Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:24:32.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. The Acquittal of Sir George Wakeman: 18 July 1679

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. P. Kenyon
J. P. Kenyon
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On Friday, 18 July 1679, Sir George Wakeman, Bt., a Roman Catholic of an old Gloucestershire family, and formerly physician to the Queen, was arraigned before a special commission of oyer and terminer at the Sessions House, Old Bailey, charged with high treason, in that he had conspired to murder the King. He was acquitted, as were the three Benedictine monks, William Marshal, William Rumley and James Corker, arraigned with him.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1971 , pp. 693 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I have excluded on the one hand William Staley, who was convicted of high treason on 20 November 1678, but not on Oates's evidence; and Samuel Atkins, who was tried as an accomplice to Godfrey's murder on n February 1679, and acquitted.

2 Thomas Thwing, condemned at York Assizes, 29 July 1680; and Viscount Stafford, condemned by the House of Lords, 7 December 1680.

3 Cobbctt, and Howell, (eds.), State Trials (1809–128), viii, 163–74Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as ST); (Privy Council Registers), P.C. 2/68, 359 (21 Jan. 1680).

4 Lords Journals, xiii, 736–9 (14 01 1681).Google Scholar (Hereinafter cited as LJ.)

5 Examen (1740), pp. 206, 568.Google Scholar

6 Ralph, James, History of England (2 vols., 1744), i, 471–2;Google ScholarSirStephen, James, History of the Criminal Law (3 vols., 1883), i, 395–6, 401–2;Google ScholarSirPollock, John, The Popish Plot (1903), pp. 354–5.Google Scholar

7 E.g. Havighurst, A. F., ‘The Judiciary in Politics in the reign of Charles II’, Law Quarterly Review, LXVI (1950), 233.Google Scholar

8 State Tracts (1692), p. 57.Google Scholar

9 Ibid. p. 58.

10 ST, vii, 686;Google ScholarLJ, xiii, 624.Google Scholar

11 ST, VII, 703.Google Scholar

12 Ibid. p. 706.

13 H.M.C. Ormonde N.S., iv, 481.Google Scholar

14 These trials will be analysed in my forthcoming study, The Popish Plot.

15 ST, vi, 1501–9; vii, 213.Google Scholar

16 Public Record Office, S.P. 29/336, fo. 719. Cf. Calendars State Papers Domestic 1679–80, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

17 DrLibrary, Williams, Roger Morrice's Entering Book, i, 106.Google Scholar

18 ST, vii, 486; Morrice Entering Book, i, 196.Google Scholar

19 P.C. 3/68, fo. 123; Morrice Entering Book, 1, 130; Grey, A., Debates of the House of Commons, VII, 348–9;Google ScholarH.M.C. Ormonde N.S., iv, 136.Google Scholar

20 North, Roger, Lives of the Norths (3 vols., 1890), i, 314–15.Google Scholar

21 See Articles 33, 36–9, 46 of his Narrative (ST, vi, 1446–7, 1449–50, 1452).Google Scholar

22 LJ, XIII, 388–91.Google Scholar

23 Cf. ST, vi, 1429 ff.Google Scholar and LJ, XIII, 313–30.Google Scholar

24 Haley, K. H. D., The First Earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968), pp. 542–3.Google Scholar

25 ST, vi, 1433.Google Scholar

26 ST, VII, 655.Google Scholar Lloyd was later suspended, but not for giving evidence. This the Council recognized as his Christian duty; unfortunately he had then repaired to the Rainbow coffee house, and had been heard to say ‘that he did not believe any kind of Plot against the King's person’. This was too much, even in October 1679. (H.M.C. Ormonde N.S., iv 546.)Google Scholar

27 P.C. 3/68, fos. 98, 173.

28 Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS, A.136, fos. 237–40.

29 Ibid. fos. 361–5.

30 H.M.C. Ormonde N.S., iv, 527.Google Scholar

31 ST, VII, 484.Google Scholar

32 Ibid. 439–41.

33 Ibid. 442.

34 Ibid. 484–5.

35 Ibid. 514, viii, 172, 173.

36 Ibid. vii, 3. 81, 167, 319, 595.

37 Cf. ibid. 633 and 642.

38 Ibid. 646.

39 Ibid. 651.

40 Ibid. 652–3.

41 Ibid. 653.

42 Ibid. 655.

43 In fact, Scroggs at the trial of the Five Jesuits, and Langhorn's, had bent over backwards to be fair to the defence witnesses brought over from St Omers (ibid. 360 ff.).

44 Ibid. 671–2.

45 Ibid. 679–80.

46 Ibid. 683.

47 Ibid. 684.

48 Ibid. p. 686.

49 Loc. cit.

50 LJ, XIII, 624.Google Scholar

51 Warner, John, History of the Presbyterian Plot (Catholic Record Society, 2 vols., 1953–1954), i, 306–7.Google Scholar

52 I have, obviously, accepted Cobbett and Howell's edition of the State Trials as an accurate record for this period, despite the strictures passed on them by Muddiman, J. G. (The State Trials: the Need for a New Edition (Edinburgh, 1930) ).Google Scholar I hope to deal with Muddiman's criticisms in detail at a later date; for the moment it is enough to note that Scroggs himself accepted the published record of Wakeman's trial as correct, though he made it clear that he had no hand in its preparation (ST, VII, 703).Google Scholar

53 Hatton Correspondence, ed. Thompson, E. M. (Camden Society, 2 vols., 1878), i, 196.Google Scholar

54 ST, VII, 312.Google Scholar

55 Foley, H., Records of the English Province (Collecteana), vi, 591.Google Scholar

56 Hatton Correspondence, i, 209. (This was Scroggs' own account; he was a friend of Charles Hatton.)Google Scholar