[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.