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
The evidence given by Prance was, on the contrary, remarkably
consistent with the information which he had furnished on other
occasions. He went through all the incidents which he had detailed
first to the council and then on the spot to the Duke of Monmouth and
the Earl of Ossory. He described each point with perfect decision and
answered the questions put to him without hesitation. The only point
on which he showed uncertainty was when he was asked to describe the
room in which the body lay on the night of October 14. He said frankly,
“I am not certain of the room, and so cannot describe it.” In one
particular alone did a statement vary from his previous evidence. He
had told the council that on the morning of the fatal Saturday Green
had called at Godfrey’s house and inquired if he was at home.[230]
Now he said that he could not be certain whether it was Green or Hill
who went to Hartshorn Lane.[231] His motive in altering the distinct
statement is not far to seek. Elizabeth Curtis, who had been maid at
Godfrey’s house, was called as a witness. She testified that on the
morning of October 12 Hill came to see her master and had conversation
with him for several minutes. He wore the same clothes, she said,
in which he appeared in court; and Hill admitted that he had been
dressed in the same way on that day. Green had come to Hartshorn Lane
about a fortnight before to ask for Godfrey, but on the date of his
disappearance Hill was there alone.[232] The suspicion is difficult to
stifle that Prance had some knowledge of the evidence which the maid
would give, and altered his own in order not to contradict it. When
he afterwards published his _True Narrative and Discovery of several
Remarkable Passages relating to the Horrid Popish Plot_, he simply
stated in accordance with the evidence of Curtis that it was Hill who
spoke with Godfrey on that morning.[233] In some other points Prance’s
evidence was supported by independent witnesses. He had spoken of
meetings held by Gerald, Kelly, the prisoners, and himself at a tavern
with the sign of the Plow, where he was enticed to be a party to the
murder. The fact that they were frequenters of the Plow was proved by
the landlord of the inn and his servant.[234] About a fortnight after
the murder Prance had entertained a small party at the Queen’s Head
Inn at Bow. Gerald was there, and a priest named Leweson, and one
Mr. Vernatt, who was described as being in service to Lord Bellasis.
They were joined by a friend of Vernatt, named Dethick, and dined on
flounders and a barrel of oysters. According to Prance’s statement
Vernatt should have been present at the murder, but as he had been
prevented, Gerald furnished the company with an account of the manner
in which it had been accomplished. While the talk ran thus, Prance
heard a noise outside the door. Opening it suddenly, he caught the
drawer eavesdropping and sent him off with threats of a kicking.[235]
This was confirmed by the evidence of the drawer.
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