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.