*State Trials, vii. 28.
NOTE I.
CHARLES II. AND G.o.dFREY"S DEATH.
The Duke of York, speaking of Bedloe"s evidence before the Lords (November 8), says, "Upon recollection the King remembered he was at Sommerset House himself, at the very time he swore the murder was committed:... his having been there at that time himself, made it impossible that a man should be a.s.saulted in the Court, murder"d, and hurryd into the backstairs, when there was a Centry at every door, a foot Company on the Guard, and yet n.o.body see or knew anything of it.*
Now evidence was brought that, at 5 P.M. on Sat.u.r.day, October 12, the Queen decided to be "not at home." But Bedloe placed the murder as early as 2 P.M., sometimes, and between two o"clock and five o"clock the King may, as the Duke of York says, have been at Somerset House. Reresby, in his diary, for November 21, 1678, says that the King told him on that day that he was "satisfied" Bedloe had given false evidence as to G.o.dfrey"s murder. The Duke of York probably repeats the King"s grounds for this opinion. Charles also knew that the room selected by Bedloe as the scene of the deed was impossible.
Life of James II, i. pp. 527, 528.
NOTE II.
PRANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE CLUB.
The body of G.o.dfrey was found in a ditch near the White House Tavern, and that tavern was used as a club by a set of Catholic tradesmen. Was Prance a member? The landlord, Rawson, on October 24, mentioned as a member "Mr. PRINCE, a silversmith in Holborn." Mr. PRANCE was a silversmith in Covent Garden. On December 21, Prance said that he had not seen Rawson for a year; he was asked about Rawson. The members of the club met at the White House during the sitting of the coroner"s inquest there, on Friday, October 18. Prance, according to the author of "A Letter to Miles Prance," was present. He may have been a member, he may have known the useful ditch where G.o.dfrey"s corpse was found, but this does not rise beyond the value of conjecture.*
*Lords" MSS. pp. 46, 47, 51.
NOTE III.
THE JESUIT MURDERERS.
There is difficulty in identifying as Jesuits the "Jesuits" accused by Bedloe. The chief is "Father Le Herry,"* called "Le Ferry" by Mr.
Pollock and Mr. Foley. He also appears as Le Faire, Lee Phaire, Le Fere, but usually Le Fevre, in the doc.u.ments. There really was a priest styled Le Fevre. A man named Mark Preston was accused of being a priest and a Jesuit. When arrested he declared that he was a married layman with a family. He had been married in Mr. Langhorne"s rooms, in the Temple, by Le Fevre, a priest, in 1667, or, at least, about eleven years before 1678.** I cannot find that Le Fevre was known as a Jesuit to the English members of the Society. He is not in Oates"s list of conspirators. He does not occur in Foley"s "Records," vol. v., a very painstaking work.
Nor would he be omitted because accused of a crime, rather he would be reckoned as more or less of a martyr, like the other Fathers implicated by the informers. The author of "Florus Anglo-Bavaricus"*** names "Pharius" (Le Phaire), "Valschius" (Walsh), and "Atkinsus," as denounced by Bedloe, but clearly knows nothing about them. "Atkinsus" is Mr.
Pepys"s clerk, Samuel Atkins, who had an alibi. Valschius is Walsh, certainly a priest, but not to be found in Foley"s "Records" as a Jesuit.
*Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 11055, 245.
**Lords" Journals, xiii. 331, 332. Lords" MSS., p. 99.
***Liege, 1685, p. 137.
That Le Fevre was the Queen"s confessor I find no proof. But she had a priest named Ferrera, who might be confused with Le Faire.* He was accused of calling a waterman to help to take two persons down the river on November 6, 1678. He was summoned before the Lords, but we do not know that he came. Ferrera MAY have been the Queen"s confessor, he was "one of the Queen"s priests." In 1670 she had twenty-eight priests as chaplains; twelve were Portuguese Capuchins, six were Benedictines, two, Dominicans, and the rest seculars.** Mrs. Prance admitted that she knew "Mr. Le Phaire, and that he went for a priest."*** Of Le Fevre, "Jesuit"
and "Queens confessor," I know no more.
*Lords" MSS., p. 49.
**Maziere Brady, Episcopal Succession in England, p. 124 (1876).
***Lords" MSS p. 52.
It appears that Mr. Pollock"s authority for styling Le Fevre "the Queen"s confessor" is a slip of information appended to the Coventry notes, in the Longleat MSS., on Bedloe"s deposition of November 7.* I do not know the authority of the writer of the slip. It is admitted that the authority of a slip pinned on to a letter of Randolph"s is not sufficient to prove John Knox to have been one of the Riccio conspirators. The same slip appears to style Charles Walsh a Jesuit of the household of Lord Bellasis. This Walsh is unknown to Foley.
*Pollock, pp. 155, 157, note 2, in each case.
As to Father Pritchard, a Jesuit, Bedloe, in the British Museum MS., accuses "Penthard, a layman." He develops into Pridgeot, a Jesuit.*
Later he is Father Pritchard, S.J. There was such a Jesuit, and, according to the Jesuit Annual Letter of 1680, he pa.s.sed sixteen years in the South Wales Mission, and never once went to London. In 1680 he died in concealment.** It is clear that if Le Fevre was the Queen"s confessor, the sentries at Somerset House could prove whether he was there on the day of G.o.dfrey"s murder. No such evidence was adduced.
But if Le Fevre was not the Queen"s confessor, he would scarcely have facilities for smuggling a dead body out of "a private door."
*Longleat MS., Pollock, p. 386.
**Foley, v. 875-877.
IV. THE FALSE JEANNE D"ARC.
Who that ever saw Jeanne d"Arc could mistake her for another woman? No portrait of the Maid was painted from the life, but we know the light perfect figure, the black hair cut short like a soldier"s, and we can imagine the face of her, who, says young Laval, writing to his mother after his first meeting with the deliverer of France, "seemed a thing all divine." Yet even two of her own brothers certainly recognised another girl as the Maid, five years after her death by fire. It is equally certain that, eight years after the martyrdom of Jeanne, an impostor dwelt for several days in Orleans, and was there publicly regarded as the heroine who raised the siege in 1429. Her family accepted the impostor for sixteen years. These facts rest on undoubted evidence.
To unravel the threads of the story is a task very difficult. My table is strewn with pamphlets, papers, genealogies, essays; the authors taking opposite sides as to the question, Was Jeanne d"Arc burned at Rouen on May 30, 1431? Unluckily even the most exact historians (yea, even M. Quicherat, the editor of the five volumes of doc.u.ments and notices about the Maid) (1841-1849) make slips in dates, where dates are all important. It would add confusion if we dwelt on these errors, or on the bias of the various disputants.
Not a word was said at the Trial of Rehabilitation in 1452-1456 about the supposed survival of the Maid. But there are indications of the inevitable popular belief that she was not burned. Long after the fall of Khartoum, rumours of the escape of Charles Gordon were current; even in our own day people are loth to believe that their hero has perished.
Like Arthur he will come again, and from Arthur to James IV. of Scotland, from James IV. to the Duke of Monmouth, or the son of Louis XVI., the populace believes and hopes that its darling has not perished.
We destroyed the Mahdi"s body to nullify such a belief, or to prevent worship at his tomb. In the same way, at Rouen, "when the Maid was dead, as the English feared that she might be said to have escaped, they bade the executioner rake back the fire somewhat that the bystanders might see her dead."* An account of a similar precaution, the fire drawn back after the Maid"s robes were burned away, is given in brutal detail by the contemporary diarist (who was not present), the Bourgeois de Paris.**
*Quicherat, iii. p. 191. These lines are not in MS. 5970. M.
Save, in Jehanne des Armoises, Pucelle d"Orleans, p. 6 (Nancy, 1893), interpolates, in italics, words of his own into his translation of this text, which improve the force of his argument!
**Quicherat, iv. p. 471.
In spite of all this, the populace, as reflected in several chronicles, was uncertain that Jeanne had died. A "ma.n.u.script in the British Museum"
says: "At last they burned her, or another woman like her, on which point many persons are, and have been, of different opinions."*
*Save, p. 7, citing Bibliotheque de l"Ecole des Chartes, ii., Second Series.
This hopeful rumour of the Maid"s escape was certain to arise, populus vult decipi.
Now we reach a point at which we may well doubt how to array the evidence. But probably the best plan is first to give the testimony of undoubted public doc.u.ments from the Treasury Accounts of the town of Orleans. In that loyal city the day of the Maid"s death had been duly celebrated by religious services; the Orleanese had indulged in no illusions. None the less on August 9, 1436, the good town pays its pursuivant, Fleur-de-lys, "because he had brought letters to the town FROM JEHANNE LA PUCELLE"! On August 21 money is paid to "Jehan du Lys, brother of Jehanne la Pucelle," because he has visited the King, Charles VII., is returning to his sister, the Maid, and is in want of cash, as the King"s order given to him was not fully honoured. On October 18 another pursuivant is paid for a mission occupying six weeks. He has visited the Maid at Arlon in Luxembourg, and carried letters from her to the King at Loches on the Loire. Earlier, in August, a messenger brought letters from the Maid, and went on to Guillaume Belier, bailiff of Troyes, in whose house the real Maid had lodged, at Chinon, in the dawn of her mission, March 1429. Thus the impostor was dealing, by letters, with some of the people who knew the Maid best, and was freely accepted by her brother Jehan.*
*Quicherat, v. pp. 326-327.
For three years the account-books of Orleans are silent about this strange Pucelle. Orleans has not seen her, but has had Jeanne"s brother"s word for her reappearance, and the word, probably, of the pursuivants sent to her. Jeanne"s annual funeral services are therefore discontinued.
Mention of her in the accounts again appears on July 18, 1439. Money is now paid to Jaquet Leprestre for ten pints and a chopine of wine given to DAME JEHANNE DES ARMOISES. On the 29th, 30th, and on August 1, when she left the town, entries of payments for quant.i.ties of wine and food for Jehanne des Armoises occur, and she is given 210 livres "after deliberation with the town council," "for the good that she did to the said town during the siege of 1429."