The Year 1678

In the year 1660 King Charles H. was restored, being the twelfth year after the execrable murder of his royal father. Under his government the 'Catholics had reason to look for better times, considering the services they had done both his father and himself; neither was this prince in his own inclinations any ways averse from their religion, since it is very well known he died in the profession of it. Yet such was his indolence (being attentive to little else but¹² his pleasures), and such the temper of the Parliament and people, worked up at that time to a vehement hatred both of the religion and the persons of Catholics (in order to exclude the Duke of York from the succession to the crown), that this king gave way to one of the most violent persecutions that the Catholics of England have undergone, from the beginning of the change of religion to this day.

This persecution was set on foot in the year 1678 (for before that time the Catholics were tolerably easy) upon occasion of what is commonly called Oateses Plot^ a pretended conspiracy of Catholics for killing the King, subverting the Government, and rooting out the Protestant religion; a plot which though at that time it gained a general belief throughout the kingdom, is now allowed by all unprejudiced sober men to have been as villainous and malicious a forgery as ever was set on foot. In proof of which the reader may consult several tracts of Sir Roger VEstrange^ and some of the best Protestant historians, such as Mr. Eachard^ Mr. Salmon^ Mr. Higgons, the continuator of Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle, &c. So that Catholics have reason to rank those that suffered on this occasion amongst the martyrs of religion; since in reality the true cause of their death was not any plot, but their constancy in the profession of their religion, and the public hatred to which they were exposed on that account.

But this persecution did not only involve those that were accused of the plot, it took in also all the Catholics in general; the prisons throughout the kingdom were quickly filled with them; and the sanguinary laws of Queen Elizabeth against priests were put in execution with so much rigour, that I find no less than eight priests put to death merely for their character, in different parts of the country, in less than six weeks’ time, besides divers others condemned on the same score.

It was on the 13th of August, 1678, that Dr. Tongue (who is supposed to have had the chief hand in the contrivance of this pretended plot) gave in his first information to the King; and not long after Titus Oates was produced by the doctor as his informer;

‘ a person,’ says the Protestant historian, continuator of Baker,

‘ who had been dignified with holy orders, though very unworthy of that sacred function. He was sent for to the Council, and there swore to the truth of the papers delivered by Tongue, with a great many other matters not therein contained. The sum of what he then swore was, that he had been privy to many consultations and discourses of the Jesuits about killing the King. That at one time they designed to shoot him, which was to be done by two men whose names were Grove and Pickering. That afterwards it was thought better to do it by poison; and this was to be done by Sir George Wakeman^ a Papist and physician to the Queen. He said also that many Jesuits had disguised themselves, and gone into Scotland among the field conventiclers to distract the Government there. That he himself was sent first to St. Omers^ then to Paris^ and afterwards into Spain^ to negotiate this design. That upon his return with many letters and directions from beyond sea to the Jesuits here in England^ there was a great consult held by them in different rooms in a tavern behind St. Clement's Church, in which he was employed to carry the resolution from room to room, and so to hand them round. That at that time a fixed resolution was taken to kill the King in one or other of the ways above-mentioned, &c. These things were sworn by him the first day he appeared before the Council. Upon this he was sent that very night with a guard to seize upon the Jesuits and their papers. And for two or three days after he was almost perpetually employed night and day either in apprehending persons he had sworn against, or in attending the Council. This fatigue he made use of afterwards for an excuse to palliate several gross inconsistencies that appeared in the evidence delivered by him at different times. Upon his oath there were apprehended Sir George Wakeman above-mentioned, Mr. Edward Coleman^ secretary to the Duchess of York, Mr. Richard Langhorn, an eminent counsellor at law, all Papists and laymen; Thomas Whitehread, John Gaz'an, Anthony Turner, William Ireland, William Marshall, William Rumley, James Corker, and Thomas Pickering, Jesuits and monks, who were accused by him of being actors in, or privy to the plot.

‘ That this plot,’ continues the Protestant historian, ‘ as sworn to by Oates, was a wicked forgery and imposture, is, I believe, little doubted at present by thinking unprejudiced men. The character of the informer is no small diminution of its credit; for though he had worn the habit of a clergyman, he was a fellow of a most infamous life. He had been once presented for perjury. He had been made a chaplain in one of the King’s ships, but was dismissed upon a complaint of some unnatural practices not fit to be named. He afterwards procured a qualification to be chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk, and that Duke being a Roman Catholic, Oates expressed soon after an inclination to the Popish religion, not from any motive of conscience, but thinking probably to reap some small advantage by that vile condescension. But he found himself disappointed; for he quickly perceived he had lost all hopes from the Church of England, to starve in that of Rome. At last he was sent to the English

Seminary of Jesuits at St. Omers, where he was treated with great contempt. From St. Omers he had been sent through France into Spain, and from thence returned to England, where he soon after broached the plot. Whether in this he was animated by a spirit of revenge for the ill usage he had received from .h.t Jesuits, or by hopes of reward for the discovery, or whether he was an instrument of others to swear what was prepared for him, has been variously thought, but must remain a doubt till the great day when all secrets shall be revealed.

‘ That there has been,’ continues the historian, ‘and ever will be, a Popish plot for the restoring that religion amongst us, will be easily believed by such as know the restless temper of the Church and Court of Rome. But that they should design to compass this by killing the King, or by the violent methods sworn to by Oates and his associates, appears incredible from the palpable falsehoods and inconsistencies in their evidence.’

As to the other chief witnesses of the plot, viz., William Bedloe, the historian gives his character in the following lines: — ‘ Soon after this, Oates's discovery was confirmed by a new evidence perfectly suited to the old one. His name was William Bedloe, a person who had gone through many various circumstances of life, and had been very infamous in every one of them. He was thoroughly possessed of all those qualifications that go to the completing of an eminent rogue. He was of a base birth and mean parentage, so that little care being taken of his education, or of any provision for him, he was forced to make his way in the world by himself. He might have done this in an honest way, being not without capacity. But a natural certain bent towards wickedness, which is found in some dispositions, made him choose a contrary course. He was first a poor foot-boy, or runner on errands; and afterwards got into a livery in the family of the Lord Bellasis. After this he turned a kind of post or letter-carrier beyond sea, in which condition he got acquainted with the names and concerns of people of fashion. He made use of this to put in practice a hundred rogueries, being of a bold and daring temper, with a good turn of wit and address. Thus he ran through all the arts and methods of sharping, going under false names, and borrowing money, or other valuable things by forged recommendations, or by personating men of figure. He travelled over France and Spain under the character of a person of quality, robbing and cheating wherever he went. In the course of this sort of life he had been put into several prisons, &c. He was just got out of prison, where he was fed out of the alms-basket, when the reward and encouragement were offered i to the discoverers of Godfrey's murder. Upon this he went from London to Bristol, and in the way thither sent a letter to Secretary Coventry, with a desire that he might be seized at Bristol. This was! done accordingly with great noise, that he might be looked on as a great discoverer. On November the 5th he was sent to London, where he was dubbed a captain and the King’s evidence; and, like Oates before him, had guards and subsistence at the King’s charge; at Whitehall. When he was examined before the Secretary of State in the King’s presence, he said he had seen Godfrey's body at | Somerset House, and that a servant of Lord Bellasis offered him 1,^4,000 to assist in carrying it away. That upon this he went out of | town to Bristol, but that his conscience so haunted him, that it forced | him to discover it. Being asked if he knew anything of the plot, he j denied it upon oath. He said indeed that he had heard of 40,000 I men to be sent from Spain, who were to meet as pilgrims at St.!

Jago's and to be shipped from thence to England, which was all!

he knew. This was a strange story; 40,000 pilgrims was an army 1 in disguise never heard of but in Bedloe's evidence and the comedy; of the Rehearsal. And he could not give any account of the fleet that was to transport such extraordinary invaders. But it plainly appeared he had been better instructed before the next day; for being then brought before the House of Lords, he abounded in discoveries, and accused Lord Bellasis, Lord Powis, Lord Arundell of Wardour, and Coleman, of a design to kill the King; and told the House he had begun to put a narrative of the plot in writing, and desired time to i finish it. When he was asked whether he knew Titus Oates, he positively denied it; but afterwards he brought himself off by saying! he knew him only by the name of Ambrose.

‘ Four days after, his discoveries were much enlarged. He said 40,000 men were to be ready in London. That 10,000 men were to ' be sent from Flanders, besides the pilgrims of St. Jago in Spain; that Hull was to be surprised just at the critical time the plot was discovered; that he was told that all the Roman Catholics of any figure in England were acquainted with this plot, with many other particulars too long and trivial to be enumerated. There cannot be a more surprising example of the force of universal prejudice than that such an evidence should gain attention, much more belief, among so many wise men that heard it. How could it be thought that 40,000 effective men should be ready in London for such a design, when probably there is not that number of Papists to be found throughout the city, ■ though we take in women and children, &c.

‘ The Parliament believed all these strange stories; and the King was forced to drive with the tide, and appear as zealous as they. Through the course of this month nothing was heard of but addresses and proclamations against Papists. And on the 30th of November the King came and passed the Bill for disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.’

So far the historian, who adds in the same place the following account of Mr. Staley ^ condemned and executed about this time, though not properly for the plot: —

‘ The next remarkable occurrence,’ says he, ‘ was the trial of Mr. William Staley, a Popish banker, for treasonable words. One Carstairs, a Scotchman, a man of a very ill character, happened to be in an eating-house in Covent Garden, where Staley was at dinner, in the next room to him. Carstairs pretended he heard him say in French, that the King was a rogue, and persecuted the people of God, and that he would stab him if nobody else would. These words he wrote down, and went next morning to Staley, telling him he would swear these words against him, and demanded a sum of money of him. Staley was much perplexed. He saw the danger of such an accusation at such a time; but he was under difficulties, and refused to part wdth the money. So he was apprehended, and five days after tried and cast. The evidence against him was positive, and being strangers he did not know their character. He could only urge how improbable it was, he should say such things in a public room, and that in a part of the town where French was so well understood. He was asked while under condemnation, whether he knew anything of the plot; but he denied it, as also the words sworn against him. He was executed at Tyburn, where he behaved himself very decently.’ His trial was succeeded by that of Mr. Edward Coleman, of whom we shall now treat.

EDWARD COLEMAN, Gentleman *

Edward COLEMAN was a minister’s son, born in Suffolk, and educated in the University of Cambridge, who afterwards became a zealous convert to the Catholic faith. ‘ This gentleman,’ says the continuator of Baker, ‘ was secretary to the³

Duchess of York, a great bigot in his religion, and of a busy head. This engaged him in many projects for the restoring of Popery here, or at least procuring a liberty of conscience for those of that profession. He had been engaged in a correspondence with Pere Le Chaise, the French king’s confessor, since the year 1674, in the course of which he was continually entertaining him with schemes and projects for advancing the interest of the French king and the Church of Rome.' These letters being seized were produced at his trial, which came in at the Old Bailey, November 28, 1678.

‘ The evidence against him were Oates and Bedloe, with his own papers. The two first charged him with having been privy to several consults for killing the King, and to another for raising rebellion in Ireland, and that he had received a commission [from the General of xht Jesuits^ to be Secretary of State. As to his letters, they showed, beyond contradiction, that he had been busy in projects for introducing Popery; and some warm expressions which he had let fall were made use of to represent him as a more dangerous person than he really was. But all this had no manner of relation to the plot, there not appearing throughout all his letters the least intention of hurting the King, or of using violence of any sort to compass his undertakings, but much that implied the contrary.

‘ He pleaded this himself when he came to make his defence.

As to Oates and Bedloe, he observed (which was very true) that wTen he appeared before the Council Oates did not know him. Oates excused himself by alleging the weakness of his sight, the candlelight, and Coleman's change of wig and habit; but he said as soon as he heard him speak he knew him. He observed also, that wTen Oates first appeared before the Council he charged him only wfith a letter, and some matters so slight that the Council w^as ready to let him go at large; wTereas, had he knowm these things he now charged against him, that was the proper time to mention them. Oates! answered this by complaining of the great fatigue he had undergone for two days and nights before in Jesuits, &c., which, he said,:

had so exhausted his spirits that he did not know' w'hat he said. This was a wretched evasion, but it wxnt dowm at that time. In the third place, he said, that w'hereas Oates had swore he w’as privy to a consult about the 21st of August, in London, he offered to prove that he was then out of town,’ having left London on the 1 15th of that month, without ever returning till the 31st, late at i night.

‘ As to Bedloe, he could only answ'er him by solemnly protesting | he had never seen him till then in his life; and concluded his defence |

EDWARD COLEMAN with an asseveration that he had seen Oates but once before, and Bedloe never.’ Baker's Chronicle, p. 692.

‘ The Chief Justicein summing up the evidence,’ says Mr. Salmon, in his examination of Bishop Burnet's history, p. 792, ‘ did not much insist upon the testimony Oates had given of Coleman's design to kill the King, but said it was plain that Coleman intended to bring in Popery, and subvert the Protestant religion, by requiring the assistance of a foreign power; and that he who subverted the Protestant religion, by consequence brought in a foreign authority; that this was acting in derogation of the crown, and in diminution of the King’s supremacy, and an endeavour to bring the nation under a foreign dominion, namely, the Pope’s; and though he might hope to bring in Popery by procuring a dissolution of the Parliament, and a toleration, it was to be supposed other methodswould have been taken if these had failed, by his confederates at least, if not by himself; and he who enters upon an unlawful act is guilty of all the consequences that attend it, though he did not design them; whereupon Coleman was convicted.

‘ The Chief Justice having pronounced the sentence, Coleman declared his innocency as to any design against the King’s life, and said he renounced all the mercy that God could shew him, if he had not discovered all he knew to the House of Commons; or if he ever made or received or heard of any proposition towards invading the King’s life, his crown, or dignity; or to procure any invasion or disturbance in order to introduce any new form of government, or bring in Popery by force; and in this he persisted till he died.’ So Mr. Salmon, agreeably to Mr. Coleman's printed trial.

The continuator of Baker's Chronicle adds, ‘ that before his execution many were sent to him from both Houses, with promise of a pardon if he would make discoveries; but he either would not, or, which is as probable, could not make any such. So that some time after, [on Tuesday the 3rd of December], he was executed, and suffered with great composedness and devotion, denying all that had been sworn against him. There went about an idle story, that he refused to confess upon promise of a pardon from the Duke of York; and that when he found his death unavoidable, he cried out in a passion. There is no faith in man! But it was very plain, and he could not be ignorant, that the fury of the times was such, that the King had it not in his power to pardon him, if he had been ever so willing.’ So far the Protestant historian.

Mr, Coleman's last Speech.

‘ It is now expected I should speak, and make some discovery of a very great plot. I know not whether I shall have the good fortune to be believed better now than formerly; if so, I do solemnly declare, upon the words of a dying man, I know nothing of it. And as for the raising of sedition, subverting the government, stirring up the people to rebellion, altering the known laws, and contriving the death of the King, I am wholly ignorant of it; nor did I ever think to advance that religion (which people think I am so zealous of) hereby. I thank God I am of it, and declare I die of it; nor do I think it prejudicial to King or government. But though I am, as I said, a Roman Catholic, and have been so for many years, yet I renounce that doctrine (which some [wrongfully] say the Romish Church doth usher in to promote their interest) that kings may be murdered, and the like; I say, I abominate it.’

Here he was interrupted, and told if he had anything to say by way of confession, or sorrow for his guilt, he might proceed; otherwise it was unseasonable to go on. He said, he had nothing to confess, that he had never any intention to subvert the government, or to act any thing contrary to law, but what every rnan of a contrary religion would do in a peaceable manner if he could. He added that the witness who swore against him did him wrong; and as for Bedloe^ upon the word of a dying man, he never saw his face before his trial. He also declared, upon the word of a dying man, that he knew nothing of the death of Sir Edmundhury Godfrey^ for that he was a prisoner at that time. ‘ Then after some private prayers and ejaculations to himself, says the conclusion of his printed trial, the sentence was executed; he was hanged by the neck, cut down alive, his bowels burnt, and himself quartered.’

Footnotes

1. It thundered, lightened and rained very much as the good man was going to Tyburn. ↩

2. He suffered death on the eve of St. Peter and Paul. ↩

3. Ven. Edward Coleman. — From his printed Trials and I.etters; the Compendium or Short View of the Trials relating to the Plot; his Dying Speech; the Continuator of Baker’s Chronicle; see State Trials; Gillow; Catholic Encyclopcedia; D.N.B.; Tablet, August, 1922. ↩