Popish Plot | English history | Britannica.com English history Wesselényi Conspiracy Popish Plot, (1678), in English history, a totally fictitious but widely believed plot in which it was alleged that Jesuits were planning the assassination of King Charles II in order to bring his Roman Catholic brother, the Duke of York (afterward King James II), to the throne. The allegations were fabricated by Titus Oates , a renegade Anglican clergyman who had feigned conversion to the Roman Catholic church the year before and spent a few months as a student at two English seminaries abroad, from both of which he was expelled. Illustration of Titus Oates in the pillory. Museum of London/Heritage Images/age fotostock Encouraged by a fanatically anti-Catholic acquaintance, Israel Tonge , Oates informed the government of the imagined plot and eventually gained access to the Privy Council , where the king’s questioning showed Oates to be lying. But meanwhile, Oates also made a sworn deposition of his “evidence” (Sept.

28, 1678) to a Westminster justice of the peace, Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey , and when the latter was found murdered in October, a popular panic was engendered. Ramifications of the plot were imagined everywhere, and in all about 35 innocent people were executed. Eventually, Oates was discredited, and the panic died down. Learn More in these related articles: rye house plot | Pocket Book Posted in History , Politics , Secret Societies , tagged charles II , duke of monmouth , exclusion crisis , levellers , lord shaftesbury , mike walker , popish plot , rye house plot , samuel johnson , thomas dangerfield , titus oates , whigs on 31 August 2014 | 1 Comment » Oates’ false accusations in 1678 led to the execution of at least 15 innocent men. Although initially he found favour with Parliament, he was arrested in 1681 for sedition. In 1685, with James II on the throne he was retried and imprisoned for life for perjury, and to be whipped through the streets of London for five days a year.

This is a contemporary engraving of Oates in the pillory prior to his being paraded through London. I was listening recently to an episode of the seven part chronicle of the Stuart dynasty on BBC Radio 4 written by radio dramatist Mike Walker, when Charles II (played by Pip Torrens) refers to Titus Oates as being a member of the Green Ribbon Club. Oates was the fabricator of the ‘Popish Plot’ in 1678, a supposed conspiracy by Catholic Jesuit priests to kill the king which caused a wave of anti-Catholic feeling to sweep across the nation. Following the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, the English parliament proclaimed Charles II to be king in 1660, the Restoration. Although Charles favoured a policy of religious tolerance, parliament enacted several laws designed to secure the dominance of the re-established Church of England. In 1672, Charles attempted to suspend all penal laws against Catholics and other religious dissenters, but Parliament opposed this and forced Charles to agree to laws that forced public officials to receive the sacrament prescribed by the Anglican church and to denounce certain teachings of the Catholic Church.

The 1670s were beset by suspicion and accusation about the religious affiliation of individuals, and plotting and counter-plotting by political opponents, and it was during this decade, that the Green Ribbon Club came into being. The Green Ribbon Club was one of the earliest of the loosely combined associations which met from time to time in London taverns or coffee-houses for political purposes in the 17th century. The ‘Green Ribbon” was the badge of The Levellers in the English Civil Wars, a political movement which emphasised popular sovereignty, extended suffrage (voting rights), equality before the law, and religious tolerance. One of the taverns in which they met was The Rosemary Branch in Islington which got its name from the sprigs of rosemary that Levellers would wear in their hats as a sign of identification. The meeting place (marked in yellow) of the Green Ribbon Club in the King’s Head tavern on the corner of Chancery Lane and Fleet Street in London (click to enlarge) The club was likely founded around 1675 and it met in the King’s Head tavern in Fleet Street in London, and was first known as the King’s Head Club.

Many of its members had fought in the civil war and were hostile to the court of politicians holding power in London. They were in the habit of wearing a bow or bob of green ribbon in their hats which was used for mutual recognition in street brawls. About 1679, the name of the club was changed to the Green Ribbon Club. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, a prominent politician and one of the founders of the Whig Party which opposed an absolute monarchy, may have been the President of the Green Ribbon Club. Though Shaftesbury was one of twelve members of Parliament who invited Charles II to return to England, he later argued in favour of frequent parliaments and argued that the nation needed protection from the potential Roman Catholic successor to King Charles II, his brother and heir presumptive, James, Duke of York. James was suspected of being pro-French and of having designs on becoming an absolute monarch. The Green Ribbon Club actively promoted the Exclusion Bill which sought to exclude James from the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. The Tories were opposed to the bill and ‘Whig’ became a term of abuse for those who supported it.

The fervent Tory Samuel Johnson often joked that ‘the first Whig was the Devil’. Though the bill was passed by Parliament in 1679, Charles II was forced to dissolve Parliament several times to prevent the bill coming into law. Ultimately however the succession was not altered, with James becoming king on the death of Charles II in 1685. The ‘Exclusion Crisis’ nevertheless contributed to the development of the English two-party system. This is a depiction by William Hogarth of a street celebration in 1653 outside the King’s Head tavern in Fleet Street applauding the dissolution of the Rump Parliament by Oliver Cromwell. This possibly fictitious scene likely resembles the Green Ribbon Club’s pope-burning processions which took place outside the King’s Head tavern in 1680 and 1681. The Green Ribbon Club served both as a debating society and an intelligence network for the Whig faction spreading scandal and sedition throughout London. Bills under discussion in Parliament were debated by the members over their tobacco and ale, with the latest news from Westminster or the city brought in by an endless stream of supporters.

The leader of the King’s government, Lord Danby, an opponent of all toleration, issued a proclamation, later withdrawn, for the suppression of coffee-houses because of the ‘defamation of His Majesty’s Government’ which took place in them. Who were the members of the club? In 1979, Thomas Dangerfield , another conspirator and perjurer like Titus Oates, supplied the King with a list of forty-eight members of the Green Ribbon Club. As well as Shaftesbury, it included the Duke of Monmouth (an illegitimate son of Charles II who later led the unsuccessful rebellion to depose his uncle, then James II) and statesmen like Halifax, Shaftesbury, Buckingham, Macclesfield, Cavendish, and Bedford; together with former Cromwellian supporters like Lord Falconbridge, John Claypole and Henry Ireton (two sons-in-law and a grandson of Thomas Cromwell); and various profligates and scoundrels of the type of Oates. Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search for: Rye House Plot : definition of Rye House Plot and synonyms of Rye House Plot (English) Rye House, Hertfordshire in a 1793 watercolour by J. M. W. Turner . The Rye House Plot of 1683 was a plan to assassinate King Charles II of England and his brother (and heir to the throne) James, Duke of York . Historians vary in their assessment of the degree to which details of the conspiracy were finalized. Whatever the state of the assassination plot, plans to mount a rebellion against the Stuart monarchy were being entertained by opposition leaders in England, and the government cracked down hard on those in a series of state trials, accompanied with repressive measures and widespread searches for arms. The Plot presaged the rebellions of 1685. Contents 8 References Background After the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II in 1660 there was concern among some members of Parliament, former republicans and sections of the Protestant population of England that the King's relationship with France under Louis XIV and the other Catholic rulers of Europe was too close.

Anti-Catholic sentiment, which associated Catholicism with absolutism, was widespread, and focussed particular attention on the succession to the throne. While Charles was publicly Anglican , he and his brother were known to have Catholic sympathies. These suspicions were confirmed in 1673 when James was discovered to have converted to Roman Catholicism. In 1681, triggered by the opposition-invented Popish Plot , the Exclusion Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, which would have excluded James from the succession. Charles outmanoeuvred his opponents and dissolved Parliament . This left his opponents with no lawful method of preventing James's succession, and rumours of plots and conspiracies abounded. With the "country party" in disarray, Lord Melville , Lord Leven , and Lord Shaftesbury , leader of the opposition to Charles's rule, fled to Holland where Shaftesbury soon died. Many well-known members of Parliament and noblemen of the "country party" would soon be known as Whigs , a faction name that stuck. The plot Route from Newmarket to London in 1683, past Rye House.

Rye House , located north-east of Hoddesdon , Hertfordshire , was a fortified mediaeval mansion surrounded by a moat . [1] The house was leased by a republican and Civil War veteran, Richard Rumbold . The plan was to conceal a force of men in the grounds of the house and ambush the King and the Duke as they passed by on their way back to London from the horse races at Newmarket . The "Rye House plotters", an extremist Whig group who are now named for this plot, adopted this plan out of a number of possibilities, having decided that it gave tactical advantages and could be carried out with a relatively small force operating with guns from good cover. [2] The royal party were expected to make the journey on 1 April 1683, but there was a major fire in Newmarket on 22 March, which destroyed half the town. The races were cancelled, and the King and the Duke returned to London early. As a result, the planned attack never took place. Rye House in an engraving from 1777. The gate across the road signifies the toll payable for use of the route.

There were miscellaneous buildings on the large site, to the right of the road. The crenellated brick gatehouse dates from the 15th century. The Rye House and other plotters The conspirators of this period were numerous, and the resort to some sort of armed resistance was widely debated from the early 1680s, on what was becoming the Whig side of the factional division of British politics. The form it should take was uncertain, and discussions of the seizing of control of cities other than London, such as Bristol , and a Scottish uprising, were in the air. The subsequent historiography of the Plot was largely partisan, and scholars are still clarifying who was closely involved in the planning of violent and revolutionary measures. The West cabal The assassination plot centred on a group that was convened in 1682–3 by Robert West of the Middle Temple , a Green Ribbon Club member: [3] it is now often called the Rye House cabal. West had participated in one of the cases that wound up the Popish Plot allegations, that of the false witness Stephen College .

Through that association he made contact with Aaron Smith and William Hone , both to be plotters though aside from the main group. [4] John Locke had arranged accommodation for West in Oxford at that time, and had other associations in the group of revolutionary activists (Smith, John Ayloffe , Christopher Battiscombe and Israel Hayes), [5] of whom Ayloffe was certainly implicated in the Rye House Plot, leaving Locke vulnerable. Account of Rye House, from the official history of the Plot by Thomas Sprat (2nd edition, 1685). Rumbold was introduced to West's group by John Wildman ; but by the time the plot was discovered both had distanced themselves, Wildman by refusing to finance Rumbold in the purchase of arms, and Rumbold through loss of his earlier enthusiasm. [6] [7] The uprising plans Cabal members such as Richard Nelthorpe favoured a rebellion rather than an assassination, aligning much of the West group's discussion with the plans of Algernon Sidney , in particular, and the more aristocratic country party members making up the so-called Monmouth cabal.

[8] There were discussions in the group around Monmouth in September 1682 of an uprising, having participants in common with the group around West. [9] The "cabal" was later named as the "council of six", which took form after the Tory successes in summer 1682 in the struggle to control the City of London . A significant aspect was the intention to employ Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll for a military rebellion in Scotland. [10] Smith in January 1683 was sent to contact supporters in Scotland, for the "six", with a view to summoning them to London; but apparently botched the mission by indiscretions. [11] In fact West's contacts with the Monmouth cabal, and knowledge of their intentions, were in part quite indirect; Thomas Walcott and Robert Ferguson had accompanied Shaftesbury to the Netherlands , in his self-imposed exile of November 1682. They then both returned to London, and associated with West, who learned from Walcott of Shaftesbury's own plan for a general rebellion.

Walcott went on to say that he would lead the attack on the royal guards, but he was another of the plotters who drew the line at assassination. [12] During the spring of 1683 there were further contacts of the Monmouth cabal and West's group, through Sir Thomas Armstrong in particular, about drafting a manifesto, there being disagreements about whether a republican or monarchical constitution should result from revolutionary measures. [9] In May 1683 West and Walcott discussed with a larger group [13] the prospects for raising a force of several thousand men, around London. [14] Scottish and American connections The interpretation of actual Whig intentions at this time is complicated by colonial schemes in America. West had a stake in East Jersey . [3] Shaftesbury was heavily involved in the Province of Carolina . In April 1683 some Scottish contacts of the Whigs arrived in London, as briefed by Smith, meeting Essex and Russell of the Monmouth cabal; they were either under the impression that the matter concerned Carolina, [15] or gave this out as a pretext for their presence.

[16] They included Sir George Campbell of Cessnock , John Cochrane , and William Carstares. [17] The Earl of Argyll had left London for the Netherlands in August 1682, but kept in touch with Whig notables through couriers and ciphered correspondence. Two of them, William Spence alias Butler, and Abraham Holmes , were arrested in June 1683. [18] [19] Informers and arrests Late 17th century composite engraving by John Savage , and comprising seven portraits of figures of the Plot all of whom were dead by 1685 ( Sir Thomas Armstrong , the Earl of Argyll , the Earl of Essex , Henry Cornish , William Russell, Lord Russell , the Duke of Monmouth , and Algernon Sidney ), with one of Edmund Berry Godfrey , whose unexplained death triggered the Popish Plot allegations against Catholics. Title page of Thomas Sprat's official account of the Plot. News of the plot leaked when Josiah Keeling gave information on it to Sir Leoline Jenkins ; [20] and the plot was publicly discovered 12 June 1683.

Keeling had contacted a courtier, who put him in touch with George Legge, 1st Baron Dartmouth , and Dartmouth had brought him to Jenkins, Secretary of State. [21] Keeling's testimony was used at the trials of Walcott, Hone, Sidney, and Charles Bateman ; and it earned him a pardon. [20] It also started a lengthy process of incriminated persons confessing, in the hope of clemency. Using his brother, Keeling was able to get further direct evidence of conspiracy, and Jenkins brought in Rumsey and West, who told him what they knew, from 23 June; [22] West had volunteered information via Laurence Hyde, 1st Earl of Rochester , on the 22nd. Over several days West explained the Rye House plot and his part in purchasing arms, supposed to be for America. He did little to incriminate the Monmouth group; his testimony was later used against Walcott and Sidney. West received a pardon in December 1684. [3] Thomas Walcott was arrested on 8 July, and was the first conspirator to go to trial.

A meeting of the plotters had been held at his house on 18 June; but rather than escape, he chose to write to Jenkins, with the offer of a full confession in return for a pardon. [8] Among the plotters, John Row from Bristol was considered particularly unreliable, and he had a direct connection to the Monmouth household to offer as information; a number of steps were taken to silence him, and his life was under threat more than once. [23] After the meeting Nelthorpe and Edward Norton called on William Russell, Lord Russell, with an appeal to take up arms immediately; when Russell was unwilling, Nelthorpe left the country. [24] Walcott named Henry Care , publisher of the Weekly Pacquet which was a leading anti-Catholic and Whig paper of the time; Care ceased publishing the Pacquet on 13 July, and began cooperating with the court. [25] Among those later informing against Walcott was Zachary Bourne.

[8] Bourne was a conspirator, arrested trying to leave the country with the nonconformist ministers Matthew Meade , for whom an arrest warrant was issued on 27 June, and Walter Cross; [26] he informed against another minister, Stephen Lobb , who was prepared to help recruiting for an uprising. On 6 July the arrest of Lobb was ordered, and he was picked up in August. [27] A royal declaration of the heinous nature of the plot was issued on 27 July. [28] Many more were arrested. Although the principal conspirators were minor figures, and not directly concerned in the "Monmouth cabal", the court party made no distinction between the groups. The ministers involved may have known Ferguson but not West; Meade had sheltered the Covenanter John Nisbet , and may well have known of the plans for a rebellion. [26] William Carstares , a Church of Scotland minister and intermediary with the Whig grandees, was found in Kent on 23 July. [29] Trials Several capital sentences were carried out. William, Lord Russell was convicted and executed.

Algernon Sidney was convicted on weaker evidence by Judge Sir George Jeffreys , who was brought in as Lord Chief Justice in September 1683; [30] also executed was Sir Thomas Armstrong , a Member of Parliament. The Earl of Essex committed suicide in the Tower of London, whilst Ford Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Werke escaped from the Tower and The Earl of Macclesfield was sentenced to death, but was later pardoned. The final trial on the Rye House charges was that of Charles Bateman, in 1685. Witnesses against him were the conspirators Keeling, who had nothing specific to say, Thomas Lee, and Richard Goodenough. He was hanged, drawn and quartered . [31] The Duke of Monmouth , Charles' illegitimate son, was also implicated and obliged to retire to the United Provinces . A popular account of the plot was published in 1685 by Thomas Sprat , A True Account and Declaration of the Horrid Conspiracy against the Late King. Evaluations Historians have suggested the story of the plot may have been largely manufactured by Charles or his supporters to allow the removal of most of his strongest political opponents.

Richard Greaves cites as proof that there was a plot in 1683, the 1685 armed rebellions of the fugitive Earl of Argyll and Charles' Protestant illegitimate son, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth (Greaves 1992). Doreen Milne [32] asserts that its importance lies less in what was actually plotted than in the public perception of it and the uses made of it by the government. Popular reaction to the Tories' reactive excesses, sometimes known as the "Stuart Revenge" though that term is contested, led to the discontent expressed decisively in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Notes ^ Thompson 1987:87 ^ Alan Marshall, Intelligence and Espionage in the Reign of Charles II, 1660-1685 (2003), p. 291; Google Books . Rye House Plot | Article about Rye House Plot by The Free Dictionary Rye House Plot | Article about Rye House Plot by The Free Dictionary Also found in: Wikipedia .

Rye House Plot, 1683, conspiracy to assassinate Charles II of England and his brother James, duke of York (later James II), as they passed by Rumbold's Rye House in Hertfordshire on the road from Newmarket to London. However, the king did not make the journey on the expected day; the plot, an offshoot of earlier insurrection plots hatched by the 1st earl of Shaftesbury Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st earl of, 1621–83, English statesman. In the English civil war he supported the crown until 1644 but then joined the parliamentarians. ..... Click the link for more information. , was revealed. Although the actual conspirators were only minor figures, the great Whig leaders Lord William Russell Russell, Lord William, 1639–83, English statesman; younger son of the 1st duke of Bedford. He entered Parliament in 1660. Contempt for the dissolute court and fear of Roman Catholicism and of France led him to join the opposition to Charles II. ..... Click the link for more information.

and Algernon Sidney Sidney or Sydney, Algernon, 1622–83, English politician; son of Robert Sidney, earl of Leicester. He served in the parliamentary forces during the English civil war and was a member (1652–53) of the council ..... Click the link for more information. were executed on flimsy evidence of guilt by association. Rye House Plot | English history | Britannica.com English history Wesselényi Conspiracy Rye House Plot, (1683), alleged Whig conspiracy to assassinate or mount an insurrection against Charles II of England because of his pro-Roman Catholic policies. The plot drew its name from Rye House at Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, near which ran a narrow road where Charles was supposed to be killed as he traveled from a horse meet at Newmarket. By chance, according to the official narrative, the king’s unexpectedly early departure in March foiled the plot. Ten weeks later, on June 1, an informer’s allegations prompted a government investigation.

The facts remain cloudy, but the named figures in the plot included James Scott, Duke of Monmouth ; Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex ; Lord William Russell ; Algernon Sidney ; Sir Thomas Armstrong; Robert Ferguson; and Lord William Howard. All had allegedly met at the house of one Sheppard, a London wine merchant, and at their own houses and discussed various means of ridding the country of Charles II or denying the succession to his openly Roman Catholic brother, the future James II . The Rye House assassination was but one of the schemes discussed. After the plot’s exposure, Essex was arrested and died in the Tower of London , probably a suicide; Russell, Sidney, and Armstrong were tried, convicted of treason, and beheaded; the other figures escaped punishment. Learn More in these related articles: Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion - Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Collection - LibGuides at University of Georgia School of Law Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Collection Search Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Collection: Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion The Law Library thanks Research Assistant Savanna Nolan, (J.D. '13) for her assistance with this project.

Map from Peter Earle, Monmouth’s Rebels the Road to Sedgemoor 1685 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1977). By Stefanie Magid On the evening of July 5, 1685 as Monmouth’s rebels stealthily encroached on the sleeping royal army in one last dire effort to overcome the strength of the King’s forces, a shot rang out from a pistol, prematurely awakening the unsuspecting royal army. With quick agility and speed, the king’s army dismantled the rebel forces and ended the nearly two month civil war against the throne of England. Ten days later, the rebels’ leader, James Scott, the Duke of Monmouth, was executed at the Tower of London for high treason against the King of England, James II.1 i. Background on the Rebel Leader Thirty six years earlier, Monmouth entered into the world with a fate sealed with mixed fortune. Monmouth was the illegitimate son of King Charles II, born to Lucy Walter on April 9, 1649 at Rotterdam after Charles II’s met Lucy during a visit to The Hague in 1648.

While rumored that Charles married Lucy after Monmouth’s birth, the validity of the union has never been proven.2 During his childhood, Monmouth endured what most children could never imagine. His status as the illegitimate son of the King led to attempts at his kidnapping by agents of the Commonwealth and his mother’s disappearance for a short while.3 Eventually, in 1658 Charles II managed to successfully have his son kidnapped and “placed in the care of William, Lord Crofts, a gentleman of Charles’ bedchamber, whose surname he [took].”4 Monmouth never saw his mother again, who died at the end of that year just shy of his tenth birthday. After his tragic childhood, Monmouth proceeded to live a life of privilege. While Charles II saw little of his son, he made sure Monmouth was well provided for. Charles ensured his son gained influence at the Court, granted him title of Duke of Monmouth and arranged his marriage to the wealthy Scottish heiress, Anna Scott, countess of Buccleuch.5 Monmouth continued to enjoy his life in the lap of luxury as the typical Restoration courtier of the time: hunting, racing, gambling, drinking and womanizing.

Eventually his charades led him to the love of his life during an affair with Henrietta Maria Wentworth, whom he met in early 1680.6 What Monmouth lacked in his childhood Charles compensated in his adult life by bestowing on him honors under the crown and military leadership roles. However, it was in these honors that led to his eventual disgrace with his father. The king’s doting on his son, troubled James, the duke of York who stood to gain the throne following Charles II’s death as the heir behind his brother. James feared Charles would legitimize his son and he would be surpassed in gaining his title.7 The feud with James led to Monmouth’s opposition of the Tory party and disfavor with the Court in an effort to disagree with his uncle. Yet at the time the Whig party, to which Monmouth gradually fostered support became the target of the Popish plot and Rye House Plot against the King. Monmouth lost favor with his father following the plots against the throne to murder Charles and the Duke of York.8 He joined other political dissenters and exiles in the Netherlands, where he remained until his father’s death without formal reconciliation. ii.

Precursor to Rebellion Though exiled to the Netherlands, Charles II “still loved [Monmouth] passionately.”9 His disfavor with the King and the court resulted from Charles’ fear of his brother, and an effort to support his heir to the throne, James II, duke of York. Yet, despite his love of Monmouth, “Charles II had forbidden Englishmen [in the Netherlands and elsewhere] to show Monmouth ‘any mark of respect- to placate York.”10 However, against the king’s proclaimed 11wishes Monmouth was warmly received in Holland by the hospitality of William Prince of Orange, who “told the senior British officers in Holland that ‘he would break the first who failed’ to obey his... commands”12 to treat Monmouth with marks of friendship. Upon news of Charles II’s death, William “could no longer sanction Monmouth remaining in Holland...

[for] if he were to do so, he would incur the enmity of his father- in- law James II.”13 Around this time, Monmouth had been in contact with the Earl of Argyle, “one of the most desperate of the exiled conspirators, who constantly stressed the importance of action [to prevent the Duke of York from firmly establishing a position on the throne of England].”14 While content to enjoy his retirement with his mistress Henrietta in the Netherlands, Monmouth’s “restless confederates, Grey, Ferguson, and Rumsey... gave him no peace and constantly egged him on to action [against James].”15 Furthermore, his mounting speculation that James II had poisoned his father to gain the throne, fueled Monmouth’s passion to avenge his father and gain the throne,16 as the rightful heir who would represent the Protestant interest of the English citizens. Also, James II’s outing of his Catholic faith left a country in fear of a “papist monarchy” and left the door open for Monmouth to protect the Protestant interest. Monmouth believed he had “many agents in England,”17 who would rally behind him once he reached England.

With Argyle’s growing impatience for Monmouth’s procrastination, the two finally agreed to a joint rising led by Monmouth in England and Argyle in Scotland. “Argyle set sail from Amsterdam on May 2.”18 Unready to leave, Monmouth’s force set sail for South West England, a strongly Protestant region, on May 24, 1685.19 “There were eighty-three men in three ships: Monmouth with such men as Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, Colonel Foulkes and Nathanial Wade- all fine soldiers—and Robert Ferguson, who was appointed Chaplain- General to the rebel army.”20 iii. Monmouth lands at Lyme Regis In the early morning of June 11, 1685, Monmouth landed on the western shore of England at Lyme Regis in Dorsetshire.21 As the duke touched shore, “he felt like a Crusader, whose mission was to deliver the nation from oppression...

[and] he passionately believed in the rights of the Common man.”22 When the ships landed, “they stood off the harbour all day while a customs official examined them.”23 In a day filled with uncertainty by all the town folk, Monmouth finally emerged as the sun set, “dressed in a magnificent purple and red uniform, with a silver star on his breast.”24 As he disembarked, Monmouth set the standard for his rebellion proclaiming, “For Religion and Liberty” to the crowd.25 Monmouth then “[fell] on his knees...

to thank the Almighty for their safe arrival.”26 “As the Duke marched easily down Broad Street [with his rebels] many welcomed him with shouts of ‘A Monmouth!, A Monmouth!, the Protestant Religion.’”27 Large crowds had gathered at the market to hear the following declaration read aloud: As Government was originally instituted by God, for the peace, happiness and security of the Governed, and not for the private interest or personal greatness of those that rule: so that the Government has always with all the Power and Prerogatives that might capacitate, not only to preserve the people from Violence and Oppression, but to promote their Prosperity; and yet where nothing was to belong to them by the Rules of the Constitution that might enable them to injure and oppress them.

And it hath been the glory of England, above most other nations, that the Prince had all entrusted with him that was necessary either for advancing the Welfare of the people, or for his own protection in the discharge of his office; and withal stood so limited and restrained by the Fundamental Terms of the constitution, that without violation of his own oath, as well as the rules and measures of the Government, he could do them no hurt, or exercise any act of authority, but through the administration of such hands as stood obnoxious to be punished in case they transgressed; so that, according to the primitive frame of Government; the Prerogatives of the Crown and the Privileges of the subject were so far from jostling one another, that the Rights reserved unto the people tended to render the King honourable and great; and the Prerogatives settled on the Prince were in order to the subjects’ Protection and Safety. But all humane things being libable to Perversion as well as decay, it hath been the fate of the English Government to be often changed, and wrested from what it was in the first settlement and institution.

And we are particularly compelled to say, that all boundaries of the Government have of late been broken, and nothing left unattempted for turning our Limited Monarchy into absolute Tyranny. For such has been the transaction of affairs within this nation for many years long past, that though the Protestant religion and Liberties of the people were fenced and hedged about by as many laws as the wisdom of man could devise for their Preservation against Popery and arbitrary power, our religion has been all along undermined by Popish Councils, and our privileges ravished from us by Fraud and Violence.

And more especially, the whole course and series of the life of the present usurper hath been but one continued conspiracy against the Reformed Religion, and Rights of the Nationals.28 The declaration went on to accuse James of “forging treason against Protestants, and suborning witnesses to swear the Patriots of [their Protestant religion] and Liberties.”29 Monmouth even accused the king of murdering Charles II proclaiming, “He hath poisoned the late King, therein manifesting his ingratitude as well as cruelty to the world, in murdering a brother, who had almost ruined himself to preserve and protect him from punishment.”30 Monmouth then declared his resolution to pursue James as a “mortal and bloody enemy... [and promised] with the assistance of his friends and the Law, to have justice executed upon him.”31 Not everyone welcomed the Duke’s arrival. The Mayor of Lyme, Gregory Alford, “was loyal to James II, and in great trepidation he... left for Honiton in Devon,”32 to alert the king of Monmouth’s arrival. From Honiton, Alford wrote at midnight to the king. “It was not surprising that he should exaggerate the enemy’s numbers. [He wrote]...

At least 300 men, the Duke of Monmouth among them, so that they became masters of the town. I presently, well knowing I should be the first seized, took my horse and came with speed to this town; and gave notice to all the country as I came; and sent my servants that notices should be given to Somerset and Dorsetshire... to be ready to take themselves to their arms against the rebels.33 The king immediately responded and “in the House of Commons the duke of Monmouth was attainted of High Treason.”34 Meanwhile, “all through the summer night, Lyme was the scene of heady bustle and warlike preparations.”35 The rebels, under the guidance of Nathanial Wade, the commissioned Major under Monmouth, unloaded the arms and ammunition from the ships along with the muskets, which were stored at the Town Hall.36 During the night, “some sixty young fellows of the town joined [Monmouth’s rebels]... and hundreds more from the farms and villages the next day.”37 “Before the close of the second day the Duke’s army amounted to 1,000 foot and 150 horses.

It is related that Monmouth enlisted more men in one day than William of Orange on his landing three years later did in ten days.”38 The “greater part of the rebels came from urban backgrounds, with a heavy concentration from the depressed west country cloth trades, though there were some farmers and village craftsmen and labourers.39 Many who enlisted were either dissenters or people who sympathized with their plight.”40 The men were formally enlisted, made into squads and sent with a guide to the Town Hall to be issued their arms and ammunition.41 “Other guides then took them to the outposts, where the officers in command set about teaching them how to use their muskets... within an hour of enlisting, the recruits were in what might at any moment become the firing- line.”42 While Monmouth’s men made an impressive effort to recruit after realizing the “promised” army he thought would be waiting in England did not in fact exist, “the rebel army probably never exceeded 3000 men.”43 On June 13th, news of Monmouth’s landing reached James in London who actively began preparing his defense.

“On 15th June regular troops under Lord Churchill, including four troops of the King’s Dragoons, four troops of the Earl of Oxford’s Horse, five companies of the Queen’s or West Surrey (the Queen- dowager’s regiment) set out for the West [to quash the rebellion].”44 Within two days, Churchill’s Royal army had reached Bristol and “on the following day, [they] were at Axminster before marching to Chard.”45 Around this time, Monmouth also had to accept the defeat of losing “his best officer, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, for killing his paymaster general, Thomas Dare, in a squabble over a horse.”46 One evening while Monmouth’s men were still in Lyme, “he dined together with Lord Grey and Fletcher of Saltoun at the George.47 The men drank too much and Fletcher “mounted Heywood Dare’s excellent horse, which the Taunton man had brought from the stables of Ford Abbey.”48 There was an exchange between the two, “and when the paymaster [Dare] threatened violence, Fletcher shot him in the head with his pistol.”49 Because Dare’s son insisted on justice for the death of his father

, Monmouth, was forced to dismiss Fletcher.50 The loss of the two men, “was disastrous for the Duke.”51 Andrew Fletcher “was a brilliant and intrepid leader of Cavalry, while old Dare had much influence on Taunton.

Monmouth, being very superstitious, now felt full of foreboding, and that an evil star dogged his enterprise.”52 iv. Monmouth Proclaims himself King With the King’s royal army in quick pursuit, the rebels made their way out of Lyme, brushed with Dorset Militia at Bridport, and occupied Chard by the 16th of June.5354in their hats green boughs, the badges of Monmouth’s case. Deafening shouts arose on all sides: ‘A Monmouth! A Monmouth!”55 Then, “twenty girls of the best families of Taunton presented their hero with ‘a small curious Bible,”56 to which the Duke replied: “I come to defend the truths contained in this book, and to seal them with my blood if occasion require it.”57 The Maids then presented the colours to Monmouth.58 Taunton was the “most disaffected and factious town in all England. It was referred to by the Court party as “a roguish place,” and “the sink of all the rebellion in the West...

Among the people of Taunton were some of Monmouth’s most enthusiastic adherents, weavers, carpenters, masons, shoemakers, and bricklayers.”59 After his warm welcome, Monmouth made his first proclamation against pillage.60 Heeding the advice of Grey and Ferguson to garner support for his cause through leadership, Monmouth again addressed the crowd at Taunton market cross on June 20th with another proclamation. “The townspeople were rapturous at the words they heard... Whereas, upon the decease of our Sovereign Lord Charles the Second, late King of England, the right and succession of the Crown of England... did legally descend and devolve upon the most illustrious and high- born Prince James Duke of Monmouth... but James Duke of York, (taking the advantage of the absence of the said James Duke of Monmouth beyond the seas) did first cause the said late King to be poisoned, and immediately thereupon did usurp and invade the Crown, and doth continue to do: We therefore, the noblemen, gentlemen and commons...

do proclaim that said high and mighty Prince James Duke of Monmouth, our lawful and rightful sovereign...61 The proclamation “was read [and] affirm[ed] that on the death of Charles the crown did legally descend upon... Monmouth’ and declare[ed] him ‘our lawful and rightful sovereign and king, by the name of James the Second.62 v. Net Closes in on the Rebels headed toward Bristol On June 21st, Monmouth and his army left Taunton for Bridgwater, where they moved to Glastonbury and Shepton Mallet with the intention of marching on Bristol. The morning Monmouth marched out of Taunton was a Sunday, and “John, Lord Churchill, a fine looking solider of thirty-five, with intelligent eyes and resolution drawn on his lips, attended matins63 at the fifteenth- century church at Chard.64 Meanwhile, “the net was closing”65 on Monmouth’s rebels.

James II had appointed Lieutenant General Louis Duras, Earl of Feversham as commander- in chief of the Royal Army on June 19.66 “Lord Feversham had left London the previous day with a troop of Life Guards and sixty Horse Grenadiers...[the next day] the main artillery train would leave the Tower, with an escort of Sir Francis Compton’s troop of Lord Oxford’s regiment.”67 The regiment included “16 large cannon with carriages, powder, ball, shovels, pickaxes and other warlike provisions... and eight more field- pieces were already on their way from Portsmouth to Sherborne under [the] excellent gunner, Mr. Sheres, with an escort commanded by Churchill’s brother.”68 The King would have no trouble reoccupying Taunton with such force.69 Despite the increasing threat of face to face contact with Feversham’s army, Monmouth’s “army was in good morale and in a fighting mood.”70 The day before Monmouth’s army left Taunton, “Churchill had sent out a party of Lord Oxford’s Horse under Lieutenant Monoux to see what damage could be done to the rebel outposts...

and in a skirmish at Ashill, Monoux got a pistol shot through the head for his trouble.”71 Moreover, as Monmouth’s men arrived in Bridgwater, the people gave him a royal and warm reception.72 “Hundreds of fresh volunteers came in, and nearly half as many were turned away for lack of arms.” 73 In an effort to increase his army’s power with lack of resources, Monmouth used “his old tactical imagination, [and] had scythes converted into hand- weapons.”74 That night, Monmouth slept at the Bridgwater Castle, “but there was little to encourage sleep.... The news that Feversham was on his way...

kept him preoccupied with strategy, for with no open support coming from the north, it might be neither possible nor expedient to march immediately for Gloucester.”75 The next day, Monmouth marched to Glastonbury through rain and had a minor cavalry encounter at Langport.76 Indeed, “all the while that the rebel army had been advancing in triumph, they were being mildly harassed from behind by dragoons under Colonel John Churchill.”77 By the 23rd of June, Monmouth’s men had reached Shepton Mallet. “It was [there] that Major Oglethorpe discovered them. He had left London three days before, in charge of a reconnaissance party of fifty mounted guards, whose assignment was to seek out the exact whereabouts of the rebel army and report to his chief, [Lord Feversham].”78 That day, Feversham and his forces reached Bristol. Feversham then “moved back to Bath, where he found Oglethorpe [and] instantly dispatched him again to gather more certain information regarding the enemy’s strength and intentions.”79 The more skilled and experienced Feversham utilized the strategizing of the Royal army and patiently waited for the right moment to strike.

Meanwhile, on June 26th Churchill’s forces joined Feversham at Bath to amass a threateningly large and powerful royal army waiting for the time to shut down Monmouth’s rebellion.80 vi. Fight or Retreat? “This was a decisive moment in the story of the rebellion. Monmouth had to decide whether or not to fight the King’s army, now concentrated around Bristol.”81 On the 25th, Monmouth held a council of war and abandoned his project for Bristol in favor of an advance into Wiltshire.82 “Doubtless [Monmouth] and his staff considered several plans of attack, such as creating a great diversion on the south- western side of Bristol, but then assaulting it from the east. Several of his soldiers, including Colonel Wade and Captain Tyley, were Bristol men and knew the layout well.”83 Monmouth knew that if he could defeat Feversham then, he would “temporarily have defeated the whole Royalist army... [and] he could march straight to London.”84 However, Monmouth likely took into account the potential harm to the inhabitants of Bristol and decided to march on toward Bath instead.85 v.

News of Argyle’s Execution and the Rebels’ Retreat The pressure continued to intensify on Monmouth’s rebels, who were daily deserting the cause. By the time the rebels reached Frome on the 28th of June, “as many as two thousand men deserted him. Probably the disappointment of not having fought a decisive battle [at Bristol], coupled with the foul weather, made the temptation of their own homes and hearths over-mastering. Discipline, which had been excellent, now deteriorated.”86 On June 29th, the rebels learned of Argyle’s execution. “When news of Argyll’s defeat reached the rebels at Frome, Monmouth seriously considered abandoning the whole enterprise and taking ship to Holland.”87 “With the collapse of the rebellion in Scotland, and with the anticipated rising in Cheshire and London having failed to materialize, Monmouth knew that the cause was lost.”88 Monmouth might have retreated had it not been for an “impassioned speech by Lord Grey, in which he argued that for Monmouth to leave the army now would be an act, ‘so base that it could never be forgiven by the people’...

[This] persuaded Monmouth to [press forward with the rebellion].89 On the day that Argyle was executed, Monmouth turned west and returned to Shepton Mallet. He had wanted to move in the direction of London, but Feversham had marched across his intended route as far as Westbury, and this had deterred him.”90 At this stage in the rebellion, “Monmouth still had enough men to fight a decisive battle, and he had now to find a way of achieving this successfully. Bridgwater was chosen as a base, to occupy and fortify, before exploring new areas.”91 vi.

The Battle of Sedgemoor “Once again, arrived within the town of Bridgwater, Monmouth was having to make up his mind about future action.”92 When Monmouth re-entered the city on July 3rd, he received a lukewarm welcome, quite different from the cheers he received the first time his rebels passed through.93 Monmouth’s “first thought was to prepare the place for siege, and orders were issued for the local villages to send in workmen and labourers to assist with the task, as well as large amounts of requisitioned supplies.”94 The citizens of the town did not relish the prospect: Bridgwater had been destroyed in a disastrous fire. Memories of Civil War died hard; it was one thing to cheer a handsome ‘King Monmouth’ and his supporters through the streets when his cause had appeared to be on the flood-tide; it was quite another to be expected to support him to the last now that his fortunes were so clearly on the ebb...

The local peasantry relished even less the prospect of having both their labour and their remaining cattle and grain committed to what to many must already have been seen as a ‘lost cause.’95 However, Monmouth’s efforts in Bridgwater were merely a scheme to confuse the Royal army on the rebels’ heels. “According to Wade... who was privy to Monmouth’s plans, the idea of the rebels sustaining a siege at Bridgwater was only a cover for a more ambitious scheme.”96 Monmouth simply wished to rest his army, “then march hard for Keynsham once more, cross the Avon, and head deep into Gloucestershire... [end eventually] to Cheshire... an area committed to his cause.”97 Monmouth still believed the Protestants and Whigs of London would rise to the occasion and support his rebel army. Monmouth’s plans were foiled when Feversham received word of the news that he was contemplating a siege.

On July 4th, the royal army moved forward from Somerton to Westonzoyland with the intent to blockade Bridgwater.98 With little choice to break-away from the Royal army waiting on him, Monmouth called a council of war with his most trusted men, including Grey and Wade and decided to “surprise the enemy in the dead of the night.”99 Excitement ensued amongst the rebels over the plan, who now had a sliver of hope that their efforts might prevail after all. “Bridgwater had rarely known such animation as it knew that evening of 5 July 1685. It was loud with horsemen’s boots, scabbards and jingling spurs over its cobbled streets, and with the cheerful speculation of simple countrymen living the lives of temporary warriors... [and] it was filled with admiration for the rebel commander.”100 The men also took with them “cider and the fruits of Bridgwater’s cellars”101 for courage. vii.

Good fortune runs out Therefore, under Godfrey as their guide out of the town, the rebel army, horses, ammunition and all headed out silently in the night through the marshes and banks toward Sedgemoor.102 “Fear must have been in every rebel heart at this juncture—and doubtless the religious euphoria or effects of rough cider had worn off [by now].”103 The men attempted to stealthily move forward, however “the good fortune that so far had blessed the rebel march was about to run out.”104 Godfrey’s stopped short in the mist upon finding himself at the bank of Langmoor Rhine which was about eight feet across. Not warned of the ditch, the horsemen crowded up in the darkness; horses stumbled and neighed; men ran into one another; horses whinnied and snorted; a weapon or two were dropped; men doubtless cursed. This time they were heard. The time was shortly after one in the morning [on July 6th]. Suddenly there was a flash in the darkness, followed by the sound of a shot.105 viii. Battle, Flight and Execution “All at once the camp began to stir...

Frantic but orderly activity ensued as the regular soldiers [of the royal army], hardly pausing to rub the sleep from their eyes... quitted their tents to seize muskets or pikes from the bells- of- arms.” 106 They then “began to run towards the open space... [and] within minutes, the six battalions were formed in the line of battle.”107 “Monmouth’s infantry, guided by the glowing slow matches of the opposing muskets, moved to a position more than twenty yards from the edge of the ditch.”108 The rebels, “standing in battle order, started shooting, but they aimed too high to do any harm.”109 Feversham’s Royal army stood back as Monmouth’s infantry attempted to fight and cross the ditch, only to be “beaten back [and] los[e] both horses and men.

“Perhaps daunted by this, Feversham refused to make any new offensive moves until the first streaks of dawn appeared in the sky.”110 It was then “that his infantry and the rest of the cavalry were ordered over the ditch, and by light of the early sun, pursued and routed their enemies [who were fleeing for their lives].”111 It remains unclear exactly how many rebels died during the battle. Some accounts claim “400 were killed on the battlefield, and up to 1000 more on the swords of the royal horse and dragoons or the pike-points and plug- bayonets of the royal foot... Many of the rebels were caught at the Langmoor Rhine.”112 Others were hunted through corn fields and “1200 were taken prisoner,”113 to meet their dreadful fate later before Judge Jeffrey’s during the Bloody Assizes. Monmouth’s fate was no different from his men.

After two days of flight, he was captured on July 8th by Royalist forces near the Woodlands in Dorset.114 The fallen rebel leader was taken to London where “he spent many of his last hours abjectly pleading for his life on any terms. He would reveal names of all his fellow- conspirators, become his uncle’s most loyal subject, and even become a convert to the Roman Catholic Church.”115 Finally, on July 14, King James II agreed to see Monmouth. “Many believed this was a sure sign that a reprieve might be forthcoming. Doubtless so Monmouth hoped, and he was prepared to sob and grovel at his uncle’s feet.”116 However, all the groveling in the world would not change the merciless King’s decision to sign Monmouth’s death warrant for the next day. Following his meeting with the King, Monmouth was sent to the Tower where he regained some dignity on his final day.

“He saw his estranged wife, and their three children, and signed a written statement to the effect that his father, King Charles II, had always told him that he had never been married to his mother, Lucy Walters.”117 Monmouth refused the bishops’ insistence that he publicly declare “it would be a heinous sin to rebel against the King [but] he did apologise from the heart for all the trouble he had caused... particularly to his... supporters... and declared his undying affection for Lady Henrietta Wentworth.”118 On the scaffold Monmouth gave his executioner, Jack Ketch a sum of money and promised more from his servant if he made a quick cut. However, “to the horror of the vast and sympathetic crowd,”119 Ketch’s first blow barely broke the skin and four more blows followed with struggle to severe Monmouth’s head before the rebel leader could finally rest in peace. On July 15, 1685, “the agony of James Scott was over.”120 ix.

The end The question of who fired the fatal shot rousing the King’s sleeping army to victory against Monmouth’s rebels when they were within a mile of a successful rebellion is unknown.121 Some speculate the shot was an accident resulting from the surprise halt at the Langmoor Rhine. Others speculate treachery.122 Regardless of the outcome for Monmouth, his rebellion can be remembered with pride for the ideals he stood for. While unsuccessful in his own attempt, his rebellion spurred the even more irrational behavior of King James II to consolidate his power through fear. Three years after Monmouth’s failed attempt, a new savior of the Protestant religion and ideals, William of Orange would finish Monmouth’s task and peacefully take the throne of England to restore liberty and peace to a weary people. Bibliography

Question: Which king was the target of the Popish Plot and the Rye House Plot?
Answer: Charles II