sup> vede) sono heretiche o almeno inferiscono - l’heresia.”</p> - - <p>Continual references to the same subject are found in the Papal - despatches of the time.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">97</a> <i>Maxims of State</i> lxv.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">98</a> See D’Avrigny, <i>Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de l’Europe</i> 47, 48. - Arnauld, <i>Œuvres</i> xiv. 410.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">99</a> Leybourn to Coleman, May 2, 1676. Fitzherbert MSS. 102. - John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, March 30, 1676, “The Duke of - York did declare that he would never more come under the roof of - Whitehall chapel, which makes every one say he is a perfect papist.... - ’Tis said he publicly goes to mass. God bless him and preserve - the King.” Verney MSS. 467. Courtin, March 23, April 2, October - 2/12, 1676. Le ministre des affaires étrangères à Courtin, April 1/11, - 1676. <i>Mémoires du Marquis de Pomponne</i> i. 491. Marchese Cattaneo - al Duca di Modena, April 20/30, 1676: “In alcune parti d’Inghilterra - si e cominciata l’esecuzione delle legge contro i Cattolici, imprigionandoli - e confiscandogli i beni.... Delle rincrudite persecuzioni verso - i Cattolici e accagionato il Duca d’York perche non ha voluto nella - Pasqua recarsi alla capella Regia (Protestante),” in Campana de Cavelli - i. 171. Longleat MSS. Proclamation of October 3, 1676. Coventry - Papers xi. 154.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">100</a> The interpretation of the following letter seems doubtful, but it - is worth quoting. It is a curious fact that Lord Castlemaine should - have either taken, or intended to take, orders in the Church of Rome.</p> - - <p>January 1, 1677. To the Lord Castlemaine at Liège: “118 and - 109, as I am privately told, are now perfectly reconciled to the Duke - of York, and fully resolved to serve him and his interest, so that if the - Lords and Commons when they meet do nothing, the King will dissolve - them and once more publish a toleration. Consider if Mr. Skinner - can make a seasonable check of mettlesome stuff for the conjuncture. - By a letter from Mr. Warner at Paris I find D. of Cleveland persuaded - that Ld. Castlemain is already made a priest by the Jesuits’ underhand - contrivances, and that she obstructed it what she could at Rome. I - should think it expedient that she should continue in that belief, that - she may think it now too late to go about to hinder it.” Unsigned - Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 347.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">101</a> Throckmorton to Coleman, January 9, February 20, 1675. Fitzherbert - MSS. 60, 66. Berkshire to Coleman, n.d. Treby i. 102.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">102</a> Journal of Sir Joseph Williamson, March 12, 30, 1672, in Cal. - S.P. Dom. 1671–1672, 608. Longleat MSS. Francis Bastwick to - Henry Coventry, April 29, 1679. Examination of Col. Scott at Dover - of same date. Coventry Papers xi. 393, 396. Two letters in the - same collection seem to show that Scott was a regular spy of the - English Government, but they are so vague that much reliance - cannot be placed on them. Coventry Papers xi. 171, 506. See - Appendix A.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">103</a> Longleat MSS. “An account of what the Earl of Berkshire - desired Colonel John Scott to communicate to his Majesty.” Coventry - Papers xi. 397. See Appendix A. See too Collins’ <i>Peerage</i>, 1812, - iii. 163.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">104</a> Scott afterward gave evidence before the House of Commons - against Pepys, whom he charged on report with having given information - of the state of the navy to the French court; but the affair was never - thoroughly investigated. Grey, <i>Debates in Parliament</i> vii. 303–309.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">105</a> House of Lords MSS. 43, 44. Burnet i. 345, 346; ii. 276, - 277. Airy, <i>The English Restoration</i> 240.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">106</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 310, 313, 317. See - Appendix A.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">107</a> J. P. Oliva Generale dei Gesuiti al Cardinale Altieri, September - 23/October 3, 1674. Vat. Arch. Archivio di Propaganda Fide. - Ranke v. 91.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">108</a> Dal Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, May 24/June 3, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. - di Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. 32095: 196. See below in Politics - of the Plot.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">109</a> L.J. November 21, 1678. Foley v. 221, 222. Longleat - MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 483, a version of Du Fiquet’s information - in French.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">110</a> 7 State Trials 1007.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">111</a> Brusselles Dal. Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, April 19/29, 1679. Vat. - Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">112</a> Longleat MSS. St. Omers, August 14, 1678. Sam Morgan to - his father, Coventry Papers xi. 204. See Appendix A.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">113</a> Pepys, <i>Memoires relating to the State of the Royal Navy in - England</i> 4, 5, 8.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">114</a> Longleat MSS. Letter of December 23, 1676. Coventry - Papers xi. 171. See Appendix A.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">115</a> Treby i. 19. September 18/28, 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">116</a> L’Abbate G. B. Lauri a S. Em<sup>za</sup>, November 22/December 2, - 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia 332. See Appendix A.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">117</a> Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. “Il (le Duc d’York) me fit - entendre. ...qu’il ne comprenait pas que le Roi son frère voulût - mettre tous les Catholiques en désespoir et les persécuter sans aucunes - mesures. Il ajouta à cela en termes pleines de colère et ressentiment - que si on le poursuit à bout et qu’il se voit en état d’être entièrement - ruiné par ses ennemis, il trouvera le moyen de les en faire repentir et - se vangera d’eux.... M. le Duc de Bouquinham m’a dit plusieurs - fois qu’il avait bu fort souvent avec le Roi de la Grande Bretagne, - mais qu’il n’avait jamais vu ce Prince dans une débauche un peu - libre qu’il ne temoignât beaucoup d’aigreur et de la haine même - contre son frère.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">118</a> Examinations of Saunders, Coulster, and Towneley, April 28, - 1679. House of Lord MSS. 149–152.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">119</a> Macaulay iv. 649–652. Lord Acton, <i>Lectures on Modern - History</i>. If Charles’ word when he was sober can be trusted, he - believed there was no ground to suspect the duke of any intention - against his life. Barillon, November 22/December 2, 1680. “Le Roi - de la Grande Bretagne dit encore en jurant avant hier au conseil: - Mon frère ne m’a point voulu faire tuer, ny pas un de vous ne le croît.” - It was however Charles’ constant policy to uphold the Duke of York. - See too Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 146.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">120</a> Ralph i. 382.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">121</a> It is a tribute to the liveliness of Oates’ imagination that Pickering, - said to be an agent in the Jesuit plot, was a Benedictine lay-brother.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">122</a> Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True Narrative</i> i. Simpson Tonge’s - Journal 38; S.P. Dom. Charles II 409.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">123</a> Simpson Tonge’s Journal 39.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">124</a> Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True Narrative</i> 2. Simpson Tonge’s - Journal 40, 41. <i>Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of Danby</i> 13, 14.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">125</a> <i>Impartial State of the Case</i> 14, 15.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">126</a> <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 95.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">127</a> <i>Impartial State of the Case</i> 15. Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True Narrative</i> - 2. 7 State Trials 96, 328, 345. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 39, 59.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">128</a> <i>Impartial State of the Case</i> 15.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">129</a> <i>Impartial State of the Case</i> 15, 16. Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True - Narrative</i> 2, 3. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 64, 65, 124. L’Estrange, - <i>Brief Hist.</i> ii. 4–15. <i>Observator</i> ii. 150–153, October 1684. James - (Or. Mem.) i. 518, 519. Ralph i. 383, 384. Burnet ii. 158.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">130</a> Simpson Tonge’s Journal 135. Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True - Narrative</i> 3. <i>Impartial State of the Case</i> 16. James (Or. Mem.) i. 518. - Temple, <i>Works</i> i. 398. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 147. Burnet ii. 158.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">131</a> Simpson Tonge’s Journal 152. 7 State Trials 29, James (Or. - Mem.) i. 518–521. Warner MS. history 26. <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> - 98. Foley v. 16. Burnet ii. 160. North, <i>Examen</i> 58.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">132</a> Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678. 7 State Trials 656. - Foley v. 17, 18, 20, 21. Schwerin, <i>Briefe aus England</i> 330, 334, - 342.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">133</a> Barillon, October 3/13, 10/20, 1678. 7 State Trials 29, 30, 33. - <i>Impartial State of the Case</i> 17. Add. MSS. 28,042: 32. Notes by Danby - for a letter to be sent to a member of the House of Commons. Danby - to Lord Hatton, March 29, 1678. <i>Hatton Correspondence</i> i. 184.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">134</a> Il Nuntio di Vienna al Nuntio in Francia. Nimega, October - 18/28, 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia, 329.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">135</a> Barillon, October 3/13, 7/17, 10/20, 17/27, 1678. Paolo Sarotti, - Ven. arch. October 11/21, 1678. Schwerin, <i>Briefe aus England</i> - October 4/14, 1678. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 1. Halstead, <i>Succinct - Genealogies</i> 433. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 145. North, <i>Examen</i> 177. - Evelyn, <i>Diary</i> October 1, 1678. <i>Caveat against the Whigs</i> ii. 42. - Foley v. 18. Burnet ii. 161, 162.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">136</a> Calamy, <i>Own Life</i> i. 83, 84. Christie, <i>Life of Shaftesbury</i> ii. - 309. Burnet ii. 165. North, <i>Examen</i> 206. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> - i. 12, 21. Schwerin, <i>Briefe aus England</i> 336, 351, November 18, - 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">137</a> See the prologue to Dryden’s tragi-comedy, <i>The Spanish Friar</i>, - produced early in 1681:—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">A fair attempt has twice or thrice been made</div> - <div class="verse indent0">To hire night murderers and make death a trade.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">When murder’s out, what vice can we advance,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Unless the new-found poisoning trick of France?</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And when their art of rats-bane we have got,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">By way of thanks, we’ll send them o’er our Plot.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - - <p class="noindent">Scott suggests that the allusion is to the murder of Mr. Thynne, but - this did not occur till some months after the production of the play. - Christie refers it to the assault made upon Dryden himself in Rose - Alley in December 1679; but the reference to the plot makes it far - more probable that Dryden had in his mind the murder of Godfrey - and the sham attempt on Arnold eighteen months later. He would - certainly class the two together, for he attributed Godfrey’s death to - Oates:—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">And Corah might for Agag’s murder call</div> - <div class="verse indent0">In terms as coarse as Samuel used to Saul.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - - <p class="noindent"><i>Absalom and Achitophel</i>, 676, 677.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">138</a> Sir George Sitwell gives a most instructive and entertaining - description of these, <i>The First Whig</i>, chap. vi.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">139</a> <i>What Gunpowder Plot was</i> 13.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">140</a> Tuke, <i>Memoirs of Godfrey</i> 1–15. Sidney Lee, Article on Godfrey - in <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i> <i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i>, January 1848. - Godfrey’s Christian names are variously spelt. I give the most correct - form in writing, but in quoting retain that used by the writer or - reporter.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">141</a> Tuke, <i>Memoirs</i> 39–51.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">142</a> Sidney Lee, <i>op. cit.</i> <i>Gazette</i> No. 88. Ralph i. 139.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">143</a> Pepys, <i>Diary</i> May 26, 1699. Tuke, <i>Memoirs</i> 36–39. Tuke - is mistaken in saying that Godfrey was knighted on this occasion, in - recompense for the injury done him. The knighthood was conferred - in September 1666.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">144</a> An engraving by F. H. van Hove is inserted in Tuke’s <i>Memoirs</i>.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">145</a> Tuke, <i>Memoirs</i> 19, 20. North, <i>Examen</i> 199.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">146</a> Tuke, <i>Memoirs</i> 52, 53.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">147</a> Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True Narrative</i> 2, 3.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">148</a> Kirkby, <i>Compleat and True Narrative</i> 3. Simpson Tonge’s - Journal 126, 135.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">149</a> Tuke, <i>Memoirs</i> 22, 23, 29, Burnet ii. 163. North, <i>Examen</i> 199, 200.</p> - - <p>The author of the Annual Letters of the English Province S.J. is - probably inaccurate in stating, “He was especially kind to the Roman - Catholics, and was moreover a great confidant of the Duke of York” - (quoted Foley Records v. 15); but the statement is only an exaggeration - of the truth. Warner MS. history 26, “Nec alius in eo magistratu - aut Carolo fidelior aut Catholicis, etiam Jesuitis, quorum multos - familiarissime noverat, amicior.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">150</a> Burnet ii. 164. Depositions of Henry Moor, Godfrey’s clerk. - L’Estrange, <i>Brief History</i> iii. 203, 204, 208. The depositions collected - by L’Estrange in this work must be regarded with suspicion. The - statements in many are obviously untrue, and L’Estrange was not - above falsifying evidence to suit his purpose. Among other reasons - for the use of great caution is the fact that most of the depositions - were not taken until eight or nine years after the event. Their - exact dates cannot be ascertained, as they are seldom quoted by - L’Estrange, and the original documents are missing. They are supposed - to have been stolen from the State Paper Office immediately - after the Revolution (Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> ix.). Only after careful - scrutiny can these papers be used as evidence. Moor’s evidence was - taken for the coroner. He afterwards went to live at Littleport, in - Cambridgeshire, and died apparently in 1685 or 1686. <i>Brief Hist.</i> - iii., Preface vii. 171.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">151</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 204, 205.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">152</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 205, 206. Depositions of Pengry and Fall.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">153</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> ii. chap. vi, 199, iii. 195–201. The evidence that the - news of Godfrey’s absence was known before Tuesday, October 15, is - not to be relied on. It consists wholly of depositions taken by - L’Estrange several years after. Some contain such ridiculous statements - as that before 3 <span class="allsmcap">P.M.</span> on Saturday, October 12, it was a common - report that Godfrey was murdered by the Papists. (Dep. of Wynell, - Burdet, Paulden, 195, 196, 200.) At this time even his household - could not possibly have known that he would not return. Another - declares that on the morning of Sunday “it was in all the people’s - mouths in that quarter that he was murdered by the Papists at - Somerset House.” (Dep. of Collinson, 200.) At this time it was - not known in Hartshorn Lane that Godfrey had not spent the night - at his mother’s. In another a false statement can fortunately be detected. - Thomas Burdet deposed (196, 197) that Godfrey and Mr. - Wynell had an appointment to dine on the Saturday with Colonel - Welden, that Godfrey did not keep his appointment, and that the - surprise which was caused by this was increased by the immediate - report of his murder. As a matter of fact Godfrey had no appointment - to dine with Welden, and so could not have caused surprise by - not appearing. He had been invited, but could not promise to come. - Welden gave evidence before the Lords’ Committee: “He came on - Friday night with officers of St. Martin’s, and at going away I asked - him to dine with me on Saturday. He said he could not tell whether - he should.” (House of Lords MSS. 48.) North’s assertions to the - same effect (<i>Examen</i> 201) are equally worthless. Burnet is positive - that the news of Godfrey’s absence was not published before Tuesday, - October 15. Burnet’s character has been sufficiently rehabilitated by - Ranke and Mr. Airy; but I may remark that, as he was opposed to - the court, did not believe in Oates’ revelations, and had access to - excellent sources of information, his evidence upon the Popish Plot is - of remarkable value.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">154</a> Burnet places this tale at a time before the news was public, - and says that the suggestion was credited by Godfrey’s brothers. Very - likely they may have believed it, but a comparison with Moor’s - evidence (see above) makes it probable that this explanation was the - first given after his absence was known.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">155</a> Burnet ii. 164. North, <i>Examen</i> 202. <i>Diary of Lord Keeper - Guildford</i>, Dalrymple ii. 321.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">156</a> John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">157</a> Lloyd to L’Estrange, <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 87. Burnet ii. 164. - North says the body was found upon Wednesday, October 16 (<i>Examen</i> - 202), but this is a mistake.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">158</a> “7 guineas, 4 broad pieces, £4 in silver.” The coroner’s - evidence.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">159</a> Evidence of the coroner and Rawson before the Lords’ Committee. - House of Lords’ MSS. 46, 47. Evidence of Brown, the - constable, at the inquest. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 212–215, 222.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">160</a> Deposition of White, coroner of Westminster. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 224.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">161</a> Quoted from the printed copy published by Janeway in 1682. - <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 232.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">162</a> “The jury’s reasons for the verdict they gave.” <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. - chap. xii.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">163</a> Evidence of Collins, Mason, and Radcliffe. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 252, - 300. Some not very good evidence was collected several years afterwards - as to Godfrey’s movements later in the day. It cannot be considered - trustworthy. 8 State Trials 1387, 1392, 1393. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. - 174, 175.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">164</a> The coroner’s evidence before the Lords’ committee; “There - was nothing in the field on Tuesday.” House of Lords MSS. 47. - Evidence of Mrs. Blith and her man at the inquest. <i>Brief Hist.</i> - iii. 244.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">165</a> Deposition of Robert Forset. 8 State Trials 1394, 1395.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">166</a> Sir George Sitwell says: “The bruises or discolourations upon - his chest might well have been produced by those who knelt upon it - in stripping off the clothes” (<i>First Whig</i> 41). Bruises however - cannot be made to appear upon a corpse beyond the time of three and - a half hours after death (Professor H. A. Husband in the <i>Student’s Handbook - of Forensic Medicine</i>), nor is there any evidence that the body was - so treated. Marks which look like bruises may be caused after death - by the process of hypostasis or suggillation, the gravitation of the blood - to the lowest point in the dead body. But if the marks on Godfrey’s - body had been thus caused, the face and neck would have shown - pronounced signs of discolouration, since the head was lower than any - other point in the body. It had moreover been in that position - for at most only twenty-four hours, so that the blood would not have - gravitated to the chest immediately after death at all.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">167</a> L’Estrange afterwards persuaded the surgeon Lazinby to say - that the mark was caused by the pressure of the collar. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. - 259. But his evidence in court was, on the contrary, that it was caused - “by the strangling with a cord or cloth.” 8 State Trials 1384.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">168</a> The evidence as to the exact condition of the neck, varies slightly, - but the doctors, and indeed all who saw the body, were agreed that it - was broken.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">169</a> Evidence of the surgeons Cambridge and Skillard at the trial of - Green, Berry, and Hill. 7 State Trials 185, 186. Evidence of the - coroner before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. - Evidence of Hobbs and Lazinby, surgeons, and the two Chaces, - apothecaries, at the trial of Thompson, Pain, and Farwell. 8 State - Trials 1381–1384.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">170</a> Evidence of Brown, Skillard, and Cambridge at the trial of Green - and others. 7 State Trials 184, 185, 186. Evidence of Hazard, Batson, - Fisher, Rawson, Mrs. Rawson, Hobbs, Lazinby, the Chaces, at the - trial of Thompson and others. 8 State Trials 1379–1384. Depositions - of Skillard, Rawson, and others. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 265–271. Some of - the witnesses in their depositions before L’Estrange spoke of the - presence of a greater quantity of blood than they had previously - remembered. Obviously their earlier impressions are the more trustworthy. - Even at the later date the quantity to which they swore was - not considerable.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">171</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 271. He does not attempt however to give any - evidence for his statement.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">172</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 230.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">173</a> Mr. W. M. Fletcher, M.B., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, - has kindly furnished me with his opinion on this point. He says: “A - sword transfixing the living body and at the same time driven through - the cavity of the heart would cause violent hæmorrhage from one or - other of the external wounds, except only under a set of circumstances - which could be present only by the rarest chance; the hæmorrhage, - that is to say, could be restrained only by an accidental block produced - not only at one but at two points on either side of the heart cavity, - where the torn tissues might happen so to fit outwards upon and - closely against the undisturbed sword as to form a kind of valve. Such - an accidental valve formation, occurring at two separate points on each - side of the pent-up blood, is improbable enough, but could not be - imagined as a prevention of hæmorrhage if the sword were bent, - twisted, or withdrawn after the infliction of the wound.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">174</a> 7 State Trials 295. Information of Mrs. Warrier. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. - 142. Burnet ii. 164. Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ - committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. L’Estrange produces two - depositions to the effect that the ground was quite dry and not muddy, - and in doing so contradicts the argument upon which he lays stress in - arguing against Prance’s story (see below) that if the body had been - brought to Primrose Hill upon a horse, the feet and legs must have - been covered with mud. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 261, and see 8 State Trials - 1370 for the same point in Thompson’s libel.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">175</a> 8 State Trials 1359–1389.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">176</a> Barillon, October 21/31, 1678. “Ce Godefroy s’est trouvé mort - à trois milles d’ici sans qu’on sache qui l’a tué. Le Roi d’Angleterre - et M. le Duc d’York m’ont dit que c’était une espèce de fanatique et - qu’ils croyent qu’il s’était tué lui-même.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">177</a> Burnet ii. 165. Blencowe’s <i>Sidney</i> lxii. Lady Sunderland - to John Evelyn, December 25, 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">178</a> See the letter subscribed T. G. to Secretary Coventry and - Coventry’s reply. Longleat MSS. See Appendix B.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">179</a> John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471. This - did not take place till November, but it may be noted at this point.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">180</a> Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. Despatches of Giacomo Ronchi, - secret agent of the Duke of Modena in London, January 20, 1679. - Campana de Cavelli i. 239. <i>Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury</i> i. 29.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">181</a> Lansd. MSS. 1235: 76. North, <i>Examen</i> 202, 204, 205. North - alone relates the incident of the pulpit. As Ranke observes, he has - never been contradicted, so that the story may be accepted. Burnet - ii. 165. Ralph i. 392. Echard 950. Oldmixon 620.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">182</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1022. L.J. xiii. 299. House of Lords MSS. i.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">183</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 232. The information of - October 27 is practically the same as that given below from the Lords’ - Journals.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">184</a> Examination of Charles Atkins, Esq. 6 State Trials 1479. L.J. - November 12, 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">185</a> Evidence of C. Atkins before the Lords’ Committee. 6 State - Trials 1474.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">186</a> 6 State Trials 1473–1492.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">187</a> 6 State Trials 1484, 1491.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">188</a> There is unfortunately a gap from October 28 to December 11 - in the minutes of the committee of inquiry of the House of Lords, so - that it is impossible to check Atkins’ statements exactly.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">189</a> See 6 State Trials 1476, 1481.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">190</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1474.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">191</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1481.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">192</a> See the conversations between Charles and Samuel Atkins on the - stairs of the committee room, November 6, and in Newgate, November - 8. <i>Ibid.</i> 1480, 1484. North, <i>Examen</i> 243–247.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_193" href="#FNanchor_193" class="label">193</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 285. Bedloe to Williamson, - October 31, 1678; ii. 23. Williamson to Bedloe, November 5. - <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 7. Coventry to Bedloe, November 2.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_194" href="#FNanchor_194" class="label">194</a> See Appendix B.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_195" href="#FNanchor_195" class="label">195</a> Whence Lingard derives the words I cannot discover, xiii. 98. - <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 16. Ralph i. 393. Burnet ii. 168. Burnet, who relates - that Charles told him the same thing of Bedloe, must have misunderstood - the king’s words, unless, which is quite possible, Charles deceived - him intentionally.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_196" href="#FNanchor_196" class="label">196</a> Add. MSS. 11,058: 244. See Appendix B.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_197" href="#FNanchor_197" class="label">197</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. See Appendix B.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_198" href="#FNanchor_198" class="label">198</a> Deposition of November 8 before the Lords’ committee. 6 State - Trials 1487.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_199" href="#FNanchor_199" class="label">199</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1489.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_200" href="#FNanchor_200" class="label">200</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1484.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_201" href="#FNanchor_201" class="label">201</a> 7 State Trials 347, 349. Exam. of November 7. S.P. Dom. - Charles II 407. See Appendix B. Care, <i>History of the Plot</i> 127.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_202" href="#FNanchor_202" class="label">202</a> Warner MS. history 36. Exam, of Mary Bedloe (see below). - Burnet ii. 168. <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 127, <i>Lettre écrite de Mons à - un ami à Paris</i>, 1679. L.J. xiii. 392. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 149.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_203" href="#FNanchor_203" class="label">203</a> L.J. xiii. 343, November 12.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_204" href="#FNanchor_204" class="label">204</a> Deposition of Alice Tainton, alias Bedloe, taken this 14th day of - November 1678, before the Rt. Rev. father in God William Lord - Bishop of Landaffe, one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace in the - county of Monmouth. Deposition of Mary Bedloe of Chepstow of - same date before the Bishop of Landaffe. Deposition of Gregory - Appleby, December 2, 1678 before the Bishop of Landaffe. Longleat - MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 287, 307.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_205" href="#FNanchor_205" class="label">205</a> L.J. November 24, 28; xiii. 389, 391.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_206" href="#FNanchor_206" class="label">206</a> 6 State Trials 1489, 1490. Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 51. North, - <i>Examen</i> 248.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_207" href="#FNanchor_207" class="label">207</a> 6 State Trials 1490, 1491. For Staley’s case see below in Trials - for Treason. North, <i>Examen</i> 249.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_208" href="#FNanchor_208" class="label">208</a> Evidence of Captain Vittells and his men before the Lords’ committee. - House of Lords MSS. 49, 50, 51. Evidence of Vittells and - Tribbett at Atkins’ trial. 7 State Trials 248.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_209" href="#FNanchor_209" class="label">209</a> 6 State Trials 1491, 1492.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_210" href="#FNanchor_210" class="label">210</a> 7 State Trials 238–240.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_211" href="#FNanchor_211" class="label">211</a> Bedloe’s evidence. <i>Ibid.</i> 242, 243.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_212" href="#FNanchor_212" class="label">212</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 241, 245.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_213" href="#FNanchor_213" class="label">213</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 246–249.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_214" href="#FNanchor_214" class="label">214</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 249. North, <i>Examen</i> 250, 251. North’s account is as - usual highly coloured, and contains at least one untrue statement.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_215" href="#FNanchor_215" class="label">215</a> Bedloe’s deposition before the Lords’ committee. L.J. November - 12, xiii. 350, 351.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_216" href="#FNanchor_216" class="label">216</a> 7 State Trials 237.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_217" href="#FNanchor_217" class="label">217</a> See below in <i>Trials for Treason</i>.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_218" href="#FNanchor_218" class="label">218</a> Burnet ii. 191. 7 State Trials 183. <i>True Narrative and Discovery</i> - 20. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 52, 53, 65. L’Estrange alone gives the - words. The fact that Prance was questioned about the periwig makes - it probable that they are more or less correct. L’Estrange also says - that the meeting was prearranged by Bedloe and Sir William Waller. - Reasons for disbelieving this will appear later.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_219" href="#FNanchor_219" class="label">219</a> House of Lords MSS. 51.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_220" href="#FNanchor_220" class="label">220</a> L.J. xiii. 431. Blencowe’s <i>Sidney</i> lxii. Lady Sunderland to - John Evelyn, December 25, 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_221" href="#FNanchor_221" class="label">221</a> C.J. ix. 563. L’Estrange comments on this: “It makes a man - tremble to think what a jail delivery of discoverers this temptation - might have produced” (<i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 55). Surely it is more natural - to suppose that the information was directed not to the common malefactors, - but to those already imprisoned in Newgate on account of the - plot. If an examination of Prance was taken by the Commons’ committee, - it was never reported to the House. On December 30, 1678 - Parliament was prorogued, and on January 24, 1679 dissolved. The - new parliament did not meet till March 6, when the trial for Godfrey’s - murder had already taken place, and Green, Berry, and Hill had - been hanged.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_222" href="#FNanchor_222" class="label">222</a> L.J. xiii. 436.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_223" href="#FNanchor_223" class="label">223</a> The deposition begins, “That it was either at the latter end - or the beginning of the week that Sir E. Godfrey,” and so on. The - rest of the examination is only intelligible on the ground that Saturday - was the day of the murder. Prance’s reasons for prevaricating in this - statement will be the subject of discussion below.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_224" href="#FNanchor_224" class="label">224</a> L.J. xiii. 437, 438. 7 State Trials 191, 192. Evidence of Sir - Robert Southwell, clerk to the privy council. There exists among - the state papers the notes taken by Sir Joseph Williamson, secretary - of state, of Prance’s first examination before the council. They only - differ from the account in the Lords’ Journals in that they begin - “On a certain Monday.” The paper is worth studying for the - wonderful vividness in which Williamson’s disjointed sentences bring - the scene to the mind. See Appendix B.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_225" href="#FNanchor_225" class="label">225</a> L.J. xiii. 439.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_226" href="#FNanchor_226" class="label">226</a> House of Lords MSS. 52.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_227" href="#FNanchor_227" class="label">227</a> Warner MS. history 37. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 17. - Note of the proceedings at the council on December 30. 7 State Trials - 177, 210. Evidence of Richardson and Chiffinch. James (Or. Mem.) - i. 535. Burnet ii. 193. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 61, 62, 65. L’Estrange says - that the king saw Prance alone on the evening of December 29, - and called in Richardson and Chiffinch afterwards. This is contradicted - by Richardson and Burnet. It would moreover have been a piece of - imprudence unlike Charles’ caution; and as none of the Whig writers, - who would have given much to obtain such a handle against the king, - mention a private interview, the story is probably without truth. The - events which passed between Prance’s first confession and his final adherence - to it will be discussed below.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_228" href="#FNanchor_228" class="label">228</a> 7 State Trials 167, 168, 169.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_229" href="#FNanchor_229" class="label">229</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 179–183.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_230" href="#FNanchor_230" class="label">230</a> L.J. xiii. 437.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_231" href="#FNanchor_231" class="label">231</a> 7 State Trials 169–173.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_232" href="#FNanchor_232" class="label">232</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 186, 187.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_233" href="#FNanchor_233" class="label">233</a> <i>True Narrative and Discovery</i> 12.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_234" href="#FNanchor_234" class="label">234</a> 7 State Trials 169, 188, 189.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_235" href="#FNanchor_235" class="label">235</a> 7 State Trials 174. <i>True Narrative</i> 18.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_236" href="#FNanchor_236" class="label">236</a> 7 State Trials 190.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_237" href="#FNanchor_237" class="label">237</a> 7 State Trials 195–200.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_238" href="#FNanchor_238" class="label">238</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 201, 202.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_239" href="#FNanchor_239" class="label">239</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 204, 205, 206.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_240" href="#FNanchor_240" class="label">240</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 207, 208, 209.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_241" href="#FNanchor_241" class="label">241</a> 7 State Trials 213–221.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_242" href="#FNanchor_242" class="label">242</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 223–230. Burnet ii. 194, 195.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_243" href="#FNanchor_243" class="label">243</a> Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 9.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_244" href="#FNanchor_244" class="label">244</a> 7 State Trials 228.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_245" href="#FNanchor_245" class="label">245</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 26, 27.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_246" href="#FNanchor_246" class="label">246</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 66, 67.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_247" href="#FNanchor_247" class="label">247</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 67, 68. Cooper’s information of January 9 and January 11.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_248" href="#FNanchor_248" class="label">248</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 69, 75. Informations of Boyce.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_249" href="#FNanchor_249" class="label">249</a> Lloyd’s report to the Council. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 69. Lloyd to - L’Estrange. <i>Ibid.</i> 82.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_250" href="#FNanchor_250" class="label">250</a> Lloyd’s report to the Council. Fitzherbert MSS. 154. <i>Brief - Hist.</i> iii. 69, 71. Lloyd to L’Estrange. <i>Ibid.</i> 85.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_251" href="#FNanchor_251" class="label">251</a> Burnet ii. 193, 194.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_252" href="#FNanchor_252" class="label">252</a> Burnet ii. 194. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 85, 86.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_253" href="#FNanchor_253" class="label">253</a> State Trials 1183–1188. This was also a Jesuit story. Warner - MS. history 37, “fidiculis tortus et se reum asseruit, et complius - [sic. qu. complures] se accusaturum.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_254" href="#FNanchor_254" class="label">254</a> 7 State Trials 1199, 1200, 1210–1212.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_255" href="#FNanchor_255" class="label">255</a> Evidence of Fowler. <i>Ibid.</i> 1194–1197, 1204–1209.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_256" href="#FNanchor_256" class="label">256</a> The improbability does not lie in the unlikelihood of the application - of torture to witnesses at this date so much as in the nature of - the particular facts alleged, which cannot be believed. <i>Brief Hist.</i> - iii. 76, 77, 78, 80. L’Estrange procured Corral to contradict his - evidence at the trial. <i>Ibid.</i> 102, 106. It is important to insist upon - the falsehood of the charge in this case, because it has been adopted - without question by Foley v. 29, n., and see Echard, 503 <i>seq.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_257" href="#FNanchor_257" class="label">257</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 84.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_258" href="#FNanchor_258" class="label">258</a> <i>True Narrative</i> 11.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_259" href="#FNanchor_259" class="label">259</a> 7 State Trials 180.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_260" href="#FNanchor_260" class="label">260</a> <i>True Narrative</i> 13, 14.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_261" href="#FNanchor_261" class="label">261</a> 7 State Trials 172. <i>True Narrative</i> 15.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_262" href="#FNanchor_262" class="label">262</a> 7 State Trials 173. <i>True Narrative</i> 16, 17.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_263" href="#FNanchor_263" class="label">263</a> 6 State Trials 1487. 7 State Trials 182.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_264" href="#FNanchor_264" class="label">264</a> 6 State Trials 1488.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_265" href="#FNanchor_265" class="label">265</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1487.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_266" href="#FNanchor_266" class="label">266</a> Prance to L’Estrange, January 17, 1688. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 127.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_267" href="#FNanchor_267" class="label">267</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> ii. 52, 53.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_268" href="#FNanchor_268" class="label">268</a> It is worthy of remark that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, judging - only from the evidence which Prance gave at the trial, has come to - the same conclusion. <i>Hist. Crim. Law</i> i. 393.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_269" href="#FNanchor_269" class="label">269</a> It was ordered that an examination should be held on the - subject, but Coleman was never questioned on Godfrey’s death. - House of Lords MSS. 48. L.J. xiii. 303, 307, 308.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_270" href="#FNanchor_270" class="label">270</a> Warner MS. history 27: “Rem totam Eboracensi detulit,” - <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 97. James (Or. Mem.) i. 534. North, <i>Examen</i> - 174. Lingard xiii. 69. Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 40.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_271" href="#FNanchor_271" class="label">271</a> <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 181–186.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_272" href="#FNanchor_272" class="label">272</a> See above, 89.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_273" href="#FNanchor_273" class="label">273</a> James (Or. Mem.) i. 517–519. <i>Impartial State of the Case of the - Earl of Danby.</i> Lingard xiii. 68.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_274" href="#FNanchor_274" class="label">274</a> North, <i>Examen</i> 174. <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 97, 98. Godfrey - “rem totam Edwardo Coleman ... per literas aperuit: quod non - neminem usque adeo offendit, ut Godefredus haud ita multo post - violenta morte suam in Catholicos benevolentiam luerit.” Warner - MS. history 26, 31, to the same effect. Warner names Danby as - the probable author of the murder.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_275" href="#FNanchor_275" class="label">275</a> 7 State Trials 168. House of Lords MSS. 47. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. - 187. Burnet ii. 163.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_276" href="#FNanchor_276" class="label">276</a> Burnet, <i>ibid.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_277" href="#FNanchor_277" class="label">277</a> 7 State Trials 29.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_278" href="#FNanchor_278" class="label">278</a> Welden’s evidence before the Lords’ committee. House of - Lords MSS. 48.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_279" href="#FNanchor_279" class="label">279</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 325. Warner MS. history 27. “Ad congregationem - provincialem ubi ventum est, cui se interfuisse mentitus - predicat Oates, Carolus ab eo petiit, ubinam convenissent Jesuitae? - Respondit alter, magna cum fiducia, convenisse Londini, in plataea - quae Strand dicitur, in oenopolio cui insigne Equi Albi. Hoc falsum - esse sciebat Carolus, cui notum ipsos in ipsa Eboracensis Aula convenisse; - cujus tamen rei nec Carolus nec ullus alius Catholicorum - apologista mentionem fecit donec persecutio plane desaevisset, ne - augeretur inde in Eboracensem invidia.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_280" href="#FNanchor_280" class="label">280</a> At Lord Stafford’s trial in 1680 Dugdale, the informer, declared - that Godfrey had been murdered by the Duke of York’s orders because - Coleman had made disclosures to him. He did not however suggest - what the nature of those disclosures was. A theory not unlike that - set out in the text was therefore in the air at the time. As almost - every conceivable hypothesis to account for the murder was being - discussed, this is not surprising; but there was this difference, that - then Dugdale had no good reason to offer in favour of the truth of - what he said. He was at the time of the murder in communication - with various Jesuits in Staffordshire: but it is most unlikely that, even - if they knew anything about it, they would have told him. If he had - known anything, it would probably have been that the Jesuit congregation - was held at St. James’; and he was certainly ignorant of this. - Burnet tells, on the authority of the Earl of Essex, that the king - prevailed on Dugdale to stifle this part of his information because it - pressed on the Duke of York; but, as Essex, or Burnet, taking the tale - from him, was mistaken as to the date when Dugdale first told the - story, and as Dugdale could beyond doubt have had a better price for - his information from Shaftesbury than from Charles for the suppression - of it, this cannot be believed without corroboration, which is not - forthcoming. Burnet ii. 190, 191. 7 State Trials, 1316, 1319. And - see below in Trials for Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_281" href="#FNanchor_281" class="label">281</a> See below (in materials for the history of the Popish Plot), - Foley’s note on Warner’s MS. history.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_282" href="#FNanchor_282" class="label">282</a> Slip appended to examination of November 7. Longleat MSS. - Coventry Papers xi. 276.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_283" href="#FNanchor_283" class="label">283</a> 7 State Trials 168. Burnet ii. 163.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_284" href="#FNanchor_284" class="label">284</a> James (Or. Mem.) i. 527, 528. Burnet ii. 174. House of - Lords MSS. 52. 7 State Trials 154. L.J. xiii. 353.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_285" href="#FNanchor_285" class="label">285</a> 7 State Trials 172, 192.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_286" href="#FNanchor_286" class="label">286</a> Burnet ii. 164, 165. L’Estrange produced some bad evidence, - which he does not even seem to have believed himself, to the effect - that these stains were of mud, and not wax. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 326, 336. - Sir George Sitwell says: “The drops of wax ... may have been spilt - the evening before, when Sir Edmund, for some mysterious reason, was - engaged in burning a quantity of his private papers” (<i>First Whig</i> 41). - But the evidence for this is wholly valueless, being told on hearsay from - a bad witness by a worse. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 179.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_287" href="#FNanchor_287" class="label">287</a> Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ committee, House of - Lords MSS. 46.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_288" href="#FNanchor_288" class="label">288</a> Examination of Charles Atkins, October 27, 1678. Slip appended - to the examination in Coventry’s hand. “Mr. Charles Atkins - lodgeth at the Golden Key in High Holborn, over against the Fountain - Tavern.” Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 234. Examination - of Bedloe of November 7. “Lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, - where Walsh the priest lodges, near Wild House.” S.P. Dom. Charles - II 407: ii. 29. Longleat MSS. <i>ibid.</i> 272–274; <i>ibid.</i> 278, on a slip - appended to the examination, “Le Fevre: about fifty years of age, - with a flaxen periwig, a handsome man. He lodges where Captain - Atkins lodges, near Wild House.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_289" href="#FNanchor_289" class="label">289</a> L.J. xiii. 353. Evidence of Diana Salvin, Elizabeth Salvin, - John Saunders, Alexander Oldis.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_290" href="#FNanchor_290" class="label">290</a> 6 State Trials 1475–1477.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_291" href="#FNanchor_291" class="label">291</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1113. <i>Secret Services of Charles II and James - II</i>, payment to Prance 22.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_292" href="#FNanchor_292" class="label">292</a> L.J. November 15, 1678. Ralph i. 398.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_293" href="#FNanchor_293" class="label">293</a> For example the libel, “A copy of a letter dropped in the exchange,” - 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_294" href="#FNanchor_294" class="label">294</a> See above and Appendix B.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_295" href="#FNanchor_295" class="label">295</a> See above, 122.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_296" href="#FNanchor_296" class="label">296</a> James (Or. Mem.) i. 528. Schwerin, November 22, 1678. - “Bedloo hat in Somerset House das Gemach gewiesen in welchem - ihm der todte Körper gezeigt worden ist; allein weil er in derselben - Kammer eine Thüre angab, die sich nicht daselbst vorfand,—überdem - die Königin damal in diesem Gemache wohnte,—und der Ort, - an welchem ihm der todte Körper gezeigt worden sein soll, ein - steter Durchgang und Aufenthalt aller Domesticken der Königin ist, - so wird die Angabe von vielen für verdächtig gehalten.” <i>Briefe von - England</i> 352.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_297" href="#FNanchor_297" class="label">297</a> James, Duke of York, to the Prince of Orange, December 24, - 1678, “... some are not well pleased with what this man says, - because it contradicts Bedloe.” Foljambe MSS. 127.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_298" href="#FNanchor_298" class="label">298</a> House of Lords MSS. 52.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_299" href="#FNanchor_299" class="label">299</a> 7 State Trials 343.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_300" href="#FNanchor_300" class="label">300</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 425, 612, 613.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_301" href="#FNanchor_301" class="label">301</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1320.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_302" href="#FNanchor_302" class="label">302</a> Lloyd to the council, January 11, 1679. Examinations of Prance - of December 26, 1678, January 13, March 19, March 22, 1679. - Fitzherbert MSS. 154–158. 7 State Trials 1226, 1231. Warner MS. - history 37. <i>True Narrative</i> 2–8, 26–40.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_303" href="#FNanchor_303" class="label">303</a> Lloyd to L’Estrange, April 16, 1686. <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 83.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_304" href="#FNanchor_304" class="label">304</a> Burnet ii. 195.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_305" href="#FNanchor_305" class="label">305</a> Warner MS. history 37: “librum edidit in quo pauca de Jesuitis, - eaque leviora retulit ... et in sacerdotes saeculares fanda infanda - conjecit, tanquam e plaustro probra jaceret (qu, tanquam e plaustro = - histrionis more. v. Hor. <i>A.P.</i> 275 ap. Facc.), ipsa maledicentiae - magnitudine fidem sibi detrahens: quam apud paucissimos invenit.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_306" href="#FNanchor_306" class="label">306</a> <i>Florus Anglo-Bavaricus</i> 103, 128.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_307" href="#FNanchor_307" class="label">307</a> 7 State Trials 228. House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_308" href="#FNanchor_308" class="label">308</a> House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61. Foley v. 285, 286.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_309" href="#FNanchor_309" class="label">309</a> S. A. Tanari, Internuncio at Brussels, to the papal secretary of - state, June 17, 1679: “Nella salute della sua persona consistevano - tutte le speranze di veder ristabilita la vera religione in Inghilterra.” - Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_310" href="#FNanchor_310" class="label">310</a> Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 8.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_311" href="#FNanchor_311" class="label">311</a> Memorandum by Danby. “Q. Whether the Plot be not triable - out of Parliament?” Add. MSS. 28042: 19. Henry Coventry to - the king, October 7, 1678.... “It will be worth your serious consideration - when you return on which side the greater inconveniency will be, - either in the suppressing them [Coleman’s letters] or publishing them, or - whether any middle way can be taken.” Add. MSS. 32095: 119.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_312" href="#FNanchor_312" class="label">312</a> A narrative of proceedings in the House of Commons. Harl. - MSS. 6284: 35, 36.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_313" href="#FNanchor_313" class="label">313</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1021–1026.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_314" href="#FNanchor_314" class="label">314</a> House of Lords MSS. 16, 17. Lady Sunderland to John Evelyn, - October 28, 1678. Correspondence of John Evelyn, 1852, 251.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_315" href="#FNanchor_315" class="label">315</a> W. Harrington to George Treby, February 1679. Fitzherbert - MSS. 14. John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, November 11, 1678. - Same to same, May 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 471. Sarotti, November - 15/25, 1678. Ven. Arch. Inghilterra 65. Lives of the Norths i. 70. - Le Gros to Sir Charles Lyttleton, November 26, 1678. Longleat MSS. - Coventry Papers xi. 301.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_316" href="#FNanchor_316" class="label">316</a> Sir W. Godolphin to Henry Thynne, August 14/24, 1679. - Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers lx. 275. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: - i. 119, 120; ii. 70, 79.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_317" href="#FNanchor_317" class="label">317</a> Earl of Conway to Sir L. Jenkins, September 26, 1681. S.P. - Dom. Charles II 416: 30.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_318" href="#FNanchor_318" class="label">318</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 17–54. <i>Narrative of - Edmund Everard</i> 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_319" href="#FNanchor_319" class="label">319</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 67, 92, 98, 100, 114, 138, - 140. <i>Ibid.</i> 148, Lord Windsor to Henry Coventry, July 8, 1676. - See Appendix C. Verney MSS. 465. Earl of Danby to the Lord - Chancellor, April 4, 1676. Leeds MSS. 13. Particulars of Conventicles. - Leeds MSS. 15. John Smith to Henry Coventry, January - 24, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 172. A paper endorsed - by the Earl of Danby; “Fifth monarch meetings in London and - Southwark. This was given me by the Bishop of London in October - 1677.” Add. MSS. 28093: 212. And see Gooch, <i>English Democratic - Ideas in the Seventeenth Century</i> 326.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_320" href="#FNanchor_320" class="label">320</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 117, 120, 122, 124, 126, - 132.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_321" href="#FNanchor_321" class="label">321</a> “Memd. of his Majesty’s directions for interrupting Coleman’s - letters.” December 10, 1676. Henry Coventry to Col. Whitely, - December 11, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 168, 170. - And the letters intercepted, <i>ibid.</i> 224, 245, 246, 247, 248. And see - above, Designs of the Catholics 32, n.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_322" href="#FNanchor_322" class="label">322</a> Spillmann. Pater Spillmann’s work is in general of little - value. Bishop Morley to the Earl of Danby, June 10, 1676. Leeds - MSS. 14. Courtin, August 6, 1676.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_323" href="#FNanchor_323" class="label">323</a> Leeds MSS. 17.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_324" href="#FNanchor_324" class="label">324</a> Foley v. 11, 12, 13. Diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple, - ii. 200, 320. Articles of <i>Impeachment against the Earl of Danby</i> iv. - <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1068.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_325" href="#FNanchor_325" class="label">325</a> See above 78.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_326" href="#FNanchor_326" class="label">326</a> Memorandum by Danby, undated, but probably in 1677. - “State and present condition of the crown, which cannot be amended - but by force or by compliance.</p> - - <p>“[Compliance to the old parliament would mean war with France - and the enforcement of all laws against papists and dissenters; with a - new parliament, war with France and general toleration except for the - papists.] From all this it seems as if compliance must necessarily - conclude in a resolution to give satisfaction in point of France. [Force - could hardly be exerted without foreign aid, which would certainly - mean a total conquest.]” Add. MSS. 28042: 17.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_327" href="#FNanchor_327" class="label">327</a> Earl of Danby to Sir W. Temple, November 19, 1678. Add. - MSS. 28054: 196. Burnet ii. 97, note, 151, 152. See also Lindsay - MSS. 399. Forneron, <i>Louise de Kéroualle</i> 153. Harris, <i>Life of - Charles II</i> 226 <i>seq.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_328" href="#FNanchor_328" class="label">328</a> Memoranda by Danby. Add. MSS. 28042: 53.</p> - - <p>“The three points to be considered by the committee of trade every Thursday:—</p> - - <p class="b0" style="margin-left: 1em;">“(1) A treaty marine with France.</p> - - <p class="p0 b0" style="margin-left: 1em;">“(2) What should be proposed to the king to be done by his example in not permitting - French commodities to be worn in the court.</p> - - <p class="p0" style="margin-left: 1em;">“(3) A treaty of commerce with France.”</p> - - <p>Add. MSS. 28042: 60.</p> - - <table class="fn328"> - <tr> - <td class="tdl" colspan="3">  “For the 30 ships</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">In 1677</td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdr">£90,000 0 0</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">In 1679</td> - <td class="tdl">[?8]</td> - <td class="tdr">339,735 0 0</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">In 1679</td> - <td class="tdl">before the 25th March</td> - <td class="tdr border-bottom">47,957 0 0</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl" colspan="2"> </td> - <td class="tdr">£477,692 0 0</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">£584,978</td> - <td class="tdl" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr border-bottom">477,692</td> - <td class="tdl" colspan="2"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">£107,286</td> - <td class="tdl" colspan="2"> remaining in the Exchequer, Lady Day, ’79.” - </tr> - </table> - - <p>See too Campana de Cavelli i. 290–294. Barillon, March 3/13, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_329" href="#FNanchor_329" class="label">329</a> Webster MSS. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iii. 421. Article by Mr. - Sidney Lee on Osborne (Thomas) in the <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i> Danby - obtained his knowledge of Montagu’s connection with the nuncio from - Olivencranz, the Swedish ambassador. Sir Leoline Jenkins to the - Earl of Danby, January 13, 1679. Lindsey MSS. 398. Grey, <i>Debates</i> - vi. 388. The authorities for the story of Danby’s fall are well known - and too numerous for citation.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_330" href="#FNanchor_330" class="label">330</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1039–1045, 1052. Burnet ii. 176, 178. Barillon, - November 25/December 5, 1678. Ferguson, <i>Growth of Popery</i>, Part - II. 219.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_331" href="#FNanchor_331" class="label">331</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1034. Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 63.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_332" href="#FNanchor_332" class="label">332</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 149. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1035. Barillon, October - 17/27, 1678. Ranke v. 236.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_333" href="#FNanchor_333" class="label">333</a> Barillon, February 17/27, February 24/March 6, 1679. Edm. - Verney to Sir R. Verney, February 24, 1679. Verney MSS. 471, - Fitzherbert MSS. 12, 13. Foljambe MSS. 127. <i>Caveat against the - Whigs</i> i. 47. Ranke v. 244, 245. Sir Thomas Browne, <i>Works</i>, 1836, - 240. Sitwell, <i>The First Whig</i> 54, 55.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_334" href="#FNanchor_334" class="label">334</a> Barillon, December 30, 1678/January 9, 1679, January 30/February - 9, May 12/22, June 2/12, 1679. John Verney to Sir R. - Verney, May 22, 1679. Verney MSS. 472. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1086, - 1121.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_335" href="#FNanchor_335" class="label">335</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1092–1111. Burnet ii. 205 and note 2. And - see Temple i. 412. Seymour had formerly been on the court side, - and after Danby’s imprisonment made up the quarrel. A memorandum - in the Leeds papers contains the following note on Seymour; “This - man, the most odious to the House, till he disturbed your Majesty’s - affairs.” Add. MSS. 28042: 21.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_336" href="#FNanchor_336" class="label">336</a> See Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 170, 171. Temple i. 396–414.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_337" href="#FNanchor_337" class="label">337</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1122. Algernon Sidney wrote that Halifax was - the author of the scheme. <i>Letters</i> 34. James had news that the - Duchess of Portsmouth bragged that she had helped to make it. James - to the Prince of Orange, May 8, 1679. Foljambe MSS. 129.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_338" href="#FNanchor_338" class="label">338</a> Temple i. 414–419, 473–477. Barillon, April 7/17, April - 21/May 1, April 24/May 4, April 28/May 8, 1679. Dalrymple ii. - 216, 217. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 168. North, <i>Examen</i> 76, 77. Ferguson, - <i>Growth of Popery</i>, Part II. 238; and see Foxcroft, <i>Life of Halifax</i> - i. chap. vi.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_339" href="#FNanchor_339" class="label">339</a> Burnet ii. 209.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_340" href="#FNanchor_340" class="label">340</a> Barillon, February 5/15, 1680. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 19, 33. - Burnet ii. 246, 248, 249. Temple i. 419, 420, 441–444. Ailesbury, - <i>Memoirs</i> i. 35. Foxcroft, <i>Life of Halifax</i> i. 173–178, 192. - Christie, <i>Life of Shaftesbury</i> ii. 357. Airy, <i>Charles II</i> 240.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_341" href="#FNanchor_341" class="label">341</a> Barillon, May 26/June 5, 1675. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1125–1149. - Temple i. 424, 429–432. Burnet ii. 210–215. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> - 173. North, <i>Examen</i> 506. Ralph i. 453, 454, 455.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_342" href="#FNanchor_342" class="label">342</a> Burnet ii. 263, 264. House of Lords MSS. 136. And see - Ferguson, <i>Growth of Popery</i>, Part II. 246.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_343" href="#FNanchor_343" class="label">343</a> See Lord Keeper Guildford MS. diary. Dalrymple ii. 91, 321. - “It is certain the Church of England men joined in this cry as heartily - as any else, for they were always most eager against Popery, although - they had friendship with the Cavalier papists, and many considering - men seeing an army kept up against an act of Parliament were zealous - that fetters might be put on the King, and therefore would join in - showing any discontent.” The Whig party on Temple’s council tried - to purge the commission of the peace of justices on the other side, but - Charles prevented this by a very droll device. North, <i>Examen</i> 78. - Nevertheless the weight of the commission was against the court. See - below in Trials for Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_344" href="#FNanchor_344" class="label">344</a> W. Harrington to Sir G. Treby, February 20, 1679. Fitzherbert - MSS. 14. Thomas Ward to Sir J. Williamson, November 15. Sir - Francis Chaplin to same, November 30. Henry Layton to same, - December 9, 1678. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 108, 167; ii. 117. - George Beckett, vicar of Castham, to Sir Peter Pindar at Chester, - October 28. Examination of same, November 4, 1678. Longleat - MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 229. Dr. Henry Corneil to Sir J. - Williamson, December 23, 1678, January 20, 1679. S.P. Dom. - Charles II 408: ii. 59; 411: 69.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_345" href="#FNanchor_345" class="label">345</a> Add. MSS. 32095: 160. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 36.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_346" href="#FNanchor_346" class="label">346</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xx. 120–130. S.P. Ireland - 339. Carte, <i>Life of Ormonde</i> 477–481.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_347" href="#FNanchor_347" class="label">347</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 268. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1034. John - Verney to Sir R. Verney, June 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 472. - Barillon, April 19/May 1, June 12/22, 1679. And see Klopp ii. 193.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_348" href="#FNanchor_348" class="label">348</a> Burnet ii. 179. Add. MSS. 28042: 19. See Appendix C.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_349" href="#FNanchor_349" class="label">349</a> Klopp i. 26.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_350" href="#FNanchor_350" class="label">350</a> Foley v. 95, 96.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_351" href="#FNanchor_351" class="label">351</a> Ranke v. 233. Das papistische Complot erscheint als ein - Symptom der zwischen den Bekenntnissen wieder angeregten heftigen - Antipathien.</p> - - <p>Schwerin, <i>Briefe</i> 330. Es sei nun an dieser Conspiration viel - oder wenig, so ist es doch gewiss, dass diese Nation sowohl gegen die - Papisten als gegen Frankreich—dem es besonders beigemessen wird—von - neuem erbittert wird.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_352" href="#FNanchor_352" class="label">352</a> L.J. xiii. 408. Airy, <i>Charles II</i> 70.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_353" href="#FNanchor_353" class="label">353</a> Warner MS. hist. 29 from <i>Gazette de Hollande</i>, November 22, 1678. - Schwerin, <i>Briefe</i> 340, 348. Duchess of York to Duke of Modena, - November 3, November 24, December 16, 1678. Ronchi, January - 20, February 23, November 21, 1679. Campana de Cavelli i. 229, - 236, 239, 240, 242. Warner MS. Letter book, December 3, - December 30, 1678. Fitzherbert MSS. 12. House of Lords MSS. - 39, 126. Foljambe MSS. 123. L.J. xiii. 482, 485, 502, 512. Foley - v. 21, 23, 80, 482–488, 915, 965, 966. 8 State Trials 532, 533.</p> - - <p>The internuncio at Brussels acutely noted as the three causes of - the feeling aroused—“l’odio de’ Protestanti, gli amatori di novità, e - li nemici della casa Reale.” October 30/November 9, 1678. Vat. - Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_354" href="#FNanchor_354" class="label">354</a> 7 State Trials 995.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_355" href="#FNanchor_355" class="label">355</a> 7 State Trials 959–1043, 1162–1183. C.J. December 16, 1680. - <i>Narrative of Lawrence Mowbray</i> 1680. <i>Narrative of Robert Bolron</i> - 1680. Depositions from York Castle, Surtees Society xl. 1861. Foley - v. 759–767. <i>The Month</i> xviii. 393.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_356" href="#FNanchor_356" class="label">356</a> Foley v. 19, 21. Warner MS. history 29. Misera Catholicorum - omnium conditio, maxime vero Jesuitarum, quos et communia mala et - omnium insuper invidia gravabat, etiam apud simul patientes. <i>Ibid.</i> 36.</p> - - <p>Maxime odiosum Jesuitarum nomen, sacerdotibus etiam et saecularibus - et regularibus et ipsis Catholicis laicis, quod ab iis orta feratur ista - saevissima tempestas quae totam religionem Catholicam evertet.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_357" href="#FNanchor_357" class="label">357</a> Brosch 432.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_358" href="#FNanchor_358" class="label">358</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 411: 87, a paper endorsed by Sir Joseph - Williamson, “25 January, 78/9. Gavan the priest. Information, etc.” - <i>Ibid.</i> 92. “It was Sir William Waller who, by a warrant from the - council, seized Gavan in Count Wallenstein the Imperial ambassador’s - stables in bed.” Foley v. 454. Le Fleming MSS. 155.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_359" href="#FNanchor_359" class="label">359</a> See above 53.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_360" href="#FNanchor_360" class="label">360</a> Di Brusselles dal Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, March 20/30, 1680. Vat. - Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 252. Order in - Council for a passport for Henry, Duke of Norfolk, May 26, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_361" href="#FNanchor_361" class="label">361</a> 7 State Trials 496. Foley v. 460.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_362" href="#FNanchor_362" class="label">362</a> Sidney’s diary in Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> i. 82, 163, 165, 166, 174–176. - Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 154. <i>Domestic Intelligence</i>, September 26, 1679. - C.J. March 26, 1681. Foley v. 80, 81, 460–467. Burnet ii. 228.</p> - - <p>It has been supposed that John Sergeant who bore witness against - Gavan was a different person from the eminent controversialist of the - same name (see his life in <i>Dict. of Nat. Biog.</i> by Mr. Cooper). His - identity is however placed beyond question by the advertisement - in the <i>Domestic Intelligence</i> above cited, by despatches of Roman - ecclesiastics which refer to “il Dottore Sargentio” without hinting at - any change of person, and by the indignant exclamation of Warner - (MS. hist. 132), “et, proh dolor! Johannes Sergeantius et David - Mauritius” in speaking of the witnesses for the Plot. So too Luttrell - (<i>Brief Relation</i> i. 21): “One Sergeant, a secular (who hath writ against - Dr. Stillingfleet), is expected from Holland, and ’tis said he will - discover several matters about the plot.” The letter of the internuncio - from Brussels of March 20/30, 1680 contains the following passage: - Ho pregato S. A. di discorrere opportunamente col Sig<sup>r</sup> Duca d’Jorch, - excitandolo ad opporsi ad ogni tentativo che potesse tentarsi dal Frate - Valesio, e delli Dottori Sergeant e Mauritio accioche non si propongà - a Catt<sup>ci</sup> il giuramento di Fedeltà, gia censurato dalla S. Sede, ò non se - ne inventi nuova formula che non sia precedentemente approvata da - S. B<sup>ne</sup> quale ho assicurato esser per mostrarsi sempre propenso verso - le convenienze di S. A. Reale. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_363" href="#FNanchor_363" class="label">363</a> Di Brusselles del Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, April 28/June 8, 1680. - Circa il giuramento di fedeltà condannato altre volte dalla S. Sede, - e pur troppo vero che il Sig<sup>r</sup> Duca di Jorch lo presto anni sono, sedotto - dall’ esempio di molti allevati nella Religion Catt<sup>ca</sup> e non informato - che lo stesso fosse stato prescritto da Sommi Pontifici. Vat. Arch. - Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_364" href="#FNanchor_364" class="label">364</a> Di Brusselles dal Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, August 16/26, August 22/September - 2, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_365" href="#FNanchor_365" class="label">365</a> See below in Trials for Treason. 7 State Trials 617. Burnet - ii. 196–198.</p> - - <p>Thomas Jennison, S.J., died in Newgate on September 27, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_366" href="#FNanchor_366" class="label">366</a> See below in Trials for Treason.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_367" href="#FNanchor_367" class="label">367</a> 7 State Trials 1049. Dangerfield’s <i>Particular Narrative</i> 1–7. - <i>Malice Defeated: or a Brief Relation of the Accusation and Deliverance of - Elizabeth Cellier</i> 12, 13, 28. Col. Mansell’s <i>Exact and True Narrative</i> - 7, 60.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_368" href="#FNanchor_368" class="label">368</a> Dangerfield’s <i>Narrative</i> 8. <i>Malice Defeated</i> 13, 39. Mansell’s - <i>Narrative</i> 39, 47, 60, 69.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_369" href="#FNanchor_369" class="label">369</a> Mansell’s <i>Narrative</i> 43, 53, 54, 69. <i>Malice Defeated</i> 13, 14. - Dangerfield’s <i>Case</i> 2. North, <i>Examen</i> 268.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_370" href="#FNanchor_370" class="label">370</a> Dangerfield’s <i>Narrative</i> 30–36. <i>Malice Defeated</i> 14. Mansell’s - <i>Narrative</i> 57, 58, 62. North, <i>Examen</i> 267.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_371" href="#FNanchor_371" class="label">371</a> Dangerfield’s <i>Narrative</i> 37–49. Dangerfield’s <i>Information</i> 1680. - <i>Malice Defeated</i> 14–18. Mansell’s <i>Narrative</i> 18–40.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_372" href="#FNanchor_372" class="label">372</a> Ferguson, <i>Growth of Popery</i> ii. 265. Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 152, 153. - Halstead, <i>Succinct Genealogies</i> 434–437. North, <i>Examen</i> 261, 262. - And see Burnet ii. 244, 245. Hatton Correspondence v. 201, - 202.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_373" href="#FNanchor_373" class="label">373</a> <i>Malice Defeated</i> 15. Examination of Anne Blake, Mansell’s - <i>Narrative</i> 41.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_374" href="#FNanchor_374" class="label">374</a> <i>Malice Defeated</i> 15.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_375" href="#FNanchor_375" class="label">375</a> Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_376" href="#FNanchor_376" class="label">376</a> See below in Shaftesbury and Charles. Dangerfield’s <i>Narrative</i> 30.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_377" href="#FNanchor_377" class="label">377</a> Dangerfield’s <i>Narrative</i> 39.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_378" href="#FNanchor_378" class="label">378</a> Traill shews the absurdity neatly, though he makes the mistake - of joining Mrs. Cellier with Dangerfield. <i>Shaftesbury</i> 154.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_379" href="#FNanchor_379" class="label">379</a> 7 State Trials 1043–1111.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_380" href="#FNanchor_380" class="label">380</a> Mansell’s <i>Narrative</i> 40.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_381" href="#FNanchor_381" class="label">381</a> Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679. Sidney’s <i>Diary</i>, - October 7, October 14, in Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> i. 181, 185.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_382" href="#FNanchor_382" class="label">382</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1029, 1030.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_383" href="#FNanchor_383" class="label">383</a> Dartmouth MSS. 36.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_384" href="#FNanchor_384" class="label">384</a> Sir W. Temple to the Earl of Essex, October 25, 1673. Essex - Papers. Burnet ii. 31. James (Or. Mem.) i. 530, 536, 537. <i>Clarendon - Cor.</i> ii. 467–471. Brusselles Dal. Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, March 8/18, 1679. - Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_385" href="#FNanchor_385" class="label">385</a> Barillon, July 19/29, October 4/14, 14/24, 21/31, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_386" href="#FNanchor_386" class="label">386</a> James to Col. Legge, December 11, 1679, January 25, December - 14, 1680. Dartmouth MSS. 40, 47, 55. James i. 657.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_387" href="#FNanchor_387" class="label">387</a> James i. 550, 551.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_388" href="#FNanchor_388" class="label">388</a> Temple i. 382.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_389" href="#FNanchor_389" class="label">389</a> Barillon, October 21/31, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_390" href="#FNanchor_390" class="label">390</a> James i. 554, 556, 574, 659, 660. Dartmouth MSS. 35, 36, 39, - 41, 45, 47, 58. Savile Foljambe MSS. 134, 135.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_391" href="#FNanchor_391" class="label">391</a> James to Col. Legge, May 28, 1679, Dartmouth MSS. 33, 34.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_392" href="#FNanchor_392" class="label">392</a> James to the Prince of Orange, May 14, May 29, June 1, 1679. - Savile Foljambe MSS. 129–131. To Col. Legge, July 22, Dartmouth - MSS. 36. And see James (Or. Mem.) i. 551.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_393" href="#FNanchor_393" class="label">393</a> <i>E.g.</i> Dartmouth MSS. 38, 42, 46, 54.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_394" href="#FNanchor_394" class="label">394</a> Barillon, July 1/11, July 24/August 3, October 21/31, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_395" href="#FNanchor_395" class="label">395</a> Campana de Cavelli i. 302, 304.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_396" href="#FNanchor_396" class="label">396</a> Vat. Arch. L’Abb<sup>e</sup> G. B. Lauri a S. Em.3<sup>a</sup> October 23/December - 2, 1678. Nunt. di Francia 332. Di Brusselles dal Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio. - May 24/June 3, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. - 32095: 196. See Appendix C.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_397" href="#FNanchor_397" class="label">397</a> Barillon, August 9/19, September 20/30, October 21/31, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_398" href="#FNanchor_398" class="label">398</a> Vat. Arch. Di Brussells dal Sig<sup>r</sup> Internuncio, June 7/17, - September 6/16, October 18/28, November 15/25, 1679. Nunt. di - Fiandra 66.</p> - - <p><i>Ibid.</i> July 30/September 9. La sera però di detto giorno fattomi - introdurre nel suo gabinetto (del Duca d’Yorch), m’incarico di dar - parte del successo a S. B<sup>ne</sup>, e di confermargli nuovamente che in ogni - luogo e stato havrebbe sempre vissuto figlio obedientissimo della S. - Sede, e che nell’ animo suo a qualsivoglia altra consideratione o - interesse havrebbe prevaluto il riguardo di conservare la fede, e di - propagarla per quanto sarà in suo potere.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_399" href="#FNanchor_399" class="label">399</a> Foley v. 152, 157.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_400" href="#FNanchor_400" class="label">400</a> <i>Absalom and Achitophel</i> 114–117, 134–141.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_401" href="#FNanchor_401" class="label">401</a> Ranke v. 186.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_402" href="#FNanchor_402" class="label">402</a> John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 19, 1677. “The people - about town call this the Pump Parliament, alluding, as a little water - put into a pump fetches up a great deal, so, etc.” Verney MSS. 469, - and see <i>The Pump Parliament</i> by Sir Charles Sedley.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_403" href="#FNanchor_403" class="label">403</a> Ranke v. 201, 220. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 861–863. C.J. April 4, 1677. - Ralph i. 310–314, 318. Andrew Marvell, <i>Growth of Popery</i>, Part I. 149.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_404" href="#FNanchor_404" class="label">404</a> Burnet ii. 155.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_405" href="#FNanchor_405" class="label">405</a> Burnet ii. 179. Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_406" href="#FNanchor_406" class="label">406</a> Sir Edward Carteret provided his rooms at the rent of £60 a - year.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_407" href="#FNanchor_407" class="label">407</a> <i>Secret Services of Charles II and James II</i> 3–15. I do not know - if the very comic accounts said to have been presented by Oates and - Bedloe are authentic (L’Estrange, <i>Brief Hist.</i> iii. 121–124. Lingard - xii. 363). They are not inconsistent with the men’s character, but - L’Estrange was quite capable of having invented them. In any case - they were not paid.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_408" href="#FNanchor_408" class="label">408</a> State Trials vii. 796, ix. 489, 490, x. 134, 136, 137, 1275, - 1299. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 196. Evelyn, <i>Diary</i> October 1, November - 15, 1678. Smith, <i>Intrigues of the Popish Plot</i>. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> - i. 112. North, <i>Examen</i> 223. <i>Lives of the Norths</i> ii. 180. Hatton Correspondence - i. 198. Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 43, 44. I am indebted to Sir - George Sitwell for some of these references, and have ventured to quote - a portion of his admirable description, some strokes of which however - are drawn from sources not beyond doubt. The epithet applied to - the Pope is from “Rawleigh Redivivus.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_409" href="#FNanchor_409" class="label">409</a> Grey, <i>Debates</i> vi. 296. Barillon, November 25/December 5, - 1678. L.J. xiii. 389–392. C.J. November 28, 29, December 6, 7. - Danby’s notes of Oates’ examination, November 25. Add. MSS. - 23043: 5. James to the Prince of Orange, November 26, 1678. Foljambe - MSS. 125. See too House of Lords MSS. 66. Lord Ossory - to the Duchess of Ormonde. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vi. App. 723. - James (Or. Mem.) i. 529. Burnet ii. 173, 174. Even Oldmixon did - not believe the accusation. <i>History of the House of Stuart</i> 618.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_410" href="#FNanchor_410" class="label">410</a> Burnet i. 470–474. In 1671 Burnet propounded the questions; - “Is a woman’s barrenness a just ground for divorce or polygamy; - and is polygamy in any case lawful under the Gospel?” The answer - to both was in the affirmative.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_411" href="#FNanchor_411" class="label">411</a> Sarotti describes him as “un cadavere spirante.” December - 12/22, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_412" href="#FNanchor_412" class="label">412</a> Burnet i. 474, ii. 180. North, <i>Examen</i> 186. Airy, <i>Charles II</i> - 137, 138, 230. The relations between the king and queen became - much better about this time in consequence, one may imagine, of - these intrigues. Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, August - 15, 1679: “The Queen, who is now a mistress, the passion her - spouse has for her is so great....” Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> i. 86.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_413" href="#FNanchor_413" class="label">413</a> Pepys, <i>Diary</i> December 24, 31, 1662. Burnet i. 469, 470.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_414" href="#FNanchor_414" class="label">414</a> Barillon, April 28/May 8, May 5/15, 1679. Temple i. 421, 423, - 426, 429. MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322. - Burnet ii. 233. Foxcroft, <i>Life of Halifax</i> i. 173–178. Hatton Correspondence - v. 192.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_415" href="#FNanchor_415" class="label">415</a> Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 52, 53.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_416" href="#FNanchor_416" class="label">416</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_417" href="#FNanchor_417" class="label">417</a> Ralph i. 434. North, <i>Examen</i> 86. Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 52, 90.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_418" href="#FNanchor_418" class="label">418</a> Burnet ii. 235. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1130. North, <i>Examen</i> 79. - This story may be accepted, since North probably had it from his - brother the Chief Justice. And see Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> i. 5, where - Henry Sidney states that Charles supported Lauderdale at the council.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_419" href="#FNanchor_419" class="label">419</a> Barillon, June 12/22, 1679. Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 95–97, 104–107, - 112–113. Temple i. 420, 427, 428. North, <i>Examen</i> 81, 82. - Burnet ii. 234, 235, 239. S.P. Dom. Charles II 412: 26. Sunderland - to Essex, July 1679, 262. Essex to the King, July 21, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_420" href="#FNanchor_420" class="label">420</a> Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 70.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_421" href="#FNanchor_421" class="label">421</a> MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322, 323. - North, <i>Examen</i> 571–575. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. App. ix. Ralph i. 476, - 477, 483. Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 83–89. And see the trial of Benjamin - Harris, the publisher of the Appeal, 7 State Trials 925. Wilson, <i>Life - of Defoe</i>, chap. i. Defoe, <i>Review</i> ix. 152. “As to handing treasonable - papers about in coffee-houses, everybody knows it was the original of - the very thing called a coffee-house and that it is the very profession of - a coffee-man to do so, and it seems hard to punish any of them for it.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_422" href="#FNanchor_422" class="label">422</a> Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i>, 87, 88.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_423" href="#FNanchor_423" class="label">423</a> Barillon, September 4/14, 1679. Temple i. 433. Countess of - Sunderland to Henry Sidney, September 2. Henry Savile to Henry - Sidney, September 11, 1679. Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> i. 122, 140. - Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 143. Ralph i. 477.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_424" href="#FNanchor_424" class="label">424</a> Barillon, July 3/13, 1679, January 12/22, 1680. Dangerfield’s - <i>Particular Narrative</i> 30, 60. <i>The Case of Thomas Dangerfield</i> 5. - Mansell’s <i>Exact and True Narrative</i> 62. Grey, <i>Debates</i> vii. 358, 359, - viii. 136–149. <i>Gazette</i>, No. 1476. Ralph i. 496, 497. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> - iv. 1233. Le Fleming MSS. 174.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_425" href="#FNanchor_425" class="label">425</a> Burnet ii. 242. Carte, <i>Life of Ormonde</i> ii. 493. Barillon, September - 4/14, 11/21, 15/25, 1679. Temple i. 433–438. Foljambe - MSS. 137, 138. Foxcroft, <i>Life of Halifax</i> i. 189–191. <i>Gazette</i> - 1449. S.P. Dom. Charles II 412: 24. Conway Papers, September - 11, 1679. Airy, <i>Charles II</i> 245. James (Or. Mem.) i. 566, - 570–580.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_426" href="#FNanchor_426" class="label">426</a> James (Or. Mem.) i. 563. James to the Prince of Orange, - Foljambe MSS. 137. Burnet ii. 243. Hatton Correspondence i. 194. - Barillon, September 15/25. December 1/11, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_427" href="#FNanchor_427" class="label">427</a> Dal. Sigr. Internuncio Brusselles, June 8, 1679. Arch. - Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Ferguson, <i>Growth of Popery</i>, Part II. 276.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_428" href="#FNanchor_428" class="label">428</a> Barillon, December 1/11, 8/18, 1679. Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 165. - Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, November 29, 1679. Hatton Correspondence - i. 203. Ralph i. 484, 497.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_429" href="#FNanchor_429" class="label">429</a> Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 143, 144.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_430" href="#FNanchor_430" class="label">430</a> Temple i. 441. Ralph i. 490–494. Le Fleming MSS. 165. - North, <i>Examen</i> 541–548. Defoe, <i>Review</i> vii. 296.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_431" href="#FNanchor_431" class="label">431</a> Barillon, December 11/21, 15/25, 18/28, 1679. James i. 581.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_432" href="#FNanchor_432" class="label">432</a> Barillon, January 8/18, 12/22, 15/25, 19/29, January 29/February - 8, March 11/21, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 587. Ralph i. - 494.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_433" href="#FNanchor_433" class="label">433</a> The declaration was made twice, on January 6 and March 3, - 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_434" href="#FNanchor_434" class="label">434</a> The author was probably Ferguson. Sec Sprat’s <i>History of the - Ryehouse Plot</i>, where a printer’s bill made out to him is printed in the - appendix, one item of the bill being for the Letter. The pamphlet - was published on May 15, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_435" href="#FNanchor_435" class="label">435</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 103, 105, 107, 118, 120, 131, 132, - 229, 231. Informations and examinations concerning the Black Box. - <i>Gazette</i>, Nos. 1507, 1520. Somers Tracts viii. 187–208. James I - 589.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_436" href="#FNanchor_436" class="label">436</a> Barillon, June 28/July 8, July 1/11, 8/18, 1680. 8 State Trials - 179. Burnet ii. 300.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_437" href="#FNanchor_437" class="label">437</a> S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 75, Lord Massareen to Lord Conway. - 76, Francis Gwyn to same, March 23, 1680. Barillon, March - 25/April 4, May 17/27, 20/30, July 1/11. Countess of Sunderland - to H. Sidney, May 18, 1680. Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> ii. 60. Luttrell, - <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 38.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_438" href="#FNanchor_438" class="label">438</a> William Harbord to H. Sidney, April 1680. Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> - ii. 23. Countess of Sunderland to same, April 16. Sir L. Jenkins to - same, <i>circa</i> May 20. Sir W. Temple to same, April 27. Sidney’s - <i>Diary</i>, May 25. <i>Ibid.</i> 52, 53, 64, 66. Barillon, October 7/17, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_439" href="#FNanchor_439" class="label">439</a> Barillon, December 1/11, 11/21, 1679, January 5/15, April 5/15, - July 1/11, 1680. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 82. Sir James Butler - to Lord Craven, March 25, 1680. Temple i. 450. Sir L. Jenkins to - Henry Sidney, July 24, 1680. Sidney’s <i>Charles II</i> ii. 86. A concise - account of the extreme difficulties of the time may be found in a letter - from Henry Sidney to the Prince of Orange, October 7, 1680. Groen - van Prinsterer v. 422.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_440" href="#FNanchor_440" class="label">440</a> Ralph i. 502, 503. Groen van Prinsterer v. 428. Burnet - ii. 253. Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 591–600. - And see Somers Tracts viii. 137. <i>Articles of Impeachment - against the Duchess of Portsmouth.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_441" href="#FNanchor_441" class="label">441</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1118, 1160–1175, 1291. Beaufort MSS. 112. - Burnet ii. 212, 256. Temple i. 421. Foxcroft, <i>Life of Halifax</i> - i. 154, 208, 224, 236. Ralph i. 444. Groen van Prinsterer v. 435, - 437.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_442" href="#FNanchor_442" class="label">442</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1175–1215. L.J. xiii. 666. Barillon, November - 18/28, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 617, 618. Temple i. 453. - Halstead, <i>Succinct Genealogies</i> i. 204. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 192, 197. - Burnet ii, 259. Foxcroft, <i>Life of Halifax</i> i. 246–249. James - to the Prince of Orange, November 23, 1680, Groen van Prinsterer - v. 440.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_443" href="#FNanchor_443" class="label">443</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1215–1295. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 191, Groen van - Prinsterer v. 444.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_444" href="#FNanchor_444" class="label">444</a> Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 142. S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 101, - Robert Ferguson to his wife, August 14, 1680. 243, Hugh Speke - “for Mr. Charles Speke at Whitelackington.” 275, James Holloway - to the Earl of Essex, December 14, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_445" href="#FNanchor_445" class="label">445</a> Charles’ actual words are in doubt, but it is certain that he received - the deputation coldly and sent it away unsatisfied.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_446" href="#FNanchor_446" class="label">446</a> “Instructions for members of Parliament summoned for March - 21, 1681, and to be held at Oxford.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_447" href="#FNanchor_447" class="label">447</a> North, <i>Examen</i> 100–102. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 204. S.P. Dom. - Charles II 415: 37. Answer of the Earl of Essex, January 27, 1681. - 66, The Earl of Craven’s proposition, February 14, 1681. “About - the disposing of the king’s forces.” 126, Information of Mr. John - Wendham of Thetford against Wm. Harbord, M.P. 156, Quarters - of his Majesty’s forces, March 22, 1681. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> - i. 70. Ralph i. 562, 563. Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 144, 145. Klopp II. - 308. And see the trial of Stephen Colledge 8 State Trials 549–724.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_448" href="#FNanchor_448" class="label">448</a> Barillon, January 13/23, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_449" href="#FNanchor_449" class="label">449</a> Barillon, <i>passim</i>. There was however talk of the negotiations in - diplomatic circles. Brosch 452.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_450" href="#FNanchor_450" class="label">450</a> North, <i>Examen</i> 104, 105. Barillon March 28/April 7, 1681. - Beaufort MSS. 83. Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 207–211. Ralph i. 570–580. - <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1298–1339. Airy, <i>Charles II</i> 257. Ailesbury, <i>Memoirs</i> - i. 57. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 72. “Some are pleased to call it the - Jewish Parliament, it being dissolved on the eighth day, alluding to that - people’s manner of circumcision on the eighth day.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_451" href="#FNanchor_451" class="label">451</a> Lord Grey’s confession 12, 13, 14. North, <i>Examen</i> 105.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_452" href="#FNanchor_452" class="label">452</a> It is remarkable that every one thought he understood Charles and - that most who opposed him paid in the end the penalty of their - mistake by failure. Only the most acute indeed were able to realise - the strength of the character which they began by thinking weak. - Thus Courtin believed that Charles could do nothing but what - his subjects wanted. Jusserand, <i>A French Ambassador</i> 150. Barillon, - with the possible exception of Gremonville, the ablest of - Louis XIV’s diplomatists, whom Ranke compares to the Spanish - ambassador Mendoza of the time of the League, thought when he first - came to England that he could in every instance measure Charles’ - weight in the balance. Before the Popish Plot had ceased its course, - he perceived that he could not. He writes on January 15/25, 1680: - Il est fort difficile de pénétrer quel est dans le fonds son véritable - dessein. Again on September 9/19 of the same year; Le Roi de la - Grande Bretagne a une conduite si cachée et si difficile à pénétrer - que les plus habiles y sont trompés. And again on January 13/23, - 1681: Je ne puis encore expliquer aver certitude à V.M. l’état des - affaires de ce pays-ci. Ceux qui approchent de plus près du Roi - d’Angleterre ne pénètrent point le fonds de ses intentions. See too - Burnet II 409 n. 3, 467 n.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_453" href="#FNanchor_453" class="label">453</a> If Pemberton is counted.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_454" href="#FNanchor_454" class="label">454</a> Pilgrimage of Grace; Insurrection in West; Kent; Wyatt; - Rising in North; Essex; Penruddock; Booth, 1659; Venner; Monmouth.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_455" href="#FNanchor_455" class="label">455</a> See the evidence of Lord Ferrers against Southall at the trial of - Lord Stafford. 7 State Trials 1485.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_456" href="#FNanchor_456" class="label">456</a> Dalton, <i>Justice</i>, quoted Stephen, <i>History of the Criminal Law</i>, - i. 195. Temp. James I.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_457" href="#FNanchor_457" class="label">457</a> Colquhoun, <i>Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis</i>, quoted - Stephen i. 195.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_458" href="#FNanchor_458" class="label">458</a> Ralph i. 399. See also the Statutes: 13 C. II c. 6, 14 C. II - c. 3, 15 C. II c. 4.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_459" href="#FNanchor_459" class="label">459</a> 6 State Trials 566–630.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_460" href="#FNanchor_460" class="label">460</a> £1000 was stolen in cash, and over £2000 in jewelry.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_461" href="#FNanchor_461" class="label">461</a> 6 State Trials 572–575.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_462" href="#FNanchor_462" class="label">462</a> By two Germans and a Pole, acting, it was said, under orders - from Count Königsmark, who had been courting Mr. Thynne’s bride.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_463" href="#FNanchor_463" class="label">463</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 235, 236.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_464" href="#FNanchor_464" class="label">464</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 281, 282.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_465" href="#FNanchor_465" class="label">465</a> This was the recognised appellation of a J.P. in the seventeenth - century.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_466" href="#FNanchor_466" class="label">466</a> House of Lords MSS. 39, under date May 29, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_467" href="#FNanchor_467" class="label">467</a> 7 State Trials 1471.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_468" href="#FNanchor_468" class="label">468</a> 8 State Trials 525–550.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_469" href="#FNanchor_469" class="label">469</a> Gilbert’s evidence, <i>ibid.</i> 531–534.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_470" href="#FNanchor_470" class="label">470</a> 8 State Trials 531.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_471" href="#FNanchor_471" class="label">471</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 532.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_472" href="#FNanchor_472" class="label">472</a> Foley v. 891. House of Lords MSS. 89. See also Fitzherbert - MSS. 18, 19.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_473" href="#FNanchor_473" class="label">473</a> Foley v. 34. House of Lords MSS. 89.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_474" href="#FNanchor_474" class="label">474</a> Foley v. 883.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_475" href="#FNanchor_475" class="label">475</a> “A true narrative of the imprisonment and trial of Mr. Lewis,” - written by himself. Foley v. 917–928. His account of the trial is - inserted in 7 State Trials 249–260.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_476" href="#FNanchor_476" class="label">476</a> Foley v. 885. 7 State Trials 249, 252.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_477" href="#FNanchor_477" class="label">477</a> Foley v. 96. Catalogue of those who suffered in Oates’ Plot and - on account of their priesthood, taken from Dodd and Challoner.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_478" href="#FNanchor_478" class="label">478</a> 7 State Trials 1131.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_479" href="#FNanchor_479" class="label">479</a> Ralph i. 570.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_480" href="#FNanchor_480" class="label">480</a> See Appendix D, where Giles’ trial is discussed. Lawrence - Hyde to the Prince of Orange, April 16, 1680. “This I say is a very - unfortunate accident to revive men’s fears and apprehensions of the - Plot, which were pretty well asleep, but there is no care or watchfulness - can prevent the folly and wickedness of men that are so given - to it.” Groen van Prinsterer v. 395.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_481" href="#FNanchor_481" class="label">481</a> See Stephen i. 228.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_482" href="#FNanchor_482" class="label">482</a> 7 State Trials 1397–1399.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_483" href="#FNanchor_483" class="label">483</a> Southall’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1467–1471.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_484" href="#FNanchor_484" class="label">484</a> For the following paragraph I have used Gardiner’s <i>History of - England</i> iii. 1–27.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_485" href="#FNanchor_485" class="label">485</a> Essay of Judicature.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_486" href="#FNanchor_486" class="label">486</a> This rule was not without exception. Baron Flowerdue, raised - to the bench in 1684, held office <i>quamdiu se bene gesserit</i>. (Prothero, - <i>Statutes and Constitutional Documents</i> 143). And we learn from Coke - (Inst. iv. 117) that the Chief Baron always held office on a permanent - tenure (Prothero cviii.). Of course it made no difference, for good - behaviour in the eyes of the king, with whom the decision rested, - was likely to have much in common with his good pleasure.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_487" href="#FNanchor_487" class="label">487</a> Gneist, <i>Constitutional History of England</i> (trans. Ashworth) 550.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_488" href="#FNanchor_488" class="label">488</a> Clarendon, <i>Hist. Reb.</i> (Oxford, 1826) i. 123, 124.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_489" href="#FNanchor_489" class="label">489</a> Gneist 552 n. See <i>Gardiner</i> viii. 208.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_490" href="#FNanchor_490" class="label">490</a> Gardiner ix. 246, 247. Gneist 555.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_491" href="#FNanchor_491" class="label">491</a> L.J. May 6, 1641. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> ii. 757.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_492" href="#FNanchor_492" class="label">492</a> In a somewhat similar case the judges under Charles II refused - to give an opinion until the matter had been argued before them by - counsel. The Attorney-General, among other questions put to the - judges at the outbreak of the agitation of the Popish Plot, asked - “Whether there be any evidence against these particular persons - besides the single testimony of Mr. Oates?” To which it was - answered that it was a question of fact, and could only be determined - in court. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 128.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_493" href="#FNanchor_493" class="label">493</a> Gardiner ix. 306, 307. Gneist 555 n. Hallam (ii. 107) attempts - to uphold the judges’ decision, but Stephen’s argument (i. 362, 363) - must be held to settle the question.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_494" href="#FNanchor_494" class="label">494</a> Gneist 570 n. (2).</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_495" href="#FNanchor_495" class="label">495</a> 4 State Trials 445–450.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_496" href="#FNanchor_496" class="label">496</a> Foss, <i>Judges of England</i> vii, 109, 110. Burnet, <i>Life and Death - of Sir Matthew Hale</i>. Mr. J. M. Rigg in his article on Hale in the - <i>Dictionary of National Biography</i> doubts the truth of this on the - ground that Penruddock was tried at Exeter, and Hale belonged to - the Midland circuit. Hale however changed his circuit on at least - one occasion. See Foss vii. 112, and the <i>Gentleman’s Mag.</i>, July - 1851, p. 13, where an anecdote is told which shows that Hale had - belonged at one time to the Western circuit.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_497" href="#FNanchor_497" class="label">497</a> North, <i>Life of Lord Keeper Guildford</i> 119. Dryden, <i>Prose Works</i> - (ed. Malone) iv. 156.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_498" href="#FNanchor_498" class="label">498</a> Gneist 600 n. (2).</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_499" href="#FNanchor_499" class="label">499</a> 6 State Trials 951–1013.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_500" href="#FNanchor_500" class="label">500</a> See also Hallam iii. 8. Stephen i. 373–375.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_501" href="#FNanchor_501" class="label">501</a> Hale, P.C. i. 143–146.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_502" href="#FNanchor_502" class="label">502</a> Compare the attempt to create a riot among the apprentices in - July 1679, immediately after the trial of the Five Jesuits.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_503" href="#FNanchor_503" class="label">503</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 803. Ralph i. 297. North, <i>Examen</i> 139.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_504" href="#FNanchor_504" class="label">504</a> Amos, <i>The English Constitution in the Reign of Charles II</i> 302.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_505" href="#FNanchor_505" class="label">505</a> <i>Gazette</i>, May 5, 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_506" href="#FNanchor_506" class="label">506</a> 7 State Trials 926–931.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_507" href="#FNanchor_507" class="label">507</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1111–1130.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_508" href="#FNanchor_508" class="label">508</a> Twyn and two other printers were sentenced to the pillory, imprisonment, - and heavy fines. Amos 249. 6 State Trials 513–539. - See also the trials of Dover, Brewster, and Brooks, which followed on - Twyn’s case, <i>ibid.</i> 539–564.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_509" href="#FNanchor_509" class="label">509</a> April 30 to November 28, 1684. Luttrell, <i>Diary</i>, printed - 10 State Trials 125–129.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_510" href="#FNanchor_510" class="label">510</a> <i>Clarendon Correspondence</i> i. 2.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_511" href="#FNanchor_511" class="label">511</a> 8 State Trials 193, <i>i.e.</i> as resembling the opinions of 1641.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_512" href="#FNanchor_512" class="label">512</a> Gneist 600 n.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_513" href="#FNanchor_513" class="label">513</a> 8 State Trials 194.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_514" href="#FNanchor_514" class="label">514</a> 7 State Trials 1556–1567.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_515" href="#FNanchor_515" class="label">515</a> In this I have constantly used, as will be seen, Sir J. F. Stephen’s - <i>History of the Criminal Law in England</i> (vol. i., especially chapters viii. - and xi.), a work to which I am under the deepest obligations.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_516" href="#FNanchor_516" class="label">516</a> <i>History of England</i> i. 125.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_517" href="#FNanchor_517" class="label">517</a> See the trial of Ireland, Pickering, and Grove. 7 State Trials - 126–129, and 10 State Trials 1087.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_518" href="#FNanchor_518" class="label">518</a> See Raleigh’s Trial, 2 State Trials 18. Jardine, <i>Crim. Trials</i> - 421, where the court decided unanimously against Raleigh’s repeated - demand for the production of Lord Cobham, not, according to Sir - James Fitzjames Stephen’s opinion, without fair colour of law. <i>Hist. - Crim. Law</i> i. 335, 336.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_519" href="#FNanchor_519" class="label">519</a> 1 State Trials 869.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_520" href="#FNanchor_520" class="label">520</a> Not indeed without grievous consequences to themselves. Being - brought to question for their verdict, four of them submitted and - apologised at once. The remainder were imprisoned by order of the - Star Chamber and fined heavily. Stephen i. 329.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_521" href="#FNanchor_521" class="label">521</a> 1 State Trials 957–1042.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_522" href="#FNanchor_522" class="label">522</a> Stephen i. 326.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_523" href="#FNanchor_523" class="label">523</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 336, 350.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_524" href="#FNanchor_524" class="label">524</a> 2 State Trials 25.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_525" href="#FNanchor_525" class="label">525</a> 4 State Trials 354–356.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_526" href="#FNanchor_526" class="label">526</a> 5 State Trials 1185–1195.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_527" href="#FNanchor_527" class="label">527</a> 6 State Trials 932–936.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_528" href="#FNanchor_528" class="label">528</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 938.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_529" href="#FNanchor_529" class="label">529</a> 6 State Trials 697.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_530" href="#FNanchor_530" class="label">530</a> 6 State Trials 605–610.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_531" href="#FNanchor_531" class="label">531</a> 7 State Trials 591–688. And see below 93 <i>seq.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_532" href="#FNanchor_532" class="label">532</a> See Lilburn’s Trial. 4 State Trials 1342.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_533" href="#FNanchor_533" class="label">533</a> Stephen i. 358.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_534" href="#FNanchor_534" class="label">534</a> Trial of Hulet, who was said to have been the actual executioner - of Charles I. 5 State Trials 1185–1195. In summing up, Sir Orlando - Bridgeman, L.C.S., said to the jury:—“Gentlemen, you hear what has - been proved on behalf of the prisoner, that is, if you believe the - witnesses that are not upon oath.” Hulet was convicted, but the - evidence was thought so unsatisfactory that the judges afterwards - procured a reprieve.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_535" href="#FNanchor_535" class="label">535</a> See the Lord Chief Justice’s remarks on the witnesses for the - Five Jesuits. 7 State Trials 41. As to the amount of truth in the - allegation see below.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_536" href="#FNanchor_536" class="label">536</a> At the trial of Colledge:—Sergeant Maynard: “It is Mr. Oates’ - saying; it is Mr. Turbervile’s oath.” 8 State Trials 638.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_537" href="#FNanchor_537" class="label">537</a> See <i>e.g.</i> the statement of Hyde, L.C.J., at Twyn’s trial in 1663. - L.C.J.: “If I did not mistake, you desired to have counsel; was that - your request?” Twyn; “Yes.” L.C.J.: “Then I will tell you, we - are bound to be of counsel with you in point of law; that is, the - court, my brethren and myself, are to see that you suffer nothing for - your want of knowledge in matter of law; I say we are to be of - counsel with you.... To the matter of fact, whether it be so or no; - in this case the law does not allow you counsel to plead for you, but in - matter of law we are of counsel for you, and it shall be our care to - see that you have no wrong done you.” 6 State Trials 516, 517. See - also the 5th Resolution in the case of Sir Harry Vane. 6 State - Trials 131.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_538" href="#FNanchor_538" class="label">538</a> See <i>e.g.</i> Coleman’s trial. 7 State Trials 14. L.C.J.: “The - labour lies upon their hands, ... therefore you need not have counsel, - because the proof must be plain upon you.” See also Don Pantaleon - Sa’s case. 4 State Trials 466.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_539" href="#FNanchor_539" class="label">539</a> See Colledge’s trial. L.C.J. North: “Counsel you cannot have, - unless matter of law arises, and that must be propounded by you; and - then if it be a matter debatable, the court will assign you counsel; - but it must be upon a matter fit to be argued.” 8 State Trials 570. - Similarly Jones, J., <i>ibid.</i> 571.</p> - - <p>At Sidney’s trial Jeffreys, L.C.J.: “If you assign any particular - point of law, then, if the court think it such a point as may be worth - the debating, you shall have counsel.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_540" href="#FNanchor_540" class="label">540</a> 8 State Trials 579.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_541" href="#FNanchor_541" class="label">541</a> See Burnet ii. 196, 291. Pepys, <i>Diary</i> January 21, 1667. - North, <i>Life of Guildford</i> 195, 196, 291.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_542" href="#FNanchor_542" class="label">542</a> 6 State Trials 570.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_543" href="#FNanchor_543" class="label">543</a> 7 State Trials 463.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_544" href="#FNanchor_544" class="label">544</a> 7 State Trials 1339. That the barristers withdrew is evident - from Winnington’s subsequent remark: “We did perceive his counsel - come up towards the bar and very near him, and therefore we thought - it our duty to speak before any inconvenience happened.” <i>Ibid.</i> 1340.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_545" href="#FNanchor_545" class="label">545</a> Sir W. Jones: “My Lords, we do not presume at all to offer our - consent to what time the court shall be adjourned.” L.H.S.; “No, - we do not ask your consent.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_546" href="#FNanchor_546" class="label">546</a> 7 State Trials 1371–1373.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_547" href="#FNanchor_547" class="label">547</a> 7 State Trials 1544.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_548" href="#FNanchor_548" class="label">548</a> The trial of Hawkins for theft in 1669 is of great interest in this - connection. It was evidently considered to be an extreme piece of - good fortune that the accused was able to prove the conspiracy against - him, and it was only owing to the folly and clumsiness of the prosecutor - that he could clearly prove the perjury. 6 State Trials 922–952.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_549" href="#FNanchor_549" class="label">549</a> Sometimes this gave rise to great hardship, as in Oates’ second - trial for perjury, where a witness named Sarah Paine was summoned, - but the wrong Sarah coming, the mistake was not detected until she - was put in the witness-box. 10 State Trials 1287.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_550" href="#FNanchor_550" class="label">550</a> This however was considered rather unfair at the time. See the - case of Atkins. 6 State Trials 1491. The action of the government - and the judges in Colledge’s case (8 State Trials 570–587) in depriving - the prisoner of papers which leave had been given him to write, that - the crown case might be managed accordingly, strained this practice - still further, and is justly termed by Sir J. F. Stephen “one of the - most wholly inexcusable transactions that ever occurred in an English - court.” <i>Hist. Crim. Law</i> i. 406.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_551" href="#FNanchor_551" class="label">551</a> This was certainly so in Newgate and the other London prisons, - but Reading’s intrigue with the Five Popish Lords seems to shew that - the rule was relaxed for the Tower. 7 State Trials 301.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_552" href="#FNanchor_552" class="label">552</a> See the cases of Coleman and Fitzharris. Mrs. Coleman managed - to convey letters to her husband in prison after his arrest. House of - Lords MSS. 8. Mrs. Fitzharris also was used, according to the information - received by the government, to convey messages to her husband - from the leaders of his party. She used, while talking to him in the - presence of a warder, to lower her voice so that he alone could hear, - and then repeat the message in the middle of their ordinary conversation. - Information of Lewis the spy. May 30, 1681. S.P. Dom. - Charles II 415: 334.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_553" href="#FNanchor_553" class="label">553</a> <i>Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy</i> ii. 310.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_554" href="#FNanchor_554" class="label">554</a> That this was recognised at the time is evident from the attention - which they received in the debates in the Commons on the Duke - of York. That on the Lords’ Provision in the Popery bill exempting - the duke was carried on amid cries of “Coleman’s letters! Coleman’s - letters!” 4 <i>Parl. Hist.</i> 1044. And see the whole of the Debate on - a Motion for Removing the Duke of York, where they had the greatest - weight. <i>Ibid.</i> 1026–1034.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_555" href="#FNanchor_555" class="label">555</a> 7 State Trials 6.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_556" href="#FNanchor_556" class="label">556</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 3, 4.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_557" href="#FNanchor_557" class="label">557</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 7–13.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_558" href="#FNanchor_558" class="label">558</a> See above 45–48.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_559" href="#FNanchor_559" class="label">559</a> 7 State Trials 70.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_560" href="#FNanchor_560" class="label">560</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 16, 17.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_561" href="#FNanchor_561" class="label">561</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 18.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_562" href="#FNanchor_562" class="label">562</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 22.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_563" href="#FNanchor_563" class="label">563</a> 7 State Trials 18, 19.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_564" href="#FNanchor_564" class="label">564</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 30–33.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_565" href="#FNanchor_565" class="label">565</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 23, 31.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_566" href="#FNanchor_566" class="label">566</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 25.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_567" href="#FNanchor_567" class="label">567</a> Dryden, <i>Absalom and Achitophel</i> 646: “Sunk were his eyes.” - Warner MS. history 104. “Oculi parvi et in occiput retracti.” - L’Estrange, <i>Hue and Cry after Dr. O.</i> “His eyes are very small and - sunk.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_568" href="#FNanchor_568" class="label">568</a> 7 State Trials 25.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_569" href="#FNanchor_569" class="label">569</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 25–27.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_570" href="#FNanchor_570" class="label">570</a> 7 State Trials 27–29. L.C.J.: “What did he (Oates) say?” - Dolman: “That he did not well know him.” L.C.J.: “Mr. Oates, - you say you were with him (Coleman) at the Savoy and Wild-House; - pray, Sir Thomas, did he say he did not know him, or had seen Mr. - Coleman there?” Dolman: “He did not know him as he stood - there.” Dolben, J.: “Did he say he did not know Mr. Coleman, or - that he did not know that man?” Dolman: “He said he had no - acquaintance with that man (to the best of my remembrance).”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_571" href="#FNanchor_571" class="label">571</a> 7 State Trials 29, 30.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_572" href="#FNanchor_572" class="label">572</a> 7 State Trials 21.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_573" href="#FNanchor_573" class="label">573</a> Oates’ work had certainly been remarkably hard, and his fatigue - was no invention of his own. See the evidence of Sir Thomas Dolman - at Sir George Wakeman’s trial. 7 State Trials 656. Oates was confronted - with Coleman, and charged him with high treason on the night - of Monday, September 30. Dolman: “My Lord, Mr. Oates did appear - before the king and council, I think on the Saturday before which - was Michaelmas eve. The council sat long that morning, the council - sat again in the afternoon, and Mr. Oates was employed that night I - think to search after some Jesuits, who were then taken, and that was - the work of that night. The council I think sat again Sunday in - the afternoon. Mr. Oates was then examined; the council sat long, - and at night he was sent abroad again to search the lodgings of several - priests and to find out their papers, which he did seize upon, and one - of the nights in that season was a very wet night; he went either with - a messenger or with a guard upon him. On Monday morning the - council sat again, and he was further examined, and went abroad; - and Monday night Mr. Oates was in as feeble and weak a condition - as ever I saw man in my life, and was very willing to have been dismissed - for that time, for he seemed to be in very great weakness and - disorder, so that I believe he was scarce able to give a good answer.”</p> - - <p>The whole incident is very similar to that which occurred at Wakeman’s - trial, with the exception that then the evidence went against - the witness, whereas now it was against the prisoner. The conduct - of the court on the two occasions was perfectly consistent. <i>Ibid.</i> 651–653. - See below.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_574" href="#FNanchor_574" class="label">574</a> <i>Hist. Crim. Law</i> i. 385.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_575" href="#FNanchor_575" class="label">575</a> Compare the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, Fenwick, etc. When - Oates had finished his evidence, Fenwick said: “Pray, my Lord, be - pleased to take notice that this man’s evidence all along is that he saw - such and such letters from such and such persons. They have no - evidence but just that, they saw such and such letters.” 7 State - Trials 358.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_576" href="#FNanchor_576" class="label">576</a> 7 State Trials 21, 32.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_577" href="#FNanchor_577" class="label">577</a> As in the case of Dangerfield. 7 State Trials 1110.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_578" href="#FNanchor_578" class="label">578</a> 7 State Trials 359, 411.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_579" href="#FNanchor_579" class="label">579</a> See above 293.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_580" href="#FNanchor_580" class="label">580</a> Fox, <i>History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II</i> 34.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_581" href="#FNanchor_581" class="label">581</a> Gardiner, <i>History of England</i> vii. 323–326.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_582" href="#FNanchor_582" class="label">582</a> 6 State Trials 693.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_583" href="#FNanchor_583" class="label">583</a> One of the women supposed to be bewitched.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_584" href="#FNanchor_584" class="label">584</a> 8 State Trials 1021. <i>Lives of the Norths</i> i. 167.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_585" href="#FNanchor_585" class="label">585</a> An extraordinary instance of the nature of the ideas of the time - on the subject of evidence appears in an examination before the Lords’ - committee of inquiry. Oates complained that the Bishop of Chichester - and Justice Bickley had reviled his evidence. A witness named - Nicholas Covert was examined: “says he was at the public meeting - at Chichester, but he remembers not that anything was said reflecting - on Dr. Oates. The discourse was concerning the Narratives, and - somebody there said that he had contradicted himself twenty-two - times.” House of Lords MSS. 146. If a score of self-contradictions - were not generally taken as an objection to a witness, it is hard to - imagine what would have been.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_586" href="#FNanchor_586" class="label">586</a> <i>History of his own Time.</i> London, 1727, 386.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_587" href="#FNanchor_587" class="label">587</a> Ralph i. 412.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_588" href="#FNanchor_588" class="label">588</a> 7 State Trials 13.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_589" href="#FNanchor_589" class="label">589</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 35–53.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_590" href="#FNanchor_590" class="label">590</a> 7 State Trials 59, 60.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_591" href="#FNanchor_591" class="label">591</a> Being asked what he had to say he returned again to the subject: - “As for my papers I humbly hope ... that I should not have been - found guilty of any crime in them but what the act of grace could - have pardoned.”... <i>Ibid.</i> 71.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_592" href="#FNanchor_592" class="label">592</a> 7 State Trials 8.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_593" href="#FNanchor_593" class="label">593</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 15.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_594" href="#FNanchor_594" class="label">594</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 76.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_595" href="#FNanchor_595" class="label">595</a> House of Lords MSS. 8, November 6, 1678.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_596" href="#FNanchor_596" class="label">596</a> House of Lords MSS. 14.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_597" href="#FNanchor_597" class="label">597</a> This misunderstanding is so extraordinary that I was tempted at - one time to adopt the theory that the prosecution was aware of the - existence of the later letters, and suppressed the knowledge from - motives of expedience. Certainly the managers of the prosecutions - for the plot were guilty of conduct which not only would now be - thought unprofessional, but was on any consideration highly suspicious, - as for instance in the suppression of the forged letters sent - by Oates and Tonge to Father Bedingfield (see Ralph i. 384. Sir G. - Sitwell, <i>The First Whig</i> 36), and on a question of honesty simply - the balance of probability might turn against them. But the supposition - cannot be maintained. It was suggested at the time that, if the - letters of the years 1673, 1674, 1675 contained such dangerous matter - as appeared from their perusal, those of the three ensuing years must, - had they been found, have revealed still more horrible schemes. But - the force of this argument was not sufficient to afford a motive for - taking the risk of detection (Ralph i. 412). And although the personality - of Shaftesbury, by whom alone such a scheme could have been - worked out, was of great potency in the committee of the House of - Lords, he hardly dominated it so completely as to render the manœuvre - practicable in the presence of such men as Lord Anglesey, the Marquis - of Winchester, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells (House of Lords - MSS. i.).</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_598" href="#FNanchor_598" class="label">598</a> See above 312. 7 State Trials 59.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_599" href="#FNanchor_599" class="label">599</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 65.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_600" href="#FNanchor_600" class="label">600</a> L.C.J.: “If the cause did turn upon that matter, I would be - well content to sit until the book were brought; but I doubt the - cause will not stand on that foot; but if that were the case it would - do you little good.” 7 State Trials 65.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_601" href="#FNanchor_601" class="label">601</a> 7 State Trials 71.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_602" href="#FNanchor_602" class="label">602</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 66–68. Besides this he said several other things, of which - mention will be made later.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_603" href="#FNanchor_603" class="label">603</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 70.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_604" href="#FNanchor_604" class="label">604</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 78. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 4. Burnet ii. 178.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_605" href="#FNanchor_605" class="label">605</a> Burnet ii. 113.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_606" href="#FNanchor_606" class="label">606</a> Evidence of Carstairs, 6 State Trials 1503.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_607" href="#FNanchor_607" class="label">607</a> Macaulay, <i>Hist. of England</i> i. 237. Lingard xiii. 107, 108.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_608" href="#FNanchor_608" class="label">608</a> Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. 14. Appendix ii. 361. See also Fairfax - Correspondence. Civil Wars (ed. R. Bell) ii. 297. James Babington - to Henry Lord Fairfax, November 20, 1678. “Staley, the goldsmith’s - son, was tried to-day at the King’s Bench, and condemned.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_609" href="#FNanchor_609" class="label">609</a> Schwerin, <i>Briefe aus England</i> 356. On December 2 (n.s.) - he notes: “Des Goldschmied’s Sohn, von dessen unbesonnenen - Reden ich bereits Mittheilung gemacht, ist gehangen und nachher - geviertheilt worden. Man hatte sich vorher überzeugt, dass er gesagt, - dass der König in England sei der grösste Ketzer und Schelm in der - Welt. Darauf hat er mit der Hand auf die Brust geschlagen, mit den - Füssen fünf bis sechsmal auf die Erde gestampft, und mit ausgestrecktem - Arm gesagt. Dies ist die Hand, die ihn hätte umbringen sollen, der König - und das Parlament glaubten, das alles gethan und vorbei sei, allein die - Schelme wären betrogen.” <i>Ibid.</i> 362. Barillon’s testimony is on - the same side: “Le témoin, sur la foi duquel Staley, fils d’un orrèvre, - a été condamné, a accusé le Duc d’Hamilton.” December 16/26, - 1678. And Warner (MS. history 40): “Primus, qui Catholico - sanguine Angliam rigavit, fuit Gulielmus Stalaeus, alterius Gulielmi - auri fabri et trapazitae Londiniensis civis divitis filius.” The act - under which Staley was condemned is 13 Charles II cap. i.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_610" href="#FNanchor_610" class="label">610</a> House of Lords MSS. 77, 78.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_611" href="#FNanchor_611" class="label">611</a> Burnet (ii. 171) speaks of Staley as “the popish banker, who had - been in great credit, but was then under some difficulties”; but this is - one of the rare mistakes he makes in point of fact.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_612" href="#FNanchor_612" class="label">612</a> He disclaimed all such sentiments and did deny the words, but - afterwards said that he had “never with intention, or any thought or - ill-will, spake any word upon this matter.” 6 State Trials 1506, - 1508.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_613" href="#FNanchor_613" class="label">613</a> 6 State Trials 1509. Lingard (xiii. 108) states on the authority - of <i>Les Conspirations d’Angleterre</i> that Fromante, who is there called - Firmin, was put into prison to prevent his appearance at the trial; but - the work is by no means above suspicion, and is directly contradicted - on the point. Large extracts from <i>Les Conspirations d’Angleterre</i>, which - was published in 1681 and is now extremely rare, are quoted by - Arnauld, <i>Œuvres</i> xiv. 515–535. Arnauld says in a note: “C’est M. - Rocole, ancien chanoine de S. Benoit à Paris, qui en est l’auteur; mais - l’avertissement qui le fait paraître Protestant, n’est pas de lui.” There - is among the State Papers an order in council for the arrest of Bartholemew - Fermin for high treason on account of the Popish Plot, but - without date. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408; i. 110.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_614" href="#FNanchor_614" class="label">614</a> 6 State Trials 1511, 1512.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_615" href="#FNanchor_615" class="label">615</a> Foley v. 233, 234.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_616" href="#FNanchor_616" class="label">616</a> <i>Ibid.</i> v. 12. Lingard xiii. 64. <i>True Narrative of the Horrid Plot - and Conspiracy</i>, lxxvii.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_617" href="#FNanchor_617" class="label">617</a> Foley v. 233, 244, 245.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_618" href="#FNanchor_618" class="label">618</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 223.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_619" href="#FNanchor_619" class="label">619</a> 7 State Trials 91–101.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_620" href="#FNanchor_620" class="label">620</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 101–104.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_621" href="#FNanchor_621" class="label">621</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 105.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_622" href="#FNanchor_622" class="label">622</a> 7 State Trials 105. L.C.J.; “You must be tried by the laws of - England, which sends no piece of fact out of the country to be tried.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_623" href="#FNanchor_623" class="label">623</a> There is much evidence to show this. The following instances - are from the same volume of the State Trials:—The Attorney-General - not allowed to read a certificate against the accused 129. Whitebread - not allowed to use Oates’ <i>Narrative</i> 374. Fenwick, Whitebread, and - Harcourt not allowed to use the report of Ireland’s trial. Harcourt - was, in fact, mistaken on the point for which he wished to refer to the - report 360, 384–386. Lord Stafford not allowed to use the council - book as evidence 1440. See also 451, 462, 467, 654.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_624" href="#FNanchor_624" class="label">624</a> 7 State Trials 106–108.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_625" href="#FNanchor_625" class="label">625</a> On April 16, 1679. <i>Ibid.</i> 259–310, and see below.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_626" href="#FNanchor_626" class="label">626</a> 7 State Trials 272, 295.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_627" href="#FNanchor_627" class="label">627</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 392.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_628" href="#FNanchor_628" class="label">628</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 117, 118. Sergeant Baldwin produced the letter, saying, - “We do conceive a letter from one of that party, bearing date about - the same time, concerning Mr. Whitebread’s summons, who was then - master of the company, is very good evidence against them.”</p> - - <p>The prosecution was forced to retract, and Mr. Finch, the junior, - was made to eat his leader’s words: “My Lord, it can affect no - particular person, but we only use it in general.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_629" href="#FNanchor_629" class="label">629</a> 7 State Trials 120.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_630" href="#FNanchor_630" class="label">630</a> 7 State Trials 315–317.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_631" href="#FNanchor_631" class="label">631</a> Cf. Rookwood’s case 1696. Powell, J.: “Certainly now the jury - is charged, they must give a verdict either of acquittal or conviction.” - Sir T. Trevor, Att. Gen.: “I know what has been usually thought - of Whitebread’s case.” And the trial of Cook, 1696. Powell, J.: - “Whitebread’s case was indeed held to be an extraordinary case.” - And see 7 State Trials 497–500 n, where many instances and opinions - adverse to the decision of the court are collected.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_632" href="#FNanchor_632" class="label">632</a> Hale, P.C. ii. 294. “By the ancient law, if the jury sworn - had been once particularly charged with a prisoner, it was commonly - held they must give up their verdict, and they could not be discharged - before their verdict was given up.... But yet the contrary course - hath for a long time obtained at Newgate, and nothing is more ordinary - than after the jury is sworn and charged with a prisoner and evidence - given, yet if it appears to the court that some of the evidence is kept - back, or taken off, or that there may be a fuller discovery and the - offence notorious, as murder or burglary, and that the evidence, though - not sufficient to convict the prisoner, yet gives the court a great and - strong suspicion of his guilt, the court may discharge the jury of the - prisoner, and remit him to the gaol for further evidence; and accordingly - it has been practised in most circuits of England, for otherwise - many notorious murders and burglaries may pass unpunished, by the - acquittal of a person probably guilty, where the full evidence is not - searched out or given.” “The whole law upon this subject,” says - Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, “was elaborately considered a few - years ago in R. <i>v.</i> Winsor (L.R. 1 Q.B. 289), when it appeared, - from many authorities, that the practice had fluctuated.” <i>Hist. - Crim. Law</i> i. 397.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_633" href="#FNanchor_633" class="label">633</a> 7 State Trials 98.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_634" href="#FNanchor_634" class="label">634</a> 7 State Trials 122–126.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_635" href="#FNanchor_635" class="label">635</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 121, 122.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_636" href="#FNanchor_636" class="label">636</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 124.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_637" href="#FNanchor_637" class="label">637</a> 7 <i>Ibid.</i> 128.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_638" href="#FNanchor_638" class="label">638</a> 10 State Trials 1243–1281.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_639" href="#FNanchor_639" class="label">639</a> 7 State Trials 388–391.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_640" href="#FNanchor_640" class="label">640</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 132.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_641" href="#FNanchor_641" class="label">641</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 133–135.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_642" href="#FNanchor_642" class="label">642</a> Stephen i. 399.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_643" href="#FNanchor_643" class="label">643</a> 7 State Trials 138–141.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_644" href="#FNanchor_644" class="label">644</a> 7 State Trials 142–144. Klopp II. 464, app. IV.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_645" href="#FNanchor_645" class="label">645</a> Foley v. 58.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_646" href="#FNanchor_646" class="label">646</a> See “An impartial consideration of these speeches,” etc., 1670, - attributed to John Williams, D.D. “Animadversions on the last - speeches of the Five Jesuits,” etc., 1679. Printed 7 State Trials 543.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_647" href="#FNanchor_647" class="label">647</a> Burnet ii. 201.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_648" href="#FNanchor_648" class="label">648</a> Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 123, 124. The opinion of Ranke, who in his - writings was neither Catholic nor Protestant, lies midway between - these views: “Grässlich ist die lange Reihe von Hinrichtungen Solcher, - die nichts bekannten,” v. 235.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_649" href="#FNanchor_649" class="label">649</a> “The examination of Captain William Bedloe deceased, taken - in his last sickness by Sir Francis North, Chief Justice of the Court of - Common Pleas.” Printed 6 State Trials 1493–1498.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_650" href="#FNanchor_650" class="label">650</a> See Russell’s written Speech, printed at length, Ralph i. 755–757.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_651" href="#FNanchor_651" class="label">651</a> Sitwell, <i>First Whig</i> 153–158. And see Stephen i. 408, 409.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_652" href="#FNanchor_652" class="label">652</a> Stephen i. 449. And see Burnet II. 303, 304.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_653" href="#FNanchor_653" class="label">653</a> Above 328.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_654" href="#FNanchor_654" class="label">654</a> See above 204–209.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_655" href="#FNanchor_655" class="label">655</a> Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 363. Order of the king - in council, February 5, 1679.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_656" href="#FNanchor_656" class="label">656</a> 7 State Trials 259, 287, 296.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_657" href="#FNanchor_657" class="label">657</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 287–289, 292.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_658" href="#FNanchor_658" class="label">658</a> So Bedloe swore 7 State Trials 271. Burnet (ii. 199) says - that Bedloe made use of Reading’s intrigue to cover his omission to - swear against the Jesuits in the previous December. But Reading - never denied the fact that Bedloe’s account of this part of the transaction - was correct.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_659" href="#FNanchor_659" class="label">659</a> Presumably, from the absence of any Christian name, Mr. George - Speke of White Lackington, M.P. for Somersetshire, a more reputable - person than his sons Hugh and Charles. George Speke had been a - royalist and after the Restoration lived in retirement for many years, - but, following the example of his son-in-law, John Trenchard, turned - against the court and became a leader of the Whig interest in his - part of the country. In 1680 he entertained Monmouth during his - western progress. Fea, <i>King Monmouth</i> 96.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_660" href="#FNanchor_660" class="label">660</a> The date fixed first was March 28, and was afterwards altered. - 7 State Trials 281.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_661" href="#FNanchor_661" class="label">661</a> Evidence of Bedloe, Speke, and Wiggins. <i>Ibid.</i> 270–286.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_662" href="#FNanchor_662" class="label">662</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 278, 279.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_663" href="#FNanchor_663" class="label">663</a> 7 State Trials 310.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_664" href="#FNanchor_664" class="label">664</a> Colonel Mansell’s <i>Exact and True Narrative of the late Popish - Intrigue</i> 64.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_665" href="#FNanchor_665" class="label">665</a> See Ralph i. 431. Echard 970, 971. Danby, <i>Memoirs</i> 39, 40.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_666" href="#FNanchor_666" class="label">666</a> 7 State Trials 763–812. An Exact and True Narrative of the - Horrid Conspiracy of Thomas Knox, William Osborne, and John - Lane to invalidate the testimonies of Dr. Oates and Mr. William - Bedloe. London 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_667" href="#FNanchor_667" class="label">667</a> See below.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_668" href="#FNanchor_668" class="label">668</a> Burnet ii. 200.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_669" href="#FNanchor_669" class="label">669</a> 7 State Trials 881–926.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_670" href="#FNanchor_670" class="label">670</a> This was contradicted and his reputation much debated at the - trial of Lord Stafford eighteen months later; but at the time it was - believed to be the fact.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_671" href="#FNanchor_671" class="label">671</a> Thomas Whitebread, provincial; William Harcourt, rector of - the London province; John Fenwick, procurator for the college at St. - Omers; John Gavan, and Anthony Turner. 7 State Trials 311–418.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_672" href="#FNanchor_672" class="label">672</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 340, 1455. This was so far confirmed that Dugdale was - proved to have spoken on Tuesday, October 15, 1678 of the death - of a justice of the peace in Westminster, which does not go far. - Dugdale also declared at Lord Stafford’s trial that on Coleman’s arrest - the Duke of York sent to Newgate to ask if he had made disclosures - to anybody, and when Coleman returned that he had done so only - to Godfrey, the duke gave orders to have Godfrey killed. 7 State - Trials 1316–1319. Burnet ii. 190, 191. And see above 153, n. - Burnet says: “The Earl of Essex told me he swore it on his first - examination, December 24, 1678, but since it was only on hearsay - from Evers, and so was nothing in law, and yet would heighten the - fury against the duke, the king charged Dugdale to say nothing of - it.” This is a mistake. Dugdale’s first and second examinations, - December 24 and 29, 1678. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: II. 49, 22. - Dugdale did formally tell the story in his information, but not until - March 21, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 135.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_673" href="#FNanchor_673" class="label">673</a> Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 334–342.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_674" href="#FNanchor_674" class="label">674</a> 7 State Trials 343–349.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_675" href="#FNanchor_675" class="label">675</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 119, 355. House of Lords MSS. 15.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_676" href="#FNanchor_676" class="label">676</a> 7 State Trials, 350–357.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_677" href="#FNanchor_677" class="label">677</a> 7 State Trials 359–378.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_678" href="#FNanchor_678" class="label">678</a> “... Three of them, having been apprehended by Sir Will. - Waller at their first coming, told him they were come to be witnesses, - and being asked what they were to witness, they said they must know - that from their superiors.” Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 101.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_679" href="#FNanchor_679" class="label">679</a> Examination of Christopher Townley, April 28, 1679. Fitzherbert - MSS. 151, 152.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_680" href="#FNanchor_680" class="label">680</a> 7 State Trials 371. At the trial of Langhorn another witness - was produced to explain this, but his testimony was unconvincing.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_681" href="#FNanchor_681" class="label">681</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 361, 364, 366. Information was also given that Gifford - had admitted in conversation “that his Superior of the College at - St. Omers had sent him over to swear on behalf of the Lords, and - that he must obey, and would, right or wrong.” Examinations of - Chamberlayne and Gouddall. Fitzherbert MSS. 149.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_682" href="#FNanchor_682" class="label">682</a> Examinations of Coulster and Townley. Fitzherbert MSS - 151, 152.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_683" href="#FNanchor_683" class="label">683</a> 7 State Trials 396–403. North, <i>Examen</i> 239, 240. 10 State - Trials 1183–1188. Smith, <i>Intrigues of the Popish Plot</i>. The evil - reputation of these men was unknown at the time of the trial. See - Burnet ii. 226.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_684" href="#FNanchor_684" class="label">684</a> 7 State Trials 404–418.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_685" href="#FNanchor_685" class="label">685</a> At the time of the fire of London, Tillotson told Burnet a story of - Langhorn’s methods of business which is too ridiculous to be believed. - Burnet i. 412.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_686" href="#FNanchor_686" class="label">686</a> <i>True Narrative</i> lxxxi.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_687" href="#FNanchor_687" class="label">687</a> 7 State Trials 463–465, 470.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_688" href="#FNanchor_688" class="label">688</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 439.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_689" href="#FNanchor_689" class="label">689</a> 7 State Trials 514.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_690" href="#FNanchor_690" class="label">690</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 172, 173.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_691" href="#FNanchor_691" class="label">691</a> Sidney, <i>Letters</i> 124. “Wakeman’s trial is put off, as is believed, - to avoid the indecency of the discourses that would have been made.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_692" href="#FNanchor_692" class="label">692</a> L.J. xiii. 388–392. C.J. November 28, 29, 1678. Ralph i. - 397. James (Or. Mem.) i. 529.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_693" href="#FNanchor_693" class="label">693</a> Burnet ii. 231.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_694" href="#FNanchor_694" class="label">694</a> 7 State Trials 602–618.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_695" href="#FNanchor_695" class="label">695</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 619–623.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_696" href="#FNanchor_696" class="label">696</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 624–641. Bedloe however gave no evidence against the - prisoner Rumley.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_697" href="#FNanchor_697" class="label">697</a> 7 State Trials 644–651. Sir J. F. Stephen has strangely missed - the bearing of this evidence, and writes as if it had been decisive in - favour of the prisoners. <i>Hist. Crim. Law</i> i. 391.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_698" href="#FNanchor_698" class="label">698</a> The first serious acquittal at least, for the trial of Atkins, after - the conviction of Green, Berry, and Hill for the murder of Godfrey, - was hardly more than formal.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_699" href="#FNanchor_699" class="label">699</a> 7 State Trials 651–653.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_700" href="#FNanchor_700" class="label">700</a> Hatton Correspondence ii. 187. Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, - July 10, 1679. “Mr. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane was bailed - yesterday, and if my Lord Chief Justice hang five hundred Jesuits, he - will not regain the opinion he thereby lost with the populace, to court - whom he will not act against his conscience.” Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> - i. 74.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_701" href="#FNanchor_701" class="label">701</a> Verney MSS. 474.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_702" href="#FNanchor_702" class="label">702</a> Burnet ii. 232. <i>The Narrative of Segnior Francisco de Faria</i>, - 1680, 17, 18.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_703" href="#FNanchor_703" class="label">703</a> Deposition of F. de Faria, March 24, 1681. S.P. Dom. Charles - II 415: 159. Verney MSS. 474. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 17, 74.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_704" href="#FNanchor_704" class="label">704</a> Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 19.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_705" href="#FNanchor_705" class="label">705</a> 8 State Trials 163–174. Hatton Correspondence ii. 220.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_706" href="#FNanchor_706" class="label">706</a> 7 State Trials 702–706.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_707" href="#FNanchor_707" class="label">707</a> Hatton Correspondence ii. 191, 195, 207–210.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_708" href="#FNanchor_708" class="label">708</a> C.J. ix. 661, 688–692. L.J. xiii. 736–739. Luttrell, <i>Brief - Relation</i> i. 64.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_709" href="#FNanchor_709" class="label">709</a> L.J. xiii. 752.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_710" href="#FNanchor_710" class="label">710</a> Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 74, 75.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_711" href="#FNanchor_711" class="label">711</a> See Burnet ii. 196. North, <i>Examen</i> 567, 568. <i>Lives of the - Norths</i>, 195, 196. Hatton Correspondence, <i>passim</i>.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_712" href="#FNanchor_712" class="label">712</a> Burnet ii. 196. North, <i>Examen</i> 568.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_713" href="#FNanchor_713" class="label">713</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 146. “Being with the king at the Duchess - of Portsmouth’s lodgings, my Lord Treasurer being also present, the - king told me he took it (Oates’ story) to be some artifice, and that he - did not believe one word of the Plot.” Reresby, though always well-informed, - was never at this time in possession of real secrets.</p> - - <p>Barillon, October 1/10, 1678. “Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne - m’a dit qu’il ne croyait pas que cette accusation eût un veritable - fondement.”</p> - - <p>Shaftesbury, <i>The present state of the Kingdom at the opening of</i> - <i>the Parliament</i>, March 6, 1679. “As concerning the plot and the - murder of Godfrey, the king’s discourses and managing are new and - extraordinary. No man can judge by them but that he is in the plot - against his own life; and no man doubts but he is so far in as concerns - us all.” Printed Christie ii. 309.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_714" href="#FNanchor_714" class="label">714</a> Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. “Le Roi d’Angleterre ne me - parle plus comme il a parlé jusqu’à present. Il me dit hier que la - déposition d’un dernier témoin nommé Ducdale lui parassait si peu - concertée et si pleine de faits vraisemblables qu’il ne pouvait plus - s’empêcher de croire à une conspiration contre sa personne. Ce - Prince me redit toutes les raisons qui lui ont fait croire qu’Oats et - Benloi sont des parjures et des imposteurs, mais en même temps il me - fit connaître que ce qu’ils avaient dit de faux n’empêchait pas qu’il - n’y eût quelque chose de vrai qui servait pour fondement à tout ce - qu’ils avaient pu inventer d’eux mêmes.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_715" href="#FNanchor_715" class="label">715</a> See the trials of Andrew Bromwich, 7 State Trials 715–726, - Lionel Anderson and others, <i>ibid.</i> 729–750, Knox and Lane, <i>ibid.</i> - 763–812, Lord Castlemaine, <i>ibid.</i> 1067–1112.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_716" href="#FNanchor_716" class="label">716</a> Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 34.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_717" href="#FNanchor_717" class="label">717</a> See <i>e.g.</i> his summing up at Lord Castlemaine’s trial. 7 State - Trials 1408–1412.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_718" href="#FNanchor_718" class="label">718</a> In spite of his own and his brother’s assertions there cannot be - the least doubt of this. North afterwards declared in his memoirs - that he never believed in the Popish Plot, a statement which is belied - by every action and word of his on the bench.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_719" href="#FNanchor_719" class="label">719</a> 7 State Trials 218, at the trial of Green, Berry, and Hill.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_720" href="#FNanchor_720" class="label">720</a> 7 State Trials 69.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_721" href="#FNanchor_721" class="label">721</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 133, 134.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_722" href="#FNanchor_722" class="label">722</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 218, 411, 642, 1102. 10 State Trials 1170. L.C.J.: “You - may assure yourselves, I will remember whatsoever has been said on - the one side and on t’other as well as I can; the gentlemen of - the jury are men of understanding, and I see they take notes, and I’ll - give them what assistance I can.” Instances might be multiplied. See - Stephen i. 377, 566, 567.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_723" href="#FNanchor_723" class="label">723</a> 6 State Trials 701–710. His trial was in 1665.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_724" href="#FNanchor_724" class="label">724</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1088.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_725" href="#FNanchor_725" class="label">725</a> 7 State Trials 134. <i>Absalom and Achitophel</i> 120.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_726" href="#FNanchor_726" class="label">726</a> 7 State Trials 678–680. This is another fair specimen. “Never - brag of your religion, for it is a foul one, and so contrary to Christ; it - is easier to believe anything than to believe that an understanding man - may be a papist.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_727" href="#FNanchor_727" class="label">727</a> These trials in their order of mention will be found:—7 State - Trials 1043. <i>Ibid.</i> 959. 8 State Trials 502. 7 State Trials 1162. - 8 State Trials 447. 7 State Trials 1067. 8 State Trials 243.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_728" href="#FNanchor_728" class="label">728</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 194.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_729" href="#FNanchor_729" class="label">729</a> See Appendix E.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_730" href="#FNanchor_730" class="label">730</a> The proceedings in Parliament against the five popish lords are - collected in 7 State Trials 1218–1292.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_731" href="#FNanchor_731" class="label">731</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 193, 194, North, <i>Examen</i> 218.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_732" href="#FNanchor_732" class="label">732</a> Barillon, November 31/December 9, 1680. “Ce qui se passera - dans ce procès est de grande consequence. Si le comte de Stafford - était absous, la conjuration recevrait une grande atteinte, et quoique le - peuple soit prévenu, il est néantmoins assujetti aux règles et aux lois, - et ne s’en départ pas aisément.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_733" href="#FNanchor_733" class="label">733</a> <i>Secret Services of Charles II and James II</i> 24.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_734" href="#FNanchor_734" class="label">734</a> Barillon, December 6/16, 9/19, 1680. James i. 640.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_735" href="#FNanchor_735" class="label">735</a> 7 State Trials 1298–1339.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_736" href="#FNanchor_736" class="label">736</a> Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1341–1347.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_737" href="#FNanchor_737" class="label">737</a> Oates’ evidence. <i>Ibid.</i> 1347–1350.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_738" href="#FNanchor_738" class="label">738</a> Turbervile’s evidence. <i>Ibid.</i> 1351–1355.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_739" href="#FNanchor_739" class="label">739</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1394, 1395.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_740" href="#FNanchor_740" class="label">740</a> 7 State Trials 1397–1400.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_741" href="#FNanchor_741" class="label">741</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1388–1393.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_742" href="#FNanchor_742" class="label">742</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1396–1406.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_743" href="#FNanchor_743" class="label">743</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1407–1415.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_744" href="#FNanchor_744" class="label">744</a> 7 State Trials 1415–1419.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_745" href="#FNanchor_745" class="label">745</a> Stafford admitted afterwards that in recent years he had constantly - used a walking stick, “being lame with weariness.” <i>Ibid.</i> 1478.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_746" href="#FNanchor_746" class="label">746</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1419–1434.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_747" href="#FNanchor_747" class="label">747</a> 7 State Trials 1437–1447.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_748" href="#FNanchor_748" class="label">748</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1462, 1463.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_749" href="#FNanchor_749" class="label">749</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1485–1492.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_750" href="#FNanchor_750" class="label">750</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1486–1491.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_751" href="#FNanchor_751" class="label">751</a> 6 State Trials 119.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_752" href="#FNanchor_752" class="label">752</a> 7 State Trials 1519–1529.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_753" href="#FNanchor_753" class="label">753</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1493–1515.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_754" href="#FNanchor_754" class="label">754</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1544–1551.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_755" href="#FNanchor_755" class="label">755</a> Reresby thought that he acquitted himself well, but James said - “it was always his misfortune to play his game worst when he had the - best cards.” James i. 637.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_756" href="#FNanchor_756" class="label">756</a> Barillon, December 16/26 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_757" href="#FNanchor_757" class="label">757</a> Reresby, <i>Memoirs</i> 194.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_758" href="#FNanchor_758" class="label">758</a> Anglesey, <i>Memoirs</i> 9.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_759" href="#FNanchor_759" class="label">759</a> Barillon, November 21/December 1, 1680. “Ce Prince prend - souvent la liberté de se moquer la conjuration, et ne se constraint pas - d’appeller tout haut Oatz et Bedlow des coquins. Il a dit cependant - que les preuves contre le Vicomte de Stafford étaient fortes, et qu’il - pouvait bien n’être pas innocent.”</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_760" href="#FNanchor_760" class="label">760</a> Hatton Correspondence ii. 241.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_761" href="#FNanchor_761" class="label">761</a> Barillon, December 9/19 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_762" href="#FNanchor_762" class="label">762</a> <i>Ibidem.</i></p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_763" href="#FNanchor_763" class="label">763</a> The Earls of Carlisle, Berkshire, and Suffolk. The appearance of - Lord Howard of Escrick on the same side is of no importance on - account of his bad character.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_764" href="#FNanchor_764" class="label">764</a> Anglesey, <i>Memoirs</i> 9. James to Hyde. Clarendon Cor. i. 50. - James to Col. Legge, Dartmouth MSS. 54. Barillon, December 19/29, - 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_765" href="#FNanchor_765" class="label">765</a> L.J. xiii. 724. C.J. December 23, 1680. <i>Parl. Hist.</i> iv. 1261. - 7 State Trials 1562.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_766" href="#FNanchor_766" class="label">766</a> 7 State Trials 1544, 1440–1447, 1342, 1343.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_767" href="#FNanchor_767" class="label">767</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1564–1567.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_768" href="#FNanchor_768" class="label">768</a> Echard 997. Lingard xiii. 247–249.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_769" href="#FNanchor_769" class="label">769</a> Dispatch of Sarotti-Bignola, January 10, 1681. “Tanta è la - impressione de’ popoli della verità della congiura e della reità del - conte (Stafford), che da pochi è stato compatito e molti lo hanno - ingiurato con infami parole.” Quoted Brosch 451. Dispatch of - Thun, January 10, 1681. “Der Henker hat den kopf auf der Bühne - herumgetragen und dem Volke gezeigt, welches darüber ein unausprechliches - Freuden- und frohlockendes Geschrei hat erschallen lassen.” - Quoted Klopp II 473, app. XXII.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_770" href="#FNanchor_770" class="label">770</a> 7 State Trials 1129–1162.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_771" href="#FNanchor_771" class="label">771</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1162.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_772" href="#FNanchor_772" class="label">772</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1133.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_773" href="#FNanchor_773" class="label">773</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1161.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_774" href="#FNanchor_774" class="label">774</a> Evidence of Richmond and Bridges. <i>Ibid.</i> 1140, 1142.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_775" href="#FNanchor_775" class="label">775</a> Evidence of Arnold. 7 State Trials 1135–1137.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_776" href="#FNanchor_776" class="label">776</a> Evidence of Phillips. <i>Ibid.</i> 1138.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_777" href="#FNanchor_777" class="label">777</a> Evidence of Philpot. <i>Ibid.</i> 1145, 1146.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_778" href="#FNanchor_778" class="label">778</a> Evidence of Watkins, Richmond, and Powel. <i>Ibid.</i> 1139.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_779" href="#FNanchor_779" class="label">779</a> Evidence of H. Jones and J. Jones. <i>Ibid.</i> 1146, 1147.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_780" href="#FNanchor_780" class="label">780</a> Evidence of W. Richmond. 7 State Trials 1140, 1141, and evidence for the - defence. <i>Ibid.</i> 1148–1151.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_781" href="#FNanchor_781" class="label">781</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1152–1159.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_782" href="#FNanchor_782" class="label">782</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 1160. Luttrell, <i>Brief Relation</i> i. 53, 55. S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 79. - Petition of John Giles. Read in Council, 6 August 1680.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_783" href="#FNanchor_783" class="label">783</a> 7 State Trials 1138, 1146.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_784" href="#FNanchor_784" class="label">784</a> It is evident that the writer was an agent employed by Jenkins for the purpose. - Otherwise the secretary would certainly have noted from whom and the date on which - he received the information. The style of the report is also evidence of this.</p> - - </div> - - <div class="footnote"> - - <p><a id="Footnote_785" href="#FNanchor_785" class="label">785</a> Stephen i. 393. Macaulay i. 234.</p> - - </div> - -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> - -<div class="transnote-end chapter p4"> - - <p class="center bold TN-style-1"><a id="TN"></a>Transcriber’s Note (continued)</p> - - <p class="TN-style-1">When they occur in quoted text and their - citations, inconsistencies in spelling (particularly of names), - accenting, hyphenation, abbreviation, etc., have been left unchanged - in this transcription. Minor typographical errors in the author’s text - have been corrected without note while other changes to his text are as - stated below.</p> - - <p class="TN-style-2">Page xv - “efuge” changed to “refuge” (March 24  Danby takes refuge at Whitehall.)</p> - - <p class="TN-style-2">Page 59 - “has” changed to “have” (various ways of procuring success - for the Catholic religion have thus been considered)</p> - - <p class="TN-style-2">Page 174 - “Monmonth” changed to “Monmouth” (Duke of Monmouth)</p> - - <p class="TN-style-2">Page 181 - “Trelawney” changed to “Trelawny” (Sir Jonathan Trelawny)</p> - - <p class="TN-style-2">Page 282 - “thay” changed to “they” (formerly they had feared dismissal)</p> - - <hr class="r10"> - - <p class="TN-style-1">The 785 footnotes have been renumbered and moved from the bottom of - pages to a <a href="#FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES section</a> at the end of the transcription.</p> - - <hr class="r10"> - - <p class="TN-style-1"><a class="underline" href="#top">Back to top</a></p> - -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE POPISH PLOT ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/69912-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/69912-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0f0df6b..0000000 --- a/old/69912-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
