# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Payne, Henry Neville

​PAYNE, HENRY NEVILLE (fl. 1672–1710), conspirator and author, is credited by Lord Macaulay with having been ‘an intimate friend of the indiscreet and unfortunate Coleman’ [see Coleman, Edward], and with having been committed to Newgate as an accomplice to the ‘popish plot’ (History of England, ed. 1883, ii. 217). Macaulay seems, however, to have confounded Payne with Edward Neville (1639–1709) [q. v.], a jesuit. Another statement of Macaulay, that ‘Payne had been long known about town as a dabbler in poetry and politics,’ has more evidence to support it. Downes ascribes to him three plays: the ‘Fatal Jealousie,’ a tragedy, acted at the Duke's theatre, licensed 22 Nov. 1672, and published in 1673; ‘Morning Rambles, or the Town Humours,’ a comedy, acted at the Duke's theatre in 1673, and published in 1673; and the ‘Siege of Constantinople,’ a tragedy, acted at the Duke's theatre in 1674, and published in 1675. The latter contains various indirect allusions to the politics of the period. In all probability he is also identical with the Henry Payne who wrote ‘The Persecutor Exposed; in Reflections by Way of Reply to an Ill-bred Answer to the Duke of Buckingham's Paper,’ 1685; and ‘An Answer to a scandalous Pamphlet entitled a Letter to a Dissenter concerning his Majestie's late Declaration of Indulgence,’ 1687. The latter called forth ‘An Answer to Mr. Henry Payne's Letter concerning his Majesty's Indulgence writ to the Author of the Letter to a Dissenter by T. T.’ ‘Mr. Payne,’ writes the author of this pamphlet, ‘I cannot help asking you how much money you had from the writer of the Paper which you pretend to answer; for as you have the character of a man who deals with both hands, so this is writ in such a manner as to make one think you were inclined to it by the adverse party;’ and he adds: ‘Both in your books of Constitution and Policy, and even in your poems, you seem to have entered into such an intermixture with the Irish that the thread all over is linsey-wolsey.’
After the revolution Payne became, according to Bishop Burnet, ‘the most active and determined of all King James's agents,’ and, although he had ‘lost the reputation of an honest man entirely,’ succeeded by his ‘arts of management’ in inducing those to employ him who were well aware of his indifferent character (Own Time, ed. 1838, p. 545). He was generally believed to have been the chief instigator of the Montgomery plot in 1690 [see Montgomery, Sir James, tenth Baronet of Skelmorlie]. Balcarres affirms that each was the dupe of the other: Payne promising Montgomery ‘all his ambition, vanity, or avarice could pretend to,’ and persuading him that he (Payne) was entrusted by King James to dispose ‘of money, forces, and titles as he pleased;’ while Montgomery ​made Payne believe that ‘he could win the whole nation with a speech’ (Memoirs, p. 51). Payne came north to Scotland to manage the conspiracy there, and, on the discovery of the plot, was arrested. Burnet states that Robert Ferguson (d. 1714) [q. v.] the plotter informed against him (Own Time, p. 561); but there is no confirmation of this, and Balcarres mentions Montgomery as the informer (Memoirs, p. 66). As the use of torture was still permitted in Scotland, it was resolved to apply it on Payne, Sir William Lockhart having informed Lord Melville that if it were applied to Payne those that knew him were of opinion he would not abide it, ‘for he is but a dastardly fellow’ (Melville Papers, p. 529). An order for its application was therefore sent by the privy council on 4 Aug. 1690, and, as the order was not immediately acted on, a special order was sent by King William on 18 Nov. It was carried into effect on 10 and 11 Dec., the torture being first applied to his thumbs, and afterwards by means of ‘the boot’ to one of his legs; but Payne endured his excruciating sufferings with the utmost firmness, and they failed to elicit from him the slightest information. ‘It was surprising to me and others,’ wrote the Earl of Crawford to Melville, that he could ‘endure the heavy penances he was in for two hours’ (ib. p. 583). This was the last occasion on which torture was applied to a prisoner in Scotland.
Notwithstanding the representation of the privy council that, by the claim of right, delay in putting a prisoner to trial was contrary to law, it was not until 19 May 1693 that a warrant was given to the lord advocate to raise an indictment against Neville Payne for high treason before the parliament. In connection with the proposed trial there was printed for the information of members of parliament ‘Nevil Payn's Letter, and some other Letters that concern the Subject of the Letter, with Short Notes on them,’ 1693; but parliament decided that the process be remitted ‘to the commissioners of Justiciary, or otherwise that the process be continued until next meeting of parliament as his majesty shall think fit to order.’ Burnet states that Payne ‘sent word to several of the lords, in particular to Duke Hamilton, that as long as his life was his own, he would accuse none; but he was resolved he would not die, and he could discover enough to deserve his pardon.’ ‘This’ adds Burnet, ‘struck such terror into many of them whose sons or near relatives had been concerned with him that, he moving for a delay on pretence of some witnesses that were not then at hand, a time was given him beyond the continuance of the session; so he escaped, and the inquiry was shifted’ (Own Time, p. 597). On the petition of his nephew, Francis Payne, he was for some time after his torture allowed the benefit of the open prison, and permitted to be attended by his own physicians and surgeons; but the order was overruled by the king on 23 Dec. 1690, and it was decided that he should be received into close confinement. While in imprisonment in Stirling Castle in 1699, he stated, in a letter to the privy council, that he had been preparing an experiment for river navigation, and to attend to this he was granted liberty for a range of half a mile from the castle during a portion of each day (Chambers, Domestic Annals of Scotland, 2nd edit. ii. 218). He was still in prison as late as 9 Dec. 1700, when the Duke of Queensberry informed Carstares that it was not in their power to detain him, and advised that he should be set at liberty.
T. F. H.