House of Lords’ MSS. 46, 47. Evidence of Brown, the constable, at the
inquest. _Brief Hist._ iii. 212–215, 222.
[160] Deposition of White, coroner of Westminster. _Brief Hist._ iii.
224.
[161] Quoted from the printed copy published by Janeway in 1682. _Brief
Hist._ iii. 232.
[162] “The jury’s reasons for the verdict they gave.” _Brief Hist._
iii. chap. xii.
[163] Evidence of Collins, Mason, and Radcliffe. _Brief Hist._ iii.
252, 300. Some not very good evidence was collected several years
afterwards as to Godfrey’s movements later in the day. It cannot be
considered trustworthy. 8 State Trials 1387, 1392, 1393. _Brief Hist._
iii. 174, 175.
[164] The coroner’s evidence before the Lords’ committee; “There was
nothing in the field on Tuesday.” House of Lords MSS. 47. Evidence of
Mrs. Blith and her man at the inquest. _Brief Hist._ iii. 244.
[165] Deposition of Robert Forset. 8 State Trials 1394, 1395.
[166] Sir George Sitwell says: “The bruises or discolourations upon
his chest might well have been produced by those who knelt upon it in
stripping off the clothes” (_First Whig_ 41). Bruises however cannot
be made to appear upon a corpse beyond the time of three and a half
hours after death (Professor H. A. Husband in the _Student’s Handbook
of Forensic Medicine_), nor is there any evidence that the body was so
treated. Marks which look like bruises may be caused after death by the
process of hypostasis or suggillation, the gravitation of the blood to
the lowest point in the dead body. But if the marks on Godfrey’s body
had been thus caused, the face and neck would have shown pronounced
signs of discolouration, since the head was lower than any other point
in the body. It had moreover been in that position for at most only
twenty-four hours, so that the blood would not have gravitated to the
chest immediately after death at all.
[167] L’Estrange afterwards persuaded the surgeon Lazinby to say that
the mark was caused by the pressure of the collar. _Brief Hist._ iii.
259. But his evidence in court was, on the contrary, that it was caused
“by the strangling with a cord or cloth.” 8 State Trials 1384.
[168] The evidence as to the exact condition of the neck, varies
slightly, but the doctors, and indeed all who saw the body, were agreed
that it was broken.
[169] Evidence of the surgeons Cambridge and Skillard at the trial
of Green, Berry, and Hill. 7 State Trials 185, 186. Evidence of the
coroner before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. Evidence
of Hobbs and Lazinby, surgeons, and the two Chaces, apothecaries, at
the trial of Thompson, Pain, and Farwell. 8 State Trials 1381–1384.
[170] Evidence of Brown, Skillard, and Cambridge at the trial of Green
and others. 7 State Trials 184, 185, 186. Evidence of Hazard, Batson,
Fisher, Rawson, Mrs. Rawson, Hobbs, Lazinby, the Chaces, at the trial
of Thompson and others. 8 State Trials 1379–1384. Depositions of
Skillard, Rawson, and others. _Brief Hist._ iii. 265–271. Some of the
witnesses in their depositions before L’Estrange spoke of the presence
of a greater quantity of blood than they had previously remembered.
Obviously their earlier impressions are the more trustworthy. Even at
the later date the quantity to which they swore was not considerable.
[171] _Brief Hist._ iii. 271. He does not attempt however to give any
evidence for his statement.
[172] _Brief Hist._ iii. 230.
[173] Mr. W. M. Fletcher, M.B., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
has kindly furnished me with his opinion on this point. He says: “A
sword transfixing the living body and at the same time driven through
the cavity of the heart would cause violent hæmorrhage from one or
other of the external wounds, except only under a set of circumstances
which could be present only by the rarest chance; the hæmorrhage, that
is to say, could be restrained only by an accidental block produced
not only at one but at two points on either side of the heart cavity,
where the torn tissues might happen so to fit outwards upon and closely
against the undisturbed sword as to form a kind of valve. Such an
accidental valve formation, occurring at two separate points on each
side of the pent-up blood, is improbable enough, but could not be
imagined as a prevention of hæmorrhage if the sword were bent, twisted,
or withdrawn after the infliction of the wound.”
[174] 7 State Trials 295. Information of Mrs. Warrier. _Brief Hist._
iii. 142. Burnet ii. 164. Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’
committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. L’Estrange produces two depositions
to the effect that the ground was quite dry and not muddy, and in
doing so contradicts the argument upon which he lays stress in arguing
against Prance’s story (see below) that if the body had been brought to
Primrose Hill upon a horse, the feet and legs must have been covered
with mud. _Brief Hist._ iii. 261, and see 8 State Trials 1370 for the
same point in Thompson’s libel.
[175] 8 State Trials 1359–1389.
[176] Barillon, October 21/31, 1678. “Ce Godefroy s’est trouvé mort à
trois milles d’ici sans qu’on sache qui l’a tué. Le Roi d’Angleterre
et M. le Duc d’York m’ont dit que c’était une espèce de fanatique et
qu’ils croyent qu’il s’était tué lui-même.”
[177] Burnet ii. 165. Blencowe’s _Sidney_ lxii. Lady Sunderland to John
Evelyn, December 25, 1678.
[178] See the letter subscribed T. G. to Secretary Coventry and
Coventry’s reply. Longleat MSS. See Appendix B.
[179] John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471. This did not
take place till November, but it may be noted at this point.
[180] Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. Despatches of Giacomo Ronchi,
secret agent of the Duke of Modena in London, January 20, 1679. Campana
de Cavelli i. 239. _Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury_ i. 29.
[181] Lansd. MSS. 1235: 76. North, _Examen_ 202, 204, 205. North alone
relates the incident of the pulpit. As Ranke observes, he has never
been contradicted, so that the story may be accepted. Burnet ii. 165.
Ralph i. 392. Echard 950. Oldmixon 620.
[182] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1022. L.J. xiii. 299. House of Lords MSS. i.
[183] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 232. The information of October
27 is practically the same as that given below from the Lords’ Journals.
[184] Examination of Charles Atkins, Esq. 6 State Trials 1479. L.J.
November 12, 1678.
[185] Evidence of C. Atkins before the Lords’ Committee. 6 State Trials
1474.
[186] 6 State Trials 1473–1492.
[187] 6 State Trials 1484, 1491.
[188] There is unfortunately a gap from October 28 to December 11 in
the minutes of the committee of inquiry of the House of Lords, so that
it is impossible to check Atkins’ statements exactly.
[189] See 6 State Trials 1476, 1481.
[190] _Ibid._ 1474.
[191] _Ibid._ 1481.
[192] See the conversations between Charles and Samuel Atkins on the
stairs of the committee room, November 6, and in Newgate, November 8.
_Ibid._ 1480, 1484. North, _Examen_ 243–247.
[193] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 285. Bedloe to Williamson, October
31, 1678; ii. 23. Williamson to Bedloe, November 5. _Brief Hist._ iii.
7. Coventry to Bedloe, November 2.
[194] See Appendix B.
[195] Whence Lingard derives the words I cannot discover, xiii. 98.
_Brief Hist._ iii. 16. Ralph i. 393. Burnet ii. 168. Burnet, who
relates that Charles told him the same thing of Bedloe, must have
misunderstood the king’s words, unless, which is quite possible,
Charles deceived him intentionally.
[196] Add. MSS. 11,058: 244. See Appendix B.
[197] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. See Appendix B.
[198] Deposition of November 8 before the Lords’ committee. 6 State
Trials 1487.
[199] _Ibid._ 1489.
[200] _Ibid._ 1484.
[201] 7 State Trials 347, 349. Exam. of November 7. S.P. Dom. Charles
II 407. See Appendix B. Care, _History of the Plot_ 127.
[202] Warner MS. history 36. Exam, of Mary Bedloe (see below). Burnet
ii. 168. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 127, _Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami
à Paris_, 1679. L.J. xiii. 392. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 149.
[203] L.J. xiii. 343, November 12.
[204] Deposition of Alice Tainton, alias Bedloe, taken this 14th day of
November 1678, before the Rt. Rev. father in God William Lord Bishop
of Landaffe, one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace in the county
of Monmouth. Deposition of Mary Bedloe of Chepstow of same date before
the Bishop of Landaffe. Deposition of Gregory Appleby, December 2, 1678
before the Bishop of Landaffe. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 287,
307.
[205] L.J. November 24, 28; xiii. 389, 391.
[206] 6 State Trials 1489, 1490. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 51. North,
_Examen_ 248.
[207] 6 State Trials 1490, 1491. For Staley’s case see below in Trials
for Treason. North, _Examen_ 249.
[208] Evidence of Captain Vittells and his men before the Lords’
committee. House of Lords MSS. 49, 50, 51. Evidence of Vittells and
Tribbett at Atkins’ trial. 7 State Trials 248.
[209] 6 State Trials 1491, 1492.
[210] 7 State Trials 238–240.
[211] Bedloe’s evidence. _Ibid._ 242, 243.
[212] _Ibid._ 241, 245.
[213] _Ibid._ 246–249.
[214] _Ibid._ 249. North, _Examen_ 250, 251. North’s account is as
usual highly coloured, and contains at least one untrue statement.
[215] Bedloe’s deposition before the Lords’ committee. L.J. November
12, xiii. 350, 351.
[216] 7 State Trials 237.
[217] See below in _Trials for Treason_.
[218] Burnet ii. 191. 7 State Trials 183. _True Narrative and
Discovery_ 20. _Brief Hist._ iii. 52, 53, 65. L’Estrange alone gives
the words. The fact that Prance was questioned about the periwig makes
it probable that they are more or less correct. L’Estrange also says
that the meeting was prearranged by Bedloe and Sir William Waller.
Reasons for disbelieving this will appear later.
[219] House of Lords MSS. 51.
[220] L.J. xiii. 431. Blencowe’s _Sidney_ lxii. Lady Sunderland to John
Evelyn, December 25, 1678.
[221] C.J. ix. 563. L’Estrange comments on this: “It makes a man
tremble to think what a jail delivery of discoverers this temptation
might have produced” (_Brief Hist._ iii. 55). Surely it is more
natural to suppose that the information was directed not to the common
malefactors, but to those already imprisoned in Newgate on account
of the plot. If an examination of Prance was taken by the Commons’
committee, it was never reported to the House. On December 30, 1678
Parliament was prorogued, and on January 24, 1679 dissolved. The new
parliament did not meet till March 6, when the trial for Godfrey’s
murder had already taken place, and Green, Berry, and Hill had been
hanged.
[222] L.J. xiii. 436.
[223] The deposition begins, “That it was either at the latter end or
the beginning of the week that Sir E. Godfrey,” and so on. The rest
of the examination is only intelligible on the ground that Saturday
was the day of the murder. Prance’s reasons for prevaricating in this
statement will be the subject of discussion below.
[224] L.J. xiii. 437, 438. 7 State Trials 191, 192. Evidence of Sir
Robert Southwell, clerk to the privy council. There exists among the
state papers the notes taken by Sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of
state, of Prance’s first examination before the council. They only
differ from the account in the Lords’ Journals in that they begin
“On a certain Monday.” The paper is worth studying for the wonderful
vividness in which Williamson’s disjointed sentences bring the scene to
the mind. See Appendix B.
[225] L.J. xiii. 439.
[226] House of Lords MSS. 52.
[227] Warner MS. history 37. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 17. Note
of the proceedings at the council on December 30. 7 State Trials 177,
210. Evidence of Richardson and Chiffinch. James (Or. Mem.) i. 535.
Burnet ii. 193. _Brief Hist._ iii. 61, 62, 65. L’Estrange says that
the king saw Prance alone on the evening of December 29, and called in
Richardson and Chiffinch afterwards. This is contradicted by Richardson
and Burnet. It would moreover have been a piece of imprudence unlike
Charles’ caution; and as none of the Whig writers, who would have
given much to obtain such a handle against the king, mention a private
interview, the story is probably without truth. The events which passed
between Prance’s first confession and his final adherence to it will be
discussed below.
[228] 7 State Trials 167, 168, 169.
[229] _Ibid._ 179–183.
[230] L.J. xiii. 437.
[231] 7 State Trials 169–173.
[232] _Ibid._ 186, 187.
[233] _True Narrative and Discovery_ 12.
[234] 7 State Trials 169, 188, 189.
[235] 7 State Trials 174. _True Narrative_ 18.
[236] 7 State Trials 190.
[237] 7 State Trials 195–200.
[238] _Ibid._ 201, 202.
[239] _Ibid._ 204, 205, 206.
[240] _Ibid._ 207, 208, 209.
[241] 7 State Trials 213–221.
[242] _Ibid._ 223–230. Burnet ii. 194, 195.
[243] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 9.
[244] 7 State Trials 228.
[245] _Brief Hist._ iii. 26, 27.
[246] _Brief Hist._ iii. 66, 67.
[247] _Ibid._ 67, 68. Cooper’s information of January 9 and January 11.
[248] _Ibid._ 69, 75. Informations of Boyce.
[249] Lloyd’s report to the Council. _Brief Hist._ iii. 69. Lloyd to
L’Estrange. _Ibid._ 82.
[250] Lloyd’s report to the Council. Fitzherbert MSS. 154. _Brief
Hist._ iii. 69, 71. Lloyd to L’Estrange. _Ibid._ 85.
[251] Burnet ii. 193, 194.
[252] Burnet ii. 194. _Brief Hist._ iii. 85, 86.
[253] State Trials 1183–1188. This was also a Jesuit story. Warner MS.
history 37, “fidiculis tortus et se reum asseruit, et complius [sic.
qu. complures] se accusaturum.”
[254] 7 State Trials 1199, 1200, 1210–1212.
[255] Evidence of Fowler. _Ibid._ 1194–1197, 1204–1209.
[256] The improbability does not lie in the unlikelihood of the
application of torture to witnesses at this date so much as in the
nature of the particular facts alleged, which cannot be believed.
_Brief Hist._ iii. 76, 77, 78, 80. L’Estrange procured Corral to
contradict his evidence at the trial. _Ibid._ 102, 106. It is important
to insist upon the falsehood of the charge in this case, because it has
been adopted without question by Foley v. 29, n., and see Echard, 503
_seq._
[257] _Brief Hist._ iii. 84.
[258] _True Narrative_ 11.
[259] 7 State Trials 180.
[260] _True Narrative_ 13, 14.
[261] 7 State Trials 172. _True Narrative_ 15.
[262] 7 State Trials 173. _True Narrative_ 16, 17.
[263] 6 State Trials 1487. 7 State Trials 182.
[264] 6 State Trials 1488.
[265] _Ibid._ 1487.
[266] Prance to L’Estrange, January 17, 1688. _Brief Hist._ iii. 127.
[267] _Brief Hist._ ii. 52, 53.
[268] It is worthy of remark that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, judging
only from the evidence which Prance gave at the trial, has come to the
same conclusion. _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 393.
[269] It was ordered that an examination should be held on the subject,
but Coleman was never questioned on Godfrey’s death. House of Lords
MSS. 48. L.J. xiii. 303, 307, 308.
[270] Warner MS. history 27: “Rem totam Eboracensi detulit,” _Florus
Anglo-Bavaricus_ 97. James (Or. Mem.) i. 534. North, _Examen_ 174.
Lingard xiii. 69. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 40.
[271] _Brief Hist._ iii. 181–186.
[272] See above, 89.
[273] James (Or. Mem.) i. 517–519. _Impartial State of the Case of the
Earl of Danby._ Lingard xiii. 68.
[274] North, _Examen_ 174. _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 97, 98. Godfrey
“rem totam Edwardo Coleman ... per literas aperuit: quod non neminem
usque adeo offendit, ut Godefredus haud ita multo post violenta morte
suam in Catholicos benevolentiam luerit.” Warner MS. history 26, 31,
to the same effect. Warner names Danby as the probable author of the
murder.
[275] 7 State Trials 168. House of Lords MSS. 47. _Brief Hist._ iii.
187. Burnet ii. 163.
[276] Burnet, _ibid._
[277] 7 State Trials 29.
[278] Welden’s evidence before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords
MSS. 48.
[279] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 325. Warner MS. history 27. “Ad congregationem
provincialem ubi ventum est, cui se interfuisse mentitus predicat
Oates, Carolus ab eo petiit, ubinam convenissent Jesuitae? Respondit
alter, magna cum fiducia, convenisse Londini, in plataea quae Strand
dicitur, in oenopolio cui insigne Equi Albi. Hoc falsum esse sciebat
Carolus, cui notum ipsos in ipsa Eboracensis Aula convenisse; cujus
tamen rei nec Carolus nec ullus alius Catholicorum apologista mentionem
fecit donec persecutio plane desaevisset, ne augeretur inde in
Eboracensem invidia.”
[280] At Lord Stafford’s trial in 1680 Dugdale, the informer, declared
that Godfrey had been murdered by the Duke of York’s orders because
Coleman had made disclosures to him. He did not however suggest what
the nature of those disclosures was. A theory not unlike that set out
in the text was therefore in the air at the time. As almost every
conceivable hypothesis to account for the murder was being discussed,
this is not surprising; but there was this difference, that then
Dugdale had no good reason to offer in favour of the truth of what he
said. He was at the time of the murder in communication with various
Jesuits in Staffordshire: but it is most unlikely that, even if they
knew anything about it, they would have told him. If he had known
anything, it would probably have been that the Jesuit congregation
was held at St. James’; and he was certainly ignorant of this. Burnet
tells, on the authority of the Earl of Essex, that the king prevailed
on Dugdale to stifle this part of his information because it pressed on
the Duke of York; but, as Essex, or Burnet, taking the tale from him,
was mistaken as to the date when Dugdale first told the story, and as
Dugdale could beyond doubt have had a better price for his information
from Shaftesbury than from Charles for the suppression of it, this
cannot be believed without corroboration, which is not forthcoming.
Burnet ii. 190, 191. 7 State Trials, 1316, 1319. And see below in
Trials for Treason.
[281] See below (in materials for the history of the Popish Plot),
Foley’s note on Warner’s MS. history.
[282] Slip appended to examination of November 7. Longleat MSS.
Coventry Papers xi. 276.
[283] 7 State Trials 168. Burnet ii. 163.
[284] James (Or. Mem.) i. 527, 528. Burnet ii. 174. House of Lords MSS.
52. 7 State Trials 154. L.J. xiii. 353.
[285] 7 State Trials 172, 192.
[286] Burnet ii. 164, 165. L’Estrange produced some bad evidence, which
he does not even seem to have believed himself, to the effect that
these stains were of mud, and not wax. _Brief Hist._ iii. 326, 336.
Sir George Sitwell says: “The drops of wax ... may have been spilt
the evening before, when Sir Edmund, for some mysterious reason, was
engaged in burning a quantity of his private papers” (_First Whig_ 41).
But the evidence for this is wholly valueless, being told on hearsay
from a bad witness by a worse. _Brief Hist._ iii. 179.
[287] Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ committee, House of
Lords MSS. 46.
[288] Examination of Charles Atkins, October 27, 1678. Slip appended to
the examination in Coventry’s hand. “Mr. Charles Atkins lodgeth at the
Golden Key in High Holborn, over against the Fountain Tavern.” Longleat
MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 234. Examination of Bedloe of November 7.
“Lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, where Walsh the priest lodges,
near Wild House.” S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. Longleat MSS.
_ibid._ 272–274; _ibid._ 278, on a slip appended to the examination,
“Le Fevre: about fifty years of age, with a flaxen periwig, a handsome
man. He lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, near Wild House.”
[289] L.J. xiii. 353. Evidence of Diana Salvin, Elizabeth Salvin, John
Saunders, Alexander Oldis.
[290] 6 State Trials 1475–1477.
[291] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1113. _Secret Services of Charles II and James
II_, payment to Prance 22.
[292] L.J. November 15, 1678. Ralph i. 398.
[293] For example the libel, “A copy of a letter dropped in the
exchange,” 1679.
[294] See above and Appendix B.
[295] See above, 122.
[296] James (Or. Mem.) i. 528. Schwerin, November 22, 1678. “Bedloo
hat in Somerset House das Gemach gewiesen in welchem ihm der todte
Körper gezeigt worden ist; allein weil er in derselben Kammer eine
Thüre angab, die sich nicht daselbst vorfand,—überdem die Königin
damal in diesem Gemache wohnte,—und der Ort, an welchem ihm der todte
Körper gezeigt worden sein soll, ein steter Durchgang und Aufenthalt
aller Domesticken der Königin ist, so wird die Angabe von vielen für
verdächtig gehalten.” _Briefe von England_ 352.
[297] James, Duke of York, to the Prince of Orange, December 24, 1678,
“... some are not well pleased with what this man says, because it
contradicts Bedloe.” Foljambe MSS. 127.
[298] House of Lords MSS. 52.
[299] 7 State Trials 343.
[300] _Ibid._ 425, 612, 613.
[301] _Ibid._ 1320.
[302] Lloyd to the council, January 11, 1679. Examinations of Prance of
December 26, 1678, January 13, March 19, March 22, 1679. Fitzherbert
MSS. 154–158. 7 State Trials 1226, 1231. Warner MS. history 37. _True
Narrative_ 2–8, 26–40.
[303] Lloyd to L’Estrange, April 16, 1686. _Brief Hist._ iii. 83.
[304] Burnet ii. 195.
[305] Warner MS. history 37: “librum edidit in quo pauca de Jesuitis,
eaque leviora retulit ... et in sacerdotes saeculares fanda infanda
conjecit, tanquam e plaustro probra jaceret (qu, tanquam e plaustro
= histrionis more. v. Hor. _A.P._ 275 ap. Facc.), ipsa maledicentiae
magnitudine fidem sibi detrahens: quam apud paucissimos invenit.”
[306] _Florus Anglo-Bavaricus_ 103, 128.
[307] 7 State Trials 228. House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61.
[308] House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61. Foley v. 285, 286.
[309] S. A. Tanari, Internuncio at Brussels, to the papal secretary
of state, June 17, 1679: “Nella salute della sua persona consistevano
tutte le speranze di veder ristabilita la vera religione in
Inghilterra.” Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.
[310] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 8.
[311] Memorandum by Danby. “Q. Whether the Plot be not triable out of
Parliament?” Add. MSS. 28042: 19. Henry Coventry to the king, October
7, 1678.... “It will be worth your serious consideration when you
return on which side the greater inconveniency will be, either in the
suppressing them [Coleman’s letters] or publishing them, or whether any
middle way can be taken.” Add. MSS. 32095: 119.
[312] A narrative of proceedings in the House of Commons. Harl. MSS.
6284: 35, 36.
[313] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1021–1026.
[314] House of Lords MSS. 16, 17. Lady Sunderland to John Evelyn,
October 28, 1678. Correspondence of John Evelyn, 1852, 251.
[315] W. Harrington to George Treby, February 1679. Fitzherbert MSS.
14. John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, November 11, 1678. Same to same,
May 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 471. Sarotti, November 15/25, 1678. Ven.
Arch. Inghilterra 65. Lives of the Norths i. 70. Le Gros to Sir Charles
Lyttleton, November 26, 1678. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 301.
[316] Sir W. Godolphin to Henry Thynne, August 14/24, 1679. Longleat
MSS. Coventry Papers lx. 275. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 119, 120;
ii. 70, 79.
[317] Earl of Conway to Sir L. Jenkins, September 26, 1681. S.P. Dom.
Charles II 416: 30.
[318] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 17–54. _Narrative of Edmund
Everard_ 1679.
[319] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 67, 92, 98, 100, 114, 138, 140.
_Ibid._ 148, Lord Windsor to Henry Coventry, July 8, 1676. See Appendix
C. Verney MSS. 465. Earl of Danby to the Lord Chancellor, April 4,
1676. Leeds MSS. 13. Particulars of Conventicles. Leeds MSS. 15. John
Smith to Henry Coventry, January 24, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry
Papers xi. 172. A paper endorsed by the Earl of Danby; “Fifth monarch
meetings in London and Southwark. This was given me by the Bishop of
London in October 1677.” Add. MSS. 28093: 212. And see Gooch, _English
Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_ 326.
[320] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 117, 120, 122, 124, 126, 132.
[321] “Memd. of his Majesty’s directions for interrupting Coleman’s
letters.” December 10, 1676. Henry Coventry to Col. Whitely, December
11, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 168, 170. And the letters
intercepted, _ibid._ 224, 245, 246, 247, 248. And see above, Designs of
the Catholics 32, n.
[322] Spillmann. Pater Spillmann’s work is in general of little value.
Bishop Morley to the Earl of Danby, June 10, 1676. Leeds MSS. 14.
Courtin, August 6, 1676.
[323] Leeds MSS. 17.
[324] Foley v. 11, 12, 13. Diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple,
ii. 200, 320. Articles of _Impeachment against the Earl of Danby_ iv.
_Parl. Hist._ iv. 1068.
[325] See above 78.
[326] Memorandum by Danby, undated, but probably in 1677. “State and
present condition of the crown, which cannot be amended but by force or
by compliance.
“[Compliance to the old parliament would mean war with France and the
enforcement of all laws against papists and dissenters; with a new
parliament, war with France and general toleration except for the
papists.] From all this it seems as if compliance must necessarily
conclude in a resolution to give satisfaction in point of France.
[Force could hardly be exerted without foreign aid, which would
certainly mean a total conquest.]” Add. MSS. 28042: 17.
[327] Earl of Danby to Sir W. Temple, November 19, 1678. Add. MSS.
28054: 196. Burnet ii. 97, note, 151, 152. See also Lindsay MSS. 399.
Forneron, _Louise de Kéroualle_ 153. Harris, _Life of Charles II_ 226
_seq._
[328] Memoranda by Danby. Add. MSS. 28042: 53.
“The three points to be considered by the committee of trade every
Thursday:—
“(1) A treaty marine with France.
“(2) What should be proposed to the king to be done by his example in
not permitting French commodities to be worn in the court.
“(3) A treaty of commerce with France.”
Add. MSS. 28042: 60.
“For the 30 ships
In 1677 £90,000 0 0
In 1679 [?8] 339,735 0 0
In 1679 before the 25th March 47,957 0 0
———————
£477,692 0 0
£584,978
477,692
————
£107,286 remaining in the Exchequer, Lady Day, ’79.”
See too Campana de Cavelli i. 290–294. Barillon, March 3/13, 1679.
[329] Webster MSS. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iii. 421. Article by Mr. Sidney
Lee on Osborne (Thomas) in the _Dict. of Nat. Biog._ Danby obtained his
knowledge of Montagu’s connection with the nuncio from Olivencranz, the
Swedish ambassador. Sir Leoline Jenkins to the Earl of Danby, January
13, 1679. Lindsey MSS. 398. Grey, _Debates_ vi. 388. The authorities
for the story of Danby’s fall are well known and too numerous for
citation.
[330] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1039–1045, 1052. Burnet ii. 176, 178. Barillon,
November 25/December 5, 1678. Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_, Part II.
219.
[331] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1034. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 63.
[332] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 149. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1035. Barillon, October
17/27, 1678. Ranke v. 236.
[333] Barillon, February 17/27, February 24/March 6, 1679. Edm. Verney
to Sir R. Verney, February 24, 1679. Verney MSS. 471, Fitzherbert MSS.
12, 13. Foljambe MSS. 127. _Caveat against the Whigs_ i. 47. Ranke v.
244, 245. Sir Thomas Browne, _Works_, 1836, 240. Sitwell, _The First
Whig_ 54, 55.
[334] Barillon, December 30, 1678/January 9, 1679, January 30/February
9, May 12/22, June 2/12, 1679. John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 22,
1679. Verney MSS. 472. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1086, 1121.
[335] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1092–1111. Burnet ii. 205 and note 2. And see
Temple i. 412. Seymour had formerly been on the court side, and after
Danby’s imprisonment made up the quarrel. A memorandum in the Leeds
papers contains the following note on Seymour; “This man, the most
odious to the House, till he disturbed your Majesty’s affairs.” Add.
MSS. 28042: 21.
[336] See Reresby, _Memoirs_ 170, 171. Temple i. 396–414.
[337] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1122. Algernon Sidney wrote that Halifax was
the author of the scheme. _Letters_ 34. James had news that the Duchess
of Portsmouth bragged that she had helped to make it. James to the
Prince of Orange, May 8, 1679. Foljambe MSS. 129.
[338] Temple i. 414–419, 473–477. Barillon, April 7/17, April 21/May 1,
April 24/May 4, April 28/May 8, 1679. Dalrymple ii. 216, 217. Reresby,
_Memoirs_ 168. North, _Examen_ 76, 77. Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_,
Part II. 238; and see Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. chap. vi.
[339] Burnet ii. 209.
[340] Barillon, February 5/15, 1680. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 19,
33. Burnet ii. 246, 248, 249. Temple i. 419, 420, 441–444. Ailesbury,
_Memoirs_ i. 35. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 173–178, 192. Christie,
_Life of Shaftesbury_ ii. 357. Airy, _Charles II_ 240.
[341] Barillon, May 26/June 5, 1675. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1125–1149.
Temple i. 424, 429–432. Burnet ii. 210–215. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 173.
North, _Examen_ 506. Ralph i. 453, 454, 455.
[342] Burnet ii. 263, 264. House of Lords MSS. 136. And see Ferguson,
_Growth of Popery_, Part II. 246.
[343] See Lord Keeper Guildford MS. diary. Dalrymple ii. 91, 321. “It
is certain the Church of England men joined in this cry as heartily
as any else, for they were always most eager against Popery, although
they had friendship with the Cavalier papists, and many considering men
seeing an army kept up against an act of Parliament were zealous that
fetters might be put on the King, and therefore would join in showing
any discontent.” The Whig party on Temple’s council tried to purge the
commission of the peace of justices on the other side, but Charles
prevented this by a very droll device. North, _Examen_ 78. Nevertheless
the weight of the commission was against the court. See below in Trials
for Treason.
[344] W. Harrington to Sir G. Treby, February 20, 1679. Fitzherbert
MSS. 14. Thomas Ward to Sir J. Williamson, November 15. Sir Francis
Chaplin to same, November 30. Henry Layton to same, December 9, 1678.
S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 108, 167; ii. 117. George Beckett, vicar
of Castham, to Sir Peter Pindar at Chester, October 28. Examination
of same, November 4, 1678. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 229. Dr.
Henry Corneil to Sir J. Williamson, December 23, 1678, January 20,
1679. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: ii. 59; 411: 69.
[345] Add. MSS. 32095: 160. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 36.
[346] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xx. 120–130. S.P. Ireland 339.
Carte, _Life of Ormonde_ 477–481.
[347] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 268. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1034. John
Verney to Sir R. Verney, June 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 472. Barillon,
April 19/May 1, June 12/22, 1679. And see Klopp ii. 193.
[348] Burnet ii. 179. Add. MSS. 28042: 19. See Appendix C.
[349] Klopp i. 26.
[350] Foley v. 95, 96.
[351] Ranke v. 233. Das papistische Complot erscheint als ein Symptom
der zwischen den Bekenntnissen wieder angeregten heftigen Antipathien.
Schwerin, _Briefe_ 330. Es sei nun an dieser Conspiration viel oder
wenig, so ist es doch gewiss, dass diese Nation sowohl gegen die
Papisten als gegen Frankreich—dem es besonders beigemessen wird—von
neuem erbittert wird.
[352] L.J. xiii. 408. Airy, _Charles II_ 70.
[353] Warner MS. hist. 29 from _Gazette de Hollande_, November 22,
1678. Schwerin, _Briefe_ 340, 348. Duchess of York to Duke of Modena,
November 3, November 24, December 16, 1678. Ronchi, January 20,
February 23, November 21, 1679. Campana de Cavelli i. 229, 236, 239,
240, 242. Warner MS. Letter book, December 3, December 30, 1678.
Fitzherbert MSS. 12. House of Lords MSS. 39, 126. Foljambe MSS. 123.
L.J. xiii. 482, 485, 502, 512. Foley v. 21, 23, 80, 482–488, 915, 965,
966. 8 State Trials 532, 533.
The internuncio at Brussels acutely noted as the three causes of the
feeling aroused—“l’odio de’ Protestanti, gli amatori di novità, e li
nemici della casa Reale.” October 30/November 9, 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt.
di Fiandra 66.
[354] 7 State Trials 995.
[355] 7 State Trials 959–1043, 1162–1183. C.J. December 16, 1680.
_Narrative of Lawrence Mowbray_ 1680. _Narrative of Robert Bolron_
1680. Depositions from York Castle, Surtees Society xl. 1861. Foley v.
759–767. _The Month_ xviii. 393.
[356] Foley v. 19, 21. Warner MS. history 29. Misera Catholicorum
omnium conditio, maxime vero Jesuitarum, quos et communia mala et
omnium insuper invidia gravabat, etiam apud simul patientes. _Ibid._ 36.
Maxime odiosum Jesuitarum nomen, sacerdotibus etiam et saecularibus et
regularibus et ipsis Catholicis laicis, quod ab iis orta feratur ista
saevissima tempestas quae totam religionem Catholicam evertet.
[357] Brosch 432.
[358] S.P. Dom. Charles II 411: 87, a paper endorsed by Sir Joseph
Williamson, “25 January, 78/9. Gavan the priest. Information, etc.”
_Ibid._ 92. “It was Sir William Waller who, by a warrant from the
council, seized Gavan in Count Wallenstein the Imperial ambassador’s
stables in bed.” Foley v. 454. Le Fleming MSS. 155.
[359] See above 53.
[360] Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, March 20/30, 1680. Vat.
Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 252. Order in
Council for a passport for Henry, Duke of Norfolk, May 26, 1680.
[361] 7 State Trials 496. Foley v. 460.
[362] Sidney’s diary in Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 82, 163, 165, 166,
174–176. Sidney, _Letters_ 154. _Domestic Intelligence_, September 26,
1679. C.J. March 26, 1681. Foley v. 80, 81, 460–467. Burnet ii. 228.
It has been supposed that John Sergeant who bore witness against
Gavan was a different person from the eminent controversialist of
the same name (see his life in _Dict. of Nat. Biog._ by Mr. Cooper).
His identity is however placed beyond question by the advertisement
in the _Domestic Intelligence_ above cited, by despatches of Roman
ecclesiastics which refer to “il Dottore Sargentio” without hinting at
any change of person, and by the indignant exclamation of Warner (MS.
hist. 132), “et, proh dolor! Johannes Sergeantius et David Mauritius”
in speaking of the witnesses for the Plot. So too Luttrell (_Brief
Relation_ i. 21): “One Sergeant, a secular (who hath writ against
Dr. Stillingfleet), is expected from Holland, and ’tis said he will
discover several matters about the plot.” The letter of the internuncio
from Brussels of March 20/30, 1680 contains the following passage: Ho
pregato S. A. di discorrere opportunamente col Sig^r Duca d’Jorch,
excitandolo ad opporsi ad ogni tentativo che potesse tentarsi dal Frate
Valesio, e delli Dottori Sergeant e Mauritio accioche non si propongà a
Catt^{ci} il giuramento di Fedeltà, gia censurato dalla S. Sede, ò non
se ne inventi nuova formula che non sia precedentemente approvata da S.
B^{ne} quale ho assicurato esser per mostrarsi sempre propenso verso le
convenienze di S. A. Reale. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.
[363] Di Brusselles del Sig^r Internuncio, April 28/June 8, 1680.
Circa il giuramento di fedeltà condannato altre volte dalla S. Sede,
e pur troppo vero che il Sig^r Duca di Jorch lo presto anni sono,
sedotto dall’ esempio di molti allevati nella Religion Catt^{ca} e non
informato che lo stesso fosse stato prescritto da Sommi Pontifici. Vat.
Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.
[364] Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, August 16/26, August
22/September 2, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.
[365] See below in Trials for Treason. 7 State Trials 617. Burnet ii.
196–198.
Thomas Jennison, S.J., died in Newgate on September 27, 1679.
[366] See below in Trials for Treason.
[367] 7 State Trials 1049. Dangerfield’s _Particular Narrative_ 1–7.
_Malice Defeated: or a Brief Relation of the Accusation and Deliverance
of Elizabeth Cellier_ 12, 13, 28. Col. Mansell’s _Exact and True
Narrative_ 7, 60.
[368] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 8. _Malice Defeated_ 13, 39. Mansell’s
_Narrative_ 39, 47, 60, 69.
[369] Mansell’s _Narrative_ 43, 53, 54, 69. _Malice Defeated_ 13, 14.
Dangerfield’s _Case_ 2. North, _Examen_ 268.
[370] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 30–36. _Malice Defeated_ 14. Mansell’s
_Narrative_ 57, 58, 62. North, _Examen_ 267.
[371] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 37–49. Dangerfield’s _Information_
1680. _Malice Defeated_ 14–18. Mansell’s _Narrative_ 18–40.
[372] Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_ ii. 265. Sidney, _Letters_ 152, 153.
Halstead, _Succinct Genealogies_ 434–437. North, _Examen_ 261, 262. And
see Burnet ii. 244, 245. Hatton Correspondence v. 201, 202.
[373] _Malice Defeated_ 15. Examination of Anne Blake, Mansell’s
_Narrative_ 41.
[374] _Malice Defeated_ 15.
[375] Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679.
[376] See below in Shaftesbury and Charles. Dangerfield’s _Narrative_
30.
[377] Dangerfield’s _Narrative_ 39.
[378] Traill shews the absurdity neatly, though he makes the mistake of
joining Mrs. Cellier with Dangerfield. _Shaftesbury_ 154.
[379] 7 State Trials 1043–1111.
[380] Mansell’s _Narrative_ 40.
[381] Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679. Sidney’s _Diary_, October
7, October 14, in Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 181, 185.
[382] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1029, 1030.
[383] Dartmouth MSS. 36.
[384] Sir W. Temple to the Earl of Essex, October 25, 1673. Essex
Papers. Burnet ii. 31. James (Or. Mem.) i. 530, 536, 537. _Clarendon
Cor._ ii. 467–471. Brusselles Dal. Sig^r Internuncio, March 8/18, 1679.
Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.
[385] Barillon, July 19/29, October 4/14, 14/24, 21/31, 1680.
[386] James to Col. Legge, December 11, 1679, January 25, December 14,
1680. Dartmouth MSS. 40, 47, 55. James i. 657.
[387] James i. 550, 551.
[388] Temple i. 382.
[389] Barillon, October 21/31, 1680.
[390] James i. 554, 556, 574, 659, 660. Dartmouth MSS. 35, 36, 39, 41,
45, 47, 58. Savile Foljambe MSS. 134, 135.
[391] James to Col. Legge, May 28, 1679, Dartmouth MSS. 33, 34.
[392] James to the Prince of Orange, May 14, May 29, June 1, 1679.
Savile Foljambe MSS. 129–131. To Col. Legge, July 22, Dartmouth MSS.
36. And see James (Or. Mem.) i. 551.
[393] _E.g._ Dartmouth MSS. 38, 42, 46, 54.
[394] Barillon, July 1/11, July 24/August 3, October 21/31, 1680.
[395] Campana de Cavelli i. 302, 304.
[396] Vat. Arch. L’Abb^e G. B. Lauri a S. Em.3^a October 23/December
2, 1678. Nunt. di Francia 332. Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio.
May 24/June 3, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. 32095: 196. See
Appendix C.
[397] Barillon, August 9/19, September 20/30, October 21/31, 1680.
[398] Vat. Arch. Di Brussells dal Sig^r Internuncio, June 7/17,
September 6/16, October 18/28, November 15/25, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra
66.
_Ibid._ July 30/September 9. La sera però di detto giorno fattomi
introdurre nel suo gabinetto (del Duca d’Yorch), m’incarico di dar
parte del successo a S. B^{ne}, e di confermargli nuovamente che in
ogni luogo e stato havrebbe sempre vissuto figlio obedientissimo della
S. Sede, e che nell’ animo suo a qualsivoglia altra consideratione o
interesse havrebbe prevaluto il riguardo di conservare la fede, e di
propagarla per quanto sarà in suo potere.
[399] Foley v. 152, 157.
[400] _Absalom and Achitophel_ 114–117, 134–141.
[401] Ranke v. 186.
[402] John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 19, 1677. “The people about
town call this the Pump Parliament, alluding, as a little water put
into a pump fetches up a great deal, so, etc.” Verney MSS. 469, and see
_The Pump Parliament_ by Sir Charles Sedley.
[403] Ranke v. 201, 220. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 861–863. C.J. April 4, 1677.
Ralph i. 310–314, 318. Andrew Marvell, _Growth of Popery_, Part I. 149.
[404] Burnet ii. 155.
[405] Burnet ii. 179. Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678.
[406] Sir Edward Carteret provided his rooms at the rent of £60 a year.
[407] _Secret Services of Charles II and James II_ 3–15. I do not know
if the very comic accounts said to have been presented by Oates and
Bedloe are authentic (L’Estrange, _Brief Hist._ iii. 121–124. Lingard
xii. 363). They are not inconsistent with the men’s character, but
L’Estrange was quite capable of having invented them. In any case they
were not paid.
[408] State Trials vii. 796, ix. 489, 490, x. 134, 136, 137, 1275,
1299. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 196. Evelyn, _Diary_ October 1, November 15,
1678. Smith, _Intrigues of the Popish Plot_. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_
i. 112. North, _Examen_ 223. _Lives of the Norths_ ii. 180. Hatton
Correspondence i. 198. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 43, 44. I am indebted to
Sir George Sitwell for some of these references, and have ventured to
quote a portion of his admirable description, some strokes of which
however are drawn from sources not beyond doubt. The epithet applied to
the Pope is from “Rawleigh Redivivus.”
[409] Grey, _Debates_ vi. 296. Barillon, November 25/December 5, 1678.
L.J. xiii. 389–392. C.J. November 28, 29, December 6, 7. Danby’s notes
of Oates’ examination, November 25. Add. MSS. 23043: 5. James to the
Prince of Orange, November 26, 1678. Foljambe MSS. 125. See too House
of Lords MSS. 66. Lord Ossory to the Duchess of Ormonde. Hist. MSS.
Com. Rep. vi. App. 723. James (Or. Mem.) i. 529. Burnet ii. 173, 174.
Even Oldmixon did not believe the accusation. _History of the House of
Stuart_ 618.
[410] Burnet i. 470–474. In 1671 Burnet propounded the questions; “Is
a woman’s barrenness a just ground for divorce or polygamy; and is
polygamy in any case lawful under the Gospel?” The answer to both was
in the affirmative.
[411] Sarotti describes him as “un cadavere spirante.” December 12/22,
1679.
[412] Burnet i. 474, ii. 180. North, _Examen_ 186. Airy, _Charles
II_ 137, 138, 230. The relations between the king and queen became
much better about this time in consequence, one may imagine, of these
intrigues. Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, August 15, 1679:
“The Queen, who is now a mistress, the passion her spouse has for her
is so great....” Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 86.
[413] Pepys, _Diary_ December 24, 31, 1662. Burnet i. 469, 470.
[414] Barillon, April 28/May 8, May 5/15, 1679. Temple i. 421, 423,
426, 429. MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322. Burnet
ii. 233. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 173–178. Hatton Correspondence
v. 192.
[415] Sidney, _Letters_ 52, 53.
[416] _Ibid._
[417] Ralph i. 434. North, _Examen_ 86. Sidney, _Letters_ 52, 90.
[418] Burnet ii. 235. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1130. North, _Examen_ 79. This
story may be accepted, since North probably had it from his brother the
Chief Justice. And see Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 5, where Henry Sidney
states that Charles supported Lauderdale at the council.
[419] Barillon, June 12/22, 1679. Sidney, _Letters_ 95–97, 104–107,
112–113. Temple i. 420, 427, 428. North, _Examen_ 81, 82. Burnet ii.
234, 235, 239. S.P. Dom. Charles II 412: 26. Sunderland to Essex, July
1679, 262. Essex to the King, July 21, 1679.
[420] Sitwell, _First Whig_ 70.
[421] MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322, 323.
North, _Examen_ 571–575. _Parl. Hist._ iv. App. ix. Ralph i. 476, 477,
483. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 83–89. And see the trial of Benjamin Harris,
the publisher of the Appeal, 7 State Trials 925. Wilson, _Life of
Defoe_, chap. i. Defoe, _Review_ ix. 152. “As to handing treasonable
papers about in coffee-houses, everybody knows it was the original of
the very thing called a coffee-house and that it is the very profession
of a coffee-man to do so, and it seems hard to punish any of them for
it.”
[422] Sitwell, _First Whig_, 87, 88.
[423] Barillon, September 4/14, 1679. Temple i. 433. Countess of
Sunderland to Henry Sidney, September 2. Henry Savile to Henry Sidney,
September 11, 1679. Sidney’s _Charles II_ i. 122, 140. Sidney,
_Letters_ 143. Ralph i. 477.
[424] Barillon, July 3/13, 1679, January 12/22, 1680. Dangerfield’s
_Particular Narrative_ 30, 60. _The Case of Thomas Dangerfield_ 5.
Mansell’s _Exact and True Narrative_ 62. Grey, _Debates_ vii. 358, 359,
viii. 136–149. _Gazette_, No. 1476. Ralph i. 496, 497. _Parl. Hist._
iv. 1233. Le Fleming MSS. 174.
[425] Burnet ii. 242. Carte, _Life of Ormonde_ ii. 493. Barillon,
September 4/14, 11/21, 15/25, 1679. Temple i. 433–438. Foljambe MSS.
137, 138. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 189–191. _Gazette_ 1449. S.P.
Dom. Charles II 412: 24. Conway Papers, September 11, 1679. Airy,
_Charles II_ 245. James (Or. Mem.) i. 566, 570–580.
[426] James (Or. Mem.) i. 563. James to the Prince of Orange, Foljambe
MSS. 137. Burnet ii. 243. Hatton Correspondence i. 194. Barillon,
September 15/25. December 1/11, 1679.
[427] Dal. Sigr. Internuncio Brusselles, June 8, 1679. Arch. Nunt. di
Fiandra 66. Ferguson, _Growth of Popery_, Part II. 276.
[428] Barillon, December 1/11, 8/18, 1679. Sidney, _Letters_ 165.
Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, November 29, 1679. Hatton Correspondence
i. 203. Ralph i. 484, 497.
[429] Sidney, _Letters_ 143, 144.
[430] Temple i. 441. Ralph i. 490–494. Le Fleming MSS. 165. North,
_Examen_ 541–548. Defoe, _Review_ vii. 296.
[431] Barillon, December 11/21, 15/25, 18/28, 1679. James i. 581.
[432] Barillon, January 8/18, 12/22, 15/25, 19/29, January 29/February
8, March 11/21, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 587. Ralph i. 494.
[433] The declaration was made twice, on January 6 and March 3, 1679.
[434] The author was probably Ferguson. Sec Sprat’s _History of the
Ryehouse Plot_, where a printer’s bill made out to him is printed in
the appendix, one item of the bill being for the Letter. The pamphlet
was published on May 15, 1680.
[435] S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 103, 105, 107, 118, 120, 131, 132, 229,
231. Informations and examinations concerning the Black Box. _Gazette_,
Nos. 1507, 1520. Somers Tracts viii. 187–208. James I 589.
[436] Barillon, June 28/July 8, July 1/11, 8/18, 1680. 8 State Trials
179. Burnet ii. 300.
[437] S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 75, Lord Massareen to Lord Conway. 76,
Francis Gwyn to same, March 23, 1680. Barillon, March 25/April 4, May
17/27, 20/30, July 1/11. Countess of Sunderland to H. Sidney, May 18,
1680. Sidney’s _Charles II_ ii. 60. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 38.
[438] William Harbord to H. Sidney, April 1680. Sidney’s _Charles
II_ ii. 23. Countess of Sunderland to same, April 16. Sir L. Jenkins
to same, _circa_ May 20. Sir W. Temple to same, April 27. Sidney’s
_Diary_, May 25. _Ibid._ 52, 53, 64, 66. Barillon, October 7/17, 1680.
[439] Barillon, December 1/11, 11/21, 1679, January 5/15, April 5/15,
July 1/11, 1680. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 82. Sir James Butler to Lord
Craven, March 25, 1680. Temple i. 450. Sir L. Jenkins to Henry Sidney,
July 24, 1680. Sidney’s _Charles II_ ii. 86. A concise account of the
extreme difficulties of the time may be found in a letter from Henry
Sidney to the Prince of Orange, October 7, 1680. Groen van Prinsterer
v. 422.
[440] Ralph i. 502, 503. Groen van Prinsterer v. 428. Burnet ii. 253.
Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 591–600. And see
Somers Tracts viii. 137. _Articles of Impeachment against the Duchess
of Portsmouth._
[441] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1118, 1160–1175, 1291. Beaufort MSS. 112.
Burnet ii. 212, 256. Temple i. 421. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 154,
208, 224, 236. Ralph i. 444. Groen van Prinsterer v. 435, 437.
[442] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1175–1215. L.J. xiii. 666. Barillon, November
18/28, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 617, 618. Temple i. 453. Halstead,
_Succinct Genealogies_ i. 204. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 192, 197. Burnet ii,
259. Foxcroft, _Life of Halifax_ i. 246–249. James to the Prince of
Orange, November 23, 1680, Groen van Prinsterer v. 440.
[443] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1215–1295. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 191, Groen van
Prinsterer v. 444.
[444] Sitwell, _First Whig_ 142. S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 101, Robert
Ferguson to his wife, August 14, 1680. 243, Hugh Speke “for Mr. Charles
Speke at Whitelackington.” 275, James Holloway to the Earl of Essex,
December 14, 1680.
[445] Charles’ actual words are in doubt, but it is certain that he
received the deputation coldly and sent it away unsatisfied.
[446] “Instructions for members of Parliament summoned for March 21,
1681, and to be held at Oxford.”
[447] North, _Examen_ 100–102. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 204. S.P. Dom.
Charles II 415: 37. Answer of the Earl of Essex, January 27, 1681.
66, The Earl of Craven’s proposition, February 14, 1681. “About the
disposing of the king’s forces.” 126, Information of Mr. John Wendham
of Thetford against Wm. Harbord, M.P. 156, Quarters of his Majesty’s
forces, March 22, 1681. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 70. Ralph i. 562,
563. Sitwell, _First Whig_ 144, 145. Klopp II. 308. And see the trial
of Stephen Colledge 8 State Trials 549–724.
[448] Barillon, January 13/23, 1679.
[449] Barillon, _passim_. There was however talk of the negotiations in
diplomatic circles. Brosch 452.
[450] North, _Examen_ 104, 105. Barillon March 28/April 7, 1681.
Beaufort MSS. 83. Reresby, _Memoirs_ 207–211. Ralph i. 570–580. _Parl.
Hist._ iv. 1298–1339. Airy, _Charles II_ 257. Ailesbury, _Memoirs_ i.
57. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 72. “Some are pleased to call it the
Jewish Parliament, it being dissolved on the eighth day, alluding to
that people’s manner of circumcision on the eighth day.”
[451] Lord Grey’s confession 12, 13, 14. North, _Examen_ 105.
[452] It is remarkable that every one thought he understood Charles
and that most who opposed him paid in the end the penalty of their
mistake by failure. Only the most acute indeed were able to realise
the strength of the character which they began by thinking weak.
Thus Courtin believed that Charles could do nothing but what his
subjects wanted. Jusserand, _A French Ambassador_ 150. Barillon, with
the possible exception of Gremonville, the ablest of Louis XIV’s
diplomatists, whom Ranke compares to the Spanish ambassador Mendoza of
the time of the League, thought when he first came to England that he
could in every instance measure Charles’ weight in the balance. Before
the Popish Plot had ceased its course, he perceived that he could not.
He writes on January 15/25, 1680: Il est fort difficile de pénétrer
quel est dans le fonds son véritable dessein. Again on September 9/19
of the same year; Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne a une conduite si
cachée et si difficile à pénétrer que les plus habiles y sont trompés.
And again on January 13/23, 1681: Je ne puis encore expliquer aver
certitude à V.M. l’état des affaires de ce pays-ci. Ceux qui approchent
de plus près du Roi d’Angleterre ne pénètrent point le fonds de ses
intentions. See too Burnet II 409 n. 3, 467 n.
[453] If Pemberton is counted.
[454] Pilgrimage of Grace; Insurrection in West; Kent; Wyatt; Rising in
North; Essex; Penruddock; Booth, 1659; Venner; Monmouth.
[455] See the evidence of Lord Ferrers against Southall at the trial of
Lord Stafford. 7 State Trials 1485.
[456] Dalton, _Justice_, quoted Stephen, _History of the Criminal Law_,
i. 195. Temp. James I.
[457] Colquhoun, _Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis_, quoted
Stephen i. 195.
[458] Ralph i. 399. See also the Statutes: 13 C. II c. 6, 14 C. II c.
3, 15 C. II c. 4.
[459] 6 State Trials 566–630.
[460] £1000 was stolen in cash, and over £2000 in jewelry.
[461] 6 State Trials 572–575.
[462] By two Germans and a Pole, acting, it was said, under orders from
Count Königsmark, who had been courting Mr. Thynne’s bride.
[463] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 235, 236.
[464] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 281, 282.
[465] This was the recognised appellation of a J.P. in the seventeenth
century.
[466] House of Lords MSS. 39, under date May 29, 1679.
[467] 7 State Trials 1471.
[468] 8 State Trials 525–550.
[469] Gilbert’s evidence, _ibid._ 531–534.
[470] 8 State Trials 531.
[471] _Ibid._ 532.
[472] Foley v. 891. House of Lords MSS. 89. See also Fitzherbert MSS.
18, 19.
[473] Foley v. 34. House of Lords MSS. 89.
[474] Foley v. 883.
[475] “A true narrative of the imprisonment and trial of Mr. Lewis,”
written by himself. Foley v. 917–928. His account of the trial is
inserted in 7 State Trials 249–260.
[476] Foley v. 885. 7 State Trials 249, 252.
[477] Foley v. 96. Catalogue of those who suffered in Oates’ Plot and
on account of their priesthood, taken from Dodd and Challoner.
[478] 7 State Trials 1131.
[479] Ralph i. 570.
[480] See Appendix D, where Giles’ trial is discussed. Lawrence Hyde to
the Prince of Orange, April 16, 1680. “This I say is a very unfortunate
accident to revive men’s fears and apprehensions of the Plot, which
were pretty well asleep, but there is no care or watchfulness can
prevent the folly and wickedness of men that are so given to it.” Groen
van Prinsterer v. 395.
[481] See Stephen i. 228.
[482] 7 State Trials 1397–1399.
[483] Southall’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1467–1471.
[484] For the following paragraph I have used Gardiner’s _History of
England_ iii. 1–27.
[485] Essay of Judicature.
[486] This rule was not without exception. Baron Flowerdue, raised to
the bench in 1684, held office _quamdiu se bene gesserit_. (Prothero,
_Statutes and Constitutional Documents_ 143). And we learn from Coke
(Inst. iv. 117) that the Chief Baron always held office on a permanent
tenure (Prothero cviii.). Of course it made no difference, for good
behaviour in the eyes of the king, with whom the decision rested, was
likely to have much in common with his good pleasure.
[487] Gneist, _Constitutional History of England_ (trans. Ashworth) 550.
[488] Clarendon, _Hist. Reb._ (Oxford, 1826) i. 123, 124.
[489] Gneist 552 n. See _Gardiner_ viii. 208.
[490] Gardiner ix. 246, 247. Gneist 555.
[491] L.J. May 6, 1641. _Parl. Hist._ ii. 757.
[492] In a somewhat similar case the judges under Charles II refused
to give an opinion until the matter had been argued before them by
counsel. The Attorney-General, among other questions put to the judges
at the outbreak of the agitation of the Popish Plot, asked “Whether
there be any evidence against these particular persons besides the
single testimony of Mr. Oates?” To which it was answered that it was
a question of fact, and could only be determined in court. S.P. Dom.
Charles II 407: i. 128.
[493] Gardiner ix. 306, 307. Gneist 555 n. Hallam (ii. 107) attempts to
uphold the judges’ decision, but Stephen’s argument (i. 362, 363) must
be held to settle the question.
[494] Gneist 570 n. (2).
[495] 4 State Trials 445–450.
[496] Foss, _Judges of England_ vii, 109, 110. Burnet, _Life and Death
of Sir Matthew Hale_. Mr. J. M. Rigg in his article on Hale in the
_Dictionary of National Biography_ doubts the truth of this on the
ground that Penruddock was tried at Exeter, and Hale belonged to the
Midland circuit. Hale however changed his circuit on at least one
occasion. See Foss vii. 112, and the _Gentleman’s Mag._, July 1851, p.
13, where an anecdote is told which shows that Hale had belonged at one
time to the Western circuit.
[497] North, _Life of Lord Keeper Guildford_ 119. Dryden, _Prose Works_
(ed. Malone) iv. 156.
[498] Gneist 600 n. (2).
[499] 6 State Trials 951–1013.
[500] See also Hallam iii. 8. Stephen i. 373–375.
[501] Hale, P.C. i. 143–146.
[502] Compare the attempt to create a riot among the apprentices in
July 1679, immediately after the trial of the Five Jesuits.
[503] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 803. Ralph i. 297. North, _Examen_ 139.
[504] Amos, _The English Constitution in the Reign of Charles II_ 302.
[505] _Gazette_, May 5, 1680.
[506] 7 State Trials 926–931.
[507] _Ibid._ 1111–1130.
[508] Twyn and two other printers were sentenced to the pillory,
imprisonment, and heavy fines. Amos 249. 6 State Trials 513–539. See
also the trials of Dover, Brewster, and Brooks, which followed on
Twyn’s case, _ibid._ 539–564.
[509] April 30 to November 28, 1684. Luttrell, _Diary_, printed 10
State Trials 125–129.
[510] _Clarendon Correspondence_ i. 2.
[511] 8 State Trials 193, _i.e._ as resembling the opinions of 1641.
[512] Gneist 600 n.
[513] 8 State Trials 194.
[514] 7 State Trials 1556–1567.
[515] In this I have constantly used, as will be seen, Sir J. F.
Stephen’s _History of the Criminal Law in England_ (vol. i., especially
chapters viii. and xi.), a work to which I am under the deepest
obligations.
[516] _History of England_ i. 125.
[517] See the trial of Ireland, Pickering, and Grove. 7 State Trials
126–129, and 10 State Trials 1087.
[518] See Raleigh’s Trial, 2 State Trials 18. Jardine, _Crim. Trials_
421, where the court decided unanimously against Raleigh’s repeated
demand for the production of Lord Cobham, not, according to Sir James
Fitzjames Stephen’s opinion, without fair colour of law. _Hist. Crim.
Law_ i. 335, 336.
[519] 1 State Trials 869.
[520] Not indeed without grievous consequences to themselves. Being
brought to question for their verdict, four of them submitted and
apologised at once. The remainder were imprisoned by order of the Star
Chamber and fined heavily. Stephen i. 329.
[521] 1 State Trials 957–1042.
[522] Stephen i. 326.
[523] _Ibid._ 336, 350.
[524] 2 State Trials 25.
[525] 4 State Trials 354–356.
[526] 5 State Trials 1185–1195.
[527] 6 State Trials 932–936.
[528] _Ibid._ 938.
[529] 6 State Trials 697.
[530] 6 State Trials 605–610.
[531] 7 State Trials 591–688. And see below 93 _seq._
[532] See Lilburn’s Trial. 4 State Trials 1342.
[533] Stephen i. 358.
[534] Trial of Hulet, who was said to have been the actual executioner
of Charles I. 5 State Trials 1185–1195. In summing up, Sir Orlando
Bridgeman, L.C.S., said to the jury:—“Gentlemen, you hear what has been
proved on behalf of the prisoner, that is, if you believe the witnesses
that are not upon oath.” Hulet was convicted, but the evidence was
thought so unsatisfactory that the judges afterwards procured a
reprieve.
[535] See the Lord Chief Justice’s remarks on the witnesses for the
Five Jesuits. 7 State Trials 41. As to the amount of truth in the
allegation see below.
[536] At the trial of Colledge:—Sergeant Maynard: “It is Mr. Oates’
saying; it is Mr. Turbervile’s oath.” 8 State Trials 638.
[537] See _e.g._ the statement of Hyde, L.C.J., at Twyn’s trial in
1663. L.C.J.: “If I did not mistake, you desired to have counsel; was
that your request?” Twyn; “Yes.” L.C.J.: “Then I will tell you, we are
bound to be of counsel with you in point of law; that is, the court,
my brethren and myself, are to see that you suffer nothing for your
want of knowledge in matter of law; I say we are to be of counsel with
you.... To the matter of fact, whether it be so or no; in this case
the law does not allow you counsel to plead for you, but in matter of
law we are of counsel for you, and it shall be our care to see that
you have no wrong done you.” 6 State Trials 516, 517. See also the 5th
Resolution in the case of Sir Harry Vane. 6 State Trials 131.
[538] See _e.g._ Coleman’s trial. 7 State Trials 14. L.C.J.: “The
labour lies upon their hands, ... therefore you need not have counsel,
because the proof must be plain upon you.” See also Don Pantaleon Sa’s
case. 4 State Trials 466.
[539] See Colledge’s trial. L.C.J. North: “Counsel you cannot have,
unless matter of law arises, and that must be propounded by you; and
then if it be a matter debatable, the court will assign you counsel;
but it must be upon a matter fit to be argued.” 8 State Trials 570.
Similarly Jones, J., _ibid._ 571.
At Sidney’s trial Jeffreys, L.C.J.: “If you assign any particular point
of law, then, if the court think it such a point as may be worth the
debating, you shall have counsel.”
[540] 8 State Trials 579.
[541] See Burnet ii. 196, 291. Pepys, _Diary_ January 21, 1667. North,
_Life of Guildford_ 195, 196, 291.
[542] 6 State Trials 570.
[543] 7 State Trials 463.
[544] 7 State Trials 1339. That the barristers withdrew is evident from
Winnington’s subsequent remark: “We did perceive his counsel come up
towards the bar and very near him, and therefore we thought it our duty
to speak before any inconvenience happened.” _Ibid._ 1340.
[545] Sir W. Jones: “My Lords, we do not presume at all to offer our
consent to what time the court shall be adjourned.” L.H.S.; “No, we do
not ask your consent.”
[546] 7 State Trials 1371–1373.
[547] 7 State Trials 1544.
[548] The trial of Hawkins for theft in 1669 is of great interest in
this connection. It was evidently considered to be an extreme piece
of good fortune that the accused was able to prove the conspiracy
against him, and it was only owing to the folly and clumsiness of the
prosecutor that he could clearly prove the perjury. 6 State Trials
922–952.
[549] Sometimes this gave rise to great hardship, as in Oates’ second
trial for perjury, where a witness named Sarah Paine was summoned, but
the wrong Sarah coming, the mistake was not detected until she was put
in the witness-box. 10 State Trials 1287.
[550] This however was considered rather unfair at the time. See the
case of Atkins. 6 State Trials 1491. The action of the government and
the judges in Colledge’s case (8 State Trials 570–587) in depriving
the prisoner of papers which leave had been given him to write, that
the crown case might be managed accordingly, strained this practice
still further, and is justly termed by Sir J. F. Stephen “one of the
most wholly inexcusable transactions that ever occurred in an English
court.” _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 406.
[551] This was certainly so in Newgate and the other London prisons,
but Reading’s intrigue with the Five Popish Lords seems to shew that
the rule was relaxed for the Tower. 7 State Trials 301.
[552] See the cases of Coleman and Fitzharris. Mrs. Coleman managed
to convey letters to her husband in prison after his arrest. House
of Lords MSS. 8. Mrs. Fitzharris also was used, according to the
information received by the government, to convey messages to her
husband from the leaders of his party. She used, while talking to him
in the presence of a warder, to lower her voice so that he alone could
hear, and then repeat the message in the middle of their ordinary
conversation. Information of Lewis the spy. May 30, 1681. S.P. Dom.
Charles II 415: 334.
[553] _Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy_ ii. 310.
[554] That this was recognised at the time is evident from the
attention which they received in the debates in the Commons on the Duke
of York. That on the Lords’ Provision in the Popery bill exempting
the duke was carried on amid cries of “Coleman’s letters! Coleman’s
letters!” 4 _Parl. Hist._ 1044. And see the whole of the Debate on
a Motion for Removing the Duke of York, where they had the greatest
weight. _Ibid._ 1026–1034.
[555] 7 State Trials 6.
[556] _Ibid._ 3, 4.
[557] _Ibid._ 7–13.
[558] See above 45–48.
[559] 7 State Trials 70.
[560] _Ibid._ 16, 17.
[561] _Ibid._ 18.
[562] _Ibid._ 22.
[563] 7 State Trials 18, 19.
[564] _Ibid._ 30–33.
[565] _Ibid._ 23, 31.
[566] _Ibid._ 25.
[567] Dryden, _Absalom and Achitophel_ 646: “Sunk were his eyes.”
Warner MS. history 104. “Oculi parvi et in occiput retracti.”
L’Estrange, _Hue and Cry after Dr. O._ “His eyes are very small and
sunk.”
[568] 7 State Trials 25.
[569] _Ibid._ 25–27.
[570] 7 State Trials 27–29. L.C.J.: “What did he (Oates) say?” Dolman:
“That he did not well know him.” L.C.J.: “Mr. Oates, you say you were
with him (Coleman) at the Savoy and Wild-House; pray, Sir Thomas, did
he say he did not know him, or had seen Mr. Coleman there?” Dolman: “He
did not know him as he stood there.” Dolben, J.: “Did he say he did not
know Mr. Coleman, or that he did not know that man?” Dolman: “He said
he had no acquaintance with that man (to the best of my remembrance).”
[571] 7 State Trials 29, 30.
[572] 7 State Trials 21.
[573] Oates’ work had certainly been remarkably hard, and his fatigue
was no invention of his own. See the evidence of Sir Thomas Dolman at
Sir George Wakeman’s trial. 7 State Trials 656. Oates was confronted
with Coleman, and charged him with high treason on the night of Monday,
September 30. Dolman: “My Lord, Mr. Oates did appear before the king
and council, I think on the Saturday before which was Michaelmas
eve. The council sat long that morning, the council sat again in the
afternoon, and Mr. Oates was employed that night I think to search
after some Jesuits, who were then taken, and that was the work of that
night. The council I think sat again Sunday in the afternoon. Mr. Oates
was then examined; the council sat long, and at night he was sent
abroad again to search the lodgings of several priests and to find out
their papers, which he did seize upon, and one of the nights in that
season was a very wet night; he went either with a messenger or with
a guard upon him. On Monday morning the council sat again, and he was
further examined, and went abroad; and Monday night Mr. Oates was in as
feeble and weak a condition as ever I saw man in my life, and was very
willing to have been dismissed for that time, for he seemed to be in
very great weakness and disorder, so that I believe he was scarce able
to give a good answer.”
The whole incident is very similar to that which occurred at Wakeman’s
trial, with the exception that then the evidence went against the
witness, whereas now it was against the prisoner. The conduct of the
court on the two occasions was perfectly consistent. _Ibid._ 651–653.
See below.
[574] _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 385.
[575] Compare the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, Fenwick, etc. When
Oates had finished his evidence, Fenwick said: “Pray, my Lord, be
pleased to take notice that this man’s evidence all along is that he
saw such and such letters from such and such persons. They have no
evidence but just that, they saw such and such letters.” 7 State Trials
358.
[576] 7 State Trials 21, 32.
[577] As in the case of Dangerfield. 7 State Trials 1110.
[578] 7 State Trials 359, 411.
[579] See above 293.
[580] Fox, _History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II_ 34.
[581] Gardiner, _History of England_ vii. 323–326.
[582] 6 State Trials 693.
[583] One of the women supposed to be bewitched.
[584] 8 State Trials 1021. _Lives of the Norths_ i. 167.
[585] An extraordinary instance of the nature of the ideas of the time
on the subject of evidence appears in an examination before the Lords’
committee of inquiry. Oates complained that the Bishop of Chichester
and Justice Bickley had reviled his evidence. A witness named Nicholas
Covert was examined: “says he was at the public meeting at Chichester,
but he remembers not that anything was said reflecting on Dr. Oates.
The discourse was concerning the Narratives, and somebody there said
that he had contradicted himself twenty-two times.” House of Lords MSS.
146. If a score of self-contradictions were not generally taken as an
objection to a witness, it is hard to imagine what would have been.
[586] _History of his own Time._ London, 1727, 386.
[587] Ralph i. 412.
[588] 7 State Trials 13.
[589] _Ibid._ 35–53.
[590] 7 State Trials 59, 60.
[591] Being asked what he had to say he returned again to the subject:
“As for my papers I humbly hope ... that I should not have been found
guilty of any crime in them but what the act of grace could have
pardoned.”... _Ibid._ 71.
[592] 7 State Trials 8.
[593] _Ibid._ 15.
[594] _Ibid._ 76.
[595] House of Lords MSS. 8, November 6, 1678.
[596] House of Lords MSS. 14.
[597] This misunderstanding is so extraordinary that I was tempted at
one time to adopt the theory that the prosecution was aware of the
existence of the later letters, and suppressed the knowledge from
motives of expedience. Certainly the managers of the prosecutions for
the plot were guilty of conduct which not only would now be thought
unprofessional, but was on any consideration highly suspicious, as for
instance in the suppression of the forged letters sent by Oates and
Tonge to Father Bedingfield (see Ralph i. 384. Sir G. Sitwell, _The
First Whig_ 36), and on a question of honesty simply the balance of
probability might turn against them. But the supposition cannot be
maintained. It was suggested at the time that, if the letters of the
years 1673, 1674, 1675 contained such dangerous matter as appeared from
their perusal, those of the three ensuing years must, had they been
found, have revealed still more horrible schemes. But the force of this
argument was not sufficient to afford a motive for taking the risk of
detection (Ralph i. 412). And although the personality of Shaftesbury,
by whom alone such a scheme could have been worked out, was of great
potency in the committee of the House of Lords, he hardly dominated it
so completely as to render the manœuvre practicable in the presence of
such men as Lord Anglesey, the Marquis of Winchester, and the Bishop of
Bath and Wells (House of Lords MSS. i.).
[598] See above 312. 7 State Trials 59.
[599] _Ibid._ 65.
[600] L.C.J.: “If the cause did turn upon that matter, I would be well
content to sit until the book were brought; but I doubt the cause will
not stand on that foot; but if that were the case it would do you
little good.” 7 State Trials 65.
[601] 7 State Trials 71.
[602] _Ibid._ 66–68. Besides this he said several other things, of
which mention will be made later.
[603] _Ibid._ 70.
[604] _Ibid._ 78. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 4. Burnet ii. 178.
[605] Burnet ii. 113.
[606] Evidence of Carstairs, 6 State Trials 1503.
[607] Macaulay, _Hist. of England_ i. 237. Lingard xiii. 107, 108.
[608] Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. 14. Appendix ii. 361. See also Fairfax
Correspondence. Civil Wars (ed. R. Bell) ii. 297. James Babington to
Henry Lord Fairfax, November 20, 1678. “Staley, the goldsmith’s son,
was tried to-day at the King’s Bench, and condemned.”
[609] Schwerin, _Briefe aus England_ 356. On December 2 (n.s.) he
notes: “Des Goldschmied’s Sohn, von dessen unbesonnenen Reden ich
bereits Mittheilung gemacht, ist gehangen und nachher geviertheilt
worden. Man hatte sich vorher überzeugt, dass er gesagt, dass der
König in England sei der grösste Ketzer und Schelm in der Welt. Darauf
hat er mit der Hand auf die Brust geschlagen, mit den Füssen fünf bis
sechsmal auf die Erde gestampft, und mit ausgestrecktem Arm gesagt.
Dies ist die Hand, die ihn hätte umbringen sollen, der König und das
Parlament glaubten, das alles gethan und vorbei sei, allein die Schelme
wären betrogen.” _Ibid._ 362. Barillon’s testimony is on the same
side: “Le témoin, sur la foi duquel Staley, fils d’un orrèvre, a été
condamné, a accusé le Duc d’Hamilton.” December 16/26, 1678. And Warner
(MS. history 40): “Primus, qui Catholico sanguine Angliam rigavit,
fuit Gulielmus Stalaeus, alterius Gulielmi auri fabri et trapazitae
Londiniensis civis divitis filius.” The act under which Staley was
condemned is 13 Charles II cap. i.
[610] House of Lords MSS. 77, 78.
[611] Burnet (ii. 171) speaks of Staley as “the popish banker, who had
been in great credit, but was then under some difficulties”; but this
is one of the rare mistakes he makes in point of fact.
[612] He disclaimed all such sentiments and did deny the words, but
afterwards said that he had “never with intention, or any thought or
ill-will, spake any word upon this matter.” 6 State Trials 1506, 1508.
[613] 6 State Trials 1509. Lingard (xiii. 108) states on the authority
of _Les Conspirations d’Angleterre_ that Fromante, who is there called
Firmin, was put into prison to prevent his appearance at the trial; but
the work is by no means above suspicion, and is directly contradicted
on the point. Large extracts from _Les Conspirations d’Angleterre_,
which was published in 1681 and is now extremely rare, are quoted by
Arnauld, _Œuvres_ xiv. 515–535. Arnauld says in a note: “C’est M.
Rocole, ancien chanoine de S. Benoit à Paris, qui en est l’auteur; mais
l’avertissement qui le fait paraître Protestant, n’est pas de lui.”
There is among the State Papers an order in council for the arrest of
Bartholemew Fermin for high treason on account of the Popish Plot, but
without date. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408; i. 110.
[614] 6 State Trials 1511, 1512.
[615] Foley v. 233, 234.
[616] _Ibid._ v. 12. Lingard xiii. 64. _True Narrative of the Horrid
Plot and Conspiracy_, lxxvii.
[617] Foley v. 233, 244, 245.
[618] _Ibid._ 223.
[619] 7 State Trials 91–101.
[620] _Ibid._ 101–104.
[621] _Ibid._ 105.
[622] 7 State Trials 105. L.C.J.; “You must be tried by the laws of
England, which sends no piece of fact out of the country to be tried.”
[623] There is much evidence to show this. The following instances
are from the same volume of the State Trials:—The Attorney-General
not allowed to read a certificate against the accused 129. Whitebread
not allowed to use Oates’ _Narrative_ 374. Fenwick, Whitebread, and
Harcourt not allowed to use the report of Ireland’s trial. Harcourt
was, in fact, mistaken on the point for which he wished to refer to the
report 360, 384–386. Lord Stafford not allowed to use the council book
as evidence 1440. See also 451, 462, 467, 654.
[624] 7 State Trials 106–108.
[625] On April 16, 1679. _Ibid._ 259–310, and see below.
[626] 7 State Trials 272, 295.
[627] _Ibid._ 392.
[628] _Ibid._ 117, 118. Sergeant Baldwin produced the letter, saying,
“We do conceive a letter from one of that party, bearing date about the
same time, concerning Mr. Whitebread’s summons, who was then master of
the company, is very good evidence against them.”
The prosecution was forced to retract, and Mr. Finch, the junior, was
made to eat his leader’s words: “My Lord, it can affect no particular
person, but we only use it in general.”
[629] 7 State Trials 120.
[630] 7 State Trials 315–317.
[631] Cf. Rookwood’s case 1696. Powell, J.: “Certainly now the jury is
charged, they must give a verdict either of acquittal or conviction.”
Sir T. Trevor, Att. Gen.: “I know what has been usually thought
of Whitebread’s case.” And the trial of Cook, 1696. Powell, J.:
“Whitebread’s case was indeed held to be an extraordinary case.” And
see 7 State Trials 497–500 n, where many instances and opinions adverse
to the decision of the court are collected.
[632] Hale, P.C. ii. 294. “By the ancient law, if the jury sworn had
been once particularly charged with a prisoner, it was commonly held
they must give up their verdict, and they could not be discharged
before their verdict was given up.... But yet the contrary course hath
for a long time obtained at Newgate, and nothing is more ordinary
than after the jury is sworn and charged with a prisoner and evidence
given, yet if it appears to the court that some of the evidence is
kept back, or taken off, or that there may be a fuller discovery and
the offence notorious, as murder or burglary, and that the evidence,
though not sufficient to convict the prisoner, yet gives the court a
great and strong suspicion of his guilt, the court may discharge the
jury of the prisoner, and remit him to the gaol for further evidence;
and accordingly it has been practised in most circuits of England, for
otherwise many notorious murders and burglaries may pass unpunished,
by the acquittal of a person probably guilty, where the full evidence
is not searched out or given.” “The whole law upon this subject,” says
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, “was elaborately considered a few years
ago in R. _v._ Winsor (L.R. 1 Q.B. 289), when it appeared, from many
authorities, that the practice had fluctuated.” _Hist. Crim. Law_ i.
397.
[633] 7 State Trials 98.
[634] 7 State Trials 122–126.
[635] _Ibid._ 121, 122.
[636] _Ibid._ 124.
[637] 7 _Ibid._ 128.
[638] 10 State Trials 1243–1281.
[639] 7 State Trials 388–391.
[640] _Ibid._ 132.
[641] _Ibid._ 133–135.
[642] Stephen i. 399.
[643] 7 State Trials 138–141.
[644] 7 State Trials 142–144. Klopp II. 464, app. IV.
[645] Foley v. 58.
[646] See “An impartial consideration of these speeches,” etc., 1670,
attributed to John Williams, D.D. “Animadversions on the last speeches
of the Five Jesuits,” etc., 1679. Printed 7 State Trials 543.
[647] Burnet ii. 201.
[648] Sidney, _Letters_ 123, 124. The opinion of Ranke, who in his
writings was neither Catholic nor Protestant, lies midway between these
views: “Grässlich ist die lange Reihe von Hinrichtungen Solcher, die
nichts bekannten,” v. 235.
[649] “The examination of Captain William Bedloe deceased, taken in
his last sickness by Sir Francis North, Chief Justice of the Court of
Common Pleas.” Printed 6 State Trials 1493–1498.
[650] See Russell’s written Speech, printed at length, Ralph i. 755–757.
[651] Sitwell, _First Whig_ 153–158. And see Stephen i. 408, 409.
[652] Stephen i. 449. And see Burnet II. 303, 304.
[653] Above 328.
[654] See above 204–209.
[655] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 363. Order of the king in
council, February 5, 1679.
[656] 7 State Trials 259, 287, 296.
[657] _Ibid._ 287–289, 292.
[658] So Bedloe swore 7 State Trials 271. Burnet (ii. 199) says that
Bedloe made use of Reading’s intrigue to cover his omission to swear
against the Jesuits in the previous December. But Reading never denied
the fact that Bedloe’s account of this part of the transaction was
correct.
[659] Presumably, from the absence of any Christian name, Mr. George
Speke of White Lackington, M.P. for Somersetshire, a more reputable
person than his sons Hugh and Charles. George Speke had been a royalist
and after the Restoration lived in retirement for many years, but,
following the example of his son-in-law, John Trenchard, turned against
the court and became a leader of the Whig interest in his part of the
country. In 1680 he entertained Monmouth during his western progress.
Fea, _King Monmouth_ 96.
[660] The date fixed first was March 28, and was afterwards altered. 7
State Trials 281.
[661] Evidence of Bedloe, Speke, and Wiggins. _Ibid._ 270–286.
[662] _Ibid._ 278, 279.
[663] 7 State Trials 310.
[664] Colonel Mansell’s _Exact and True Narrative of the late Popish
Intrigue_ 64.
[665] See Ralph i. 431. Echard 970, 971. Danby, _Memoirs_ 39, 40.
[666] 7 State Trials 763–812. An Exact and True Narrative of the Horrid
Conspiracy of Thomas Knox, William Osborne, and John Lane to invalidate
the testimonies of Dr. Oates and Mr. William Bedloe. London 1680.
[667] See below.
[668] Burnet ii. 200.
[669] 7 State Trials 881–926.
[670] This was contradicted and his reputation much debated at the
trial of Lord Stafford eighteen months later; but at the time it was
believed to be the fact.
[671] Thomas Whitebread, provincial; William Harcourt, rector of the
London province; John Fenwick, procurator for the college at St. Omers;
John Gavan, and Anthony Turner. 7 State Trials 311–418.
[672] _Ibid._ 340, 1455. This was so far confirmed that Dugdale was
proved to have spoken on Tuesday, October 15, 1678 of the death of a
justice of the peace in Westminster, which does not go far. Dugdale
also declared at Lord Stafford’s trial that on Coleman’s arrest the
Duke of York sent to Newgate to ask if he had made disclosures to
anybody, and when Coleman returned that he had done so only to Godfrey,
the duke gave orders to have Godfrey killed. 7 State Trials 1316–1319.
Burnet ii. 190, 191. And see above 153, n. Burnet says: “The Earl
of Essex told me he swore it on his first examination, December 24,
1678, but since it was only on hearsay from Evers, and so was nothing
in law, and yet would heighten the fury against the duke, the king
charged Dugdale to say nothing of it.” This is a mistake. Dugdale’s
first and second examinations, December 24 and 29, 1678. S.P. Dom.
Charles II 408: II. 49, 22. Dugdale did formally tell the story in his
information, but not until March 21, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 135.
[673] Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 334–342.
[674] 7 State Trials 343–349.
[675] _Ibid._ 119, 355. House of Lords MSS. 15.
[676] 7 State Trials, 350–357.
[677] 7 State Trials 359–378.
[678] “... Three of them, having been apprehended by Sir Will. Waller
at their first coming, told him they were come to be witnesses, and
being asked what they were to witness, they said they must know that
from their superiors.” Sidney, _Letters_ 101.
[679] Examination of Christopher Townley, April 28, 1679. Fitzherbert
MSS. 151, 152.
[680] 7 State Trials 371. At the trial of Langhorn another witness was
produced to explain this, but his testimony was unconvincing.
[681] _Ibid._ 361, 364, 366. Information was also given that Gifford
had admitted in conversation “that his Superior of the College at St.
Omers had sent him over to swear on behalf of the Lords, and that he
must obey, and would, right or wrong.” Examinations of Chamberlayne and
Gouddall. Fitzherbert MSS. 149.
[682] Examinations of Coulster and Townley. Fitzherbert MSS 151, 152.
[683] 7 State Trials 396–403. North, _Examen_ 239, 240. 10 State Trials
1183–1188. Smith, _Intrigues of the Popish Plot_. The evil reputation
of these men was unknown at the time of the trial. See Burnet ii. 226.
[684] 7 State Trials 404–418.
[685] At the time of the fire of London, Tillotson told Burnet a
story of Langhorn’s methods of business which is too ridiculous to be
believed. Burnet i. 412.
[686] _True Narrative_ lxxxi.
[687] 7 State Trials 463–465, 470.
[688] _Ibid._ 439.
[689] 7 State Trials 514.
[690] _Ibid._ 172, 173.
[691] Sidney, _Letters_ 124. “Wakeman’s trial is put off, as is
believed, to avoid the indecency of the discourses that would have been
made.”
[692] L.J. xiii. 388–392. C.J. November 28, 29, 1678. Ralph i. 397.
James (Or. Mem.) i. 529.
[693] Burnet ii. 231.
[694] 7 State Trials 602–618.
[695] _Ibid._ 619–623.
[696] _Ibid._ 624–641. Bedloe however gave no evidence against the
prisoner Rumley.
[697] 7 State Trials 644–651. Sir J. F. Stephen has strangely missed
the bearing of this evidence, and writes as if it had been decisive in
favour of the prisoners. _Hist. Crim. Law_ i. 391.
[698] The first serious acquittal at least, for the trial of Atkins,
after the conviction of Green, Berry, and Hill for the murder of
Godfrey, was hardly more than formal.
[699] 7 State Trials 651–653.
[700] Hatton Correspondence ii. 187. Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton,
July 10, 1679. “Mr. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane was bailed yesterday,
and if my Lord Chief Justice hang five hundred Jesuits, he will not
regain the opinion he thereby lost with the populace, to court whom he
will not act against his conscience.” Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 74.
[701] Verney MSS. 474.
[702] Burnet ii. 232. _The Narrative of Segnior Francisco de Faria_,
1680, 17, 18.
[703] Deposition of F. de Faria, March 24, 1681. S.P. Dom. Charles II
415: 159. Verney MSS. 474. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 17, 74.
[704] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 19.
[705] 8 State Trials 163–174. Hatton Correspondence ii. 220.
[706] 7 State Trials 702–706.
[707] Hatton Correspondence ii. 191, 195, 207–210.
[708] C.J. ix. 661, 688–692. L.J. xiii. 736–739. Luttrell, _Brief
Relation_ i. 64.
[709] L.J. xiii. 752.
[710] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 74, 75.
[711] See Burnet ii. 196. North, _Examen_ 567, 568. _Lives of the
Norths_, 195, 196. Hatton Correspondence, _passim_.
[712] Burnet ii. 196. North, _Examen_ 568.
[713] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 146. “Being with the king at the Duchess
of Portsmouth’s lodgings, my Lord Treasurer being also present, the
king told me he took it (Oates’ story) to be some artifice, and that
he did not believe one word of the Plot.” Reresby, though always
well-informed, was never at this time in possession of real secrets.
Barillon, October 1/10, 1678. “Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne m’a dit
qu’il ne croyait pas que cette accusation eût un veritable fondement.”
Shaftesbury, _The present state of the Kingdom at the opening of_ _the
Parliament_, March 6, 1679. “As concerning the plot and the murder of
Godfrey, the king’s discourses and managing are new and extraordinary.
No man can judge by them but that he is in the plot against his own
life; and no man doubts but he is so far in as concerns us all.”
Printed Christie ii. 309.
[714] Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. “Le Roi d’Angleterre ne me parle
plus comme il a parlé jusqu’à present. Il me dit hier que la déposition
d’un dernier témoin nommé Ducdale lui parassait si peu concertée et
si pleine de faits vraisemblables qu’il ne pouvait plus s’empêcher de
croire à une conspiration contre sa personne. Ce Prince me redit toutes
les raisons qui lui ont fait croire qu’Oats et Benloi sont des parjures
et des imposteurs, mais en même temps il me fit connaître que ce qu’ils
avaient dit de faux n’empêchait pas qu’il n’y eût quelque chose de vrai
qui servait pour fondement à tout ce qu’ils avaient pu inventer d’eux
mêmes.”
[715] See the trials of Andrew Bromwich, 7 State Trials 715–726, Lionel
Anderson and others, _ibid._ 729–750, Knox and Lane, _ibid._ 763–812,
Lord Castlemaine, _ibid._ 1067–1112.
[716] Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 34.
[717] See _e.g._ his summing up at Lord Castlemaine’s trial. 7 State
Trials 1408–1412.
[718] In spite of his own and his brother’s assertions there cannot be
the least doubt of this. North afterwards declared in his memoirs that
he never believed in the Popish Plot, a statement which is belied by
every action and word of his on the bench.
[719] 7 State Trials 218, at the trial of Green, Berry, and Hill.
[720] 7 State Trials 69.
[721] _Ibid._ 133, 134.
[722] _Ibid._ 218, 411, 642, 1102. 10 State Trials 1170. L.C.J.: “You
may assure yourselves, I will remember whatsoever has been said on the
one side and on t’other as well as I can; the gentlemen of the jury are
men of understanding, and I see they take notes, and I’ll give them
what assistance I can.” Instances might be multiplied. See Stephen i.
377, 566, 567.
[723] 6 State Trials 701–710. His trial was in 1665.
[724] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1088.
[725] 7 State Trials 134. _Absalom and Achitophel_ 120.
[726] 7 State Trials 678–680. This is another fair specimen. “Never
brag of your religion, for it is a foul one, and so contrary to Christ;
it is easier to believe anything than to believe that an understanding
man may be a papist.”
[727] These trials in their order of mention will be found:—7 State
Trials 1043. _Ibid._ 959. 8 State Trials 502. 7 State Trials 1162. 8
State Trials 447. 7 State Trials 1067. 8 State Trials 243.
[728] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 194.
[729] See Appendix E.
[730] The proceedings in Parliament against the five popish lords are
collected in 7 State Trials 1218–1292.
[731] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 193, 194, North, _Examen_ 218.
[732] Barillon, November 31/December 9, 1680. “Ce qui se passera dans
ce procès est de grande consequence. Si le comte de Stafford était
absous, la conjuration recevrait une grande atteinte, et quoique le
peuple soit prévenu, il est néantmoins assujetti aux règles et aux
lois, et ne s’en départ pas aisément.”
[733] _Secret Services of Charles II and James II_ 24.
[734] Barillon, December 6/16, 9/19, 1680. James i. 640.
[735] 7 State Trials 1298–1339.
[736] Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1341–1347.
[737] Oates’ evidence. _Ibid._ 1347–1350.
[738] Turbervile’s evidence. _Ibid._ 1351–1355.
[739] _Ibid._ 1394, 1395.
[740] 7 State Trials 1397–1400.
[741] _Ibid._ 1388–1393.
[742] _Ibid._ 1396–1406.
[743] _Ibid._ 1407–1415.
[744] 7 State Trials 1415–1419.
[745] Stafford admitted afterwards that in recent years he had
constantly used a walking stick, “being lame with weariness.” _Ibid._
1478.
[746] _Ibid._ 1419–1434.
[747] 7 State Trials 1437–1447.
[748] _Ibid._ 1462, 1463.
[749] _Ibid._ 1485–1492.
[750] _Ibid._ 1486–1491.
[751] 6 State Trials 119.
[752] 7 State Trials 1519–1529.
[753] _Ibid._ 1493–1515.
[754] _Ibid._ 1544–1551.
[755] Reresby thought that he acquitted himself well, but James said
“it was always his misfortune to play his game worst when he had the
best cards.” James i. 637.
[756] Barillon, December 16/26 1680.
[757] Reresby, _Memoirs_ 194.
[758] Anglesey, _Memoirs_ 9.
[759] Barillon, November 21/December 1, 1680. “Ce Prince prend souvent
la liberté de se moquer la conjuration, et ne se constraint pas
d’appeller tout haut Oatz et Bedlow des coquins. Il a dit cependant
que les preuves contre le Vicomte de Stafford étaient fortes, et qu’il
pouvait bien n’être pas innocent.”
[760] Hatton Correspondence ii. 241.
[761] Barillon, December 9/19 1680.
[762] _Ibidem._
[763] The Earls of Carlisle, Berkshire, and Suffolk. The appearance of
Lord Howard of Escrick on the same side is of no importance on account
of his bad character.
[764] Anglesey, _Memoirs_ 9. James to Hyde. Clarendon Cor. i. 50. James
to Col. Legge, Dartmouth MSS. 54. Barillon, December 19/29, 1680.
[765] L.J. xiii. 724. C.J. December 23, 1680. _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1261. 7
State Trials 1562.
[766] 7 State Trials 1544, 1440–1447, 1342, 1343.
[767] _Ibid._ 1564–1567.
[768] Echard 997. Lingard xiii. 247–249.
[769] Dispatch of Sarotti-Bignola, January 10, 1681. “Tanta è la
impressione de’ popoli della verità della congiura e della reità del
conte (Stafford), che da pochi è stato compatito e molti lo hanno
ingiurato con infami parole.” Quoted Brosch 451. Dispatch of Thun,
January 10, 1681. “Der Henker hat den kopf auf der Bühne herumgetragen
und dem Volke gezeigt, welches darüber ein unausprechliches Freuden-und
frohlockendes Geschrei hat erschallen lassen.” Quoted Klopp II 473,
app. XXII.
[770] 7 State Trials 1129–1162.
[771] _Ibid._ 1162.
[772] _Ibid._ 1133.
[773] _Ibid._ 1161.
[774] Evidence of Richmond and Bridges. _Ibid._ 1140, 1142.
[775] Evidence of Arnold. 7 State Trials 1135–1137.
[776] Evidence of Phillips. _Ibid._ 1138.
[777] Evidence of Philpot. _Ibid._ 1145, 1146.
[778] Evidence of Watkins, Richmond, and Powel. _Ibid._ 1139.
[779] Evidence of H. Jones and J. Jones. _Ibid._ 1146, 1147.
[780] Evidence of W. Richmond. 7 State Trials 1140, 1141, and evidence
for the defence. _Ibid._ 1148–1151.
[781] _Ibid._ 1152–1159.
[782] _Ibid._ 1160. Luttrell, _Brief Relation_ i. 53, 55. S.P. Dom.
Charles II 414: 79. Petition of John Giles. Read in Council, 6 August
1680.
[783] 7 State Trials 1138, 1146.
[784] It is evident that the writer was an agent employed by Jenkins
for the purpose. Otherwise the secretary would certainly have noted
from whom and the date on which he received the information. The style
of the report is also evidence of this.
[785] Stephen i. 393. Macaulay i. 234.
—————————————————— End of Book ——————————————————
Transcriber’s Note (continued)
When they occur in quoted text and their citations, inconsistencies in
spelling (particularly of names), accenting, hyphenation, abbreviation,
etc., have been left unchanged in this transcription. Minor
typographical errors in the author’s text have been corrected without
note while other changes to his text are as stated below.
Page xv - “efuge” changed to “refuge” (March 24 Danby takes refuge at
Whitehall.)
Page 59 - “has” changed to “have” (various ways of procuring success
for the Catholic religion have thus been considered)
Page 174 - “Monmonth” changed to “Monmouth” (Duke of Monmouth)
Page 181 - “Trelawney” changed to “Trelawny” (Sir Jonathan Trelawny)
Page 282 - “thay” changed to “they” (formerly they had feared
dismissal)
The 785 footnotes have been renumbered and moved from the bottom of
pages to a FOOTNOTES section at the end of the transcription.