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
Patentes_, and referred only to Harcourt’s patent as new provincial.
_Literae Patentes_, contended the court, when used in reference to one
person, meant a patent; but when the phrase was translated patents, it
necessarily pointed at more than one. Oates, said the Chief Justice,
interpreted the matter more plainly than the accused.[676]
The Jesuits proceeded to make their defence. Sixteen witnesses were
called to prove that Oates had been at St. Omers from December 1677
to June 1678, and had not left the college at the time when he
swore that he was present at the consult in London. This was the
perjury upon which he was convicted at his first trial in 1685. Five
witnesses were called to testify that Gavan had not been in town in
April 1678; ten, that Ireland had been in the country in August and
September of the same year. Very similar evidence to that now given
was accepted six years later by the court to substantiate the charge
against Oates, but at the trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, and Fenwick
it was disbelieved. The witnesses were examined in detail and gave an
elaborate account of the life at the seminary. But the story which they
told was not altogether satisfactory. Under examination they shuffled
and prevaricated. Sometimes they contradicted one another on points of
time. They came prepared to speak to the date of the consult and the
time immediately before and after it. When questions were put about
dates less closely concerned, they seemed unwilling to answer. One,
who declared that he had left Oates at St. Omers on taking leave for
England to go to the congregation, was confounded when Oates reminded
him that he had lost his money at Calais and had been compelled to
borrow from a friend. Another confused the old and new styles. A
third stated that whenever a scholar left the college the fact could
not but be known to all his fellows. He was immediately contradicted
by Gavan, who said that care was taken that the comings and goings
of the seminarists should be unnoticed.[677] A rumour was spread
abroad that witnesses had been tutored, and was repeated by Algernon
Sidney in a letter to Paris.[678] For once rumour was not at variance
with truth. Sidney’s information was perfectly correct. Three of the
lads from St. Omers were arrested on their arrival in London by Sir
William Waller, and their examinations were forwarded by him to the
secret committee of the House of Commons. One of these was Christopher
Townley, alias Madgworth, alias Sands, who had been a student in the
seminary for six years. He admitted that “his instructions from the
superior was to come over and swear that Mr. Oates was but once from
the college at St. Omers, from December 1677 to June following.” Of
his own knowledge he could say no more than that he had been in the
seminary all the time during which Oates was there; “the said Mr. Oates
might be absent from St. Omers in that time for several days and at
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