[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.