The Popish Plot: A study in the history of the reign of Charles IIPollock, John
History
The Popish Plot: A study in the history of the reign of Charles II
Pollock, John
Popish Plot, 1678
What then becomes of Prance’s statement that the only source of his
information was the paper introduced into his cell on the morning of
December 22, and containing the substance of Bedloe’s evidence? He
professed that it was solely from this that his elaborate confession
of December 23 and 24 was drawn, and that it was arranged not only
by the connivance, but absolutely at the direction of the Earl of
Shaftesbury. Nor was this all. He told L’Estrange further that after he
had been forced to retract his recantation his friend Boyce had acted
as agent of Bedloe and Shaftesbury in bringing his evidence into line
with that of Bedloe. On one point he refused to yield; he would not own
that he had worn the periwig of which Bedloe had spoken; but for the
rest, according to his own account, he made no difficulty.[266] The
story is glaringly inconsistent with the facts. So far from agreeing
first or last with Bedloe, Prance contradicted him in almost every
possible point. If it was true that, as he said, he was wholly ignorant
of the murder and concocted his confession from minutes of Bedloe’s
evidence which were given to him, the confession would have worn a
very different colour. His only object was to save his neck and get
out of Newgate. He would certainly have taken the material with which
he was provided, and have simply repeated Bedloe’s tale with so much
alteration as was necessary to make himself a partner in the murder.
He had no motive to do anything else. Even alone he could hardly have
missed the point, and by his own statement did not. Under the astute
guidance of Shaftesbury there could be no possible danger of bungling.
Instead of this being the case he acted in a fashion which, if he spoke
the truth, would have been inconceivable. Not only did he not tell the
same story as that which he professed was his only guide, but he told a
tale so entirely different that neither Bedloe’s name nor the name of
a single man given by Bedloe was mentioned in it at all. The idea of
collusion between the informers in this way must be discarded. It is
impossible that it should be true.
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