Popish Plot
The Popish Plot was a fictitious conspiracy invented by Titus Oates that between 1678 and 1681 gripped the kingdoms of England and Scotland in anti-Catholic hysteria.[1] Oates alleged that there was an extensive Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II, accusations that led to the executions of at least 22 men and precipitated the Exclusion Bill Crisis. During this tumultuous period, Oates weaved an intricate web of accusations, fueling public fears and paranoia. However, as time went on, the lack of substantial evidence and inconsistencies in Oates's testimony began to unravel the plot. Eventually, Oates himself was arrested and convicted for perjury, exposing the fabricated nature of the conspiracy.
Background
Development of English anti-Catholicism
The fictitious Popish Plot must be understood against the background of the
The
Mary was succeeded by her Protestant half-sister,
Anti-Catholic sentiment reached new heights in 1605 after the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. Catholic plotters attempted to topple the Protestant regime of King James I by blowing up both King and parliament during the state opening of parliament. However, Guy Fawkes, who was in charge of the explosives, was discovered the night before and the attempt thwarted. The magnitude of the plot – had it succeeded most leading government figures would have been killed in one stroke – convinced many Englishmen that Catholics were devious conspirators who would stop at nothing to have their way, thus making allegations about Catholic plots more believable.
Anti-Catholicism in the 17th century
Anti-Catholic sentiment was a constant factor in how England perceived the events of the following decades: the
Anti-Catholic hysteria flared up lightly during the reign of Charles II, which saw various disasters such as the Great Plague of London (1665) and the Great Fire of London (1666). After the latter, rumours and propaganda floated around about arson, with Catholics and especially Jesuits as the first to be blamed. Kenyon remarks, "At Coventry, the townspeople were possessed by the idea that the papists were about to rise and cut their throats ... A nationwide panic seemed likely, and as homeless refugees poured out from London into the countryside, they took with them stories of a kind which were to be familiar enough in 1678 and 1679."[2]
Anti-Catholicism was fueled by doubts about the religious allegiance of the King, who had married a Portuguese Catholic princess,
In 1682, Francis Barlow made a comic strip about the Popish Plot and Oates titled A True Narrative of the Horrid Hellish Popish Plot.
Events
Beginnings
The fictitious Popish Plot unfolded in a very peculiar fashion. Oates and
Oates slipped a copy of the manuscript into the
Investigations
As Kenyon points out, the government took seriously even the remotest hint of a threat to the King's life or well-being – in the previous spring a Newcastle housewife had been investigated by the Secretary of State simply for saying that "the King gets the curse of many good and faithful wives such as myself for his bad example".
On 6 September Oates was summoned before the magistrate
Oates and Tonge were brought before the
Others Oates accused included Dr. William Fogarty,
. The list grew to 81 accusations. Oates was given a squad of soldiers and he began to round up Jesuits.Godfrey's murder
The allegations gained little credence until the murder of
Oates seized on Godfrey's murder as proof that the plot was true. The murder of Godfrey and the discovery of Edward Coleman's letters[17] provided a solid basis of facts for the lies of Oates and the other informers who followed him. Oates was called to testify before the House of Lords and the House of Commons on 23 October 1678. He testified that he had seen a number of contracts signed by the Superior General of the Jesuits. The contracts appointed officers that would command an army of Catholic supporters to kill Charles II and establish a Catholic monarch.[18] To this day, no one is certain who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey, and most historians regard the mystery as insoluble. Oates' associate William Bedloe denounced the silversmith Miles Prance, who in turn named three working men, Berry, Green and Hill, who were tried, convicted and executed in February 1679; but it rapidly became clear that they were completely innocent, and that Prance, who had been subjected to torture, named them simply to gain his freedom (Kenyon suggests that he may have chosen men against whom he had a personal grudge, or he may simply have chosen them because they were the first Catholic acquaintances of his who came to mind).
The Plot before Parliament
King Charles, aware of the unrest, returned to London and summoned
Trial of the Five Catholic Lords
Oates became more daring and accused five Catholic lords (
On 1 November 1678, the House of Commons resolved to proceed by
The impeachment trial was fixed for 13 May, but a quarrel between the two houses as to points of procedure, and the legality of admitting the bishops as judges in a capital trial, followed by a dissolution, delayed its commencement until 30 November 1680. On that day it was decided to proceed first against Lord Stafford, who was condemned to death on 7 December and beheaded on 29 December.[20] His trial, compared to the other Plot trials, was reasonably fair, but as in all cases of alleged treason at that date the absence of defence counsel was a fatal handicap (this was finally remedied in 1695), and while Oates' credit had been seriously damaged, the evidence of the principal prosecution witnesses, Turberville and Dugdale, struck even fair-minded observers like John Evelyn as being credible enough. Stafford, denied the services of counsel, failed to exploit several inconsistencies in Tuberville's testimony, which a good lawyer might have turned to his client's advantage.
On 30 December, the evidence against Arundell and his three fellow prisoners was ordered to be in readiness, but their public proceedings stopped. In fact, the death of William Bedloe left the prosecution in serious difficulties, since one protection for a person accused of treason, that there must be two eyewitnesses to an overt act of treason, was observed scrupulously, and only Oates claimed to have any hard evidence against the remaining Lords. Lord Petre died in the Tower in 1683. His companions remained there until 12 February 1684 when an appeal to the Court of King's Bench to release them on bail was successful. On 21 May 1685 Arundell, Powis, and Belasyse came to the House of Lords to present petitions for the annulling of the charges and on the following day the petitions were granted. On 1 June 1685, their liberty was formally assured on the ground that the witnesses against them had perjured themselves, and on 4 June the bill of attainder against Stafford was reversed.[21]
Height of the hysteria
On 24 November 1678, Oates claimed the Queen was working with the King's physician to poison him and enlisted the aid of "Captain" William Bedloe, a notorious member of the London underworld. The King personally interrogated Oates, caught him out in a number of inaccuracies and lies, and ordered his arrest. However, a few days later, with the threat of constitutional crisis, Parliament forced the release of Oates.
Hysteria continued:
Anyone even suspected of being Catholic was driven out of London and forbidden to be within ten miles (16 km) of the city.
Waning of the hysteria
However, public opinion began to turn against Oates. As Kenyon points out, the steady protestations of innocence by all of those who were executed eventually took hold in the public mind. Outside London, the priests who died were almost all venerable and popular members of the community, and there was widespread public horror at their executions. Even Lord Shaftesbury came to regret the executions and is said[.
Having had at least twenty-two innocent men executed (the last being
When James II acceded to the throne in 1685 he had Oates tried on two charges of perjury. The Bench which tried him was presided over by the formidable
Of the other informers, James II was content merely to fine Miles Prance for his perjury, on the grounds that he was a Catholic and had been coerced by threats of torture into informing. Thomas Dangerfield was subjected to the same savage penalties as Oates; on returning from his first session in the pillory, Dangerfield died of an eye injury after a scuffle with the barrister Robert Francis, who was hanged for his murder. Bedloe, Turbervile and Dugdale had all died of natural causes while the Plot was still officially regarded as true.
Long-term effects
The
Other Catholic
The hysteria had serious consequences for ordinary British Catholics as well as priests. On 30 October 1678, a proclamation was made that required all Catholics who were not tradesmen or property owners to leave London and Westminster. They were not to enter a twelve-mile (c.19 km) radius of the city without special permission. Throughout this period Catholics were subject to fines, harassment and imprisonment.[27] It was not until the early 19th century that most of the anti-Catholic legislation was removed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829; anti-Catholic sentiment remained even longer among politicians and the general populace, although the Gordon Riots of 1780 made it clear to sensible observers that Catholics were far more likely to be the victims of violence than its perpetrators.
Gallery of playing cards
-
Titus Oates uncovers the supposed plot
-
Magistrate Edmund Berry Godfrey with Oates
-
Benedictine monk
-
The execution of the fiveJesuits
See also
- A Ballad upon the Popish Plot
- Anti-Catholicism
- "A True Narrative of the Horrid Hellish Popish Plot"
- Crypto-papism
References
Citations
- ^ Heald 1992, p. 605.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 10.
- ^ Fraser, pp. 305–308; Hutton, pp. 284–85.[full citation needed]
- ^ Heald 1992, p. 603.
- ^ Pollock 2005, p. 13.
- ^ Marshall 2008.
- ^ Brown 1999.
- ^ Knights 2008.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 61.
- ^ Pollock 2005, p. 73–74.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, pp. 68–69.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 80.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 84.
- ^ a b c Williams 1958, pp. 104–118.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 79.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 78.
- ^ Barclay 2004.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, pp. 78–81.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, pp. 84–85.
- ^ Holmes 2004.
- ^ Lee 1885.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 158.
- ^ Bergin, John (October 2009). "Fitzgerald, Sir John". Dictionary of Irish Biography. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 205.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 206.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 209–11.
- ^ Kenyon 1985, p. 219.
Sources
- Barclay, Andrew (23 September 2004). "Colman [Coleman], Edward". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5871. (Subscription or UK public library membershiprequired.)
- Brown, Molly (1999). Invitation to a funeral. New York: St Martin's Press. OCLC 41942994.
- Heald, H. (1992). Chronicle of Britain: Incorporating a Chronicle of Ireland. Jacques Legrand. ISBN 978-1-872031-35-4.
- ISBN 9780820112886.
- Holmes, Peter (23 September 2004). "Howard, William, Viscount Stafford (1612–1680)". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/13948. (Subscription or UK public library membershiprequired.)
- ISBN 9781842121689
- Knights, Mark (4 October 2008). "Osborne, Thomas, first duke of Leeds (1632–1712)". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/20884. (Subscription or UK public library membershiprequired.)
- Lee, Sydney (1885). Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 2. London: Smith, Elder & Co. . In
- Marshall, Alan (3 January 2008). "Tonge, Israel (1621–1680)". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/27535. (Subscription or UK public library membershiprequired.)
- Miller, John (1978). James II; A study in kingship. Menthuen. ISBN 978-0413652904.
- .
- Stater, Victor (2022). Hoax: The Popish Plot that Never Was. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300123807.
- Williams, Sheila (1958). "The Pope-Burning Processions of 1679, 1680 and 1681". Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. 21 (1/2): 104–18. S2CID 195047837.