A History of England, Period III. Constitutional MonarchyBright, J. Franck (James Franck)
History
A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy
Bright, J. Franck (James Franck)
Great Britain -- History
But, by the witness of two of the informers, Porter and Goodman, a more
important person had been implicated, if not in the present plot, yet at
least in one of a similar nature which had been set on foot immediately
after the Queen's death. This was Sir John Fenwick, a man highly
connected, who had brought himself prominently forward as a Jacobite
intriguer, and had earned the personal dislike of William by a public
insult to the Queen. By the law of Edward VI. two witnesses were
necessary to prove the guilt of treason, and Fenwick's chief hopes lay
in his being able to bribe either Porter or Goodman to leave the
country. His first attempt on Porter failed. Porter informed the
Government, received the money, and gave up the agent who offered it
him. Fenwick then attempted to gain time by making a confession. This
was drawn up with great art: while none of the real facts were brought
to light, accusations, only too well founded upon fact, were brought
against Marlborough, Godolphin, Russell, and Shrewsbury. It was asserted
that Marlborough had promised to bring over the army, Russell the navy,
while Godolphin only held office by the leave of the exiled King.
William, with great wisdom, although he knew how much truth there was in
these accusations, absolutely ignored them, and ordered the trial of
Fenwick to be proceeded with without delay. But some of the contents of
the confession became known, and the Whigs decided that, for the honour
of the party, it could not be passed over in silence. Godolphin, the
last remaining Tory in the Government, they would have been unwilling to
acquit; he was induced to resign, and the course was now clear. It was
of the highest importance that a real confession should be got from
Fenwick, but this he now refused to give, as he had just received
information that his agents had contrived to get Goodman, the second
witness against him, out of the country. Exasperated by seeing, as they
thought, the enemy, who had tried to undermine the character of their
chiefs, slipping from their grasp, the Whigs brought the question before
the House. The confession was voted false and scandalous, and rather
than let their victim escape, in the heat of their anger, they
determined to have recourse to the dangerous expedient of a Bill of
Attainder (Nov. 13). This attempt, which, as it superseded the law of
the land by an exercise of the power of Parliament, had an
unconstitutional and revengeful appearance, met with the strongest
opposition, but was carried in the Lower House by a small majority. The
question became one of party, and finally, after a long struggle, it
passed the House of Lords by a majority of only seven. Great interest
was made for the prisoner, but William refused to listen to any request
for pardon, and Fenwick was executed. William's inflexibility is better
explained by his desire to shield the Whig party, whom Fenwick would
certainly have accused during his trial, than by the supposed existence
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account