Chapter XXVIII: 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.

—————————————————— End of Book ——————————————————

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.