Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:06:13.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Correspondence of Edward Coleman, 1674–781

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

John Miller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The popular acceptance (among Protestants) of Titus Oates's allegations of a Popish Plot owed much to the apparent confirmation provided first by the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey and second by the discovery of Edward Coleman's letters. Godfrey's murder has challenged the ingenuity of both historians and the writers of detective fiction, but Coleman's letters have received far less attention. Yet their historical importance was considerable. Apart from apparently confirming Oates's story, they seemed to implicate James, Duke of York, in projects designed to bring in Catholicism and absolutism with the aid of Louis XIV and the Pope. They thus gave support and impetus to the movement to exclude James from the throne. One reason why most historians have made little sense of the letters is that they are often obscure and allusive and were not printed in a logical order. A second reason is that most historians have considered the letters only in relation to the Plot. This is true of Professor Kenyon, for example, who has produced much the best analysis so far. But the letters almost all date from 1674–76 and can be understood fully only in the context of the events of those years. In this article I shall use the letters and other evidence to try to give an account of Coleman's activities from the start of his correspondence in 1674 until his execution in 1678. In the process, I shall try to assess James's involvement in Coleman's intrigues.

Type
Articles
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , May 1978 , pp. 261 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1978

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.)

Footnotes

1

I should like to thank John Kenyon for commenting on a draft of this article and the Wolfson Foundation for a travel grant for research in Paris.

References

Notes

2 Kenyon, pp. 264–70.

3 Kenyon, pp. 34–38.

4 Treby, 1 and 2; Fitzherbert, pp. 49–113.

5 For example, most of the letters from ‘Rice’: H.M.C. House of Lords, 1678–88, p. 13.

6 For example, Treby, 1, pp. 61–63; Fitzherbert, pp. 54–56.

7 Fitzherbert, pp. 56, 60–62, 62–64.

8 The letter is printed twice in Treby, 1, pp. 63–64, 65–66, with the second copy dated 15 December 1674. Internal evidence, notably the reference to Coleman's trip to Flanders (April-May 1674), suggests an earlier date. This was probably the letter dated 2 June 1674, N.S., by the Lords’ committee: H.M.C. House of Lords, 1678–88, p. 5.

9 Treby, 1, pp. 119–20. The reference to Ferrier's of the previous month shows that it was written in October. For James's refusal to endorse it, see L.J., 13, p. 307; Treby, 1, p. 112.

10 Treby, 1, p. 78; Fitzherbert, p. 99.

11 Treby, 1, p. 72.

12 Treby, 1, p. 44; Campana, 1, p. 165. Lille (Lisle) is at one point translated as ‘the island’: Treby, 2, p. 18.

13 Sir J. Reresby, Memoirs, ed. A. Browning (1936), p. 157 and passim; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, p. 482.

14 H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, pp. 482–3; Ruvigny to Louis XIV, 18 June 1674, N.S., Baschet 131; Burnet, G., History of My Own Time, 6 vols (1833), 2, pp. 16,Google Scholar 43–44; Campana, 1, p. 115. James's official secretaries were Matthew Wren and (from 1672) Sir John Werden.

15 Il a de l’esprit et il est très passionné pour le service du duc son maître, qui Vaime et l’estime. Ruvigny to Pomponne, 8 August 1675 N.S., C.P.A. 116; North, R., Examen (1742), pp. 136–7;Google Scholar T. Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury, Memoirs, ed. W. E. Buckley, 2 vols (1890), 1, p. 27.

16 Macpherson, J., Original Papers Containing the Secret History of Great Britain, 2 vols (1775), 1, p. 72;Google Scholar Ruvigny to Pomponne, 12 March 1674, N.S., Baschet 130. For a more generalaccount of James’s conduct in 1674-78, see Miller, J., James II: A Study in Kingship (1978), pp. 76–89.Google Scholar

17 C.J., 9, p. 523; L.J., 13, p. 307; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, p. 465; Vatican Archives, Nunziatura di Fiandra, 59, ff. 40–41 (Cibo to Falconieri, 9 June 1674, N.S.); Treby, 1, pp. 7–8, 21, 28; Treby 2, pp. 5–6.

18 Treby, 1, pp. 22–23; Vatican Archives, Nunziatura di Fiandra, 59, f. 392 (Falconieri to Cibo, 29 September 1674, N.S.).

19 Treby, 1, pp. 12–16, 26.

20 Treby, 2, p. 7; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, p. 465; L.J., 13, p. 307.

21 Treby, 1, pp. 63–64, 109–10; Fitzherbert, pp. 57–58. For Throckmorton’s instructions from Ferrier, see Fitzherbert, p. 99 (badly translated Treby, 1, p. 78), continued, apparently, Fitzherbert, p. 71. Presumably Throckmorton reported to James, but sent Coleman this copy, with his comments.

22 Treby, 1, pp. 1–2.

23 Treby, 1, pp. 3–4, 6, 110–12; Ruvigny to Pomponne, 14 June 1674, N.S.; Ruvigny to Louis, 18 June and 13 August 1674, N.S., all in Baschet 131.

24 Treby, 1, pp. 3, 112.

25 C.S.P.V. 1673–75, p. 298; Canaples to Pomponne, 3 December 1674, N.S., C.P.A. 113.

26 Ruvigny to Louis, 27 January 1675, N.S., Baschet 132.

27 Treby, 1, pp. 112, 119–20; L.J., 13, p. 307; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, p. 465; Cobbett, W., and Howell, T. B. (eds), State Trials, 33 vols (1809–26), 7, pp. 54–55;Google Scholar Fitzherbert, pp. 51–54, 56, 61.

28 Fitzherbert, p. 56; Treby, 1, p. 111.

29 Treby, 2, pp. 1–3; H.M.C. 10th Report, Appendix 5, p. 363; Fitzherbert, pp. 58, 59 (Treby, 1, pp. 64, 69).

30 Treby, 1, pp. 70–77; Fitzherbert, pp. 65–66, 69–70; Ruvigny to Pomponne, 8 August 1675, N.S., C.P.A. 116.

31 C.S.P.V. 1673–75, pp. 316–17, 330, 357–8

32 Treby, 1, pp. 8, 26, 11–13; Treby, 2, pp. 8–11, 16.

33 Fitzherbert, pp. 66–68, 107 (it is clear from internal evidence that the second letter is also from Throckmorton).

34 Ruvigny to Louis, 18 February and 8 April 1675, N.S., Baschet 132; Ruvigny to Pomponne, 21 February and 4 March 1675, N.S., C.P.A. 115; Fitzherbert, p. 107. Unlike the Venetian envoy, Ruvigny made no mention of James’s dealings with the Dissenters at this time, which implies that he was not well informed of James’s activities.

35 C.S.P.V. 1673–75, pp. 407, 413; Treby, 1, p. 115. Alberti, the Venetian envoy, was very well informed about James, perhaps through Coleman, He lived in James’s household early in 1676: Sarotti, 17 January 1676, N.S., C.S.P.V. (cont).

36 Campana, 1, p. 182.

37 Thibaudeau, E. W., Autograph Letters in the Collection of Alfred Morrison: Bulstrode Papers (1897), p. 301 Google Scholar; Treby, 2, p. 12; Ruvigny to Louis, 27 June 1675, N.S., Baschet 132; Marvell, A., Poems and Letters, ed. Margoliouth, H. M., 2 vols, 2nd edn (1952), 2, pp. 319–20;Google Scholar Ruvigny to Pomponne, 8 August 1675, N.S., C.P.A. 116 (Il ne doutait pas dé faire bientôt entrer dans les intérêts de ce prince la plus grande et la plus saine partie du parlement)’, Mignet, F. A. M., Négociations Rélatives à la Succession d’Espagne, 4 vols (1835–42), 4, p. 366;Google Scholar Treby, 1, p. 115; C.J., 9, p. 534. (An écu was worth three livres tournois or just under 4s. 6d.).

38 Burnet, 2, p. 95; Treby, 1, pp. 17–19, 50–55, 81–82; Bodleian, Rawl. MS. A. 135, pp. 155–60. See also Hay, M. V., The Jesuits and the Popish Plot (1934), pp. 20–29 Google Scholar and passim; Bossy, J., The English Catholic Community, 1570–1850 (1975), pp. 67–69.Google Scholar

39 Treby, 1, pp. 48–49, 109–16.

40 Treby, 1, pp. 116–9; Fitzherbert, pp. 111, 72. Coleman claimed later that the correspondence had lapsed after three or four letters: C.J., 9, p. 523.

41 Fitzherbert, pp. 79, 91–92.

42 Campana, 1, pp. 173–4; Treby, 1, pp. 32–33, 35; Treby, 2, p. 18; Fitzherbert, p. 79.

43 Treby, 1, pp. 40–41; Treby, 2, pp. 16–17; Fitzherbert, pp. 74, 89.

44 L.J., 13, p. 307.

45 Treby, 1, pp. 43–45; Treby, 2, pp. 14–16; Fitzherbert, pp. 96–97.

46 Treby, 1, pp. 86, 84.

47 Burnet, 2, p. 151; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, pp. 462–3.

48 C.J., 9, p. 534; Sarotti, 10 April 1676, N.S., C.S.P.V. (cont.); Ruvigny to Pomponne, 2 April 1676, N.S., C.P.A. 118.

49 Campana, I, pp. 182, 189; Courtin to Louis, 7 June 1677, N.S., Baschet 136; C.J., 9, p. 534.

50 Treby, 1, pp. 84, 91; Thibaudeau, Morrison Letters: Second Series, 3 vols (1893–96), 2, pp. 246–7;Google Scholar Bulstrode Papers, pp. 282ff. Coleman’s newsletters to Bulstrode began on 2 April 1675: Morrison Letters: Second Series, 2, pp. 247–8; those from 9 April 1675 are in Bulstrode Papers, in which the letter quoted is on p. 301 and evidence of Coleman’s authorship is onp. 313.

51 Thompson, E. M. (ed.), Hatton Correspondence, 2 vols (Camden Soc., 1878), 1, pp. 138–9;Google Scholar Macpherson, Original Papers, 1, p. 82.

52 North, Examen, pp. 55, 133–4; North, R., Lives of the Norths, 3 vols (1890), 1, p. 186;Google Scholar Dalrymple, Sir J., Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, 3 vols (1773), 2, Appendix, p. 199;Google Scholar C.S.P.D. 1676–77, pp. 348, 353–7, 360, 363–4, 368, 372; H.M.C. le Fleming, pp. 123, 129.

53 H.M.C. Leeds, p. 17; Ailesbury, Memoirs, 1, p. 27; Longleat, Coventry MS. 11, ff. 168, 170, 244–6 (quotation from f. 246).

54 Longleat, Coventry MS. 11, ff. 244, 277–8; Campana, 1, pp. 189, 233; Courtin to Louis, 21 January 1677, N.S., Baschet 135; Barrillon to Louis, 27 December 1677 and 17 January 1678, N.S., Baschet 137, 138; C.S.P.D. 1678, pp. 244–5.

55 Kenyon, pp. 58–61, 66–68, 266n. Oates swore to the first forty-three articles on 6 September; he mentioned Coleman in numbers 44, 64 and 74: State Trials, 6, pp. 1451, 1460, 1470–1; Clarke, J. S., Life of James II, 2 vols (1816), 1, p. 534.Google Scholar

56 North, Examen, p. 173; Barrillon to Pomponne, 10 October 1678, N.S., C.P.A. 131; Kenyon, p. 70, suggests that Oates’s reference to Coleman’s papers came as a bombshell, but Oates had already referred to Coleman’s alleged dealings with La Chaise on the 27th and the 28th: Kenyon, p. 266n; C.S.P.D. 1678, p. 427.

57 Life of James II, 1, p. 534; Kenyon, pp. 72–73; Barrillon to Louis, 13 and 20 October 1678, N.S., Baschet 141; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, pp. 457–60; C.S.P.D. 1678, pp. 466, 471.

58 Barrillon to Louis, 31 October 1678, N.S., Baschet 141; Barrillon to Pomponne, same date, C.P.A. 131.

59 H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, pp. 463–5; L.J., 13, pp. 307–8; C.J., 9, p. 523; Grey, A., Debates in the House of Commons, 1667–94, 10 vols (1763), 6, pp. 132–3.Google Scholar

60 Sarotti, 11 November 1678, N.S., C.S.P.V. (cont.); H.M.C. House of Lords, 1678–88, p. 6; L.J., 13, pp. 308–09.

61 H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, pp. 470, 478; Barrillon to Louis, 24 November 1678, N.S., Baschet 141; Grey, Debates, 6, p. 133; C.S.P.D. 1678, p. 503.

62 State Trials, 7, pp. 54–55.

63 State Trials, 7, p. 60; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S. 4, p. 482; Kenyon, pp. 115–25. Coleman had visited Scroggs the day his papers were seized: Grey, Debates, 6, pp. 126–7.

64 Burnet, 2, pp. 170–1.