THIS is a time when the Press does without Control take so great a Liberty of defaming both King and Govern­ment at their Pleasure, and the People do so easily be­lieve whatever is in Print, (though never so false,) that it is not to be wondred to find any Subject of what quality soever exposed thereby to the most infamous Scandals and Untruth's: but when the Authours are known, they cannot expect but that they who are concern'd in such unjust Defamations, will require satisfaction at their Hands according to the Laws.

Of this Sort are two late Libels against the Earl of Danby and divers of his Family; One called, The Domestick Intelligence, dated Fryday the 28th. of November, 1679. Printed for Benjamin Harris at the Stationers Armes under the Royal-Exchange; And the other Intituled, The Reputation of Dr. Oates Cleared, in the Tryal of Tho­mas Knox, formerly a Servant to the Earl of Danby and the Lord Dumblain his Son, and Printed for Robert Harford at the Angel in Cornhil, 1679.

In the first, It is said in one place, That Thomas Knox is belong­ing to the Earl of Danby's Family; whereas he hath been dischar­ged from the said Earl's Family above 15 Moneths since. And in another place of the said Pamphlet, it is said, That on Tuesday the 25th of November last, Mr. Dangerfeild made it appear at the Kings-Bench, that the Earl of Danby and some others of the Family were concerned in managing the whole Accusation; and that the Earl of Danby was so confident of Success, that he thereupon surrendred up himself to the Usher of the Black Rod when the Parliament sat. All which is so notoriously false, that Mr. Dangerfield did not speak one such word in Court; but on the contrary, by a Narrative of the said Mr. Dangerfield's now in Print, there is enough to Con­vince any Impartial Reader, that what Contrivance may have been made by the Papists against any Protestant whatsoever, has [Page 4]been indeavoured to be put as maliciously in Execution against the said Earl.

But to return to Benjamin Harris, I suppose he is in Fee to write Lies particularly against the Earl of Danby, [...] he is to send [...] every week all over the Kingdome; in which I will appeal to every Reader, whether there be one truth in Ten in that Weekly Intelligence, any more than was in his Story of a great many Pistols taken in the Earl's Chamber in the Tower, though there never came one into the House where the Earl lodgeth: And so like­wise in his Pamphlet of the 9th of December last, about the Judges Opinions concerning the Earl of Danby, where he tells a formal story of that matter; whereas they only answered, That the Pe­tition of the said Earl could not legally be granted; and yet this so notorious Libel is weekly sent abroad with a Title to it of be­ing published to prevent false Reports.

Some few dayes after the said Libel of the 28th of November, came forth that other already mentioned, under the name of clearing Dr. Oates his Reputation; but in truth doing so much the contrary, that the Doctor himself ownes it to be false; as in­deed it has had the impudence to falsifie a Record (viz.) the Doctors Indictment against Knox and Lane: And that this may the better appear, I have here incerted out of Dr. Oates his own Narrative, the Abstract of the said Indictment, which is in Page 2 d. as followeth.

Now, as you see, there is not one word of all this in the afore­said Indictment. So (if this Libeller may be believed in any thing) he tells you, That Mr. Thomas Willoughby, alias Dangerfield, drew the Affidavits himself out of Lanes papers: and I desire the Reader both to take notice from Mr. Dangerfield's own Narrative, whose Agent he the said Mr. Dangerfield was, as appears page 14. and to observe from what follows, what Acquaintance or Correspondence there has been at any time betwixt the Earl of Powis and the Earl of Danby or Lord Latimer, or any of the Family. But having laid open the great falshood of those Libels, I shall trouble you no fur­ther with them at present, but leave their Authors to their due pro­secutions of the Law, which I doubt not but will meet with them.

I now come to what I am sorry to find in Dr. Oates his own Narrative concerning the said Earl, because it is not suitable to his present work of defending the Protestant Interest, to endeavour the destruction of any Protestant, without great reason so to do; and in the person of the Earl of Danby he ought to have been more sparing than of most men, unless he could have made out some evident demonstration of his Guilt; whereas he did never before pretend to accuse the said Earl of any thing, nor through the whole Narrative does he charge him with any one Crime, but on­ly with Suppositions and Reflections, without any ground for them; I say, that without clear proof of some fault, the Doctor ought to have been more sparing of this Lord, because he knows very well how long he received protection by his care, when although Dr. Oates was not personally known to the Earl, yet himself knows, and Dr. Tong can testifie, that it was for many weeks in the Earl's power to have put an end to the Plot, and to have given both of them into the Hands of their Ene­mies, without appearing at all in it himself, if he would but have given the least intimation to the Papists of what they were about, and the place of their meetings, which both the said Doctors do know his Lordship was several times Privy to. It is to be ob­served also, That for a great while after the publication of Dr. [Page 8] Tong's Informations in Council, and that the Earl knew the name and had seen the person of Dr. Oates, the said Doctor was so sen­sible of these Obligations to the Earl, that instead of saying any thing to his prejudice, he gave him several good Characters; un­til the King and Councils Orders about money for him were short of his Expectations; and then indeed, but never till then, he be­gan to complain of the said Earl as the cause of his not being bet­ter rewarded; and since that time ha's exprest several dislikes of the said Earl; but that it may appear to be his dislike only, and nothing which could be materially objected against the Earl, I have toucht all the points in his Narrative which concerns the said Earl, and leave it to the Judgment of the Reader, whether such way of proceeding can be thought just towards any man. And,

First, For the Indictment it self, which I have already recited out of his own Narrative, and by which there appears too much forwardness to hurt the said Earl, and to throw ill Reflections upon him, but that there was such want of matter, that it could only set forth against the Earl,

First, That on the 30th of November last the said Earl stood Im­peached in Parliament of High Treason.

Secondly, That the Defendants (meaning Knox, Lane and Os­born) knowing the Five Popish Lords in the Tower and the Earl of Danby to be accused and impeached of Treasons, and the said Defendants contriving and endeavouring to disturb, hinder and stifle the discovery of the Treasons supposed to be committed by the said Five Popish Lords, and to elude the due Course of Law, and retard the prosecution of Justice against the said Five Lords, and Sir Henry Tichborne and Thomas Earl of Danby; did on the 30th of April last consult and agree to scandalize Dr. Oates, and Mr. Bedlow, whom the Defendants knew to have given Informa­tions of the Treasons against the Five Popish Lords, and with in­tent to represent them Witnesses not to be believed upon the Try­al of the said Five Lords.

Thirdly, That the Defendant Knox the 30th of April last, did a­gree with Lane and Osborne to have 4 Letters written to himself, in which it was falsly &c. declared, That the said Lane and Os­borne were troubled by reason of matters they knew and conceal­ed concerning the contrivance of Dr. Oates and Mr. Bedlow in ac­cusing the Earl of Danby of the Treasons &c.

Fourthly, That the said Knox to perswade the said Lane and Os­born [Page 9]to accuse Titus Oates and William Bedlow that they had unjustly accused the said Earl, and to affirm against the Kings Evidence a­gainst the Tryal to be had of the said Earl for the Treasons aforesaid, did falsly &c. give great Sumes of money to the said Lane and Osborn, and did promise the said Lane and Osborn, that they should have other great Sumes and other Rewards for the same.

Here the Doctor doth not add (as the Pamphlet Printed for Robert Harford) the words as from the Earl of Danby; for he very well knew, that the first Letters of their Correspondence were but in April, and that the Earl of Danby had quitted his Place in March before, so that he had no places in the Treasury or Customs to promise; but I wonder he should in the 4th Paragraph say these words (viz.) against the Tryal to be had of the said Earl for the Trea­sons aforesaid, when there were no Treasons at all alledged against the said Earl, either by Mr. Oares or Mr. Bedlow.

Now I pray the Reader to take notice what pains has been taken to get the name of the Earl of Danby crowded amongst the Popish Lords.

For as to the first Paragraph, every body knew before. As to the second, it is only pretended, That on the Earl of Danby's be half the Defendants designed to retard the prosecution of Justice against the Five Lords and him. In the third the Earl of Danby is only named about Lane and Osborne's tender Consciences concerning him. And in the fourth, that Knox did give great Sums, and pro­mise other great Rewards (but say's not from whom) to make Lane and Osborn affirm against the King's Evidence upon the Try­al to be had of the Earl for the Treasons aforesaid, which I have already Remarked.

All these (save the last) are so frivolous, that they need no An­swer; and how any of them are proved, appears not, unless the Informations of men swearing one thing to day, and another to morrow, be good evidence, which the Court ha's justly agreed them not to be; but if they were, it amounts to no more concern­ing the Earl of Danby, than things said to them by Knox, who might probably be imployed in this as well as other matters by those who Mr. Dangerfield has proved to have released and main­tained him; and who was never considerable enough in the Earl's Family, to be trusted by the said Earl in any business at all. Besides that, in February before these practices, the Earl had caused him to be called before the Council, and to be severely rebuked there, for having used his Lordships name in matters of the like [Page 10]nature about one Wiggens, without his Lordship's Privitie, as was then confessed by the said Knox: and I am credibly informed, that during his Abode in the said Family, he never had any admit­tance to his Lordship, other than as any inferiour Servant in the House. But not to dwell any longer upon Circumstances, it had been necessary for the making their story good on any side, to have found first, That Dr. Oates or Mr. Bedlow had been Wit­nesses to be used against the Earl at his Tryal, or else how could the Affirming against their evidence signifie any thing, either to the retarding the Earl's Tryal; or the doing him prejudice at his Tryal? And consequently why should either Money or other Rewards be promised on the Earl's behalf, for that which could not have availed him six pence, if all had been effected which those Defendants were about to prove? But I confess, it is very possible the Popish Lords might have found benefit by blasting the Kings Evidence against any body; and those who would make this Earl bear the burden of their Murders, might probably enough, find him the fittest Subject to sacrifice for any other of their purposes. But to shew that Dr. Oates nor Bedlow were not concern'd as Witnesses against this Earl,

First, It is known, That the Earl's Accusation is contained in an Impeachment of six Articles from the House of Commons, and brought up to the Lords the 23th of December 1678.

Secondly, It is known likewise, That Dr. Oates and Mr. Bed­low have sworn both in Parliament and before the Council, that they had nothing to say against any Peer but those named in their Accusations, of whom the Earl of Danby is none.

Thirdly, It is known, That what Mr. Bedlow pretends to say against the said Earl, is in the February after the Impeachment of the Earl, and upon new matter; (so great a Fool must the Earl be, if that should prove true) but yet if it were so, it is not charge of Treason, not does it relate to the proving of the Charge of which the Earl stands accused in Parliament.

All this I say is so well known, that I wonder every man's Me­mory should not serve him, to vindicate the Earl from those as­persions; but I suppose the calling them to mind will be sufficient, and must also necessarily satisfie all men, that the Earl's delivery of himself to the Black Rod, could not possibly proceed from any success he hoped or needed from what either those Defendants or any body else should prove against Dr. Oates or Mr. Bedlow, in relation to the Earl's Tryal, who was not accused by them.

But I must needs say, I wonder yet more (and with some men it would be apt to create a hard opinion) why Dr. Oates should be the Author of so many ill Reflections on this Earl, as are scatter'd through the whole Narrative, when his safety depended so long upon the care of that Lord, that in all places abroad, and by ma­ny at home, he is to this day thought to have been a contriver of the Plot with the Doctor. He says in his 3d page, That when he had informed the Reader that Knox had formerly been a Servant to one of the Earl's Sons, he would easily suggest to himself the reason why he was so active an Instrument in this great Affair, (although he knows it could only have been to serve the Popish Lords, and do himself no good) and the Doctor himself observes at the bottom of page 4th, That if a Conspiracy could be proved against the late Lord Treasurer, it would make the Evidence against the Popish Lords vanish into smoak; in which I agree with the Doctor, That the design might be to falsifie the Testimony of Mr. Oates and Bedlow about the Earl of Danby, to the end they might be of no Use against any others: but I am sure the Doctor cannot believe the following words (viz.) That the Earl's Confidence of Success made him surrender himself; because he knows (as I have said already) that he was no Witness against the Earl: Besides, the Earl deli­vered himself the 15th. of April, and it appears these Defendants were not with Justice Dewy till the 19th, and after that with the Secretary of State, and the Privy Council, so that on the 15th that matter was not ripe enough for any body (who had been concern'd) to promise themselves success: and who ever knows the Earl, will scarce believe of him, that if he had needed them, (as he did not) he would have relied upon the words of two infe­rior Fellows, who were servants to the Doctor himself, and whom the Earl had never seen nor heard of before, and of whom the Doctor himself saies at the bottom of page 9th, That as it is great pitty all false accusers have not their Crimes engraven in their fore-heads with an hot Iron, so the Doctor and Capt. Bedlow must be supposed to be bereaft of their Understandings, that would contrive this villany against the Lord Treasurer, in the Hearing of a shabby Servant, who for bread came into his Service, and for better fare would quit it at a days warning. It had been equally credible, had they sworn that they had Proclaimed it by the Common Cryer. How much less credible must it therefore be, that they should be trusted by one who is a stranger to them, and when their Treachery to their own Master must alone have been sufficient to deterr any other from putting confidence in such Per­sons.

The Doctor is also often pleased to call the Earl their great Patron, although he does many times quot Mr. Dangerfield and Colonel Mansel's Proofs, of their being Agents for the Popish Lords, and they being rewarded by them, and has no other Ar­gument against the Earl of Danby, saving, That Knox was former­ly a servant to one of his Sons; and he would seem to reflect up­on one of the Earl's Sons, because Knox made Use of his name to a Justice of Peace; which is probably not true, because the Ju­stice declared in Court, he was not known to him; but if it had been so, I think the fault had been on the other side, if a Son hearing any thing which concern'd the Life of his Father, had not endeavoured by all waies and means to get the truth disco­vered.

These things, I must confess, to me do not seem suitable to the Doctor's other good services, nor to the Introduction of his own Narrative, nor to the profession of a Divine, who (as he saies of himself, page the 9th.) who ever knowes must confess him a Person, who has learnt the moderation of the Tongue to that exactness, that he could not possibly be guilty of such Extravagances as are said against him. And in the Introduction, page the 3d. he calls it a Cursed Design to in validate his Testimony and Mr. Bedlow's, by fixing upon them a Conspiracy against the Life of the Earl of Danby; and immediate­ly in the same page, he justly accuses those men of prostituted Consciences, who attempt the Murder of his good name; I can­not therefore but hope from that good and pious Rule, that the Doctor intends not those Reflections so ill against the Earl, as they are generally understood (unless, as I have said before) he had had some demonstration of a Crime to be objected against the said Earl; whereas nothing does appear through the whole Narrative, but what arises out of Lane and Osborn's Informations, who have been so many times forsworn, and which at best would have been but Hear-sayes from Knox, whom Mr. Dangerfield shews to have been one of the Popish Agents at the same time with him­self; out of whose Narrative I will refresh your Memory with some passages which relate to this matter.

In the beginning of it, Mr. Dangerfield relates his being taken out of Prison, and employed by the Papists only; and in page the 7th he tells you, That they gave him Money to compound his Debts, which were near 700 l. (so considerable an Agent Mr. Dangerfield was designed to be for them;) and one of the first Ser­vices which he was to be employ'd in, was, to destroy at least the [Page 13]reputation if not the Life of the Earl of Danby; by being put to dis­perse the Danby-Reflections, written by Nevile, at the same time when the said Nevile sent him the Letter about giving Opium to Stroud; and the Countess of Powis used to send for the said Reflections as they were transcribing; and once sent him 5 Guinneys to incourage him, as appears page the 5th.

In the 8th page the said Countess tells him, he was yet but upon small business, but there were other Affairs cut out for him, which appears, by the following discourse, to be,

First, Endeavours to kill the King, or at least the Earl of Shaftsbury.

Secondly, To lay the Murther of Sir Edmund-bury Godfrey to the Earl of Danby.

Thirdly, And to lay the Plot to the Presbyterians.

And of these Designs, they begin with Charging the said Murder on the said Earl of Danby, as appeares in the pages 16 and 17.

By the 11th page, It appears, that Nevile was a principal man, both for his Pen and his Advice, in giving Instructions; and we find that Pen as bitterly employ'd against the Earl of Danby, as any other a­gainst whom their Contrivances were designed.

In the pages 12, 13, 14, 15. is the History of the Contrivances about Dr. Oates; which pages I have caused to be Printed and An­nexed, because it will thereby clearly appear,

First, That the Papists were the sole managers of that whole busi­ness against the Doctor.

Secondly, That Lane in his first Letter (page 13) writes, That he will do the Catholicks the greatest service imaginable, by discovering what he knowes.

Thirdly, That Mr. Dangerfield released Lane. And Mr. Nevile (the Earl of Danby's good Friend) released Knox, who (notwithstanding) must now be thought the Earl of Danby's Agent (so ill doe the de­signes of the Earl's Enemies agree with their malice.)

Fourthly, That Knox, when released, came to Powis-House; where by the said Countesses Order, he treated with Mrs. Celliers about Indict­ing of Oates.

Fifthly, That his Papers were delivered to Mr. Dangerfield.

Sixthly, That Dangerfield sent them to the Tower (and by the way, amongst Mr. Dangerfields many Journeys to the Tower, none of them was ever to the Earl of Danby.)

Seventhly, That he drew an Affidavit for Lane.

Eighthly, That the Indictment against Oates was Penn'd by the Lord Castlemain, and Nevile.

Ninthly, That Knox not being in a Condition to defend his Tryal [Page 14](having often desired to borrow money of Mr. Dangerfield) the said Countess promised him Money; and if he should want at any time, Mr. Dangerfield should furnish him.

Tenthly, That Lord Powis sent Lane out of the way into Essex, and took Care for their Lodgings.

In the pages 68 and 69 appears Nevil's own Confession, That the Danby-Reflections pass'd by his Hands:

That he gave his Advice upon the Papers of Knox, Lane and Os­born; and he acknowledges,

That he had twenty times advised the Indicting Oates and Bedlow.

Now as all these are matters of Fact (if Mr. Dangerfield's Evidence be good) so I think this alone would be sufficient to clear the Earl of Danby, or any of his Family, from those base foregoing aspersions which are thrown upon them.

By a Clause in page 23 they seem to joyn the Earl of Shaftsbury with the Earl of Danby for the Murder of Sir Edmundb. Godfrey, where the Lord Powis (speaking how easily his man Wood might have killed Lord Shaftsbury) says, If we were rid of him (as they were of Sir Edmundb. Godfrey) &c. by which they must certainly intend the Earl of Shafts­bury, to be understood for one, as by the same Lord or Lady, or both, the Earl of Danby has been named for another; and to say truth, the only difference of their usage betwixt the Earl of Shaftsbury and Earl of Danby has been, that they would have Murdered the first by a dagger, and the latter by a pretence of Justice, together with the infa­mous Murder of his good Name.

Although what has been said, cannot but be sufficient to satisfie all reasonable men of the falshood of the foregoing Aspersions; yet to such a degree is the malice of some men raised against the said Earl, and all untruths of that kind are so readily believed, that it may per­haps be necessary to let it be known, That the Earl of Danby nor his Son Latimer, who ought to have great intimacy with the Earl of Powis (if some of the foregoing Reflections were true) have scarce any acquaintance with the said Earl, saving that the Earl of Danby hath sometimes had occasion of sending to the said Earl for Rent due to him; but I have great reason to believe them to be so much stran­gers to one another, that although both of them have been divers Months Prisoners in the Tower, I am satisfied by enquiry, there ne­ver pass'd one Visit betwixt them, nor do I believe they have ever spoke to one another in the whole time of their Imprisonments; and truly by what is informed by Mr. Dangerfield, and in a manner con­fest by Mr. Nevile, the Earl of Danby hath as little Obligation to the Earl of Powis, as he hath Acquaintance with him.

I fear he is not much more beholding to any of that Religion; nor can I imagine why they should be thought to mean better to the Earl of Danby, than to those on whom they would have laid the Presbyterian Plot; when the same hand (viz. Nevile) was the Instru­ment of framing the contrivances against both, and to the destructi­on of both, if their Designs could have taken effect: for in page the 10th Mr. Dangerfield tells you, That the Method and Management of the Plot against the Presbyterians, was to be Trusted only to the 5 Lords in the Tower, and Mr. Nevile; so that the Earl of Danby was to be intrusted in nothing, but the prosecution of Dr. Oates, which (as I have already made appear) concern'd none but those Lords.

By all this you may see what a man their Malice hath found of this Earl, to make a Partner with those, who are not only seeking his Ruine by all the wayes they can invent, but from whom the said Earl is separated by the greatest difference both of Principles and Re­ligion that is possible.

And as it is apparent, that those base Slanders, of the Earl's being privy to the Murder of Sir Edmundb. Godfrey, and being an inventor of the Plot &c. doe come from the Papists against him; so I do from my Soul believe, a great cause of his Persecution and Restraint pro­ceeds from them. Nay so inveterate are they against him, that some will father the Lord Stafford's knowledge of the late Prorogation (before it was declared in Council) to come from the Earl of Danby's Telling it to the Lord Stafford; and yet I have heard the said Earl had not then stirr'd out of his Chamber, by reason of sickness, in 11 or 12 weeks; and, I am confident, had not seen the Lord Stafford in some time before.

Nor have I ever heard that the Earl hath given any Visits, nor re­cieved any from any of the Popish Lords in the Tower ever since his Confinement.

Having read and heard these foregoing false Stories, and many such Invectives against this Earl, I thought my self bound in consci­ence to inform the World of them; that by comparing things which are Publick (as I have done) they may convince themselves of the great Injuries done every day to this Lord, and thereby judge whe­ther all who profess themselves good Protestants, ought not rather to commiserate this Lord's Unjust sufferings, than have any Share in ad­ding to his Misfortunes.