University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 1988 Contemporary reactions to the Popish Plot and the exclusion crisis Elizabeth Breeden Townes Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Townes, Elizabeth Breeden, "Contemporary reactions to the Popish Plot and the exclusion crisis" (1988). Master's Theses. 1301. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses/1301 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONI'EMPORARY RFACTIONS '10 'lHE POPISH PI.Or AND 'lHE EXCLtEION CRISIS Elizabeth Breeden Tomes Master of the Arts in History University of Richmond AU:JUSt 1988 'lbesis Director: Dr. John R. Rilling It is often said that history is nade up of the lies of a man's own times. This thesis looks at the highly controversial years, 1678-81, in England the years of the Pcpish Plot and Exclusion Crisis, through the eyes of men pr, nent on ooth sides of the issues. Mu:::h of the analysis of contemporary C . :m draws fran the works of Gilbert Burnet, John Evelyn, Roger North, Roger L'F.strange, William Temple, and George Savile, Marquis of Halifax. These men were all close ·to the Court or had connections close to the Court, yet they did not see every twist and turn of the Plot and Crisis. But an examination of their writings, especially in contrast to Whig and Tory propaganda, shows that they recorded those issues which they perceived as important and their reactions to those events. LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23173 CONTEMPORARY RFACI'IONS 'IO 'lHE IDPISH PLor AND 'IHE EXCLT.BION cro:srs By ELIZABE'IH IREEDEN 'lrnNFS B.A., Virginia CCiliOOnwealth University, 1982 A Thesis Sul::mitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Richmond in Candidacy for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History August, 1988 Richmond, Virginia LIBRARY OND OF RICHM UNIVERSITY 3173 VlRGlNlA 2 The author is greatly indebted to the thesis director, Dr. John R. Rilling, for his suggestions and guidance, and to ors. Frances A. Urrlerhill and John L. Gordon for their cx::mrents. The author would also like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Glenn Breeden,and · Mrs. Sharon Lee for their proof reading of the final draft. ii Dates and Spelling The New Style is used in reference to the year for dates between January 1-March 24. The Old Style, 10 days behind the Continent, is used in reference to the nonth and day. In qmtations, the spelling has been kept as transcribed fran the source cited. Sources A short biographical sketch of the following men whose writings were major sources for this paper appears in AR:>endix D: Gilbert Burnet, John Evelyn, Roger L' Estrange, Roger North, George Savile (Marquis of Halifax), and Sir William Temple. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..... ii DATES AND SPELLING, SOURCES iii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION • • • • • 1 II. THE PLOT IS REVEALED 27 III. THE POPULARIZING OF THE PLOT 44 IV. THE 'SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GREEN RIBBON CLUB AND THE FALL OF DANBY ..... 67 V. THE ACQUITTAL OF WAKEMAN AND THE RETURN OF JAMES .•...... .86 VI. THE MEAL TUB PLOT AND OXFORD PARLIAMENT 106 VII. THE FALL OF SHAFTESBURY AND THE FATE OF THE INFORMERS 132 VIII. CONCLUSION 145 APPENDICES APPENDICES A-D 164 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 175 CllAPTER I IN'IROOo:TION But is it impossible to be impartial, that is, honest? Cannot a Man avoid telling the Lyes of his CMl time? -Roger North, Examen Cp. xiii) T� answer to this g\Estion by a seventeenth century--Tory is central to an understanding of the events that constituted the Pc::pish Plot and ExclU3ion Crisis. Titus oates, William Bedlow, Miles Prance and Stephen Dugdale have been accused by nany historians of being the :rcost ootorious liars of their time. Yet many of their conterrporaries gleaned mu::h of their knowledge of the Plot fran the "Histories" each of these rren wrote. Panphlet warfare also contributed to the arundance of infonnation about the Plot. While valuable to the historian, such sources cannot be respected for their veracity. For a rrore accurate contemporary version of the hysteria prevalent in the years 1678-81, the historian may examine the diaries, nenoirs and journals of the time. Conterrporary observers did not 1 2 see every twist and turn of the Plot, rut they did record as lx>nestly as they oould those issues which they perceived as·· important and their reactions to those events. Contenporaries recording seventeenth century events felt themselves in the midst of a great change, and indeed the years 1678-81 bred many far-reaching repercussions. In disoounting the versions of the Plot by the iren who "discovered" it, it cbes not autanatically follow that the diarists wrote canpletely unbiased and factual acoounts. Most of the writers irentioned in this i;:aper were praninent nen and waren whose information was gathered fran a cx:mbination of nmnr, newsletters, and illegal and official publications. A difference exists between diaries and journals, whose entries �e made everyday and published later unaltered, as cpposed to neooirs and histories a:rnposed years or decades later, after hindsight and reflection had oolored the events in a new light. '!he historian must also take into account the tendency in the seventeenth century and even today to accept any acoount in a published form as basically true. Whigs and 'lbries capitalized on this in their pamphlet war, and oontenporary writers could hardly escape being influenced. In examining the events of 1678-81 and the crucial years leading up to them, one encounters the same confusion and frustration oontemporaries felt. Londoners were b::mbarded with conflicting information fran which they tried to separate the truth fran the fiction. An examination of oontenporary reactions to the Plot and the Excltsion Crisis can answer Roger North's question. 3 The scene for an anti-catholic reaction in 1678 oould oot have been better set. 'lhroughout the 1670' s Charles II labored to overcane his subjects• belief that he was d::minated by Catholics. In 1669 his brother and heir, James, Duke of York, was oonverted by a Jesuit. Charles Ttas duly infonned and innmiately removed Mary and Anne fran their father's supervision. Charles also insisted that James oontinue to attend Anglican services. But the historic oonversion of James was such a tightly kept secret that the pope did oot even knCM it for certain until 1676. If :rrany came to suspect the sincerity of James' presence at Anglican services, they were a:mpletely unaware of the greatest threat of all to their c,;pvernment-protected religion. In May 1670, encouraged by his catholic sister Henriett-Anne (na.rried to Louis XIV' s brother), Charles signed a secret Treaty of Dover. 'lhe Treaty had two fonnsi the public Treaty which was a military· and political defensive agreanent, and the secret Treaty. '1he secret Treaty described Charles as "being oonvinced of the truth of the catholic religion and resolved to declare it and reconcile himself with the Church of Rane as soon as the welfare of his kingdan will permit.11 1 This cbes not necessarily mean that Charles intended the whole country to convert, although he did oot • discourage Louis fran thinking that "WOuld be the outcare. Louis sweetened the possibility by pranising rroney and even troops to subdue the Protestants in England. But Charles played the gane well and managed to get the IrOney without ever publicly declaring himself a catholic. HCM ironic, when hatred of catholics was the national i;:astime, that the king himself Ttas 1 Antonia Fraser, Royal Charles (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1979), p. 275. 4 secretly the epitane of his subjects' worst nightmares. 'lhe ultimate irony is that the secret Treaty was not publicly exposed until the early nineteenth century, even though contanporary politicians suspected its existence. Seventeenth century Englishmen never knew that their own king was subsidized by France with the understanding that he would declare himself a Catholic. At this point it is relevant to try to ascertain whether Charles was indeed a Catholic. His sister, rrother, two mistresses ( the Duchesses of Portsroouth and Mazarin), the Qu:en, his brother and the latter's wife were all Catholics already, and two top govermnent officials were to convert. But whether the king was at this time a convert will remain nere conjecture. The rrost telling evidence of his Catholicism is that he' died in 1685 after receiving the last rites of the Catholic Church-wt purely by chance. The suggestion that a priest should attend the deathbed came not fran the king, his wife, or James, rut fran the king's French Catholic mistress I.Duise, Dochess of Portsnouth. But the overriding cynicism for which he was noted and \tt'hich recame rrore pronounced as he grew older is not conducive to strong and heartfelt religious conviction. He was possibly as much a Catholic in his later years as he was a,Protestant in his early ones-that is, when it politically and intellectually suited him. Charles also felt he a,,ed a debt to the many Catholics that had supported his father and then him during the Civil War and Interregun. On his am initiative Charles published in 1673 a Declaration of Indulgence to ease the restrictions oo Catholics and Non--ccnfonnists. He also entered the Third Dutch War oo the side of Louis XIV.