A Critical Introduction and Annotated Edition

Selections from Titus Oates’s An Exact and Faithful Narrative of the Horrid Conspiracy . . . To Invalidate the Testimonies of Dr. Titus Oates, and Mr. William Bedlow (1680)

A Critical Introduction and Annotated Edition

by David Reid, University of British Columbia-Okanagan

The Exact and Faithful Narrative presented here is, in fact, little more than one in a series of 82 texts aimed at revealing a complicated and, as they were eventually invalidated, fabricated Catholic conspiracy. According to Alan Marshall’s extensive biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,[1] Titus Oates spent much of his notorious lifetime writing tales and distributing them with the aim of rallying others to his cause, and eventually took more direct action by frequenting the witness stand in trials where Catholics stood to be convicted. In this case, his aim was to assist in the trial of those he labelled conspirators, ideally seeing them and a number of other Catholics executed on charges of treason. The pamphlet addresses the nature of the case, though Oates’s focus is more on the testimonies of the defendants which are directed at contradicting what had been claimed earlier by himself and William Bedlow. As often as not, Oates had no direct relation to the case in which he was testifying, and was often caught in outright perjury. In 1678, Oates testified in court that he had seen a Father Ireland participate in a “secret Jesuit consult” in London, which had the possibility of leading to a claim of treason for the Father and, subsequently, his being hanged (Marshall). The defence then revealed evidence showing that Oates was in St. Omer, France, on the night of the supposed consult, clearly demonstrating the falsity of his testimony (Marshall). However, as many of those who had come into contact with Oates for any substantial period of time had admitted in writing, Titus was an experienced liar and countered the evidence with a claim of “selective memory” and “failing eye-sight” (Marshall). In a court system that was generally biased against Catholics, statements such as those were sufficient to protect Oates from charges of perjury, and his lies often led to a defendant’s conviction. By the time this narrative was published, Titus Oates had been partially or wholly “responsible . . . for the deaths of over thirty-five men” (Marshall).

As Oates became known in the court circuit in the early 1680’s, he was subject to several attacks on his character or cases of libel filed against him. In this instance, a charge of sodomy was filed against him with, as Oates claims, the sole purpose of invalidating his and William Bedlow’s testimony in court. This particular charge would have been both sensational, as Oates capitalized on, and plausible, since Oates had gained a reputation for homosexuality in college and had later been discharged from the Royal Navy due to homosexual behaviour (Marshall). Regardless of the actual events, in An Exact and Faithful Narrative Oates presents Lane as a fool in the pamphlet, pointing out that Lane appeared more wary of being arrested than being buggered and hanged for sodomy, and that the arrival of the woman who prevented sodomy from taking place seemed almost divine in its coincidence. It seems, considering that Oates was able to publish the event, that his strategy was a success.

Four years after the trial, Titus Oates and his occupation ran into crisis in the form of the Duke of York, whom “[Oates] had [earlier] called a traitor” (Marshall). A year later, having been waiting in prison for the duration, Oates received his trial and was found guilty of two acts of perjury, both in regards to trials in which he testified against Catholics: “He was to be imprisoned for life, divested of his canonical garb for ever and brought to Westminster Hall with a paper on his heaf with the inscription: ‘Titus Oates convicted upon full evidence of two horrid perjuries.’ He was also placed in the pillory in Palace Yard, Westminster . . . [to be] pelted with eggs and other rubbish” (Marshall); in addition, “this part of the sentence was to be repeated five times every year of his life in different parts of London” (Marshall). He was also subject to occasional trips between Aldgate and Newgate while pulling a cart and being whipped (Marshall).

The bloodless revolution of 1688 saw “Oates released from prison in December” (Marshall), and he spent the rest of his life attempting to re-establish himself in the first estate. He failed quite miserably, and, despite having married into wealth and receiving a royal pension, remained financially unstable until his death. Remarkably, Oates faded into obscurity during his last years, and his death in 1705 was not heavily marked by commentators (Marshall).

William Bedlow (or Bedloe) was a man with a very similar agenda to Titus Oates’s. They both spent a great deal of time acting as witnesses in cases that had the possibility of convicting Catholics, and both were known for their unbelievable, yet effective, testimonies. That Bedlow and Oates appeared together in this case is likely due to circumstance as opposed to purpose, since, despite their common interest, the two considered each other to be rivals (Marshall). During their first meeting, Bedlow and his younger brother robbed Oates after having been served dinner, and then fled from the scene. Later in their careers, Bedlow and Oates attempted to work together where the former would collaborate with the testimony of the latter; however, this collaboration ended leaving mutually unpleasant feelings behind. Later in Bedlow’s career of rallying support, he became something of a ‘darling of the nation’ (Marshall). From the perception of Titus Oates, who had spent most of his life in similar pursuits with nearly opposite results, Bedlow’s fame was a source of much envy.

Promptly after the conclusion of the trial on which the pamphlet is based, and quite before the inevitable punishment that had befallen Oates could catch up to him, William Bedlow passed away. He had contracted the same disease that killed his wife and died with her in Bristol in 1680. Unlike Oates, he was remembered fondly and was buried in the mayor’s chapel, though his popularity could be considered a direct result of his relatively short life span. William Bedlow was very much a criminal of the courts, though one that had not been caught.

Regrettably, nothing was written specifically about two of the so-called conspirators, being William Osborne and John Lane, beyond the trial pamphlets. Though it could be safely assumed that they were Catholic or were heavily tied to Catholic interests, such a connection is mere conjecture. It is clear from the proceedings of the trial that Lane was of a lower class, although Osborne’s was apparently not much higher. What little is known about the third man, Thomas Knox, is gathered from the fact that he wrote his own version of the trial titled ‘The tryal and conviction of Thomas Knox and John Lane for a conspiracy to defame and scandalize Dr. Oates and Mr. Bedloe thereby to discredit their evidence about the horrid popish plot,’ which is notable in that he, like Titus Oates, attempted to profit from his own exploitation, and that the name of William Osborne does not so much as appear on the cover. Knox’s presentation of the trial looks far more verbatim, while Oates has written his as an argumentative summary, lending a greater sense of credibility to the former. Considering that neither of them was state sponsored though, it is unlikely that either represents an unbiased or selfless depiction of that trial. Also of note is that Knox, who would not have been personally embarrassed to report on the aspect of sodomy, only mentions the conspiracy on his title page, while Oates seems to have underplayed the Catholic feature that Knox makes so prominent. It would have been interesting to know if one of the writers had simply been attempting to one-up a previously printed pamphlet of the other’s by including a shocking title, but publication dates are not included on the originals.

Regarding the presentation of text in this transcription, it is as faithful as possible to the original pamphlet. The layout, particularly on the title-page, has been made to resemble that which the 17th century reader would have seen, primarily with the goal of retaining any emotions or sensations that the original title page might have generated. With that in mind, the transcription should serve as an accurate representation of the pamphlet for those who wish to analyze its visual qualities, such as the sizing and spacing of various phrases in relation to others. However, only pages and sections that refer to the charge of sodomy directed at Titus Oates have been included. For instance, a sizable address in the introduction of the pamphlet is made to the king, whose favour Oates requests, yet, since it is unrelated to the trial’s causes, progress, or outcome, it has been excluded. Likewise, the testimonies of witnesses that refer only to the charges of treason have, despite being more important to the trial as a whole, been deleted due to the transcription’s limited focus.

I have not modernized the pamphlet’s punctuation or spelling. several words in the pamphlet do not appear as they would in contemporary literature, such as ‘ingage’, ‘tryed’, or ‘perswade’. Also, verbs in past tense occasionally have the marker attached with an apostrophe, such as ‘kiss’d’. While it would be presumptuous to claim that the editing of this transcription is without error, these examples and those like them are quite deliberate representations of the writing style of Titus Oates. In keeping with conventional editorial practice, however, I have changed the seventeenth century symbol ƒ to the modern equivalent “s”. Thus a word like ‘falƒly’ becomes ‘falsly.’ Otherwise, the spelling of “falsly” remains unaltered.

Certain spelling inconstancies will appear throughout the pages with words containing a letter in one instance and then lacking it in another. These may be a matter of human error, though it is more likely that the printing presses of the 17th century, which relied on individually placed movable characters, simply had space for the letter on certain lines and not others, and the process of shifting entire words or lines was more laborious than omitting single letters. Whenever such omissions occurred in the pamphlet, they were duplicated. Lastly, there are certain terms that are now completely archaic. These may seem rather obvious, such as ‘sayith,’ and they have been deliberately left in their antiquated state.

The original’s capitalization and italics have been maintained. Firstly, a great number of nouns and all proper nouns are capitalized, though the specific pattern in regards to the former group is unclear. It seems that nouns referring to tangible objects are subject to capitalization, since ‘evil’, ‘happiness’, and ‘consent’ are not, yet, as can be seen in the first paragraph, ‘rivers’ has been left in the lower case. Secondly, proper nouns, dialogue, and emphasis phrases are all marked by italics.

Despite minor difficulties, it is a fortunate circumstance for modern readers that the narrative lacks an abundance of vague references or language, lending to a mere few dozen footnotes being required as clarification. Whereas several of the footnotes have their sources written alongside them, the majority have been left unfettered with the understanding that they have been derived from the Oxford English Dictionary Online or from within the text itself.

As a final point of clarification for the reader, it can be observed in the transcription that sections from the original have been collected together from across a sizable number of pages. Whenever possible, the transition between two inconsecutive pages has been made as clear as possible, and no sentences have been cut off prematurely. Page numbers, which appear at the end of their corresponding pages, may separate the beginning and end of sentences, though any sentence that is not concluded prior to the page number will have the remainder available in the line following the number. A line of asterisk indicates the deletion of a substantial portion of text, a paragraph or more.

An Exact and Faithful

NARRATIVE

OF THE

Horrid Conspiracy

OF

Thomas Knox, William Osborne, and John Lane,

To INVALIDATE the

TESTIMONIES

OF

Dr.[2] Titus Oates, and Mr. William Bedlow;

By Charging them with a Malicious Contrivance against

the E.[3] of Danby, and the said Dr. OATES with an

Attempt of SODOMY.

Wherein are Exemplified from the Originals,

I. Four Forged Letters dictated by Thomas Knox.

II. Five False Informations, One Paper of Memorials, and one other

Information against Dr. OATES for Sodomy, forged by Knox

in the Names of Lane and Osborne.

III. The Informations, Depositions, Examinations, and Confessions of

the said Knox, Osborne, and Lane, taken upon Oath before

Sir William Waller and Edmond Warcup, Esq;.

IV. An Acount of some Depositions taken before the Lords Committees

of Secresie, relating thereunto.

V. The Breviates[4] of the Councel for the KING at the Trials of

the said Knox and Lane, Nov. 25. 1679. Wherein full satisfaction

is given to the World of the whole Cause, by the particular

Evidences of the Witnesses in behalf of the KING.

Published by the Appointment of me TITUS OATES.

LONDON:

Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, Tho. Cockerill and Benj. Alsop[5], at the Bible

And Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside, at the Three

Legs, and at the Angel and Bibles in the Poultrey,[6] 1680.