CHAPTER the balance of Europe, but for that of subduing the I. Disposition of the Nation. Popish Plot. 1678. parliament and people who should give them ; and the great antipathy of the bulk of the nation to Popery caused many to be both more clear-sighted in discovering, and more resolute in resisting, the designs of the court, than they would probably have shown themselves, if civil liberty alone had been concerned. When the minds of men were in the disposition which such a state of things was naturally calculated to produce, it is not to be wondered at, that a ready, and perhaps a too facile, belief should have been accorded to the rumour of a Popish plot. But with the largest possible allowance for the just apprehensions which were entertained, and the consequent irritation of the country, it is wholly inconceivable how such a plot as that brought forward by Tongue and Oates could obtain any general belief. Nor can any stretch of candour make us admit it to be probable, that all who pretended a belief of it did seriously entertain it. On the other hand, it seems an absurdity, equal almost in degree to the belief of the plot itself, to suppose that it was a story fabricated by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the other leaders of the Whig party; and it would be highly unjust, as well as uncharitable, not to admit, that the generality of those who were engaged in the prosecution of it were probably sincere in their belief of it, since it is unquestionable that at the time very many persons, whose political prejudices were of a quite different complexion, CHAPTER The belief of the were under the same delusion. The unanimous votes of the two Houses of Parliament, and the names, as well plot universal. as the number, of those who pronounced Lord Stafford to be guilty, seem to put this beyond a doubt. Dryden, writing soon after the time, says, in his Absalom and Achitophel, that the plot was "Bad in itself, but represented worse:" that "Some truth there was, but dash'd and brew'd with lies:" and that "Succeeding times did equal folly call and Dryden will not, by those who are conversant in the history and works of that immortal writer, be suspected either of party prejudice in favour of Shaftesbury and the Whigs, or of any view to prejudice the country against the Duke of York's succession to the crown. The King repeatedly declared his belief of it. These declarations, if sincere, would have some weight; but if insincere, as may be reasonably suspected, they afford a still stronger testimony to prove that such belief was not exclusively a party opinion, since it cannot be supposed, that even the crooked politicks of Charles could have led him to countenance fictions of his ene I. Its absurdity. CHAPTER mies, which were not adopted by his own party. Wherefore, if this question were to be decided upon the ground of authority, the reality of the plot would be admitted; and it must be confessed, that, with regard to facts remote, in respect either of time or place, wise men generally diffide in their own judgment, and defer to that of those who have had a nearer view of them. But there are cases where reason speaks so plainly as to make all argument drawn from authority of no avail, and this is surely one of them. Not to mention correspondence by post on the subject of regicide, detailed commissions from the Pope, silver bullets, &c. &c. and other circumstances equally ridiculous, we need only advert to the part attributed to the Spanish government in this conspiracy, and to the alledged intention of murdering the King, to satisfy ourselves that it was a forgery. Disingenuous justification of it. Rapin, who argues the whole of this affair with a degree of weakness as well as disingenuity very unusual to him, seems at last to offer us a kind of compromise, and to be satisfied if we will admit that there was a design or project to introduce Popery and arbitrary power, at the head of which were the King and his brother. Of this I am as much convinced as he can be; but how: does this justify the prosecution and execution of those who suffered, since few, if any of them, were in a situation to be trusted by the royal conspirators with their I. designs? When he says, therefore, that, that is precisely CHAPTER what was understood by the conspiracy, he by no means justifies those who were the principal prosecutors of the plot. The design to murder the King, he calls the appendage of the plot: a strange expression this, to de scribe the projected murder of a king! though not more strange than the notion itself when applied to a plot, the object of which was to render that very king absolute, and to introduce the religion which he most favoured. But it is to be observed, that though in considering the Bill of Exclusion, the Militia Bill, and other legislative proceedings, the plot, as he defines it, that is to say, the design of introducing Popery and arbitrary, power, was the important point to be looked to; yet in courts of justice, and for juries and judges, that which he calls the appendage was, generally speaking, the sole consideration. on it disgraceful Although therefore, upon a review of this truly shock- The proceedings ing transaction, we may be fairly justified in adopting to the nation. the milder alternative, and in imputing to the greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extrarodinary degree of blind credulity, than the deliberate wickedness of planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murder; yet the proceedings on the Popish plot must always be considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which King, Parliament, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, have all their respective, F I. CHAPTER though certainly not equal, shares. Witnesses, of such a character as not to deserve credit in the most trifling cause, upon the most immaterial facts, gave evidence so incredible, or, to speak more properly, so impossible to be true, that it ought not to have been believed if it had come from the mouth of Cato; and upon such evidence, from such witnesses, were innocent men condemned to death and executed. Prosecutors, whether attornies and solicitors-general, or managers of impeachment, acted with the fury which in such circumstances might be expected; juries partook naturally enough of the national ferment; and judges, whose duty it was to guard them against such impressions, were scandalously active in confirming them in their prejudices, and inflaming their passions. The King, who is supposed to have disbelieved the whole of the plot, never once exercised his glorious prerogative of mercy. It is said he dared not. His throne, perhaps his life, was at stake; and history, does not furnish us with the example of any monarch with whom the lives of innocent, or even meritorious, subjects ever appeared to be of much weight, when put in balance against such considerations. Habeas Corpus Act. 1675. The measures of the prevailing party in the House of Commons, in these times, appear, (with the exception of their dreadful proceedings in the business of the pretended plot, and of their violence towards those who |