contradictory.

Bedloe, passing through a room in the House of Commons, saw Prance
in custody, and at once pretended to recognise in him the 'chapel
keeper,' 'under waiter,' or 'man in the purple gown,' whom he had
seen by the light of a dark lantern, beside Godfrey's body, in a
room of Somerset House, on October 14. 'There was very little
light' on that occasion, Bedloe had said, and he finally refused, we
saw, to swear to Atkins, who had an alibi. But, as to Prance, he
said: 'This is one of the rogues that I saw with a dark lantern
about the body of Sir Edmund, but he was then in a periwig.'* The
periwig was introduced in case Prance had an alibi: Oates had used
the same 'hedge,' 'a periwig doth disguise a man very much,' in
Coleman's case.**

*L'Estrange, iii. pp. 52, 53, 65.
**State Trials, vii. 27.

What was Bedloe's recognition of Prance worth? Manifestly nothing!
He had probably seen Prance (not as a 'waiter') in the Queen's
Chapel. Now he found him in custody. Cautious as regards Atkins,
six weeks earlier, Bedloe was emboldened now by a train of
successes. He had sworn away Coleman's life. His self-
contradictions had been blindly swallowed. If Prance could prove an
alibi, what was that to Bedloe? The light of the dark lantern had
been very bad; the rogue, under that light, had worn a periwig,
which 'doth disguise a man very much.' Bedloe could safely say that
he had made an innocent error. Much worse blunders had not impaired
his credit; later he made much worse blunders, undetected. He saw
his chance and took it.