DATES 'S PLOT
175
OATES'S PLOT
carried on by Sir Ellis Layton, Mr. Coleman and
others. Under ordinary circumstances so flimsy a
fabric would have been brought to the ground by the
first breath of criticism. But it was taken up by the
Whig Party and made into what Echard calls "a po-
Htioal contrivance". Shaftesbury, their leader, u.sed
it for all its worth. It was quite commonly called
"the Shaftesbury Plot". Whether, as some beheve,
he had a hand in constructing the plot or not, verj'
much of the blame of its consequences must rest upon
the use he made of it. Chiefly by the influence and
machinations of Shaftesbury and his party. Parlia-
ment was incited to declare that "there hath been and
still is a damnable and hellish Plot, contrived and
carry'd on by popish recusants, for the assassinating
and murdering the King and for subverting the
government and rooting out and destroying the Prot-
estant Religion." Many who, with Elliot, thought
Oates's stories of the ' ^0,000 Black-hills, the Army
of Spanish Pilgrims and Mililary commissions from
General D'Oliva (S.J.) so monstrously ridiculous that
they offer an intolerable affront to the understanding
of any man who has but a very indifferent account
of the affairs of Europe", nevertheless thought also
that, "because His majesty and council have declar'd
there is a Fopis/i-Plot, therefore they have reason
to believe one."
Gates had now become the most popular man in the country and acclaimed himself as "the Saviour of the Nation". He assumed the title of "Doctor", pro- fessing to have received the degree at Salamanca, a city it is certain he never visited; put on episcopal at- tire; was lodged at Whitehall; went about with a body- guard; was received by the primate; sat at table with peers; and, though snubbed by the King, was solemnly thanked by Parliament, which granted him a salary of £12 a week for diet and maintenance, occasional gifts of £50 or so, and drafts on the Treasury to meet his bills. Yet, Dates would have forsworn himself to little pur- pose but for the mysterious death of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, the magistrate before whom Oates's depositions had been sworn. The Whig Party put the blame of this crime — if murder it was — upon the Catholics. Godfrey had been a friend to Catholics rather than an enemy, and had made use of the infor- mation received from Gates to do them a service: no good could come to them, and no harm to their ene- mies, by robbing the magistrate of the copy of Oates's deposition which he retained. Moreover, both his pockets and his house were undisturbed by the sup- posed assassins. Nevertheless the unanimous verdict was murder, the murder of a good Protestant and a magistrate who had to do with the plot. "The capi- tal and the whole nation", says Macaulay, "went mad with hatred and fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night. Preparations were made for barricading the great thoroughfares. Patrols marched up and down the streets. Cannon were planted round W^hitehall. No citizen thought himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins." For awhile, every word that Gates said was believed. The courts of law, before which the arrested Catholics were brought, were blind and deaf to his shufflings and contradictions and lies. Other disreputable witnesses were picked up in the gutter or prisons and encouraged to come forward, and were paid handsomely for bringing additional perjuries to corroborate those of their chief. The lord chief justice on the Bench would listen to nothing which discredited the king's witnesses; and although, in trials where the prisoners were denied counsel, he himself should, by ancient custom, have looked to
their interests, he exerted the full authority of the
Court to bring about their condemnation. Sixteen
innocent men were executed in direct cormexion with
the Plot, and eight others were brought to the scaf-
fold as priests in the persecution of Catholics which
followed from it. The names of those executed for
the plot are: in 1678 Edward Coleman (Dec. 3); in
1679, John Grove, WilUam Ireland, S.J. (Jan. 24),
Robert Green, Lawrence Hill (Feb. 21), Henry Berry
(Feb. 28), Thomas Pickering, O.S.B. (May 14), Rich-
ard Langhorn (June 14), John Gavan, S.J., William
Harcourt, S.J., Anthony Turner, S.J., Thomas White-
bread, S.J., John Fenwick, S.J. (June 20); in 1680,
Thomas Thwing (Oct. 23), William Howard, Viscount
Stafford (Dec. 29); in 16S1, Oliver Plunket, Arch-
bishop of Armagh (July 1). Those executed as
priests were: in 1679, William Plessington (July 19),
Philip Evans, John Lloyd (July 22), Nicholas Post-
gate (Aug. 7), Charles Mahony (Aug. 12), John Wall
(Francis Johnson), O.S.F., John Kemble (Aug. 22),
Charles Baker (David Lewis), S.J. (Aug. 27).
It remains to be said about "the Popish Plot" that, since the day when its inventor was discredited, no historian of any consequence has professed to believe in it. A few vaguely assert that there must have been a plot of some sort. But no particle of evidence has ever been discovered to corroborate Gates's pretended reve- lations. A contemporary Protestant historian says: "After the coolest and strictest examinations, and after a full length of time, the government could find very little foundation to support so vast a fabrick, be- sides down-right swearing and assurance: not a gun, sword or dagger; not a flask of powder or a dark Ian- thorn, to effect this villany; and excepting Coleman's writings, not one scrap of an original letter or commis- sion, among the great numbers alleged, to uphold the reputation of the discoveries." Since then the public and private archives of Europe have been liberally thrown open to students, and the most of them dili- gently examined; yet, as Mr. Marks, also a Protestant, wrote a few years ago: "Through all the troublous times when belief in the Popish Plot raged, one searches in vain for one act of violence on the part of Catholics. After the lapse of two hundred years, no single document has come to light establishing in any one particular any single article of the eighty-one."
In January, 1679, Gates, whose reputation was al- ready declining, together with his partner, Bedloe, laid an indictment before the Privy Council in thir- teen articles, against Chief Justice Scroggs, because of the part he took in the acquittal of \\'akeman, Mar- shall, Rumley, and Corker; and in the same year, the Rev. Adam Elliot was fined £200 for saying that "Gates was a perjur'd Rogue, and the Jesuits who suf- fered, justly died Martyrs." But in August, 1681, Israel Backhouse, master of Wolverhampton Gram- mar School, when charged with a similar libel was ac- quitted. In the same year. Gates was thrust out of Whitehall, and next year (Jan., 1682) Elliot prose- cuted him successfully for perjury. In April, 1682, his pension was reduced to £2 a week. In June of that year he was afraid to come forward as a witness against Kearney, one of the four supposed Irish ruflians de- nounced by him in his depositions. Then, while King Charles was still hving, he vainly presented petitions to the king and to Sir Leoline Jenkins against the plain speaking of Sir Roger L'Estrange, and two months later (10 May), he was himself committed to prison for calling the Duke of York a traitor. On 18 June, he was fined by Judge Jeffreys £100,000 for scandalum magnalum. Then, in May, 16S0, he was tried for per- jury, and condemned to be whipped, degraded, and pilloried, and imprisoned for life. Jeffreys said of him : "He has deserved more punishment than the laws of the land can inflict."
When William of Orange came to the throne. Gates left prison and entered an unsuccessful appeal in the
