A REPLY TO THE REMONSTRANCE of the Bewinthebbers or Directors of the Netherlands East-India Companie lately exhibited to the Lords States Gene­rall, in iustification of the proceedings of their Officers at AMBOYNA, against the English there.

THe Directors of the Nether­lands A East-India Company, finding it needful to defend their Officers at Amboyna by this Remonstrance, referre themselues in the first place vnto a former deduction which they had exhibited vnto the Lords States in Iuly last: Wherein they professe still to insist. And con­sidering (say they) the infallible Indicia that prece­ded the discouerie of this conspiracy, and the iust and [Page 2] Legall proceedings vsed against the Complices, ap­pearing by the iuditiall acts signed aswell by the par­ties examined, as by the Gouernor and Councell of Am­boyna, who are a Colledge or Court of Iudges admitted and sworne; against which no proofe, much lesse any vaine and friuolous suspitions ought to be admitted, they therefore conceived (vntill they see the contrary) that the Consperators (as they call them) were lawful­ly, and rightly apprehended, the fact well prooued, ac­cording to the Law and Custome of the Low-Coun­tries, and consequently that the punishment was law­fully inflicted, with moderation of the rigour of Iu­stice and with clemency.

This deduction of the moneth of Iuly heere men­tioned, hath not beene yet imparted to the English East-India Companie. Otherwise they would haue exa­mined the same, as they did the Relation printed in the Scheme of a letter Missive. Which yet they veri­ly beleeue to be the verie same in effect, and compi­led by the same pen; for that it appeareth by com­paring of the printed Pamphlet, with the Acts of this Processe at Amboyna, here mentioned (copie where­of was communicated to the said English Companie) that the body of the said Pamphelet, (the preamble excepted) was wholie taken out of the same acts; onely with some sophistication, of the act touching Master Towersons pretended voluntarie confession, noted in the Answere to the same Pamphlet. Wher­fore although it may be supposed that this deduction here referred vnto, is already sufficiently answered in the said answere to the Dutch Relation; yet because in this very recitall of the Directors, there are certaine generall heads, either recapitulated out of that de­duction, [Page 3] or laid for new grounds of the justification of the Dutch proceedings; it will not be amisse to ex­amine them as they lie.

And first for the infallible Indicia pretended to haue preceaded the discouery; it is shewed in the answere to the Pamphlet, that the Indicia to torture the first Iapon (which was the beginning of the whole Pro­cesse) were insufficient in law: the behauiour that this Iapon vsed, and vpon which he was apprehended, be­ing none other, then that which is and may be vsed by any Souldier in the place where he serueth, without blame or suspicion. For other Indicia, there was not the least; neither of prouisions of the English for such an exployte, nor of Letters to or from any Complice, nor of suspitious conferences, messages, or intelligen­cies, nor of flight or close keeping of the parties; nor any other agreeing with the rules or examples giuen by the Law, or the Authors commenting thereupon. But being destitute of these and the like lawfull Indicia, the Dutch Officers were faine to fetch their Indicia out of the Racke, and to make the confession of one tortu­red person Indicium to torture another, contrary to the very expresse direction of the Law. Some confessions indeed, were without actuall torture of the persons themselues: but euen such had heard the cryes and seene the bodies of others tortured and martyred be­fore them; which feare of the Torture is by the Law e­qualled to the torture it selfe, as hath beene shewed in the said answere.

The second generall ground here layd, is the juditi­all acts of the Colledge of Iudges at Amboyna, shewing their just and legall proceedings. The Acts indeed of [Page 4] any Court of Iustice being orderly kept, yeeld a very sufficient proofe in the point of fact in Court: that is, they prooue that such and such examinations, confes­sions, proofes, and euidences were taken and made; and such iudgement thereupon giuen as is therein en­tred. But for the point of Iustice, that must be judged by the comparing of the proofes with the sentence grounded vpon them. Now as touching the orderly keeping of these Acts imparted to the English East India Company as aforesaid: the same are neither agreeable to the formes of other Courts, nor vniforme in them­selues. For the point of conformitie to other Courts, it is not here meant to require, that the Acts of the Councell of Amboyna should in euery point agree with the formes of euery Court in the Low Countryes; the seuerall Courts whereof haue their seuerall formes and stile, and some differences in points not substantiall. But some generall Requisites of forme there be, which are obserued in all Courts; yet omitted in these Acts of Amboyna. As first the date of euery dayes passages ought to be prefixed or annexed vnto them; which is not obserued in these said Acts. But in these Acts the examination of all the English, being 18 seuerall priso­ners, goeth vnder the date of the 25. of Februarie: al­though the confessions are so many and so large, as could not possibly be taken in one day: yea three of the same prisoners, to wit, Powle, Wether all, and Ladbrooke were but apprehended first vpon the 26. of February, and that at Cambello the outmost factory in Seran, and arriued not at Amboyna (where these examinations were taken) vntill the second of March stilo nouo. So that they could not be examined at Amboyna the 25. of [Page 5] February as the Acts import. Next, it is a solennitie in all Courts, to note in the Acts, the day of the exami­nation of the Prisoner vpon the Torture, or in the place of the Torture; and then the act of his subscription to his confession vpon another day. For these two may not be done vpon the same day by the Law: but the confession must be iterated and confirmed by the Pri­soner being free of bonds and irons, at least a day after the sence or sight of the torture: els it is not held for good, and concluding against the partie that confessed it. But in all these Acts of Amboyna, there is but one date and one Act for both these: contrary to the Law it selfe, and the Custome and forme of all Courts. Thirdly, the Acts ought to specifie whether the Priso­ner confesseth vpon Torture or without. But these Acts doe not so: but onely in the generall; in the beginning of the Acts of the 26. of February, it is entred, that some confessed before Torture, others with little Torture as followeth, &c. Whereby it appeareth not, who was tortured and who not; nor what was confessed with, and what without torture. Fourthly, the Acts ought to specifie what finally becometh of euery prisoner; but in these Acts there is no entry made what became of Sherrocke, Webber, and two of the Iapons, to wit, Soysimo and Sacoube; these being by the Acts neither condem­ned, nor absolued, nor repriued; and yet all foure are de facto dismissed and set at libertie.

As for the point of Vniformitie in the Acts them­selues, Collins and Beamount are disposed of by speciall Act; yet Sherrock, Webber, and the two Iapons (all in the same case) are discharged, as before, without any Act for it. Yea there is an Act entred for disposing of the [Page 6] Portugalls wife, though shee were neither accused nor examined: as if shee had beene a partie to the Processe, rather then Sherrock, Webber, and these two Iapons, a­gainst all whom the Fiscall craued judgment. Further, some of the Examinations haue the Gouernour and his Councels names subscribed to them, and some not: some of the confessions haue the prisoners names sub­scribed and some not; with diuers other defects and disconformities, which easily and plainely discouer that they are not allowable for orderly and authenticall Acts of a Court of Iustice.

Thus hath beene shewed what credit may be giuen to these Acts in the point of fact therein recorded. Now for the point of Iustice, appearing by comparing the proofes against the prisoners with the sentence, it is in the first place to be noted, that there is no proofe nor euidence of any thing entred in all the said Acts, no not so much as a witnesse named, much lesse depo­sed, of the least Indicium against the prisoners, or any of them; but onely the meere confessions of the priso­ners themselues, drawne from them by the paine or just feare of torture. Which meere cōfession of the parties, without other Indiciū or proof, is no sufficient ground to condemne any by the Law of the Low Countryes.

Secondly, it is a Requisite of their Law, that the pri­soners subscribe their confessions being free of bonds and irons. Now neither is there any mention in all the Acts of any such free confession, and all our people that escaped are ready to confirme vpon their oathes, that from the first apprehension vntill the houre of go­ing to the execution, there was no intermission of the fetters.

[Page 7]Thirdly, the same confessions are full of contrarie­ties: as one while that the plott should be executed when some English ship or shippes should be there ar­riued, the people whereof should assist in the exployt: another while, that when the Castle was taken, then Maister Towerson would first send to Iaccatra for assi­stance. Likewise, one while that it should be attemp­ted when the Dutch Gouernor was abroad vpon some enterprize: another while that the Gouernor himselfe should be killed in the Castle. Further, one while that all the Iapons were wonne to the plotte before Maister Towerson opened it to the English, and consulted with them; another while, that he sent out some of the En­glish eight dayes after that consultation, then to winne the Iapons. Also one while that the Iapons had consulted diuers times with Maister Towerson himselfe in the En­glish house; another while that they neuer treated with Master Towerson himselfe, but with others in his name; with other like contradictions, differences, and incer­tainties. Further, the place, persons and time were spe­cified to Abel Price in his examination, contrary to the Law. In the last place the thing confessed to be plot­ted, was not onely impossible to be atchieued by such meanes and manner of execution as was confessed: but as impossible also to come into the imagination of any man in his witts: as is already sufficiently shewed in the answere to the Dutch Relation. By which premis­ses appeareth, that as well through defect of other proofe, besides the meere confessions of the prisoners, and that in Irons; as in respect of the incertaintie, in­constancy, and contrarietie of the same confessions, the specification and leading examinations, together [Page 8] with the impossibilitie of the truth of the thing confes­sed, there is in these Acts no lawful ground for the sen­tence of condemnation.

The third generall ground that is laid in this Remon­strance is, that the Acts were signed by the prisoners themselues, and by the Councell of Amboyna, which is a Court or Colledge of Iudges admitted and sworne: and therefore no proofes, much lesse any vaine and friuolous suspitions may be admitted to the contrary.

As for the subscription of the Prisoners to their con­fessions; of what value that is without other Indicia and proofes hath beene already declared. Now that no proofes may be admitted against sworne Iudges, is a strange Maxime: which being granted must needs inferre either that such Iudges cannot erre and judge vniustly; or else that how euer they carry themselues, their doings must not be examined, much lesse puni­shed. So that then the Law hath in vaine prouided punishment for a Iudge in case of wrong imprison­ment, causlesse vnorderly torture, and of vniust absol­uing or condemning, and the like; for which there are so many and so diligent prouisions. It may be thought indeed, that vnder this confidence this whole Processe was begun and followed; as the safest and fairest way to be ridd of the English, without such reckoning as was formerly made for the courses of open hostilitie. But if this way goe for currant, though towards a for­raigne Nation: how comes it that by the Law and cu­stome of Nations, so many Reprizalles and warres haue been made for iniustice done by the Iudges of one Na­tion to the people of another, when none other re­dresse could be obtained, yea and many times in such [Page 9] foule causes as this, without any demand of redresse?

These grounds aforesaid, being thus laid, this Re­monstrance B proceedeth to take notice of two seuerall Discourses spread as well in England as in the Lowe Countryes against the Dutch cause of Amboyna: the first, a briefe Collection of the effect of certaine Letters written by the English Factors at Iaccatra, dated the 19. of Iune 1623. The second, a more ample Writing, entituled, A true Relation of the cruell and barbarous Tortures and Execution of the English at Amboyna by the Dutch there. The former of these this Remonstrance chargeth with passion and great vehemency; because it doth by way of preiudice, enstile the Processe of Amboyna, an vniust and barbarous murder: and ag­grauateth the fashion and manner of the Tortures. So it vouchsafeth this none other answere; but this note of passion; and that it falsely nameth the Iapons executed to be the seruants of the English; Whereas in truth they were the seruants of the Dutch at Amboyna. What or whose this Discourse thus excepted against and thus answered is; the English Company knowes not. Yet they beleeue not that any of the English partie, would (except it were by a slip of the penne) call these Iapons, seruants of the English: the same being contra­ry to all the reports and aduertisements that came from Amboyna and Iaccatra; it is likewise to be presu­med, that if in that Writing there had beene any thing els, which they could haue answered, they would not haue dismissed it as they doe. For, as for the terming the execution, An vniust and barbarous murder; that were no more cause to reiect the Discourse without further answere; then the like stile giuen it in the very [Page 10] title of the second and larger Writing, which neuer­thelesse hath obtained a more particular answere.

Hauing giuen the first Writing this quicke dispatch, C the Remonstrance proceedeth to the answere of the Re­lation set out by the English East India Company; and in the first place chargeth it with an impertinent descrip­tion (in the very introduction) of the Castle of Am­boyna, and the Dutch Garrisons and Forces there; to the end (saith this Remonstrance) to shew that there was no likelihood nor probability that the English there would vndertake the surprize of the Castle; being a thing im­possible to be done: as if (saith the Remonstrance) the want of vnderstanding in the Conspirators, and the foolish ground of their proiect (all other accusations ceasing) should haue excused them from punishment: the contrary whereof is euery where obserued.

Here in the very first steppe of the Answere, the end of the English Company in setting out the impossibili­tie of the fact, is either mistaken or traduced. For if the conspiracy had beene sufficiently prooued according to the direction euen of the Lawes by which the Dutch are gouerned; then the probabilitie or possibilitie of the fact had neuer beene alledged. For in such case it is true, that the foolishnesse of the plott excuseth no man. But when there is no other proofe or euidence, but the meere confession of the prisoner, (which is the present case) then the very text of the Law of treason, enioyneth the Iudge to consider the person of the pri­soner ( which is the present case) then the very text of the Law of Treason, enioyneth the Iudge to consider the person of the prisoner; whether he be able to execute such a thing as he is accused of, whether he euer practised the [Page 11] like before; what he meant; and whether he were in his wits of no; and such like; For without these consi­derations the slippery confession of the tongue ought not to be the ground of the punishment. This is their Law, according to which if they had proceeded, the English had neuer needed to alledge these impossibili­ties; which the Iudges themselues ought to haue con­sidered. But not hauing done it, they haue made them­selues guiltie of vniust Iudgement; which to prooue, the impossibilitie of the fact is both pertinent and ne­cessary.

But the better to inforce the former answere, the Re­monstrance D saith, that this presumption of the impossi­bilitie of the fact ought not to be considered, against a veritie altogether notorious and prooued, against the confessions of the prisoners themselues, and against the conscience & testimony of so many men of worth and credit, that managed this affayre, and against a Court or Colledge of Iudges, &c. in publique Office and sworne.

All this is but a Rhetoricall flourish, and being exa­mined, will vanish into the ayre as a meere sound. For first for the notoriousnesse of the pretended con­spiracie; although now ex post facto, they cry it out for notorious; yet at the time when the notorietie should haue beene considered, which was before the appre­hension, torturing, and execution of our people; there was not the least breath of such a fame. It is now too late to alledge a notorietie, that themselues haue made who alledge it. As for the proofes here mentio­ned; Why haue they not at any time specified them? If there be none other proofes besides the meere con­fessions [Page 12] (as other the Acts doe not so much as menti­on) why then are proofes and confessions here distinct­ly acumulated; as if there were any other proofes be­sides the said confessions? As for the conscience and testimony of those that managed the Processe, being a publique and sworne Colledge of Iudges; it is not at all to be reckoned of; when it appeareth that they haue not proceeded according to the Law. And if this plea might be admitted, no Iudge should euer be found guiltie of Iniustice. Further, if the very qualitie of the Iudges be considered, it will rather hurt then helpe them: there were none amongst them that had any ordinary knowledge in the Law, whereby they vnder­take to judge causes: besides their young yeares and wicked liues: which if it were pertinent to the cause in question, might be set forth by many speciall instan­ces. But if they were neuer so learned, experienced, or well famed; yet that would not auayle when they haue proceeded against the prescript of their owne Law (to say nothing here of the treatie) as they are sufficiently prooued to haue done.

But this Remonstrance not trusting to this Answere, in slighting the improbability and impossibility of the fact, as not worth the considering; yet for all that, in the next place laboureth and sweateth to make the fact seeme probable and possible, the contrary whereof in vs that hold the contrary part, it reiecteth as imperti­nent; Is it impertinent for vs to shew the improbabili­tie and impossibilitie of the fact; and yet pertinent for them to shew the contrary probabilitie and possibili­tie? But let vs see and consider their presumptions. First (they say) they haue already proued, that the En­glish E [Page 13] for a diuersion of the Dutch Forces in the Castle, had inuited and induced all the Ternatans, Seranians, and neighbouring Indians to rebell, and doe violence to the Dutch, that when the Dutch Gouernour should haue drawne the maine of his Forces of men and ship­ping that way, then the English might with ease take the Castle so emptied and denuded of her Forces.

How vaine this point is, is already manifested in the Answere to the Dutch Relation. And as for the proofes here mentioned; there is in all the Acts not so much as any offer made of any proofe of this point.

But it is worthy againe to be noted, that here the de­uice and Scene is changed. For where in the Dutch Re­lation it is said, (though no where prooued) that the Ternatans of Loho should haue come with their Curri­curryes to assist Maister Towerson at Amboyna, and that the Dutch Gouernour must haue beene killed there in the Castle by the Iapons; now he must be gone with all his Forces out of the Island to tame those Ternatans and the rest of the Seranians & neighbouring Indians: that the English might surprize the Castle in their ab­sence. As for the shippes of the Dutch, which now also must haue beene absent: it is well knowne, that the seruice here pretended would neither need, nor could haue vse of their great shippes, but onely of Curry­curries and small Vessels, which also the Dutch after v­sed, leauing their great shipping in the roade by the Castle.

The strength of the Dutch thus extenuated, in the F next place the Remonstrance pursuing the argument of possibilitie, amplifieth the Forces of the English. And first it deliuereth, that the English had a great number [Page 14] of slaues in their Factories, which great number is al­ready truely confessed in the answere to the Dutch Re­lation, to be iust sixe and all boyes. Next it is added, that they would also haue stayed their actuall attempt of the Castle, vntill some English shippes were arriued there; which point is also at large refuted in the said Answere. Thirdly, here is alledged, that Maister Tower­son had giuen charge vnto his other English, to haue daily laboured and wonne by vnder-hand practize, o­ther subiects of the Dutch, thereby to augment their owne partie, and to weaken the strength of the Dutch. Of which point, as there was no probabilitie; so in all the Acts, there is no shadow of proofe thereof made, or so much as endeuoured: how euer now the despe­rate cause requireth the helpe of so grosse a fiction. Fourthly (which is vaunted for the principall argumēt) it is here seriously obserued; that the Castle should haue beene surprized by treason and not by siege; and so like enough the English (though but few) might by this meanes doe wonders. A very poore note; as if the En­glish Relation had cited impossibilities by way of siege, and not as well by way of trechery. But besides that, this argument beggeth the maine question; to wit, that there was indeed such a treason: was there euer any such treason or stratagem practized in any Countrey, to surprize a Castle by a small force; without a com­petency of seconds to make good and hold that which was so entred and possessed? Yet this argument is fur­ther G enforced, not onely by the opportunitie that the Iapons had to betray the Castle; themselues seruing as Souldiers therein; but also by the extraordinary valour ane hardinesse of that Nation, set forth by two seuerall [Page 15] Apochriphal Legends of strange feats of other Iapons; without specifying of the number of them that perfor­med these wonders, but leauing a blanke to helpe the tale at their pleasure. But let it be granted that the Ia­pons are all Gyants, and had opportunity being trusted: yet is it likely, that the Dutch Gouernour in his expedi­tion here supposed against the Rebells of Seran and the other Indians, would haue left such Worthies idle in their Castle at home, and not haue taken them with them, according to their Custome? Would they haue withdrawne their Dutch, and trusted such strangers with their Castle, being yet so suspitious of them, that they would torture them for asking an ordinary harmelesse question? O miserable presumptions! And yet here we haue all the particulars that are alledged, or could be inuented.

In the next place, the Remonstrants returne to the H answere of the English Relation: finding themselues grieued, that their Councell of Amboyna is charged to haue forged this crime against the English, thereby to be ridd of their company, and so to enioy the trade there alone. For their purgation wherein, here are di­uers arguments alledged. As first, that if they had not liked their company there, it had beene easier and fai­rer to haue kept them out, when they were out, then to haue so cast them out after their admission of them by the Treatie, Ann. 1619. And God forbid (saith the Remonstrance,) that any should vse such wicked and bloudy meanes for so poore an end, as onely to driue the English out of Amboyna.

It is true ordinarily; Turpius [...]ijcitur &c. It is more discurtesie to turne out a guest, then at first to deny [Page 16] him entertainment. But sometimes there may be such a necessitie, as that a man must needs, for avoyding of a greater inconuenience, entertaine the guest, whom he is as glad to be ridd of, as he was vnwilling to re­ceiue him. And sometimes a man entertaineth a guest in hope of some benefit to be made by him; whereof afterwards being frustrate, he will gladly be quit of his guest as soone as he findeth himselfe defeated of his hoped ends. Both these considerations haue had their place in this entertaining of the English by the Dutch at Amboyna and other places. For the former, all that are acquainted with the occasion, and the passages of the Treatie of the yeare 1619. know very well, that there was then none other or better way or meane for the Hollanders East India Company to giue satisfaction to the Kings Maiesty for the bloud of many of his peo­ple, and the inualuable damage done vnto the English Company by the said Hollanders vniust taking of their shippes and goods onely in respect of their lawfull trade into the Islands of the Moluccoes and Banda; but the accommodation of the whole matter, by admit­ting of the English East India Company into the parti­cipation of the trade in those Islands, and this of Am­boyna. Which being yeelded vnto with great difficul­tie; yet the said Dutch with might and maine reserued the Forts which they were then possessed of, in their owne hands: thereby still retaining the power and op­portunitie to master the English, and weary them of their lodging at their pleasure. In the next place, it seemeth by their after-course that hauing so assured themselues of the Forts and Mastring power, they ho­ped to make benefit by this partnership; by the orde­ring [Page 17] of their Accompts in such manner, as that the English should pay their part of the charge as well of the Garrisons as of their new buildings, and of the warres which they vndertooke for enlarging the Dut­ches Dominion, and all this in ready money, whilest the Dutch furnished their owne share in commodities, and at what prizes they list. Now when the Dutch in the Indies saw, that the English there would not suffer themselues to be thus bridled and sadled; but made their protests and complaints against this dealing: they sought meanes to be quit of them. And finding that the blunt way of fact would not be well taken, but giue a new offence to the King, (especially after the Treaty to the contrary) they deuise this new meane to thrust out their vnwelcome guests, with lesse bloud­shed then they before had kept them out with, and with lesse feare of accompting for the same, being done vnder the faire colour of Iustice; which point be­ing clearely enough touched in the very Introduction of the English Relation, this Remonstrance professing an answere to the whole, yet passeth ouer this with a dry foote, and deepe silence: yea, it minceth the very matter whereof it seemes to take notice, making the charge against them to be onely the driuing of the En­glish out of Amboyna, where the English Relation char­geth them to haue contriued and executed this bloudy businesse, with intention to driue them (the English) out of the Moluccoes and Banda also, as well as out of Amboyna. Which end and drift of the worke how euer it is slighted hereby the Remonstrants, yet it appeareth of what value it is in their secret estimation, by that which they haue formerly done to keepe the English [Page 18] from the trade of those Islands.

Yet further to cleare themselues of this end and de­signe, I they alledge that the Netherlands East India Com­pany here in Europe neuer gaue any Cōmission to their Officers at Amboyna, to put such a thing as this in prac­tise, nor could haue any benefit thereby, but rather losse: and the Officers themselues were too honest and wise to haue executed such a Commission: especially since themselues should haue no profit by it, but in­curre great danger of giuing accompt for the same.

For the point of Commission, the English Companie doth not charge the Dutch Company, nor the whole Colledge of Directors, with any such proiect or directi­on. Neither doe they thinke that any one amongst them would by his priuate aduice incite the Gouer­nor of Amboyna to this or the like fact in particular. But they cannot tell whether some one or few amongst them of speciall place and authoritie; and of like re­spect with their Officers in the Indies, may not vpon some discontent or dislike of the Treatie & the effects▪ thereof, haue giuen aduice to the principall Officers of the Dutch in the Indies, to lay hands and make vse of any colourable occasion, to weary the English of the trade established by the Treatie; and so the Gouernor of Amboyna may haue fallen vpon this particular out of such generall grounds of aduice. Which suspition of the English Company, ariseth not onely from the earnest and strayned defence and iustification which they now obserue to be made of this execrable fact; but also from a passage that fell out here in London immediately after the Treatie An. 1619. which now this dispute calleth to their remembrance. And here in they report them­selues [Page 19] to the memorie and conscience of those of the Dutch directors, that were then employed in the for­ming of an explanation of the Articles of the Treatie, intituled; The Order of Execution, &c. whether one of them appearing highly discontented, for that the En­glish would not condescend to a proposition of theirs, about the order of selling out the Spices here in Eu­rope, did not then in a vehement manner threaten the English (that dealt with them about that point) that they should repent them of their dissent herein: which the English not vnderstanding by all the disputes, how it could come to passe in the course of trade, if the trea­tie were obserued, still persisted in their former resolu­tion. Whereupon the said partie with the rest of the Dutch desired that it might be noted in the Iournall of the Conference; that they had forewarned them, that there would a great inconuenience follow by reason of this dissent of the English, which was noted in the same Iournall accordingly. What this carriage might por­tend, or what directiōs might be giuen in consequence of this discontent, the English Company leaue to be iud­ged by others: hauing themselues neuer since in the course of their sale of the Spices, without obseruation of the order (then desired by the Dutch) found any in­conuenience but rather aduantage; As for the benefit of the Dutch by driuing the English from the trade of the Moluccoes, Banda, and Amboyna, it may be esteemed (as is before noted) by the courses that the Dutch for­merly tooke to keepe the English out of that trade. And for their contrary benefit here also pretended by holding the English in the communion of that trade: It is true, that as long as the English would pay readie [Page 20] money, the Dutch paying in wares, would beare their share of the charge of Fortifications and Conquests, whereof the benefit accrued wholly to the Dutch, as long as they would ioyne with the Dutch to finde the Enemy worke in one place, while the Dutch might thereby the easier winne for themselues onely in ano­ther place: so long the Dutch might easily make bene­fit of their partnership, and abide their sharing with them for one third part of that trade. But when the English shewed themselues sensible of this Leonine So­cietie, and protested against it, and refused to pursue the Action of defence in such a course: Then it was time to seeke out an occasion to be vtterly freed from their partnership, now proouing otherwise then was before hoped. As touching the honestie of their Offi­cers at Amboyna here alledged, there hath been enough said alreadie. And for their benefit also by thus ridding themselues of the English, who knoweth not what be­nefit may be expected by being an Instrument of so great profit, atchieuing it by such a conueyance, wher­in who euer giueth Commission, is by ioynt guilt ob­liged to gratifie and promote his instrument euen for his owne safetie? Besides, their Officers had their owne priuate quarrells against the English for their daily cō ­plaints against their riotous liuing, and the great ex­pence thereof, deriued in the greatest part vpon the English by the arts aboue-mentioned. Especially the Gouernour himselfe had a maine griefe, that the Eng­lish had often complained to the Councell of Defence at Iaccatra, of the extraordinary & excessiue charge of his Table and other expences: which by the Iournal of the consultations of the said Councell appeareth to haue bin [Page 21] a matter of much dispute there, and was at last promi­sed by the Dutch partie to be reformed. Another quar­rell also the same Gouernour had against the English at Amboyna, about a Dutch-man that was executed for killing of an Englishman; Which Dutch-man when the Gouernour could not fairely saue (the fact being too foule and manifest to beare it) he was so offended with the English prosecution of the matter, that he solemn­ly vowed, if euer any of the English came within his compasse, such should repent that none of them had interceded for the life of the said Dutch-man. Lastly, it must be remembred, that at the time of this forged crime, the newes of the Match with Spaine was very rife and hott at Amboyna; where with how all the Dutch there were enraged, and what insolent speeches they vsed of the Kings Maiestie, is well enough knowne; though thought vnmeete to be here recited.

Hauing thus laboured to cleare the finall cause of K this Processe, the Remonstrants returne to charge the English (that are executed) with other arguments of their pretended treason. As (say they) if it were not a true treason, why came the Iapon (that was first appre­hended vpon the walles) and made such curious in­quisition about the setting of the Watch, and of the Dutch Forces in the Castle? How came it that being examined, he forthwith spake so pertinently of this treason? If he were suborned by the Dutch, why then did they execute him? Why did he accuse his owne Countrymen as well as the English? Why should the Dutch thus vse the Iapons, whom they had no cause o­therwise to hate?

[Page 22]The first of these questions is already answered be­fore, to wit, that the Iapon did nothing herein, but what any Souldier may lawfully, and is wont to doe, without blame or iust suspition. It importeth euery Souldier to know the strength of the place where he serueth, and the order and course of the seruice, as is said in the answere to the Dutch Relation. The second question would be as easily answered, if it had seemed good to those that kept the Acts, to haue kept faithfull Record in them of the Interrogatories ministred to this Iapon in his tortures. But the English Relation in the Examinations of Collins, Sherrock, and Beamont, hath discouered the Art vsed in all the rest; to wit, the leading Interrogatories, or rather Directories, speci­fying to the prisoner what he might say to come quitt of the torture: As for the suborning of this Iapon by the Dutch here mentioned in the third question; The English easily grant that hee was not suborned, but (which is worse) he was tortured to make him accuse both the English and his owne Countrymen) the Ia­pons; which also answereth the fourth question of this Rhetoricall Dialogisme. And for the fift and last que­stion, why the Dutch should also practise the Iapons destruction: it is easily conceiued, that els the English should haue seemed to haue had no Complices, nor hope of assistance of other Nations, which would haue made their crime appeare more impossible to be a true charge then now it doth; although (as now it is) it is vtterly voyde of all probabilitie and possibilitie. And is it any wonder they would sacrifice the bloud of tenne Infidells for that end, for which they spared not tenne Christians, and those of that Nation which mosta­greeth [Page 23] with themselues in Religion, and to whom they are of all other Nations most beholden?

In the next place, the Remonstrance proceedeth to L answere a circumstance related by the English, that the Iapons being examined three or foure dayes before them, they yet fled not: whereby they shewed their innocency. To the consequence of which argument the Remonstrance first answereth, that the English did this to auoyde great suspition, being sure enough they could not fly: the Gouernour had (euen to their know­ledge) taken such order to stop all passages, as well of all other Merchants that then frequented Amboyna as of the English.

This is a meere fiction: for the Curricurries and o­ther Vessells departed as freely from Amboyna while the Iapons were in examination, as at any time before. And if the Gouernor had vsed neuer so much circum­spection herein, and the English had knowne of it, yet how could so many guiltie consciences haue contai­ned themselues, and not one of them all haue attemp­ted to flie or hide or disguise himselfe in all this time? All men know that a guiltie conscience prouoketh men to attemptescapes aboue and against all reason. And therefore the Law euer enquireth of the flight or shrinking of the accused as a speciall indicium of their guilt. Why did not the Dutch then in their examinati­ons question and sift out by what consultation and a­greement all the English came to be of one minde, to shew such confidence in this case?

But to make a further and better answere to this ar­gument, the Remonstrance chargeth the matter of it with vntruth: Saying that the examination of the Ia­pons [Page 24] began the 24. of Februarie, and that the next day after, to wit, the 25. the English were seized; So that here was but one dayes respite for the English to shift for themselues.

This impudence is very strange; for, the Acts of M the Processe record, the beginning of the examination of the Iapons to be the 23. of Februarie, and the resolu­tion to seize the English to be the 26. which is the third day after inclusiuè. It is well wee haue a copie of their Acts, (such as they are) els we see into how many formes this Proteus would turne, to auoyde the true discouery.

After this the Remonstrants with the like modestie N note another vntruth in the English Relation, where it affirmeth that the English had not any conuersation with the Iapons; the contrary whereof (say the Remon­strants) appeareth as well by the confessions of the En­glish as the Iapons, and particularly by Maister Tower­sons voluntary confession, made long time after his ex­amination.

What credit the Acts and confessions may deserue, is alreadie shewed: and the very persons themselues therein assigned to this conuersation with the Iapons, had no language to serue them therein. And for Ma­ster Towersons voluntary confession pretended to be made so many dayes after his examination; besides the foule play of the Dutch vsed in alledging it so, alreadie discouered in the answer of the Dutch Relation (which by this very touch appeareth to be the worke of the same Penne that wrote this Remonstrance) that preten­ded voluntary confession hath not one word or menti­on of the Iapons in it: And yet this Remonstrance (ha­uing [Page 25] thus stoutly prooued this point) triumpheth ouer the English Relation; saying, that these contrarieties and dissimulations shew that the same marueylously strayeth and wandreth from the truth; and that the contrary thereof in all points may be taken for true.

After this, the Remonstrance commeth to the exami­nation of the English prisoners, set downe in our Relati­on O: and promiseth that the particulars thereof shall hereafter in time be refuted, and prooued vtterly coun­terfe it in the most substantiall points: as shall likewise that which is there related of the tortures. But why haue they not all this while made, or at least attempted some disproofe hereof? Why could not Maerschalcke (whom they haue now deposed in other points) haue said something to these; being himselfe the second person in the Councell, and acquainted with all that passed? Well, since they be prooued here by sixe Witnesses, let them yet stand for true, vntill this promised Counterproofe arriue.

But for the point of torture, the Remonstrance an­swereth in the Interim, that if the case lawfully re­quire, it is no fault in the Iudge to examine vpon the torture: being the Custome in all Europe, and particu­larly in the Low Countryes. And if any were tortured, that was done vpon pregnant and waightie Indicia, proofes and confessions of others.

This hath beene sufficiently replyed to in the English Answere to the Dutch Relation, where it is prooued, first that the English were not lawfully subiect to the iu­risdiction of the Gouernour of Amboyna, and therefore vnlawfully tortured. Secondly, that the kinde of torture [Page 26] vsed, was not agreeable to the Law and Custome of the Low Countryes: and lastly, that there was no suffici­ent Indicium for the torturing of the first Iapon, nor none other proofes or Indicia against the English, but the forced confessions of the tortured Iapons; which ground of torture is prohibited by their owne Law.

Yet further the Remonstrants fetch an argument out P of this point of the tortures, in iustification of their of­ficers fact at Amboyna. If (say they) they would haue drawne confessions out of the English by tortures; why did not they torture all the English?

This riddle is plainely vnfolded by the same English Relation: where it appeareth, that after they had tor­tured, Iohnson, Collins, and Clarke; glad was that Eng­lishman that could deuise any thing to confesse, to please the Fiscall, and auoyde the torture. Yea, Sher­rock prayed to God to assist him in this kinde. Others asked those that had beene formerly examined, what they had confessed; saying, they would doe the like, thereby to shunne the crueltie of the torture. As for those that were acquitted (as hauing confessed no­thing) the Dutch plot could not reach them. For ha­uing laide the consultation of this pretended conspi­racie at Amboyna, where none of these foure were vp­on New-yeares day; they had no colour to torture them, whom their owne people that stood by, knew to be so farre absent: And no man imagineth that all the Dutch that were by at the torture, were priuie to the intention of the Gouernour; who in this case was to carry himselfe so, as that he must not make the busines so grosse, that all that stood by might vnderstand it. It sufficed him that he caught the chiefe of the English [Page 27] there, and such a number by whose example all would afterwards abandon the fatall places.

Lastly, the Remonstrance gathereth that there was Q no excesse vsed, because some of the English were par­doned; to none other end (forsooth) but to giue testi­mony of their whole proceedings.

This indeed is a point wherein the Dutch vsed the quintessence of their skill: so to handle the matter as that they would seeme to mixe clemency with Iustice; to make their Processe to passe the easier and fayrer, both among their owne people there, and after when it should come into Europe. But he that will but a little consider what the Dutch Gouernours end and ayme was, will finde, that as he and the Fiscall laboured in all the Processe to reach Captaine Towerson the chiefe of the English there; neuer satisfying themselues with any confession that made not him guiltie (as appeareth in the English Relation:) so when they had caught him, and so many other of the chiefe of the English there, it was a small matter for them to spare a few of the meaner sort: being assured that the execution of the rest, would be a sufficient warning for all other English­men euer after to keepe their distance farre enough from that place. And this tooke so right (according to the intention) that all the English as well at the Moluc­coes and Banda, as the poore remnant at Amboyna forth­with vpon the newes of this Tragedy, quitted their Factories in all those Islands: choosing rather to leaue the places and their trade there, then their liues for it. For the Dutch had spoken loude enough, and plaine enough in this action, for all the English to vnderstand their meaning: who therefore would not stay till the [Page 28] chiefe of them also were thus cut off, and the rest dis­missed with their life for a prey, and for an argument of the Dutch Officers clemencie. But if these few Eng­lish were saued to this end, in the Dutches intention, to giue testimony of all their proceedings, as here is al­ledged: Why then doe not the Dutch receiue and al­low of their testimony? For these all with one month accuse the Dutch to haue proceeded by trechery and most execrable iniustice in this whole action: although indeed some of them that were absolued, confesse vp­on oath, that they conceiue the reason and end of the Dutch in sparing them, to haue beene in hope that for that fauour they would haue giuen testimony on their part, when this businesse should come to be examined here in Europe: if yet the cause should euer come to be reuiewed here; for some of the Dutch at Amboyna de­clared plainely, that they made accompt the Spanish Match would preuent the accompting for this busi­nesse.

The next point that the Remonstrants note in the En­glish R Relation of the examination of the prisoners, is the description of the tortures of Water and fire: which (they say) is finely and prolixly set forth and embeli­shed, to mooue compassion, and to inueagle the Rea­der, to swallow the rest of the errors and vntruths of the Relation. But that, albeit all torture is in it selfe rough and harsh; especially seemeth so to the English, because none is vsed in England, but in cases of high treason, yet the torture of Water is the most gentle, ciuill, and safe of all other kindes of torture: onely cau­sing an oppression and anxietie of breathing and respi­ration, but no replenishing and swelling of the dodie, [Page 29] as the English Relation setteth it out, &c. Yea that all that the said Relation deliuereth touching these Exa­minations, is but a bare narration onely without any proofe: or at the most is witnessed but by a very few persons, and those such, as the cause concerneth: in which being themselues once iudicially conuicted, they may not now be admitted and allowed as wit­nesses against the Iudge and his proceedings, against a Court and Councell of foureteene Iudges, persons well knowne to be of worth and vertue; and against their owne confessions legally taken, and confirmed with their owne subscriptions.

For reply to all this: first, for the descriptiō of the tor­tures, which is here (scoffingly) said to be so laboured & adorned, to moue compassion, & make an easie way for vntruthes; it is remitted to the reader to peruse & iudg it. It will be found as voyd of this art of painting, as it is of the vntruths which the Remonstrants mentiō, but specifie not, least they should be cleared, as other pretended vntruths are already in this reply. The cause of the English needed no such helpes. The truth of the things deliuered in the whole Relation so shineth in the meere Series and circumstances of the fact, that it disdained those borrowed colours, feathers, and trash, wherwith the Remonstrants haue trimmed vp this their answere. But it is a signe of their penury of matter, that they thus carpe at the style of the English Relati­on. As for the gentlenesse of their torture of Water; that is also left to be iudged; yea euen by the words of this Remonstrance, that acknowledgeth it to be an Op­pression and stopping of the breath: then which what striueth more with the very life of a man, or more for­ceth [Page 30] the noblest and tenderest parts? It is no maruaile that some of their owne Adventurers tell these Direc­tors in Print, that they can cut of another mans eare, with as little feeling as of an old shoe. But our people that haue tasted of this Water-torture of Amboyna, and haue heard those that suffred both there make the cō ­parison, say, that this is more terrible & insupportable for the time, then the torture of fire: how euer the wound of the latter resteth longer in the flesh. The same men also tell vs, (and that vpon their oath) that it is not onely a stiffling and oppression of the breath; but also a replenishing of the body till it be swollen and stretcht, as in Clarks examination is set downe: contrary to that, these Remonstrants here affirme. Yea, but (say they) these witnesses are but a very few, and the same also parties in this cause, and ought not to be heard against a Colledge of Iudges, honest and sub­stantiall men, nor against their owne former confessi­ons. That they are so few, wee may thanke the Dutch that left vs no more. But all that they haue spared vs, agree in one vnanimous and constant testimony. Nei­ther can there in this case be any other proofe required. What? Would the Remonstrants haue vs prooue these things by the testimony of the Dutch that were em­ployed in this Processe, and are themselues guiltie of this masqued murther? Should we haue brought a Certificate hereof vnder the seale of Amboyna, with the Gouernour and his Councels hands to it? What other proofe is the nature of the cause capeable of, but such as wee bring? And whereas the Remonstrants say here that our witnesses are parties, and formerly conuict in the cause; they seeme to forget, that their owne Acts [Page 31] shew, that some of them were absolued expressely, o­thers neuer condemned. As for the Credit of the Col­ledge of Iudges, so often repeated, it is already exami­ned in the beginning of this Reply, as also in the an­swere to the Dutch Relation.

Finally, for the Declarations and Writings of Ma­ster S Towerson, Coulson, Griggs, and others, set downe in the English Relation, these Remonstrants seeme to doubt whether any such be extant. And for the strange signes of the storine, the sodaine madnesse and death of Dun­kyn, and the new sicknesse at Amboyna, following the execution of the English, which they tearme pretended miracles; they say, that the truth can be witnessed by those that were present and about them at the executi­on, that no such thing happened. And here they adde, that the English stirre heauen & earth to conceale and couer this detestable fact. But who will suppose (say they) that substantiall people, (men of approued worth and vertue) would shew themselues so impious and in­humane to torture and execute innocent persons? Much lesse must this be presumed of a Court of Iudges sworne and established.

As for the Writings of Maister Towerson, Coulson, Griggs, and others, mentioned in the English Relation (now doubted of by the Remonstrants) wee report vs vnto the Lords of his Maiesties priuie Councell, that haue seene them, and to the friends of the parties that know their seuerall hands; and lastly, to the same Wri­tings themselues still extant and kept to be shewed vp­on any occasion. As for the signes related, they are sworne by our men that came thence, and further to be prooued by Letters written, from some that then ser­ued, [Page 30] [...] [Page 31] [...] [Page 32] and (wee suppose) doe yet serue the Dutch at Am­boyna, if they be not since dead, whereof no newes is yet come. But what Witnesse doe the Remonstrants bring, that those things so set downe with their cir­cumstances, and so the easier examined, were not so? The truth (say they) may be witnessed by those that were present and about the prisoners at the execution. But who be those? Why doth not Maerschalcke in his desperate oath (anon to be examined) attest that there was no such matter as the English pretend? Or why shall wee reiect our peoples testimony, and beleeue these Remonstrants without any witnesse? But wee shall haue witnesses hereafter. In the Interim then, let the thing so already witnessed remaine for true, till it be con­tradicted by more and better witnesses. As for the Eng­lish stirring heauen and earth, not to conceale or co­uer a detestable fact of their owne people (as the Re­monstrance speaketh) but to discouer a most damned practise of the Dutch, and to procure Iustice vpon it, they conceiue they are not to be blamed herein: yea that it is their dutie to mooue heauen and earth against them, that haue mooued hell against Inno­cents.

Now for the honestie and credit of their Gouernour and Councell at Amboyna, a string often harped vpon: although it be euident that there is a great difference of the stuffe betweene the Iudges of Amboyna, and all o­ther Iudges in the parts of Christendome: yet the ho­nesty and credit euen of the best Iudges is no sufficient defence for them against such apparant proofes of In­iustice, as are extant in this cause, euen in the acts of the Processe it selfe, as is before declared. For the Iudge [Page 33] that in his Processe obserueth not the order prescribed by the Law, is reputed as a priuate person. Otherwise indeed, the Iudge is not without proofe to be presu­med to haue done vniustly: but this will not serue these Iudges. Neither is any partie accused, to be presumed guiltie, without Indicia or euidence: but euery man to be presumed good vntill the contrary be prooued. Which should haue mooued those Iudges of Amboyna to haue beene tender and carefull in the Indicijs that were made the pretexts to torture the first Iapon: and not to torture a poore man for asking an vsuall and harmelesse question, yea, and needfull in the place of his seruice; as is shewed in the answere to the Dutch Relation. Much more ought they in this respect to haue beene tender of taking the extorted confessions of the Iapons, for a sufficient Indicium against Maister Towerson; not onely in regard of his qualitie, as being the Agent and Cape Merchant for the English there; but also of his innocent and harmelesse, (yea godly) behauiour at Amboyna, and all his life before. For as he was a man of note, and knowne to most men of his qualitie here in England; so all that knew him (especi­ally that were well acquainted with him, whereof there is no small number) ioyne and iumpe in this one opi­nion & commendations of him, that he was of a most faire condition and sweet disposition, harmelesse, and without spleene or gall; and (in a word) the vnlikeliest Englishman that euer went into the East Indies, to be a plotter or practiser of such a fact, as he was condem­ned of.

The Remonstrants hauing thus finished their answere T to the English Relation, affirme that by their deduction [Page 34] of Iuly, and this answere, they haue sufficiently iustifi­ed the proceedings of their Officers at Amboyna; ne­uerthelesse ex abundanti they produce further euidence out of an attestation of Signeur Houtman their late Gouernour in the Moluccoes. Which because it is af­terwards againe repeated in seuerall Articles, shall be there with the rest answered.

In the meane time, they appeale to the Lords States V generall, whether they haue not by all this giuen suffi­cient satisfaction and cause to the English Company, to abate and let fall their suit, leauing the blame vpon the Authors of this abhominable conspiracie (as they call it) and of their owne misfortune. Neuerthelesse, not daring to goe to tryall of the maine cause vpon these their allegations and proofes, they pray that there may be no precipitation vsed, but a fit respite granted them for the exact enquiry of the truth in the Indies: and that in the meane time, they may haue the protection of the Lords States, and all misunderstanding and con­trary deductions may cease; at least prouisionally. For put case (say they) that their Officers be truely guiltie (as the English pretend) yet they must be heard before they can be condemned. And in their opinion (say they) the ground of the Conusance of this cause must come from Amboyna to Battauia, and thence he­ther: and time conuenient being giuen, there will doubtlesse come daily more and more cleare proofes and light in the cause. As for themselues, they at last plainly confesse, that they cannot answere the obiecti­ons and circumstances alledged and proposed; but that this must and can be done by them onely, whom the cause toucheth and concerneth: to wit, their Offi­cers at Amboyn [...],

[Page 35]Here they renounce all the defence and iustification which they haue alreadie made; as impertinent and insufficient. They might haue done well then to haue spared all this labour, and at first to haue left the cause to them whom it concernes, as the English Company by their Letters requested them. As for precipitation in the cause, the English Company require none. But be­cause the Acts of the Councell at Amboyna themselues containe all that can be legally pleaded in iustification of the Officers, (for, if in them there be no iust ground of the condemnation and execution of the English, all superuenient proofes come too late to excuse the Iudges, euen by their owne Lawes) therefore the Eng­lish Company presume and maintaine, that there is al­ready ground sufficient, out of the same Acts, and out of the Treatie, whereof this Processe is a plaine breach, for the Lords States generall by an Act of State pub­liquely to declare the Nullity and Iniustice of the Pro­cesse. But for the iudiciall proceedings against the particular persons that haue cōmitted this vnparareld Iniustice: there may be such order and course taken, as his Maiestie and the Lords States shall finde the na­ture of the cause to require. Wherein also the greatest care and expedition that can be vsed for the apprehen­sion of the parties, will be no precipitation; conside­ring the manifest proofes of their Iniustice, appearing in their owne Acts, as is before declared.

Hauing finished their prayer to the Lords States W generall, to the effect aforesaid, the scope and drift of all, being onely for Dilation and respite in the cause: yet as it were repenting them of their former reare and declination of a present tryall they come on a fresh [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 36] with new proofes, which they affirme to be so strong and vigorous, that they are of power, more then suffi­ciently to giue their Officers an entire discharge, and to confound their Aduersaries: and that without helpe of the points before alledged. And to make good these great words, they produce eleuen seuerall Articles ta­ken by deposition of Laurence Maerschalck their late Cape Merchant at Amboyna, and now returned into Holland, and sworne to the same Articles before the Se­nate of Delfe the 4. of Nouember last stilo nouo; whose name in this Remonstrance they conceale. Next they annexe the report and deposition of Signeur Houtman their late Gouernour at the Moluccoes, before mentio­ned. And in the last place, they repeate some points already by them alledged in this Remonstrance, and so shut vp their whole Worke.

For the testimony of Maerschalck, it is to be consi­dered in the generall; that he is a partie, being the se­cond man of the Councell of Amboyna: and therefore what is before said against the whole Councell, falleth vpon him in his particular with more enforcement. Neuerthelesse, this protestation against his incompe­tency to be a Witnesse in this cause being thus premi­sed; wee will peruse and examine the particulars of his Attestation: yet with this leaue, a little to inuert the order of the Articles, (but without preiudice of the substance of them) thereby to take all the matter of one nature together, to auoyd prolixitie and needlesse repetition of the same thing in diuers parts of the an­swere.

The first, second, and third Articles affirme, that as well the Iapons as the English, not onely signed their [Page 37] seuerall confessions with euery of their hands respec­tiuely, but ioyntly and seuerally confirmed and persis­ted in the same, euen out of the fetters and irons, at se­uerall sessions of the Councell; yea the English three or foure seuerall times, without retracting or reuoking or changing of anything: albeit the Gouernour seri­ously admonished them to alter or reuoke any thing which they had falsly confessed through paine or feare &c. But that all the English shrinking vp their shoulders confirmed all they had confessed to be true, and craued mercy and not Iustice.

These impudent fictions are answered by that which is already noted concerning the Requisites and Solen­nities of the Acts of all Courts of Iustice: which by prescript of the Law itselfe record the passages of eue­ry Session, with the date thereof. But in all the Acts of the Court of Amboyna, (vnlesse they haue giuen a false Copie, which yet were to be taken for true against themselues that so falsified it) there is no mention of any more confession then one of euery prisoner, nor of any freedome from fetters, nor of any such admonition by the Gouernour as is here pretended. Besides the English that are escaped, as well those that were absol­ued, as the rest, vtterly deny these seuerall points to be true. Yea the gesture here added of the contracting or shrinking vp the shoulders, being no English gesture, sufficiently refuteth this fiction.

The fourth Article saith, that William Webber one of the Complices confessed he had receiued a Letter from Iohn Clarke, intimating that there was some ex­traordinary matter and of great importance in hand by the English at Amboyna: and that Iohn Clarke confessed to haue written such a Letter.

[Page 38]The confession of Webber touching this Letter, is ac­knowledged in the English Relation: but whereas this deposition saith, that Clarke also confessed the writing of such a Letter, the Acts themselues wherein Clarks confession is set downe by the Dutch Actuary, refuteth it, not making mention of any such thing, nor of any question ministred to Clarke touching this Letter, or his meaning by that intimation; Which would not haue beene omitted, if the Fiscall had not perceiued that Webber had faigned this matter onely to auoyde torture.

The fifth Article being of the same nature with the eighth and ninth, shall be anon with them answered.

The sixth and seauenth Articles recite certaine pre­tended voluntary confessions of Thompson made be­fore some of the Councell apart: to wit, that he had endured so much torture without confession, because he was often vpbraided by Master Towerson with drun­kennesse, and warned that he should not in his cupps discouer the pretended plott. Whereupon he had vow­ed and sworne to himselfe, that he would not be the third nor yet the fourth man that confessed: what euer torture he suffered. But afterwards he confessed (saith the seuenth Article) that he was glad that God had re­uealed the fact, for the sauing of innocent bloud, and that he had doubly deserued death: yet craued mercy. Here let the course of the Dutch in making Affidauit of the pretended voluntary confessiō of Maister Tower­son before six of the Councell apart (and entred into the Acts) be considered, as it is truely set downe in the answere to the Dutch Relation: and it will mani­festly appeare, that this confession of Thomsons (if any [Page 39] such had beene) was of much more importance to the clearing of the Dutch proceedings, then those obscure words of Maister Towerson: and so would the rather haue beene brought by way of Attestation into the Acts, as the other were. But in the Acts there is no en­try of any such confession of Thomson: who also going to the execution, and being reproched to be a Schellam or villaine, openly and boldly answered, that he was as honest as the Gouernor himselfe, and by and by tooke his death that he was innocent.

The fifth, eighth, and ninth Articles affirme, that Collins confessed all without torture, and being con­fronted with Maister Towerson before the Councell, auerred his confession, and perswaded him to doe the like, also that Maister Towerson being another time be­fore the Councell with the rest of the English priso­ners, reproached them with their drunkennesse and disordered liues, and imputed the discouery of the conspiracie to Gods iudgement vpon their wicked­nesse: yet that at last Maister Towerson confessed him­selfe to be the Author and instigator of the rest, and as­ked them forgiuenesse.

Of all these matters being farre more pregnant (if they were true) to haue beene the ground of the sen­tence then any thing entred in the Acts, there is no one word or mention in all the Processe, although these things are here affirmed to haue passed before the bodie of the Councell. But it seemeth that Maerschalk (since his arriuall in Holland) is shewed the defects of the Processe, and so would supply them by his owne testimony. But he commeth now too late to make new Acts, after the Copie of the Processe imparted to the [Page 40] English. In particular, Collins was tortured with water in such sort, as the view of him afterwards made Coulson confesse without torture, as is set downe in the English Relation, and yet auerred by those also that saw him come out as Coulson did. Further, how sencelesse had the speech of Maister Towerson beene, to impute the discouerie of the plott, to Gods iustice vpon the bad life of his pretended Complices, and not rather vpon himselfe for being the inuenter and Author of the con­spiracie, in it selfe more haynous, then any thing he could charge the rest withall? Lastly, it is already suffi­ciently prooued by more competent witnesses then Maerschalk, that Maister Towerson and the rest were neuer together before the Councell, from the first ap­prehension vntill the last sentence: and that in all that time, he spake with none of the English, but Coulson, Griggs, and Fardo; so impudent is this attestation of Maerschalck, that he vsed the speeches here pretended, vnto Collins and the rest; and that before the Councell.

The tenth Article saith, there was a Letter written by Maister Towerson to Coulson, charging him to be the prime and sole cause that mooued him to this en­terprise of making himselfe Maister of the Castle: and that the same Letter was in the hands of the Gouernor of Amboyna.

If this be true, how could Maister Towerson make himselfe the first author of this conspiracy, as the Acts and Maerschalcks owne relation in the former Articles present him? How cometh it, that there is no mention of this Letter in the Acts, nor the same Letter or any authenticall Copie thereof sent ouer for iustification of the cause, being so pregnant and pertinent a proofe?

[Page 41]The 11. Article telleth a tale of Collins his refusing to sit and eate with the Dutch Merchants in their passage from Amboyna to Iaccatra in the shippe, when he and Beamont were sent thither: vpon scruple (forsooth) to eate with such honest men, being himselfe a tray­tor.

This as it is friuolous and of no value in itselfe, Col­lins being then as a condemned man to stand to the mercy of the Dutch Generall at Iaccatra: so the truth of it is vtterly denied by Beamont that passed with him in the same shippe, and together with Collins did eate at the same Table with the Dutch Merchants without strayning of any curtesie for the matter.

But to helpe the testimony of Maerschalk, that swea­reth X all the former points in his owne cause, and a­gainst the very Acts themselues, and all other proba­bilities: the Remonstrants in the next Article, supply him with a Contestis, beyond exception as they pre­tend: to wit, Signeur Houtman their late Gouernour in the Moluccoes. Who comming thence to Amboyna after the execution, heard and saw some things pertai­ning to this businesse; whereof, (being now returned into Holland) he maketh report and deposition, in sixe seuerall points, viz: First, that it was firmely and with­out question or doubt beleeued at Amboyna generally, and by euery man in particular; yea by himselfe also: that the English and Iapons there had truely and in effect conspired the taking of the Castle. Secondly, that the said Signeur Houtman comming through Hitto, George Sherrock (one of the English Complices) fell at his feete, and acknowledged the great fauour that Gouernour Speult and the Councell at Amboyna had done him in [Page 42] pardoning his delict. Thirdly, that he was afterwards present at Iaccatra when Iohn Beamont (another of the English Complices) confessed his fault before the Dutch Generall Carpentiere, and craued mercy for the same. Fourthly, that himselfe and diuers others at Iaccatra, had good and sure information and notice, that Bea­mont freely confessed the conspiracie also to the English President there; but that the English President there­upon lockt him vp close from speaking with any man; thereby to preuent the dishonor of the treason. Fiftly, that the Gouernour Speult is reputed for a man of worth, honorable and godly, by all that haue conuer­sed with him: and the rest of the Councell also, such as cannot any way be doubted or suspected guiltie of so foule a fact, as to accuse or misvse the English, much lesse to put them to death, if they had not beene guil­tie. Lastly, that the torture of Water is alwayes vsed by the Dutch in the Indies, and is not so cruell nor dan­gerous, as other kindes of torture vsed in the Low Countryes, and in all Europe.

First, the English that were saued from the butchery of Amboyna, doe not yet beleeue, that Signeur Houtman hath deposed, as is here inferred. For when he was at Amboyna, and laboured to be brought in expost facto, for the saluing of the businesse; he openly professed: that he would wash his hands of it, and that Harman van Speult had begun it, and Harman van Speult should end it. And this presumption of theirs is further confirmed by the manner of citing this Sig­neur Houtman, euen in this Article, where his de­position is not simply and clearely alledged; but with this doubtfull variation: Les dires et depositions du Sig­neur Gouerneur Houtman, &c. Neither is it specified, [Page 43] where or before whom or when he tooke his oath: which yet is according to the Custome set downe touching the deposition of Maerschalck: to wit, that he tooke his oath before the Senate of Delft the 4. of Nouember 1624. But admit he be sworne to these Ar­ticles: let vs examine their particular import. The first is onely of a common opinion and fame that he found at Amboyna, that it was a true treason. Is it any maruaile that the Dutch, that had made the people beleeue that the English meant to haue ript vp the bellies of the wo­men with childe (euen of the Natiues) and to make choice by the beautie and feature of the seuerall in­fants, which to saue and which to slay, had prepared a sufficient rumor against the cōming of Signeur Hout­man, to winne his opinion to their cause? Next, it is not likely that he spake with any, but those of the Ca­stle: who were most of them parties in this but cherie: and therefore would make no report to him, but what serued their owne turnes. Further, the iudgement be­ing passed against our people, their fact (though neuer done) might be presumed notorious in Law: and there­fore no maruaile he and others gaue credit to it. Yet who knoweth not, that much false iudgement happe­neth, notwithstanding the notorietie induced by the Acts and sentence? It were an easie matter for a Iudge to answere any Iniustice thus. But when the iudgement and the Iudges are questioned of Iniustice, the notorie­tie that themselues haue made is no plea for them. Yet if the Acts containe sufficient proofes for ground of the sentence, then such notorietie may helpe them. But in this case, the Acts shewing that they haue pro­ceeded contrary to Law, inferre their Iniustice to be [Page 44] notorious, as is before shewed. For the second and third Articles, concerning Sherrock and Beamonts confession of their faults extra iudicially, and while they were yet in danger: they are of no moment, to prooue their guilt, much lesse the guilt of those that were executed, of whom these confessions make no mention; nor especially can they giue any succour to the cause of the Gouernour and Councell for their proceedings: who ought to haue had the grounds of their sentence in the Acts of the Processe, before they condemned and executed our people. More particu­larly, Sherrock indeed confesseth, that with humble o­beysance he complained to Signeur Houtman of the Dutches daily reproaching him with treason, and pray­ed him that he would deale with the Gouernor Speult, to take order with them for their inciuilitie. For (said he) although I had beene guiltie, yet being now par­doned, why should they thus reproach me? Other confession then this, he vtterly denieth to haue made to Signeur Houtman. Beamont also confesseth, that when he came to Iaccatra, being sent thither to stand to the mercy of the Generall; who then told him, that he came thither to die; he was much amased. But when sodainly the Generall in better earnest told him, he forgaue him; then he gaue him humble, and open thanks; but made no confession of his fault, nor was by the Generall vrged in the least thereunto. For the fourth point, that Signeur Houtman and others had such notice, as is here pretended of Beamonts confessi­on to the English President; who also clapt him vp for it: it were here requisite that Signeur Houtman (if he haue thus attested) did name his Authors if he will be [Page 45] beleeued. For himselfe is but testis ex auditu. In the meane time, not onely Beamont denyeth these things, but Collins that lodged in the same chamber at Iaccatra with him, auerreth, that his restraint and close custody is vtterly feigned; neither did he euer heare any word or inckling of such his confession to the President. Maister Augustine Spalding also then one of the English Councell at Iaccatra, (but now returned into England) giueth the like report. For the fifth point, being the faire testimony of Signeur Houtman touching the per­son of his brother Gouernor, Van Speult, and his Coun­cell; It is a point of ciuilitie in him, to helpe them with a good word in the generall: but it is farre too light to lay in the scoale against the seuerall and preg­nant proofes of their foule Iniustice, before in this re­ply at large specified, by the witnesse of all our English that were saued (as well those that were absolued as the rest) by cleare circumstances of the whole businesse, and by the Acts themselues of the Councell of Am­boyna. Lastly, for the Water torture, it appeareth with­out Signeur Houtmans testimony, to be vsed by the Dutch in the Indies. The poore Polarones and the Eng­lish witnesse it with a mischiefe. But to make it lawfull; it should be prooued to be vsed in the Low Countryes: as hath beene alreadie shewed. But why doth Sig­neur Houtman, nor the Remonstrants, in all this discourse say nothing for the Fire-torture, which was also vsed, and that in most barbarous manner and degree vpon the poore Iapons, and diuers of the English?

The Remonstrance hauing thus pressed the testimony of Maerschalck and Signeur Houtman, in the next place (being the 13. Article) telleth vs without any witnesse: [Page 46] that diuers persons (which the English Relation men­tioneth) to be tortured with Fire and Water, were ne­uer once touched.

If this were true and certaine, it had beene easie for the Remonstrants to haue named the persons touching whom such error is committed. The English Relation nameth none but Iohnson, Thomson, and Clarke to be tortured with Fire. Which of these will the Remon­strants denie to be so handled: against such cleare eui­dence of our part?

The foureteenth Article promiseth, that the parti­culars and pettie matters (as they are here tearmed) shall be disprooued by the depositions of those that were in presence, and should haue knowne them if any had beene. Therefore vntill they be thus disprooued, (which will neuer be) let them remaine for true; espe­cially being alreadie prooued by the oath of credible persons, and carrying truth in the very circumstances.

Lastly, for the extraordinary signes that happened at the time of the execution, which are here (scoffing­ly) tearmed miracles, the same are also prooued by oath, and further by Letters written from some of the seruants of the Dutch themselues at Amboyna, readie to be exhibited vpon occasion. And as it had beene a sillie part of the English to haue feigned such matter, so is it no lesse impudence to deny that which so many as well Dutch and Indians as English saw, and knew to be notorious.

After all this new charge so confidently giuen, yet Y the Remonstrants fall off againe, and not desiring to put the triall of the cause vpon these, nor all the rest of their allegations; they returne by way of conclusion to pray [Page 47] the Lords States Generall, that there may be a conue­nient respite giuen for the better examination of the whole matter: and to that end that they will mediate with his Maiestie, to content himselfe also therewith.

But the English East India Companie vpon the grounds before at large deduced, doubt not but that the cause will appeare as well to his Maiesty as the Lords States, to be ripe and readie for such an Act of State as is de­sired, and for the apprehension of the Authors of this odious and execrable Processe, as soone as they, or any of them can be gotten. And then the iudiciall Processe against them may follow, as shall appertaine to so foule and infer­nall a Fact. (⸪)