Charges against Perrott.
The witnesses.
Numerous accusations were brought against Perrott soon after his return to England, but he had little difficulty in meeting them. Matters became more serious when a letter purporting to be written by him was actually produced, in which he offered to make Philip II. king of England and Ireland, on condition of being made hereditary Prince of Wales. It seems clear that the paper was forged by Charles Trevor, an adventurer who had been employed by O’Rourke to manage his son’s escape from Oxford, and whom Perrott had formerly imprisoned. His companion in the Castle, and perhaps his accomplice in the forgery, was one Dennis O’Roughan or Roughan, who had originally been a Roman Catholic priest and had lived in Spain. Finding it convenient to return, Roughan professed himself a Protestant, and had several children by Margaret Leonard of New Ross, whom some called his wife and some did not. He was evidently a liar of the first magnitude, for he told Fitzwilliam that he had said mass to Perrott, who was no persecutor, but who was certainly a sincere Protestant and a hater of Spaniards. When Trevor escaped from prison the forged letter, or one like it, remained in his hands, and he seems to have been accused of several of the forgeries and found guilty of at least one. Roughan produced his false letter, and pretended to be in fear of his life from Perrott’s friends. With an evident desire to make the most of it all, the Deputy sent over his son, with orders to give the document to the Queen herself. Bishop Meredith observed that John Fitzwilliam would have to ride very fast if Perrott did not know all before her Majesty. Considering the abundant evidence as to Roughan’s bad character—and he was a perjurer by his own confession—it might be supposed that no credit would have been given to him. Probably much of the truth was kept from the Queen’s knowledge. An enquiry in Dublin had but doubtful results, and the commissioners, whom the Queen herself rebuked, were accused of partiality to Perrott. They examined Roughan, who soon showed his real colours, and they were probably disinclined to do anything on such evidence. When the man went to London, where nothing was known about him, he accused the commissioners of corrupt dealing, but he soon lost credit in England too. Fitzwilliam evidently leaned strongly against Perrott, and Sir N. White was placed under restraint by him. Whether anyone really believed Roughan may be doubted, but the information gained in connection with his story enabled Perrott’s enemies to draw their net round him.[218]
Trial of Perrott, 1592.
He is found guilty,
though probably innocent.
At the beginning of February, 1591, Sir John Perrott was in the custody of the Lord Treasurer; and of his friends we are told that the Bishop of Leighlin was merry in the Fleet, and Sir Nicholas White sad in the Marshalsea. Contrary to the expectation of many, Sir John was sent to the Tower on March 8; and there he was destined to end his days. His imprisonment was close, and he complained of impaired memory from the treatment he received. At last, in April 1592, he was brought to trial for treason, his indictment specifying that he had compassed the Queen’s death. On one side were Popham, Egerton, and Puckering, and on the other a rough old knight, conscious of many rash speeches, but strong in the confidence which innocence gives, and ‘renouncing the merits and mercy of his Saviour Jesus Christ’ if he was really guilty. The court did nothing to supply the want of counsel. Chief Justice Anderson behaved with his usual brutality, declaring that Perrott was worse than Babington or than any of the traitors, and they were many, at whose trials he had assisted. Hunsdon was one of the Commission, and he also interfered very often and very unfairly. The accused could do little but protest that he was innocent, and that Roughan and Williams were perjured scoundrels. He wished the devil might take him body and soul if he had uttered a certain coarse speech, which many thought the real cause of Elizabeth’s animosity. He appealed to Rokeby, master of requests, who was one of his judges, whether his experience in Ireland had not taught him that witnesses there had no respect for an oath and might be cheaply bribed to swear anything. God, he said, would plague his persecutors for their corrupt dealing. He was found guilty, but a great judge of our own time has described his trial as ‘the scandalous attempt of prerogative lawyers—of which Elizabeth herself was ashamed—to convert the peevish speeches against her, of that worthy old soldier, Sir John Perrott, into overt acts of high treason.’[219]
Death and character of Perrott.
‘Sir John Perrott,’ says Swift, ‘was the first man of quality whom I find upon the record to have sworn by God’s wounds. He lived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and was supposed to be a natural son of Henry VIII. who might also probably have been his instructor.’ According to Naunton, who is not a bad authority on such a point, Perrott was aware of his royal parentage. ‘What,’ he asked the lieutenant of the Tower, with oaths and fury, ‘will the Queen suffer her brother to be offered up a sacrifice to my skipping adversaries?’ Naunton shows that circumstances make the fact not improbable, and adds that Perrott’s manners, appearance, and voice were like those which the Elizabethan tradition ascribed to Henry. Hatton, the chief of Sir John’s skipping adversaries, was now dead; and the Queen was urged by Burghley and others to spare a faithful, though rash, servant. At all events she refused to sign his death-warrant, and when his speech to Hopton was reported to her, she swore by God’s death that they were all knaves. It was thought that she intended to pardon him, and she was often heard to applaud a rescript of Honorius, ‘that if any person speak ill of the Emperor through a foolish rashness and inadvertency, it is to be despised; if out of madness, it deserves pity; if from malice and aversion, it calls for mercy.’ Perrott died in the Tower in the following September; but his chief request was granted, and his son was allowed to inherit. The fact of that son being married to Essex’s sister may have had something to do with this.[220]