rumour of Godfrey's disappearance, and probable murder by bloody
Papists, was current in London on the afternoon of the day when he
disappeared, Saturday, October 12.*** Mr. Pollock says that the
evidence is 'not to be relied on,' and part of it, attributing the
rumour to Godfrey's brothers, is absurd. THEY were afraid that
Godfrey had killed himself, not that he was murdered by Papists.
That 'his household could not have known that he would not return,'
is not to the point. The people who raised the rumour were not of
Godfrey's household. Nor is it to the point, exactly, that, being
invited to dine on Saturday by Mr. Welden, who saw him on Friday
night, 'he said he could not tell whether he should.'** For Wynell
had expected to dine with him at Welden's to talk over some private
business about house property.*** Wynell (the authority for
Godfrey's being 'master of a dangerous secret') did expect to meet
Godfrey at dinner, and, knowing the fears to which Godfrey often
confessed, might himself have originated, by his fussy inquiries,
the rumour that Sir Edmund was missing. The wild excitement of the
town might add 'murdered by Papists,' and the rumour might really
get into a letter from London of Saturday night, reaching Tixall by
Monday morning. North says: 'It was in every one's mouth, WHERE IS
GODFREY? HE HAS NOT BEEN AT HIS HOUSE ALL THIS DAY, THEY SAY HE IS
MURDERED BY THE PAPISTS.'**** That such a pheemee^ might arise is
very conceivable. In all probability the report which Bishop Burnet
and Dr. Lloyd heard of the discovery of Godfrey's body, before it
was discovered, was another rumour, based on a lucky conjecture. It
is said that the report of the fall of Khartoum was current in Cairo
on the day of the unhappy event. Rumour is correct once in a myriad
times, and, in October 1678, London was humming with rumours. THIS
report might get into a letter to Tixall, and, if so, Dugdale's
early knowledge is accounted for; if knowledge he had, which I have