Chapter XXVII: Part V: (Savile Foljambe MSS.) (2)

[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_,