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
somewhat rare quality of being impervious to court influence. That
he was upon friendly terms with the Roman Catholics was, for the
informer’s purpose, of little moment. Oates was in search of support
outside the council-chamber, and Godfrey offered exactly what he
wanted. In case the government wished to suppress the discovery of the
plot, Godfrey was not the man to acquiesce in such a design on account
of private considerations.
On Saturday, October 12, Sir Edmund Godfrey left his house in Hartshorn
Lane between nine and ten o’clock in the morning. That night he did
not return home. The next day Godfrey’s clerk sent to inquire at his
mother’s house in Hammersmith. Obtaining no news there, the clerk
communicated with his master’s two brothers, who lived in the city.
They sent word that they would come to Hartshorn Lane later in the day,
and enjoined the clerk meanwhile to keep Godfrey’s absence secret. In
the evening Mr. Michael and Mr. Benjamin Godfrey appeared at their
brother’s house, and set out in company with the clerk upon a round of
inquiry. That night and all Monday they continued the search, but could
nowhere obtain tidings of the missing man. On Tuesday the brothers
laid information of Godfrey’s absence before the Lord Chancellor, and
in the afternoon of the same day the clerk publicly announced his
disappearance at a crowded funeral.[150] Up to this time the fact
was unknown except to Godfrey’s household and near relatives. It was
afterwards asserted by those who wished to prove his suicide that the
secret had been kept in order to prevent discovery of the manner of his
death. The law directed that the estate of a person dying by his own
hand should be forfeited to the crown, and to prevent the forfeiture
Godfrey’s family concealed the fact. Sir Roger L’Estrange devoted some
effort to establish this.[151] He was however so unwise as immediately
to demolish his case by collecting evidence to show that the dead man’s
brothers had approached the Lord Chancellor, “to beg his lordship’s
assistance to secure their brother’s estate, in case he should be
found to have made himself away.”[152] Certainly, if the Godfreys
had known his suicide and had been moved to conceal it in order to
save his estate, the last person in the world to whom they would have
admitted their motive was the Lord Chancellor. L’Estrange’s sense of
the contradictory was small. Not only did he commit this blunder,
but he was at considerable pains to show that the fact of Godfrey’s
disappearance was never concealed at all; on the contrary, the news was
bruited about the town as early as the afternoon of the day on which
Sir Edmund left his house, in order to raise a cry that he had been
murdered by the Roman Catholics.[153] He did not consider that, as the
only persons who had first-hand news of Godfrey’s absence were members
of his family, the rumour must have emanated from themselves; whereas
he persisted at the same time that their one object was to keep the
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