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
in London at the consult at the White Horse Tavern. This was refused
by the court without hesitation. Fenwick exclaimed bitterly that the
judges seemed to think there was no justice out of England.[621]
But in supposing that a special piece of unfairness was directed
against himself and his friends he was mistaken. It was a regular and
unbroken rule of the court that no evidence could be brought, if such
an expression may be used, from outside the trial. Such evidence as
reports of other trials, the journals of the Houses of Parliament, the
minutes of the privy council was allowed to be used on neither side.
It was one of the points in which the practice of the day pressed
hardly on the accused, but the judges could not, as Scroggs truly
said, “depart from the law or the way of trial.” The theory of the law
was that the evidence at a trial might be disproved by the defence,
or its value might be destroyed if the witness were proved not to be
competent; but neither could it be shaken by such a document as Fenwick
proposed to produce,[622] nor could evidence afterwards be called
against it to shake the credit of a witness at a previous trial. To
effect this the witness must be indicted and convicted for perjury and
the record of his conviction proved. Every trial stood by itself, and
everything alleged at it had to be proved or disproved on the spot,
either by direct evidence or by judicial records sworn at the trial to
be correct.[623]
Bedloe was then called. He began by giving evidence of the Plot in
general, in pursuit of which he had been employed, he swore, for the
last five years to carry letters between Jesuits and monks in England,
Ireland, and France, and Sir William Godolphin and Lord Bellasis.[624]
But of the prisoners in particular he could only speak to Ireland,
Pickering, and Grove. Whitebread and Fenwick he knew by sight alone.
At the trial of Reading he confessed that this was a lie.[625] There
he explained that he would have borne witness before against the two
Jesuits had not Reading been intriguing with him at the time, and that
he kept back his evidence in order to lead the attorney deeper into the
business.[626] Not only was this admitted by the court as sufficient
justification of his conduct, but at their later trial, when Bedloe
gave decisive evidence against them, Whitebread and Fenwick hardly made
any objection to his credibility upon this ground.[627]
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