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.