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
Prance did not stop at his evidence on the subject of the murder,
but went on to give information as to the Plot. Unless he had done
so he could hardly have hoped to escape from prison, for it would
seem incredible to the authorities that he should know so much and
yet not know more. Perhaps too he was bitten with the excitement and
glory of an informer’s life. His evidence was not however calculated
to assist materially the party whose interest it was to prosecute
the plot. He had already aroused annoyance by contradicting Bedloe’s
evidence concerning the murder.[297] He now proceeded to spin out a
string of utterly ridiculous stories about the Jesuits and other
Roman Catholics. All that was important in his evidence was hearsay
or directed against men who had already to contend against weightier
accusations. He declared that Fenwick, Ireland, and Grove had told him
that four of the five Popish lords were “to command the army.”[298]
They had for some time past been in prison in the Tower on far more
direct charges. At the trial of Ireland and Grove Prance was not
produced as a witness at all. At the trial of Whitbread, Fenwick, and
Harcourt he made the same statement. Fenwick had told him also that
he need not fear to lose his trade in the case of civil war, for he
should have plenty of work to do in making church ornaments.[299] These
stories were again retailed at the trials of Langhorn and Wakeman.[300]
When he was summoned as a witness against Lord Stafford he could say
no more than that one Singleton, a priest, had told him “that he would
make no more to stab forty parliament men than to eat his dinner.”[301]
Much of his evidence about the Plot was so ludicrous that it could
never be brought into court at all. Four men were to kill the Earl of
Shaftesbury and went continually with pistols in their pockets. One
Bradshaw, an upholsterer, had said openly in a tavern that it was no
more sin to kill a Protestant than to kill a dog, and that “he was
resolved to kill some of the busy lords.” It was the commonest talk
among Roman Catholics that the king and Lord Shaftesbury were to be
murdered. It was equally an ordinary subject of conversation that a
great army was to be raised for the extirpation of heretics. A surgeon,
named Ridley, had often told him “that he hoped to be chirurgeon to
the Catholic army in England”; and when he complimented one Moore, a
servant of the Duke of Norfolk, upon “a very brave horse” which he was
riding, “Moore wished that he had ten thousand of them, and hoped in a
short time that they might have them for the Catholic cause.” In his
publication Prance added to this a disquisition on the immorality of
the secular priests, among whom he had at the time two brothers.[302]
So tangled and nonsensical a tale could be a source of strength to
no prosecution. Dr. Lloyd was alarmed at the extent and facility of
Prance’s new information.[303] Bishop Burnet thought, “It looked very
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