The Popish Plot: A study in the history of the reign of Charles II

by John Pollock

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 Sigⁿ Giovanni Sargentio alle altre sue; tutte (come V. S. Ill^ma vede) sono heretiche o almeno inferiscono l’heresia.”

Continual references to the same subject are found in the Papal despatches of the time.

[97] Maxims of State lxv.

[98] See D’Avrigny, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de l’Europe 47, 48. Arnauld, Œuvres xiv. 410.

[99] Leybourn to Coleman, May 2, 1676. Fitzherbert MSS. 102. John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, March 30, 1676, “The Duke of York did declare that he would never more come under the roof of Whitehall chapel, which makes every one say he is a perfect papist.... ’Tis said he publicly goes to mass. God bless him and preserve the King.” Verney MSS. 467. Courtin, March 23, April 2, October 2/12, 1676. Le ministre des affaires étrangères à Courtin, April 1/11, 1676. Mémoires du Marquis de Pomponne i. 491. Marchese Cattaneo al Duca di Modena, April 20/30, 1676: “In alcune parti d’Inghilterra si e cominciata l’esecuzione delle legge contro i Cattolici, imprigionandoli e confiscandogli i beni.... Delle rincrudite persecuzioni verso i Cattolici e accagionato il Duca d’York perche non ha voluto nella Pasqua recarsi alla capella Regia (Protestante),” in Campana de Cavelli i. 171. Longleat MSS. Proclamation of October 3, 1676. Coventry Papers xi. 154.

[100] The interpretation of the following letter seems doubtful, but it is worth quoting. It is a curious fact that Lord Castlemaine should have either taken, or intended to take, orders in the Church of Rome.

January 1, 1677. To the Lord Castlemaine at Liège: “118 and 109, as I am privately told, are now perfectly reconciled to the Duke of York, and fully resolved to serve him and his interest, so that if the Lords and Commons when they meet do nothing, the King will dissolve them and once more publish a toleration. Consider if Mr. Skinner can make a seasonable check of mettlesome stuff for the conjuncture. By a letter from Mr. Warner at Paris I find D. of Cleveland persuaded that Ld. Castlemain is already made a priest by the Jesuits’ underhand contrivances, and that she obstructed it what she could at Rome. I should think it expedient that she should continue in that belief, that she may think it now too late to go about to hinder it.” Unsigned Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 347.

[101] Throckmorton to Coleman, January 9, February 20, 1675. Fitzherbert MSS. 60, 66. Berkshire to Coleman, n.d. Treby i. 102.

[102] Journal of Sir Joseph Williamson, March 12, 30, 1672, in Cal. S.P. Dom. 1671–1672, 608. Longleat MSS. Francis Bastwick to Henry Coventry, April 29, 1679. Examination of Col. Scott at Dover of same date. Coventry Papers xi. 393, 396. Two letters in the same collection seem to show that Scott was a regular spy of the English Government, but they are so vague that much reliance cannot be placed on them. Coventry Papers xi. 171, 506. See Appendix A.

[103] Longleat MSS. “An account of what the Earl of Berkshire desired Colonel John Scott to communicate to his Majesty.” Coventry Papers xi. 397. See Appendix A. See too Collins’ Peerage, 1812, iii. 163.

[104] Scott afterward gave evidence before the House of Commons against Pepys, whom he charged on report with having given information of the state of the navy to the French court; but the affair was never thoroughly investigated. Grey, Debates in Parliament vii. 303–309.

[105] House of Lords MSS. 43, 44. Burnet i. 345, 346; ii. 276, 277. Airy, The English Restoration 240.

[106] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 310, 313, 317. See Appendix A.

[107] J. P. Oliva Generale dei Gesuiti al Cardinale Altieri, September 23/October 3, 1674. Vat. Arch. Archivio di Propaganda Fide. Ranke v. 91.

[108] Dal Sig^r Internuncio, May 24/June 3, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. 32095: 196. See below in Politics of the Plot.

[109] L.J. November 21, 1678. Foley v. 221, 222. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 483, a version of Du Fiquet’s information in French.

[110] 7 State Trials 1007.

[111] Brusselles Dal. Sig^r Internuncio, April 19/29, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[112] Longleat MSS. St. Omers, August 14, 1678. Sam Morgan to his father, Coventry Papers xi. 204. See Appendix A.

[113] Pepys, Memoires relating to the State of the Royal Navy in England 4, 5, 8.

[114] Longleat MSS. Letter of December 23, 1676. Coventry Papers xi. 171. See Appendix A.

[115] Treby i. 19. September 18/28, 1678.

[116] L’Abbate G. B. Lauri a S. Em^za, November 22/December 2, 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia 332. See Appendix A.

[117] Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. “Il (le Duc d’York) me fit entendre. ...qu’il ne comprenait pas que le Roi son frère voulût mettre tous les Catholiques en désespoir et les persécuter sans aucunes mesures. Il ajouta à cela en termes pleines de colère et ressentiment que si on le poursuit à bout et qu’il se voit en état d’être entièrement ruiné par ses ennemis, il trouvera le moyen de les en faire repentir et se vangera d’eux.... M. le Duc de Bouquinham m’a dit plusieurs fois qu’il avait bu fort souvent avec le Roi de la Grande Bretagne, mais qu’il n’avait jamais vu ce Prince dans une débauche un peu libre qu’il ne temoignât beaucoup d’aigreur et de la haine même contre son frère.”

[118] Examinations of Saunders, Coulster, and Towneley, April 28, 1679. House of Lord MSS. 149–152.

[119] Macaulay iv. 649–652. Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History. If Charles’ word when he was sober can be trusted, he believed there was no ground to suspect the duke of any intention against his life. Barillon, November 22/December 2, 1680. “Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne dit encore en jurant avant hier au conseil: Mon frère ne m’a point voulu faire tuer, ny pas un de vous ne le croît.” It was however Charles’ constant policy to uphold the Duke of York. See too Reresby, Memoirs 146.

[120] Ralph i. 382.

[121] It is a tribute to the liveliness of Oates’ imagination that Pickering, said to be an agent in the Jesuit plot, was a Benedictine lay-brother.

[122] Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative i. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 38; S.P. Dom. Charles II 409.

[123] Simpson Tonge’s Journal 39.

[124] Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative 2. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 40, 41. Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of Danby 13, 14.

[125] Impartial State of the Case 14, 15.

[126] Florus Anglo-Bavaricus 95.

[127] Impartial State of the Case 15. Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative 2. 7 State Trials 96, 328, 345. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 39, 59.

[128] Impartial State of the Case 15.

[129] Impartial State of the Case 15, 16. Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative 2, 3. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 64, 65, 124. L’Estrange, Brief Hist. ii. 4–15. Observator ii. 150–153, October 1684. James (Or. Mem.) i. 518, 519. Ralph i. 383, 384. Burnet ii. 158.

[130] Simpson Tonge’s Journal 135. Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative 3. Impartial State of the Case 16. James (Or. Mem.) i. 518. Temple, Works i. 398. Reresby, Memoirs 147. Burnet ii. 158.

[131] Simpson Tonge’s Journal 152. 7 State Trials 29, James (Or. Mem.) i. 518–521. Warner MS. history 26. Florus Anglo-Bavaricus 98. Foley v. 16. Burnet ii. 160. North, Examen 58.

[132] Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678. 7 State Trials 656. Foley v. 17, 18, 20, 21. Schwerin, Briefe aus England 330, 334, 342.

[133] Barillon, October 3/13, 10/20, 1678. 7 State Trials 29, 30, 33. Impartial State of the Case 17. Add. MSS. 28,042: 32. Notes by Danby for a letter to be sent to a member of the House of Commons. Danby to Lord Hatton, March 29, 1678. Hatton Correspondence i. 184.

[134] Il Nuntio di Vienna al Nuntio in Francia. Nimega, October 18/28, 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Francia, 329.

[135] Barillon, October 3/13, 7/17, 10/20, 17/27, 1678. Paolo Sarotti, Ven. arch. October 11/21, 1678. Schwerin, Briefe aus England October 4/14, 1678. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 1. Halstead, Succinct Genealogies 433. Reresby, Memoirs 145. North, Examen 177. Evelyn, Diary October 1, 1678. Caveat against the Whigs ii. 42. Foley v. 18. Burnet ii. 161, 162.

[136] Calamy, Own Life i. 83, 84. Christie, Life of Shaftesbury ii. 309. Burnet ii. 165. North, Examen 206. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 12, 21. Schwerin, Briefe aus England 336, 351, November 18, 1678.

[137] See the prologue to Dryden’s tragi-comedy, The Spanish Friar, produced early in 1681:—

A fair attempt has twice or thrice been made

To hire night murderers and make death a trade.

When murder’s out, what vice can we advance,

Unless the new-found poisoning trick of France?

And when their art of rats-bane we have got,

By way of thanks, we’ll send them o’er our Plot.

Scott suggests that the allusion is to the murder of Mr. Thynne, but this did not occur till some months after the production of the play. Christie refers it to the assault made upon Dryden himself in Rose Alley in December 1679; but the reference to the plot makes it far more probable that Dryden had in his mind the murder of Godfrey and the sham attempt on Arnold eighteen months later. He would certainly class the two together, for he attributed Godfrey’s death to Oates:—

And Corah might for Agag’s murder call

In terms as coarse as Samuel used to Saul.

Absalom and Achitophel, 676, 677.

[138] Sir George Sitwell gives a most instructive and entertaining description of these, The First Whig, chap. vi.

[139] What Gunpowder Plot was 13.

[140] Tuke, Memoirs of Godfrey 1–15. Sidney Lee, Article on Godfrey in Dict. of Nat. Biog. Gentleman’s Magazine, January 1848. Godfrey’s Christian names are variously spelt. I give the most correct form in writing, but in quoting retain that used by the writer or reporter.

[141] Tuke, Memoirs 39–51.

[142] Sidney Lee, op. cit. Gazette No. 88. Ralph i. 139.

[143] Pepys, Diary May 26, 1699. Tuke, Memoirs 36–39. Tuke is mistaken in saying that Godfrey was knighted on this occasion, in recompense for the injury done him. The knighthood was conferred in September 1666.

[144] An engraving by F. H. van Hove is inserted in Tuke’s Memoirs.

[145] Tuke, Memoirs 19, 20. North, Examen 199.

[146] Tuke, Memoirs 52, 53.

[147] Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative 2, 3.

[148] Kirkby, Compleat and True Narrative 3. Simpson Tonge’s Journal 126, 135.

[149] Tuke, Memoirs 22, 23, 29, Burnet ii. 163. North, Examen 199, 200.

The author of the Annual Letters of the English Province S.J. is probably inaccurate in stating, “He was especially kind to the Roman Catholics, and was moreover a great confidant of the Duke of York” (quoted Foley Records v. 15); but the statement is only an exaggeration of the truth. Warner MS. history 26, “Nec alius in eo magistratu aut Carolo fidelior aut Catholicis, etiam Jesuitis, quorum multos familiarissime noverat, amicior.”

[150] Burnet ii. 164. Depositions of Henry Moor, Godfrey’s clerk. L’Estrange, Brief History iii. 203, 204, 208. The depositions collected by L’Estrange in this work must be regarded with suspicion. The statements in many are obviously untrue, and L’Estrange was not above falsifying evidence to suit his purpose. Among other reasons for the use of great caution is the fact that most of the depositions were not taken until eight or nine years after the event. Their exact dates cannot be ascertained, as they are seldom quoted by L’Estrange, and the original documents are missing. They are supposed to have been stolen from the State Paper Office immediately after the Revolution (Sitwell, First Whig ix.). Only after careful scrutiny can these papers be used as evidence. Moor’s evidence was taken for the coroner. He afterwards went to live at Littleport, in Cambridgeshire, and died apparently in 1685 or 1686. Brief Hist. iii., Preface vii. 171.

[151] Brief Hist. iii. 204, 205.

[152] Brief Hist. iii. 205, 206. Depositions of Pengry and Fall.

[153] Brief Hist. ii. chap. vi, 199, iii. 195–201. The evidence that the news of Godfrey’s absence was known before Tuesday, October 15, is not to be relied on. It consists wholly of depositions taken by L’Estrange several years after. Some contain such ridiculous statements as that before 3 P.M. on Saturday, October 12, it was a common report that Godfrey was murdered by the Papists. (Dep. of Wynell, Burdet, Paulden, 195, 196, 200.) At this time even his household could not possibly have known that he would not return. Another declares that on the morning of Sunday “it was in all the people’s mouths in that quarter that he was murdered by the Papists at Somerset House.” (Dep. of Collinson, 200.) At this time it was not known in Hartshorn Lane that Godfrey had not spent the night at his mother’s. In another a false statement can fortunately be detected. Thomas Burdet deposed (196, 197) that Godfrey and Mr. Wynell had an appointment to dine on the Saturday with Colonel Welden, that Godfrey did not keep his appointment, and that the surprise which was caused by this was increased by the immediate report of his murder. As a matter of fact Godfrey had no appointment to dine with Welden, and so could not have caused surprise by not appearing. He had been invited, but could not promise to come. Welden gave evidence before the Lords’ Committee: “He came on Friday night with officers of St. Martin’s, and at going away I asked him to dine with me on Saturday. He said he could not tell whether he should.” (House of Lords MSS. 48.) North’s assertions to the same effect (Examen 201) are equally worthless. Burnet is positive that the news of Godfrey’s absence was not published before Tuesday, October 15. Burnet’s character has been sufficiently rehabilitated by Ranke and Mr. Airy; but I may remark that, as he was opposed to the court, did not believe in Oates’ revelations, and had access to excellent sources of information, his evidence upon the Popish Plot is of remarkable value.

[154] Burnet places this tale at a time before the news was public, and says that the suggestion was credited by Godfrey’s brothers. Very likely they may have believed it, but a comparison with Moor’s evidence (see above) makes it probable that this explanation was the first given after his absence was known.

[155] Burnet ii. 164. North, Examen 202. Diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 321.

[156] John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471.

[157] Lloyd to L’Estrange, Brief Hist. iii. 87. Burnet ii. 164. North says the body was found upon Wednesday, October 16 (Examen 202), but this is a mistake.

[158] “7 guineas, 4 broad pieces, £4 in silver.” The coroner’s evidence.

[159] Evidence of the coroner and Rawson before the Lords’ Committee. House of Lords’ MSS. 46, 47. Evidence of Brown, the constable, at the inquest. Brief Hist. iii. 212–215, 222.

[160] Deposition of White, coroner of Westminster. Brief Hist. iii. 224.

[161] Quoted from the printed copy published by Janeway in 1682. Brief Hist. iii. 232.

[162] “The jury’s reasons for the verdict they gave.” Brief Hist. iii. chap. xii.

[163] Evidence of Collins, Mason, and Radcliffe. Brief Hist. iii. 252, 300. Some not very good evidence was collected several years afterwards as to Godfrey’s movements later in the day. It cannot be considered trustworthy. 8 State Trials 1387, 1392, 1393. Brief Hist. iii. 174, 175.

[164] The coroner’s evidence before the Lords’ committee; “There was nothing in the field on Tuesday.” House of Lords MSS. 47. Evidence of Mrs. Blith and her man at the inquest. Brief Hist. iii. 244.

[165] Deposition of Robert Forset. 8 State Trials 1394, 1395.

[166] Sir George Sitwell says: “The bruises or discolourations upon his chest might well have been produced by those who knelt upon it in stripping off the clothes” (First Whig 41). Bruises however cannot be made to appear upon a corpse beyond the time of three and a half hours after death (Professor H. A. Husband in the Student’s Handbook of Forensic Medicine), nor is there any evidence that the body was so treated. Marks which look like bruises may be caused after death by the process of hypostasis or suggillation, the gravitation of the blood to the lowest point in the dead body. But if the marks on Godfrey’s body had been thus caused, the face and neck would have shown pronounced signs of discolouration, since the head was lower than any other point in the body. It had moreover been in that position for at most only twenty-four hours, so that the blood would not have gravitated to the chest immediately after death at all.

[167] L’Estrange afterwards persuaded the surgeon Lazinby to say that the mark was caused by the pressure of the collar. Brief Hist. iii. 259. But his evidence in court was, on the contrary, that it was caused “by the strangling with a cord or cloth.” 8 State Trials 1384.

[168] The evidence as to the exact condition of the neck, varies slightly, but the doctors, and indeed all who saw the body, were agreed that it was broken.

[169] Evidence of the surgeons Cambridge and Skillard at the trial of Green, Berry, and Hill. 7 State Trials 185, 186. Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. Evidence of Hobbs and Lazinby, surgeons, and the two Chaces, apothecaries, at the trial of Thompson, Pain, and Farwell. 8 State Trials 1381–1384.

[170] Evidence of Brown, Skillard, and Cambridge at the trial of Green and others. 7 State Trials 184, 185, 186. Evidence of Hazard, Batson, Fisher, Rawson, Mrs. Rawson, Hobbs, Lazinby, the Chaces, at the trial of Thompson and others. 8 State Trials 1379–1384. Depositions of Skillard, Rawson, and others. Brief Hist. iii. 265–271. Some of the witnesses in their depositions before L’Estrange spoke of the presence of a greater quantity of blood than they had previously remembered. Obviously their earlier impressions are the more trustworthy. Even at the later date the quantity to which they swore was not considerable.

[171] Brief Hist. iii. 271. He does not attempt however to give any evidence for his statement.

[172] Brief Hist. iii. 230.

[173] Mr. W. M. Fletcher, M.B., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, has kindly furnished me with his opinion on this point. He says: “A sword transfixing the living body and at the same time driven through the cavity of the heart would cause violent hæmorrhage from one or other of the external wounds, except only under a set of circumstances which could be present only by the rarest chance; the hæmorrhage, that is to say, could be restrained only by an accidental block produced not only at one but at two points on either side of the heart cavity, where the torn tissues might happen so to fit outwards upon and closely against the undisturbed sword as to form a kind of valve. Such an accidental valve formation, occurring at two separate points on each side of the pent-up blood, is improbable enough, but could not be imagined as a prevention of hæmorrhage if the sword were bent, twisted, or withdrawn after the infliction of the wound.”

[174] 7 State Trials 295. Information of Mrs. Warrier. Brief Hist. iii. 142. Burnet ii. 164. Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 46. L’Estrange produces two depositions to the effect that the ground was quite dry and not muddy, and in doing so contradicts the argument upon which he lays stress in arguing against Prance’s story (see below) that if the body had been brought to Primrose Hill upon a horse, the feet and legs must have been covered with mud. Brief Hist. iii. 261, and see 8 State Trials 1370 for the same point in Thompson’s libel.

[175] 8 State Trials 1359–1389.

[176] Barillon, October 21/31, 1678. “Ce Godefroy s’est trouvé mort à trois milles d’ici sans qu’on sache qui l’a tué. Le Roi d’Angleterre et M. le Duc d’York m’ont dit que c’était une espèce de fanatique et qu’ils croyent qu’il s’était tué lui-même.”

[177] Burnet ii. 165. Blencowe’s Sidney lxii. Lady Sunderland to John Evelyn, December 25, 1678.

[178] See the letter subscribed T. G. to Secretary Coventry and Coventry’s reply. Longleat MSS. See Appendix B.

[179] John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, Verney MSS. 471. This did not take place till November, but it may be noted at this point.

[180] Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. Despatches of Giacomo Ronchi, secret agent of the Duke of Modena in London, January 20, 1679. Campana de Cavelli i. 239. Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury i. 29.

[181] Lansd. MSS. 1235: 76. North, Examen 202, 204, 205. North alone relates the incident of the pulpit. As Ranke observes, he has never been contradicted, so that the story may be accepted. Burnet ii. 165. Ralph i. 392. Echard 950. Oldmixon 620.

[182] Parl. Hist. iv. 1022. L.J. xiii. 299. House of Lords MSS. i.

[183] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 232. The information of October 27 is practically the same as that given below from the Lords’ Journals.

[184] Examination of Charles Atkins, Esq. 6 State Trials 1479. L.J. November 12, 1678.

[185] Evidence of C. Atkins before the Lords’ Committee. 6 State Trials 1474.

[186] 6 State Trials 1473–1492.

[187] 6 State Trials 1484, 1491.

[188] There is unfortunately a gap from October 28 to December 11 in the minutes of the committee of inquiry of the House of Lords, so that it is impossible to check Atkins’ statements exactly.

[189] See 6 State Trials 1476, 1481.

[190] Ibid. 1474.

[191] Ibid. 1481.

[192] See the conversations between Charles and Samuel Atkins on the stairs of the committee room, November 6, and in Newgate, November 8. Ibid. 1480, 1484. North, Examen 243–247.

[193] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 285. Bedloe to Williamson, October 31, 1678; ii. 23. Williamson to Bedloe, November 5. Brief Hist. iii. 7. Coventry to Bedloe, November 2.

[194] See Appendix B.

[195] Whence Lingard derives the words I cannot discover, xiii. 98. Brief Hist. iii. 16. Ralph i. 393. Burnet ii. 168. Burnet, who relates that Charles told him the same thing of Bedloe, must have misunderstood the king’s words, unless, which is quite possible, Charles deceived him intentionally.

[196] Add. MSS. 11,058: 244. See Appendix B.

[197] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. See Appendix B.

[198] Deposition of November 8 before the Lords’ committee. 6 State Trials 1487.

[199] Ibid. 1489.

[200] Ibid. 1484.

[201] 7 State Trials 347, 349. Exam. of November 7. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407. See Appendix B. Care, History of the Plot 127.

[202] Warner MS. history 36. Exam, of Mary Bedloe (see below). Burnet ii. 168. Florus Anglo-Bavaricus 127, Lettre écrite de Mons à un ami à Paris, 1679. L.J. xiii. 392. Reresby, Memoirs 149.

[203] L.J. xiii. 343, November 12.

[204] Deposition of Alice Tainton, alias Bedloe, taken this 14th day of November 1678, before the Rt. Rev. father in God William Lord Bishop of Landaffe, one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace in the county of Monmouth. Deposition of Mary Bedloe of Chepstow of same date before the Bishop of Landaffe. Deposition of Gregory Appleby, December 2, 1678 before the Bishop of Landaffe. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 287, 307.

[205] L.J. November 24, 28; xiii. 389, 391.

[206] 6 State Trials 1489, 1490. Sitwell, First Whig 51. North, Examen 248.

[207] 6 State Trials 1490, 1491. For Staley’s case see below in Trials for Treason. North, Examen 249.

[208] Evidence of Captain Vittells and his men before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 49, 50, 51. Evidence of Vittells and Tribbett at Atkins’ trial. 7 State Trials 248.

[209] 6 State Trials 1491, 1492.

[210] 7 State Trials 238–240.

[211] Bedloe’s evidence. Ibid. 242, 243.

[212] Ibid. 241, 245.

[213] Ibid. 246–249.

[214] Ibid. 249. North, Examen 250, 251. North’s account is as usual highly coloured, and contains at least one untrue statement.

[215] Bedloe’s deposition before the Lords’ committee. L.J. November 12, xiii. 350, 351.

[216] 7 State Trials 237.

[217] See below in Trials for Treason.

[218] Burnet ii. 191. 7 State Trials 183. True Narrative and Discovery 20. Brief Hist. iii. 52, 53, 65. L’Estrange alone gives the words. The fact that Prance was questioned about the periwig makes it probable that they are more or less correct. L’Estrange also says that the meeting was prearranged by Bedloe and Sir William Waller. Reasons for disbelieving this will appear later.

[219] House of Lords MSS. 51.

[220] L.J. xiii. 431. Blencowe’s Sidney lxii. Lady Sunderland to John Evelyn, December 25, 1678.

[221] C.J. ix. 563. L’Estrange comments on this: “It makes a man tremble to think what a jail delivery of discoverers this temptation might have produced” (Brief Hist. iii. 55). Surely it is more natural to suppose that the information was directed not to the common malefactors, but to those already imprisoned in Newgate on account of the plot. If an examination of Prance was taken by the Commons’ committee, it was never reported to the House. On December 30, 1678 Parliament was prorogued, and on January 24, 1679 dissolved. The new parliament did not meet till March 6, when the trial for Godfrey’s murder had already taken place, and Green, Berry, and Hill had been hanged.

[222] L.J. xiii. 436.

[223] The deposition begins, “That it was either at the latter end or the beginning of the week that Sir E. Godfrey,” and so on. The rest of the examination is only intelligible on the ground that Saturday was the day of the murder. Prance’s reasons for prevaricating in this statement will be the subject of discussion below.

[224] L.J. xiii. 437, 438. 7 State Trials 191, 192. Evidence of Sir Robert Southwell, clerk to the privy council. There exists among the state papers the notes taken by Sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state, of Prance’s first examination before the council. They only differ from the account in the Lords’ Journals in that they begin “On a certain Monday.” The paper is worth studying for the wonderful vividness in which Williamson’s disjointed sentences bring the scene to the mind. See Appendix B.

[225] L.J. xiii. 439.

[226] House of Lords MSS. 52.

[227] Warner MS. history 37. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 17. Note of the proceedings at the council on December 30. 7 State Trials 177, 210. Evidence of Richardson and Chiffinch. James (Or. Mem.) i. 535. Burnet ii. 193. Brief Hist. iii. 61, 62, 65. L’Estrange says that the king saw Prance alone on the evening of December 29, and called in Richardson and Chiffinch afterwards. This is contradicted by Richardson and Burnet. It would moreover have been a piece of imprudence unlike Charles’ caution; and as none of the Whig writers, who would have given much to obtain such a handle against the king, mention a private interview, the story is probably without truth. The events which passed between Prance’s first confession and his final adherence to it will be discussed below.

[228] 7 State Trials 167, 168, 169.

[229] Ibid. 179–183.

[230] L.J. xiii. 437.

[231] 7 State Trials 169–173.

[232] Ibid. 186, 187.

[233] True Narrative and Discovery 12.

[234] 7 State Trials 169, 188, 189.

[235] 7 State Trials 174. True Narrative 18.

[236] 7 State Trials 190.

[237] 7 State Trials 195–200.

[238] Ibid. 201, 202.

[239] Ibid. 204, 205, 206.

[240] Ibid. 207, 208, 209.

[241] 7 State Trials 213–221.

[242] Ibid. 223–230. Burnet ii. 194, 195.

[243] Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 9.

[244] 7 State Trials 228.

[245] Brief Hist. iii. 26, 27.

[246] Brief Hist. iii. 66, 67.

[247] Ibid. 67, 68. Cooper’s information of January 9 and January 11.

[248] Ibid. 69, 75. Informations of Boyce.

[249] Lloyd’s report to the Council. Brief Hist. iii. 69. Lloyd to L’Estrange. Ibid. 82.

[250] Lloyd’s report to the Council. Fitzherbert MSS. 154. Brief Hist. iii. 69, 71. Lloyd to L’Estrange. Ibid. 85.

[251] Burnet ii. 193, 194.

[252] Burnet ii. 194. Brief Hist. iii. 85, 86.

[253] State Trials 1183–1188. This was also a Jesuit story. Warner MS. history 37, “fidiculis tortus et se reum asseruit, et complius [sic. qu. complures] se accusaturum.”

[254] 7 State Trials 1199, 1200, 1210–1212.

[255] Evidence of Fowler. Ibid. 1194–1197, 1204–1209.

[256] The improbability does not lie in the unlikelihood of the application of torture to witnesses at this date so much as in the nature of the particular facts alleged, which cannot be believed. Brief Hist. iii. 76, 77, 78, 80. L’Estrange procured Corral to contradict his evidence at the trial. Ibid. 102, 106. It is important to insist upon the falsehood of the charge in this case, because it has been adopted without question by Foley v. 29, n., and see Echard, 503 seq.

[257] Brief Hist. iii. 84.

[258] True Narrative 11.

[259] 7 State Trials 180.

[260] True Narrative 13, 14.

[261] 7 State Trials 172. True Narrative 15.

[262] 7 State Trials 173. True Narrative 16, 17.

[263] 6 State Trials 1487. 7 State Trials 182.

[264] 6 State Trials 1488.

[265] Ibid. 1487.

[266] Prance to L’Estrange, January 17, 1688. Brief Hist. iii. 127.

[267] Brief Hist. ii. 52, 53.

[268] It is worthy of remark that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, judging only from the evidence which Prance gave at the trial, has come to the same conclusion. Hist. Crim. Law i. 393.

[269] It was ordered that an examination should be held on the subject, but Coleman was never questioned on Godfrey’s death. House of Lords MSS. 48. L.J. xiii. 303, 307, 308.

[270] Warner MS. history 27: “Rem totam Eboracensi detulit,” Florus Anglo-Bavaricus 97. James (Or. Mem.) i. 534. North, Examen 174. Lingard xiii. 69. Sitwell, First Whig 40.

[271] Brief Hist. iii. 181–186.

[272] See above, 89.

[273] James (Or. Mem.) i. 517–519. Impartial State of the Case of the Earl of Danby. Lingard xiii. 68.

[274] North, Examen 174. Florus Anglo-Bavaricus 97, 98. Godfrey “rem totam Edwardo Coleman ... per literas aperuit: quod non neminem usque adeo offendit, ut Godefredus haud ita multo post violenta morte suam in Catholicos benevolentiam luerit.” Warner MS. history 26, 31, to the same effect. Warner names Danby as the probable author of the murder.

[275] 7 State Trials 168. House of Lords MSS. 47. Brief Hist. iii. 187. Burnet ii. 163.

[276] Burnet, ibid.

[277] 7 State Trials 29.

[278] Welden’s evidence before the Lords’ committee. House of Lords MSS. 48.

[279] Reresby, Memoirs 325. Warner MS. history 27. “Ad congregationem provincialem ubi ventum est, cui se interfuisse mentitus predicat Oates, Carolus ab eo petiit, ubinam convenissent Jesuitae? Respondit alter, magna cum fiducia, convenisse Londini, in plataea quae Strand dicitur, in oenopolio cui insigne Equi Albi. Hoc falsum esse sciebat Carolus, cui notum ipsos in ipsa Eboracensis Aula convenisse; cujus tamen rei nec Carolus nec ullus alius Catholicorum apologista mentionem fecit donec persecutio plane desaevisset, ne augeretur inde in Eboracensem invidia.”

[280] At Lord Stafford’s trial in 1680 Dugdale, the informer, declared that Godfrey had been murdered by the Duke of York’s orders because Coleman had made disclosures to him. He did not however suggest what the nature of those disclosures was. A theory not unlike that set out in the text was therefore in the air at the time. As almost every conceivable hypothesis to account for the murder was being discussed, this is not surprising; but there was this difference, that then Dugdale had no good reason to offer in favour of the truth of what he said. He was at the time of the murder in communication with various Jesuits in Staffordshire: but it is most unlikely that, even if they knew anything about it, they would have told him. If he had known anything, it would probably have been that the Jesuit congregation was held at St. James’; and he was certainly ignorant of this. Burnet tells, on the authority of the Earl of Essex, that the king prevailed on Dugdale to stifle this part of his information because it pressed on the Duke of York; but, as Essex, or Burnet, taking the tale from him, was mistaken as to the date when Dugdale first told the story, and as Dugdale could beyond doubt have had a better price for his information from Shaftesbury than from Charles for the suppression of it, this cannot be believed without corroboration, which is not forthcoming. Burnet ii. 190, 191. 7 State Trials, 1316, 1319. And see below in Trials for Treason.

[281] See below (in materials for the history of the Popish Plot), Foley’s note on Warner’s MS. history.

[282] Slip appended to examination of November 7. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 276.

[283] 7 State Trials 168. Burnet ii. 163.

[284] James (Or. Mem.) i. 527, 528. Burnet ii. 174. House of Lords MSS. 52. 7 State Trials 154. L.J. xiii. 353.

[285] 7 State Trials 172, 192.

[286] Burnet ii. 164, 165. L’Estrange produced some bad evidence, which he does not even seem to have believed himself, to the effect that these stains were of mud, and not wax. Brief Hist. iii. 326, 336. Sir George Sitwell says: “The drops of wax ... may have been spilt the evening before, when Sir Edmund, for some mysterious reason, was engaged in burning a quantity of his private papers” (First Whig 41). But the evidence for this is wholly valueless, being told on hearsay from a bad witness by a worse. Brief Hist. iii. 179.

[287] Evidence of the coroner before the Lords’ committee, House of Lords MSS. 46.

[288] Examination of Charles Atkins, October 27, 1678. Slip appended to the examination in Coventry’s hand. “Mr. Charles Atkins lodgeth at the Golden Key in High Holborn, over against the Fountain Tavern.” Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 234. Examination of Bedloe of November 7. “Lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, where Walsh the priest lodges, near Wild House.” S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: ii. 29. Longleat MSS. ibid. 272–274; ibid. 278, on a slip appended to the examination, “Le Fevre: about fifty years of age, with a flaxen periwig, a handsome man. He lodges where Captain Atkins lodges, near Wild House.”

[289] L.J. xiii. 353. Evidence of Diana Salvin, Elizabeth Salvin, John Saunders, Alexander Oldis.

[290] 6 State Trials 1475–1477.

[291] Parl. Hist. iv. 1113. Secret Services of Charles II and James II, payment to Prance 22.

[292] L.J. November 15, 1678. Ralph i. 398.

[293] For example the libel, “A copy of a letter dropped in the exchange,” 1679.

[294] See above and Appendix B.

[295] See above, 122.

[296] James (Or. Mem.) i. 528. Schwerin, November 22, 1678. “Bedloo hat in Somerset House das Gemach gewiesen in welchem ihm der todte Körper gezeigt worden ist; allein weil er in derselben Kammer eine Thüre angab, die sich nicht daselbst vorfand,—überdem die Königin damal in diesem Gemache wohnte,—und der Ort, an welchem ihm der todte Körper gezeigt worden sein soll, ein steter Durchgang und Aufenthalt aller Domesticken der Königin ist, so wird die Angabe von vielen für verdächtig gehalten.” Briefe von England 352.

[297] James, Duke of York, to the Prince of Orange, December 24, 1678, “... some are not well pleased with what this man says, because it contradicts Bedloe.” Foljambe MSS. 127.

[298] House of Lords MSS. 52.

[299] 7 State Trials 343.

[300] Ibid. 425, 612, 613.

[301] Ibid. 1320.

[302] Lloyd to the council, January 11, 1679. Examinations of Prance of December 26, 1678, January 13, March 19, March 22, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 154–158. 7 State Trials 1226, 1231. Warner MS. history 37. True Narrative 2–8, 26–40.

[303] Lloyd to L’Estrange, April 16, 1686. Brief Hist. iii. 83.

[304] Burnet ii. 195.

[305] Warner MS. history 37: “librum edidit in quo pauca de Jesuitis, eaque leviora retulit ... et in sacerdotes saeculares fanda infanda conjecit, tanquam e plaustro probra jaceret (qu, tanquam e plaustro = histrionis more. v. Hor. A.P. 275 ap. Facc.), ipsa maledicentiae magnitudine fidem sibi detrahens: quam apud paucissimos invenit.”

[306] Florus Anglo-Bavaricus 103, 128.

[307] 7 State Trials 228. House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61.

[308] House of Lords MSS. 1689–1690, 61. Foley v. 285, 286.

[309] S. A. Tanari, Internuncio at Brussels, to the papal secretary of state, June 17, 1679: “Nella salute della sua persona consistevano tutte le speranze di veder ristabilita la vera religione in Inghilterra.” Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[310] Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 8.

[311] Memorandum by Danby. “Q. Whether the Plot be not triable out of Parliament?” Add. MSS. 28042: 19. Henry Coventry to the king, October 7, 1678.... “It will be worth your serious consideration when you return on which side the greater inconveniency will be, either in the suppressing them [Coleman’s letters] or publishing them, or whether any middle way can be taken.” Add. MSS. 32095: 119.

[312] A narrative of proceedings in the House of Commons. Harl. MSS. 6284: 35, 36.

[313] Parl. Hist. iv. 1021–1026.

[314] House of Lords MSS. 16, 17. Lady Sunderland to John Evelyn, October 28, 1678. Correspondence of John Evelyn, 1852, 251.

[315] W. Harrington to George Treby, February 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 14. John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, November 11, 1678. Same to same, May 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 471. Sarotti, November 15/25, 1678. Ven. Arch. Inghilterra 65. Lives of the Norths i. 70. Le Gros to Sir Charles Lyttleton, November 26, 1678. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 301.

[316] Sir W. Godolphin to Henry Thynne, August 14/24, 1679. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers lx. 275. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 119, 120; ii. 70, 79.

[317] Earl of Conway to Sir L. Jenkins, September 26, 1681. S.P. Dom. Charles II 416: 30.

[318] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 17–54. Narrative of Edmund Everard 1679.

[319] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 67, 92, 98, 100, 114, 138, 140. Ibid. 148, Lord Windsor to Henry Coventry, July 8, 1676. See Appendix C. Verney MSS. 465. Earl of Danby to the Lord Chancellor, April 4, 1676. Leeds MSS. 13. Particulars of Conventicles. Leeds MSS. 15. John Smith to Henry Coventry, January 24, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 172. A paper endorsed by the Earl of Danby; “Fifth monarch meetings in London and Southwark. This was given me by the Bishop of London in October 1677.” Add. MSS. 28093: 212. And see Gooch, English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century 326.

[320] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 117, 120, 122, 124, 126, 132.

[321] “Memd. of his Majesty’s directions for interrupting Coleman’s letters.” December 10, 1676. Henry Coventry to Col. Whitely, December 11, 1676. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 168, 170. And the letters intercepted, ibid. 224, 245, 246, 247, 248. And see above, Designs of the Catholics 32, n.

[322] Spillmann. Pater Spillmann’s work is in general of little value. Bishop Morley to the Earl of Danby, June 10, 1676. Leeds MSS. 14. Courtin, August 6, 1676.

[323] Leeds MSS. 17.

[324] Foley v. 11, 12, 13. Diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple, ii. 200, 320. Articles of Impeachment against the Earl of Danby iv. Parl. Hist. iv. 1068.

[325] See above 78.

[326] Memorandum by Danby, undated, but probably in 1677. “State and present condition of the crown, which cannot be amended but by force or by compliance.

“[Compliance to the old parliament would mean war with France and the enforcement of all laws against papists and dissenters; with a new parliament, war with France and general toleration except for the papists.] From all this it seems as if compliance must necessarily conclude in a resolution to give satisfaction in point of France. [Force could hardly be exerted without foreign aid, which would certainly mean a total conquest.]” Add. MSS. 28042: 17.

[327] Earl of Danby to Sir W. Temple, November 19, 1678. Add. MSS. 28054: 196. Burnet ii. 97, note, 151, 152. See also Lindsay MSS. 399. Forneron, Louise de Kéroualle 153. Harris, Life of Charles II 226 seq.

[328] Memoranda by Danby. Add. MSS. 28042: 53.

“The three points to be considered by the committee of trade every Thursday:—

“(1) A treaty marine with France.

“(2) What should be proposed to the king to be done by his example in not permitting French commodities to be worn in the court.

“(3) A treaty of commerce with France.”

Add. MSS. 28042: 60.

“For the 30 ships
In 1677		£90,000 0 0
In 1679	[?8]	339,735 0 0
In 1679	before the 25th March	47,957 0 0
		£477,692 0 0
£584,978
477,692
£107,286	remaining in the Exchequer, Lady Day, ’79.”

See too Campana de Cavelli i. 290–294. Barillon, March 3/13, 1679.

[329] Webster MSS. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iii. 421. Article by Mr. Sidney Lee on Osborne (Thomas) in the Dict. of Nat. Biog. Danby obtained his knowledge of Montagu’s connection with the nuncio from Olivencranz, the Swedish ambassador. Sir Leoline Jenkins to the Earl of Danby, January 13, 1679. Lindsey MSS. 398. Grey, Debates vi. 388. The authorities for the story of Danby’s fall are well known and too numerous for citation.

[330] Parl. Hist. iv. 1039–1045, 1052. Burnet ii. 176, 178. Barillon, November 25/December 5, 1678. Ferguson, Growth of Popery, Part II. 219.

[331] Parl. Hist. iv. 1034. Sitwell, First Whig 63.

[332] Reresby, Memoirs 149. Parl. Hist. iv. 1035. Barillon, October 17/27, 1678. Ranke v. 236.

[333] Barillon, February 17/27, February 24/March 6, 1679. Edm. Verney to Sir R. Verney, February 24, 1679. Verney MSS. 471, Fitzherbert MSS. 12, 13. Foljambe MSS. 127. Caveat against the Whigs i. 47. Ranke v. 244, 245. Sir Thomas Browne, Works, 1836, 240. Sitwell, The First Whig 54, 55.

[334] Barillon, December 30, 1678/January 9, 1679, January 30/February 9, May 12/22, June 2/12, 1679. John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 22, 1679. Verney MSS. 472. Parl. Hist. iv. 1086, 1121.

[335] Parl. Hist. iv. 1092–1111. Burnet ii. 205 and note 2. And see Temple i. 412. Seymour had formerly been on the court side, and after Danby’s imprisonment made up the quarrel. A memorandum in the Leeds papers contains the following note on Seymour; “This man, the most odious to the House, till he disturbed your Majesty’s affairs.” Add. MSS. 28042: 21.

[336] See Reresby, Memoirs 170, 171. Temple i. 396–414.

[337] Parl. Hist. iv. 1122. Algernon Sidney wrote that Halifax was the author of the scheme. Letters 34. James had news that the Duchess of Portsmouth bragged that she had helped to make it. James to the Prince of Orange, May 8, 1679. Foljambe MSS. 129.

[338] Temple i. 414–419, 473–477. Barillon, April 7/17, April 21/May 1, April 24/May 4, April 28/May 8, 1679. Dalrymple ii. 216, 217. Reresby, Memoirs 168. North, Examen 76, 77. Ferguson, Growth of Popery, Part II. 238; and see Foxcroft, Life of Halifax i. chap. vi.

[339] Burnet ii. 209.

[340] Barillon, February 5/15, 1680. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 19, 33. Burnet ii. 246, 248, 249. Temple i. 419, 420, 441–444. Ailesbury, Memoirs i. 35. Foxcroft, Life of Halifax i. 173–178, 192. Christie, Life of Shaftesbury ii. 357. Airy, Charles II 240.

[341] Barillon, May 26/June 5, 1675. Parl. Hist. iv. 1125–1149. Temple i. 424, 429–432. Burnet ii. 210–215. Reresby, Memoirs 173. North, Examen 506. Ralph i. 453, 454, 455.

[342] Burnet ii. 263, 264. House of Lords MSS. 136. And see Ferguson, Growth of Popery, Part II. 246.

[343] See Lord Keeper Guildford MS. diary. Dalrymple ii. 91, 321. “It is certain the Church of England men joined in this cry as heartily as any else, for they were always most eager against Popery, although they had friendship with the Cavalier papists, and many considering men seeing an army kept up against an act of Parliament were zealous that fetters might be put on the King, and therefore would join in showing any discontent.” The Whig party on Temple’s council tried to purge the commission of the peace of justices on the other side, but Charles prevented this by a very droll device. North, Examen 78. Nevertheless the weight of the commission was against the court. See below in Trials for Treason.

[344] W. Harrington to Sir G. Treby, February 20, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 14. Thomas Ward to Sir J. Williamson, November 15. Sir Francis Chaplin to same, November 30. Henry Layton to same, December 9, 1678. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407; i. 108, 167; ii. 117. George Beckett, vicar of Castham, to Sir Peter Pindar at Chester, October 28. Examination of same, November 4, 1678. Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 229. Dr. Henry Corneil to Sir J. Williamson, December 23, 1678, January 20, 1679. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: ii. 59; 411: 69.

[345] Add. MSS. 32095: 160. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: i. 36.

[346] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xx. 120–130. S.P. Ireland 339. Carte, Life of Ormonde 477–481.

[347] S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 268. Parl. Hist. iv. 1034. John Verney to Sir R. Verney, June 12, 1679. Verney MSS. 472. Barillon, April 19/May 1, June 12/22, 1679. And see Klopp ii. 193.

[348] Burnet ii. 179. Add. MSS. 28042: 19. See Appendix C.

[349] Klopp i. 26.

[350] Foley v. 95, 96.

[351] Ranke v. 233. Das papistische Complot erscheint als ein Symptom der zwischen den Bekenntnissen wieder angeregten heftigen Antipathien.

Schwerin, Briefe 330. Es sei nun an dieser Conspiration viel oder wenig, so ist es doch gewiss, dass diese Nation sowohl gegen die Papisten als gegen Frankreich—dem es besonders beigemessen wird—von neuem erbittert wird.

[352] L.J. xiii. 408. Airy, Charles II 70.

[353] Warner MS. hist. 29 from Gazette de Hollande, November 22, 1678. Schwerin, Briefe 340, 348. Duchess of York to Duke of Modena, November 3, November 24, December 16, 1678. Ronchi, January 20, February 23, November 21, 1679. Campana de Cavelli i. 229, 236, 239, 240, 242. Warner MS. Letter book, December 3, December 30, 1678. Fitzherbert MSS. 12. House of Lords MSS. 39, 126. Foljambe MSS. 123. L.J. xiii. 482, 485, 502, 512. Foley v. 21, 23, 80, 482–488, 915, 965, 966. 8 State Trials 532, 533.

The internuncio at Brussels acutely noted as the three causes of the feeling aroused—“l’odio de’ Protestanti, gli amatori di novità, e li nemici della casa Reale.” October 30/November 9, 1678. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[354] 7 State Trials 995.

[355] 7 State Trials 959–1043, 1162–1183. C.J. December 16, 1680. Narrative of Lawrence Mowbray 1680. Narrative of Robert Bolron 1680. Depositions from York Castle, Surtees Society xl. 1861. Foley v. 759–767. The Month xviii. 393.

[356] Foley v. 19, 21. Warner MS. history 29. Misera Catholicorum omnium conditio, maxime vero Jesuitarum, quos et communia mala et omnium insuper invidia gravabat, etiam apud simul patientes. Ibid. 36.

Maxime odiosum Jesuitarum nomen, sacerdotibus etiam et saecularibus et regularibus et ipsis Catholicis laicis, quod ab iis orta feratur ista saevissima tempestas quae totam religionem Catholicam evertet.

[357] Brosch 432.

[358] S.P. Dom. Charles II 411: 87, a paper endorsed by Sir Joseph Williamson, “25 January, 78/9. Gavan the priest. Information, etc.” Ibid. 92. “It was Sir William Waller who, by a warrant from the council, seized Gavan in Count Wallenstein the Imperial ambassador’s stables in bed.” Foley v. 454. Le Fleming MSS. 155.

[359] See above 53.

[360] Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, March 20/30, 1680. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 252. Order in Council for a passport for Henry, Duke of Norfolk, May 26, 1680.

[361] 7 State Trials 496. Foley v. 460.

[362] Sidney’s diary in Sidney’s Charles II i. 82, 163, 165, 166, 174–176. Sidney, Letters 154. Domestic Intelligence, September 26, 1679. C.J. March 26, 1681. Foley v. 80, 81, 460–467. Burnet ii. 228.

It has been supposed that John Sergeant who bore witness against Gavan was a different person from the eminent controversialist of the same name (see his life in Dict. of Nat. Biog. by Mr. Cooper). His identity is however placed beyond question by the advertisement in the Domestic Intelligence above cited, by despatches of Roman ecclesiastics which refer to “il Dottore Sargentio” without hinting at any change of person, and by the indignant exclamation of Warner (MS. hist. 132), “et, proh dolor! Johannes Sergeantius et David Mauritius” in speaking of the witnesses for the Plot. So too Luttrell (Brief Relation i. 21): “One Sergeant, a secular (who hath writ against Dr. Stillingfleet), is expected from Holland, and ’tis said he will discover several matters about the plot.” The letter of the internuncio from Brussels of March 20/30, 1680 contains the following passage: Ho pregato S. A. di discorrere opportunamente col Sig^r Duca d’Jorch, excitandolo ad opporsi ad ogni tentativo che potesse tentarsi dal Frate Valesio, e delli Dottori Sergeant e Mauritio accioche non si propongà a Catt^ci il giuramento di Fedeltà, gia censurato dalla S. Sede, ò non se ne inventi nuova formula che non sia precedentemente approvata da S. B^ne quale ho assicurato esser per mostrarsi sempre propenso verso le convenienze di S. A. Reale. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[363] Di Brusselles del Sig^r Internuncio, April 28/June 8, 1680. Circa il giuramento di fedeltà condannato altre volte dalla S. Sede, e pur troppo vero che il Sig^r Duca di Jorch lo presto anni sono, sedotto dall’ esempio di molti allevati nella Religion Catt^ca e non informato che lo stesso fosse stato prescritto da Sommi Pontifici. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[364] Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio, August 16/26, August 22/September 2, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[365] See below in Trials for Treason. 7 State Trials 617. Burnet ii. 196–198.

Thomas Jennison, S.J., died in Newgate on September 27, 1679.

[366] See below in Trials for Treason.

[367] 7 State Trials 1049. Dangerfield’s Particular Narrative 1–7. Malice Defeated: or a Brief Relation of the Accusation and Deliverance of Elizabeth Cellier 12, 13, 28. Col. Mansell’s Exact and True Narrative 7, 60.

[368] Dangerfield’s Narrative 8. Malice Defeated 13, 39. Mansell’s Narrative 39, 47, 60, 69.

[369] Mansell’s Narrative 43, 53, 54, 69. Malice Defeated 13, 14. Dangerfield’s Case 2. North, Examen 268.

[370] Dangerfield’s Narrative 30–36. Malice Defeated 14. Mansell’s Narrative 57, 58, 62. North, Examen 267.

[371] Dangerfield’s Narrative 37–49. Dangerfield’s Information 1680. Malice Defeated 14–18. Mansell’s Narrative 18–40.

[372] Ferguson, Growth of Popery ii. 265. Sidney, Letters 152, 153. Halstead, Succinct Genealogies 434–437. North, Examen 261, 262. And see Burnet ii. 244, 245. Hatton Correspondence v. 201, 202.

[373] Malice Defeated 15. Examination of Anne Blake, Mansell’s Narrative 41.

[374] Malice Defeated 15.

[375] Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679.

[376] See below in Shaftesbury and Charles. Dangerfield’s Narrative 30.

[377] Dangerfield’s Narrative 39.

[378] Traill shews the absurdity neatly, though he makes the mistake of joining Mrs. Cellier with Dangerfield. Shaftesbury 154.

[379] 7 State Trials 1043–1111.

[380] Mansell’s Narrative 40.

[381] Barillon, November 27/December 7, 1679. Sidney’s Diary, October 7, October 14, in Sidney’s Charles II i. 181, 185.

[382] Parl. Hist. iv. 1029, 1030.

[383] Dartmouth MSS. 36.

[384] Sir W. Temple to the Earl of Essex, October 25, 1673. Essex Papers. Burnet ii. 31. James (Or. Mem.) i. 530, 536, 537. Clarendon Cor. ii. 467–471. Brusselles Dal. Sig^r Internuncio, March 8/18, 1679. Vat. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

[385] Barillon, July 19/29, October 4/14, 14/24, 21/31, 1680.

[386] James to Col. Legge, December 11, 1679, January 25, December 14, 1680. Dartmouth MSS. 40, 47, 55. James i. 657.

[387] James i. 550, 551.

[388] Temple i. 382.

[389] Barillon, October 21/31, 1680.

[390] James i. 554, 556, 574, 659, 660. Dartmouth MSS. 35, 36, 39, 41, 45, 47, 58. Savile Foljambe MSS. 134, 135.

[391] James to Col. Legge, May 28, 1679, Dartmouth MSS. 33, 34.

[392] James to the Prince of Orange, May 14, May 29, June 1, 1679. Savile Foljambe MSS. 129–131. To Col. Legge, July 22, Dartmouth MSS. 36. And see James (Or. Mem.) i. 551.

[393] E.g. Dartmouth MSS. 38, 42, 46, 54.

[394] Barillon, July 1/11, July 24/August 3, October 21/31, 1680.

[395] Campana de Cavelli i. 302, 304.

[396] Vat. Arch. L’Abb^e G. B. Lauri a S. Em.3^a October 23/December 2, 1678. Nunt. di Francia 332. Di Brusselles dal Sig^r Internuncio. May 24/June 3, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Add. MSS. 32095: 196. See Appendix C.

[397] Barillon, August 9/19, September 20/30, October 21/31, 1680.

[398] Vat. Arch. Di Brussells dal Sig^r Internuncio, June 7/17, September 6/16, October 18/28, November 15/25, 1679. Nunt. di Fiandra 66.

Ibid. July 30/September 9. La sera però di detto giorno fattomi introdurre nel suo gabinetto (del Duca d’Yorch), m’incarico di dar parte del successo a S. B^ne, e di confermargli nuovamente che in ogni luogo e stato havrebbe sempre vissuto figlio obedientissimo della S. Sede, e che nell’ animo suo a qualsivoglia altra consideratione o interesse havrebbe prevaluto il riguardo di conservare la fede, e di propagarla per quanto sarà in suo potere.

[399] Foley v. 152, 157.

[400] Absalom and Achitophel 114–117, 134–141.

[401] Ranke v. 186.

[402] John Verney to Sir R. Verney, May 19, 1677. “The people about town call this the Pump Parliament, alluding, as a little water put into a pump fetches up a great deal, so, etc.” Verney MSS. 469, and see The Pump Parliament by Sir Charles Sedley.

[403] Ranke v. 201, 220. Parl. Hist. iv. 861–863. C.J. April 4, 1677. Ralph i. 310–314, 318. Andrew Marvell, Growth of Popery, Part I. 149.

[404] Burnet ii. 155.

[405] Burnet ii. 179. Barillon, September 30/October 10, 1678.

[406] Sir Edward Carteret provided his rooms at the rent of £60 a year.

[407] Secret Services of Charles II and James II 3–15. I do not know if the very comic accounts said to have been presented by Oates and Bedloe are authentic (L’Estrange, Brief Hist. iii. 121–124. Lingard xii. 363). They are not inconsistent with the men’s character, but L’Estrange was quite capable of having invented them. In any case they were not paid.

[408] State Trials vii. 796, ix. 489, 490, x. 134, 136, 137, 1275, 1299. Reresby, Memoirs 196. Evelyn, Diary October 1, November 15, 1678. Smith, Intrigues of the Popish Plot. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 112. North, Examen 223. Lives of the Norths ii. 180. Hatton Correspondence i. 198. Sitwell, First Whig 43, 44. I am indebted to Sir George Sitwell for some of these references, and have ventured to quote a portion of his admirable description, some strokes of which however are drawn from sources not beyond doubt. The epithet applied to the Pope is from “Rawleigh Redivivus.”

[409] Grey, Debates vi. 296. Barillon, November 25/December 5, 1678. L.J. xiii. 389–392. C.J. November 28, 29, December 6, 7. Danby’s notes of Oates’ examination, November 25. Add. MSS. 23043: 5. James to the Prince of Orange, November 26, 1678. Foljambe MSS. 125. See too House of Lords MSS. 66. Lord Ossory to the Duchess of Ormonde. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vi. App. 723. James (Or. Mem.) i. 529. Burnet ii. 173, 174. Even Oldmixon did not believe the accusation. History of the House of Stuart 618.

[410] Burnet i. 470–474. In 1671 Burnet propounded the questions; “Is a woman’s barrenness a just ground for divorce or polygamy; and is polygamy in any case lawful under the Gospel?” The answer to both was in the affirmative.

[411] Sarotti describes him as “un cadavere spirante.” December 12/22, 1679.

[412] Burnet i. 474, ii. 180. North, Examen 186. Airy, Charles II 137, 138, 230. The relations between the king and queen became much better about this time in consequence, one may imagine, of these intrigues. Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, August 15, 1679: “The Queen, who is now a mistress, the passion her spouse has for her is so great....” Sidney’s Charles II i. 86.

[413] Pepys, Diary December 24, 31, 1662. Burnet i. 469, 470.

[414] Barillon, April 28/May 8, May 5/15, 1679. Temple i. 421, 423, 426, 429. MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322. Burnet ii. 233. Foxcroft, Life of Halifax i. 173–178. Hatton Correspondence v. 192.

[415] Sidney, Letters 52, 53.

[416] Ibid.

[417] Ralph i. 434. North, Examen 86. Sidney, Letters 52, 90.

[418] Burnet ii. 235. Parl. Hist. iv. 1130. North, Examen 79. This story may be accepted, since North probably had it from his brother the Chief Justice. And see Sidney’s Charles II i. 5, where Henry Sidney states that Charles supported Lauderdale at the council.

[419] Barillon, June 12/22, 1679. Sidney, Letters 95–97, 104–107, 112–113. Temple i. 420, 427, 428. North, Examen 81, 82. Burnet ii. 234, 235, 239. S.P. Dom. Charles II 412: 26. Sunderland to Essex, July 1679, 262. Essex to the King, July 21, 1679.

[420] Sitwell, First Whig 70.

[421] MS. diary of Lord Keeper Guildford, Dalrymple ii. 322, 323. North, Examen 571–575. Parl. Hist. iv. App. ix. Ralph i. 476, 477, 483. Sitwell, First Whig 83–89. And see the trial of Benjamin Harris, the publisher of the Appeal, 7 State Trials 925. Wilson, Life of Defoe, chap. i. Defoe, Review ix. 152. “As to handing treasonable papers about in coffee-houses, everybody knows it was the original of the very thing called a coffee-house and that it is the very profession of a coffee-man to do so, and it seems hard to punish any of them for it.”

[422] Sitwell, First Whig, 87, 88.

[423] Barillon, September 4/14, 1679. Temple i. 433. Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, September 2. Henry Savile to Henry Sidney, September 11, 1679. Sidney’s Charles II i. 122, 140. Sidney, Letters 143. Ralph i. 477.

[424] Barillon, July 3/13, 1679, January 12/22, 1680. Dangerfield’s Particular Narrative 30, 60. The Case of Thomas Dangerfield 5. Mansell’s Exact and True Narrative 62. Grey, Debates vii. 358, 359, viii. 136–149. Gazette, No. 1476. Ralph i. 496, 497. Parl. Hist. iv. 1233. Le Fleming MSS. 174.

[425] Burnet ii. 242. Carte, Life of Ormonde ii. 493. Barillon, September 4/14, 11/21, 15/25, 1679. Temple i. 433–438. Foljambe MSS. 137, 138. Foxcroft, Life of Halifax i. 189–191. Gazette 1449. S.P. Dom. Charles II 412: 24. Conway Papers, September 11, 1679. Airy, Charles II 245. James (Or. Mem.) i. 566, 570–580.

[426] James (Or. Mem.) i. 563. James to the Prince of Orange, Foljambe MSS. 137. Burnet ii. 243. Hatton Correspondence i. 194. Barillon, September 15/25. December 1/11, 1679.

[427] Dal. Sigr. Internuncio Brusselles, June 8, 1679. Arch. Nunt. di Fiandra 66. Ferguson, Growth of Popery, Part II. 276.

[428] Barillon, December 1/11, 8/18, 1679. Sidney, Letters 165. Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, November 29, 1679. Hatton Correspondence i. 203. Ralph i. 484, 497.

[429] Sidney, Letters 143, 144.

[430] Temple i. 441. Ralph i. 490–494. Le Fleming MSS. 165. North, Examen 541–548. Defoe, Review vii. 296.

[431] Barillon, December 11/21, 15/25, 18/28, 1679. James i. 581.

[432] Barillon, January 8/18, 12/22, 15/25, 19/29, January 29/February 8, March 11/21, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 587. Ralph i. 494.

[433] The declaration was made twice, on January 6 and March 3, 1679.

[434] The author was probably Ferguson. Sec Sprat’s History of the Ryehouse Plot, where a printer’s bill made out to him is printed in the appendix, one item of the bill being for the Letter. The pamphlet was published on May 15, 1680.

[435] S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 103, 105, 107, 118, 120, 131, 132, 229, 231. Informations and examinations concerning the Black Box. Gazette, Nos. 1507, 1520. Somers Tracts viii. 187–208. James I 589.

[436] Barillon, June 28/July 8, July 1/11, 8/18, 1680. 8 State Trials 179. Burnet ii. 300.

[437] S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 75, Lord Massareen to Lord Conway. 76, Francis Gwyn to same, March 23, 1680. Barillon, March 25/April 4, May 17/27, 20/30, July 1/11. Countess of Sunderland to H. Sidney, May 18, 1680. Sidney’s Charles II ii. 60. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 38.

[438] William Harbord to H. Sidney, April 1680. Sidney’s Charles II ii. 23. Countess of Sunderland to same, April 16. Sir L. Jenkins to same, circa May 20. Sir W. Temple to same, April 27. Sidney’s Diary, May 25. Ibid. 52, 53, 64, 66. Barillon, October 7/17, 1680.

[439] Barillon, December 1/11, 11/21, 1679, January 5/15, April 5/15, July 1/11, 1680. S.P. Dom. Charles II 413: 82. Sir James Butler to Lord Craven, March 25, 1680. Temple i. 450. Sir L. Jenkins to Henry Sidney, July 24, 1680. Sidney’s Charles II ii. 86. A concise account of the extreme difficulties of the time may be found in a letter from Henry Sidney to the Prince of Orange, October 7, 1680. Groen van Prinsterer v. 422.

[440] Ralph i. 502, 503. Groen van Prinsterer v. 428. Burnet ii. 253. Barillon, October 21/31, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 591–600. And see Somers Tracts viii. 137. Articles of Impeachment against the Duchess of Portsmouth.

[441] Parl. Hist. iv. 1118, 1160–1175, 1291. Beaufort MSS. 112. Burnet ii. 212, 256. Temple i. 421. Foxcroft, Life of Halifax i. 154, 208, 224, 236. Ralph i. 444. Groen van Prinsterer v. 435, 437.

[442] Parl. Hist. iv. 1175–1215. L.J. xiii. 666. Barillon, November 18/28, 1680. James (Or. Mem.) i. 617, 618. Temple i. 453. Halstead, Succinct Genealogies i. 204. Reresby, Memoirs 192, 197. Burnet ii, 259. Foxcroft, Life of Halifax i. 246–249. James to the Prince of Orange, November 23, 1680, Groen van Prinsterer v. 440.

[443] Parl. Hist. iv. 1215–1295. Reresby, Memoirs 191, Groen van Prinsterer v. 444.

[444] Sitwell, First Whig 142. S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 101, Robert Ferguson to his wife, August 14, 1680. 243, Hugh Speke “for Mr. Charles Speke at Whitelackington.” 275, James Holloway to the Earl of Essex, December 14, 1680.

[445] Charles’ actual words are in doubt, but it is certain that he received the deputation coldly and sent it away unsatisfied.

[446] “Instructions for members of Parliament summoned for March 21, 1681, and to be held at Oxford.”

[447] North, Examen 100–102. Reresby, Memoirs 204. S.P. Dom. Charles II 415: 37. Answer of the Earl of Essex, January 27, 1681. 66, The Earl of Craven’s proposition, February 14, 1681. “About the disposing of the king’s forces.” 126, Information of Mr. John Wendham of Thetford against Wm. Harbord, M.P. 156, Quarters of his Majesty’s forces, March 22, 1681. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 70. Ralph i. 562, 563. Sitwell, First Whig 144, 145. Klopp II. 308. And see the trial of Stephen Colledge 8 State Trials 549–724.

[448] Barillon, January 13/23, 1679.

[449] Barillon, passim. There was however talk of the negotiations in diplomatic circles. Brosch 452.

[450] North, Examen 104, 105. Barillon March 28/April 7, 1681. Beaufort MSS. 83. Reresby, Memoirs 207–211. Ralph i. 570–580. Parl. Hist. iv. 1298–1339. Airy, Charles II 257. Ailesbury, Memoirs i. 57. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 72. “Some are pleased to call it the Jewish Parliament, it being dissolved on the eighth day, alluding to that people’s manner of circumcision on the eighth day.”

[451] Lord Grey’s confession 12, 13, 14. North, Examen 105.

[452] It is remarkable that every one thought he understood Charles and that most who opposed him paid in the end the penalty of their mistake by failure. Only the most acute indeed were able to realise the strength of the character which they began by thinking weak. Thus Courtin believed that Charles could do nothing but what his subjects wanted. Jusserand, A French Ambassador 150. Barillon, with the possible exception of Gremonville, the ablest of Louis XIV’s diplomatists, whom Ranke compares to the Spanish ambassador Mendoza of the time of the League, thought when he first came to England that he could in every instance measure Charles’ weight in the balance. Before the Popish Plot had ceased its course, he perceived that he could not. He writes on January 15/25, 1680: Il est fort difficile de pénétrer quel est dans le fonds son véritable dessein. Again on September 9/19 of the same year; Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne a une conduite si cachée et si difficile à pénétrer que les plus habiles y sont trompés. And again on January 13/23, 1681: Je ne puis encore expliquer aver certitude à V.M. l’état des affaires de ce pays-ci. Ceux qui approchent de plus près du Roi d’Angleterre ne pénètrent point le fonds de ses intentions. See too Burnet II 409 n. 3, 467 n.

[453] If Pemberton is counted.

[454] Pilgrimage of Grace; Insurrection in West; Kent; Wyatt; Rising in North; Essex; Penruddock; Booth, 1659; Venner; Monmouth.

[455] See the evidence of Lord Ferrers against Southall at the trial of Lord Stafford. 7 State Trials 1485.

[456] Dalton, Justice, quoted Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, i. 195. Temp. James I.

[457] Colquhoun, Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis, quoted Stephen i. 195.

[458] Ralph i. 399. See also the Statutes: 13 C. II c. 6, 14 C. II c. 3, 15 C. II c. 4.

[459] 6 State Trials 566–630.

[460] £1000 was stolen in cash, and over £2000 in jewelry.

[461] 6 State Trials 572–575.

[462] By two Germans and a Pole, acting, it was said, under orders from Count Königsmark, who had been courting Mr. Thynne’s bride.

[463] Reresby, Memoirs 235, 236.

[464] Reresby, Memoirs 281, 282.

[465] This was the recognised appellation of a J.P. in the seventeenth century.

[466] House of Lords MSS. 39, under date May 29, 1679.

[467] 7 State Trials 1471.

[468] 8 State Trials 525–550.

[469] Gilbert’s evidence, ibid. 531–534.

[470] 8 State Trials 531.

[471] Ibid. 532.

[472] Foley v. 891. House of Lords MSS. 89. See also Fitzherbert MSS. 18, 19.

[473] Foley v. 34. House of Lords MSS. 89.

[474] Foley v. 883.

[475] “A true narrative of the imprisonment and trial of Mr. Lewis,” written by himself. Foley v. 917–928. His account of the trial is inserted in 7 State Trials 249–260.

[476] Foley v. 885. 7 State Trials 249, 252.

[477] Foley v. 96. Catalogue of those who suffered in Oates’ Plot and on account of their priesthood, taken from Dodd and Challoner.

[478] 7 State Trials 1131.

[479] Ralph i. 570.

[480] See Appendix D, where Giles’ trial is discussed. Lawrence Hyde to the Prince of Orange, April 16, 1680. “This I say is a very unfortunate accident to revive men’s fears and apprehensions of the Plot, which were pretty well asleep, but there is no care or watchfulness can prevent the folly and wickedness of men that are so given to it.” Groen van Prinsterer v. 395.

[481] See Stephen i. 228.

[482] 7 State Trials 1397–1399.

[483] Southall’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1467–1471.

[484] For the following paragraph I have used Gardiner’s History of England iii. 1–27.

[485] Essay of Judicature.

[486] This rule was not without exception. Baron Flowerdue, raised to the bench in 1684, held office quamdiu se bene gesserit. (Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents 143). And we learn from Coke (Inst. iv. 117) that the Chief Baron always held office on a permanent tenure (Prothero cviii.). Of course it made no difference, for good behaviour in the eyes of the king, with whom the decision rested, was likely to have much in common with his good pleasure.

[487] Gneist, Constitutional History of England (trans. Ashworth) 550.

[488] Clarendon, Hist. Reb. (Oxford, 1826) i. 123, 124.

[489] Gneist 552 n. See Gardiner viii. 208.

[490] Gardiner ix. 246, 247. Gneist 555.

[491] L.J. May 6, 1641. Parl. Hist. ii. 757.

[492] In a somewhat similar case the judges under Charles II refused to give an opinion until the matter had been argued before them by counsel. The Attorney-General, among other questions put to the judges at the outbreak of the agitation of the Popish Plot, asked “Whether there be any evidence against these particular persons besides the single testimony of Mr. Oates?” To which it was answered that it was a question of fact, and could only be determined in court. S.P. Dom. Charles II 407: i. 128.

[493] Gardiner ix. 306, 307. Gneist 555 n. Hallam (ii. 107) attempts to uphold the judges’ decision, but Stephen’s argument (i. 362, 363) must be held to settle the question.

[494] Gneist 570 n. (2).

[495] 4 State Trials 445–450.

[496] Foss, Judges of England vii, 109, 110. Burnet, Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale. Mr. J. M. Rigg in his article on Hale in the Dictionary of National Biography doubts the truth of this on the ground that Penruddock was tried at Exeter, and Hale belonged to the Midland circuit. Hale however changed his circuit on at least one occasion. See Foss vii. 112, and the Gentleman’s Mag., July 1851, p. 13, where an anecdote is told which shows that Hale had belonged at one time to the Western circuit.

[497] North, Life of Lord Keeper Guildford 119. Dryden, Prose Works (ed. Malone) iv. 156.

[498] Gneist 600 n. (2).

[499] 6 State Trials 951–1013.

[500] See also Hallam iii. 8. Stephen i. 373–375.

[501] Hale, P.C. i. 143–146.

[502] Compare the attempt to create a riot among the apprentices in July 1679, immediately after the trial of the Five Jesuits.

[503] Parl. Hist. iv. 803. Ralph i. 297. North, Examen 139.

[504] Amos, The English Constitution in the Reign of Charles II 302.

[505] Gazette, May 5, 1680.

[506] 7 State Trials 926–931.

[507] Ibid. 1111–1130.

[508] Twyn and two other printers were sentenced to the pillory, imprisonment, and heavy fines. Amos 249. 6 State Trials 513–539. See also the trials of Dover, Brewster, and Brooks, which followed on Twyn’s case, ibid. 539–564.

[509] April 30 to November 28, 1684. Luttrell, Diary, printed 10 State Trials 125–129.

[510] Clarendon Correspondence i. 2.

[511] 8 State Trials 193, i.e. as resembling the opinions of 1641.

[512] Gneist 600 n.

[513] 8 State Trials 194.

[514] 7 State Trials 1556–1567.

[515] In this I have constantly used, as will be seen, Sir J. F. Stephen’s History of the Criminal Law in England (vol. i., especially chapters viii. and xi.), a work to which I am under the deepest obligations.

[516] History of England i. 125.

[517] See the trial of Ireland, Pickering, and Grove. 7 State Trials 126–129, and 10 State Trials 1087.

[518] See Raleigh’s Trial, 2 State Trials 18. Jardine, Crim. Trials 421, where the court decided unanimously against Raleigh’s repeated demand for the production of Lord Cobham, not, according to Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’s opinion, without fair colour of law. Hist. Crim. Law i. 335, 336.

[519] 1 State Trials 869.

[520] Not indeed without grievous consequences to themselves. Being brought to question for their verdict, four of them submitted and apologised at once. The remainder were imprisoned by order of the Star Chamber and fined heavily. Stephen i. 329.

[521] 1 State Trials 957–1042.

[522] Stephen i. 326.

[523] Ibid. 336, 350.

[524] 2 State Trials 25.

[525] 4 State Trials 354–356.

[526] 5 State Trials 1185–1195.

[527] 6 State Trials 932–936.

[528] Ibid. 938.

[529] 6 State Trials 697.

[530] 6 State Trials 605–610.

[531] 7 State Trials 591–688. And see below 93 seq.

[532] See Lilburn’s Trial. 4 State Trials 1342.

[533] Stephen i. 358.

[534] Trial of Hulet, who was said to have been the actual executioner of Charles I. 5 State Trials 1185–1195. In summing up, Sir Orlando Bridgeman, L.C.S., said to the jury:—“Gentlemen, you hear what has been proved on behalf of the prisoner, that is, if you believe the witnesses that are not upon oath.” Hulet was convicted, but the evidence was thought so unsatisfactory that the judges afterwards procured a reprieve.

[535] See the Lord Chief Justice’s remarks on the witnesses for the Five Jesuits. 7 State Trials 41. As to the amount of truth in the allegation see below.

[536] At the trial of Colledge:—Sergeant Maynard: “It is Mr. Oates’ saying; it is Mr. Turbervile’s oath.” 8 State Trials 638.

[537] See e.g. the statement of Hyde, L.C.J., at Twyn’s trial in 1663. L.C.J.: “If I did not mistake, you desired to have counsel; was that your request?” Twyn; “Yes.” L.C.J.: “Then I will tell you, we are bound to be of counsel with you in point of law; that is, the court, my brethren and myself, are to see that you suffer nothing for your want of knowledge in matter of law; I say we are to be of counsel with you.... To the matter of fact, whether it be so or no; in this case the law does not allow you counsel to plead for you, but in matter of law we are of counsel for you, and it shall be our care to see that you have no wrong done you.” 6 State Trials 516, 517. See also the 5th Resolution in the case of Sir Harry Vane. 6 State Trials 131.

[538] See e.g. Coleman’s trial. 7 State Trials 14. L.C.J.: “The labour lies upon their hands, ... therefore you need not have counsel, because the proof must be plain upon you.” See also Don Pantaleon Sa’s case. 4 State Trials 466.

[539] See Colledge’s trial. L.C.J. North: “Counsel you cannot have, unless matter of law arises, and that must be propounded by you; and then if it be a matter debatable, the court will assign you counsel; but it must be upon a matter fit to be argued.” 8 State Trials 570. Similarly Jones, J., ibid. 571.

At Sidney’s trial Jeffreys, L.C.J.: “If you assign any particular point of law, then, if the court think it such a point as may be worth the debating, you shall have counsel.”

[540] 8 State Trials 579.

[541] See Burnet ii. 196, 291. Pepys, Diary January 21, 1667. North, Life of Guildford 195, 196, 291.

[542] 6 State Trials 570.

[543] 7 State Trials 463.

[544] 7 State Trials 1339. That the barristers withdrew is evident from Winnington’s subsequent remark: “We did perceive his counsel come up towards the bar and very near him, and therefore we thought it our duty to speak before any inconvenience happened.” Ibid. 1340.

[545] Sir W. Jones: “My Lords, we do not presume at all to offer our consent to what time the court shall be adjourned.” L.H.S.; “No, we do not ask your consent.”

[546] 7 State Trials 1371–1373.

[547] 7 State Trials 1544.

[548] The trial of Hawkins for theft in 1669 is of great interest in this connection. It was evidently considered to be an extreme piece of good fortune that the accused was able to prove the conspiracy against him, and it was only owing to the folly and clumsiness of the prosecutor that he could clearly prove the perjury. 6 State Trials 922–952.

[549] Sometimes this gave rise to great hardship, as in Oates’ second trial for perjury, where a witness named Sarah Paine was summoned, but the wrong Sarah coming, the mistake was not detected until she was put in the witness-box. 10 State Trials 1287.

[550] This however was considered rather unfair at the time. See the case of Atkins. 6 State Trials 1491. The action of the government and the judges in Colledge’s case (8 State Trials 570–587) in depriving the prisoner of papers which leave had been given him to write, that the crown case might be managed accordingly, strained this practice still further, and is justly termed by Sir J. F. Stephen “one of the most wholly inexcusable transactions that ever occurred in an English court.” Hist. Crim. Law i. 406.

[551] This was certainly so in Newgate and the other London prisons, but Reading’s intrigue with the Five Popish Lords seems to shew that the rule was relaxed for the Tower. 7 State Trials 301.

[552] See the cases of Coleman and Fitzharris. Mrs. Coleman managed to convey letters to her husband in prison after his arrest. House of Lords MSS. 8. Mrs. Fitzharris also was used, according to the information received by the government, to convey messages to her husband from the leaders of his party. She used, while talking to him in the presence of a warder, to lower her voice so that he alone could hear, and then repeat the message in the middle of their ordinary conversation. Information of Lewis the spy. May 30, 1681. S.P. Dom. Charles II 415: 334.

[553] Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy ii. 310.

[554] That this was recognised at the time is evident from the attention which they received in the debates in the Commons on the Duke of York. That on the Lords’ Provision in the Popery bill exempting the duke was carried on amid cries of “Coleman’s letters! Coleman’s letters!” 4 Parl. Hist. 1044. And see the whole of the Debate on a Motion for Removing the Duke of York, where they had the greatest weight. Ibid. 1026–1034.

[555] 7 State Trials 6.

[556] Ibid. 3, 4.

[557] Ibid. 7–13.

[558] See above 45–48.

[559] 7 State Trials 70.

[560] Ibid. 16, 17.

[561] Ibid. 18.

[562] Ibid. 22.

[563] 7 State Trials 18, 19.

[564] Ibid. 30–33.

[565] Ibid. 23, 31.

[566] Ibid. 25.

[567] Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel 646: “Sunk were his eyes.” Warner MS. history 104. “Oculi parvi et in occiput retracti.” L’Estrange, Hue and Cry after Dr. O. “His eyes are very small and sunk.”

[568] 7 State Trials 25.

[569] Ibid. 25–27.

[570] 7 State Trials 27–29. L.C.J.: “What did he (Oates) say?” Dolman: “That he did not well know him.” L.C.J.: “Mr. Oates, you say you were with him (Coleman) at the Savoy and Wild-House; pray, Sir Thomas, did he say he did not know him, or had seen Mr. Coleman there?” Dolman: “He did not know him as he stood there.” Dolben, J.: “Did he say he did not know Mr. Coleman, or that he did not know that man?” Dolman: “He said he had no acquaintance with that man (to the best of my remembrance).”

[571] 7 State Trials 29, 30.

[572] 7 State Trials 21.

[573] Oates’ work had certainly been remarkably hard, and his fatigue was no invention of his own. See the evidence of Sir Thomas Dolman at Sir George Wakeman’s trial. 7 State Trials 656. Oates was confronted with Coleman, and charged him with high treason on the night of Monday, September 30. Dolman: “My Lord, Mr. Oates did appear before the king and council, I think on the Saturday before which was Michaelmas eve. The council sat long that morning, the council sat again in the afternoon, and Mr. Oates was employed that night I think to search after some Jesuits, who were then taken, and that was the work of that night. The council I think sat again Sunday in the afternoon. Mr. Oates was then examined; the council sat long, and at night he was sent abroad again to search the lodgings of several priests and to find out their papers, which he did seize upon, and one of the nights in that season was a very wet night; he went either with a messenger or with a guard upon him. On Monday morning the council sat again, and he was further examined, and went abroad; and Monday night Mr. Oates was in as feeble and weak a condition as ever I saw man in my life, and was very willing to have been dismissed for that time, for he seemed to be in very great weakness and disorder, so that I believe he was scarce able to give a good answer.”

The whole incident is very similar to that which occurred at Wakeman’s trial, with the exception that then the evidence went against the witness, whereas now it was against the prisoner. The conduct of the court on the two occasions was perfectly consistent. Ibid. 651–653. See below.

[574] Hist. Crim. Law i. 385.

[575] Compare the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, Fenwick, etc. When Oates had finished his evidence, Fenwick said: “Pray, my Lord, be pleased to take notice that this man’s evidence all along is that he saw such and such letters from such and such persons. They have no evidence but just that, they saw such and such letters.” 7 State Trials 358.

[576] 7 State Trials 21, 32.

[577] As in the case of Dangerfield. 7 State Trials 1110.

[578] 7 State Trials 359, 411.

[579] See above 293.

[580] Fox, History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II 34.

[581] Gardiner, History of England vii. 323–326.

[582] 6 State Trials 693.

[583] One of the women supposed to be bewitched.

[584] 8 State Trials 1021. Lives of the Norths i. 167.

[585] An extraordinary instance of the nature of the ideas of the time on the subject of evidence appears in an examination before the Lords’ committee of inquiry. Oates complained that the Bishop of Chichester and Justice Bickley had reviled his evidence. A witness named Nicholas Covert was examined: “says he was at the public meeting at Chichester, but he remembers not that anything was said reflecting on Dr. Oates. The discourse was concerning the Narratives, and somebody there said that he had contradicted himself twenty-two times.” House of Lords MSS. 146. If a score of self-contradictions were not generally taken as an objection to a witness, it is hard to imagine what would have been.

[586] History of his own Time. London, 1727, 386.

[587] Ralph i. 412.

[588] 7 State Trials 13.

[589] Ibid. 35–53.

[590] 7 State Trials 59, 60.

[591] Being asked what he had to say he returned again to the subject: “As for my papers I humbly hope ... that I should not have been found guilty of any crime in them but what the act of grace could have pardoned.”... Ibid. 71.

[592] 7 State Trials 8.

[593] Ibid. 15.

[594] Ibid. 76.

[595] House of Lords MSS. 8, November 6, 1678.

[596] House of Lords MSS. 14.

[597] This misunderstanding is so extraordinary that I was tempted at one time to adopt the theory that the prosecution was aware of the existence of the later letters, and suppressed the knowledge from motives of expedience. Certainly the managers of the prosecutions for the plot were guilty of conduct which not only would now be thought unprofessional, but was on any consideration highly suspicious, as for instance in the suppression of the forged letters sent by Oates and Tonge to Father Bedingfield (see Ralph i. 384. Sir G. Sitwell, The First Whig 36), and on a question of honesty simply the balance of probability might turn against them. But the supposition cannot be maintained. It was suggested at the time that, if the letters of the years 1673, 1674, 1675 contained such dangerous matter as appeared from their perusal, those of the three ensuing years must, had they been found, have revealed still more horrible schemes. But the force of this argument was not sufficient to afford a motive for taking the risk of detection (Ralph i. 412). And although the personality of Shaftesbury, by whom alone such a scheme could have been worked out, was of great potency in the committee of the House of Lords, he hardly dominated it so completely as to render the manœuvre practicable in the presence of such men as Lord Anglesey, the Marquis of Winchester, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells (House of Lords MSS. i.).

[598] See above 312. 7 State Trials 59.

[599] Ibid. 65.

[600] L.C.J.: “If the cause did turn upon that matter, I would be well content to sit until the book were brought; but I doubt the cause will not stand on that foot; but if that were the case it would do you little good.” 7 State Trials 65.

[601] 7 State Trials 71.

[602] Ibid. 66–68. Besides this he said several other things, of which mention will be made later.

[603] Ibid. 70.

[604] Ibid. 78. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 4. Burnet ii. 178.

[605] Burnet ii. 113.

[606] Evidence of Carstairs, 6 State Trials 1503.

[607] Macaulay, Hist. of England i. 237. Lingard xiii. 107, 108.

[608] Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. 14. Appendix ii. 361. See also Fairfax Correspondence. Civil Wars (ed. R. Bell) ii. 297. James Babington to Henry Lord Fairfax, November 20, 1678. “Staley, the goldsmith’s son, was tried to-day at the King’s Bench, and condemned.”

[609] Schwerin, Briefe aus England 356. On December 2 (n.s.) he notes: “Des Goldschmied’s Sohn, von dessen unbesonnenen Reden ich bereits Mittheilung gemacht, ist gehangen und nachher geviertheilt worden. Man hatte sich vorher überzeugt, dass er gesagt, dass der König in England sei der grösste Ketzer und Schelm in der Welt. Darauf hat er mit der Hand auf die Brust geschlagen, mit den Füssen fünf bis sechsmal auf die Erde gestampft, und mit ausgestrecktem Arm gesagt. Dies ist die Hand, die ihn hätte umbringen sollen, der König und das Parlament glaubten, das alles gethan und vorbei sei, allein die Schelme wären betrogen.” Ibid. 362. Barillon’s testimony is on the same side: “Le témoin, sur la foi duquel Staley, fils d’un orrèvre, a été condamné, a accusé le Duc d’Hamilton.” December 16/26, 1678. And Warner (MS. history 40): “Primus, qui Catholico sanguine Angliam rigavit, fuit Gulielmus Stalaeus, alterius Gulielmi auri fabri et trapazitae Londiniensis civis divitis filius.” The act under which Staley was condemned is 13 Charles II cap. i.

[610] House of Lords MSS. 77, 78.

[611] Burnet (ii. 171) speaks of Staley as “the popish banker, who had been in great credit, but was then under some difficulties”; but this is one of the rare mistakes he makes in point of fact.

[612] He disclaimed all such sentiments and did deny the words, but afterwards said that he had “never with intention, or any thought or ill-will, spake any word upon this matter.” 6 State Trials 1506, 1508.

[613] 6 State Trials 1509. Lingard (xiii. 108) states on the authority of Les Conspirations d’Angleterre that Fromante, who is there called Firmin, was put into prison to prevent his appearance at the trial; but the work is by no means above suspicion, and is directly contradicted on the point. Large extracts from Les Conspirations d’Angleterre, which was published in 1681 and is now extremely rare, are quoted by Arnauld, Œuvres xiv. 515–535. Arnauld says in a note: “C’est M. Rocole, ancien chanoine de S. Benoit à Paris, qui en est l’auteur; mais l’avertissement qui le fait paraître Protestant, n’est pas de lui.” There is among the State Papers an order in council for the arrest of Bartholemew Fermin for high treason on account of the Popish Plot, but without date. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408; i. 110.

[614] 6 State Trials 1511, 1512.

[615] Foley v. 233, 234.

[616] Ibid. v. 12. Lingard xiii. 64. True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy, lxxvii.

[617] Foley v. 233, 244, 245.

[618] Ibid. 223.

[619] 7 State Trials 91–101.

[620] Ibid. 101–104.

[621] Ibid. 105.

[622] 7 State Trials 105. L.C.J.; “You must be tried by the laws of England, which sends no piece of fact out of the country to be tried.”

[623] There is much evidence to show this. The following instances are from the same volume of the State Trials:—The Attorney-General not allowed to read a certificate against the accused 129. Whitebread not allowed to use Oates’ Narrative 374. Fenwick, Whitebread, and Harcourt not allowed to use the report of Ireland’s trial. Harcourt was, in fact, mistaken on the point for which he wished to refer to the report 360, 384–386. Lord Stafford not allowed to use the council book as evidence 1440. See also 451, 462, 467, 654.

[624] 7 State Trials 106–108.

[625] On April 16, 1679. Ibid. 259–310, and see below.

[626] 7 State Trials 272, 295.

[627] Ibid. 392.

[628] Ibid. 117, 118. Sergeant Baldwin produced the letter, saying, “We do conceive a letter from one of that party, bearing date about the same time, concerning Mr. Whitebread’s summons, who was then master of the company, is very good evidence against them.”

The prosecution was forced to retract, and Mr. Finch, the junior, was made to eat his leader’s words: “My Lord, it can affect no particular person, but we only use it in general.”

[629] 7 State Trials 120.

[630] 7 State Trials 315–317.

[631] Cf. Rookwood’s case 1696. Powell, J.: “Certainly now the jury is charged, they must give a verdict either of acquittal or conviction.” Sir T. Trevor, Att. Gen.: “I know what has been usually thought of Whitebread’s case.” And the trial of Cook, 1696. Powell, J.: “Whitebread’s case was indeed held to be an extraordinary case.” And see 7 State Trials 497–500 n, where many instances and opinions adverse to the decision of the court are collected.

[632] Hale, P.C. ii. 294. “By the ancient law, if the jury sworn had been once particularly charged with a prisoner, it was commonly held they must give up their verdict, and they could not be discharged before their verdict was given up.... But yet the contrary course hath for a long time obtained at Newgate, and nothing is more ordinary than after the jury is sworn and charged with a prisoner and evidence given, yet if it appears to the court that some of the evidence is kept back, or taken off, or that there may be a fuller discovery and the offence notorious, as murder or burglary, and that the evidence, though not sufficient to convict the prisoner, yet gives the court a great and strong suspicion of his guilt, the court may discharge the jury of the prisoner, and remit him to the gaol for further evidence; and accordingly it has been practised in most circuits of England, for otherwise many notorious murders and burglaries may pass unpunished, by the acquittal of a person probably guilty, where the full evidence is not searched out or given.” “The whole law upon this subject,” says Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, “was elaborately considered a few years ago in R. v. Winsor (L.R. 1 Q.B. 289), when it appeared, from many authorities, that the practice had fluctuated.” Hist. Crim. Law i. 397.

[633] 7 State Trials 98.

[634] 7 State Trials 122–126.

[635] Ibid. 121, 122.

[636] Ibid. 124.

[637] 7 Ibid. 128.

[638] 10 State Trials 1243–1281.

[639] 7 State Trials 388–391.

[640] Ibid. 132.

[641] Ibid. 133–135.

[642] Stephen i. 399.

[643] 7 State Trials 138–141.

[644] 7 State Trials 142–144. Klopp II. 464, app. IV.

[645] Foley v. 58.

[646] See “An impartial consideration of these speeches,” etc., 1670, attributed to John Williams, D.D. “Animadversions on the last speeches of the Five Jesuits,” etc., 1679. Printed 7 State Trials 543.

[647] Burnet ii. 201.

[648] Sidney, Letters 123, 124. The opinion of Ranke, who in his writings was neither Catholic nor Protestant, lies midway between these views: “Grässlich ist die lange Reihe von Hinrichtungen Solcher, die nichts bekannten,” v. 235.

[649] “The examination of Captain William Bedloe deceased, taken in his last sickness by Sir Francis North, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.” Printed 6 State Trials 1493–1498.

[650] See Russell’s written Speech, printed at length, Ralph i. 755–757.

[651] Sitwell, First Whig 153–158. And see Stephen i. 408, 409.

[652] Stephen i. 449. And see Burnet II. 303, 304.

[653] Above 328.

[654] See above 204–209.

[655] Longleat MSS. Coventry Papers xi. 363. Order of the king in council, February 5, 1679.

[656] 7 State Trials 259, 287, 296.

[657] Ibid. 287–289, 292.

[658] So Bedloe swore 7 State Trials 271. Burnet (ii. 199) says that Bedloe made use of Reading’s intrigue to cover his omission to swear against the Jesuits in the previous December. But Reading never denied the fact that Bedloe’s account of this part of the transaction was correct.

[659] Presumably, from the absence of any Christian name, Mr. George Speke of White Lackington, M.P. for Somersetshire, a more reputable person than his sons Hugh and Charles. George Speke had been a royalist and after the Restoration lived in retirement for many years, but, following the example of his son-in-law, John Trenchard, turned against the court and became a leader of the Whig interest in his part of the country. In 1680 he entertained Monmouth during his western progress. Fea, King Monmouth 96.

[660] The date fixed first was March 28, and was afterwards altered. 7 State Trials 281.

[661] Evidence of Bedloe, Speke, and Wiggins. Ibid. 270–286.

[662] Ibid. 278, 279.

[663] 7 State Trials 310.

[664] Colonel Mansell’s Exact and True Narrative of the late Popish Intrigue 64.

[665] See Ralph i. 431. Echard 970, 971. Danby, Memoirs 39, 40.

[666] 7 State Trials 763–812. An Exact and True Narrative of the Horrid Conspiracy of Thomas Knox, William Osborne, and John Lane to invalidate the testimonies of Dr. Oates and Mr. William Bedloe. London 1680.

[667] See below.

[668] Burnet ii. 200.

[669] 7 State Trials 881–926.

[670] This was contradicted and his reputation much debated at the trial of Lord Stafford eighteen months later; but at the time it was believed to be the fact.

[671] Thomas Whitebread, provincial; William Harcourt, rector of the London province; John Fenwick, procurator for the college at St. Omers; John Gavan, and Anthony Turner. 7 State Trials 311–418.

[672] Ibid. 340, 1455. This was so far confirmed that Dugdale was proved to have spoken on Tuesday, October 15, 1678 of the death of a justice of the peace in Westminster, which does not go far. Dugdale also declared at Lord Stafford’s trial that on Coleman’s arrest the Duke of York sent to Newgate to ask if he had made disclosures to anybody, and when Coleman returned that he had done so only to Godfrey, the duke gave orders to have Godfrey killed. 7 State Trials 1316–1319. Burnet ii. 190, 191. And see above 153, n. Burnet says: “The Earl of Essex told me he swore it on his first examination, December 24, 1678, but since it was only on hearsay from Evers, and so was nothing in law, and yet would heighten the fury against the duke, the king charged Dugdale to say nothing of it.” This is a mistake. Dugdale’s first and second examinations, December 24 and 29, 1678. S.P. Dom. Charles II 408: II. 49, 22. Dugdale did formally tell the story in his information, but not until March 21, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 135.

[673] Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 334–342.

[674] 7 State Trials 343–349.

[675] Ibid. 119, 355. House of Lords MSS. 15.

[676] 7 State Trials, 350–357.

[677] 7 State Trials 359–378.

[678] “... Three of them, having been apprehended by Sir Will. Waller at their first coming, told him they were come to be witnesses, and being asked what they were to witness, they said they must know that from their superiors.” Sidney, Letters 101.

[679] Examination of Christopher Townley, April 28, 1679. Fitzherbert MSS. 151, 152.

[680] 7 State Trials 371. At the trial of Langhorn another witness was produced to explain this, but his testimony was unconvincing.

[681] Ibid. 361, 364, 366. Information was also given that Gifford had admitted in conversation “that his Superior of the College at St. Omers had sent him over to swear on behalf of the Lords, and that he must obey, and would, right or wrong.” Examinations of Chamberlayne and Gouddall. Fitzherbert MSS. 149.

[682] Examinations of Coulster and Townley. Fitzherbert MSS 151, 152.

[683] 7 State Trials 396–403. North, Examen 239, 240. 10 State Trials 1183–1188. Smith, Intrigues of the Popish Plot. The evil reputation of these men was unknown at the time of the trial. See Burnet ii. 226.

[684] 7 State Trials 404–418.

[685] At the time of the fire of London, Tillotson told Burnet a story of Langhorn’s methods of business which is too ridiculous to be believed. Burnet i. 412.

[686] True Narrative lxxxi.

[687] 7 State Trials 463–465, 470.

[688] Ibid. 439.

[689] 7 State Trials 514.

[690] Ibid. 172, 173.

[691] Sidney, Letters 124. “Wakeman’s trial is put off, as is believed, to avoid the indecency of the discourses that would have been made.”

[692] L.J. xiii. 388–392. C.J. November 28, 29, 1678. Ralph i. 397. James (Or. Mem.) i. 529.

[693] Burnet ii. 231.

[694] 7 State Trials 602–618.

[695] Ibid. 619–623.

[696] Ibid. 624–641. Bedloe however gave no evidence against the prisoner Rumley.

[697] 7 State Trials 644–651. Sir J. F. Stephen has strangely missed the bearing of this evidence, and writes as if it had been decisive in favour of the prisoners. Hist. Crim. Law i. 391.

[698] The first serious acquittal at least, for the trial of Atkins, after the conviction of Green, Berry, and Hill for the murder of Godfrey, was hardly more than formal.

[699] 7 State Trials 651–653.

[700] Hatton Correspondence ii. 187. Charles Hatton to Lord Hatton, July 10, 1679. “Mr. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane was bailed yesterday, and if my Lord Chief Justice hang five hundred Jesuits, he will not regain the opinion he thereby lost with the populace, to court whom he will not act against his conscience.” Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 74.

[701] Verney MSS. 474.

[702] Burnet ii. 232. The Narrative of Segnior Francisco de Faria, 1680, 17, 18.

[703] Deposition of F. de Faria, March 24, 1681. S.P. Dom. Charles II 415: 159. Verney MSS. 474. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 17, 74.

[704] Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 19.

[705] 8 State Trials 163–174. Hatton Correspondence ii. 220.

[706] 7 State Trials 702–706.

[707] Hatton Correspondence ii. 191, 195, 207–210.

[708] C.J. ix. 661, 688–692. L.J. xiii. 736–739. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 64.

[709] L.J. xiii. 752.

[710] Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 74, 75.

[711] See Burnet ii. 196. North, Examen 567, 568. Lives of the Norths, 195, 196. Hatton Correspondence, passim.

[712] Burnet ii. 196. North, Examen 568.

[713] Reresby, Memoirs 146. “Being with the king at the Duchess of Portsmouth’s lodgings, my Lord Treasurer being also present, the king told me he took it (Oates’ story) to be some artifice, and that he did not believe one word of the Plot.” Reresby, though always well-informed, was never at this time in possession of real secrets.

Barillon, October 1/10, 1678. “Le Roi de la Grande Bretagne m’a dit qu’il ne croyait pas que cette accusation eût un veritable fondement.”

Shaftesbury, The present state of the Kingdom at the opening of the Parliament, March 6, 1679. “As concerning the plot and the murder of Godfrey, the king’s discourses and managing are new and extraordinary. No man can judge by them but that he is in the plot against his own life; and no man doubts but he is so far in as concerns us all.” Printed Christie ii. 309.

[714] Barillon, January 16/26, 1679. “Le Roi d’Angleterre ne me parle plus comme il a parlé jusqu’à present. Il me dit hier que la déposition d’un dernier témoin nommé Ducdale lui parassait si peu concertée et si pleine de faits vraisemblables qu’il ne pouvait plus s’empêcher de croire à une conspiration contre sa personne. Ce Prince me redit toutes les raisons qui lui ont fait croire qu’Oats et Benloi sont des parjures et des imposteurs, mais en même temps il me fit connaître que ce qu’ils avaient dit de faux n’empêchait pas qu’il n’y eût quelque chose de vrai qui servait pour fondement à tout ce qu’ils avaient pu inventer d’eux mêmes.”

[715] See the trials of Andrew Bromwich, 7 State Trials 715–726, Lionel Anderson and others, ibid. 729–750, Knox and Lane, ibid. 763–812, Lord Castlemaine, ibid. 1067–1112.

[716] Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 34.

[717] See e.g. his summing up at Lord Castlemaine’s trial. 7 State Trials 1408–1412.

[718] In spite of his own and his brother’s assertions there cannot be the least doubt of this. North afterwards declared in his memoirs that he never believed in the Popish Plot, a statement which is belied by every action and word of his on the bench.

[719] 7 State Trials 218, at the trial of Green, Berry, and Hill.

[720] 7 State Trials 69.

[721] Ibid. 133, 134.

[722] Ibid. 218, 411, 642, 1102. 10 State Trials 1170. L.C.J.: “You may assure yourselves, I will remember whatsoever has been said on the one side and on t’other as well as I can; the gentlemen of the jury are men of understanding, and I see they take notes, and I’ll give them what assistance I can.” Instances might be multiplied. See Stephen i. 377, 566, 567.

[723] 6 State Trials 701–710. His trial was in 1665.

[724] Parl. Hist. iv. 1088.

[725] 7 State Trials 134. Absalom and Achitophel 120.

[726] 7 State Trials 678–680. This is another fair specimen. “Never brag of your religion, for it is a foul one, and so contrary to Christ; it is easier to believe anything than to believe that an understanding man may be a papist.”

[727] These trials in their order of mention will be found:—7 State Trials 1043. Ibid. 959. 8 State Trials 502. 7 State Trials 1162. 8 State Trials 447. 7 State Trials 1067. 8 State Trials 243.

[728] Reresby, Memoirs 194.

[729] See Appendix E.

[730] The proceedings in Parliament against the five popish lords are collected in 7 State Trials 1218–1292.

[731] Reresby, Memoirs 193, 194, North, Examen 218.

[732] Barillon, November 31/December 9, 1680. “Ce qui se passera dans ce procès est de grande consequence. Si le comte de Stafford était absous, la conjuration recevrait une grande atteinte, et quoique le peuple soit prévenu, il est néantmoins assujetti aux règles et aux lois, et ne s’en départ pas aisément.”

[733] Secret Services of Charles II and James II 24.

[734] Barillon, December 6/16, 9/19, 1680. James i. 640.

[735] 7 State Trials 1298–1339.

[736] Dugdale’s evidence. 7 State Trials 1341–1347.

[737] Oates’ evidence. Ibid. 1347–1350.

[738] Turbervile’s evidence. Ibid. 1351–1355.

[739] Ibid. 1394, 1395.

[740] 7 State Trials 1397–1400.

[741] Ibid. 1388–1393.

[742] Ibid. 1396–1406.

[743] Ibid. 1407–1415.

[744] 7 State Trials 1415–1419.

[745] Stafford admitted afterwards that in recent years he had constantly used a walking stick, “being lame with weariness.” Ibid. 1478.

[746] Ibid. 1419–1434.

[747] 7 State Trials 1437–1447.

[748] Ibid. 1462, 1463.

[749] Ibid. 1485–1492.

[750] Ibid. 1486–1491.

[751] 6 State Trials 119.

[752] 7 State Trials 1519–1529.

[753] Ibid. 1493–1515.

[754] Ibid. 1544–1551.

[755] Reresby thought that he acquitted himself well, but James said “it was always his misfortune to play his game worst when he had the best cards.” James i. 637.

[756] Barillon, December 16/26 1680.

[757] Reresby, Memoirs 194.

[758] Anglesey, Memoirs 9.

[759] Barillon, November 21/December 1, 1680. “Ce Prince prend souvent la liberté de se moquer la conjuration, et ne se constraint pas d’appeller tout haut Oatz et Bedlow des coquins. Il a dit cependant que les preuves contre le Vicomte de Stafford étaient fortes, et qu’il pouvait bien n’être pas innocent.”

[760] Hatton Correspondence ii. 241.

[761] Barillon, December 9/19 1680.

[762] Ibidem.

[763] The Earls of Carlisle, Berkshire, and Suffolk. The appearance of Lord Howard of Escrick on the same side is of no importance on account of his bad character.

[764] Anglesey, Memoirs 9. James to Hyde. Clarendon Cor. i. 50. James to Col. Legge, Dartmouth MSS. 54. Barillon, December 19/29, 1680.

[765] L.J. xiii. 724. C.J. December 23, 1680. Parl. Hist. iv. 1261. 7 State Trials 1562.

[766] 7 State Trials 1544, 1440–1447, 1342, 1343.

[767] Ibid. 1564–1567.

[768] Echard 997. Lingard xiii. 247–249.

[769] Dispatch of Sarotti-Bignola, January 10, 1681. “Tanta è la impressione de’ popoli della verità della congiura e della reità del conte (Stafford), che da pochi è stato compatito e molti lo hanno ingiurato con infami parole.” Quoted Brosch 451. Dispatch of Thun, January 10, 1681. “Der Henker hat den kopf auf der Bühne herumgetragen und dem Volke gezeigt, welches darüber ein unausprechliches Freuden- und frohlockendes Geschrei hat erschallen lassen.” Quoted Klopp II 473, app. XXII.

[770] 7 State Trials 1129–1162.

[771] Ibid. 1162.

[772] Ibid. 1133.

[773] Ibid. 1161.

[774] Evidence of Richmond and Bridges. Ibid. 1140, 1142.

[775] Evidence of Arnold. 7 State Trials 1135–1137.

[776] Evidence of Phillips. Ibid. 1138.

[777] Evidence of Philpot. Ibid. 1145, 1146.

[778] Evidence of Watkins, Richmond, and Powel. Ibid. 1139.

[779] Evidence of H. Jones and J. Jones. Ibid. 1146, 1147.

[780] Evidence of W. Richmond. 7 State Trials 1140, 1141, and evidence for the defence. Ibid. 1148–1151.

[781] Ibid. 1152–1159.

[782] Ibid. 1160. Luttrell, Brief Relation i. 53, 55. S.P. Dom. Charles II 414: 79. Petition of John Giles. Read in Council, 6 August 1680.

[783] 7 State Trials 1138, 1146.

[784] It is evident that the writer was an agent employed by Jenkins for the purpose. Otherwise the secretary would certainly have noted from whom and the date on which he received the information. The style of the report is also evidence of this.

[785] Stephen i. 393. Macaulay i. 234.

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.

---

[Back to top]