SIR, I rejoyce I have thus fortunately met you here; for ever since I came to Town, I have longed to see you, because I have been desired by many of our Country­men to give them what Information I can, how the Case of the late Earl of Essex now stands; whether there have been any Informations, or Examinations herein, taken before the Honourable House of Lords (for we have heard their Lord­ships, upon their first sitting, took the matter into Examination) and what you have heard to be the Substance of those Depositions and Examinations, whether sufficient to prove that unfortunate Lord treacherously murdered, as he was general­ly believed to be.

Sir, you could never have met me more opportunely for your Satisfaction in this, seeing I have now about me the Sub­stance of all those Depositions and Exami­nations that have been taken before the Se­cret Committee of Lords appointed by the House for this purpose, and some time since reported to the House; and like­wise Copies of many Informations herein taken before some Justices of the Peace; besides all which, I have Copies of such Depositions as have been sworn to destroy the Credit of what hath been materially deposed to prove that unfortunate Lord villanously murdered; and further, I have several Informations taken to strengthen my Lord's Evidence, in Answer to those Depositions, on the behalf of the Prisoner. Of all which I have had an Opportunity to take Copies, by being daily, conversant with that Gentleman, whose Misfortunes have made him of all Men the best ac­quainted with this Case. Sir, there is hardly a Witness herein sworn but what I have discoursed; neither do I believe there is any Objection can be raised against the Proof of my Lord's being murdered, but what I can sufficiently Answer. All which your Authority shall command from me, who rejoyce in this Occasion of serving you. But I question whether it may not be thought a divulging of what a Secret Committee hath had under Examination, and ought still to be kept private.

You can't but know that this Se­cret Committee is dissolved, by the Reports being made to the House, where the De­positions having been read, it can no lon­ger be thought a Secret: And it being for the Interest of the Kingdom it should be published (if there be any Evidence to prove this Murder) I can't imagine how your communicating this matter can in the least prejudice this Cause, the just Success whereof no Man living can desire with greater impatience than my self, who shall (its probable) by your now-Assi­stance, be able to stop the Mouths of those Gainsayers, which not so much out of Ma­lice, as Misinformation, seem totally to disbelieve this matter; of which number Mr. O. of Grays-Inn (our Friend, and old Acquaintance) is one; he did appoint to be here precisely at this time. He is now come.

A Grays-In Gent. Gentlemen, your most humble Servant.

Sir, We are both cordially yours, and rejoyce you are thus opportunely come.

I hope my Company doth not hin­der private Business; if so, I will leave [Page 2]you till such your Discourse is ended, and then shall esteem my self happy in the In­joyment of both your good Companies.

Sir, the Business we are upon you are free to hear, and I do very much rejoyce in this Opportunity of making you a Convert.

In what (pray Sir?) for if I am in any Error, I hope I am not thereto so wedded, but upon good Cause shewn, shall readily sue a Divorce, and thank you hearti­ly for my Conviction.

This Gentleman is about giving such Reasons as will convince (not me, for I do already believe it, but) you, That the late Earl of Essex was treacherously and villanously murdered.

Pish! there is not the least ground for such a Belief, neither hath there been any colour of Evidence for it produced to the Lords. Moreover, all my Lord's Re­lations are so firmly possessed with the Be­lief, that the late Earl of Essex did in­deed cut his own Throat, that neither of them hath thought fit in the least to move in this matter, but all of them wish that this Cause had never been revived, because it renews the Remembrance of that sad and deplorable Accident which hath been so great a Misfortune to that Honourable Family.

Sir, I perceive you have been a­bused in every part of your Information, for your Author scarce told you one Word of Truth. As for the Families not appearing in (but being very averse to) this Prosecution, I do assure you (Sir) this is far from being true; for no Gentle­man could shew more Honour, and greater Zeal in a Cause, than the Right Honourable Sir Henry Capel (the late Earl's only Bro­ther) hath done in this, and caused some to be taken up for endeavouring to abuse the World with the Belief, that he had not engaged in this matter. The now Earl of Essex was not returned from his Travels when this Prosecution was re­newed; but as soon as he came, his Lord­ship approved of what was done, and hath been at the Charge of this Prose­cution, in which you may believe there hath been no small Expence, there ha­ving been in this Cause such a number of Witnesses examined, and so many several Committees. And whereas you say there was not the least Colour of Evidence pro­duced to the Lords: Did you ever hear what Persons were sworn before their Lordships, and after examined by this Ho­nourable Committee.

Not in every particular, but in part I have, and in general have been inform­ed, That the Witnesses produced by that Gentleman, who pretended to prove it, were looked upon as altogether insuffi­cient for that end; and therefore the House of Lords, upon reading the Informations in this Case taken by the Committee, imme­diately rejected them as frivolous, there­upon ordering, that all such as had been taken up, as suspected concerned in this pretended Murder, should be discharg­ed.

I perceive in this also you have been misinformed, as to both particulars; for the House of Lords upon reading what was taken by the Honourable Lords of this Committee, neither rejected the Evidence as insufficient, nor ordered the discharge of such as in this case were taken up, but the Depositions being read before the House, when three of the four Honourable Lords of this Committee were out of Town (viz.) the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Monmouth, and Lord Delamere (the Earl of Bedford being the first in this Com­mittee) the House ordered all those De­positions and Examinations to be sealed up, and kept by the Clerk of the Parlia­ment, till these three Lords returned, and in the mean time the farther Debate hereupon to be suspended: To prove all which, pray Sir, read this Order made Die Jovis 23 ^o. Maii, 1689.

Then I find my Information in this Particular false.

As to the Second, That the Lords have not ordered the discharge of such as were in this Case apprehended, but con­trarywise. that all these should be bound over by the Court of Kings Bench, to ap­pear the first day of the next Term, ap­pears by an Order of the House of Lords, made the 15 ^o. June 1689. which you may read if you please.

I thank you, Sir, for your Informa­tion herein, and its very probable those who gave me such false Information as to the Lords Proceedings in this Matter, may have likewise forged what Arguments they thought might sway with me to believe my Lords self Murder; what those are I shall give you an Account. But I first desire to hear what Evidence in particular hath been produced to prove my Lords being murdered by others.

Before I give you an Account of the Informations that have been in this Case taken, I think it proper first to inform you how the Case came before their Lord­ships, and what by them therein hath been done, and how the Case now stands be­fore the House.

Pray, Sir, use your own method.

The 21st of January last, (being the day before the Convention sat) several Per­sons were taken up, as suspected to be privy to my Lords Murder; amongst whom was Major Hawley, (Major of the Tower) in whose House my Lord was murdered, and Thomas Russell, one of the two War­ders that stood upon my Lord at the time of his death: these two belonging to the Tower, and consequently under the Command of the Right Honourable the Lord Lucas Governour of the Tower, were not taken up by any Constable; but his Lord­ship having seen the Warrant out against them, ordered both to be secured. The next day, being the 22d, several Infor­mations were taken before John Robins Esquire, one of the Middlesex Justices, who carried Coppies of these Informati­ons to my Lord Lucas. His Lordship the 24th moved the House of Lords for their Lordships Order, as to the keeping, discharging, or removing Hawley and Russell, as before secured by his Lord­ships Command; and then produced to the House those Informations brought his Lordship, as before by Mr. Robins; upon reading which, after some Debate, the House of Lords ordered Mr. Braddon to be called in before their Lordships, and after [Page 4]his Examination, their Lordships consti­tuted a Committee of Lords, of which the Right Honourable the Earl of Devon­shire (now Lord Steward of His Maje­sties Houshold) was Chairman. After this Committee had several times met, there was a secret Committee ordered to examine into the Matter; which Com­mittee consisted of these Four Honoura­ble Lords, (viz) the Earl of Bedford, the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Monmouth, (then Lord Mordant) and the Lord Dela­mere; after this Committee had many times sat, and taken about Fourty Depo­sitions and Examinations, the Earl of Monmouth, and the Lord Delamere were sent by His Majesty into the Country, as two of the Lords Commissioners to regu­late the Army. After these two Lords were thus out of Town, the Earl of De­von (being Chairman of the Committee) brought these Depositions and Examinati­ons into the House; but it being then late in the day, none were read, but an Order made that they should be read the next Morning; but His Majesties Affairs Commanded likewise the Earl of Devon the next Morning to go into the Country; so that when these Informations were read in the House, not one of the four Lords of this Committee were there be­sides the Earl of Bedford: Wherefore the House Ordered the Debate of the matter to be suspended, as you have before heard. And thus the Case came at first before their Lordships, and so it now stands.

Sir I thank you for undeceiving me, and desire you to proceed in such a Me­thod, as you think may give us the most Regular Notion of the Matter.

Before I give you any Information to prove my Lord by others barbarously Murdered, I think it proper to state the Case as it was represented by those who would have the World believe my Lord a Self Murderer; for without this you cannot understand what use can be made of many Informations that have been in this Case taken, because you will not be able to see wherein they contradict what was sworn before the Coroner, to prove my Lords self-destruction, and whatsoever proves their representation of the matter to the Coroner false by a very natural Consequence, proves my Lords being mur­dred by others.

Without doubt, for what end (I pray) should any swear to a Lye but to conceal a Truth, there being no other reason to be given for it.

I shall begin with my Lords Commit­ment to the Tower. The Right Honou­rable Arthur, late Earl of Essex, was com­mitted to the Tower the Tenth of July 1683. and the first night lay at Captain Cheekes, the then Lieutenant of the Tower, but the next day was removed to Major Hawleys, (then Gentleman Porter of the Tower) and the two Warders placed up­on his Lordship were Nathaniel Munday and Thomas Russel, one to stand at my Lords Chamber-door, or in his Chamber, and the other at the Stairs-foot, and thus by turns. Paul Bomeny, my Lords Servant, was permitted to be with his Lordship. At Mr. Hawleys my Lord lay Wednesday night and Thursday night, but Friday Morning a­bout Nine of the Clock his Lordship was found with his Throat cut through both Jugulars and Arteries, even to the Neck­bone on both sides the Neck. The next day—

Sir, Pardon this Interruption, I find that my Lord first lay at Captain Cheeks one night, and then was removed to Hawleys, where after two nights his Lordship was found dead; how came it to pass that my Lord had not continued to lye at Captain Cheeks, it being very usual for Prisoners of his Lordships Quality to lye at the Leiutenants House, as now my Lord Salis­bury doth at the Lord Lucas's.

The true Cause of this Removal I cannot give you, but the Colour I can; It is pretended that Captain Cheek would not be troubled with any Prisoners in his own House; for which reason (as pretend­ed) his Lordship was removed; but this I believe not to be the Cause, but (as I said) [Page 5]the Colour only; as for the true reason hereof, I refer you to the Men of Se­crecy in this Case. But to proceed, The next day being Saturday, the Jury sate, and before them were sworn the aforesaid Paul Bomeny, Thomas Russel, and the two Chyrurgeons.

Which Informations are as followeth according to the Print; but that (as I shall observe in its own proper place) varies from the Original in Bomeny's Informa­tion.

Upon these Informations the Coroners Jury found my Lord Felo de se.

The substance of these Informations in short is, That my Lord of Essex called for a Penknife to pare his Nails, but the Pen­knife not being ready, his Lordship required a Razor, which was delivered him, with which Razor his Lordship retired into his Closet and Lock'd himself in; but soon af­ter the Closet door being opened, my Lord was found with his Throat cut through both Jugulars and Arteries to the Neck-bone, and the Razor (as before delivered) lying by him.

Nathaniel Monday (the other Warder on my Lord at the time of his Death) now declares, that assoon as my Lord of Essex's Chamber Door was opened by the Gentle­man Jaylor about Seven of the Clock, (that morning my Lord died,) he stood Warder upon my Lord till about a quarter of an hour before my Lord was found dead, and then he called up Russel and left him at the Door, and then went down Stairs, where he had not been a quarter of an hour before Bomeny cryed out, My Lord is fallen down sick; whereupon he ran up Stairs, and found Bomeny and Russel endea­vouring to open the Closet Door, but nei­ther could stir it, because my Lords body [Page 7]lay so very close and strong against the Door; wherefore he being stronger than either Bomeny or Russel, put his Shoulder against the Door, and thrusting with all his might broke it open.

Major Hawley (at whose house my Lord was Murdered,) saith, That about Five of the Clock that Morning my Lord died, he went out to open the Tower Gates (ac­cording to the duty of his place,) and came not home nor nigh his own house till about Nine of the Clock, Note when Monday the Warder came to him and told him my Lord of Essex had cut his Throat; where­upon Hawley going home found it true, and immediately thereupon went to his Ma­jesty Charles the Second (then in the Tower) and did inform his Majesty of the same.

Bomeny, Russel and Munday, (and likewise Lloyd the Sentinel at my Lords Lodgings that Morning my Lord dyed, Note) did ever deny (till January last) that any men were let into my Lords Lodgings before his Death any time that Morning my Lord dyed. The two first upon their Oaths denied it before the Coroner and Bomeny. Russel and Lloyd did at Mr. Bradon's Tryal pag. 55, 56, 57, upon their Oaths declare, that no men were let into my Lords Lodgings, (that Morning my Lord dyed) before my Lords Death was known. Monday and Russel still persist in their denial of any mens being let into my Lord before his Death that Morning my Lord dyed.

This is the state of the Case, as it was represented by those that were immediate­ly attending upon my Lord at the time of his death. I shall not in this place make any Observations upon the several Contra­dictions and Incoherences of these Rela­tions, nor yet say what is prov'd to falsify all that hath (as before) by these been declared and sworn, but shall leave this to a more proper place, and shall in my method begin with such things as were first in or­der of time.

The Informations and Examinations in this Case taken are nigh Sixty, I shall range them in this order I shall place those.

First, That have relation to what passed before the day of the death of the late Earl of Essex. Secondly, That that relate to what passed the day of his death. And in the third and last place, such as have relation to what was subsequent to the day of his death; upon hearing all which, I doubt not but fully to convince every un­prejudiced person.

Such I am I do assure you, for its neither my interest nor desire that this Murder (if such indeed it were) should not be detected; but I do heartily wish all such of whatsoever quality sex or condi­tion as stood concerned in contriving, pri­vy to, or acting in this Murder, may be brought to condign punishment.

If this be proved to be a Murder, I shall always think it the most villanous that was ever acted on our Stage; and as soon as I shall be throughly convinced hereof, shall as heartily desire (with you) that all Actors and Abetters herein, may receive according to their demerit. And indeed I shall hardly think any punishment too severe for such an Act, or any thing too ill to be thought of any who were in the least concerned in this treacherous complicated Murder (in Person and Reputation) if it be proved to be any. But pardon me if I think it not true, but in­vented by heretofore Disloyal and Disaffected Men, to raise an aversion against the most Unfortunate among Princes, who was trea­cherously, (I had almost said Treasonably) deserted by his Souldiers as well as others in the midst of the greatest dangers. We have had much noise of this (pretended) Murder, and (as some falsly call it) of the Murder of Charles the Second of the sup­posititiousness of the Birth of the Prince of Wales, and of the Private French League; but all this hitherto hath been but talk, and I now think (as I ever did) there is not any good grounds for the belief of either, for if there had, we should long since (for the Vindication of what is past, which I shall [Page 8]forbear to call by its proper Name) have had it made more publick.

Bona verba, quaeso, not this great heat.

But Passion is very natural to every honest Man that had any sparks of true Loyalty upon such Reflections as these.

Passion serves not, but prejudices an Argument, and generally speaking where there is the most Passion there is least Rea­son.

I will endeavour for the future to be more calm.

I shall tell you at our next meeting what I have heard concerning the Death of Charles the Second, and the Birth of the pretended Prince of Wales, and its probable may inform you in both of what you may have never heard, nor as yet made publick by any; but I desire not any longer to detain this Gentleman from pro­ceeding in his intended Method.

I beg both your Pardons for this Heat and Interruption, and I do impatiently wait to hear what can be said.

I shall proceed; and,

First, as for such Informations as have relation to what passed before my Lord's Death, these are of two sorts; the first proves a Resolution (by Papists) several Days before my Lord's Death, to cut my Lord's Throat. The

Second, Many Reports in several parts of England (before my Lord's Death) that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower. For proof of their previ­ous Resolution to cut my Lord's Throat; pray read this Paper which I have taken for my own satisfaction, and the Informa­tion of some Friends, from the Person's own Mouth.

D. S. saith, ‘That a little before the Death of the late Earl of Essex, as she was Servant in the House of one Mr. Holmes, a Papist, then living in Baldwins Gardens about Nine Days before my Lord's Death, some Papists (among which one Mr. Lovet, whom this Informant knew) met in her said Masters House, she being then in the Kitchin with one W. A. then Apprentice with the said Mr. Holmes; the said W. A. went a little up stairs, and stopping, beckoned to this In­formant to come to him, which this In­formant accordingly did; but the said W. A. soon went up stairs into the Garret (as this Informant supposes) to work, and left this Informant on the Stairs; and this Informant heard the aforesaid Papists discoursing in the Room just over the Kitchin, concerning the said Earl of Essex; and the substance of what she then heard, was to the Effect following (viz.) one of them cursing the said Earl, cal­led him Villain and Dog (or such, with several such approbrious Terms) saying, He knew so much of their Designs, Note and was so very averse to their Interest, that unless he was taken off, they should never carry them on. Upon which it was then answered by another, That they had been with his Highness, and his High­ness was for Poysoning the said Earl; but his Highness was told, that manner of Death would not look well to the World; it was then also declared, that one had proposed to his Highness, Stabbing the Earl, but that was likwise not agreed on; at length his Highness concluded, and ordered his Throat to be cut; and his Highness had promi­sed to be there when it was done; (but this Informant remembers not any Place mentioned where the Earl's Throat was to be cut.) This was the Substance of what this Informant heard the first meeting: But about three Days after some of the aforesaid Persons met again at the said Mr. Holmes's House, and this Informant listned (as before) to their Discourse, and heard one of them say, That the cutting the Earl's Throat was a­greed on, but they would give it out, That he had done it himself; and if any should deny it, they would take them up, and pu­nish them for it. This Informant further saith, That being much troubled in mind [Page 9]for what she had heard, as above re­lated, she was willing to have disco­vered to some Justice of Peace what she kenew, as aforesaid, being willing the Mischief, as above-designed, might be prevented. Whereupon she went to a Friend of hers to advise with (viz.) one Mr. B. since dead (who bfore that time had been her Master) who lived not far from Mr. Holmes's House, and informed him as before set forth. Whereupon the said Mr. B. did advise her to be silent; for the Papists carrying all before them, she was ruined, if she spoke of it. Upon which she did not to her remembrance then reveal it to any other. This Informant further saith, That the very day of my Lord's death she was (not long before Dinner) at a Chandlers (not far from the said Holme's House) viz. one Mrs. Hinton's, in Leather-lane, where there then came some who declared, That the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower: upon which she went home to Mr. Holmes's, and was extreamly troubled, and immediately taken with Fits, ha­ving, as before, heard their Resolution to cut the Earl's Throat. This Infor­mant further declareth, That about two or three of the Clock the same day the Earl died, some of the aforesaid Con­sult met again at her Master Holmes's House, and she heard them leap about the Room; and one of them struck him upon the Back, and cry'd, The Feat was done (or we have done the Feat.) Whereupon the said Mr. Holmes re­plied, Is the Earl's Throat cut? To which the other answered, Yes; and further said, he could not but laugh to think how like a Fool the Earl of Essex looked when they came to cut his Throat? The said Mr. Holmes did then say, Was his Highness there? To which the other Papist replied, Yes. This Informant further saith, That she did, about four Years since, discover to one Mr. R. (with whom she then lived as a Servant) his Wife and Daughter, That she had heard at Mr. Holmes's House aforesaid, some Papists (several days before my Lord's Death) declare, That the Earl's Throat was to be cut: but her said Master R. command­ed her to hold her peace, and not to tell him such dangerous things, lest, as he said, being over-heard, she should ruine him, and all his Family, or Words to that effect.’

It's improbable that any should dis­course a matter of this Consequence and Secrecy, thus to be over-heard by the Ser­vant.

I do hardly know any House more convenient for a secret Meeting, provided all the Family be true to the Design; and, it's probable, these Men did not know that this Maid was a Protestant, or that upon the Stairs in the Kitchin their Discourse could be over-heard; but in­deed it could be there heard almost as plain as in the very Room it self, unless you whisper.

Besides, consider the Circumstan­ces of Time when this Consult was held. This was when our Government in its Corruption was grown to such a pitch, that some People were Loyally mad, and (through blind prejudiced Obedience, I hope, more than Malice) were offering up as Sacrifices to the Court Popish and Arbitrary Interest the Blood of those brave Men, who did zealously oppose those cursed Designs, the Popish and Arbitrary end whereof we then saw through a Glass, but since (to our Cost) face to face. Should therefore this poor Maid have revealed what she heard, it's ten thousand to one but this Truth would have met with such a Disbelief in some, and such Hatred in others, that through both, it would have been severely punish­ed; for be sure these bloody Men would have deposed, and, in probability, by others of their Party, proved, that they at that time were somewhere else; and [Page 10]without all doubt our then Juries would sooner have credited the many oaths which would, though falsely, have con­tradicted her Testimony, than her own single Evidence: And therefore I think Mr. Billinger's Caution (as before) given this Maid, was grounded upon great Rea­son, and what would have proved too true should it have been put to the Try­al.

Hath this Woman been sworn?

Yes; and as I have been told; deposed the same in Substance before the Lords.

She here speaks of several that she long since informed of this matter; is there any that have, or will depose the same? for otherwise I shall look up­on it as a new contrived Story malici­ously to traduce the most unhappy crown­ed Head in Christendom (King James the Second I mean) and therein to serve a present Interest.

I should agree with you in the same Opinion, if it were not, nor could be proved by those to whom she reveal­ed it; but to satisfie you that it both can, and hath been proved long since to be discovered by this D. S. pray read what Mr. R. his Wife and Daughter (before-mentioned in Smith's Informa­mation) do declare, and are teady to depose.

Mr. R. his Wife and Daughter do declare, and are ready to depose, ‘That about four years since the aforesaid D. S. did declare, that she had heard a Consult by Papists several days before the Earl of Essex's Death, wherein it was declared the Earl's Throat was to be cut. And the said Mr. R. further saith, that he did check the said D. S. for speaking of it, and would not hear her freely declare what she would have said in that matter, because it would have been of dangerous Consequence to him­self and Family, should such her Dis­course be over-heard, as it easily might by any that might have listned at the Window. And the said Mrs. R. further saith, That the said D. S. about four Years since did declare, That she could say much more than she had to them revealed, and that she did hope she should live to see that day wherein she might with safety speak the Truth in this mat­ter.’

Have either of those there been sworn before the Lords?

Yes, Mr. R. and his Daughter, and they have declared to me they have de­posed the same in substance before the Lords.

How long hath Mr. Braddon known of this Evidence?

No longer than about February last.

How doth that appear?

By those two Informations follow­ing; by the first of which you will per­ceive, that what this D. S. knew in this matter, she was much afraid to reveal to every one.

She had great reason so to be; for had it been long since known to some that she knew so much, in all probabi­lity she would not now have been in the Land of the Living to have given this In­formation.

The Information you may read.

R. M. of London, Goldsmith, de­poseth, That some time after the Death of the late Earl of Essex, observing D. S. to be very melancholy, and much con­cerned and troubled in mind, the said R. M. desired the said D. S. to tell the reason of such her Dejection; but the said D. S. at first was very unwilling, say­ing, She was afraid to reveal her mind to any. Whereupon the said R. M. ad­vised her to discover it to some particular Friend whom she could safely confide in: Upon which the said D. replied, That some­what which she knew, with relation to the Death of the late Earl of Essex, was the [Page 11]cause of her trouble, and it was not safe for her to reveal it (or words to that effect;) whereupon the said R. M. advised her not to reveal it to any one, till she might with safety. The said R. M. farther saith, that about February last, the said R. M. finding it safe to ask, and no danger to the said D. S. to reveal what she knew with relation to the said Earls Death, he then desired her to inform him what she knew with relation thereunto. Whereupon the said D. S. told him she had heard a Consult before my Lords Death to cut his Throat, and that some great Person was named at that meeting as concerned in contriving the said Earls death, (or words to that effect;) upon which this Deponent (without being very inquisitive into particulars,) spoke to one Mr. T. to acquaint Mr. Braddon, whom the said R. M. knew not, nor to his know­ledge ever saw; and sometime after the said Mr. T. told the said R. M. that he had spoken to the said Mr. Braddon about it, and that the said Mr. Braddon did desire him the said R. M. to bring the said D. S. to the Cross-Keys in Watling-street, where this Depondent and the said D. S. with one Friend of hers more, met the said Mr. Braddon and Mr. T. and then the said D. S. gave the said Mr. Braddon a parti­cular account of what she knew with re­lation to the Earls death. And this De­ponent doth verily believe, that before that time the said D. S. never saw the said Mr. Braddon or Mr. T.

W. T. Gent. deposeth, that about Ja­nuary last, discoursing with one R. M. concerning the death of the late Earl of Essex, the said R. M. told this Deponent, that he knew one D. S. which could say what was material, with relation to the death of the late Earl of Essex; where­upon this Deponent declared, that he would inform Mr. Braddon of the same, of which the said R. M. seemed very willing and desirous: This Deponent did so accordingly, but the said Mr. Braddon spoke to this effect, (viz.) That he did believe the Papists did endeavour to put sham-Evidence upon him, which they being able to detect, would from thence argue against the truth of all that should be said. And therefore the said Mr. Braddon declared, that unless the said D. appeared to be of good reputation, and that she had some years since discovered what she knew in this Case to some Friends; so that it did appear, that it was not a new contrived Story, either to serve the present In­terest, or to baffle what else should be sworn, he would not believe whatsoever she should say, neither would he have her Sworn, whatsoever she declared, unless it appeared as above, confirmed by those to whom she revealed it. This Deponent told the said Mr. Brad­don, that he knew not the said D. S. neither (to his remembrance) had ever seen her; But if the said Mr. Braddon would appoint some time and place, he might discourse the said D. S. and hear what she could say; which the said Mr. Braddon declared he would do, if he knew where to speak with her; upon which, this Deponent went to the said R. M. and desired the said R. M. to bring the said D. S. to the Cross Keys in Wat­ling Street such a day and hour, for there the said Mr. Braddon and this Deponent should then be. This Deponent further deposeth, that the said R. M. D. S. and another, met this Deponent, and the said Mr. Braddon accordingly; and this Depo­nent saith, that he this Deponent, the said R. M. and another Person, were pre­sent when the said Mr. Braddon discour­sed the said D. S. who then gave the said Mr. Braddon a particular account of two meetings of Papists several days be­fore the Earl of Essex's Death, wherein it was declared how the Earl of Essex's Throat was to be cut, and by whom or­dered, and likewise of what passed the day the Earl dyed, at the same house where they met before his Death. This Deponent further deposeth, that the said Mr. Braddon then spoke to the said D. S. to this effect, That unless she could pro­duce Persons of very good Reputation, to [Page 12]whom she had some years before revealed it, he would look upon it as a new con­trived Story, either to serve the interest of the Government, or invented to baffle what else should be sworn; for though it was of very dangerous consequence to reveal it, yet he could not believe she had been so secret in it as not to reveal it to any; and thereupon this Deponent heard the said D.S. declare she had re­vealed it to several which she named, but she was by all cautioned to Secresy, as she valued her safety. The said D. S. did then further declare to the effect fol­lowing, viz. That for some time after my Lord's Death it did extreamly trouble her, and she went to a Divine for his Advice in the matter, for she was extreamly con­cern'd to think that the Papists should lay the Earls death to his own charge, when she had (as before) heard how they themselves had resolved to cut his Throat; but the said Divine told her, (as she then said) she must be quiet and silent in the matter, till such times should come, wherein she might with safety reveal it. This Deponent farther deposeth, that he (to his best remembrance) never saw the said D. S. before this Meeting. And this Deponent doth verily believe, that the said Mr. Braddon never saw the said D. S. till (as before) at the Cross-Keys in Wat­ling Street. And this Deponent farther believeth, that the said Mr. Braddon ne­ver did hear of the said D. S. or R. M. before this Deponent had (as above de­posed) given him Information of them.

I have often heard Mr. Braddon declare, that he never heard of the said D. S. before Mr. T. (as before) Inform­ed him of her, and this he would Depose if thereto called.

I think that matter is as plainly proved as the thing is capable of; for no man can Swear possitively (besides Mr. Braddon) that Mr. Braddon never heard of, or saw the said D. but through the Information of Mr. T. but by all circum­stances, as before deposed by Mr. M. and T. he never did.

Mr. M. deposeth, that about February, he did inform Mr. T. and Mr. T. deposeth it was about January: here seems some variation.

None I think; for when a man is to be examined to a Fact about six Months af­ter the Fact done, the certain time whereof he did not set down, he may be well uncertain as to a week or much more. Now neither of these In­formants being positive as to the time, but Mr. T. being more inclin'd to believe it to be in January, and Mr. M. thinking it was the beginning of February, each be­ing to Swear as himself believeth (as to the time) thus came the seeming difference. Besides, when a man speaks of an action to be done about such a Year, Month, or Week, certainly (in common accepta­tion) about a Year, includes either the very Year, or the Year before or after; and about such a Month, either the ve­ry Month, or the Month before or af­ter, &c.

I am herein satisfied; now this In­formation of D. S. thus strengthened, would alone convince me of the truth of my Lords being Murdered, were it not that I had heard some Informations read in the Court of King's Bench (upon a Motion made for the Bailing of Mr. Holmes,) which with me, and indeed with all men, must totally destroy the Credit of this pretended Consult.

If I mistake not, those Informations proved this D. S. for suspition of Theft to have been turned out of Mr. Holmes's Service in April before my Lords Death; whereas she Swears her self a Servant with Holmes at the time of my Lords Death, which was July the 13th. I re­member not the Names of these Depo­nents, but I am almost possitive this was what was sworn; and if I mistake not; there was somewhat else deposed by a Countrey Parson, which in some other particulars contradicted D. S's Information.

I will herein arm you against my self, and produce you Copies of these Informations you speak of.

The first is of one Dorothy Hewit, Sister in Law to Mr. Holmes, a very violent Pa­pist, and otherwise not of the best Re­putation. The second is of one Eliza­beth Christopher, once reputed of a very loose Character. And the third of Na­thaniel Swan, Clerk, to whose Character I shall speak in a more proper time and place.

These are the names of the Infor­mants, and here are the Informations, which you may read if you please.

What can you say in Contradiction to these Depositions, either of which being true, your pretended Consult falls down to the ground, and your first E­vidence proved false? Of the same na­ture are (I believe) all the rest, though they may not be so happily detected, as this Smiths Evidence is by these Deposi­tions.

I believe these Depositions will be of but little service to you, because your Adversary did so readily furnish you with them; I am therefore apt to think he may be able to destroy the credit of these, as these seem to do the credit of Smiths. And if it shall appear, that these Informations are false, such a de­tection will add great force to the credi­bility of Dorothy Smiths Deposition; for whosoever flies to Lyes for a Defence, hath nothing of truth and innocence for protection.

I must confess there cannot be a greater Argument of Guilt, than a false defence, seeing every man in his defence doth virtually conclude, If my Defence be false, my Charge is true.

The Law concludes the same in all Civil Actions; for instance, he that is sued upon a Bond, and Pleads non est factum, or solvit ad diem, or a Release, or a former Recovery, &c. Whatsoever such general Issuable Plea is pleaded, and the Plaintiff denies this Plea to be true, and thereupon the truth hereof being tryed, if what is pleaded appears false, the Law immediately gives Judgment against the Defendant; for its to be supposed, that every man will first plead the best, (and consequently the truest) Plea he can in bar of the Action; and if his first Plea proves false, its presumed he can give no true and just Cause to exclude the Plain­tiff his Action; for if he could, he would first have pleaded it.

The same holds good upon Criminal Prosecutions, for if a man shall be accu­sed (though but upon suspicion) of having committed a Robbery within two miles of Salisbury, such a day, upon such a Co­loured Gelding, and to avoid this Charge, the Prisoner pretends he was never within Thirty miles of Salisbury in his life; and he likewise produces some, (not of the best Reputation) who de­clare, that for Ten days before that Robbery, and as long after, the Prisoner being very sick, kept his Chamber, and stirred not out of it; if in Con­tradiction to this, it be positively sworn by Persons of undoubted Credit, who well knew the Prisoner, that the very day of the Robbery committed, within a very short time before the Robbery ap­pears to have been committed, they met the Prisoner nigh the place where, &c. the Piisoners Gelding, and all other cir­cumstances, in his Cloaths, &c. agreeing with the description the Prosecutor gave, I say, if this be credibly proved in con­tradiction to the Prisoners Defence, it cannot but satisfy any Judge and Jury, that the Prisoner is really Guilty; neither are they to answer at the last day for his Blood, should he prove innocent, but his Blood shall be required at his own hands, seeing by his false Defence he became a Self-destroyer, according to the common Judgement of all Mankind. [Page 15]The like may be said in a thousand other Cases.

Innocence is naturally suspected as Guilt, when the falsity of its Defence is detected; for if a Person of a very ill Re­putation charged a Man with a Crime, if I knew the Disreputation of the Accuser, the bare denyal of the Accused might more influence my Belief, than the Oath of the Prosecutors; but if once I found the Prisoner false in his Defence, that Charge which before I disbelieved as false, I should then immediately as firmly credit for Truth; but I desire to know what can be said in answer to these Counter-evidences.

Dorothy Hewits Deposition declares, That D. S. was turned away in April before my Lord's Death, upon suspicion of stealing a Silver Spoon; and upon her being so turned away, she threatned Mr. Holmes with Revenge. This Depo­uent further deposeth, That she went with Mr. Holmes into the Country the 6th. of July, and tarried with him till about the 27th so that Mr. Holmes was not at home the 13th. of July, as Smith deposeth.

Elizabeth Christopher deposeth, That she came to Mr. Holmes's Service in A­pril 1683. and tarried there for Nine Months, and no other Maid Servant was with Mr. Holmes all that time.

Mr. Swan deposeth, That Mr. Holmes was with him from about the 9th. of July 1683. till about the 23d. or 24th. of the same Month.

Hewit and Christopher have sworn fur­ther back from my Lord's Death than the Case required; for if they had de­posed, that D. S. went away the first or second of July 1683. it had been more difficult to have disproved them; but having allowed almost three Months to prove them forsworn, it hath been done with the greater ease; whereas these two swear, That D. S. went away in April before my Lord's Death; by these two Depositions following it appears that she came not a Servant to Mr. Holmes till after May, 1683.

Pray read these Depositions.

S. D. of Little Brittain, London, Widow, deposeth, ‘That in June and July, 1683. she lodged next Door to Mr. Holmes's in Leopards Alley in Bald­win's Gardens, and in June or July, 1683. she knew D. S. to be then a Servant to the said Mr. Holmes, and whilst the said D. was there a Servant, she did se­veral times borrow a Bible of this De­ponent, Note and eat green Pease with this Deponent, Pease being then three pence or a Groat a Peck. This Deponent fur­ther deposeth, That the said D. S. whilst she was a Servant, as aforesaid, to the said Mr. Holmes, came crying to this Deponent, and told this Deponent, that whilst she was out of her Masters House there was a Silver Spoon lost, and her Mistress told her she should pay for it, which the said D. S. crying, did much complain of. This Deponent further saith, That she saw the said D. several times after this Spoon was said to be lost, and whilst the said D. was Servant to the said Mr. Holmes: But how long the said D. S. tarried Servant with the said Mr. Holmes after the Spoon was lost, or when she left the said Mr. Holmes's Service, this Deponent know­eth not. But this Deponent saith, That the said D. S. came not to the Service of the said Mr. Holmes till some time after the 27th. of May in the Year afore­said.’

I perceive Hewit and Christopher have sworn D. S. to have gone away from Holmes's above a Month before she came there to Service; but what farther Evidence have you of this matter?

I desire these Depositions may like­wise be read.

Here are five Depositions against your two, and unless these five appear to be of very infamous Characters, Mrs. Hewit and Christopher deserve a Pillory for swearing falsely in Protection of Mur­der. What is sworn by these five seems very natural, because most agree in this, That D. S. was a Servant with Holmes in that time of the year when Green Pease were very plenty, and cheap: Now this is a natu­ral Evidence, that it was long after A­pril; for all men know Pease are not then a Groat a Peck, nor indeed to be had for any Price.

These Depositions contradict Hewit and Christopher as to that part which [Page 17]proves D. S. to go from Mr. Holmes in April, but how do you prove Mr. Holmes was in Town the 13th of July, 1683, see­ing Mr. Swan as well as Hewit prove him in the Countrey.

As for Mrs. Hewits Deposition in that point, it is of no credit at all, for if it be once disproved in any parti­cular, (as I think it sufficiently is,) the credit of the whole is destroyed; for per­jured or foresworn in one thing, believed in nothing. But seeing Mr. Swan (which by the way is fallen into ill Company in this his Evidence) deposeth, That Holmes came to his House about the 9th of July, 1683, and tarried till the 23d. Mr. Swan hath sworn very indeffinitely, as to the first part, for what allowance he will have made for about, I can't imagine, if he thinks reasonable that about shall in­clude the 16th, (seeing the time is so long past, to which he swears, this ob­jection falls of it self; but if the Parson will be more certain, and depose, that Mr. Holmes was at his House before the 13th of July 1683, and tarried there till the 23d, then will his Oath be some Ob­jection, which otherwise is none. Ne­vertheless it appears by the Informations following, that Mr. Holmes did not go in­to the Countrey with Mrs. Hewit, till D. S. left Holmes's Service, and it is Sworn by E. M. that D. S. did not leave Mr. Holmes's Service till after my Lord's Death; therefore according to these In­formations, Holmes did not go into the Countrey till after the Death of the late Earl of Essex: Pray read this Informa­tion.

W. A. Declareth, and is ready to Depose, ‘that whilst D. S. was Servant to Mr. Holmes, in the Year of our Lord 1683, this Informant being then Ap­prentice to the said Mr. Holmes, remem­bers that Mrs. Holmes pretended she lost a Silver Spoon; but this Informant saith, that the said D. S. was not imme­diately hereupon turned away, for she tarried sometime after, to the best of this Informants remembrance about a Fortnight. This Informant further saith, That Mr. Holmes did not go his Journey into the Countrey with Mrs. Dorothy Hewit, until after the said D. S. left his Service. But this Informant at present can't be possitive what Month the said D. S. went from Mr. Holmes's Service.’

This Information doth further prove that the said D. did remain a Servant with Holmes some time after this Spoon was loft, W.A. is rea­dy to depose, that a little be­fore D. S. left Holmes 's Ser­vice, she was taken with Fits, and in her Fits would cry out, The Papists are Bloody Peo­ple, The Pa­pists are Bloody Peo­ple, several times over re­peating it. D. S. saith, that the fright she was in when she first heard of my Lords Death, brought upon her those Fits. and was not immediately turned a­way, as was pretended by Hewit. But a stronger Evidence to prove Hewit in Town, whilst she swears she was with Mr. Holmes in the Countrey, then any you yet heard, is a Taylors Book ready to be produced, by which it appears, that Mrs. Hewit had a Dust-Gown, (a peculiar Riding upper Gar­ment,) made for her the Week next after she swore she went out of Town, (this Gown was made the Week my Lord Died,) the Gown appears to be made about the Wednesday, which was the 11th of July, the second day next before my Lord's Death; but the Taylor can't be possitive what day of this Week he did deliver this Gown to Mrs. Hewit. The Taylor's Information is as followeth.

J. W. of St. Dunstans declareth and is ready to depose, ‘that in July, 1683, he lived in Poppins Alley, nigh Fleetstreet, very near Mrs. Dorothy Hewit, and often wrought for the said Mrs. Hewit, and between Menday the 9th of July 1683, and Monday the 16th of the fame Month and Year, this Informant made or cau­sed to be made, a Dust-Gown for the said Mrs. Hewit, as appears by this In­formants Book, ready to be produced; and the very same Week, (viz.) be­tween Monday the 9th of July 1683, and Monday the 16th of the same Month and Year (but in the very Day, this Infor­mant is not certain,) this Informant carried the said Dust-Gown to the [Page 18]said Mrs. Hewit, who did then pretend she was about going into the Countrey, but how long after the Dust-Gown so delivered, the said Mrs. Hewit did go into the Countrey, this Informant know­eth not.’

This entry before my Lord's Death is so clear an Argument of the falcity of Holmes's Defence—

And consequently of the truth of his charge.

That there can't be a more satis­factory Evidence in this part produced.

How came this entry to be found out.

When Mr. Braddon found that Holmes endeavoured to prove (as before sworn by Hewit) himself out of Town from the 6th of July 1683, to the 26th or 27th of the same Month Mr. B. did endeavour to enquire out all such as either Mr. Holmes or Mrs. Hewit were well known to or traded with, and therefore he made in­quiry after all those with whom (in that Month and Year) they bought of or sold to all Shopkeepers, Taylors, Butchers, Fish­mongers, Shoemakers, Hatters, &c. and such as upon inquiry he received such Characters of, as he might expect fair satisfaction from, he did desire to see their Books in that Month of July, to see whether any Goods were bought in Town by the said Mr. Holmes or Mrs. Hewit, (for proving Hewit in Town, proves Holmes likewise in Town, because its sworn and can be prov'd, they both went out of Town together,) or any Money paid between the 6th and 26th of July, by either of these. After a very long and tedious Inquiry, (all those Tradesmen being altogether Strangers to Mr. Braddon.) he providentially met with this Mr. W. who very readily shewed his Book, wherein is entred as before [...]. This Book hath not been of any use to Mr. W. for almost five Years, and it was a very great Providence this had not been torn out, seeing the Book for some Years had been used as waste Paper, and the very next Leaf to this torn out and lost.

Upon the smallest matters things of the greatest moment many times do depend; who could have thought this entry so preserved, would have been serviceable in so weighty and just a cause.

No one Providence is independent, but the most considerable occurrences are often brought about by things of the least consideration. Joseph's Dream pre­served his Aged Father, and all his Bre­thren, and in them all that sprang from them, from that pale Famine that other­wise might have devoured not these on­ly, but Egypt it self. And Ahasuerus not being able either to Dream or Sleep, not only saves the Jews from their Enemies, but destroys their very Enemies them­selves.

What can Holmes and Hewit say in Vindication of this notorious false De­fence.

As soon as Mrs. Hewit understood such a Taylors entry was against her Oath, she with Holmes's Wife went to this Tay­lor, and desired to see his Book, which being shewed, Hewit first pretended that this Entry was forged and new; but when Mr. W. declared he could safely, and would depose that the Entry was real, it was then pretended that the Gown was sent into the Country after Mrs. Hewit; but when in answer to that, Mr. W. de­clared he could depose, that Mrs. Hewit was in Town when that Dust-Gown was made and delivered, and that she then pretended she was about going into the Countrey, (but how many days after she did go, he could not tell.) Mrs. Hewit told him if he did Swear that, he would take off her Brothers life, and Holmes's Blood would be upon his head.

This is a Villanous and False Sug­gestion, to prevent the detection of Blood, and evade the punishment for the vilest Murder. I am sure of this, if Mr. W. should upon Oath deny what he can with safety assert, he would draw the guilt of Perjury on his Head. And not only so, [Page 19]but this Perjury being in protection of a Murder, to that Perjury, he would add the guilt of my Lord's Blood, seeing by that Perjury he doth endeavour to stifle the Discovery, and prevent the Prosecution of the most Treacherous, Barbarous and Cruel Murder (in all circumstances con­sider'd) our Nation ever knew. If he that protects a Murderer (being well assured that he is such) in his House, to avoid the common methods of Justice, deserves in our Law to answer this Eva­sion, (which makes him accessary after the fact) with nothing less than his Life. How much more criminal (before God) is he that by Perjury endeavours to fru­strate the Execution of Justice upon the the like offender; the first doth an action in it self abstracted from the end hospi­table, nay, it may be charitable, and his intentions (which argues his after assent to the Murder,) renders him a Criminal. But the second commits one of the greatest Transgressions (which in it self deserves almost Death,) with the same ill design as the first; wherefore most certainly he is the greatest Criminal of the two, by that addition of Perjury to the same offence. And though our Law in this case punish not the second Offender with Death, yet I am sure (and I think all men will own) that the second most deserves it.

‘That D. S. was a Servant at Holmes's the day of my Lord Russel's Tryal, and my Lord of Essex's Death, and that Mr. Holmes and Mrs. Dorothy Hewit were then in Town, farther appears from the words of a Dying man, who upon his Death­bed did several times declare he knew D. S. then there a Servant, and Holmes and Hewit then in Town, and both Holmes and Hewit that morning, pre­tended they would go to my Lord Russel's Tryal: This Person did often for several days before his Death, declare this, as what he could answer as a great truth before that God, before whom he was shortly to appear; and all this he did confirm with almost his very last breath. This Person did farther declare, that when D. S. was a Servant to the said Mr. Holmes, and a little before she left Holmes's Service, she told this Informant she was much troubled with somewhat which lay upon her mind; upon which this Informant was desirous to know what it was, but the said D. would not tell, being unwilling and afraid; upon which this Informant advised her to go to some Divine and disclose it.’

If the positive Depositions of the Living, and the last Breath of a Dying man then dropping into Eternity, where this Relation (had it been false,) would [...] eternally tormented him) may be credited, Hewit and Christopher are most notoriously perjured, (and the Parson himself about being forsworn, for about hath sav'd him from a flat Perjury,) and consequently Mr. Holmes's Defence thus Sworn to, is false throughout.

Who then can otherwise conclude, but that his charge is true.

It's very probable, that some or o­ther that knew Mr. Holmes or Mrs. Hewit, might see one or both of them at my Lord Russel's Tryal, (if they were there,) or might that night hear them confess their having been there; for this was a very notorious thing, and a sight which People of their Religion and Characters would rejoyce to see and delight much in the Repitition of.

It's not unlikely but that others may remember they saw them that day, and heard them give an account of both my Lord Russel's Tryal, and the Earls Death; for both these things are so remarkable, as may fix the remembrance of Holmes's and Hewits being in Town in some of their acquaintance.

I think the Taylors Book before observed, and the words of a Dying-man will be sufficient to convince all mankind. Nevertheless I can't but say this, that it's the duty of every Person that can be posi­tive in Hewits or Holmes's being in Town [Page 20]that day the Earl of Essex was murdered, which was the same day my Lord Russel was try'd, or their being in Town the day just before or next after, (for that Week proves Hewit Perjured, who Swears she and Holmes went out of Town the Week next before, and returned not till the 26th of the same month;) I say whoso­ever can be positive in this, and reveals it not, consents to the Death of my Lord; and though Humane Law reach him not, the Divine Law-giver will one day lay it to his charge, as consenting to this Blood.

This Doctrine I do not well under­stand.

The Doctrine (I think) is both true and plain, and I will give you an instance somewhat like this. A Gentlman such a day very early in the morning was found Murdered between London and Highgate, with one Glove lying by the Body, and not any Person at the first by his Relations particularly suspected for the Murderer; at length upon diligent Inquiry, it was found out (about Two Months after the Death,) that a certain Gentleman had sworn he would Murder the Deceased, if he could ever meet with an opportunity. Upon this suspition he was taken up, the Prisoner denies the fact, and in particular saith, that he could make it appear by two (then present) how that two days before this Murder he went to Salisbury, and tarried there till Ten days after, and such a day, he with his Two Friends re­turn'd to London, (which Two Friends being then there, declared they were rea­dy to Depose the same. A Gentleman just then coming in, who knew and was very well acquainted with the Prisoner, having been inform'd of his Defence, im­mediately reflected upon this Defence, and knew it to be false, for this Gentle­man with three others, (all knowing the Prisoner) very betimes the very morning the Murder was committed, (which was of a remarkable day) were walking out in Lambs-Conduit Fields, there and then met the Prisoner, (with another Person a Stranger to them) to whom they spoke, and he to them; and a little after the Prisoner, was his Spaniel running with a Fringe Glove in his Mouth; this Gentle­man being well known to the Dog, calls the Dog, and takes from him the Glove, puts it in his Pocket, and carries it home. This Gentleman therefore knowing this Defence to be false, concluded (as he naturally might) that the charge was true, and hereupon (though with some re­luctancy, because the Prisoner was his ac­quaintance, but not dearer to him then his love to Justice,) declares what you have before heard, and fetches the Glove and his two Friends, and all depose (in contradiction to the Prisoners Defence what you have before heard related, and the Glove appeared to be the Glove of the Person Murdered, and Fellow to that found by the Body.) And now I desire to know of you what you think of this Gentleman (who thus falsified the De­fence,) did he do the duty of an honest man.

Truly I believe he did, and was to be commended for so doing, though the Prisoner was his Acquaintance, for Justice obliged him to it, and Iustice knows neither Acquaintance; Relation or Friend.

But do you not think that this Gentleman (in foro Conscientiae) had been consenting to this Murder, had he suffer­ed the Prisoner by such a forged Defence (which he well knew to be false) to baffle the Prosecution.

By his silence he would have con­sented to the Murder, and (negatively at least) protected the Prisoner from that just Punishment which both the Law of God and Man justly inflicts for such an offence.

Upon the whole matter, I think you have rather lost then got any ground by those Depositions upon which you so much rely'd, to falsify D. S. Testimony; and that which you have brought to destroy, hath strengthened her Evidence, and con­sequently [Page 21]gives credit to the truth of that most Barbarous Murder.

For my own part I am very well satisfied, that D. S. hath deposed the truth; for how can it be thought that she should declare so long since that she knew of this Consult, if she had not indeed heard it; her very saying it, would have gone nigh (as it would then have been managed per fas aut nefas, to have cost her life; and to believe that she would ha­zard her life to a Lye, can't enter into my thoughts. And therefore I am verily perswaded that nothing but the power of truth made her speak in this matter.

It appears sworn by Hewit, that D. S. threatned Mrs. Holmes with Revenge when she was turned away.

For this you have the Oath of one who is sufficiently detected of a falsity in two other particulars; and therefore not in this or any thing else to be credited.

Had she designed any Revenge, she would have sworn more home upon Mr. Holmes, for when she was asked whether she did remember that Mr. Holmes was in the Room either of the Two Meetings be­fore my Lord's Death, she declared she would not swear it, because she remem­bred not that she had heard him there; but all that she could positively swear a­gainst him, was what passed after my Lord's Death, (viz.) When Mr. Holmes came into the Room about Three of the Clock that day my Lord dyed, one strikes him upon the Back, and crys we have done the feat; upon which Mr. Holmes said, What is the Earls Throat cut, to which the other replied yes, and further said, he could not but laugh to think how like a Fool the Earl looked when they came to cut his Throat; upon Holmes's Question, it was plain he well understood the meaning of that expression, the Feat was done, or otherwise he could not so readily have hit the thing.

Can it be supposed Mr. Holmes would at Three of the Clock that day my Lord Dy'd, ask whether my Lord's Throat was cut, when it had been from Eleven of the Clock that day in every mans mouth; and consequently Holmes could not but believe without any further inquiry at that time of the day.

What Holmes here spoke by way of Interrogation, might be intended as a strong affirmation of what seemed to be asked, and this you can't wonder at; Have you forgot that common Figure? Quaerit Erotesis, &c. Is not this the Carpenters Son? Is not this he (speaking of St. Paul) that destroyed them which called on his Name at Jerusalem, &c. in both these, the thing is most strongly affirmed. A Thousand such instances might be given. Or it's possible that D. S. might mistake; for whereas she saith, that Holmes said, What is the Earls Throat cut? which makes it an Interrogation, the Expression might be, What the Earls Throat is cut, and this makes it a positive Affirmation. Here the words are the very same, only in the first, the Copula is placed before the Subject, and in the last just before the Predicate.

I must confess if either of these have sworn true, or the dying man spoke truth, this truth is a very strong confirmation of her Testimony, and I cannot well disbe­lieve these Five, seeing they do all so well agree in their Evidence; for Five swear Smith was there about Peas time, which must be after April. I shall detain you no longer upon this particular, but desire you to proceed.

Secondly, the many reports in seve­ral parts of England (before the Earls Death) that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower. This is proved by Eight Witnesses.

Enough sure to one point.

If their credit be good, none ought to doubt what is attested by so many.

The Scripture saith, that in the mouth of Two Witnesses a thing shall be confirmed; he that will doubt the truth of a Fact attested by Eight credible Per­sons is not to be argued with.

Pray read these Eight Informations.

G. W. T. declareth, and is ready to depose, ‘that Wednesday being the 11th of July 1683, the second day before the Death of the late Earl of Essex, one Mr. H. of Froom in Somersetshire, told this Infor­mant, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower. This Informant far­ther saith, that about the 18th of the same Month of July, in the Year afore­said, meeting some Clothiers then newly come from London, the Clothiers de­clared to this Informant, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower, Fryday before, about Nine of the Clock in the morning; upon which this Informant declared, he had heard it from Mr. H. the Wednesday before my Lords Death. This Informant farther saith, that meeting the said Mr. H. soon after, this Informant asked the said Mr. H. how he could inform this Informant the Wednesday before my Lord of Essex's Death, that my Lord had cut his Throat in the Tower, when it appeared that my Lord of Essex did not dye till Eryday morning after, about Nine of the Clock. Upon which the said H. answered, that all concluded my Lord of Essex would either cut his Throat, or be an Evidence against his Friend my Lord Russel, and most believed my Lord would rather cut his Throat, then turn Evidence against his Friend.’

Have any of these eight been sworn before the Lords?

I have been informed by all those Eight Witnesses, that they have Depo­sed (in Substance) as you have before heard. This previous Report can be prov'd by ma­ny more; but if these eight will not satis­fie, eightscore will not con­vince.

I think no Man can well doubt the Truth of this Report before my Lord's death, thus Deposed by so many Wit­nesses.

Those Men wink hard, (that they may not be convinced) who will not reasonably conclude from those very Re­ports only, were there no other sort of Evidence, that this Brave and Honourable, but unfortunate Earl was indeed barbarous­ly Murdered; for you may observe all those Reports in many Places of England, Agree in the Manner how, and the Place where; for all said that the Earl had cut his Throat in the Tower: One Report doth not say the Earl had destroyed himself, which might have comprehended any manner of death, neither do any of those Reports say, That my Lord had Poisoned, Stab'd, Hanged or Pistolled himself; (all which are common ways of Self-destruction, and either might have been practiced by any Gentleman under Confinement) nei­ther do either of those Reports differ in the Place where, Note (though all those Pla­ces where the Report was before my Lord's death, that my Lord had cut his Throat in the Tower, could not at the time of this Report be presumed to have been informed of my Lord's being in the Tower) I say all these Reports jump in one and the same manner of Self mur­der, and all agree in the Place where, (viz.) the Tower. This clearly proves, that some days before my Lord's very [Page 24]Commitment to the Tower, it was con­cluded, not only that my Lord should be murdered in the General, but likewise the Particular manner how, and the Place where resolved upon. For how could Froome (being a Hundred Miles from London) hear Wednesday Morning the 11th of July, of my Lords being Prisoner in the Tower; when his Lorship was not sent to the Tower till the day before (being the 10th in the Af­ternoon: Or how could this Commitment be well heard of at Andover (about Six­ty Miles from London) on Wednesday Morn­ing, ( Tuesdays Post not being there till Wed­nesday in the Afternoon) when the Com­mitment was not till the Tuesday in the Af­ternoon; and yet at both these Places, this very Wednesday Morning, was it reported that the Earl had cut his Throat in the Tower.

'To me 'tis beyond all doubt from what before appears, that the Tower must be fixed upon as the place, where this perfidious Cruelty was to be acted, before my Lord was Prisoner in the Tower, and the particular manner concluded in, or o­therwise the Reports as to the manner how, and place where, would have differed.

But how could it be supposed to be sent from hence the Saturday before my Lord's death, that my Lord of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower, when it was well known throughout this Town, that my Lord was not then in the Tower, nor committed till the Tuesday follow­ing?

Upon the best Inquiry I could make, and the most probable reason I can give (how this came so reported in the Country, before it was indeed done) is this: It was resolved upon, as D. S. depo­seth, Nine days before my Lord's death, that my Lord's Throat should be cut. Now those that were privy to the whole Secret, and were willing to oblige their Country Correspondents and Friends with this (to that bloody Party) grateful reso­lution, That the Earl's Throat was to be cut in the Tower, and laid to his own Charge; and this to be done either soon after his first Commitment, or upon my Lord Russell's Tryal (which was put off some short time) such as had received so weighty Intelligence were likewise willing and ready, partly out of a desire to oblige their Friends in the Country, (to whom this Design might be as acceptable) and partly out of an Itch of telling News, and of being the first in the Country that gave Information of this (to them glad-tidings) not doubting but my Lord's Throat was indeed cut, when it was first resolved up­on to be cut, (viz.) either upon his first Commitment (which they might suppose would have been before it was, all things being so resolv'd upon) or upon my Lord Russell's Tryal (which was to have been before it was, but put off, of which these Country — Intelligencers might not hear.) These (I say) being informed that the matter was thus laid, concluded the thing was done as it was so designed to be done, and so reported the thing as done before it was indeed done.

I took more particular notice of F's Information, Note. than of either of the Eight. If I mistake not, F. swears that the Wednesday before my Lord's Death, it was reported at Andover, That the King and Duke being in the Tower, the Earl was afraid the King would have come up into his Chamber, and have seen him, but his guilt and shame was such (in conside­ration of his great ingratitude to the best of Masters) that he cut his Throat to a­void it; I desire to see this Information again.

You are as to the Substance in the right.

This looks as though the Story were made after my Lord's Death, for the King and Duke went not to the Tower till Friday Morning, and their then going was altogether a surprize to the whole Town: And after the Earl's Death their being then there occasioned very gross re­flections, seeing they had not been. (as I have been credibly informed) above twice [Page 25]together in the Tower since the Restora­tion. Now that this unfortunate Action (the Earl's Death) should be cloathed in the very same circumstances) as afterwards pretended to be done, not only as to the Manner how, ☞ the Place where, but like­wise the Reason wherefore; which Rea­son sets forth the King and Duke's being in the Tower when the Earl did it, and done to avoid seeing his Majesty; for the Earl (as was said) was afraid the King would have come up into his Chamber and seen him; but the King and Duke's being in the Tower could neither be fore­seen nor expected; this, I say, makes F's Evidence scarce credible.

Neither the Cutting the Earl's Throat, or the place where it was to be done, or who was to be there, ( viz. the King and Duke) when it was to be done, could be either foreseen or expected by any but those who either laid this bloody Scene, or were privy by Information to its contrivance, and such as well knew, or had been informed how this matter was resolved upon, may well be supposed capable of giving a particular Information of this cruel Tragedy.

I do well remember that the ve­ry Morning my Lord dy'd there was a small Paper cry'd about of the Earl's Death, wherein it was so represented, and the common report of the Town then was, That the Earl cut his Throat, for the same reason so long before assigned by the report at Andover. I must confess this is very astonishing, and whosoever believes F's Evidence only, must from such a belief be fully assured, not only that the Earl's Throat was designed to be cut; but likewise that it was contrived to be done in the same circumstances it was afterwards acted under, for else it could not possibly be so circumstantially report­ed before my Lords Death; not only as to the How and the Where, but likewise the Wherefore given out before it was done.

Gentlemen, I perceive you are both extremely surprized with this par­ticular Evidence of F. as what looks like an after made Story, seeing the Earl's Death was here so long before reported, as afterwards it was pretended to be acted, both as to the Circumstances of the King and Duke's being in the Tower, and the Consideration that (was pretended) then moved the Earl hereunto (viz.) fear of the King's coming into his Chamber, and seeing him, which his guilt and shame (as was pretended) would not bear the thoughts of: But to confirm this Deposi­tion, you will hereafter hear others de­pose the same; in the mean time I desire you would compare this with that part of D. S. Evidence, which declares, That Nine days before the Earl's Death it was declared, that the Duke had concluded and ordered his Throat to be cut; ☜ And his Highness had promised to be There when it was done. Now it would have looked more directly upon his Highness, should he alone have gone into the Tower that Morning; and therefore as a colour to that pretended reason for the self-mur­ther, and a Skreen to his Highness, his Majesty must be perswaded to go down likewise; so that if any should say the Earl was Murthered, it should be esteemed a Reflection upon his Majesty, who was then in the Tower, as though his Ma­jesty had gone to the Tower that Morn­ing to Murther the Earl. Thus we find the matter managed by the Lord Chief Ju­stice and Attorney-General at Mr. Brad­don's Tryal, almost throughout the Tryal.

I perceive then that you do not think Charles the Second had any Hand in contriving this Murther.

I do not, I assure you; but rather the contrary, upon very good reasons, which you will hereafter be satisfied in, for I shall mention them in their proper place. But I do verily believe, that some short time before the King's Death, his Majesty was perswaded the Earl was Mur­thered; and had his Majesty lived six Months longer, it's very probable you might long since have seen this detecti­on.

I have some reason for the same belief: For I do well remember about six Months after the late King's Death, I was credibly told this Story; my Lord Chief Justice Jefferyes not long after that King's Death was at some publick place, where he took an occasion to speak very large­ly in praise of his Majesty, then lately de­ceased; and after he had made a very long harangue in his praise, his Lordship turned about and whispered a Gentleman in the Ear (whom he thought his Confi­dent) saying, If the King had lived six Months longer, we had been all Hanged, not­withstanding what I have said.

The measure of his Lordship's Ini­quity was not then full.

It seems not; but every Man must believe his Lordship's measure was very large, or otherwise the great quantity of innocent blood therein powered by his vile Injustice, had long before his Death made it run over.

I do very much wonder (admit­ting the Earl was Murthered, which I am now almost brought to the belief of) how it should thus become generally reported in so many places before his Death.

This almost will shortly be an alto­gether, and you will in this be throughly perswaded of the truth of this barbarous Murther; for I have reason to think, much more will be said to prove it, because there are so many Witnesses of which we have as yet had no account.

The reason of its being so gene­rally reported before it was done, you will not so much admire at, if you consi­der all the Circumstances of this Action. This Murther was not acted out of any private Motive, to some private End; it was not done for the satisfaction of Per­sonal revenge: No, this was a branch of that Cursed, Arbitrary, and Popish Design against our Civil and Religious Rights at that time carried on with all the fury ima­ginable under colour of supporting the English Monarchy and Church of England, both which were then falsly said to be threatned with Ruin by that Party, of which that truly Noble, but unfortunate Lord, was marked (out) as one of the Chief: I say this was done to remove a Chief Obstacle to that Popish and Arbitrary end, the true Enemies of both Church and State were then carrying on; for you find it Sworn by D. S that several days before the Earl's Death, the Papists curs'd him as one who knew much of their De­signs, (which he could not be ignorant of observing though with hatred) from those high Posts he had been imployed in) and was so very averse to their Interest, that unless he was taken off, they should never carry them on. The carrying on their Po­pish, Arbitrary, and Devilish Design you see was by themselves assigned as the rea­son of this most perfidious and barbarous Cruelty; so that this Murther was a branch of their Plot, and consequently might be supposed to be known to many; All which have not been Men of the greatest secrecy, witness their Reports of the Fire of Lon­don so long before it came to pass; and their giving an Account of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Death in the Country, before we could be assured of the same in Town, the Body, not being then found. Several the like Instances might be given.

For my own part, I can wash my hands from the blood of any of those un­fortunate Gentlemen which suffered for en­deavouring to oppose those Arbitrary de­signs, which the Charitable opinion most men had in the then Court could not at that time believe to be true, but to our great Danger and Cost we have since seen them appear more bare-faced; and those very men who esteemed it Damnable to draw the Sword in defence of our Reli­gious and Civil Rights, though never so grosly Invaded, have since altered both their Opinion and Practice, and could now weep over the Dust of those whose Persons they esteemed not deserving of life. But, blessed be God, our Common Danger taught us to unite against the Com­mon Enemy of all true Religion and Liber­ty, and to joyn as one Man with that Hand from Heaven (our present Sove­raign) [Page 27]sent to rescue us from what threat­ned the destruction of whatsoever was dear to any of us. May God in mercy preserve us from these heats and animosi­ties which being (by our common Enemy) once throughly enkindled, may go nigh to end in the utter destruction of all that which of late hath been miraculously snatch'd out of the fire, instrumentally by that hand which some of us (ungrateful as we are!) by our actions seem, neither to thank as our Benefactor, nor acknowledge as our Sovereign, though he seems to have a double Title to the Crown, Jure Divino, (by that Miraculous success God was plea­sed to Crown him with,) and Jure Huma­no by that Election (in common Grati­tude) made by the States of the King­dom.

From all these reports, we may well conclude the Earl's Death was resolved up­on by that Bloody Party which Murdered him both in Person and Reputation, and the manner how, the place wher [...] and the (forged) Reason wherefore agreed in. These Bloody minded men would (without doubt) from the same motives, and to car­ry on the same end, destroy as many more, were it once again as much within their power as it then was, only they would do it with this difference, that whereas there­in they did act clandestanly, we must ex­pect that hereafter they would do it in the face of the Sun, and justify it. But from their Cruel Power and Bloody Malice, Good Lord deliver us.

I desire not to detein you any longer on this particular, for I am herein well sa­tisfied, and therefore pray proceed.

I am now come to the second gene­ral head, (viz.) what passed the day my Lord Died; you may observe it was de­nied by Bomeny, Monday and Russel, the three that attended on my Lord at the time of his Death, the first as his Servant, and the two others as his Warders, that there was any man let into my Lord's Lodgings be­fore my Lord's Death that Morning my Lord Died; the like did John Lloyd (the Senti­nel that Morning my Lord Died, at the door of Major Hawley's House, wherein my Lord lodged.) I shall now prove that there were some Ruffians let into my Lords Lodgings a little before his Death to Mur­der my Lord.

Pray read this Information.

S.S. Linnen-Draper declareth, and is ready to depose, ‘that the 21th of Ja­nuary last, this Informant was at the Goat Alehouse in the Minories, where John Lloyd Sentinel upon the late Earl of Essex at the time of his Death, as this Informant then was informed, was that day brought Prisoner, being taken up as suspected pri­vy to the Death of the late Earl of Essex. This Informant further saith, that he this Informant discoursed the said Lloyd con­cerning the said Earl's Death, and the said Lloyd did for some short time often deny that he had let in any men into the Earl of Essex's Lodgings that Morning the Earl dyed. This Informant perswaded the said Lloyd to discharge his Conscience to God and Man, and tell what he knew with relation thereunto, lest by his denial or silence, he should draw the guilt of that Innocent Blood upon himself; but the said Lloyd for sometime persisted in his denial, and whilst the said Lloyd was de­nying his letting in any men into my Lord that Morning my Lord Died, before his Death, there was brought into the Room one Major Webster (as this Infor­mant afterwards understood him to be,) then Prisoner for the same matter. This Informant did thereupon ask the said Lloyd whether he knew the said Webster, which the said Lloyd denied, and said, he never saw him before in his life; upon which this Informant said, it was very much that the said Lloyd should not know or remember to have seen the said Webster who was his Neighbour, and very noto­rious in the place where he lived. But the said Lloyd persisted for some short time in his denial of any knowledge of the said Webster; but soon after, the said Lloyd took this Informant by the hand, [Page 28]and wringing this Informant's Hand, with Tears in his Eyes, spoke to this effect. Master I give you a Thousand thanks for your good Advice, ☞ and I do now remem­ber by special order of Major Hawley I did let in two or three men (but to the best of my remembrance three) into my Lord's Lodgings that morning my Lord dy­ed, and a very short time before his death; and that man (pointing to Webster) was one of the three Men I did so let in; upon which this Informant told the said Lloyd, it was very strange he should pretend that Webster was one of three Men he had let into my Lords Lodgings just before his death, when the said Lloyd had a little be­fore pretended that he never saw the said Webster before that time. This Informant further spoke to the said Lloyd to this effect, That as the said Lloyd was consent­ing to my Lords Death, in case he did endeavour to stifle any truth which might tend to the Discovery of my Lords Mur­der, so would the said Lloyd be guilty of Webster's Blood, if he should charge him in this particular with a Lye; for what Jury soever should believe that Webster was one of those let into my Lord just before his Death (it having been by all deny'd that any were so let in,) would likewise believe that Webster was one of the Ruffians that Murdered his Lordship; and therefore this Informant advised the said Lloyd to be very careful in the mat­ter: Whereupon Lloyd replied, that he could be very positive in the Man, and if he were even then to dye, he could safely and truly charge him upon his Oath with it. This Informant further saith, that Lloyd did then further declare, that as soon as he had let in those men into my Lords Lodgings, he did hear se­veral (and he did suppose them to be those he so let in,) go up Stairs into my Lord's Chamber, where there immediate­ly ensued a very great noise and tramp­ling, and thereupon somewhat thrown down like the fall of a Man; not long after which, it was cried out that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat. Lloyd did fur­ther declare, that he did not remember that he saw those men go out of Major Hawley's House, but he did believe they might tarry some time in the House, till the Croud came in upon the Discovery of my Lord's Death, and then went out with the Croud.’

Did any others besides Mr. S. hear this Lloyd thus confess the letting in these men.

Yes. Besides Lloyd before the Justice confessed the letting in Two men into my Lords Lodgings a little before his Death; as appears by the Coppy hereof.

Read this likewise.

G. C. T. of the Minories, Butcher, de­clareth, and is ready to depose, ‘That af­ter Lloyd had lain about a Month in New­gate, he did desire this Informant (as he was informed,) to see him, who by per­mission of the Honourable Lords of this [Page 29]Committee went accordingly; when this Informant came to Lloyd, the said Lloyd spoke to this essect, (viz.) Master, as you are my Neighbour, so I hope you will be my Friend and True to me, to which this Informant declared he would be a Friend to the said Lloyd as far as he could; whereupon the said Lloyd declared, that all the time he had been in Newgate, somewhat lay upon his Conscience, and troubled him night and day, upon which this Informant asked the said Lloyd what that was that was so troublesome to him, whereupon the said Lloyd after often pres­sing this Informant to be True to him, told this Informant, that when he the said Lloyd was first Prisoner at the Goat-Alehouse in the Minories, he did confess somewhat to a Gentleman, who was altogether a Stranger to him, which confession troubled him. This Informant then desired to know what that confession was which had been so troublesome to his mind; Lloyd hereupon renewing his request, that this Informant would be true to him, said he was troubled in Conscience night and day, because he had confessed to that strange Gentleman the letting in those Men into my Lord's Lodgings just before his Death. This Informant then told the said Lloyd, the like he had confessed to this Informant and several others; and even before the Justice of Peace had owned it under his Hand; but if it were false, he ought to retract it, and be sorry for having said it; Ʋpon which the said Lloyd declared it was indeed very true that he did let in those Men, but it was what he should not have said.’

‘You say that the Sentinel pretends he re­members not when these Ruffians came out of the house; but I have been informed that a Servant Maid (who then lived in the Tower) came that morning into Leaden­hall-Market, and wrung her hands, and cryed out, The Earl of Essex was Murdered, The Earl of Essex was Murdered; upon which the People gathering about her, advised her to silence, telling her she would bring her self into trouble by such Expressions. The Maid thereupon declared she was sure it was true, for she saw the men that murdered him just as they came down out of his Chamber, and one of them al­most pushed her all along.’

Do you know who this Maid is.

No but I spoke with several that saw her the same Morning in the Market, and heard her declare as above related.

There hath been great diligence used to find out this Maid, but neither of those who heard her, knew her name.

I am sure it's the duty of those who knew her, (or of any other that could te­stify any thing material in this matter) to give Information to the Gentlemen by this Honourable Family engaged in this Prose­cution.

Mr. Braddon a little after my Lord's Murder, was informed of a Person (if I mistake not, he was said to be a Water­man) who likewise saw those Ruffians as they came out of the house, just before my Lord's death was known, and observed some Blood upon one of their Cloaths, but having been often search'd in the King's Bench Prison, and in a hurry forced to convey away his Papers, he lost the name and place of abode of this man.

That's a great misfortune; but if this discourse comes to the hand of that Person, or any that have heard him declare what is above related, or any thing else material in this matter, they are desired to send no­tice to Mr. Braddon, from whom a letter being left at Richara's Coffee-house nigh Temple Bar, it will come safely and speedi­ly to his hands.

It would be no little assistance to a farther discovery of this matter, (though I am sure every man that believes what is here related, as proved or ready to be at­tested, must be well satisfied in this Mur­der,) if every man that is not in the least accessary to this Murder, would but be so in­genious and free as to send Mr. Braddon and give him an Account hereof. It's not de­sired that any should deelare more than what is true, and what he would answer at the dreadful day of Judgment; for whoso. [Page 30]ever doth in this case attest a Lye; or what to him is such, endeavours to commit by such his Perjury, the worst sort of Murder.

Did either of the Warders or my Lords Servant publickly confess the letting in those.

No, nor this Soldier before he was seized the 21th of January last.

Seeing then they did all deny that any Men were let into my Lord that morn­ing, I can't but suppose these Men so let in, were let in to Murder my Lord; for had any Persons been innocently let in, it might have been innocently confessed and owned, but being admitted into the House with this Villanous and Bloody design, those waiting on my Lord, thought it neither convenient nor safe to confess the letting in of any.

This Lloyd expressed himself very odly to T. whom having often desired and enjoyned to Secresy, to him pretend­ed he was much troubled in conscience for what he had confessed, ☞ but nevertheless declared such his confession to be true, but it was what he should not have owned. This looks as though there were some cur­sed Confederacy entred into for the sup­pression of truth.

I thought you would be brought o­ver.

I were never so wedded to the be­lief of a Fact through prejudice or misin­formation, but upon a full and clear dis­covery of my mistake, did readily renounce my first belief, and cleave to the best In­formation, or at least that which to me seemed the truest; and to deal plainly with you, I did not think so much could be said to prove what many Industriously endea­vour to perswade me was false. But there comes even now into my mind, an ob­jection against this Lloyds confession, which will I think destroy it's credit with all Men. If I mistake not, you told me this Lloyd at Mr. Braddon's Tryal upon Oath denyed the letting in any Men before my Lords death.

'Tis very true.

How then can any man give credit to this confession, which is a point blank con­tradiction to his former Oath. Nay if Lloyd upon Oath asserted what before he had forsworn, I could not barely upon the credit of his Oath believe it.

Barely upon the credit of Lloyd, I should hardly believe any thing; only con­sider that the Confession of every man though ten times perjured, is to be ad­mitted against himself. But farther, pray reflect on the Circumstances of Lloyd's first Oath, and you will find in several respects he stood prejudiced, so that his first Oath could not be of equal credit [...] his now Confession. For admitting my Lord was Murdered by those men so let in, either Lloyd was privy to the Murder, or he was not; if he were privy, ☜ then he swore to save himself; if he were not privy to the designed Murder, or knew any thing of it, till after the fact was done, then could he not but expect, that the same principles backed with the same power which Mur­dered my Lord, would have likewise de­stroyed him, should he have declared what he knew in the matter; therefore the fear of being hanged in the one case, and the danger of a stab or the like in the other, were powerful Arguments with this Sentinel. I do grant no man (upon any consideration whatsoever,) ought to be in­fluenced to Perjury, but yet I desire never to fall under so strong temptations. You can't therefore but confess this Sentinel at the time of Mr. Braddon's Trial was under a strong prejudice to deny what he might in this case know, and that for the rea­sons before alledged; wherefore compare the circumstances of his Confession with what he afterwards declared, under a great Injunction of Secresy; (viz.) ☜ That he was troubled night and day, he had confessed the letting in these men, for though it was indeed true, he should not have confessed. Consider truth becomes not a Lye by being deny'd, (though upon Oath,) nor a Lye a Truth by being sworn. Wherefore all circumstan­ces considered, you have much stronger reasons to believe Lloyd's now Confession, than his former Oath. But that there were some Men let into my Lord, and were [Page 31]bustling with his Lordship just before his Death, appears more clearly from this In­formation following, which I desire you to Read.

M. B. Declareth, ‘that a little before the Death of the late Earl of Essex was discovered, this Informant was walking up before the Earls Chamber Window, and hearing a very great trampling and bustle in my Lords Chamber, this Infor­mant stood still, and looking to the Win­dow of the said Chamber, saw Three or Four Heads move close together, and heard one in the Chamber, which seemed to be one in this bustle, cry out very loud and very dolefully, Murder, Murder, Murder; This Informant not then knowing it to be my Lord's Lodging, nor thinking any other of this Cry, than what might be occasioned by some acci­dental quarrel, walked up towards the Chappel, but not out of sight of the Lodgings; and about a quarter of an hour after (or less,) it was first cry'd out in the house, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat, upon which this Informant went down to the House, and being shewed the Chamber where the Earl lay, she found that was the Chamber where she saw the Men, and heard the bustle, and Murder thrice cry'd out as before related. This Informant further saith, that some few days after this, telling Mr. P. and his Wife, (whom she then kept in her lying in) of what she had seen and heard as before declared; the said Mr. P. advised her not to speak of it, for her divulging it, in all probability would prove her ruine.’

Is this Woman Sworn.

Yes, and as she hath Informed me, de­posed the same.

But what is become of this Mr. P.

His Information is ready, which you may read.

A. P. declares, ‘that within a Week after the Death of the late Earl of Essex, M. B. did give this Informant and his Wife the same Account as above related by the said M. B. and this Infor­mant did then caution and advise the said M. B. not to reveal it, lest it should prove her ruine.’

Is this Mr. P. sworn?

Yes, as he hath informed me, and deposed the same.

This Mrs. B. was very unwilling at first to declare in this matter what she knew to be true.

Why there was no danger in the dis­covery, upon this Revolution.

It's true; and it was not danger, but (what she thought her) interest that would have deterred her.

Interest: Is she a Papist?

No, nevertheless she thought it not for her Profit this Murder should be disco­vered.

Certainly it's both the duty and in­terest of all true Protestants, that this Mur­der should be fully detected; and I can't well foresee wherein it could be incon­sistant with this Womans Interest (if she were indeed a Protestant,) that this Bar­barous cruelty should be laid open.

It may be she was afraid some Friend or Relation might be concerned.

That's very true, it was to save a Re­lation, but not of Blood or Affinity, but a Civil Parent, the cruel Father of us all, the late K. I mean. For the case stood thus; this Mrs. B. had been Nurse to some Pa­pists of Quality, and others where that Infamous Madam Midnight, Madam Wilks had been Midwife; and this Mrs. Wilks had pretended a great kindness to this Nurse, and had assured her she would get her in­to the Court to be Nurse to several Per­sons of Eminent Quality, which this Wo­man thought might be much for her ad­vantage; and therefore when Mr. Braddon first spoke to her, and asked her whether she was in the Tower that Morning the late Earl of Essex died, she answered (seem­ing under some surprise and disorder,) Yes. Mr. Braddon then desired to know [Page 32]what she either heard or saw with relation to that unfortunate Lords death; she very shortly replied Nothing; whereupon Mr. Braddon (who before had discoursed Mr. P.) told her either she was a Liar or Un­just, a Liar if she did not see and hear that which was material with Relation to my Lords Death, seeing she decla­red the contrary just after my Lords Death to Mr. P. and his Wife; or very unjust, if what she had formerly declared were true, and would not now reveal it; she said she would have nothing to do with it, and so flings up Stairs. But Mr. Braddon being shortly after informed that this Woman had declared it was against her Interest this Murder should be discovered and pro­secuted, because it would be fixed upon King James, whose return and settlement she desired, for Madam Wilks had promised her as before declared; and therefore see­ing Mrs. Wilks would have no interest in case this Murder were discovered, and so she should loose a very great Friend. She was resolved not to tell what she knew, nor would have any thing to do in the matter. Mr. Braddon being thus informed, desired once more to see this Nurse; when he saw her, he told her he did understand that there was somewhat which stood as a pre­judice against her revealing what she knew, but he declared that he would move the Honourable Committee of Lords, that she might be brought to the Bar of the House of Lords and Sworn, where she should either perjure her self in the concealing of what she knew, in doing whereof, she would not only be guilty of Perjury (when sworn to discover the truth,) but to that Perjury would add Blood, (for which at the last day she must expect to answer;) for could she reveal any thing with rela­tion to this Murder, and stifled it, she by such her silence consented to the Blood of my Lord; and how clear soever she might escape the punishment of our Law, she could not but expect she must answer it before him who positively requires Blood for Blood, and that all Governments should make diligent Inquisition for the Blood of the slain, or otherwise he would require that Blood (thus buried through neglect) at the hands of such Majestrates as were difficient in their Inquiry, and more strictly would he one day reckon with those that could detect the Murder, but refused to reveal it; for upon such more especially would the guilt lye, be­cause the Majestrate can make no discovery but by Information; and therefore those that refused or neglected to give their Information, would most certainly one day severely answer for such their si­lence. Such Discourse as this Mr. Brad­don had with this Woman before several others; after which Mr. Braddon desired to know whether she would go volun­tarily or upon motion, be brought to the House, for he was resolved she should be Sworn. Hereupon she declared, see­ing she must be sworn, she would rather go willingly than through such compul­sion; and then went accordingly, after which she declared what you have before heard, whereas before she was sworn she would reveal nothing.

This is a great Argument both of the truth of her Evidence, and the In­tegrity of the Woman, who rather than sacrifice her Conscience by Perjury, would sacrifice (what she really believed to be) her Interest.

Would no Person in this Case be guided by Interest or Affection, but all ingeniously reveal what they know, you would soon find that discovered which now lies buried in silence, but may sooner be detected than some ima­gine.

If it shall hereafter appear, that any Person knows any thing material of this Villany, and hath not revealed it, he may be most justly esteemed con­senting to this Murder; and how far our Law may extend in its punishment, there may be an occasion hereafter to try.

This Evidence of M. B. doth very much agree with Lloyd's Confession, for Lloyd declared, That upon the three Mens going into my Lord's Room, there was im­mediately a very great Noise, and this M. B. heard; But Lloyd declares nothing of Mur­der cry [...]d out, which M. B. declared she heard. It's strange Lloyd should not hear it as well as the Trampling, if indeed there was any Murder cry'd out.

It is very probable that Lloyd did hear Murder cry'd out; for it's hardly possible to be otherwise, because it seems Murder was cry'd out thrice very loud, and very dolefully; but should Lloyd have confessed that he let in these three Men, and that upon their going into my Lord's Room, he heard a very great trampling and bustle, and my Lord cry out (Murder several times) as before depos'd; by this he should have accused himself as privy to the Murder; for seeing Lloyd did not immediately cry out to the next Guard, so that these Ruffians might be secured, and if possible the Murder prevented, or at least these Cut-throats taken, one of which he might easily have done. Nay, in all proba­bility these Men would have soon desisted, had they heard the Sentinel cry out. But Lloyd lets them go, and instead of a Disco­very, by Perjury endeavours to conceal it; and therefore may well be supposed prepa­red to permit this execrable Tragedy.

Permit! What could a Sentinel do, who is placed at his Stand, but could not leave his Post?

Two things are required of such Sen­tinels; first, to see the Prisoner be kept close, without any Communication by Word or Papers thrown into his Window; and se­condly, to preserve him from Violence.

'Tis very possible that this poor Senti­nel might know nothing of the Matter till after the Persons were let in, and then he perceiv'd, by their bustling with my Lord, and his Lordship's crying out Murder, that they came with an intent to murder my Lord; yet the Power and Authority that sent these two Men, might tie both the Tongue and the Hands of this Sentinel, from endeavouring either to prevent the Action, or secure the Actors; that he thought it might cost his Life to oppose with either. So that this poor ignorant Souldier, is as much to be pitied as blamed.

Had he made a full and ingenuous Con­fession upon his being now seized, and gi­ven this Reason for his Silence, he had de­served great pity for falling under so great a Temptations as the fear of Death. But when instead of this Ingenuity, which might be naturally expected from such Innocence as you here represent this Souldier under, you find the contrary; and instead of being so free as to tell the whole Truth, he seemed much troubled that he had revealed any part, as appeared by that Expression to T. when he declared, ‘That tho' it was indeed true what he had confessed, he should not have con­fessed it;’ this, I say, is so far from arguing this Souldier that Man you would now seem to represent him, as it rather concludes him a Confederate in the Fact.

‘I must confess, his retracting what he had owned to be true, and declaring he was very sorry he had confessed it, tho' it was indeed true, seems to argue him not such a Stranger to the Fact as I could wish he were.’

Have you any thing more as to this Point, for I perceive we are very tedious to you?

Not in the least; But I rejoice in this Occasion, of giving you Satisfaction in this Matter. Here are some other Informations, with relation to this Point, which I desire you to read.

E. G. and S. H. declare, ‘That the day of the Death of the late Earl of Essex, (viz.) The 13th of July 1683, about ele­ven of the Clock the same day, one R. in the hearing of these Informants, did declare, that he was in the Tower that Morning, where it was reported, That the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat; but he was sure he was mur­dered, and that by the Order of his Royal High­ness; for the said R. then declared, that he did observe his Majesty and Royal Highness part a little from those that attended them, [Page 34]and discoursed (to the best of these Infor­mants remembrance, the said R. declared it was) in French, concerning the Prisoners then in the Tower; and his Highness declared, That of all the Prisoners then there, the Earl of Essex ought to be taken off: but his Majesty said he was resolved to spare him for what his Father had suffer'd; upon which his Highness seemed very angry, and a little before the Death of the said Earl, his Highness parted a little way from his Ma­jesty, and then two Men were sent into the Earls Lodgings to murder him, which having done, the same two Men did again return to his Highness. This the said R. declared with great Earnestness and Passion, and protested he thought no Man was safe which was against the Popish Interest, if once they began thus bare­faced to cut Throats.’

R. proceeded farther, which you shall hear in its proper place.

How very improbable is it, that the King and Duke should talk so loud concer­ning the Earl of Essex, as that a Souldier should hear them? This seems to carry its own Confutation.

If you consider it I think there is very little if any probability in this Evidence; for you may observe that R. declared the King and Duke stood a little way off from those who attended them, and they discoursed in French. Now there is not one common English Souldier of a thousand who doth understand French, the Odds was then so great that this Souldier knew not what they said; therefore it's not so improbable as at first you may think it.

Can it be thought that the Duke (ad­mit he was so wicked as to be concerned in such a Fact) would be so very foolish as to send the Ruffians so that any People might see their Mission and their Return.

Pray consider this Murder in all its Circumstances, and then tell me whether those bloody Varlets had not all Reason in the World to have all the Security could be expected or desir'd; you well know that my Lord of Essex was deservedly very popular, and therefore a Parliament that should have had the least Information of this treacherous and bloody Murder, would have prosecuted the Matter with all the Diligence and Vigor, that such a piece of Barbarity deserved. Now should they in such their Inquisition have detected those treacherous Villanes, these bloody Men must have expected no Mercy. And should the Duke have imployed them in his Closet only, and they could not by any Circumstance have given Satisfaction that they were his hired Journey-Men, in this piece of great Service, their Evidence against him had not been the tenth part so credible as it would have been, could they have proved that they were sent by his Highness towards the Earl's Lodgings just before his Death, and soon after returned to his Highness, before others knew that this cruel Tragedy was finished. This Circumstance, I say, would have so corroborated their Evidence against their Master, that none could in the least have doubted of the truth of their being so im­ployed, that were once satisfied they were as before sent by, and returned to his High­ness. This then obliged his Highness under no less Obligation than Self-Preservation to skreen those his faithful and ready Servants from any Prosecution, well knowing that his own Interest (and indeed Life) was wrapt up in theirs.

Wherefore I think this matter was very cunningly managed (as to the Security of these Cut-throats from the Hands of Justice, either in their Punishment or Prosecution) and it could not possibly have been done with greater Safety to the Persons of those that did it.

What is become of this honest brave English Souldier?

We have reason to believe he was taken off by way of Prevention, as you will hear in its proper place.

I have heard of others that have fallen Sacrifices to the damned Secrecy of this Villanous Murder.

I shall immediately inform you of one: here is the Information of two, much of the same with the former.

J.B. and his Wife both declare, ‘That about one of the Clock the very day the late Earl of Essex died in the Tower, one R.M. that Morning (a Souldier in the Tower) came to these Informants House, and these Informants desired the said M. to give them the best Account he could how the Earl of Essex cut his own Throat? to which the said M. (with some Earnestness and Passion) answered, that the said Earl did not cut his own Throat, but was barbarously murdered by two Men sent for that purpose by his Royal Highneses to the Earl's Lodgings just before his Death.’

What M. did further declare, and what was since his Fate, you will hear in its proper order.

These four are but hear-say Witnesses.

It is very true; but seeing we have great reason to believe that the addition of more Blood was the occasion of the Remo­val of these two, especially the latter (as you will hereafter find) I think such In­formations ought not to be slighted, for after that rate it's but taking off such as knew any thing with relation to a Murder, and you are very secure from any Discovery, tho never so many upon Oath give an Ac­count of what those Men (whose Mouths have been by bloody Men stopt from giving their own Relation) have declared in the Matter, these two Souldiers related the same as to the sending the Men into my Lord's Lodgings in two Houses as far distant as Dukes-place and Baldwin's Gardens, and I am verily perswaded that neither H. nor G. ever spoke to B. and his Wife in their Lives; for neither two remember to have seen or heard of the other Informants.

Who could imagine that two Souldiers should declare with such Concern and Ear­nestness, that which was so very dangerous to be spoken, if their love to Truth, and their hatred of such a Treacherous and Bloody Murder, had not even forced it from them, to the hazard of almost their Lives by such their Relation.

No Man in particular ought to suffer upon hear-say Evidence.

'Tis true, no Man ought to suffer barely upon a hear-say Evidence; but such Testi­mony hath been used to corroborate what else may be sworn, and of it self may (in some Cases) be enough to give Satisfaction in the general of the Truth of a matter, and no further is it here used— But the next Account of these two Mens being sent, as before, by his Highness, shall be from the first hand— Read this.

Mr. P.E. declareth, ‘That he, this In­formant, was in the Tower that Morning the late Earl of Essex died, and about a quarter of an hour before the said Earl's Death was discovered, this Informant observed his Highness to part a little way from his Ma­jesty, and then beckned to two Gentlemen to come to him, who came accordingly; and this Informant did observe his Highness to send them towards the Earl's Lodgings, and less than a quarter of an hour after this Informant did observe these very two Men to return to his Highness, and as they came they smiled, and (to the best of this Informant's hearing and remembrance) said, The business is done: upon which his High­ness seemed very well pleased, and imme­diately thereupon his Highness went to his Majesty; soon after which, News was brought to the King that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat.’

This is no hear-say Evidence, and, compared with what the two poor un­fortunate Souldiers, the day of my Lord's Death (as before) related, I think is very material, and ad Hominem.

I must confess that Expression, viz. The business is done, looks with an ill face, especially considering the Glee with which it was spoken. Vile Imps of Hell that shall rejoyce in having done the most Treache­rous Murder this Age or Nation ever heard of!

You find by D. S's Evidence, ‘That after they had cut my Lord's Throat, they were extreamly over-joyed, and one of them striking the Master of the House upon the Back with great Joy, cried, The Feat was done; and he could not but laugh to think [Page 36]how like a Fool the Earl of Essex looked when they came to cut his Throat.’

These bloody Villains are the greatest Fools (morally speaking) for such horrid barbarous Cruelties, is the highest degree of moral Folly; and how like Fools and Rogues will such Blood-suckers look, when they come to receive the Reward due to such Barbarity?

God's Judgments commonly overtake (even in this Life) that heinous and crying Sin of Murder, for which the Pe­nalty of Blood was by him expresly requi­red, in that Ancient Statute, wherein it was positively enacted, that, Whosoever sheds Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed. I believe the Law in this Case will be fully executed upon all concerned, or some eminent Judg­ments inflicted almost, if not altogether as bad as the Penalty.

May no Character whatsoever be ex­cused from some remarkable Punishment or other?

Amen.

You did object against what was sworn to be said by M. and R. because they, (viz.) B. and his Wife, and H and G. were but hear­say Evidence; but I desire you to reflect upon the many such Testimonies produced to prove the high [...] Plot in 1683. Nay, read but the Evidence of Mr. Blaithwait, (Clerk of the Council, in 1683.) in Mr. Braddon's Trial, pag. 22. you will there find Mr. Blaithwait being sworn on the behalf of the King, against Mr. Braddon, gives an Ac­count to the Court what the young Edward's Sister declared to the Council-Board, (viz.) That Braddon compelled the Boy to sign it, (the Paper the young Edward's signed) this you fiud to be only hear-say Evidence, and the Author (the Sister) then in Court, but te­stified no such thing; therefore this hear­say Evidence ought (if any ought) to have been rejected; and yet this hear-say Evi­dence (tho' not confirmed by the Author then upon Oath) was not only admitted, but ordered to be printed in the Trial in large Capital Letters; how much sooner ought the Evidence of B. and his Wife (as to what M. declared) and of H. and G. as to R's Account, be particularly remarked, see­ing M. and R. we cannot now produce in Court (as that Author was, but especially the first) being presumed to be murdered, by way of prevention, by that bloody Party that murdered my Lord.

We have a Maxim in our Law, That no Man shall take an Advantage of his own Wrong; but the Papists will totally destroy this Maxim, for by the Murdering of those who know their Offences, they totally sup­press and destroy their Evidences, and then will not admit of an Account, tho' upon Oath, of what these Men so murdered (by way of prevention) declared, because it's but an hear-say Evidence; certainly if there be any Wrong, Murder is such, and of all Advantages (by that Wrong) the saving one's Life is the greatest.

Lloyd upon his first Confession could not be positive whether Major Hawley, or Monday, opened the House Door to the Ruf­fians.

It could not be Major Hawley, for you said he declared, That he went out of his own House at five in the Morning, and re­turned not till after my Lord's Death; so that between Five and past Nine (till after my Lord's Death) Major Hawley was not in his House, and therefore could not open the Door to those that went in a little before Nine.

If Major Hawley did indeed let in those Ruffians, I suppose you don't think he'l own it. And therefore Hawley may de­ny his being at Home after Five, till my Lord was dead, to avoid being suspected to be the Man that let them in.

Major Hawley's denial in this Case, is as true as his other Denials, of which you will hereafter hear, to prove this denial false. It is positively sworn by N. ‘That he saw the said Major Hawley go into his House, as my Lord Russel was carrying to the Old-Baily. Now this was not above half an hour before the Murder committed; and then whereas Hawley pretends he did not go nigh his own House after five of the Clock in the [Page 37]Morning, till after my Lord's Death. It's contradicted by the positive Oath of one, who swears, That he saw Major Hawley se­veral times, a little before my Lord's Death, run up thro' that Gate which is nigh, and leads to his House; and he would immedi­atly come in haste down to the Gate, and peep on both sides, as tho' he would see the way clear; and because the Warder let in but one Man to the Tower, Hawley came run­ning to him in great fury, chiding him for admitting that one.’

Major Hawley's denial of what is so sworn, looks as tho' he had not been thus careful in keeping all clear, but for some Design which was to be done, with as great secrecy as the Time and Place would ad­mit of.

You may remember, that Bo. Mo. and Ru. declar'd, That there was a Razor deliver­ed to my Lord wherewith to pair his Nails; which his Lordship having done, he retired into his Closet, and there cuts his Throat; the Closet Door being afterwards opened, all these three (as they depose and declare) saw the Body there lie in its Blood, and the Razor, as before, delivered to my Lord to pair his Nails, lying by him.

This is in short their Relation; and how can you possibly disprove it, seeing there was none with my Lord but these three? and therefore how can it be con­tradicted by any?

I will disprove this Relation in every part.

First, I will convince you, that there was no Razor delivered to my Lord to pair his Nails.

Secondly, That my Lord did not lock himself into his Closet, nor was there first found lock'd in, as is sworn by these Men. And,

Thirdly, That the Razor was not lying by the Body, when these three first saw the Body dead.

I can't imagine how (in these Parti­culars) you can falsify their Relations.

I shall prove Bomeny's Relation to be false by what Russel swears, and Russel's De­position forged by what Monday declared the day my Lord died.

As soon as my Lord was found dead, Bomeny, Monday, and Russel, ought to have been secured.

‘It was so order'd by his Majesty: for as soon as News of my Lord's Death was brought to King Charles the Second, then in the Tower, his Majesty sent my Lord Alling­ton, Sir C— and Thomas Howard Esq to my Lord's Lodgings, with Orders, That all who were attending upon my Lord at the time of his Death, should be secured and examined, with relation there­unto. His Majesty did further order, That all things should remain (as to the Body) in the same Circumstances it was first found, till the Coroner's Inquest had seen the Bo­dy.—Before Sir C— had pro­ceeded far in the Examination of any about my Lord's Death, a Gentleman came (as from his Majesty) with Orders, That Sir C— immediately should go to the Old-Baily, (where the Right Honourable the Lord Russel was then upon his Trial) and give the Attorny General notice of my Lord's Death: But Sir C— (by the same Gentleman) desired his Ma­jesty to permit him to finish the Exa­minations (he was then upon) before he went; but the same Gentleman came the se­cond time, and declared, his Majesty had expresly ordered Sir C— to go forth­with, and leave the Examinations to such others as were there, (which Sir C— accordingly did). Sir C— further saith, That he remembers not who this Gen­tleman was, which thus twice came with Orders from his Majesty.’

Forgot who this Gentleman was! this seems somewhat strange, for within a Week after my Lord's Death, Mr. Braddon appeared publick in the search after it; and the very next Week after my Lord's Death, he was before the Council-Board, and this caused the Matter to be publickly discoursed; all the Circumstances attending the Action, were used as Arguments of this Murder; not the least whereof was the malicious and [Page 38]extravagant Application which the Court at the Old-Baily made against that Honoura­ble Prisoner the Lord Russel then upon his Trial. Now Sir C— having been that Messenger that was sent with the News of my Lord's Death, immediately saw, and could not but well observe, with what industrious Malice and Injustice Sir George Jefferies, and the then Attorny, applyed that sad Accident to the taking off that brave, but unfortunate Person, whom they were then, by their strained Constructions and Misap­plications, villanously haranguing out of his Life. For this Reason Sir C— must immediately reflect upon his be­ing the Messenger of such sad Tidings, and therein upon the Person that brought the Orders as from his Majesty, for his suddain going to the Old-Baily; which Reflection would have so imprinted this Person in his Memory, that Sir C— were he not well known, would be thought to have had that happy Faculty of retaining, or for­getting, at pleasure.

I thought no Man could have forgot what he would; and that the more a Man did endeavour to forget, the more fixed would the thing to be forgotten, have remain­ed in his Mind. But I now find my mis­take, and I will likewise learn this Art of Forgetfulness, which in some Cases may be of use.

Gentlemen, I know this Gentleman of whom you speak, and am very sorry for his Forgetfulness, which I am very well. satis­fied is real, for I do think him a Man of Ho­nour, and consequently one that would not lie, much less upon Oath declare his forget­fulness of what he remembred. It's very possible Sir C. upon reflection may call to mind that Gentleman who brought those Orders, and then, I dare say, he will, if af­ter that called upon, freely discover him, seeing by his silence, he would likewise by Perjury, conceal what might be of no small use in this Detection.

By this Messenger we should soon know whether his Majesty's Name was not used without his Authority, for which there is no small reason.

For my part I am well satisfied the Hand of treacherous Joab was in this Mes­sage, and that the King's Name in this, as in other Things, was used by him, who not long after is thought to have removed both Name and Thing from him that then possessed them. But Bomeny, Monday, and Russel, should have been immediatly separated upon the first Discovery; and they should have been kept apart till the Jury sat; and the Jury ought to have examined these Men apart, and neither to have known what other had said, seeing it was very natural to suppose, if my Lord fell by treacherous and violent Hands, these Men could not be strangers to it; and therefore by their cross Examinati­ons apart, they might the more easily be detected of Falsity; for seeing these Men were to give a false Relation of the Matter, (to hinder the discovery of the Truth) their separate Examinations might the more easily have detected the Story, it being ve­ry difficult for three Men (upon separate and cross Examinations) so to agree, as to Time, Place, Person, Manner, &c. of an Action as not to be detected; Truth is still the same, but Lies are almost infinite. Did not the Jury observe this method?

No; these Men were suffered to come together that morning they were examined, and for ought I can hear, each heard what other said; Nay, which is more, after Bo­meny had been upon Oath examined by the Coroner, and given this Information fol­lowing, taken in the Coroner's own Hand.

The Coroner proceeding to ask further Questions, Bomeny began to hesitate ex­treamly.

Truth to all Questions had been ready at hand; but Lies were first to be forged before they could be given in Answer.

You are in the right: But to proceed. Upon this Hesitation, Bomeny desired he might write his own Information.

I suppose the Coroner and Jury were not so indiscreet as to suffer this.

Indeed they did, and I am very cha­ritably inclined to believe favourably of both Coroner and Jury, as to their Honesty, tho they themselves can't justify their Indiscre­tion when they gave Bomeny this Liberty, there being not a convenient place for to write his Information where the Jury were sitting he retired into another Room.

To his Instructors (I suppose) that were to be assisting to him in contriving, or rather remembring him of that Story which they thought might most easily de­ceive: Gross Folly of both Coroner and Jury!

Their Folly in this, themselves con­demn, but any ill design in either I believe not. When he had been about an hour wan­ting, he brings into the Coroner and Jury this following Information, viz.

I perceive it.

The first was inserted by my Lord Sunderland's Order, the then Secretary of State, or some under him. And the third omitted, for it was in the Original, which you have just now read; and the second was interlined by the Coroner after Bomeny had, as before, brought this Information to him: what the Coroner interlined was, as himself saith, with Bomeny's Consent, and truly I think very favourably of him.

I perceive that by comparing the Re­lation printed by Authority, that next Mon­day after my Lord's Death, with what you here declare to be the Original, it materi­ally differs, for they added to it, and took from it as they pleased; so that this is (in strictness speaking) a forged Information that was printed.

As in a Deed or Bond, the adding to, or taking from either, in Construction of Law, is forging the whole: So in an Infor­mation, once signed and sworn to, nothing can be added to it, or diminished from it, without being in Law a Forger of the whole.

What reason had the Secretary of State to print Bomeny's Information diffe­rent from the Original.

My Lord Sunderland, or some under Consident, perceiving Bomeny had sworn the Delivery of the Razor, and what there­upon happened to be of the Thursday, the day before my Lord's Death, which was not only contrary to his Instructi­ons, but a point-blank Contradiction to his Confederate Russel; it was thought con­venient, either by my Lord Sunderland, or such Confident under him, that these two Informations should be reconciled in the Print, how contradictory soever they were in the Original (which could not be seen and compared with the Print by any but the Coroner, in whose Custody they were) and therefore on Friday the 13th Instant was to be (by way of Forgery) added to Bo­meny's Informations, but this done (as hath been observed by an ingenuous Author on this occasion) without the least Congruity either to Sense or Grammar; for nothing can be more apparent than that the fore­going part of the Information relates wholly to Thursday; but at last, without any regard to what Bomeny had before sworn, on Friday the 13th Instant is foisted in, contrary to all Rules of Grammar, and common Measures of Sense as well as Justice, which justly esteems this printed Information forged. This for­ged Reconciliation is done with the greatest Incongruity and Absurdness as well as False­ness imaginable; and I know not whether the Folly of the Suborner (for without doubt the Suborner and Reconciler in this case are the same, or of the same stamp) or the Perjury of the suborned in this In­formation be most conspicuous.

Sir, I now perceive what was the reason of this Alteration (or rather For­gery) in this Information; but as you have often observed, God Almighty allots to the [Page 41]Knave such an Allay of the Fool, that the Fool hangs the Knave up half way; and in this that Observation is so Notorious, that I never saw more of the Fool in the Knave in my Life. Certainly this Gentleman that villanously (in protection of the Murder) thus turned Reconciler, either did not un­derstand Sense himself, or else did believe none would read this Information that did, &c.

Pray read these two Papers.

J. W. Painter saith, That the very day the Earl of Essex died, he went with one ( George Jones since dead) to the Tower, to discourse Nathaniel Monday concerning the Death of the said Earl: and when they came to the Tower, meeting with the said Monday, he gave them this Account; That as soon as the Gentleman Jaylor had opened my Lord's Chamber Door; that very morning, he the said Monday (by Order) went in to my Lord's Chamber, and tarried there, because their Orders were, that one of the Warders should be in his Lordship's Chamber, and the other at the Stair's Foot. And that they had this farther Order, not to suffer his Lordship to have a Knife, or any thing like it, but whilst he used it in cutting his Meat; and that being done, all Knives, and such­like, were to be taken from him: To which his Lordship answered, He should take no­thing ill in them in observing their Orders. This Informant further saith, That the said Monday did then declare, that he tarried with my Lord in his Chamber two hours, or better, that very morning; and that whilst he was with my Lord in his Chamber, he did observe his Lordship paired his Nails with the Heel of a Razor. This Informant further saith, that the said Monday did further declare, Before he left his Lordship, and went down Stairs to stand below, he called up Russel his fellow-Warder, to stand in the Chamber; and as he went down Stairs, he lighted his Pipe and sat at the Stairs foot; but before he had half smoaked his Pipe, he heard it cried above Stairs, that my Lord had cut his Throat. Hereupon he, the said Monday, ran up Stairs; and pushed the Closet Door open, and there found my Lord dead. This Informant further saith, that the said Monday did further declare, That when he came up Stairs, he asked Mr. Bomeny and Russel, where they were whilst my Lord was in the Closet? The said Bomeny answered, he was sitting upon the Bed in my Lord's Cham­ber; and the said Russel declared, he stood at my Lord's Chamber Door, just without the Door: whereupon he, the said Monday (as the said Monday declared) check'd the said Russel for not keeping in the Chamber, according to Order. Richard Jordan decla­reth, That on the day Mr. Braddon was tried, (upon the account of the late Earl of Essex) this Informant heard Nath. Monday declare, That the very morning the late Earl of Essex died, as foon as the Gentlemen [...] open'd the Chamber Door, which was about seven of the Clock, the said Monday first stood as Warder above Stairs upon the said Earl; and at the first opening the Door, did observe the said Earl have a Razor in his Hand, pair­ing or scraping his Nails with it; and this the said Monday declared he saw a long time before Russel stood Warder above Stairs upon the said Earl.

By these two Informations you may perceive what Monday declared, My Lord had this Razor in his Hand about seven a Clock in the Morning, long before Russel came up Stairs to stand Warder upon my Lord; and that my Lord pared his Nails with the Heel of the Razor.

I find it as you say.

Monday I perceive tells W. the very day my Lord died, that the very same morn­ing, about seven of the Clock, Monday told my Lord that they (his Warders) had Orders not to suffer his Lordship to have a Knife, or any thing like it, whilst he was cutting his Meat; and that being done, the Knife was to be taken from his Lordship. This looks as tho there were some Jealousies that my Lord would cut his Throat, for otherwise why would they not suffer him to have a Knife?

It looks more like, either a Suggestion of Monday's own Invention, or a Lesson taught him to make others believe that [Page 42]there was such a Suspition: for Monday now denies it.

I desire now to compare these three Mens Relations, as to the Time of delivery of the Razor; by doing which, you will have reason to believe no Razor at all was deli­vered to his Lordship. For the clearer un­derstanding hereof, I suppose Bomeny under Examination with the Jury, and answering according to what he hath sworn.

Did you deliver this Razor to my Lord? ☞

Yes.

When did you deliver this Razor to my Lord?

About eight of the Clock that morning my Lord died. ☞

This according to what he first swore: but he then withdraws to write his own Informa­tion, which point-blank contradicts this his Oath in that particular, for he is then exa­mined, and answereth as followeth.

Do you remember the very Time that you delivered this Razor to my Lord?

Yes.

When did you deliver this Razor to my Lord?

☞ About eight of the Clock on Thurs­day morning, being the day before my Lord's death.

This, as you observe, he swears in the In­formation himself writ, and brought to the Coroner.

Bomeny then to withdraw, and let Russel answer to this particular.

Mr. Russel, do you know when this Razor was delivered to my Lord?

Very well, for I faw it delivered to my Lord by Bomeny.

When did you see this Razor deli­vered?

Less then a quarter of an hour be­fore wefound my Lord dead. I stood Warder at my Lord's Door; and I heard his Lordship ask for his Penknife to pair his Nails; and Bomeny said, it was not brought: upon which my Lord required a Razor, saying, it would do as well; ☞ and I saw Bomeny give my Lord the Razor, it being then about nine a Clock.

Who first stood as Warder at my Lord's Chamber Door, or in my Lord's Cham­ber, yesterday morning, before my Lord dy'd, was it you or Monday?

Monday, upon my Lord's Chamber Door being opened, first stood at the Door; and after he had been there as long as we use to stand, he called me up, and then went down and stood at the Stairs-foot, at the House Door, where I did before stand.

Then this Razor you saw delivered to my Lord, after Monday went down Stairs, and whilst you stood as Warder at my Lord's Door?

It's very true, for I am sure I stood by Bomeny when he delivered the Razor, and saw it delivered to my Lord.

What distance of Time do you say there might be, from the time this Razor was delivered, to the time of my Lord's death?

I am sure it could not be half an hour from the time of the delivery of the Ra­zor, to the time we found my Lord dead in the Closet.

Russel withdraws, and Monday is ex­amined.

Mr. Monday, did you see my Lord have any Razor in his Hand yesterday mor­ning before his death?

Yes, I did.

What time was it when you saw my Lord have the Razor in his Hand?

About seven of the Clock, as soon as the Gentleman Jaylor opened my Lord's Chamber Door; for I first stood Warder above Stairs, and as soon as the Door was opened, I saw my Lord have the Razor in his Hand, and observed him to pair his Nails with it.

Was this before Russel came up to my Lord's Chamber door to stand Warder there?

Yes, almost two hours.

This is according to their own Infor­mations and Relations. Now can you believe that this Razor was delivered by Bomeny at eight of the Clock Friday morning, according to his first Oath, and yet not delivered till eight of the Clock Tuesday Morning, ac­cording [Page 43]to Bomeny's [...] Oath? And can you also believe that the Razor was not de­livered till about nine of the Clock Friday Morning, according to Russel's Information? and at the same time give Credit to Monday, who declared, my Lord had the Razor by seven of the Clock, two hours before Russel came up to stand Warder at my Lord's Chamber Door.

These Three are of equal Credit, and consequently you have as much reason to be­lieve Bomeny, as Russel; and Monday deserves equal Credit with either of the Former: But all can't be credited, neither can Bomeny's Contradictions be reconciled, or can one of these be thought true, without giving the Lie to the other two; therefore upon the whole Matter, you can't reasonably believe there was any Razor at all delivered.

I find all three in the main agree, that my Lord had a Razor delivered him to pair his Nails, and their Contradiction is only in point of Time.

'Tis true, it's a Circumstantial Contra­diction in point of Time, and the Contra­diction of the two Elders in the History of Susanna, was a Circumstantial contradiction in point of Place; for the first swore they took Susanna in Adultery under a Mastick Tree, and the second under an Holm Tree: Both these agreed in the main (as you call it) Viz. that they found her in Adultery; But by this contradiction as to the Place, where, Daniel convinced all then present, that these two Elders were perjur'd in their Evidence (and consequently Susanna Inno­cent of her Charge) and thereupon these Two Accusers justly suffered, what by Per­jury they would have unjustly caused to be inflicted upon the Innocent. Did you ever hear any deny Daniel's Wisdom in this De­tection; or arraign his Justice in the punish­ment those two false Accusers thereupon suffered?

I must confess, these Contradictions look as tho neither was true; for Truth would have been the same to all.

Besides, you find all three agree in this, That my Lord pared his Nails with the Razor, which appears to be false by this In­formation, which I desire you to read.

John Kettlebeater, one of the Jury upon the late Earl of Essex, sweareth, That the Nails on the Fingers and Feet of the said Earl were very long, and not scraped or pared as he could discern.

Being proved perjur'd in one Part, be­lieved in Nothing.

Whereas it was sworn and declared by all, that my Lord's Body was locked into the Closet; I will now suppose that Bomeny, Russel, and Monday, were to answer as to the opening this Door, according to their former Informa­tions, and you will find their Contradictions, as to this, as gross as the former.

Bomeny first appears.

Mr. Bomeny, Was my Lord's Body locked into the Closet when he was first found dead?

Yes.

Who opened the Door?

When I had knocked at the Closet Door, my Lord not answering, ☜ I did open the Door, and there saw my Lord lying along in his Blood, and the Razor by him, and I then call'd the Warders.

This according to his first Information, ta­ken (as before) by the Coroner.

About an hour after this, the Jury do again examine him as to this Point, and he answer­ing according to the Information, which (as before) he writ in the Room next the Jury, and then you will find it as followeth.

Mr. Bomeny, Did you first open the Closet Door upon my Lord's Body?

No, I did not, but Russel did, ☜ for after I had knocked at the Door thrice, cal­ling my Lord; my Lord not answering, I took up the Hangings, and peeping thro' a Chink, I saw Blood, and part of the Razor; whereup­on I called the Warder Russel—and the said Russel pushed the Door open.

At Mr. Braddon's Trial, Bomeny being ask'd Who did first open the Door? upon Oath an­swered, He knew not who opened the Door.

Here Bomeny is twice against himself: first he swears that he himself opened this Door before he called either of the Warders. [Page 44]Secondly, swears that he did not first o­pen the Door, but Russel pushed it open; and thirdly, deposeth, that he knew not who opened the Door.

I desire the other two, viz. Russel and Monday, may in this particular answer, and then compare them altogether.

Mr. Russel, Did you find the Closet-Door locked upon my Lord's Body?

Yes.

Who first opened this Closet-Door?

When Bomeny saw my Lord's Body through the Chink, he cried out, My Lord was fallen down sick, whereupon I went to the Closet-Door and opened it, the Key be­ing on the outside.

Here Russel makes no difficulty in open­ing the Door: But observe Monday's Answer. Russel withdraws and Monday is called.

Mr. Monday, where were you when my Lord was first found dead?

I was standing at the foot of my Lord's Stairs, and hearing a great Noise of my Lord's Death, I ran up Stairs and found Bomeny and Russel endeavouring to open the Door, but the Body being so close and strong against the Door neither could.

Who then opened the Door?

I being much stronger than ei­ther of these two, put my Shoulders against the Door, and pushing with all my Might, I broke it open.

Upon the whole matter, I find first Bomeny opened the Door before he called either of the Warders, according to Bomeny's first Information taken (as before) by the Coroner; and secondly, that he did not open the Door, for Russel opened it, according to Bomeny's second Information (which himself writ) and Russel's Deposition: And third­ly, that neither Bomeny nor Russel could open the Door, because the Body lay so close against it, and so Monday broke it open: This according to Monday's account of the Matter.

Which of these three do you be­lieve?

Their Contradictions being such, I can believe neither, [...] conclude this is a con­trived Story throughout, and yet so ill laid together, as I never saw a worse-made Story in all my Life.

So gross Contradictions in so short a Relation I never yet met with.

'Tis very much they should so thwart each other had they agreed upon a Story; and yet it's more improbable they should so differ, had they designed to reveal the Truth; for the true Relation of a Fact is still the same, whereas false Relations are al­most infinite; but these three are the greatest Fools I ever heard of, in not laying their Story better together.

I have often heard a very ingenuous Gentleman say, that God in Mercy to Man­kind allotted such an Allay of the Fool to every Knave, that the Fool hangs the Knave up half way.

It's indeed a Mercy that the Knave and the Fool go together; for were it not for the latter, the former would do much more Mischief.

It was a common saying of Sir H. B. That no Man was known to be a Knave, but he that was a Fool.

If you don't believe the Closet-door was locked upon my Lord, you can't be­lieve this was sworn for any other end but to stifle the Truth, and consequently to hin­der the true Discovery of the manner of my Lord's Death.

As I can't believe their Relations true, so neither can I comprehend to what end they should invent this Story of the Closet's Door being lock'd upon my Lord, seeing my Lord might as well have been said to have cut his Throat without locking the Closet: What Service could they propose by this part of their Story of the Closet­door's being locked upon the Body.

The use they afterwards made of this, was the end they proposed by this their In­vention; they strongly argued to the Truth of my Lord's self-Murder from this very Circumstance; for they say, Can it be thought possible that my Lord should be murdered by others, when it was impossible [Page 45]that any should do it in the Closet and come out of it, leaving the Body so close against the Door, which opened inward, and there was no other way but the Door out of which they could come? Had this Relation therefore been true, it would have been as strong an Argument of my Lord's being a Self-Murderer, as the contrary (appearing by the many and gross Contradictions be­fore observed) is of his being treacherously murdered by others. But as a further Argu­ment of the Closet-door's not being locked, I desire you to observe the Closet, and how the Body was first seen by such as were some of the Before [...]y that [...] from [...] King [...]w the [...]dy. first that went up into my Lord's Chamber after my Lord's Death was known. At the beginning of this Book is the Room and Closet drawn, and how the Body was first found: By this you may perceive how my Lord's Legs were lying on the Threshold of the Closet-door, and you find the Closet-door could not (whilst the Body lay thus, and it was not then pretended [...]or be moved) be locked; this appears by what William Turner and Samuel Peck declare, as they have deposed before the Lords.

William Turner and Samuel Peck declare that these two Informants were Servants to the late Earl of Essex at the time of his Death, and bringing in some Provisions into the Tower just upon the first Discovery of my Lord's Death, of which as soon as they heard, these Informants ran up stairs and found my Lord's Legs lying upon the Thre­shold of the Closet-door.

I am now satisfied how they proposed to argue from it on their own side; but the Edg of the Argument (through their Disagreement and Contradictions in their Evidence) hath been turned against them, and wounded them to the quick.

In the third and last place, I shall disprove that part of these three Mens Relations, which saith, that the Razor was locked into my Lord's Closet when he was first found dead: Those three have all depo­sed, or often declared, That the Razor was found by my Lord's Body locked into the Closet, and all three denied that there was any bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window just before my Lord's Death was first discovered to those out of the House.

If the bloody Razor was thrown out of the Window before my Lord's Death was discovered, then it's most certain it could not be found lock'd in (with the Bo­dy) in the Closet upon the first Discovery, as by these Treacherous Varlets is deposed.

Pray read these Papers.

William Edwards, aged about Eigh­teen Years, declareth, ‘That being in the Tower that Morning the late Earl of Essex died, and just before the Discovery of his Death, viz. about Nine of the Clock the same Morning, as this Infor­mant was standing almost over against the Earl of Essex his Chamber-Window, he saw a bloody Razor thrown out of the said Earl's Chamber-Window, and fell just without the Pales that stood before the Door, which this Informant was going to take up; but just as this Informant came to take up the Razor (which this Informant found very bloo­dy) there came a Maid out of Major Hawley's House and took up the Razor, and then ran in with it into Major Hawley's House immediately after disco­vering my Lord's Death.’

Thomas Edwards, Father to the said William Edwards, Sarah Edwards, and Ann Edwards, and Elizabeth Edwards, all declare, and are ready to depose, That the said William Ed­wards the very Morning of my Lord's Death, when he came home, did give the same Account in substance to these Informants.

Was not this William Edwards sworn at Mr. Braddon's Trial?

Yes.

If I mistake not, he did there upon Oath deny it.

'Tis very true.

How then can there be any Credit given to what one swears in Contradicti­on to what he hath before deposed? When upon Oath he declared, he saw no [Page 46]such Razor, but it was a Story that he invented to excuse his Truanting.

I desire that you will consider when this Story was first told by the Boy (viz.) about ten of the Clock that morning my Lord died. ☞ Now it was not then known it would be sworn, that this Razor lay by my Lord's Bo­dy, locked into the Closet when the Body was first found, as did appear the Monday af­ter, when the Coroner's Inquisition, and Bo­meny's Deposition were printed; and therefore there could not be any use made of this Sto­ry, when first told, against the Truth of my Lord's (pretended) Self-murder, for that was possible to be true, ☞ what was suggested in answer to this by a certain Gentleman, who as soon as he saw what Edwards declared, asked, What use could be made of it, and how this did appear to argue that my Lord was murdered? for he further said, That it might be when Bomeny came and found that Razor, which he had before delivered to my Lord, proved the Instrument of his Death, he took it up, and with great indignation threw the Razor out of the Window, as we many times throw away what we have hurt our selves with. To this it was answer­ed, It appeared sworn before the Coroner, That as soon as Bomeny saw my Lord, and part of the Razor, thro' a Chink of the Closet-Door, he called out to Russel, that my Lord was fallen down Sick; so that there was a Noise of this in the Room before ever the Clo­set Door was opened, and consequently be­fore Bomeny could have any opportunity to take up the Razor: Whereas it here appear­ed, by what Edwards said, that all things were very quiet in the House till the Maid had ta­ken up the Razor, and the Maid first disco­vered my Lord's Death; Upon this the Gen­tleman urged this no further, but what he herein declared was so ready at hand, as tho' he had before heard of the Razor's being thrown out, and thought this the best Salve for it. As for the pretence, that this Lie was invented to excuse his truanting, this is very ridiculous; this Boy, in very great earnest­ness, as soon as he returned from the Tower, told his Mother and Sisters, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat, and thrown the Razor out of the Window; this argued his simplicity.

Now the material part of the Story was then (generally believed to be) true, (viz.) That the Earl had cut his Throat, and that he should add the throwing out of the Ra­zor, when (as before observed) there could be no use thereof made towards the proof of my Lord's Murder, is such a Suggestion as can't be supposed.

But as a clearer Answer to this, I will now tell you how the Boy came first to deny that he saw the Razor thrown out; and, second­ly, what made him forswear it.

As for the first; What occasioned the Boy's first denial. When Mr. Braddon went first to Mr. Edward's House, (which was Tuesday morning next after the Earl's Death) he asked Mr. Edwards, Whether his Son had seen a Bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window, just before the discovery of my Lord's Death? Mr. Edwards at first was surprised with the Question, and wept, saying, He was undone if he should be turned out of his Place in the Custom-House; but being pressed to speak according to the Truth, he did de­clare what you have before heard; the like did the Mother, and two of the Sisters: Upon this Mr. Braddon desired to see the Boy, (for before this Mr. Braddon never saw Mr. Edwards, or his Son, or any of his Family to his knowledg); the Father an­swered, He was gone to School; but if Mr. Braddon would come in the Afternoon, the Boy should be kept at Home, and he might then discourse him, which Mr. Braddon pro­mised to do.

And accordingly about two of the Clock in the Afternoon went. When he came to Mr. Edwards, he was told by the Mother and Sisters, that the Boy had denied he ever saw any Razor thrown out. Upon which Mr. Braddon inquired, Whether the Boy had ever deny'd it before he (the said Mr. Brad­don) had been there that morning? To which it was answered, He had not. Where­upon Mr. Braddon did further enquire, Whe­ther [Page 47]the Boy voluntarily deni'd it, or what made him do it? Upon which the Mother delared, That his Eldest Sister (being a­fraid of the Consequence of this Story) as soon as the Boy that day came from the School, ran to him in great fury, and in a threatning manner told him, That several People would be hanged for what he had said, and that he himself might be hang'd likewise. Upon which the Child came run­ning to her, and cried out, The King would hang him; and immediately thereupon de­nied what he had before declared, and so often repeated, without any the least Con­tradiction.

Hereupon Mr. Braddon desired the Boy might come into the Parlour, where, before his Relations, and others present, he might discourse the Boy. At first the Child could not be perswaded, being afraid; but at last came into the Room, where Mr. Braddon, before six or seven then present (none of which before that day he had, to his know­ledg ever seen) before ever he did ask the Boy, whether what he had as before decla­red, were true or false, spoke to the Child to this Effect, (viz.) Mr. Braddon; Can you read? William Edwards; Yes. Mr. Braddon; Did you ever read the 5th Chap­ter of the Acts of the Apostles? William Ed­wards; Yes. Don't you there find that there were two struck dead upon the Place for telling a Lie. W. Edwards; Yes. Mr. Braddon; God is still the same God of Truth, and a God of the same Power likewise; and he knowing all things, knows better than you your self, whether what you declared were True or False. Wherefore if it be in­deed a Lie, (notwithstanding you have so often declared it to be true) now deny it, and never more own it, lest for your saying that which is false, God execute the same Judgment upon you, and immediately strike you dead: But if it be true, be neither a­fraid or ashamed to own it. Immediately hereupon the Boy confessed it was true; and then declared as before related. Being asked, what made him deny it? he answered, His Eldest Sister threatned him, and said, the King would hang him; which the Sister then likewise confessed.

You have here a large Account how this Boy came first to deny it; and what was the Reason thereof; and likewise upon what Arguments he retracted his Denial, and stood to his first Confession; all which will be fully proved by many Witnesses, when the Matter comes under a Judicial Determination.

I am herein satisfied. But how came it to pass that the Boy forswore it at Mr. Braddon's Trial?

That is the second thing to be answer­ed. This Boy was subpoena'd on the behalf of the King, as well as by Mr. Braddon. And as William Edwards was going into West­minster-Hall, that morning Mr. Braddon was tried, and before he was sworn, Major Haw­ley (at whose House my Lord died) meets him, and in a threatning manner told him, ‘That if he had the management of him, he would have him whip'd once a Fortnight on Monday morning, for seven Years to­gether for what he had said.’ This Child not being then above 13 Years of Age, was extreamly frighted with this Threat; and being so very young, was more sensible of the Pain of such a Punishment, than of the Sacred Obligation of an Oath; and deni'd what was true, to avoid what he feared he might otherwise have suffered.

It's very natural to suppose a Child of his Age might be frighted into a false Oath, being of such Years, as he can't well be supposed to have that Notion of an Oath, which People of riper Years may and ought to have. But this argues Major Hawley to be a very ill Man, thus to threaten the Boy out of his Evidence.

I have heard that this Major Hawley is a very honest Man; sure he was ever hereto­fore esteemed very Loyal.

I have reason to believe that his old Loyalty, and somewhat else, hath run him into such Service, as argues him not of that Character some would have him thought; and of my Opinion you will be, when you have heard what is said against him in this Case.

But as a farther Argument of this Razor's being thrown out of my Lord's Chamber Window, Pray read this Information.

J. L. aged about 18 Years declareth, ‘That as she was standing upon the high Ground almost over against the Earl of Essex's Lodgings that Morning the Earl died, and a little before the Discovery of his Death, she saw a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber Window, and just before the Razor was thrown out she heard two Shreeks.’

That this Girl discovered this to her Aunt the very Morning my Lord died, proved by Mrs. G. and others are ready to attest the same. At Mr. Braddon's Trial the Girl's Aunt, and one Mr. G. then a Lodger in her Aunt's House, deposed the same.

You have here three Witnesses sworn, that this Child related this Story to her Aunt as soon as she came from the Tower. Do you doubt the Truth of what these three Persons have sworn?

I am very well satisfied these three depose the Truth; but it may be this Boy might tell the Girl what he saw, and so it is but one Evidence.

It will be proved as far as a Negative can be proved, That this Boy and Girl never spoke to each other till some time after the Earl's Death, and the Relations of the Boy and Girl were altogether stran­gers to each other, having never (to their Remembrance) heard or seen one another, which might be well supposed, for their Habitation was some distance from each other: Mr. Edwards and his Son and Fami­ly living in Mark-Lane, the Girl and her Relations at St. Katherines; besides, you may observe the Girl stood upon the high Ground over against the Earl's Chamber Window, and the Boy in the lower Ground; where the Girl stood she (being but short) could hardly see the Ground where the Razor fell, but she declared she saw the Maid in the white Hood come thereupon out of Major Hawley's House: which Description agreed exactly with that Description the Boy gave of the Maid.

Their Evidence thus agreeing, can't well be doubted.

I have been informed this Maid is now reputed of a loose Character.

Admit it true, she could not be so thought when she was but just past twelve Years of Age, and it was then she first de­clared it, and six Years since and more swore it: Therefore her now Character can't in common Reason prejudice her then Testimony given in her innocent Chilhood, and her now Testimony is but a Repetition of her former Oath. Besides, had this Fact been told by Persons of never so great Infamy (that did appear to be alto­gether strangers to each other) their A­greement in their Relations had given Cre­dit to their Testimony, ☜ being first repor­ted when (as is before observed) there could be no end proposed by telling this Lie, seeing when it was first declared, it appeared not in the least inconsistent with the (pretended) Truth of my Lord's Self-Murder, because this Razor after the Dis­covery, out of Indignation, might have been thrown out of the Window by some attending on my Lord. Now had this been sworn the next day after my Lord's Death, which at the time it was first told by this Boy and Girl, could not appear otherwise, then this Story of the Razor's being thrown out of my Lord's Chamber Window had fallen to the Ground, and no way useful to prove the Murder. But this I have al­ready more at large insisted upon.

It's an old and true Proverb, Chil­dren and Fools tell Truth; the Reason of this saying is, because Children and Fools not being capable of that Invention, which such as are of Years and Understanding may be supposed to have, speak with­out design the naked Truth of the Fact.

A farther Argument of the Truth of this is the Relation of R. and M. (the two Souldiers before mentioned) both which the very day of my Lord's Death declared in this particular the same with the Boy and Girl, as appears by these Informations following. Pray read them.

E. G. and S. H. further declare, ‘That about 11 of the Clock, the very day my Lord dy'd, the aforesaid R. did further say, That my Lord was murdered; but be­fore his Death was discovered to any out of the House, there was a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Win­dow; and that a Maid took it up, and car­ry'd it into my Lord's Lodgings.’

J. B. and his Wife do both further declare, ‘That the aforesaid R. M. the very day of my Lord's Death, did further say, That after my Lord's Murder, and before his Death was known, there was a bloody Ra­zor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window, which a little Boy endeavoured to take up; but there came a Maid out of Capt. Hawley's House, and took it up, and run with it into Capt. Hawley's House, and then the Maid was the first that discovered my Lord's Death.’

These two Witnesses agree with the Boy, not only in the Main (as you call it) but in several Circumstances of the Story, with the Boy's Relation: First, in the Main, that there was a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window before his Death was known. Secondly, Meake agrees with the Boy, that the Boy did endeavour to take up this Razor, but was prevented by the Maid, who forthwith carried it into Major Hawley's House. And, Thirdly, that this Maid was the first discovered my Lord's Death.

I must confess, their Agreement in their Relations gives great Credit to the Truth of their Testimony.

Was it ever yet known, that four Per­sons, ☞ some very Young, and others of Riper Years, and all Strangers to one another, should give the same Account of a Fact, in all its Circumstances, and the Fact not True?

For the farther Confirmation of this Truth, I shall prove (by three Witnesses more) it was a general Report in the Tower that morning my Lord died, That the Razor was (as before related) thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window. Pray read these three Papers.

I. S. declareth, ‘That this Informant was a Souldier in the Tower that very mor­ning the late Earl of Essex died in the Tower; and about eight of the Clock in the same morning, this Informant was sent as one of the Guards upon the Honora­ble Lord Russel to the Old Baily; and as this Informant was returning to the Tower (with several of this Guard) one in great haste from the Tower met them, and said, the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat, and thrown the Razor out of the Window. Upon which it was Answered, the Earl of Essex had great Courage, first to Cut his Throat, and then to throw the Razor out of the Window.’

This Informant further saith, ‘That after he came into the Tower, that very morning he heard it declared by several, that there was a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window before my Lord's Death was known.’

R. G. Declareth, ‘That he was a Souldier in the Tower that very morning the late Earl of Essex dy'd, and after the Earl's Death, this Informant heard it discoursed (that very morning) in the Tower, that there was a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window before my Lord's Death was known: and it was further said, That the Razor was much broken and notched, which some then attributed to the fall out of the Window, but others said it might be against the Neckbone.’

Against the Neck-bone! That's a pretty Business indeed, that my Lord should so hack the Neck-bone, as to break the Razor, according to the description you have before given us of the Razor.

So Ridiculous as you make this, it was the very same that the Surgeon the next day said to the Jury, as you will anon find.

A Surgeon, either Knave or Fool; a Knave if he told them what he did not him­self believe, and nevertheless endeavoured (when upon his Oath to speak the Truth) to impose upon the Jury; and a Fool if [Page 50]he did believe it: But pray read the Third Information.

R. B. declareth, ‘That he, this Infor­mant, was in the Tower that very morning the late Earl of Essex died; and immedi­ately, upon the first discovery of my Lord's Death, this Informant went to Major Haw­ley's, (where my Lord then lay) and by the Door of the said Major Hawley's House, this Informant heard several then and there de­clare, That there was a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window, before my Lord's Death was known, some then and there asserting, that they saw the Razor so thrown out.’

Who now can doubt this Truth thus attested and confirmed?

But to put the Matter beyond all co­lour of contradiction or doubt, read the far­ther Testimony of Mr. S. S.

S. S. farther saith, ‘That the very day Major Webster and Lloyd were taken up, (viz.) the 21st of January last, as suspected concerned in the Death of the late Earl of Essex, this Informant was in the Goat-Ale­house in the Minories, where the said Web­ster and Lloyd were then in the Constable's Custody, and this Informant did then and there hear the said Webster declare, That he did nothing (with relation to my Lord) but pull off his Cravat, and took the Razor up from the Floor, and threw it out of the Window: Upon which this Informant asked the said Webster, What hurt the Razor had done him, that he should throw it out of the Window? To which the said Webster re­plied, That when he did it, he was under such a consternation as he knew not what he did. This Informant farther saith, That up­on this Confession of the said Major Webster, Lloyd the Sentinel then sitting by this Infor­mant, did declare, That it was indeed true, that the Razor was thrown out, for it was thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Win­dow, just over the said Lloyd's Head, and the Razor fell just without the Pales. The said Lloyd did further say, That he did ob­serve a little Boy, and the Maid of the House, to struggle for the Razor; but the Maid took it, and ran in with it into Major Hawley's House, soon after crying out, My Lord of Essex hath cut his Throat: and the said Lloyd declared, the said Maid was the first discovered to him my Lord's Death.’

As a confirmation of this, (viz.) that this Maid was the first that discovered to the Sen­tinel my Lord's Death, read this Informa­tion.

J. N. declareth, ‘That he, this Infor­mant, went into the Tower that very morning the late Earl of Essex died; and just before the knowledg of my Lord's Death, this In­formant went to the Sentinel that then stood at my Lord's Lodgings, and asked the said Sentinel, how the Earl of Essex did? to which the said Sentinel answered,’ Very well—

Observe, the Sentinel at this time pre­tended, my Lord was very well, and confessed not any knowledg of his Death. But pro­ceed,

‘—Just as this Informant had asked this Question, and been thus answered, he did observe a Maid run in great haste into Major Hawley's House; and as the Maid was come to the Stair-foot, and going up Stairs, he did observe a tall black Man, a Warder, and another Gentleman, come down Stairs from my Lord's Chamber-Wards, and nei­ther of these two spoke one word of my Lord's Death, as this Informant heard, who stood about six foot from the Door; but the Maid ran up in great haste, and imme­diately, in as great, came running down Stairs, wringing her Hands, and crying out, My Lord of Essex had cut his Throat, which Discovery was the first this Informant heard of my Lord's Death, who stood (as before) very nigh Major Hawley's House. And this Informant did observe the said Maid to have a Razor in her Hand, either as she ran up Stairs, or as she came running down as afore­said.’

I wish we could but know who this Warder and another Gentleman was, that came down Stairs as the Maid ran up, for they could not be ignorant of what was done.

By description it must be Monday, for there was but two Warders in the House at [Page 51]that time; and this description agrees not with the other; as for the other Gentleman a short time may discover him.

This Confession of Lloyd, as to the Boy's endeavouring to take up the Razor, but the Maid's taking it up, and carrying it into the House, immediately upon which my Lord's Death was discovered, I find agrees with the Boy's Relation, and with what M. and R. declared the very day my Lord died.

If you will not be convinced of the Truth of a Fact, attested by such positive and circumstantial Relations, (agreeing in their several Accounts, as to the material Cir­cumstances of the Fact, as was before obser­ved) and confirmed by two of the Persons accused; the last whereof, in his Relation, gave the same representation of the Fact, as was before related by so many; I say, if such Evidence as this will not convince you in in this Particular, it argues you are under an invincible prejudice, which moral Testimo­nies will not remove.

I can't but acknowledg my self in this Particular satisfied, as to the truth of this Ra­zor being so thrown out, as before deposed; but I am altogether to seek of the Reason of this Action, what should make these Ruffians to throw it out.

You have the Reason, Webster himself assigned for doing it; for he was asked, What made him throw it out? he answered, He was under such a consternation, that he knew not what he did.

You did before observe the scituation of the Room and Closet, and how the Cham­ber-Window (out of which the Razor was thrown) was about 17 foot distant from the Closet where the Body lay; therefore it's very probable, after this bloody Ruffian had murdered my Lord, and blooded the Ra­zor, as the pretended Instrument of his Death, they having not finished the whole Scene, and laid the Razor by the Body, as was intended; but this Webster, who threw it out, standing not far from the Chamber-Window, with the bloody Razor in his Hand, was sur­prised when a Person came up Stairs (of whose coming he was not aware); and un­der this consternation (as is natural to a sur­prise in such horrid Villanies) threw the Ra­zor out of the Window, but discovered no­thing of my Lord's Death; and then the Maid (who it's possible was the occasion of this surprise) went out and took it up; and as soon as she returned into the House, dis­covered my Lord's Death, as you have before at large heard related.

This seems to be probable enough.

It may shortly prove more than probable.

What is become of this Maid that car­ried up the Razor?

She is under Bail.

Doth she deny it?

Yes, and saith, she went out of her Ma­ster's House almost half an hour before my Lord's Death was known, and returned not until my Lord's Death was publick, and se­veral People in the House to see my Lord: For she tells this Story, ‘That about half an hour before my Lord's Death was known, my Lord's Footman came to her, and told her, the Warder would not open the Wicket to let in my Lord's Provisions that were brought; and therefore begged her to go to her Master, (Mr. Hawley, the Gentleman-Porter) to desire him to go to the Warder that kept the Gate, and order him to let in the Provisions.’

It's much the Footman himself could not go to Major Hawley, for certainly the Ma­jor (well-knowing whose Footman he was) would soon go and give Orders to let in the Provisions upon the Footman's request as his Maids, unless the Maid had some collateral consideration (besides that of a Servant) which might influence her Master.

There was no need of eithers going, as you will immediately hear. Upon this she de­clares, ‘She did accordingly go to her Ma­ster, who thereupon ordered the Warder to let in my Lord's Provisions; and as they, (viz.) my Lord's Footman, Will. Turner, and one Sam. Peck, and a Porter, were bringing the Provisions, a Sentinel told them, They were come too late; upon which this Maid declares she was surprised, and asked Will. Turner what should be the meaning of that [Page 52]Expression, You are come too late; for she did not understand it: Whereto Turner an­swered, that he did suppose the Sentinel believed those Provisions to be my Lord Russel's, who being gone to his Trial, this Souldier might think he would never re­turn again to the Tower, and so the Provi­sions were brought too late: This (she declares) she then believed; but as soon as they came in sight of her Master's House, they admired to see so great a Croud a­bout the Door, but were soon too well satisfied in the occasion, for it was just before discovered that my Lord of Essex had cut his Throat.’

This looks as a made Story: for, can it be thought that the Warder would not let in my Lord's Provisions?

It is indeed a forged Lye throughout; for William Turner, Samuel Peck, and the Por­ter do all three declare, that the Maid was not with them whilst they were bringing in the Provisions, neither did the Warder that kept the Gate in the least scruple the let­ting in my Lord's Provisions; this they all say they are ready to depose.

Then this Maid is a Confederate; for otherwise she would speak the Truth.

Surely she that endeavours by such a false villanous Invention to evade the Truth, becomes consenting to my Lord's Murder, and at the last day shall answer it.

Nay, she may answer it before, if it be once plainly made appear that she did carry up the Razor, and was the first that discovered my Lord's Death; for by what she then saw, and hath since heard sworn by those who attended on my Lord, she could not but be well satisfied my Lord was murdered, and endeavouring thus to stifle it by her false Evasions—

To which, she saith, she did swear be­fore the Secretary of State.

That adds Perjury to the first Guilt. Without doubt her endeavouring by Per­jury to conceal and stifle the most perfidi­ous and barbarous Murder our Nation ever knew, shall render her culpable in no small degree.

Just as the Maid cried out, My Lord had cut his Throat, one Mr. B. (then an Ensign) ran into the House, and was the first Man in my Lord's Chamber, after my Lord's Death was known, the Blood then seeming almost reeking hot; this Mr. B. declared, that as he ran in he did observe (this Maid whose Name he knew to be Alice) standing at her Master's Door wring­ing her Hands and crying; and N. (who saw the Maid run into her Master's House and up Stairs, and then heard her cry out, Murder, and likewise in her hand the Ra­zor) declares, that was the very Maid which stood at the Door when Mr. B. went into the House.

By all Circumstances this must be the Maid; for had not this Wench been some way concerned, she would never have invented this Lie; for Innocence flies not, nor needs a Lie for its Defence, but is always supported by Truth; and Innocence it self becomes justly suspected for Guilt when it makes use of a false Defence; the Law, and the natural Reason of the thing presu­ming that every one will use the best, and consequently the truest Defence in Pro­tection of his Innocence. Pray proceed.

The Circumstances of the Razor in the top's being so broken, and the many o­ther Notches, as before appears by the Ra­zor, are natural self-Evidence of the Truth of the Razor's being thrown out of the Window; for my Lord in cutting his Throat could not so do it, notwithstanding an old Chirurgion to the Jury declared otherwise; for the Jury asking him, Whether my Lord in cutting his own Throat could so break and notch the Razor? The Chirurgion an­swered, that it was possible for my Lord to do it against his Neck-bone, occasioned by the Tremefaction of my Lord's Hand when the Razor came to the Neck-bone.

Certainly there was a Tremefaction in the Chirurgion's Understanding or Honesty, when upon Oath he gave this Answer, for I do suppose he was sworn.

He was so.—As a further Ar­gument against my Lord's cutting his Throat [Page 53]in the Closet, the Circumstances of the Closet (as found when my Lord was first found dead) appear in Evidence. You may observe the Closet is but three Foot and one Inch wide, and seven Foot long in one side, and about five Foot long in the other; now it's declared by those attend­ing on my Lord, that there was no Blood against the Wall a foot higher than the Floor, nor any upon the Cloose-stool, or any of the Shelves of the Closet; where­as had my Lord cut his Throat standing on the Closet, the Blood would have im­mediately gushed out of so large an Orifice five Foot at least, wherefore that part of the Wall over against his Throat must have been very bloody; but in this case there was none at all, and therefore it could not be done standing: neither did his Lordship do it kneeling; for there was no Blood as high as his Throat, as in that Posture would have then been: and that his Lord­ship did it not lying along, appears from the Position of the Razor; for the Wound beginning on the left side, and ending on the right, the Razor must have been on the right side of the Body, whereas it lay about fourteen Inches or more from the left.

All these self-Evidences might have appeared to the Jury upon their view; and it's very much they did not observe them.

What the Jury did, and how they were managed, you shall soon hear. But I shall,

First, take notice of the many Irregu­larities, with respect to the Management of my Lord's Body, the Chamber and Closet after my Lord's Death.

Secondly, The false and malicious Sug­gestions by Major Hawley to the Jury, to hinder the Discovery of the Truth, and to influence them to the belief of my Lord's self-Murder: And,

Thirdly, The Oppressions, Threats and Se­verities since used to avoid a Detection of this unparalled bloody Treachery.

First, The Irregularities with relation to the Body, Room and Closet after my Lord's Death, these were such as prevented the Jury from making those Observations you say were natural for them to observe; for the Body was stripp'd and washed, and the Clothes carried away, and likewise the Chamber and the Closet washed, before ever the Jury saw the Body; and when the Ju­ry the next day saw the Body, my Lord lay stripp'd and washed in the Chamber, and covered with a Sheet.

This was very irregular, and contra­ry to all Practices, when a Body is found dead, especially under the suspicion of self-Murder, I say, under a bare suspicion; for seeing none could be examin'd in the mat­ter to give any Account how my Lord be­came dead, but those immediately atten­ding on my Lord, and such being strongly to be suspected as privy to the Murder (if my Lord were by others treacherously taken off) the Body, and all things with relation to it, should have remained under the Circumstances first found in, and the Persons thus attending on my Lord secured apart, in order to their Examination; so that they might not instruct each other, and agree in a feigned Story to avoid the Discovery of their most perfidious Villany.

This had been indeed natural, and according to King Charles the Second's express Order; but contrary to both, the matter was managed, according as you have heard declared.

The next day after my Lord's Death the Jury met, and viewed the Body at Major Hawley's House, under the Circum­stances before related; and then the Jury were adjourned to a Victualling House in the Tower to consider of their Inquisition. When the Jury had the Matter thus under Examination, Mr. Fisher (one of the Jury) demanded a sight of the Cloathes: upon which the Coroner was called into the next Room, and returning in some heat said, It was the Body, and not the Cloaths [Page 54]they were to sit upon; the Body was there, and that was sufficient.

Who was it that called the Coroner into the next Room? and to whom did he there go? for it's probable this was what these Gentlemen (who ever they were) then in the next Room, would not have in­quired into so strictly; I desire to know their Names.

The Coroner protests he hath for­got who called him, or to whom he there went.

Forgot! I must confess I have heard of the Art of Memory, but never of the Art of Forgetfulness: as none are so deaf as those that will not hear, so none so forgetful as those that will not remember.

You are very sharp upon the Coro­ner, of whom I have a more charitable opi­nion.

Your Charity ought not to blind your Judgment; Can you believe this Gentleman forgets, what he hath had all the reason i­maginable to remember? for seeing my Lord's Death was so soon after his Death questioned, this must naturally put the Coroner upon reflecting on what passed, which might argue either for or against the Murder. I am sure these Reflections would have naturally brought to, and imprinted in his Mind this particular Passage: but, peradventure, should the Coroner true Answer make to this Point, and confess that such Gentlemen in the next Room advised him to check the Jury for their too great Inquisitives, this would have look'd like making himself an Accessory ( in Fore Conscientiae at least) after the Fact; and therefore self-preservation makes him forget what otherwise he might well re­member.

I must confess you have some Reason on your side; but seeing the Coroner is fair in his Answers to other Questions, and hath, (by his ingenuity in discovering what we could not have otherwise known) been assisting to a Detection; I do from such his fairness and readiness argue for his Innocence.

He is fair, I find, in his Answers to such Questions as touch not himself, but when Self lies at stake, he prevari­cates.

It's very probable he may at pre­sent forget what hereafter may come in­to his Mind; and I dare say he will be ingenuous in what he knows when his Memo­ry serves, for I have heard a very fair Cha­racter of the Gentleman.

When his Memory doth serve (as you call it) I shall believe his Forgetful­ness to be real, but till then pardon me if I think otherwise.

In the mean time forbear your Cen­sures.

From what Circumstances of the Cloaths could the Jury have had any sight into the Matter?

Had the Body lain in its first po­sture, the Jury would have seen the print of a bloody Foot on my Lord's Stocking, coming out of the Closet, which would have argued, that some had before been with the Body in the Closet, though the con­trary was then pretended by those three at­tending on my Lord.

Secondly, They would have found my Lord's Cravat cut in three pieces, as the two Women that strip'd my Lord have often declared, proved, as followeth, (viz.)

Philip Johnson, and Miriam Tovy, have both deposed, That Mary Johnson (Wife of the said Philip Johnson) hath often declared, That she help'd strip the Body of the late Earl of Essex, by the command of Major Hawley, at whose House my Lord died; and that the Neck of my Lord's Cravat was cut in three pieces.

Gentleman, saith, ‘That Alice Car­ter, the very Night she was first seized, (as suspected privy to the Murder of the late Earl of Essex) did declare, That she help'd strip the Body of my Lord of Es­sex, by the command of her Master, Ma­jor Hawley, and that my Lord's Cravat was cut in three pieces.’

It's very much my Lord had not put off the Cravat, or cut above it, had he done it himself.

Those that attended on my Lord, say, my Lord had put off his Periwig, and laid it upon the Shelf of the Closet, that the Hairs of the Periwig might not hinder the Action.

Sure the Neck of the Cravat was a far greater Impediment, and such as would have effectually hindred my Lord from do­ing it with a Razor, the pretended Instru­ment of his Death. This alone is a strong Argument that my Lord did not cut his own Throat, as is sworn by those Treacherous Villains that attended on my Lord; neither do I believe it was done at all by any Ra­zor, but with a more convenient Instrument for that purpose.

Did you ever hear with what Instru­ment it was done?

Yes, and who (besides any before na­med) is said to be one of the Actors in this cursed Tragedy; pray read this Infor­mation.

I doubt not but Holland was well re­warded for this eminent Service, and my Lord Sunderland obliged to stand his Friend under all Exigencies.

Sometime after my Lord's Death, Hol­land drew in this Mr. D. (a very ingenuous young Gentleman, but infortunate in such his Company) to be concerned in the Robbery of one Mr. Gatford, for which both were con­demned; Holland of the two seemed far the greatest Criminal, and therefore, according to the reason of the thing, had least hopes of Life; but contrariwise, he was very chear­ful, and my Lord Sunderland extreamly kind to him, beyond a common Degree of Fa­vour; insomuch as Major Richardson taking particular notice of his extraordinary Kind­ness to this profligate Fellow, told one of my Lord's Gentlemen, ‘That it was not for his Lordships Honour to appear so much for one of the most villanous Character imaginable.’ To which it was Answered, that his Lordship had a great kindness for Holland, upon the Account of my Lord Spencer, to whom this Holland had formerly been a Servant.

There was certainly some further Rea­son.

His Lordship's Favour still continued to this Holland, who afterwards being in Prison, often writ to my Lord for Mony, which was accordingly sent, and sometimes would pro­cure the liberty to go to my Lord Sunderland, and some others, for Mony, of which the Person, (viz.) one I.W. that went with him, taking particular notice, asked the said Hol­land, How it came to pass that he could go with that freedom and assurance to my Lord Sunderland and those others, and be so gene­rously supplied with Mony at all times? To which Mr. Holland made Answer, Damn him, ☜ he had done that Service for them that they durst not do otherwise.

Durst not do otherwise! a very becoming Phrase for a Man of his Character to use with relation to a Person of my Lord's Qua­lity. This argues either some extraordi­nary secret Service done for his Lordship, the Discovery whereof would tend highly to his Prejudice, or else this Holland is a very im­pudent Lier; but the first seems most pro­bable, considering my Lord's extraordinary kindness to Holland in Newgate (as was be­fore observed) and his constant supplies upon all application.

I have been credibly informed, by a Gentleman that was once a fellow-Prisoner in the King's-Bench with Holland, that Hol­land did use to bring Letters he writ to my Lord Sunderland, and desired this Gentleman to direct them in French, pretending, that if my Lord saw his hand, he would not open the Letter.

I rather believe the Direction was to cheat my Lord's Servant (who carried the Letter from the Messenger, or Penny-post Man) than to influence my Lord to read it.

This looks most likely, I must con­fess, this W. his (once about three Years since) saying to Holland, it was much whis­pered, that my Lord of Essex did not cut his own Throat, but was by others taken off; Holland said, Damn him, ☜ it was not a Farthing matter if twenty such were taken off.

A very fine Fellow for such Service; he who declares, It is not a Farthing Matter if twenty such were taken off, (by which he meant Murdered, for 'twas in Answer to the same he spoke it) would not boggle much at the doing that villanous Murder, especially con­sidered that hereby he secured himself from punishment in his after-Villanies.

I remember very well, a Gentleman told me that it was some Years since discour­sed [Page 57]in Wales (of which Country Holland is), That Holland being asked how he escaped Punishment for Mr. Gatford's Robbery, (be­fore taken notice of) he Answered, with his usual Phrase, Damn him, they durst not take him off, for at the place of Execution he would have discovered how my Lord of Essex came by his Death: but the Gentleman either really hath, or pretends to have forgot who told him of it.

I find many Mens Memory in this Case, ad placitum, to remember or forget as they think fit.

I have heard of a Letter writ by Hol­land to the Earl of Feversham, (if I mis­take not); which Letter was read in the House of Lords, and therein it was said, that Mr. Braddon would have suborned Holland to swear in this Case; and as I have heard, Mr. Braddon offered a confiderable Reward to Mrs. Holland, and a Friend of Holland's, to prevail with Holland to come in, and take upon him this villanous Crime. This, if true, was a very foul practice.

Yea, if true, it had been villanous, and had deserved (before God) as great Punishment as the Murderers themselves: For as in the Old Law, ( Deut. 19.16, &c.) ‘If any false Witness rise up against his Neighbour, the Person forsworn (when detected to be so) was to receive the same Punishment the Man accused should have undergone, in case the Charge had been true; whether Tooth for Tooth, or Life for Life, &c.’ This Law hath an innate uni­versal Reason; and it were not amiss if the same were with us enacted. Now as the Witness himself doth deserve this Punish­ment, the like (in Foro Conscientiae) doth the Suborner: For if in our Law, he that hireth another to poison, stab, or any other ways to murder a Man, is justly e­steemed Accessory before the Fact, and shall undergo the same Capital Punishment, the Principal shall suffer: So do I think it reasonable that whosoever suborns a Person, to take away the Life of any, is (before God) guilty of the Murder of the Person accused, equally with him that commits the Perjury; and both are in­deed, according to the universal Reason of the Thing, guilty of a more heinous Mur­der, than he that cuts another's Throat; seeing in this he corrupts Justice, and by Perjury makes Justice (which by God is designed, and by Man used as a protecti­on to the Innocent) a Means to destroy, whom in its own Nature it should acquit and protect. If that Physician, who to destroy his Patient, maliciously poisons his Physick, (designed by Nature for the preservation of the natural Man) deserves the worst sort of Death, because he be­comes so vilely treacherous; how much more heinously criminal is he, who by Subornation or Perjury, corrupts Ju­stice, which Heaven enacted, and Man­kind flies to for a Security to the Moral Man. Wherefore with you I should con­cur in this Particular, that Mr. Braddon deserves the worst Death could be con­trived, were he guilty of this (indeed False and Malicious) Charge. But the truth of the Case, I can in great part at­test, which is this, (viz.)

Mr. Braddon having some reason to believe Holland one of the Ruffians, he did use all means possible for his Apprehension; but he found that Holland lay very private; and, as he had reason to believe, design­ed to fly beyond-Seas, (as his own Let­ter before-mentioned declared); hereup­on Mr. Braddon applied himself to some of Holland's Acquaintance, and by them be­ing brought to Mrs. Holland, Mr. Braddon told her, That he had reason to believe her Husband was concerned in this vil­lanous Murder; and herein he was con­firmed by Mr. Holland's absconding; for Innocence desires a Trial, but Guilt still flies from Justice. Mr. Braddon then told her, That if her Husband were really guilty of this Fact, and would immedi­ately surrender himself, ingenuously de­claring how, by whom, and with whom, and for what hired to do this barbarous Mur­der, her Husband would have a general Pardon, and both him and her provided [Page 58]for. But if her Husband was innocent, (nothwithstanding whatsoever was said to the contrary) and should take upon him a Crime (for any advantage whatsoever) of which he was not guilty, he did de­serve to be hanged here, and damned hereafter, seeing by his Perjury he would make Justice an Instrument of executing the worst of Murders.— But if he were indeed the Man, and should surren­der himself, and discover the whole matter, he must be sure to keep within the limits of Truth; for should he be detected in the least Perjury, no Man was more vigorously prosecuted, nor any more severely punish­ed than he (for such his Perjury) must ex­pect to suffer.

These were the Arguments with which Mr. Braddon would have suborned (as that Letter calls it) Holland to a full Discovery: and I do appeal to all the World, whe­ther, admitting this to be true (as it will be proved when occasion serves) Mr. Brad­don deserves this Villanous Charge; for the Truth of this I do (on Mr. Braddon's behalf) appeal to the Consciences of Mrs. H. Mr. P. and Mr. S. with whom Mr. Braddon several times treated in this Affair.

If the Case were as you have repre­sented it, Mr. Braddon did nothing herein but what was consistent with a good Con­science, and for which he deserves not the least Censure. If I mistake not, you said Holland did also go to others for a Supply, as well as my Lord Sunderland; Pray who were these?

Pardon me (Sir) if I name them not, you will hear of them in convenient time.

Sir, pardon the Question, if the An­swer be a secret.

It is enough that I give you Satis­faction in the General, and I defire not to be press'd to answer all Particulars, for it may not be proper.

I desire to know nothing which may either prejudice you to reveal, or the thing it self by being revealed, but esteem it as a great Favour you have been alrea­dy so large and particular in the Discourse, which hath given me great Satisfaction, and will convince such as shall hear it from me.

A Convert!

Sir, a Convert to Truth I rejoyce in being; tho at the same time it's not only mine, but every good Man's Duty to grieve for these ill Men, who are any ways con­cerned in this Villany, especially consi­dering to whom this looks related.

We see how it looks related ad Ho­minem, and ad Rem, and we are very glad this Author hath Abdicated, and his De­sign is frustrated. His Highness hereby thought to have made one great step towards the Accomplishment of what Heaven in Mercy hath delivered us from; I think we can never for this be grateful enough, either to God the chief Author, or to our So­veraign, his Instrument, and those Right Noble and truly worthy Lords and Gentle­men, that to the hazard of Persons and Estates, embarqued on this Glorious De­sign, which Heaven, to a Miracle, blessed with such a sudden (and as to the manner, without Blood) unexpected Success.

But to return to the Jury from whence we digressed in pursuit of Holland, and the Instrument of Death.

And to the second Particular, viz. Haw­ley's unfair Practice, with relation to the Jury, to corrupt them into a belief of the (pretended) self-Murder.

Mr. Fisher did then further declare, that he had been informed my Lord of Essex was a very pious good Gentleman: to which Bomeny answered, My Lord was indeed a very pious good Man; upon which Fisher reply'd, it was then very improbable he should be guilty of this the worst of Actions.

Major Hawley perceiving that the Jury were like to be infiuenced with my Lord's true Character (for such indeed his Lordship was, as he was to Fisher represented) and thereby made believe that my Lord did not cut his one Throat; ( [...] to what Major Hawley may be reasonably presumed to desire they should find) therefore to re­move this, and corrupt them into a be­lief [Page 59]of a Lie, viz. The pretended self-Mur­der; Hawley tells Fisher that it was his Mistake in my Lord, that made him be­lieve his Lordship such a Man; for all those that knew his Lordship well, ☞ knew this of him, That it was a fix'd Prin­ciple in my Lord, that any Man might cut his own Throat, or otherwise dispose of his Life, to avoid a dishonourable and infamous Death: so that this Action was not unlike his Lordship, but according to his avow'd and fix'd Principles. This false and malicious Suggestion of Major Hawley (which the Jury then did suppose to be true) did very easily incline them to believe that my Lord had (pursuant to this Principle) cut his own Throat, to avoid that Dishonourable and Infamous Death, which his Circumstances seem'd to threaten.

What is this Hawley? Could his Con­dition pretend to any Intimacy with his Lordship, that he seemed so well to know my Lord's Principles in this matter?

Hawley now denies all, and protests to their Lordships of this Committee, that he was not nigh the Jury in the Victualling-House all the time of their Inquisition, nor ever heard it said to be my Lord's Principle, That any Man might cut his Throat to avoid an Infamous Death, till their Lordships in this Committee told him so.

Sure the Major's Memory must be very short, for there is hardly any Man of conver­sation in Town, but must have often heard it so said, it being a general discourse, imme­diately upon my Lord's Death, that such was his Lordship's Principle.

This I have been very often credibly informed, and have heard it reported in all Coffee-houses, and used as one, and not the least Argument of my Lord's having indeed cut his own Throat. I do much wonder the Major should pretend that he never heard of it, especially when he himself did suggest the same to the Jury, and press'd it as an Argu­ment of my Lord's Self-Murder; I do not well understand this.

Gentlemen, to me the reason of this is plain; For when Major Hawley found that such a Suggestion was used as an Argument of his Guilt, to avoid this Charge, he doth not only deny his suggesting it, but, as a good Reason (had it been true) that he could not, declared, he never heard it by any said (before their Lordships charged him with it) that such was my Lord's Principle.

Major Hawley's denying that he did suggest this to the Jury, or ever heard it said to be my Lord's Principle, when the Matter is positively sworn against him, ☜ natu­rally argues that this was a false, forged, and malitiously-invented Story, by that bloody Party; and Hawley the Man by them pitched upon, as the most proper Person to corrupt the Jury, (the then proper legal Judges of the Manner of my Lord's Death) with this treacherous and villanous contrived Suggesti­on; so that the Jury might be more easily inclined to believe my Lord's Self-Murder upon evidence as inconsistent as false.

I do much admire Major Hawley should deny he was with the Jury at the Victualling-house, if he were indeed there; seeing his being with them there was no Crime, and therefore needed no denial.

His bare being there, needed neither denial or excuse; but to avoid the Charge of what he falsely and treacherously did whilst he was there (which he could never ex­cuse) he thought best, in general, to deny that he was with the Jury at all in the Victu­alling-house.

But this was very Foolish, because the Major being so well known, (and it may be to all the Jury) his being there could not but be remembred by many of them.

Almost all the Jury do remember him there, and likewise the Coroner, and Surge­ons can't but know he was there.

The Major's denial therefore looks ill: for if he had been there, upon any lawful or indifferent Account, he might have lawfully and innocently justified the same; but his de­nial (when proved so very false) looks as though his Charge were too true.

The Jury had another Reason to re­member the Major's being there with them [Page 60]at the Victualling-house; for when some of the Jury moved for the Adjournment of their Inqusition till some further time, and in the Mean while notice to be given to my Lord's Honourable Relations, that they might bring what Evidence they thought good.—

This had been proper, and it's very customary; for sometimes the Jury do not bring in their Inquisition in many days.

It had been both proper and practised in this Case, had not Major Hawley preven­ted it.

How could the Major hinder it?

Hawley enters a Caveat by another vil­lanous and false Suggestion: ☞ for upon this Motion of the Jury, Hawley, with great earnestness, assures the Jury, they could not adjourn their Inquiry, but must immediately dispatch; because his Majesty ( Charles the Second) had sent an Express for their Inqui­sition, and would not rise from Council (where he was then sitting) till their In­quiry was brought him; wherefore they must make all haste possible. This the Jury believing, they made more haste than good speed, and so, sooner than otherwise they would, finish'd their Inquisition.

Doth Major Hawley remember this Messenger sent by his Majesty?

Hawley totally denies this likewise, and in answer, saith, (as before) that he was not nigh the Jury at the Victualling-house, and so could not thus hasten them.

Denies it! is it not sworn?

It is.

Certainly the denial of a Criminal, shall not ballance the Testimony of the Accuser.

Especially when the Person accusing is of a much cleerer and better Reputation (in all things considered) than ever the Person Accused can justly pretend to.

I am sorry for the Major, whom I did ever think very Loyal.

His Old Court-Loyalty [Obedience without reserve] qualified him as a fit In­strument in this perfidious and villanous, though then Court-Loyal Service. I re­member that a Popish Captain, about two Years since, declared, ‘He looked upon himself, ☜ bound to obey (without reserve) his King in all Commands; and swore, his Loyalty was such, that he would cut his Confessor's Throat, when under confession, if his Prince should so command him.’

A thro'-paced Loyalist upon my word.

A Loyalist! a Loyalist for the Devil.

Even such Loyalty those Men had, which were imployed in my Lord of Essex his last Service.

I have been informed, that Major Hawley hath declared, ‘He would go forty and forty Miles bare-foot to discover this Murder, if my Lord were indeed mur­dered by others.’

Verba Credam cum facta Videam; Shew me thy Faith by thy Works.

That this Hawley was a Man who still thirsted for the blood of those brave true English Champions that opposed the late Court-Arbitrary-Designs, and could afford those honourable Lords, and truly worthy Knights and Gentlemen, no better Titles than Rogues, appears by what he declared the very day, that a great Number of Ho­norable Lords (amongst which this unfortu­nate Lord I hear was one) and worthy Knights, Gentlemen and Citizens dined to­gether at Mile-end-Green; for, sometime that Afternoon, Hawley told Mr. Bunch, then a Warder, that above 200 Rogues that very day dined together at Mile-end-Green, ☞ but he did wish that he had forty of the biggest of them there in the Tower, that they might be made the shorter by the Head, for till then the Land would never be at quiet.

What is become of this Major Hawley?

He is Major of the Tower, and like­wise is (as I think) Gentleman-Porter, his Place worth some hundreds a Year.

What, is he now intrusted in the Tower?

Yes with almost (if not altogether) the greatest Trust (next under the Honora­ble Governour) that is now in the Tower, and he is even my Lord Lucas's Right-hand in the management of the Tower-Affairs.

Is this which is here said to be sworn against Hawley, known to the Lord Lucas?

I believe not.

It were well his Lordship were ac­quainted with it; for most certain (if what be sworn against him be true, which it's reasonable to believe) Hawley is very deep in this Matter; and then we well know for what interest he must cordially act, tho' in appearance he seem otherwise.

The 21st of January last, when his Wife (or some Gentlewoman in his House when he was taken) heard of the Major's be­ing seized upon as suspected concerned in, or privy to this Fact, ☞ she cry'd out, ‘God send us our good King again, for he will soon put an end to this Matter.’

And without doubt an End to those that inquired into it.

I must confess, these false Sugge­stions (for I can't believe them other­wise, seeing Major Hawley denies his be­ing with the Jury) reflect upon the Ma­jor as too officious in this Matter; and I fear this great officiousness of the Major, was in order to a very ill End; I can think no otherwise, and am heartily sor­ry for him, because I have heard many Loyal Men speak very well of him, and to me he hath appeared no otherwise.

The Men of our late Loyalty will speak the better of him upon this very account, and that which would make him odious in the sight of honest Men, in the esteem of these renders him the more ac­ceptable; but as for these worthy Gen­tlemen who have had good Thoughts of this Man, as soon as they find these things, (and somewhat else) sworn against him, they must either believe him not Inno­cent in this, or discredit the Evidence; to do which, would argue Prejudice, when the Accuser is of a clearer Reputation than ever this Gentleman can pretend to; and besides, in this stands Rectus in Curia, neither his Person or Estate depending upon the Issue of this Cause; nay, if he stand under any Prejudice, it is, that my Lord should still appear a Self-murderer, because, should it prove otherwise, the Co­roner's Inquest (of which this Gentleman is one) must expect the lash of some Mens Tongues; though I do think them to blame in nothing but some indiscre­tion; for I am verily perswaded, that these Gentlemen (for the most part, at least) did not rejoice in that unfortunate Acci­dent, but did heartily wish they had re­ceived any Information to find it other­wise than their Evidence moved them to; but nothing of that appearing from any Persons who came in to depose on my Lord's behalf, and these Gentlemen being obliged to go according to Evidence, they are not so much to be blamed, as pitied, for being so hurried into their Inquest.

I find you are an Advocate both for the Coroner and his Jury: Think you they ought to be justified in all Particulars?

It's one thing to justify, and another to mitigate; As I do not think them al­together excusable, so neither do I believe them so Criminal as some would repre­sent them; and as far as in Justice I may, I think it my Duty to clear them, and all Men, from any Aspersion.

You say the Jury ought to have proceeded according to Evidence: Ought they not under that Notion to have com­prehended the several Irregularites in the total Change of the Circumstances of the Body, Room, and Closet, from the State in which they were when the Body was first found? Ought they not to have con­sidered, as Evidence, the palpable and gross Contradictions, (before at large observed,) between those attending on my Lord, which argued the Falsity of the Evidence, and that, the truth of my Lord's being murdered? And ought they not to have considered, as Evidence, the several Cuts before observed to be in my Lord's Right-hand, which argued his Resistance to put off the Instrument of Death? Ought they not to have considered as, Evidence, the Gentlemens tampering with the Coroner in the next Room (for I can believe these Gentlemen there for no other pur­pose) and 'till the Coroner's Memory serves him to name these Men, and their Business with him, I shall not think the best of [Page 62]him: Besides all which, they ought to have considered, as Evidence, the Circumstances of the Razor, the (pretended) Instrument of Death, and compared the length of the Razor with the depth of the Wound, and they would not have found an Inch diffe­rence. Now the Razor, as appears by your description, being a French Razor, and not having any Tongue or Spill, this Razor, in the use by my Lord, could be held by nothing but the very Blade, and not less than two Inches of that must be held in my Lord's Hand, to cut with that steadi­ness and strength the making this large and deep Wound required; so that the Jury would then have found not above two Inches without the Hand to make a Wound above three Inches deep: this must have appeared such a Mathematical Im­possibility, as would have been compre­hended by all, and of it self had been sufficient to have proved the (pretended) self-Murder a Forgery. To all which, to clear the Jury from all Blame, let us add their not examining those three attend­ing on my Lord apart, but suffering them to know one anothers Examinations, so that they might agree in their Story; and the better to help them herein, to permit my Lord's Servant when he began to falter in his Relation (which alone gave suspicion enough, that he was telling a Lie, for Truth would have readily occurr'd) to go into the next Room (to his Tu­tors without doubt) and write his own Information; and yet after all, their Re­lations were incoherent and contradictory. These your honest Jury-Men have in all this gone according to Evidence, have they not? Do they deny that they observed these things? if they did not, it argues either their great Simplitity, or somewhat much worse.

Some of these they do confess to have observed, but others they disown to have taken any notice of; in particular (they say) they remember not to have observed any Cuts in my Lord's Right-hand.

They say they remember not! These Gentlemen, I perceive, have likewise learn'd the Art of Forgetfulness, so that they will remember nothing which may seem to reflect upon their Discretion or Integrity: I would have some of these you have before mentioned set up a School to teach this Art never before found out by any.

I have heard of one of these Jury-Men, who being asked, what Cuts he did observe in my Lord's Right-hand? an­swered, Should he consess any, it would reflect upon them.

And therefore this Gentleman was resolved to forget, to reflect upon them! I perceive this Gentleman doth not con­sider how his stifling (in not owning what he can't but remember) the Truth makes him, in Foro Conscientiae, accessory after the Fact, to my Lord's Murder: For whosoever there is that knows any thing, which he believes in its Discovery might tend to the Detection of this most perfidious Murder, and by his Silence endea­vours to stifle it, therein (before God) becomes consenting to that Fact, as ac­cessory to which at the last day he shall answer. Our Law makes him accessory after the Fact, that endeavours to conceal and convey any from Justice, whom he knows guilty of such a Villany; and for such his Crime he shall answer with the Forfeiture of his Life. Now the reason of this Law I take to be this; because such an Offender (endeavouring to defraud Justice of its due, by protecting his Life, which by his Transgression became forfei­ted to the Law) becomes consenting to the Fact, and shall in his own Life be­come subjected to that Punishment, the Per­son by him so conveyed away would have suffered, when taken; nay, the Crime be­comes not excused by the Person's being apprehended, after he is so concealed or con­veyed away, but the Person guilty hereof shall suffer the same Capital Punishment that is inflicted upon the Principal.

I wish all Men were such Casuists, as to understand this; and so good Men, as to put it in Practice: for you would then soon hear [Page 63]of new Evidence in this Case.

A Man needs not much Casuistical Learning to know so plain a Case.

In all your Heat, you do not consi­der those Circumstances that might influ­ence the Jury, and deter them from do­ing what they ought in this Case.

What can plead their Excuse?

The great danger they had been un­der in finding my Lord murdered by others, pleads for your and all Mens charitable Pity towards Men under such a Temptation.

Nothing ought to deter Men from an inviolable Observation of that Maxim before mentioned, Fiat Justitia, & ruat Coelum.

The Observation of this, is, I must confess, every Man's Duty; but we find the fear of Death hath prevailed with the best of Men to swerve from their Duty, to the highest degree. He of the Disci­ples who (in all appearance had the best natural Courage, for he only wore the Sword, and John 18.10. used it in the greatest Dan­gers) had the Mat. 14.29. highest degree of Faith; was the Mat. 16.16. first that explicitly owned our Saviour, and declared (when fore-warn'd of his Denial) that tho all Men deny'd our Saviour, he would not; nay, tho he were to die, [...]t. 26.55. he would stick close to his Faith; this very Man once under all these Advantages, in the midst of his Presumption, was at last hector'd out of his Faith by a poor silly Kitchin-Maid, thrice denying the Lord of Life, tho' even then, before his Face, and after his Reflection upon his Fault, and his weeping bitterly, he had not Cou­rage enough to appear, own, and suffer with his Master, as before he declared he would do, rather than deny him. Such Instances as these should teach us all Pity towards those that fail in their Duty under the like Temptations; and likewise those that stand, should take care lest they fall.

I have been often told by a Mer­chant, who many Years lived in Genoa, ‘That when some young Noblemen (up­on a small provocation) in the midst of the Street, have murdered others, they have upon the Spot immediately aloud declared, That whosoever should say they did it, should not long remain their Debtor. By which the standers-by were given to un­derstand, that whosoever should discover them to be the Men, must expect to fall Sacrifices to their Revenge, or the Re­venge of their Party; and they fail'd not to perform what was so threatned.’

Little less in this Case was done, as some have felt by woful Experience, who by their Expressions in detestation of this Murder, had exposed themselves to the malicious fury of those Men, who never stuck to add Blood to Blood, to prevent a discovery of the first, and carry on their devilish Interest.

And this brings me to the last general Consideration, (viz.) The Backwardness of the then Government, and the many Threats, great Oppression, and barbarous Cruelty that hath been used to prevent a Discovery of those barbarous and bloody-minded Men, with other Particulars, which seem to argue my Lord's being villanously murdered.

I shall first, speak to the Backwardness and Oppression of the Government in this Case. And,

Secondly, To such other Particulars as may be used as Arguments of this trea­cherous Cruelty.

For the first, (viz.) The Backwardness of the then Government, and the many Threats, great Oppression, and barbarous Cruelty that hath been used to prevent a Discovery of these barbarous and bloody-minded Men. When Mr. Braddon went to the Earl of Sunderland, then Secretary of State, the very next Thursday after the Death of the late Earl of Essex, and car­ried with him the Information of William Edwards and his Mother, (ready writ, but not sworn) my Lord Sunderland seemed much surprised upon reading of them, (and indeed he had reason to be sur­prised, if he stands so related to the Mat­ter as he is now suspected to be); and then, in some heat, asked Mr. Braddon, Who bad him bring those Things to him? [Page 64]To which it was answered, That Sir Henry Capel had desired it. Upon which my Lord ordered Mr. Braddon to come the next morning, and bring the Parties concerned, saying, If it were proper, he would take them.

I can't but here observe, that Anger and Heat you say my Lord Sunderland was in, when these Informations were (as a­bove) delivered, as though it had been a Matter which did not properly belong to him, and therefore unless it were proper, he would not take them: The Secretary is angry that he was troubled with the Busi­ness; and yet the Court of King's-Bench, at Mr. Braddon's Trial, said, ‘That Mr. Brad­don had done well, if he had first gone to the Secretary of State.’

But Mr. Braddon first tried several Ju­stices of the Peace.

That did not then appear to the Secre­tary of State; wherefore the Secretary thought that an Impertinency in Mr. Brad­don, which the Court of King's-Bench called his Duty.

If it were proper, my Lord Sunderland would take them! Certainly the Inquiry after a Murder is proper for the Magi­stracy; and the Murder of a Person of so great Quality, a State-Prisoner in the State-Prison, by virtue of a Secretary of State's Warrant, is proper for a Secretary of State to inquire into, especially consi­dering the Relation that this Murder might be supposed to bear towards Persons not of the least Quality, nor Matters of the meanest Consideration.

This holds good in the General; but there is never a General Rule, but hath an Exception; and this fell as an Exception under the General Rule for the Quality of the Guilty made this Exception, when otherwise there had been none; and there­fore that Reason which you gave for the Secretary's Inquiry, (viz.) the relation of this Murder to, Quality and Matter of Consequence, was the only Argument that balked the Inquiry.

Arguments! curs'd be such Argu­ments as are thus grounded upon no­thing but Devilish Policy, and are altoge­ther inconsistent with, and repugnant to that Moral and Common Justice which ought to rule over all Quality, and all Matters whatsoever. Recommend me to that Minister of State which ever rejects such Arguments; and with Courage and Inte­grity inviolably observes that brave Mo­ral Maxim, Fiat Justitia, & ruat Coelum.

May we be ever blessed with such a Soveraign, and such Ministers of State, and Judges under him.

Did my Lord Sunderland think it pro­per to take those Depositions next morn­ing?

You will soon hear how they were taken; The next morning Mr. Braddon car­ri'd the young Edwards and his Sister (who could testify the same with the Mother, then sick in Bed) to my Lord Sunderland's Office. His Lordship being then in Council, Mr. Mountstephens gave his Lordship notice of Mr. Braddon's coming; immediately upon which, Mr. Atterbury, the Messenger, was sent to take Mr. Braddon into Custody.

This I suppose was after the Boy and his Sister had been examined.

No, before either of these had been seen by my Lord, or examined by any.

What colour of Commitment was there, when nothing had been sworn, or so much as declared, against this Gentle­man?

He was Committed, because the mat­ter, all Circumstances considered, declared, (almost ex Rei Natura) against one who (in this respect) was troubled with a Nolo me tangere, which this Gentleman would have had searched and lanc'd, a thing by no means to be indured. Pray Proceed.

Mr. Braddon was called in before the Council, (before either the Boy or his Sister) and in some heat, asked, What made him stir in that Business?

I never before thought the Discovery of a Murder, had been the Disinterest of the Crown, in whose behalf all Criminals are prosecuted.

As there hath been heretofore a great Difference between the Church of Rome and the Court of Rome, so have we lately seen the day when the Crown and the Crowned Head have been Diametrically opposite. The Crown [the legal Preroga­tive I mean] could do no wrong, but the Head that wore it hath done a World of mischief. The Judges did not obey the Crown [the Rightful Sovereignty] when they illegally destroyed Charters; nor were those vile Varlets that suborned Wit­nesses, truly Loyal; or those Mercenary Judges, Council and Jury, who (in con­tradiction to their own Consciences) seem­ed to believe those State-hired-Hackney-thorough-paced-perjured-Caitifs, who judi­cially murdered Men: 'Twas not the Crown, but he who possessed it, that dis­penced with all Law by an unjust usurp'd Prerogative, the Peoples Rights being ra­vished from them, and sold to James the Second by the Corruption of that Bench, who (as an Honourable Brave English-Liberty-Property-Martyr truly said) had before been Scandals to the Bar. It was not the Crown, but the Crowned Head, that by an Illegal Arbitrary Power (and not Authority) sent those worthy brave true English Spirits, the most Reverend his Grace, and the Right Reverend the other Six Bishops, to the Tower, for humbly offering their Reasons for their Non-com­pliance with what in Consequence would have levelled all Fences to Property, Liberty and Life, neither of which (had that power in its largest Extent been compli'd with) could we have possessed but by such a pre­carious Right as a Royal Arbitrary Ipse Dixit at all times would have bar'd; and had not the Crown [the uncorrupt Regal Authority] as truly stated by those Learned Councils in this Eminent Tryal, acquitted these ever-to-be remembered Pillars from any Violation of Reflection upon its Just Rights, the Head that wore it would soon Gradatim have rob'd those Noble Coura­gious Church and State Confessors of their high Characters, Liberties, Priviledges and Immunities, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil (for I believe an Imprisoned Bishop under Conviction and Judgment, and no Bishop, is no farther distant than a King's Prison and Grave) and therein ingratefully ruined the Chief of that Church, which (through their too great Charity for his Person) had not only secured the Crown to him in Suc­cession, (when others whose Charity blinded not their Judgments, would have prudently foreclosed his Title) but likewise in 1685. fixed and settled it, when threatned with that storn▪ which none but such (thus un­gratefully requited) could have diverted. In this the common Proverb was verified, Periet quod facies Ingrato: Or, Save a, &c.

What other Reason did Mr. Braddon give for his stirring, than his being imployed by the Family?

That was one reason that he proceeded, but it was not the reason which first engaged him; and therefore in answer to this, Mr. Braddon told that Honourable Board, That he was altogether unrelated to, and unobliged by that Honourable Family, so that there lay no more personal engage­ment in him first to move, than upon any Man whatsoever, (who might meet with the same Information.) He declared it was his love to Truth and Justice, that therein first moved him; and as he was a Christian, he thought himself bound in duty to do what he had done, and (through the Grace of God) his Duty therein he would do, though Death stared him in the Face every step he made.

May the like Principle still continue in him.

Mr. Braddon then pulled out of his Pocket the Coroner's Inquest, and the Infor­mation of Paul Bomeny and Russel (which you have before heard) and told that Ho­nourable Board, That there were such Inco­herencies, and indeed Contradictions Sworn before the Coroner by these two, which endeavoured to prove the Self-murder (they being attending on my Lord at his Death) that they seemed in such their Contradicti­ons to confirm what the Boys Relation [Page 66]argued for, and thereupon made his Obser­vations upon some of those Incoherencies you have before at large heard related.

What was said in answer to this?

As soon as Mr. Braddon had made these Observations, His Royal Highness called for the Informations, which were accordingly delivered him, and Mr. Braddon expected His Highness would have said somewhat in answer to what was so ob­served.

Truly I think His Highness might be the least Stranger to what these men had Sworn; for from what I have heard, I do believe that the same Power and Interest that hired those perfidious Villains to per­mit what was so barbarously executed, had likewise given them Instructions what to Swear, to give colour to the pretended Self-murder, and therefore His Highness might be the best prepared to answer all Objections against these mens Depositions. But I long to hear how His Highness en­deavoured to reconcile them.

His Highness could not then turn Reconciler, and therefore said nothing to this matter, but delivered them to his then Majesty, who said as little; whereupon the then Lord Keeper North took those Infor­mations, and endeavoured to reconcile what was indeed irreconcileable: Where­upon Mr. Braddon objected against his Lord­ship's Reconciliation, and urged the former Objections further; upon which his Lord­ship seemed (though not much by his words, yet by his very pale changed Countenance) highly displeased with Mr. Braddon for making those Reflections.

What were these Depositions Printed for, but to be observed? did his Lordship think that every man would swallow such gross Contradictions as his Lordship's Cor­ruption (against his Judgment) would have reconciled?

After a long Examination, too tedious here to repeat, Mr. Braddon was ordered to withdraw; and then the Young William Edwards was called in, the Child (being then not Thirteen years of Age) was very much afraid (having, as before, been foolish­ly frighted by his Eldest Sister, as though the King would Hang him) and cry'd; whereupon (as the Sister hath reported) the Child was stroaked upon the Head, and bid not to cry, and then asked, Whether he had not invented that Lye, to excuse his Truenting that day?

A proper Question by way of In­struction, for such a Child to answer. I suppose the Boy then answered, as by this question he was in effect bid.

You are in the right, for the Child to this question answered, Yes: The Sister was examined, and she gave the same account you have before at large heard, as to what the Boy had declared, and how Mr. Braddon had discoursed them; and then Mr. Braddon was the second time called in, and by the Lord Keeper North told, that he had instructed this Boy in a Lye, and would have suborned the Child to Swear it. To which Mr. Braddon answered, It was impossible he could instruct him to say what the Boy had declared several days before he had ever seen the Boy or any of his Relations, as appeared by what his Sister and the Boy himself must own.

Had not his Lordship's Honour and Interest suborned his Conscience in this matter, he would have dealt more fairly.

Mr. Bradden then told his Lordship, That being well satisfied in his Innocence and Integrity, he seared not any Prosecution, but would readily give whatsoever Bail his Lordship should require; and according­ly that Afternoon gave Bonds with two Friends in 2000 l. a piece for his Appear­ance; and hereupon continued the Prose­cution with all Vigor imaginable, for he was now obliged in Self-Justice to endeavor in what he could, to corroborate the Boy's Evidence, which my Lord Keeper North corruptly called a Lye, and to which his Lordship (without any ground) pretended that Mr. Braddon would have suborned the Boy to Swear; for at the same time it ap­peared to his Lordship, as far as Negative could appear, that Mr. Braddon had not [Page 67]given, offered or promised to the Boy, or any for him, or to any of his Relations, one Farthing or Farthings-worth, but did as you have before at large heard, use such Arguments as might most naturally Influ­ence the Boy to truth: After Mr. Braddon had been about a month hurried up and down in both Town and Country upon several Inquiries, and all People (except one Gentleman who was ever ready to go with Mr. Braddon upon all occasions) very unwilling in the least to concern them­selves. Crag.

It is very natural for men to be deter'd from engaging in that which was so roughly managed by the Council-Board, and threatned the Ruine of him who first appeared; for few men are for living a State-Confessor caged up within Iron Grates, or dying their Countries Martyr, but think themselves obliged to mind only their pri­vate Affairs, leaving all Affairs of State to those that have the Command and Steerage of this great Vessel [the Government] lest by their Intermeddling in those ticklish matters, themselves should have followed the unjust misfortune of those brave men, who couragiously, though to their Ruine, opposed themselves to the usurpt Prero­gative and Tyranny of the Times.

Had all men been like those men of Prudence (as they falsly term their Cowar­dices) what would long since have become of this Vessel, wherein all (with all we have) are imbarqued? The Commander in Chief, with most of the Chief Officers, had by a corrupt perjured Agreement amongst themselves, resolved upon the Sale of both Men and Cargo to that Corrupt and Arbi­trary Will, which in a short time (if not providentially prevented) would have claimed all we are and have, as though we had held neither Property, Liberty or Life, but as those Corrupt Judges did their places, Durante bene placito Regis. But to return.

About the 16th of August 1683. Mr. Brad­don rid down into Wiltshire to Marlborough, to enquire after a Report before my Lord's Death, of my Lord's cutting his Throat: From Marlborough he was riding to Froom in Somersetshire, and at Bradford (about six Miles short of Froom) he was stopt, (there being then strict Watching and Warding, throughout that Country) by a Vile Perse­cuting Fellow, one Captain Beach an At­torney, who was ever Zealous for the Ruine and Destruction of those that stood firm to the True English Interest, and yet now pretends to be Zealous for his present Majesty and Government, though he de­clared when His Majesty first Landed, he did hope to see most of those Hanged that went in to him) being here Examined, and having given the Justice Satisfaction (a Gen­tleman then there, knowing Mr. Braddon, and assuring the Justice he knew him to be the same man he declared he was) the Justice was taken aside by Beach, and (as others declared who had heard this Beach) told, that he did not so strictly as he ought examine this Gentleman, for the Gentle­man was certainly Disaffected to the Go­vernment, as might be seen by his wearing a Band and Cuffs.

A very strong Argument upon my word.

Hereupon the Justice came to Mr. Brad­don, and told him he must search him, upon which Mr. Braddon (before ever the Justice saw his Papers) ingeniously declared the cause of his being then in the Country, where he was going, and upon what occa­sion; upon which the Justice Commits Mr. Braddon to Wiltshire Goal, by such an illegal Warrant (in its conclusion) as you never saw.

The Warrant ran as followeth, viz.

Mr. Braddon told the Justice, the Warrant was illegal; for should the Goaler never hear from the King and Council, he must be kept a perpetual Prisoner: Warrants of Committment ought to conclude, Till he be discharged by due Course of Law. But the Justice having Mr. Beach and some Attorneys of his own Judgment, declared he would justifie the Warrant; and under this Warrant Mr. Braddon lay in Wiltshire Goal about a Fortnight, and was then re­moved by Habeas Corpus upon the Statute to be bailed. All the Judges being out of Town, he was (according to the Statute) carried before my Lord Keeper North then in Council; when Mr. Braddon was first brought before his Lordship, my Lord Keeper smil'd, (thinking he had got such a hank upon Mr. Braddon and his Friends, as would ruine both) and told Mr. Braddon, notwithstanding Self-respect might weigh but little, he thought that he would have had such just regard to his Bail, as not to have ruin'd them by those things then to be laid to his Charge. To which Mr. Braddon answered, That the only thing required of his Bail, was his Appearance the next Term, which he should (God willing) do, and thereby Indemnifie his Bail. No, replied my Lord Keeper (smiling) the Good Beha­viour in the mean time was likewise re­quired, and that hath been notoriously broken by this new Offence. To which it was answered, That there was no Good Behaviour at all required; and for the Truth thereof, Mr. Braddon appealed to the Bonds themselves, taken (as you have heard) be­fore the Secretary of State; upon search it appeared his Lordship was in the wrong, upon which my Lord Keeper North seemed very Angry with Secretary Jenkins, that the Good Behaviour was here omitted; but the Secretary said it was the Omission of his Clerk, and it was, I believe, the only Omissi­on of that nature that had happened in those times; for the Bonds then taken by the Secretary of State, in their Condition con­cluded, And in the mean while to be of the Good Behaviour; but in Mr. Braddon's Bond this Clause was intirely left out.

Why could they make that a breach of the Good Behaviour, which a man was naturally bound to do for his de­fence?

Without doubt the then times would have made Mr. Braddon's going into the Country, &c. to be a Breach of this Clause, because they did at his Tryal charge him with it as a Crime, and therefore most cer­tainly would have adjudged it Contra bonos mores, and so a Forfeiture of the Bonds. Mr. Braddon desired my Lord Keeper, that such Persons might be sent for out of the Country, as had heard the report of my Lord of Essex having cut his Throat, be­fore his Throat was indeed cut. Upon which an M [...] H— [...] best [...] Brad [...] reme [...] bra [...] Eminent Lord then said, This is just as it was in the Case of Sir Edmond-Bury Godfry. My Lord Keeper de­manded of Mr. Braddon Bonds ( [...]) in 12000 l. himself, and his Bail [Page 69]for his Appearance, and other Bonds (him­self and Sureties) in the like Sum for his Good Behaviour; saying, He would have as good men Bound, as though he were to lend the Money out of his Pocket. These Demands being so very unreasonable, Mr. Braddon desired his Lordship, that his Lord­ship would be pleased to consider the Sta­tute upon which he came to be Bailed, and that his Lordship would (according to the Statute) take such Bail as the Quality of the Person and Nature of the Offence re­quired. Mr. Braddon did farther declare, That he was a Younger Brother, his Fa­ther living, and his Relations and Friends almost two hundred Miles from London. To which my Lord Keeper answered, That as the Statute required, so he did con­sider his Quality; for his Crime was such, that had he been an Alderman of London, for every 6000 l. he would have demanded 20000 l. so that his Lordship would then have had 80000 l. Bonds in Bail and Surety­ship, twice as much as ever was given for any Noble-man in England, for any Offence whatsoever.

What was this Heinous Offence? Is the bringing Murderers to Justice, a Reflecti­on on the Government? Certainly the Go­vernment's becoming a Skreen to such per­fidious Villanies, and thus prosecuting and punishing him that would have detected them, is a Case without President, and so Notorious a Breach of the Rules of all Com­mon Justice, that I knew not a more Impudent, Bare-fac'd, and Villainous In­stance.

Mr. Braddon not being able to comply with these high Terms, was remanded by my Lord Keeper to Wiltshire Goal; but be­fore the next Morning, advising with some Lawyers, he was told the Good Behaviour could not be required, and that Bail to answer the Cause of the then Commitment was all that could be demanded: Upon which the next Morning Mr. Braddon de­sired his Keeper to carry him to my Lord Keeper's House in Great Queen-street, for he did hope his Lordship would not continue to insist upon the Good Behaviour, which the Statute required not. Mr. Braddon was accordingly carried, but the Goaler went first to his Lordship, and informed my Lord Keeper upon what account he had brought Mr. Braddon once more before his Lordship; my Lord then said, ☜ he neither had or could demand the Good Behaviour; and then sent for Mr. Braddon, and de­clared as before: Whereupon Mr. Braddon (perceiving his Lordship in a better Humour than the Night before) desired his Lordship to accept of such Bail as he could give; which, with what he was before under, (by Bonds before the Secretary of State, for the same Offence in Effect) would amount to 10000 l. my Lord Keeper declared, he could not at his House alter what was agreed upon at the Council; but the Goaler should bring him down to the Council that Afternoon, and if it could be done, he should be then Bailed. About Eight of the Clock that night, Mr. Braddon did accor­dingly go before the Council, where his Lordship was so far from Bailing him upon the Terms by him offered, ☜ That his Lordship renewed his Demand of his former Bonds in 12000 l. for the Appearance, and 12000 l. more for the Good Behaviour, notwithstanding that very Morning he had expresly declared, That he neither had or could demand Sureties for his Good Behaviour.

My Lord's memory was very short, his Judgment soon changed, or his Con­science very Corrupt, to demand (against his own opinion which he declared that morning) what by Law could not be re­quired.

My Lord Keeper told Mr. Braddon, he had a mind to be made Infamously Famous, and thereupon Sarcastically repeated out of Juvenal: ‘Aude aliquid brevibus Gyaris, & carcere dignum, Si vis esse aliquis.’

I do very well remember his Lordship was made a Lord, about that time King Charles the Second issued out a Proclamation [Page 70]against Petitioning, to which it was then said, my Lord Keeper North advised, and for that and other such good Services to the Publick, he was made a Lord: Where­upon that Saying of Juvenal, Carr in his Currant apply'd to his Lordship, and in his Translation render'd it thus;

But Blessed be God for this happy Change, which will (I hope) bestow nothing but grinning Honour on such vile perjured Services (in acting contrary to their Oaths) as Jefferies and North were advanced by.

Mr. Braddon having thus suffered in the defect of this Act, I cannot but here take notice of one great Omission in this Statute. This Act inflicts a Penalty of 100 l. upon the Goaler that denies the Prisoner, or any on his behalf, a Copy of his Warrant, and 500 l. Penalty on every Judge that refuses to grant an Habeas Corpus upon the Statute, for the removal of such Prisoner; ☞ but inflicts no certain Penalty upon the refusal to Bail the Prisoner, as shall upon this Act be brought before them, so that if the Judge either demand Ten times more than the Quality of the Pri­soner, or the Nature of the Offence re­quires, or refuseth to take any Bail what­soever, there can no Action of 500 l. for this refusal be brought, for no Penalty in this Case is Enacted. It's very strange that the Statute should lay so great Penalties upon the denial of the Means of Bail, (viz.) the Copy of the Warrant and Habeas Corpus) and yet not Enact an express Penalty for refusal of the End, (viz.) Bailing the Prisoner; for what signifies either a Copy of the Commitment, or an Habeas Corpus thereupon, if Bail be not procured? This is putting the Prisoner to a very Fruitless Expence.

Seeing the Statute requires the Judge shall Bail the Prisoner, taking [...] Recog­nizance with one or more Sureties, according to the Quality of the Person, and Na­ture of the Offence, a special Action of the Case lyes against such Judge up­on his refusal, wherein it is to be sup­posed, not less than 500 l. Damages will be given.

Upon refusal, if there be little Damages sustained (as it may happen, for though one Judge refuse, another may grant the Pri­soner his Liberty upon Bail) and conse­quently so proved, the Jury (being Sworn to go according to Evidence, as well in the Damages, as in the matter directly in Issue;) must go according to Proof, unless they think the Extravagant Verdicts of the late Times (which found 100 Thou­sand Pounds where not one Farthing was proved) will excuse them, in giving Fifty times more than was Sworn to be sustained. Few words more in the Statute, would, I humbly conceive, have sufficiently pro­vided in this case; for in the Statute, where it is said, That if the Judges shall deny any Writ of Habeas Corpus, by this Act re­quired to be granted, being moved for as aforesaid (it had been added; (Or shall refuse such Bail as the Quality of the Pri­soner, and Nature of the Offence required) they shall severally Forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of 500 l. to be recovered in manner aforesaid. These few words would have given the 500 l. for refusal of Bail, as well as denying the Habeas Corpus; whereas without the like Clause, the Statute may (in Effect) be dayly evaded. But to return, Mr. Braddon was hereupon turned over to Atterbury the Messenger, where, for about five Weeks, he lay at no less Charge than Four Pounds and odd Money per Week directly, besides other collateral Expences; this being too great for his Fortune to comply with, he (after some opposition) removed himself to the Kings-Bench (having before by a Friend agreed with Marshal Glover upon 2000 l. Security, and 5 s. 3 d. per Week Chamber-Rent, to have the Liberty of the Rules; but when he came over, the Marshal insisted upon two men in 10000 l. a piece, and [Page 71]10 s. 3 d. per Week Chamber-rent, and then Mr. Braddon was to have Liberty of the Rules; but when Mr. Braddon had com­plied with these high Terms (so much a­bove the first Agreement) the Marshal or­dered him to be kept a close Prisoner under this Security at no less than 2 l. 5 s. 3 d. per Week Charge, and refused (whilst Mr. Braddon was thus close Imprisoned) to de­liver up the Security-Bonds for this close Confinement; the Marshal pretended the Order of the then Lord Chief Justice Jef­feries.

From the Crown of the Head, to the Sole of the Foot, our Government hath been corrupted.

After Mr. Braddon had lain some time under these hard Terms, he was Bail'd out by the Kings Bench, and then renewed his Prosecution with all possible Industry and Diligence; but about the 12th of Novem­ber, 1683. he was taken up in London, by a very strange Warrant granted against him, by the then Court of Aldermen, or Sir Hen­ry Tulse, the then Lord Mayor; the War­rant was against Mr. Braddon, as a Per­son suspected to be disaffected to the Govern­ment. ☞

Suspected to be disaffected! Sure those who granted the Warrant, were very disaffe­cted to the Laws, or otherwise they would never have issued out so strange and illegal a Warrant.

Upon this Warrant Mr. Braddon was carried before Sir James Edwards, and after that, the then Lord Major, and last of all, before the King and Council, where he was falsely and maliciously charged with being the Author of the Protestant Flail; many hundreds whereof (it was then sug­gested) he had bespoke about the time of Colledge's (pretended) Plot, as a fit Instru­ment to Massacre the King's Friends; King Charles then shaking one in his hand, decla­red it was a much more dangerous Wea­pon than the Popish Dagger; but after Mr. Braddon had answered to every part of his Charge, there appeared so much Ma­lice, Folly, and Falshood in the Accusation, that His then Majesty ordered his Discharge without Bail.

This was a very malicious Prosecuti­on in hopes to Ruin him; not so much for this, as for what he had done in the Cafe he was before ingaged in.

I believe you are in the right. About this time Mr. Braddon was informed, that his Royal Highness (discoursing at a Hunt­ing, concerning the late Earl of Essex) had declared he would ruin him, if all the Law or Interest in England would Ruin him, for rifling into the Business (or words to that effect); and thereupon Mr. Braddon was perswaded to desist; but it was answered, That the Ruin he did expect, he did not fear, neither would by those Threats be deter'd from the Prose­cution.

Had his Royal Highness been indeed Innocent of this Murder, there had been few things more serviceable to His Highness than a full and clear discovery of the Truth in this matter; for had the Earl been a Self-murderer by a thorough Examination, and strict Scrutiny, the Truth would have plainly appeared, and all Objections would have been answered and vanished, so that there would not have remain'd the least Colour for a Reflection on His Highness; or had the Earl of Essex been Murdered by such as did it without His Highness Con­sent or Privity, upon a diligent and judi­cious Examination and Prosecution, these vile Varlets that perpetrated this hellish Fact, being detected and punished accord­ing to their Demerit (as it had been both His Majesty's and Royal Highness's Inter­est, as well as Duty they should) His Highness, and all that were Innocoent would hereby have been effectually vindica­ted from all Colour of Guilt; for the Con­viction and Punishment of the Guilty, are Vindications of the Innocent. Whereas the Cause was so managed, as gave all the World just reason to suspect the very truth of the Matter was of so deep a Dye, that it could not endure the Touch-stone of a strict and diligent Inquisition, lest it should [Page 72]then appear (as without doubt it would) in its true Sanguine Colours; wherefore this Cause still shun'd the Light, because its Deeds were Evil. Sed veritas non quaerit Angulos: Truth seeks no Corners.

To be short, For it would be very te­dious to tell all this Gentleman hath done and suffered upon this Account. In Hillary Term, Mr. Bradden and Hugh Speake, Esq were try'd upon an Information exhibited against them by the then Attorney General; The chief thing laid to these Gentlemens Charge, was a Conspiracy to procure false Witnesses to prove the late Earl of Essex Murdered by Persons unknown, contrary to the Coroners Inquest, &c. Mr. Speake was Acquitted of the Conspiracy, ☞ and Mr. Brad­don only found Guilty.

Who can Conspire alone? A sole Conspirator is a Contradiction.

Such a Contradiction the Jury made, and my Lord Chief Justice Jefferies approved of the same. When Mr. Braddon appeared in Court to be Tried, Sir R. S. he that was not the least concern'd in the Prosecution, told him before the Information was read, That he would do his Business for him: Upon which, Mr. Braddon desired this Gentleman to have Patience to tarry till the Jury had done it to his hands; to which it was replied, I do not doubt that. The Oppression of the then times, was still sure of both Judg and Jury. This Tryal was carried on with all the Fury and Malice imaginable, and this pretended Crime made worse than a com­mon Theft or Robbery, for that tended to a private Mischief, but this to a general Con­fusion, &c.

When my Lord Chief Justice Jefferies at this Tryal, was thus representing Mr. Brad­don's Crime, as one of the highest that could be committed, exposing it as much worse than Burglary, Robbery, or the like, in the midst of his Lordship's Railing, Mr. Braddon smil'd; and it was (as I after heard him often declare) upon this Story coming into his mind: A Neighbour of his an illiterate plain Country-Farmer, had a Wife of as violent a Spirit as liv'd, and one day She comes into the Room where her Husband was (with several Neighbours); as soon as She came, tho there was not, or it seems had been the least Colour for a Provocation, for he still carried himself well towards her; she flies into the greatest Rage imaginable, calling him all the Names that Malice could invent, or Rage could ut­ter; and had she not been prevented, might have done him some mischief. The Husband in the midst of this great Storm, well knowing all to be false, which the Fury of his Wife charged him with, stood as a Man altoge­ther unconcern'd under this Provocation, but rather appeared very pleasant. One of his Friends asks him, how it was possible for him with that Temper, to receive the scurrilous and unjust Railing of that furi­ous Woman? to which the Husband smi­ling, calmly replied, That his Wife talked of a Man he did not know, for he was al­together unrelated to, and unacquainted with that Person she so railed against, and therefore what reason had he to be con­cern'd when he was not the Person she spoke of? Mr. Braddon asked his own Con­science (an infallible Evidence according to truth, to condemn or acquit) whether he was this villanous Criminal his Lordship was so furiously Railing against; and he found that Judg (by which at the last day he shall be tryed) did acquit him from that Crime which his Lordship's Corruption (against his belief) unjustly charged him with; and therefore he stood very much unconcern'd at all that his Lordship's cor­rupt Violence, falsely and maliciously, without the least appearance of a Crime, applied to him; who tho the Person highly accused, was altogether Innocent either of the Offence, or those far-fetched, strained, and groundless Aggravations.

If Mr. Braddon was well satisfied in his Innocence, he had good reason not to be discouraged: For, tho the wicked flee when no man pursues, yet the righteous are as bold as a Lyon.

No Terrors ought to affright or dis­courage the Innocent.

We have a much better Author, who speaks much to the same effect, and assures us, That to the oppressed, God is a refuge and strength: a very present help in trouble. Therefore need they not fear, tho the earth be moved, and the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea. Tho the waters thereof roar, and be troubled, tho the mountains shake with the swelling thereof, &c. Psalm 46.1, 2, &c.

Nothing gives a man that Satisfaction of mind under an unjust Accusation, as his Innocence; and I am verily perswaded that an innocent Man hath greater quiet, even under an unjust Condemnation, than the Guilty can have, tho here acquitted; for tho the Corruption of a Judge or Jury may protect the greatest Criminal from that legal, humane Punishment, which the Law would inflict; yet the Guilt of his own Consciene still haunts him like (or rather much worse than) a Ghost: and therefore is he like the troubled Sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt; for there is no peace to the wicked, saith my God, Isa. 57.20, 21.

No Man ought to Condemn or Ac­quit himself by the Opinion of others; for Men may be led by Misinformation or Prejudice; but his own Conscience, when faithfully observed, will do him the greatest Justice; and when he stands acquitted in his own mind, he ought not much to va­lue the Vogue of the People. For accord­ding to the Poet, Conscia mens recti famae men­dacia ridet.

What this Author saith in the next Verse, may be too truly applied to this corrupt Age, who are so very apt upon the sleightest (and sometimes without any) Grounds, to take up a reproach against their Neighbour. ‘Sed nos in vitium credula turba sumus.’

But to proceed,

The Lord Chief Justice, and the Kings Council, often in effect declared (if my Lord was Murdered by others) the King and Duke had an hand in it. Some of these Gentlemen must shortly deny their own Conclusions from the same Premisses, or else maintain (from the Earl's being proved Murdered) that the Duke had a hand in it. The Jury in this Case were twice well trea­ted with a plentiful Entertainment; and that which to some of them was much more grateful, (viz.) three Guineas a Man, so that Guilty came to a better Market, than Not Guilty would have done by two Guineas a Man.

Did the King always pay the Jury, when they found for him?

No; but upon such Services they did not go unrewarded.

Some of these Mercenary Men, which were corrupted to go contrary to Evidence, will certainly meet with a reward hereafter, which will teach them by woful Experience, what it was thus to put to Sale first their own Consciences; and then in the Corruption of that, to sell the Proper­ty, Liberty, and Life of their Fellow Sub­jects; chiefly to gratify that Blood-thirsty-party, which so eagerly pursued the De­struction of all that stood in their way to those vile Designs then carrying on, for the Ruin of both Church and State. I am apt to believe so Charitably of some of these Jury-men, (tho too Active in such Ser­vices) that they did not foresee the Ten­dency of these things, but were blindly and not maliciously hurried on (the Knaves leading the Fools) to those things which some have long since repented. But pray, what was this Jury?

As for the Foreman, Sir Hugh Middle­ton, Baronet, (as I have been credibly in­formed) he declared himself a Papist soon after King James came to the Crown, and then said he had been a Roman Catholick in his heart for many years.

Mr. Braddon had like to have Justice done him by such vile Hypocrites, who continue (in appearance) of a Church, that [Page 74]they may have the better opportunity to serve their Party. Were any other of the Jury of the same Character?

I do not hear that any besides this Gentleman turned Papist; and I do hope some of these have seen their Error in this unjust Verdict found without the least Co­lour of Evidence; for all the Witnesses did acquit Mr. Braddon from giving, offering, or promising one Farthing to them, to give their Testimony in the Case. Upon this un­just Conviction, Mr. Braddon was fin'd 2000 l. and Mr. Speake 1000 l. and the good Behaviour required during Life. Under this corrupt Oppressive Judgment, Mr. Braddon lay till the Prince's coming, who remov'd such Oppressions, and as the late Motto hath it, Veniendo restituit rem. For as the Government was restored by his hap­py Arrival, and as sudden as just Success; so was this Gentleman's Liberty procured, who had no hopes of being ever forgiven; for I have heard him say, That about Au­gust 87. Graham and Burton came over to the Kings Bench, in order to the Discharge of several of the Kings Prisoners. A List whereof, with the Causes of their Impri­sonment was produced to Mr. Braddon, who finding only his own Name cross'd, and that twice cross'd; he did ask Mr. Burton how his Name became the only Name so mark'd. To which it was answered, That His Majesty had ordered a List of his Pri­soners (in the Kings Bench under Fines) to be brought him, ☞ and that very List was ac­cordingly taken and carried to His Majesty then in the Camp; but his Majesty imme­diately upon sight of his Name, called for a Pen and Ink, and with his own Hand so crossed it.

By this it was plain, this Gentle­man was the most obnoxious to His Ma­jesty, and had no Reason to expect any Fa­vour.

It had been for the King's Interest to have pardoned all His Prisoners, and not ruined so many in burying them alive, which caused no small Reflection on His Clemency.

The Kings prosecuting (with an irre­concilable Hatred) this Gentleman, made the World justly conclude, that this Gentle­man suffered his Imprisonment not for his own Guilt, but for the Guilt of others, who would therefore never be reconciled; for had not others been Guilty of this Blood, Mr. B. would never have been thus injuriously dealt with, nor his Offence (if it may be so called) kept in such an hateful Remembrance.

A Gentleman of good Interest in the late times, told Mr. Braddon, he must never expect to be forgiven, because he had cast Blood in the King's Face, which none else had done.

His Late Majesties thus marking this Gentleman out, as an irreconcilable Object of his Dipleasure, was more used as an Ar­gument of His Majesties Guilt in that mat­ter, than any thing I could ever find in Mr. Braddon's Tryal; for tho what is there proved, satisfied me, my Lord was Murder­ed; yet nothing Sworn, appeared directly against His Highness. But the Government becoming (as it were) Parties to this Charge, by their appearing in such an extravagant Method of (pretended) Justice against the Prosecutor of this Murder, as tho my Lord could not be Murdered, but the Govern­ment must have an hand in it: This made Men of Consideration conclude, that had not Persons of the greatest Character been chief in this execrable Contrivance, the Go­vernment had never thus extravagantly been hook'd in as Particeps Criminis, (in case my Lord were by others Murdered) to pu­nish him who would have legally Indited such as the Government ought with an In­dignation (due to the most barbarous com­plicated Murder) to have prosecuted even unto Death.

If a Government shall answer for the Blood of the Party Slain, when no Inqui­sition is made by the proper Magistrates in order to a Detection: How much more shall that Government appear Criminal, that instead of making Inquisition for Blood, became Advocates and Defenders of the [Page 75]Blood-Guilty, and in a violent unpresident­ed Method of (falsly call'd) Justice, ruin him, who did humbly offer the Matter to a judicial Consideration?

The Government had made Inquiry by the Coroners Inquest; and therefore, how could the Government be blamed for any neglect?

Those concerned in this barbarous Fact, intended to use (and indeed did) the Coroner's Inquest (which the Law designed as the means of discovery of a violent Death) as the means to prevent the Detecti­on of this Villany; for having prepared a couple of Treacherous and Perjured Varlets ( Bomeny and Russel I mean) to misinform the Jury, as to the (pretended) manner of Death, instead of discovering the Truth, (which would have render'd themselves obnoxious to Punishment) they villainously contrived a Story, or rather repeated their Instructions, (for without doubt the Infor­mation to be given the Jury, was likewise agreed upon before my Lord's Death; so that these Forsworn Caitifs might not be to seek in their Information when they came to Swear, which would have soon discovered this bloody Treachery) I say, repeated their Lesson, and with this For­gery misled the Jury, who were too easily impos'd upon. Now, though the Govern­ment is not so much to be blamed in this Coroner's Inquest, (which Inquest by the way, in all respects can never be justified) yet as to the Governments standing by this Inquisition, as what was to remain (like the Laws of the Medes and Persians) without alteration: This is what all the World justly condemns it for. You can't but be so much a Lawyer and Historian, as to know that the Coroner's Inquest is not conclusive and final, but may be contradicted, and al­most dayly is; sometimes the Coroner's In­quest finds Men to have died of a natural Distemper, which after appear to have been barbarously Murdered. To give you one Instance for many, Sir Thomas Overbury (whose Case, in some respects, runs pa­rallel with this) was by the Coroner found to have died a natural Death; but as soon as that Faction, which had treacherously Murdered him, declined in their Interest, it appeared this unfortunate Gentleman was treacherously Murdered by others. When this Murder of Sir Thomas Overbery was first detected, King James the First was far from thinking the Prosecution of that Murder a Reflection on the Government, though there was the same reason in Law for that, as this, seeing in that the Gentleman died in the Custody of the Law, and the Coroner found the Person to have died of a natural Death, and in this a Felo de se. Now seeing the Contradiction of the Coroner's Inquest, was the Foundation of Mr. Braddon's Infor­mation, there was the very same ground for the like Prosecution of those that did detect Sir Thomas Overbury's Murder; but instead of prosecuting the Prosecutor, King James the First, at Royston laid the highest Injunction imaginable on all the Judges, diligently and impartially to prosecute this Murder; for in the midst of his Judges (his Lords and Gentlemen then likewise surrounding him) he used these words, My Lords the Judges, It's lately come to my hearing, that you have now in Examination a business of Poysoning. Lord! in what a most miserable condition shall this Kingdom be (the only Famous Nation for Hospitality in the World) if our Tables should become a Snare, as none could eat without danger of Life, and that Italian Custom should be introduced amongst us! Therefore, my Lords, I charge you, as you will answer it at that great and dread­ful day of Judgment, that you examine it strictly, without Favour, Affection or Partia­lity; and if you shall spare any Guilty of this Crime, God's Curse light on you and your Poste­rity; and if I spare any that are found Guilty, God's Curse light on me and my Posterity for ever. Such was His then Majesties great Zeal for the Detection and Punishment, and his just Abhorrence of this treacherous Murder, which he then expressed upon the first discovery of that barbarous perfidious­ness. But this Case is under much higher Aggravations; for

That Gentleman was only charged (and that in truth) with a refusal of the King's Command, in not going on that Honoura­ble Embassy, which would have been both for his Honour and Safety; so that his was a Sin only of Omission. But this Noble Lord was maliciously and falsly accused of the Blackest Treason, viz. Conspiring the Death of the King, &c.

That Gentleman's Reputation was not murdered with an Imputation of Self-mur­der: But

This Honourable Peer was murdered both in Person and Reputation, and by the Perjury of the most perfidious Varlets, cor­rupting the Law, they villainously trans­ferred the Guilt from those really Criminal, and placed it on him whom they had be­fore (by their privity and consent) trea­cherously and barbarously Murdered.

That Gentleman's Murder center'd in himself. But the Murder of this Honoura­ble Person was immediately appli'd to the Murdering of another Honourable Lord, whom they were then (by their Instruments not so much corrupted with Malice as blind Obedience) villainously haranguing out of his Life, under form of Law and colour of Justice; and many more since murder­ed to avoid a Detection of this their first most cruel and barbarous Treachery. Justice zealously espoused the Prosecution of that worthy Gentleman's Murder; but Justice here became Corrupted and Retrograde; for instead of encouraging, and Prosecuting the Murderers, it discouraged, prosecuted and ruined the Prosecutor. That Food which should have sustained the Natural Man, was tainted with a natural, poysonous Compo­sition, and became (or at least was there designed, for he was stifled between the Pillows, and died not of the Poison) the means of that worthy Knight's Destruction: But Justice (which supports the Moral Man) was here twice vitiated; first by Perjury and Treachery in those vile perfidious Caitifs before the Coroner; and the second time by Perjury (in the same cruel Mis­creants in the Kings-Bench Court) at Mr. Braddon's Tryal; and the then bare-faced Wresting of Justice thorough the irrecon­cileable Malice of the Chief Author of this Murder, and the groundless and illegal Pro­secution, Conviction and Punishment of him, who did endeavour by proper legal Methods, to detect this hellish complicated Villany. I shall follow this Comparison no farther, but appeal to all the World, whether the latter of these two Murders, is not aggravated with far higher Circum­stances than the former. And as Justice, after some time, overtook those that perpetrated that treacherous Cruelty, so I doubt not but God in Justice will shortly bring to con­dign Punishment, some, though not all of those concerned in this not to be parallel'd piece of barbarous Cruelty.

The hard measure Mr. Braddon met with, was more to deterr him and others from this Prosecution, than to pu­nish him for what he had done.

That I believe; and my Lord Keeper North, who wanted not Words and plausi­ble Insinuations, upon all occasions, repre­sented to Mr. Braddon, the great Danger such Practices would bring upon him: To which it was answered by that Gentleman, That he hoped he had done nothing therein, but what he could answer to God and his own Con­science; and f [...]r the Danger, he did not fear, for he did hope that neither Danger nor Death should deter him in the way of his Duty, in which he could as chearfully depart this Life at Tyburn in a Halter, as in his Bed of a Fever.

I believe Mr. Braddon did not expect to be very kindly received by the then Court.

He had no reason to believe he should by them be made very welcome, and he was so told by many of his Friends, which therefore disswaded him from proceeding. But to such he did generally give such an­swers, viz. That he could not but expect what they did seem to fear would befall him, never­theless it should not deter him; for should none in this case move, the same Bloody Principles that took off that unfortunate Lord, might [Page 77]Poison a second, Stab a third, and Strangle a fourth, &c. of those they then had or should take into Custody, pretending (as they falsly did in this Case) that these unfortunate Gentlemen thus barbarously Murdered, had done it to pre­vent the common Methods of Justice, which their Guilt threatned them with; so that no Man could tell in how many Mens Destruction such their treacherous and bloody Practices would determine; but if once they found that these their dark Designs were suspected, and some of them like to be detected, they might then conclude these clandestine, perfidious, complica­ted Murders (in Person and Reputation) would do them great prejudice (by raising up in all Mankind a general Aversion against those blood-thirsty Men) and therefore they might desist from such barbarous unheard of Measures. And seeing by such Service as this, the Publick would receive far greater Advantage than could be expected by this Gentleman's Li­berty; he was resolved to Sacrifice that, or whatever else he had, for the good of his Generation, to whose Interest he thought any Individual was obliged to offer up his private Advantage or Safety. Neither did he believe this to be any other than what he was taught implicitely, by that Doctrine which obliged him to love an individual Neighbour as himself; and therein taught, that much more than Self-love ought that Love to be, which he did owe to so many Millions of such Individuals. I have often heard this Gentleman (when he first en­gaged) say, That he looked upon the World as an Army, where the bad were still endeavouring the Destruction of their contrary. Now if a General of an Army command a Party of Men to a Post, by the maintaining whereof a certain time, this Party perceive they shall (in all Hu­mane Probability) give Success to their Army; but after their thus maintaining their Post, they shall (in as great probabi­lity) fall Sacrifices to the Fury of their Enemies, neither of this Party (though thus assured they shall every Man fall) ought to desert his Post, because every Individual Soldier, or any particular Party, is obliged to prefer and desire the Success of their whole Army, before their private Preser­vation and Safety. If therefore that Provi­dence, which is the General of all Mankind, should call a Person to that Service wherein he might prove extreamly useful to his Ge­neration, such Service he ought not to desert, though thereby (through the oppression of the Times) he was morally assured he should, in his private Interest and Safety, fall a Sacrifice to the Oppressor; because Self-interest is not to be preferred before the Good of so many Thousands.

May all Their Majesties Soldiers be ever influenced by such Considerations, and their Enemies possessed with, and practice the quite contrary Principles.

Another Argument of the backward­ness (in this case) of the then Government, (and of Bomeny's Guilt in this Murder) is an account which follows, viz. About six Weeks after my Lord's Death, there was a Letter (unsealed) left with one Mr. Cadman, then living in Durham-Exchange; the Letter was directed to the Right Ho­nourable the Countess Dowager of Essex; the Substance of this Letter was, That if her Honour could prevail with the King for the Author's Pardon, he would ingeniously make a full Discovery, how, by whom, and whose order my Lord was Murdered; and this Letter did assure her Honour, that the Duke of York and— were authorizing this Murder. This Letter subscribed— P. B.

Who do you believe to be the Author of this Letter?

By the Hand that writ it, and the Letters subscribed, it was Paul Bomeny be­fore mentioned (who did once Blasphe­mously say, That he could as well tell how my Lord came by his Death, as God Almighty himself) for the Letter was very fairly writ, in a Hand between a Roman and an Italian, and such an Hand Bomeny, when he would write fair, did write; besides, the Letters subscribed, are the Letters of his Name.

Can it be supposed, that Bomeny would write either in his own Hand, or subscribe his own Name, when the Letter, had it [Page 78]been brought in Accusation against him, would have cost him his Life, seeing herein he confessed himself Guilty of the Fact.

I think Bomeny by this Letter, could it have been proved to be his own Writing, was in no danger at all of being punished; for had they hereupon seized Bomeny, they would have catched a Tartar; should they have proceeded against him for this Mur­der, upon this Confession, the World would have believed the whole Contents of this Letter to be true, and consequently that the Duke of York and — authorized (or rather) commanded this most treacherous Murder. And then pray consider what that Government would have got by such a Prosecution, Conviction and Punish­ment?

What was done with this Letter?

This Letter was left with Cadman when he was at his Shop within-side of the Counter, and very sleepy; and when he waked, finding this Letter unsealed, he opened it, and perceiving the Contents to be of that Consequence, he carried the Letter to a Justice of Peace, who did pro­mise to carry this Letter to the Secretary of State; but this Bookseller was never sent for, and examined whom he did suppose to be the Author of this Letter.

By the backwardness of the then Go­vernment, in not examining into this Mat­ter, it's plain they were too well satisfied in the truth of the Contents, which was of such a Nature, as it could not bear an In­quisition, which would have center'd in his Ruine, who was then by Blood and Cruelty, and other illegal Methods, endeavouring the Subversion of our Laws, Liberties and Religion: And this by the removal of some of the Chief of those Noble Lords and Gen­tlemen, who had ever opposed their Arbi­trary and Popish Designs; amongst which this Noble Lord, and my Lord Russel, they did esteem two of the Chief.

Had they been willing this Murder should have been detected and punished, with what Diligence would they have searched out the Author, who desired no other reward, than the Security of his Life; and in order to his Indemnity (if they could not have otherwise found him out) a Pardon would immediately by Proclama­tion have been issued forth, by which the Au­thor would have been assured of his Life; and then, without doubt, according to his promise, would have laid open this bloody Deed of Darkness. Hath this Age ever known, or seen Recorded, any Murder (admit this one) committed within this Kingdom, that hath been (in all Circum­stances considered) of greater Consequence than this? We have seen a reward of 200 l. (as well as a Pardon) by Proclamation offered for the Discovery of those bloody Ruffians, who barbarously Wounded, but designed to have Murdered, that Worthy Gentleman Mr. Arnold; and was there not 500 l. and a Pardon, by Proclamation, promised to him or them that should detect the Murder of Sir Edmund-bury Godfrey? Such means as these would have been likewise in this case used, if such who then misled Charles the Second, and corrupted the State, had not been the deepest in this black Con­trivance.

This Letter, I perceive, mentions some other besides His Highness; Pray, who was else named?

In this I desire your Pardon; but of the Name and Person you may hereafter hear.

Sir, I desire to know nothing but what you are very free to tell.

Some things are not convenient to be spoken of, till a more convenient Season.

I shall press to know nothing which may disserve this Discovery by being di­vulged. What Religion was this Bomeny? I have been informed he was a very good Protestant, and one that my Lord had a great kindness for. It's much this Fellow (if a Protestant) could be prevailed with to connive at so Horrid a piece of Cru­elty.

Bomeny's Religion was (like many other Mens) to be managed and changed in shew, according to his Interest, but [Page 79]cordially I do believe him still a Papist. Whatsoever opinion my Lord might have of this Fellow, as to his Faithfulness, I am very well satisfied this Villain was engaged (before my Lord was brought from his Country-house) in this treacherous Murder; for as my Lord was in the Custody of the Guard, and bringing through Watford, when all my Lord's other Servants, and even the whole Town were in Tears for his Lord­ship's Trouble, this Judas rid smiling, and talking of French with some of the Guards.

In hopes, that within some short time he should receive more for his Perfidious­ness, than his Service might expect in many years: But these Gains were his greatest Loss; for what more ready way (could he have taken) to Destruction (here I don't say, against that he was secure enough, but) hereafter? and what would it profit this Var­let, to gain the World, and lose his own Soul?

As for his Religion, you may conclude it belonged to that Church, whose Gar­ments are dipped in the Blood of the Saints; and that this Fellows Religion was really such (tho in appearance he seemed other­wise); may reasonably be concluded from this Story, of which I have been credibly Informed. The Protestant Minister where Bomeny lived in France, after my Lord's Death, prest Bomeny very earnestly to deal ingeniously in this Case; for the Minister declared, he was very well satisfied my Lord of Essex was Murdered, and he was well as­sured that Bomeny must know it; therefore the Minister protested he was not free that Bomeny should come to Church, much less, be admitted to the Blessed Sacrament, till in this matter he had discharged himself. Bomeny finding himself thus pressed by his Minister, thought it best openly to profess what he was, and the very next day decla­red himself a Papist.

That Priest to whom he should con­fess this Murder, would be so far from en­joyning him a Penance, that he would com­mend this action, as Meritorious.

It was indeed for the Advancement of that Church, (so often drunk with the Blood of the Martyrs, and) the Stones of which Church are Cemented with the Blood of the Saints.

Then this traiterous Varlet, who be­trayed the best of Masters, was only in shew a Protestant, that thereby he might have the better opportunity of serving a Church, which did ever by bloody means advance its Interest.

It's very probable, this vile perfidious Fellow was a constant Spy upon my Lord; but when that Service was to have an end by the Destruction of his Person, then was this barbarous Villain to finish his treachery in being Privy to the most astonishing Piece of complicated Cruelty; and after that, to Crown and Conceal this cursed Butchery, Perjury was to be added, so that this Murder might be laid to my Lord's own Charge, as well to destroy this Honourable Lord's Reputation, as to protect those cruel Miscreants, who had before perfidiously Murdered his Person.

Sir, I am very glad you have thus gi­ven Mr. Bomeny's Character; for I am very well satisfied that an Eminent Doctor (for whom I am sure you have a very great Re­verence) believes quite otherwise of this Fellow; for I have heard the Doctor give this Bomeny a very good Character, (which I do suppose he had only by Information); and by what Relation this fellow did give the Doctor, he was strongly perswaded that my Lord did it himself; tho I am sure no Man would be more readily convinced up­on good Ground, than this Doctor would; neither would any living be more zealous in a just Prosecution, if once he had good Grounds to proceed upon, which I can now soon furnish him with, and Answer those very Objections which so much in­fluenced the Doctor to a disbelief of my Lord's being treacherously Murdered; and one of his Reasons for the Self-murder, was this,

Soon after my Lord's Death, Mr. Bomeny (that treacherous Villain, of whom I cannot think with Patience) gives the Doctor this Account, That his Lord did use to be taken with sudden frenzical Passions, and in particular, with one that Morning just before his Death: For said this vile Judas, As soon as my Lord saw my Lord Russel go to his Tryal, he struck his Breast, and said, himself was the cause of my Lord Russel 's Misery, seeing he had vouched for that Gentleman, whose Treachery would prove my Lord Russel 's Ruin, &c. and hereupon fell al­most Distracted. But I perceive this Story is intirely forg'd. For the Jury here swear, that this very Fellow to them, the next day after my Lord's Death, upon Oath declared, My Lord was as chearful, (and the Night before, eat an hearty a Supper) as he did ever see him in his Life. And gives them no Account of this treacherous Forgery, nor any thing like it; but all in Contradiction to it. This ap­pears by his first Oath.

It's very probable at Mr. Braddon's Tryal, he would have forgot this part of his Lesson, had not the Attorney General (whether out of any ill Design, or accord­ing to Mr. Burton's false Instruction, I know not) put him in mind of this particular; for when Mr. Attorney said, Did you observe your Lord Melancholly, Mr. Bomeny?

Without doubt Mr. Bomeny under­stood what Answer he was to give to this Question.

Yes: And followed not the truth, but (in part, tho very imperfectly) his Instru­ctions. [...]don's [...], p. For Bomeny said, Yes, he was Melan­cholly; but we took no notice of it, for he did use to be so, and we had no reason to suspect any thing more than ordinary.

Observe now how different, or rather contradictory this Answer is to that Rela­tion this perjured Villain gave this Doctor; and both destroyed by that Account, he upon Oath (the vey next day after my Lord's Death) gave the Jury; for he then swore his Lord was very chearful; had the Relation given the Doctor been true, how ready would Bomeny to this Question have given it in answer; and what an Harangue thereupon would my Lord Chief Justice at this Tryal have made?

I am very well satisfied the Doctor will soon be convinced of the falseshood of that Relation, which Bomeny (as before) gave him, when he doth once find that it stands in Opposition to what he hath twice deposed.

Whosoever this Doctor be, of whom you give so good a Character, if he shall pretend to believe the Account Bomeny gave him, when it thus stands in Contradiction to those Relations Bomeny hath twice given upon Oath; he is not deserving of that fair Character, but may justy be suspected as one prejudiced in this Matter against the truth, which maugre all Opponents, will one day (and that speedily) shine through all Clouds of Opposition, which the Malice and Op­pression of some, and Impudence of others, have raised against. But blessed be God, as 'tis the Duty, so it hath been the Practice of this Government to incourage this Prose­cution.

Let the Doctor but reconcile the se­veral Contradictions of Bomeny's Informa­tions given the Coroners Jury, and at Mr. Braddon's Tryal before at large observed, and I will (then reject all other Evidence, and) believe with the Doctor, That my Lord did indeed cut his own Throat; but till then, I must beg this Doctor's Pardon, if in this matter I will not admit of his be­lief, as a Rule for mine.

I do very much wonder that this Re­verend Doctor should in the least be influ­enced by what this Bloody Rascal told him; for that's allowing a Villains being Evidence in his own Case, which no Law will admit in Opposition to what is Sworn. Now, seeing this false Fellow was to lay the Murder at my Lord's Door, or take it up­on himself, either as Privy to it, or Acting in it: I think his [...] ought scarce to be received De bene esse, as the Lawyers term it, that is, to be believed, or disbelie­ved, as upon farther Inquiry it shall seem to deserve Credit.

If all these Contradictions, before ob­serv'd, between Bomeny, Munday and Russel, had appeared to the Coroners Inquest, they ought upon these only to have quitted my Lord from that perfiduous imputation of Self-murther, and laid it at the door of those Treacherous and Cruel Men, who, by their Perjury (which so plainly appeared in these gross Contradictions) villanously and falsly charged his Lordship with it.

In the History of Susanna it's related, That Daniel standing in the midst of the People, said, Are ye such fools, ye sons of Israel, that without examination or knowledge of the truth, ye have condemned a Daughter of Israel? verse the 48th. The People had received the Ac­cusation of the Elders, whose Qualifications gave no small credit to their Evidence; for it's said (verse the 41st) The Assembly believed them as those that were the Elders and Judges of the Land. Nevertheless, Daniel justly con­demned the Assembly, for pronouncing rash Judgment without examination, or know­ledge of the Truth. In this Case an Accu­sation was not to be admitted for truth with­out strict examination of the matter; and such scrutiny was proper, as was a-part, so that one might not hear the relation of the other, and thereby be enabled to agree in their Evidence, which, without doubt, they would, had they been examined together. If the Testimony of these two Elders were to be throughly sifted by a strict, judicious and separate Examination, how much rather the Relation of Bomeny and Russel in this Case? for in that it did not appear (any other ways than by the defence of the Accused) that there was the least malice in the Accusers, or that their Interest, much less their Lives (before the Charge) depended on the truth of the Fact, (for these Elders had suffered nothing by Susanna's Innocence) provided they had not falsly and maliciously testified against her. But here it was plain to every man's understanding, that these two Mens ( Bome­ny's and Russell's) very Lives lay at stake; for most certain it is, That such as were in the Chamber, and kept the Chamber-door, (the Chamber not being above 14 foot square, and no other way in or out) must be either acting in, or privy to this Barbarity, if such it were; for this very reason this Coroner and Jury should have been very inquisitive and scrutinous in their Interrogations, and taken all care possible, that the one should not have heard, or been informed of the Examination of the other; by which they would have found these two in greater in­coherences and contradictions, (if possible) than they are now guilty of.

Indeed, it's a great wonder they did not agree in every particular, considering how fair, or rather favourable, the Coro­ner and Jury were to them.

In the History of Susanna, you find in the Charge, not the least incoherence, be­sides one Contradiction, and that only as to the place where: but,

In this Case, how many, and how no­torious Inchoherences and Contradictions have been observed in several respects? and therefore how much more rational is it to conclude, as the Assembly did in that Case (verse the 61st) That these Witnesses are convicted out of their own mouths, by those many, and those so very notorious oppo­sitions in their Testimonies?

In the Contradictions of these Sinners there is a clear discovery of their Sin, and may they receive the just fruits of this their Treachery, which so plainly appears by the many oppositions in their Relations.

I must confess, I never saw so short an Account thus cramm'd with Contradi­ctions. I do find the common Observation is herein verified, (viz.) The contradiction of Sinners is the discovery of Sin: and, I think, no impartial man, who shall hear these Contradictions, but must be satisfied neither of these spoke true; and he that, through the excess of his Charity, (for these three Villains, or their Master) or his Fol­ly, or rather somewhat of a worse and diffe­rent nature from either, shall in Coffee-Houses, and other publick Places, make it his business to weed out these Contradicti­ons, to reconcile these three Mens Relations in the main, so that my Lord may still be [Page 82]thought a Self-murderer, and yet at the same time object against my Lord's being Murdered from every Colour of incoherence (in case any had happen'd, which I believe there hath not, tho about Sixty in this Case have been Sworn) in the Evidence to prove my Lord's Murder. I say, whosoever ap­pears thus Partial, gives great Cause to be thought and censured as very Corrupt, and one whose Zeal is greater for the chief Au­thor of this Murder, and his bloody Party, than for either Truth or Justice. But to re­turn to this Reverend Doctor, of whom you were speaking.

Can the Doctor think that this Fel­low, who was immediately attending up­on my Lord at the time of his Death, and hath (as before plainly appears by their Contradictions) with two others, forged a Story to transfer their own, and others Guilt upon his Head, whose Throat they barbarously Cut, or permitted to be Cut; I say, How can this Reverend Doctor now give the least dram of Credit to this persi­dious Fellow?

Sir, I do assure you, I shall (as in Ju­stice bound) do the Memory of this Ho­nourable, but unfortunate Lord, what Ju­stice lies within my Power; and in particu­lar, shall endeavour rightly to inform this Learned Doctor with the whole State of the Case; and if once he be convinced, as he can't but be, if he believe what is herein Sworn, and so strongly confirm'd; his be­lief will soon draw many Proselytes. But I do admire Mr. Billingsly, this unfortu­nate Lord's Steward, should seem to disbe­lieve it.

This Gentleman of whom you now speak, hath great reason from what him­self knows, to believe my Lord was Mur­dered.

What Reason in particular, I pray, Sir?

From what Bomeny told this Gentle­man, he might safely draw that Conclusi­on; for Mr. B. the Sunday, or Monday after my Lords Death, asking Bomeny how long my Lord lay Dead, before he was known to be Dead; he declared, above two hours; upon which Mr. Billingsly (as he justly might) was very angry with Bomeny for leaving my Lord so long alone. Now, by comparing this Relation to what was Sworn, he must have found it a point-blank Contradiction; for Russell deposed, it was not half an hour from the time of the Ra­zor's being delivered by Bomeny, to the time of their finding my Lord Dead in his Clo­set; so the one Swore it was not half an hour; and the other said, that it was above two hours (and this declared within two days after the Fact, and so may be supposed to be fresh in his Memory); it's plain, that one of these two was false in his Infor­mation; and seeing these Mens Ralations were to acquit themselves, as well as charge my Lord; it might be reasonably concluded that both were false, and all forged, as it now plainly appears by comparing these Mens Relations (so full of Contradictions) together.

I have Reason to believe, That the Right Honourable the Countess Dowager of Essex hath been extreamly deceived by what this Mr. Billingsly informed her Honour; for I have been told, that this Gentleman pre­tended to the Countess, that the very Night before my Lord's Death, he being with his Lord, his Lordship seemed extreamly disordered in his Mind; and he took the more notice of it, by his commanding him to sit down and drink a Glass of Wine with him, which made Billingsly believe his Lord­ship was somewhat crazed; and therefore he was inclined to think what he was sorry to say, (viz.) That my Lord committed that Violence on himself. If this report be false, Mr. B. ought to vindicate himself, and therein clear his Lord from this Suspicion of being delirious.

Sir, I have little reason to give Credit to what this Steward saith, seeing (as I was informed by one of the Family) he made Oath before my Lord Sunderland, That he did believe my Lord did destroy himself; whether this be true, I know not; but of this I am very well assured, That this Mr. [Page 83] Billingsly (tho he hath got so many thou­sands by this Family) would not in the least engage with Mr. Braddon in this Prosecution; nay, at last, was so far from it, that he did refuse to see Mr. Braddon, pretending that he did believe Mr. Braddon was a Court-Engin, used by the Court, for the further Ruin of that Honourable Family (whose Misfortunes were before greater than could well be born) so that the Court might have a farther op­portunity to Prosecute and Ruin the Survi­vors of his Unfortunate Lord. This was the Substance of this Gentleman's Suggestion.

For this Suggestion, Mr. Billingsly had not the least Colour; and I do believe this he declared only to avoid being thought back­ward in that Prosecution, which the highest degree of both Justice and Gratitude obliged him to engage in. Tho this Mr. Billingsly, by this Honourable Family had well feathered his Nest, his Gratitude was not such, as in Service to (the Memory of his Murdered Lord, and his Honourable Relations then surviving) to hazard any part of the Estate he had got under them; and that he might not be thought ingrateful, he buried his In­gratitude in the Blood of his Lord, by false, disingenuous, and base Insinuations.

If Mr. Braddon was the late Courts Instrument, I am sure he was very ingrate­fully served, to be so violently Prosecuted, unjustly Convicted, and Sentenced to his perpetual Imprisonment; for such would it have been to him, had it not been for this providential Deliverance.

There are a sort of People (ingrate­ful as they are!) that will Sacrifice the Ho­nour of their greatest Benefactors, rather than themselves should be thought ingrate­ful. And of this sort are many, that have been preferred by this Great, but Unfortu­nate Lord; for I have heard of few that were imployed under him, that would heretofore in the least seem to countenance this Prosecution: But I think my self bound (in Justice) to vindicate one (in particular) from being thought ingrateful to the Me­mory of his Murdered Lord. The Gentle­man I now speak of, is one Mr. E. who in the worst of times hath gratefully endea­voured to rescue the Honour of his Lord from falling under this false Imputation of Self-murder; and as I have heard Mr. Brad­don often declare, was very ready to assist him in any thing, when this Murder was first Prosecuted.

Your naming this Honest Gentleman, puts me in mind of one particular, which I have heard him often aver, the Truth whereof I do not doubt, and this Truth seems to destroy that great Objection, That my Lord was afraid he should according, to his (pretended) Guilt be brought to Con­dign Punishment, for the avoiding whereof he laid violent Hands on himself; this was (as before observed) often (in effect) said at my Lord Russell's Tryal, and likewise at se­veral other times. The Story is this, When my Lord Shaftsbury, my Lord Howard, &c. were last Committed, this Gentleman, [...]e of General Conversation (having heard the Court designed likewise to Commit my Lord of Essex and to take off many in form of Law or rather that which they falsely called so); went to his Lordship, and informed him of what he had been told, and humbly submitted it to his Lordship's Judgment, whether it were not proper for some time to withdraw, till the Fury of the Court by time was a little appeased; this Gentleman told his Lordship, He found by the Papists, that they did design to destroy several, and his Lordship being to their Arbitary and Popish Designs, as great and profest an Enemy, as any, he did fear his Lordship might not be safe from their pretended Justice, when within their Power. My Lord hereupon smiled, and said very se­dately, and yet very resolutely, That he would not stir, tho he did expect the Court would proceed very far, not only to the Imprisoning, but against the Lives of many; and if God in his Providence should think fit to suffer him to fall a Sacrifice to the Rage and Malice of the Court, he did hope, and did not doubt, but the World should see that he could dye with as great Re­solution as ever his Father did; for he was ready at all times, and upon all occasions, to lay down his Life for his Country.

This was his Lordships true Chara­cter, and this the Popish faction was well satisfied in, therefore they dar'd not bring him to his Tryal; for should they either by false Witnesses have proved that which re­ally was Treason against him, or by wrest­ing the Law in Bench, Council and Jury, (which were then more led by the Dictates of White-Hall, than the Judgment of West­minster-Hall, in the Case of Treason) have adjudged that Treason, which the Law never made or designed to make so, as they did in the Case of the Honourable Lord Russel, and some others; I say, should they have thus proceeded, his Lordship's Courage in all probability, would have been such in a bold Defence, that his Enemies would have rather lost, than gained by his Death; be­sides, had my Lord been really Guilty of Treason, his Lordship had reason to pre­sume upon the King's Mercy, seeing his Fother sacrificed his Life in that King's Service; wherefore his then Majesty (as is said) declared, He wondred the Earl should destroy himself, seeing he owed him a Life.

If that King was (as my Lord Chief Justice Scroggs told Mr. Coleman) Merciful, even unto a Fault, sure he would have ex­tended Mercy to him, whom in ingratitude he was bound to spare; for his Justice in this case would have render'd him as in­grateful as his Mercy (too often shewed to the greatest Criminals) render'd him in some measure culpable, seeing by his sparing so many, who had more than once Forfeited their Lives to Justice, he gave (or at least some, by their repeated Pre­sumptions, did so construe it) a sort of Im­punity and Encouragement to Vice; for as Solomon observes, Because Justice against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil, Eccl. 8.11.

There is one Objection which I de­signed to have mentioned before, but for­got; it's probable you can give me truer Information in this particular, than I have met with, for I perceive I have been very much misinformed.

In any particular (convenient to be told) I will give you what Information I can.

The Story is this: About five Months since, I was very positively told, that the Right Honourable the Countess Dowager of Essex, desired several Honourable Lords (some of which were of this Committee) and one worthy Gentleman, to meet at her House, where she spoke to them to this Effect: My Lords, I have desired this Favour of your Lordships, in order to my own Vindi­cation, which in Self-justice I think my self bound to do, though I am very sorry for the occasion. My Lords, I do understand I am traduc'd (out of Malice in some, and Indiscretion in others) as a Woman that hath sold the Blood of an Husband; and by a Non-prosecution tacitly consent to his Death. My Lords, It's no pleasure, but a great Grief to me, to say any thing which may seem in the least to re­flect upon the Memory of my Lord; and I could heartily wish there were not this just occasion offered; Just I say, with respect to my self, and to my Honour, much dearer than my Life; for should I suffer my self to lye under this unjust Scandal, without a just Self-vindication, by such my silence, I should make this dishonourable Calumny become currant and credible. My Lords, My Non-prosecucion of my Husband's Death is my Charge; to which I have this to say, That were I well satisfied my Lord's Blood was treacherously spilt, I did deserve this Gen­sure, and there is none could think so bad of me as I should then of my self, for my long silence. (My Lords) The Reasons which makes me disbelieve my Lords being (by others) Mur­dered, are such as I could never hear answered, though I am sure I should readily be convinced, and rejoyce in my Conviction; but till then I should think my self little less than a Murderer, to prosecute any for the shedding of that Blood, from the Guilt whereof (I am sorry) I must, in my opinion, acquit all Men living. My Lords, The Reasons which have thus influenced my Belief, and tied my Hands, I have at large communicated to my Lord Bishop of S. whom I have desired to make them known to your Lord­ships, and your Lordships (being satisfied in my [Page 85]Innocence) will, I am sure, soon rescue me from the vile Slanders of those Tongues, under the lash whereof I have so undeservedly suffered. My Lords, I shall only add this, That if once these Objections are removed, and I become fully satis­fied my Lord was perfidiously Murdered, none living upon the face of the Earth, shall more zealously prosecute the Blood of a murdered Hus­band than I will this, as in Duty and Honour I shall then stand obliged.

And I doubt not but her Honour will zealously Prosecute, as soon as she finds what is here deposed, to prove her Lord treacherously Butchered: Such Evi­dence there is, that nothing can ballance, but the occular Evidence of the Self-murder, and if there be any such, it's strange we should not long since have heard of the Person: But pray proceed.

Upon this, that Learned Bishop, as I have been told, gave a large account, what were the several Inducements that moved the Countess to this Belief; but I could never hear what these Reasons were, but without doubt they were such as had some weight with them, or otherwise they would never have satisfied, not only that Reverend Bishop, but most then present, in the belief of the Self-murder; and so throughly con­vinced Mr. H. who (as I have been told) did second the Bishop, and gave some other Arguments for the same purpose, and seemed concerned, that some of those Honourable Lords appeared to disbelieve the Self-murder.

I could never yet hear, but a very imperfect Account, of what my Lord Bishop said; for the chief reason, as I have been told, his Lordship then gave, was what my Lord of Essex declared just before his Com­mitment, when his Lordship (appearing under some disorder and trouble of mind) said, that it was not any personal concern that made him thus troubled, but it was the thoughts of his Family; for he was much troubled to think what would be­come of them after his death; as for him­self, it was the least of his care, For therein he was resolved what to do; several times over repeating (in a seeming despondency) that expression, As for my self I am resolved what to do — Now admitting this to be true, that the Earl several times repeated that expression, As for my self, I am resolved what to do, is there no other Resolutions but Self-murder to be supposed.

Being spoken with such Despondency, it argues the Resolution was desperate.

It's very natural for love to fear the worst, and to apply such Fears according­ly, now her Honour being startled with these often Repetitions, upon hearing of her Lord's death, might suppose that such had been her Lord's Resolutions, which gave Birth to those repeated Expressions: But whereas it's said, my Lord spoke it in a sort of Despondency, it's probable that her Honour might mistake his Lordship's undaunted Courage (which with a higher assistance, kept him above the fear of what the Power and Malice of his greatest Ene­mies could inflict) for Desparation. This, to me, seems the most likely, considering what his Lordship had before declared, viz. That he did expect the Court would not only Imprison, but take off several; and if it should be his misfortune to fall a Sacrifice for his Country, to the Court Malice and Rage, the World should see he ceuld dye with as great Resolution as ever his Father did, for he was ready at all times, and upon all occasions, to lay down his Life for his Country. This Ho­nourable Lord was not ignorant of the Popish and Arbitrary Designs of the Court, and that there were small hopes of any Re­dress by Parliaments, for such were not suffered to sit when they began to reform our Grievances; and as for the then Judges, they were purely Instruments and Ecchoes to the Corruption of the Court; so that whatsoever Whitehall had resolved upon, as fit to be declared Treason in Westminster­hail, was declared (not properly adjudged) accordingly; not adjudged, I say, for we found many of them more Knave than Fool, and their Interest corrupted their Con­sciences, and these their Tongues, to pro­nounce what their Judgments in the Law [Page 86]could not but be satisfied, was false, and themselves well knew to be corrupt; where­fore only the last remedy remained, in case the Court proceeded, as there was all reason to believe they would, by such Vile, Ille­gal, Arbitrary, Popish and Oppressive Me­thods, to destroy what to every brave true English Spirit is much more valuable than Life (Religion, Liberty and Property I mean.) My Lord of Essex had long stood in a true light, wherein he could plainly see the most secret and ultimate end of the Court; and this made him the more re­solved to joyn with others, such Patriots as himself, in opposition to those Hellish Plots of St. James's (for there indeed lived the true Plotters, which were indu­striously plotting the total Destruction of our Religion and Liberties, when) such true Lovers of their Country, as himself, were designing nothing more than the Pre­servation of our Laws, which the Cor­ruption of the Bench had in Perjury sold to the Oppression of the Court. But this Bargain was never so plainly proclaimed, as in that Never-too-severely-to-be-punish­ed Judgment, which gave (as far as was within the Power of that perjured Bench) such a Dispencing Power to the Crown, under a necessity (of which necessity the Crown was the sole Judge) as by a natural Consequence dissolved all Law, when a Royal Arbitrary Ipse Dixit should so pro­nounce it: Wherefore (as before observed) we held our Laws, and therein our Reli­gion, Lives and Liberties, as these For­sworn, Mercenary Judges did their Places, durante bene placito Regis. Had we in this Lord's days known those Popish and Arbi­trary Court-Secrets (which he plainly saw designed our ruine, but no confiderarion could ever corrupt this Honourable Lord to ingage in those Cursed Cabals) most cer­tainly we should have rescued the Lives of those our best Friends, and not by a corrupt Constructive Treason, have Sacrificed those true Lovers of our Country, for doing of that which we all ought as one Man to have cordially joined in. Had not those brave Patriots, our Church and State Con­fessors, the most Reverend his Grace, and the Reverend six Bishops, met with an Un­corrupt Jury, which were guided by Con­science, (not imposed upon by the Court, but enlightned with the true State of the Case, as most judiciously, and truly Stated by those their Learned Council in the Law); These Seven Champions for our Laws (and there­in for all by them we possess) would most certainly have been offered up by the Bench as Victims of Expiation for that Guilt, which would (in a Court Sense) have robb'd the Crown of its richest Jewel; yea, that Court Philosopher-Stone, (the Dispencing Power) which at pleasure might have turn­ed our Properties, Liberties, yea, Lives, in­to pure Gold; for the Estates we possess, the Liberty we enjoy, and the Lives we live, we have guarded only (next under God) by our Laws, which this Leviathan at once would have swallowed and totally de­stroyed.

When I consider my Lord's declared Resolution of his not stirring, tho then under the like Danger, as in this Case apprehen­ded, and with what Readiness, Courage and Chearfulness, he could lay down his Life for his Country; and likewise, the Know­ledg that he may be supposed to have of their Designs (which those Villains, nine days before his Death declared; ☜ for it's Sworn they then said, The Earl knew so much of their Designs, and was so very Averse to their Interest, that they could ne­ver carry them on, unless his Lordship was taken off, and his Lordship was therefore to be Murdered). I say, when I consider these things, and that the more this Ho­nourable Lord knew of the black Intrigues of the Court, the more so good a Man, and so true a Patriot must be supposed to hate them; I can't but imagine that this brave State-Champion, when he had been once satisfied, that the Court under Colour of Law would have taken him off, had re­solved as to himself, to lay open those Popish Arbitrary-Court Contrivances, and justified that just Design of standing upon their [Page 87]Guard; there was no other way (under God) to defend what was so grosly invaded. Now, tho his Lordship might suppose by dealing thus plainly, he should the more exasperate the Court, so that their Malice would be more inveterately bent in his De­struction; yet, that he declared, he feared not, but was ready, chearfully, to lay down his life in so just a Cause; and should this daring true lover of his Country have thus expired, by his State-Martyr­dom, he would have given such satisfaction in the truth of what he thus couragiously, with his last breath, should have affirmed, as would have raised a general hatred against those Arbitrary and Popish-Court-Resolutions; and this might so suddenly have given another so general a Resur­rection to that just Cause, as would have totally routed those our true and only Ene­mies of both Church and State. Our then Enemies, under colour of Law, were in­dustriously endeavouring the total Subver­sion of our Laws, and whilst in shew they seemed to maintain the Protestant Church, they were secretly contriving its total De­struction, by wresting those very Laws which were chiefly designed as Destructive to Popery, and making them productive of what they were enacted to destroy; for by a malicious and furious Prosecution of all Protestant Dissenters, they did hope to raise so general Animosities between the Con­forming and Non-conforming. Protestants, that they might, through such Division, have an opportunity to fullfil that no­torious Jesuitical Maxim, Divide & Im­pera.

God was pleased not to deliver us, till he had made some sensible of the Dan­ger of that which at a distance they did not so plainly perceive to be hurtful; but Affliction soon made them wise, and con­vinc'd them of their mistake, and then some of them might truly have said of Our Law, what the Psalmist did of the Divine, Before I was afflicted I went astray, [...]al. 119. but now have I kept thy word. The general Danger that threatned all, taught us all, it was our Interest, as well as Duty, to joyn with that (falsly called Late K [...] James's Procla [...] tion. N [...] unnatural Invasion) which in tender compassion, was undertaken by our present Sovereign, to rescue us from our Mr. [...] corde [...] Speech [...] the Pri [...] of Ora [...] true Invaders.

Can any imagine, that my Lord's de­claring, As for himself, he was resolved what to do, could give rise to those many reports in such several and far distant places of the Kingdom?

But, which is more plain, I have been informed, his Lordship should, in some cases, justifie Self-murder, and particularly that Action of the Earl of Northumberland, who Pistol'd himself in the Tower.

As for those Judicious Divines which have been reported to be the men to whom the Earl should justify Self-murther (in some Cases) some of these have declared, That they never heard any man more strenuously argue against it, (as what was unjustifiable un­der any consideration) than my Lord hath done. Nay farther, I have been credibly told, That when my Lord was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, an Eminent Citizen of Dublin cut his own Throat; and his Excellency then declaared, that Citizen ought to be found Non-Composmentis; for it was his Opinion, That no man in his senses did ever cut his own Throat: But a stronger Argu­ment to me is, what is before at large ob­served of Major Hawley's suggesting Self­murther (for the avoiding a dishonourable and infamous Death) to be my Lord's fixed Principle; ☜ and yet this Gentleman now de­nies not only this suggestion, but likewise declared, That he never heard it said to be my Lord's Principle, till their Lordships in this Committee charged him with it. Hawley's Sug­gestion to the Jury, I do not doubt, for it's positively sworn against him; but the fal­sity of the thing suggested is plain from Hawley's now denying it: and that this Sto­ry had its rise from the same Malice that contrived his Lordship's Destruction. For had this Principle been true, How readily would Hawley have justified it, as of what he had been credibly informed? and how serviceable might he have thought it to prove the Self-murther? But this Gentleman [Page 88]being conscious where this pretended Prin­ciple was hatched, ☞ and what villanous use he himself (according to Instruction and Order) made of it to the Jury; thought it not safe to justify either his Suggestion, or his having so much as heard it, before my Lord's death, to be his Lordship's Prin­ciple: for should he have been forc'd to produce (to him) the Authors of this (pre­tended) Principle, it would too plainly have appeared, that these his Authors were the Forgers of the Story. But I will for the present admit, what I am well assured you can't credibly prove, That before my Lord's death, his Lordship had declared, that Self­murther (in some Cases) was lawful; it doth not from thence inevitably follow, that his Lord­ship therefore must cut his own Throat; for some have justified the Principle, that never thought fit to put it in practice. I will, for Argument sake, admit yet farther, That Hawley's suggested Principle was true (viz.) That the Earl of Essex declared he would destroy himself, rather than be brought to a dishonourable and infamous Death; can it be thought, that from this general Resolu­tion (wherein no particular manner of death is declared) all those several previous Re­ports, before observed, should rise? for (to borrow almost the very words of an Inge­nious Author upon this Occasion; Though they were vented by several persons, yet they not only agreed in the matter of the Earl of Essex 's Death; but they accorded also in the way, and manner of it, and place where, namely, that he cut his Throat in the Tower: which plainly shews, that it was not vulgar Tattle, vented at random, but had its foundation in a pre­vious and fixed Resolution, that he should undergo that unhappy Fate, both as to man­ner and place; nothing but a determinate Cause can produce a steddy and determinate Effect: Had the Report taken its rise in the Jealousies of his Friends, or owed its breath to the fearful Apprehensions of the Com­mon People, they would have rather dream­ed of his being poisoned, as being more safe for the Actors to perpetrate, and requiring the accession of fewer hands, than have ever imagined that his Throat should be cut. It's impossible to conceive, that the Reports of so many several Persons should not only agree in the matter of his Death, but all harmonize and center in the very Circum­stances and manner of it, and Place where, unless it had originally proceeded from such as had contrived and determined both the Murther it self, and the way wherein it should be committed, and the Place where it should be done. For when Reports have their foundation only in Mens Fancies, they will always vary according to the different Tempers, Passions, and Complexions of the Reporters; how could so many Persons, and at such distances from one another, and betwixt whom there was never any corre­spondence, agree and combine together to impose upon the World, and to abuse the Faith of Mankind? and as they all seem to be Persons who abhor Tricks, and who would not be guilty of spreading, much less of raising a false Report; so it is beyond the Wit of Man, to declare, how it should come to the Interest of Gentlewomen, Ci­tizens, and Countrey Tradesmen, to be the Authors of such a Story, that my Lord of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower before it was done, or before knowledge of his Im­prisonment in the Tower could arrive at some of these Places, where it was so reported. But that not only the how, and where, as to my Lord's Death, should be the same in all those Reporters; but the very wherefore, two days before his Death, be given, for the ha­ving cut his Throat; and the very same wherefore that the Papists publickly gave out, and industriously spread just after my Lord's Death: this proves, beyond all doubt, ☜ that the Matter was so particularly agreed upon by the Papists, and this Reason by them re­solved to be given out just after my Lord's Death; it's plain to all, but those that wink hard, that this pretended Reason must be hammered out of the Popish Forge. For this Reason carried in it what none but the most secret in this Hellish Contrivance could before my Lord's Death give out; for observe, the Reason declares, That the [Page 89]Earl of Essex being Prisoner in the Tower, the King and Duke came into the Tower to see the Tower, of which the Earl having notice, he was immediately afraid the King would have come up into his Chamber, and seen him, &c. Now I would willingly know who, besides the most intimately knowing in this matter, could give information two days (viz.) the Wednesday Morning at An­dover) before my Lord's death, that the Earl of Essex would cut his Throat in the Tower when the King and Duke were there, because the King should not see him; the King and Duke's being there was unexpe­cted, and a surprize to all, but to the Men of Secrecy in this Murther, because their being there together was so very rare, that it happened but once in twenty five years. But of this I have already spoken; and also how this so particular a Report, as to the Manner, Place, and Reason, became thus reported in the Countrey so long before my Lord's Death.

Was you ever credibly told that his Lordship said he was resolved to destroy himself?

No, I never heard that credibly re­ported.

Or, which is more plain and particu­lar, Did his Lordship (before his Imprison­ment) say, that he was resolved to cut his Throat in the Tower, when the King and Duke should come into the Tower to see him, which his guilt and shame could not bear the thoughts of?

Certainly my Lord could neither fore­see, nor expect that the King and Duke should come into the Tower, whilst he was Prisoner there.

But you find it depos'd, That before my Lord's Death, (viz.) the Wednesday at Andover: As to his Death, The manner how, the place where, and the reason wherefore, are assigned: Now had my Lord so particularly declared his Resolution (in which, by the way, as to the King and Duke's being in the Tower, he must have prophesied what could not be expected) then it had been possible, that this, and those several Reports proved by eight Witnesses more (far distant from, and al­together strangers to each other all center­ing in the same manner how, and the place where) might have arisen from this Reso­lution of his Lordship so particularly de­clared.

It may be, my Lord having heard the Papists had resolved to cut his Throat, was afraid they would (the more to tor­ment him) not do it like themselves, but botchingly (as they cut Mr. Arnold's) and therefore that it might be done at a jerk, and all perfectly finish'd at a stroak, he was resolved to do it himself, and did it effe­ctually; for though the Blade of the Razor without the Hand, was not two Inches and a half, he made a Wound about three Inches and half deep (and therein did what by o­thers was Mathematically impossible to be done) and whereas, before that Accident, it was the Opinion of Doctors and Chyrurge­ons, that none could cut through both Ju­gular Arteries to the Neck-bone on both sides the Neck, his Lordship was resolved to give the World demonstration of their mistake; and after all, his Lordship stopt the Orifice from giving issue to such a quantity of Blood and Spirits, as would naturally have instantly killed him; and out of malice to the living, that others might be charged with his Death, threw the Razor out of the Window, and then sent the Maid down for it; which having received from her, he re­tired to his Closet, lockt himself in, and quietly laid himself down, and the Razor by him, and then gave free passage to that Blood, and those Spirits, which he thus miraculously kept so long in.

But to be serious, for this is a Case of grave, yea, very doleful Consideration; did you ever hear all those Reasons the Bishop then gave?

No, but I could wish I had; only this further Reason I think was given, (viz.) what the Steward said concerning my Lord's desiring him to sit down, and drink a glass of Wine with him the Night before his Death.

That I do totally disbelieve for the Reasons before mention'd.

But whereas you say Mr. H. did second my Lord Bishop, I do assure you I did hear that Ingenious Gentleman declare the contrary; and (as a Gentleman told me) desired one to vindicate him from that Re­port, which he did totally deny.

What was then said by the Lords of the Committe after my Lord Bishop had given the Countess's Reasons of her Si­lence?

I have been told (how true it is, I can­not say) that the Right Honourable the Earl of D. spake to the Countess to this effect; Madam, The belief, or disbelief of a fact, nei­ther destroys the Existence, nor alters the Nature of the Fact; and we who are to proceed, not accord­ing to private Opinion, but legal Evidence, have taken the Depositions of many Witnesses in this Case; and unless many of these be villanously perjur'd, (which as yet we have no reason to believe) my Lord must have been most barbe­rously murthered.

Had the Countess, or the Bishop, be­fore this, seen what was sworn?

I suppose neither of these had either seen, or been informed what was depos'd to prove this Murther; neither could they then have heard what hath in this Case been depos'd, because many Depositions have been since taken before the Lords, and, since their Lordships Committee was dissolved, before several Justices of the Peace.

I cannot but believe, that if the Countess once knew what you have now at large related, her Opinion would soon be changed, and her Zeal in this prosecution would be as great as could be expected from a Lady of her Honour and Quality: and as for my Lord Bishop, I am sure none would be more easily convinced upon such grounds as these, neither would any more zealously ingage in this Prosecution.

Of this I doubt not; for no Man can have a greater veneration for this Reverend Father in God, than my self; and I think this happy Revolution is (under God, and His Majesty) not a little indebted to the Inge­nuous and Indefatigable Pen of this Judici­ous and Learned Bishop.

The next Discouragement I shall men­tion, was the strict Injunction, with Threats, laid upon many of the Soldiers to be secret in this matter.

J. B. and his Wife, further declare, That the very next day after my Lord of Essex 's Death, the aforesaid R. M. told these Infor­mants, how that very morning their Officer cal­led several Soldiers together, and under very severe penalties enjoined them not to speak one word of what they had either seen or heard with relation to the Death of the Earl of Essex, and therefore the said M. desired these Informants not to speak one word of what he had informed them (with relation thereunto) the day before, lest it being discovered, he should be severely punished for speaking any thing of this matter.

With what a degree of Impudence was this treacherous Cruelty stifled!

R. the Soldier before-mentioned, that very day my Lord was murthered, decla­with very great earnestness, That the Duke of York had so barefac'd ordered the matter, that he did believe no man was safe that was not for their Interest, so soon as they began thus (in effect) openly to order cutting of Throats. This R. did further protest, That his Blood did so boil with indignation against this most Villanous and Barbarous Murther, that could he have got those that would have stood by him, he would have shot the chief Author dead upon the spot.

Altho' this Author did escape the just Indignation of this brave Soldier, yet that Omnipotent Arm (which seldom fails of punishing Blood, even in this World, thus treacherously spilt) in vengeance hath pursu'd him, and (without doubt) the Hell within is ten times worse than the trouble without him; for tho' the Spirit of a man may bear his Infirmities, a wounded Spirit none can bear: and certainly a Conscience of flint must be deeply wounded with those self­reflections which so great Guilt must natu­rally beget.

But what is become of these two ho­nest Soldiers.

As for M. not long after the Earl's Death, he told B. and his Wife, and one D. That he had fallen out with one of the War­ders about the said Earl's Death, and the War­der had not courage to fight him; but he did verily believe, and much fear, that he should be basely murthered for what he had spoke con­cerning the said Earl's Murther, and that very day he did much dread he should be destroy'd: wherefore he did desire B. or D. to keep him company that day; but they fearing themselves might be in danger by being in his company, and having work to do, which they were obliged to finish, they both refu­sed it, and the next morning they heard the said M. was found dead in the Tower-Ditch just over against Major Webster's House.

Surely Blood upon Blood must force down Vengeance from Heaven; but what became of R?

All the account can be had of him, is this, That not long after the Earl's Death, he was drawn out of the Tower, and sent beyond Seas to the East-Indies, and there, at some fort, shot to death, but upon what account we can­not learn. I fear several other Soldiers have been murthered, to prevent the discovery of this unheard of piece of Villany; for, as I was not long since discoursing in a Coffee-House, concerning this M's being murthered; A Gentleman told me, That by his Neigh­bour's Shop-door there stopt three Soldiers a little after M's death; and one looking very melancholly, said, He did fear he should be murthered (as poor M. was) for speaking somewhat which he knew about the Earl's Death; for he did observe himself dog'd several days by two men (which he did suppose were Irish-men;) and this Soldier did then desire those his two Fellow-soldiers to take notice of what he had told them; and if he were missing, and could not be found, they should conclude that he was murthered for this very reason.

Did this Shop-keeper know either of those Soldiers.

No; nor did he think it safe to make any inquiry into the matter, lest he should fall under such misfortune as had befallen others for medling herein; you can't but find most men are for observing that Maxim Foelix quem faciant, &c. Happy is he whom other mens harms do make to beware.

Certainly these things must hasten Vengeance. If that Soldier, who was in this danger, be now living, he may with safe­ty (and I am sure it's his duty) appear, and discover what he knows; or (if with o­thers) he be treacherously murthered, it were well those his two Fellow-soldiers would testify what that poor Soldier had informed them; this in Justice they are bound to do, and there is no danger in do­ing it; such as now do refuse to testify their knowledge in the Matter, consent to the Blood of the Slain, and one day must expect to answer it.

Hawley the Warder intimately ac­quainted with Major Hawley, (at whose House my Lord was murthered) was found dead in the Medways, about April next after my Lords death, (having been murthered in a most barbarous manner). This Hawley was supposed to be taken off to prevent the dis­covery of what he knew in this matter; for a little after Mr. Hawley was missing, (viz.) about a month before he was found dead, a Warder then in the Tower (supposed to be a Papist) told Mr. A. S. (who had long lain under the pressure of the then misgovernment and then there a Prisoner, without any Evi­dence to justify the Commitment) That Hawley was run away for prating somewhat a­bout the Earl of Essex; but how he ran away, a short time discovered.

This Hawley was in Westminster-hall when Mr. Bradden was upon his Tryal; and said, He much wondered upon what Mr. Braddon should stir in this thing, when, ☜ to his Knowledg, Mr. Braddon knew nothing. A Gentleman, then present, who knew Mr. Hawley looked on this Expression, as what argued Mr. Hawley not a stranger to the matter; wherefore this Gentleman imme­diately said, Mr. Hawley, if you know Mr. Braddon knows nothing of this matter, what must you then know? upon which Mr. Hawley seemed surprized (having too far expressed himself) and made no Reply.

I have been informed by a Warder in the Tower, that this Mr. Hawley, the Warder, as soon as he heard the News of the Earl's Death, immediately declared it was a damn'd piece of Roguery throughout.

This Mr. Hawley was very rich, and a Warder only to exempt him from Parish Services; but he never waited, unless it were on very solemn Occasions; and that very day my Lord dy'd, he was waiting, and (as declared by several) was one of the Warders that attended on the Person of the Duke of York, whilst he was in the Tower, that morning the Earl dy'd.

If so, he might well observe the Duke's sending the two men to the Earl's Lodg­ings just before his Death; and their return to his Highness, as Mr. E. deposeth; and M. and R. declared, with several other Pas­sages, which might to him discover that barbarous Murther; and then he had cause enough to say, it was a damn'd piece of Roguery all over.

Good God, deliver us from such bloody-minded men!

Several Reports were as industriously as maliciously spread about Town when Mr. Hawley was first miss'd; some to in­fluence people to believe, that this Mr. Haw­ley, through discontent with his Wife, was very melancholly, and had declared, 'twas better to make away with himself, than live such a vexatious life with so turbulent a spi­rited a Woman; but in this they most gros­ly abused them both; for no Woman could shew greater respect to a Husband, nor any Husband be more kind to a Wife. Another Report was, That Mr. Hawley had often de­clared, He did really believe, if a man with­drew from his Relations, and Friends, for half a year (and suffered none who knew him to know where he was; but to possess all men by such his conce aled absence that he was indeed dead) and then to appear in a surprize amongst his Relations, this great surprize would be as pleasing to the Per­son that withdrew, as it would be astonish­ing to his Friends; and therefore it was (pretended to be) believed by some, that Mr. Hawley had privately withdrawn under this Consideration; but six Weeks discover­ed his Person, and time may likewise detect those Bloody and Barbarous Men that mur­thered him. They were so very cruel in this Murther, that his Face was so changed through violence, that it could not be known to be his; and there was nothing that did more (if any thing did besides) discover the Body to be his, than his having three Stock­ings upon one Leg, and two Stockings and a Seer-cloath upon the other: as for his Cloathes, they were stript off, and nothing but Stockins and Shooes remaining on when the Body was found.

Certainly that God who requires Blood for Blood (and who by this ordered the Dis­coveries of the Person) will in his great Wis­dom and Justice, by some means or other, (of which His Wisdom is never to seek in the choice, or His Power in the use) disco­ver these Instruments of Cruelty, that in this Life they may receive their just Reward, which is for the most part (though some­times after many years) duly paid towards such vile Offenders.

Besides this addition of Blood, other vio­lent Methods were used to prevent a disco­very, by punishing such Soldiers as seemed to disbelieve (upon very good grounds) my Lord's Self-murther; this appears by this Information following: viz.

Richard Jorden declareth, That (sometime that Summer the Earl of Essex dyed, and not long after the said Earl's Death) he saw a Sol­dier ty'd to the Wooden Horse in the Tower (by order of Lieutenant-Collonel Nichols) and whipt after a very cruel manner. And this Depo­nent heard the said Lieutenant-Collonel tell the Soldier he ought to be hanged. This De­ponent further declareth, That he was just af­ter informed by the Marshal, that whipt the said Soldier, That by order of Lieutenant-Collonel Ni­chols, he gave the said Soldier 53 Stripes (tho' the usual number was but 12;) and that the said Soldier had lain a fortnight before in close custody, and been fed only with Bread and Wa­ther; and all only for the Offence following (viz.) [Page 93] Some short time after the Death of the late Earl of Essex, a Divine Dr. H. of Norfolk, Prebend of Nor­wich. coming into the Tower, the said Soldier was sent with him to shew him the Tower; and as the Doctor was almost over a­gainst Major Hawley's, the Doctor asked the said Soldier, which was the Chamber wherein the late Earl of Essex did cut his Throat? whereupon the said Soldier (pointing to the Chamber in which the Earl had been Prisoner) declared; That is the Chamber in which it's said the Earl of Essex cut his Throat; The Doctor then asked the Soldier, what he did believe? to which the Soldier answered, That he did believe in God; but being prest by the said Doctor to tell him, whether he did believe my Lord cut his Throat; the said Solder then replied, He would not say he did believe it; for which only say­ing, the Punishment aforesaid was inflicted.

Such Extravagant Punishments upon so slight Grounds, was enough to deter all o­ther Solders from discovering what they knew; for if this Soldier, for only declaring he would not say he did believe my Lord did cut his Throat, was thus barbarously whipt, what must such Soldiers expect, as should have asserted, my Lord was by others murthered; and gave their Reasons for such belief, by telling what they saw, and heard, with rela­tion to this Perfidious and Cruel Murther; most certain, this would have met with (if possible) worse whipping than Doctor Oates ever suffered, or been punished by some pri­vate Stab, or other destruction, to avoid the Matter's being brought upon the publick Stage.

I do remember Meake is said to have declared, the day after my Lord's Murther, that many Soldiers were enjoined to secrecy. It were well if these would, according to their duty, appear, and declare what they know, and by whom they were thus basely com­manded to be secret; for this Officer could not but believe, That whoever gave him Orders to lay that Injunction, was pri­vy to the Murther, and therefore this Offi­cer was grosly Criminal in being this Instru­ment to stifle the detection; and most cer­tainly are those Soldiers Criminal, which shall not now appear, and judicially declare what they know to be true, so that Justice may have its due course against those most barbarous and vile Offenders. For if the time of this bare-faced Cruelty against such Sol­diers that knew any thing of this matter, and revealed it, was a time of silence; most cer­tain, now the Government joins in the Pro­secution, is the time to speak; and whoso­ever refuses now to speak, becomes not a little Criminal in such his silence.

I have been informed, the Father of William Edwards was turned out of his Place for what his Son had said.

That the Father was turned out about nine days after Mr. Braddon's Tryal, is very true, and this done by special Order, under King Charles the Second's own Hand, with­out any cause shown, or any reason to be guessed at, any other than his Son's Of­fence.

I do remember at Mr. Braddon's Tryal, Mr. Wallop (whose Courage and Zeal for the Liberty of the Subject, hath been Noto­rious in the most dangerous times) did suggest, that the Father thought himself in danger of losing his place, from what his Son had declared. Whereupon my Lord Chief Justice Jefferies, very sharply reproved Mr. Wallop, for reflecting (in this) upon the Government, as though the Father should be punished for the Son's speaking what he knew. If the suggesting the danger of the Place was a Reflection upon the Govern­ment, most certainly the Government did strongly reflect upon its self, in turning Old Edwards out, and giving no reason for such Dismission; which made him con­clude, and all the World believe, that the Father was turned out only for his Son's Relation.

The old Jewish unjust Proverb was here inverted, for The Son had eaten sower Grapes, and the Father's Teeth were set on edge; so that this Transgression (in its pu­nishment) did directly ascend, and the Fa­ther answered for the Son's Iniquity or rather for what the then Government falsly called so.

I think every Man's own Trans­gression is enough for him to bear.

I shall conclude all, with what after my Lord's Death passed, as to Webster and Holmes, which seems to confirm the Truth of their Guilt in this Matter. I shall begin with Webster.

The very day of my Lord's Death, Webster brought home to his House my Lord's Pocket-handkerchief all Bloody, and shaked It, seeming extreamly overjoyed, saying, There was the Blood of a Traytor; and the very next day, pulls out of his Pocket a Purse of Guineas, and in great Joy shaked it; one of his Neighbours told the Gold, and found there was 49 Guineas, and a French Pistole.

I doubr not but he had a much greater reward for so remarkable Service.

That without doubt; for this Fellow (which was Under-Baily of the Tower-Liberty) immediately puts himself into a Garb much above his Quality, with his Fringe Gloves, either all Gold, or part Gold and part Silk, and all other things an­swerable thereunto; and being thus flush with both Gold and Silver, he frequents the Gaming Ordinaries; but his Cloaths, and the quantity of Gold and Silver he then brought, surprized the Company which knew him, and all admired at the sudden Change; for he who before used to play hardly for 10 s. at a Sitting, would now throw at ten times so much at a Main; but his Fortune was so very bad, that it's generally believed he lost at Gaming above 400 l. in fix Months time next after my Lord's Death: All that knew this Fellow, admired how he came thus supplied with Money, most believed he had used the Pad, for all that were acquainted with him, were satisfied his Principles would act in any thing for his Interest.

By what this Fellow gamed away, it's plain the first fifty Guineas was but a small part of his Hire in this Treacherous and Bloody Tragedy; but it seems his Ex­travagancy lost what his Villany got by this unheard of piece of Cruelty: So that the old Proverb was herein verified, Ill got ill spent.

This Fellow, by such his Extrava­gancy in fine Cloaths, keeping his Gelding, Gaming, Whoring, and almost all that is ill, reduced himself in less than a Twelve­month, to his former Poverty; so that one of his Wives Relations was upbraiding her with her Husband's necessity: The Wife replied, Her Husband not long before was not so poor, for he had 500 Guinea's: At which the Relation being surprized, told her, It was impossible for him to have such a Sum by honest means, for his Ale-house, and being undor-Baily, could hardly get him Bread. But his Wife pretended his Trade got it.

What Trade, Gaming?

No, she mentioned nothing of Gaming, but his Ale-house-keeping. But that ap­pears to be false, for before my Lord's Death, he could not, out of his Trade, pay his Brewer, but owed him a very consi­derable Sum, 30 Guinea's whereof he paid just after my Lord's Death; and the Brewer admired how he came to pay him all in Gold; but since he hath heard how it's suspected this Money was procured. It seems what Money the Wife received for Beer, this Fellow (without having any re­gard to the Payment of his Brewer) would take from her, and spend in ill Courses; and if his Wife refused to give him what she had, he would abuse her, not in words only, but Blows, which made his Wife one time tell him, That he was a Fool, as well as a Rogue, to use her so ill, when he knew it was within her power to hang him, and one in the Tower; once naming (as I have been informed) Major Hawley for the Man in the Tower.

This Woman was mistaken, for it was not within her Power to touch the Hair of this Fellows Head by her discovery of this Matter, as long as this Villain stood guarded with so great a Protection, as both the Interest and Life of the Chief Contri­vers, whose Power then was such, that had this Woman charged her Husband or Hawley with being concerned herein, [Page 95]her Accusation would without doubt re­dound to her Ruine, and she would have been most barbarously used for declaring this high and dangerous Truth: And of this Safe-guard this Bloody Villain being well assured, he feared not what his Wife or any else could charge him with.

If this Woman had a true sense of things, she could not but know it's her duty to discover this Matter, in the Conceal­ment whereof, the Duty to her Husband can never excuse her.

But this loose Fellow long since turned away that Wife, pretending she was never married to him, but that she got another Whore to dress her self up in Man's Appa­rel, and go to Dukes-place, there personating him, and so in appearance married.

If such a thing was, then this was by contrivance between this Whore and Rogue, so that they might live in shew Man and Wife, which if any should deny, there was a Certificate ready to be pro­duced. But I am inclined to think they were really Married, for it's improbable this Trick should Cheat the Parson.

Your saying that the Relation of a Wife, will not justifie the Concealment of a Murder by the Husband, puts me in mind of a very remarkable Story of that kind, and the Relation is this; A certain Gentle­man being Melancholly, Peevish and ill-natur'd, carried himself very ill-humour'd towards his Wife, (a very fine virtuous Lady) many times beating her, though she behaved her self, in all respects, as a Woman of very great Vertue and Observance towards her Husband, and endea­voured what she could to conceal her Husband's Cruelty towards her; but the Matter was so Notorious, that her ill usage could not be kept so secret, but that many of her Neighbours knew it to be too true; amongst the rest, a certain Gentleman extreamly pitied this unfortunate Lady, for whom (though he kept it unknown from the Lady) this Gentleman had a very great kindness, and hoped he might Marry her when her Husband died, of which there had been a long expectancy, the Husband being very Consumptive: But his Disease out-lived this Gen­tleman's Patience; wherefore he was resolved to Murder the Husband (that he might Marry the Wife) yet this kept so very private from the knowledge of the Wife, that nothing was far­ther from her thoughts, than such Treachery (for this Gentleman, and her Husband, in shew, were intimate Friends.) This Bloody Man, one day walking with the Husband, nigh a very large deep Pond, endeavoured to throw him in; and as he was about it, the Husband told him, That some of those very Ducks then in the Pond, should detect that perfidious Mur­der he was about to commit: To which the other replied, He would venture that, and so threw him in, where he was drowned; but being well known to be extreamly Melancholly, it was generally believed, that in some Melan­cholly Distraction (to which he had been subject) he threw himself into the Pond, and there drowned himself. This was generally believed, and none seemed in the least to doubt the truth­of it. Some time after the Husband's Death, this Murderer Courts the Widow, and Marries her, after which they lived very happy toge­ther for some considerable time; at length, one night as some Ducks were roasting at the Fire, the Husband, looking on the Ducks, burst out into a great Laughter; the Wife desired to know at what he laughed; to which he an­swered, At somewhat of which the sight of the Ducks put him in mind; the Wife desired him to tell what that was; but he pray'd her to excuse him, for he would not tell. The more averse he was to reveal it, the more desirous she seemed of knowing, but the Husband would not then discover it to her: That night as they were together in Bed, the Wife did again renew her former request, in which being very impor­tunate, the Husband (after he had solemnly enjoyned her to Secrecy) gave her a particular account of the Murder of her Husband, which in substance you have before heard. The Wise was hereupon extreamly concerned, though in words seemed then not much to resent it, but the next Morning she repaired to some judicious Friend (and notwithstanding her promise of Secrecy, she could not be quiet in her mind till she had revealed it) and desired advice there­upon; to which she was answered, That if she [Page 96]concealed the Murder, she thereby consented to it; and though her first Husband was very cruel, and this as kind, the first Husband's Blood, thus treacherously spilt, cry'd for Vengeance, in which she would most certainly partake, if she did not discover her Husband's Confession, wherein there seemed to be a very remarkable Providence. The Wife objected the nearness of the Relation, and the promise of Secrecy, but to both these she was answered, That there is no Relation so dear as Justice, and no Promise, contrary to the Rules thereof, ought to be made, [...]r kept if made, for that is not so properly being Faithful, as being a Confederate; for Faithfulness, being considered as a Virtue, it's consequently to be exercised only in things Just and Honest; for in other Matters it is not pro­perly (morally speaking) called Fidelity, but a Criminal Concealment. The Wife being thus perswaded, repairs to the Magistrate, who forth­with orders the Husband to be seized, who as soon as apprehended, confessed the whole Matter, and was deservedly executed.

I think the Wife, in this case, must be in a very great strait, for the Tempta­tion to Secrecy could not but be very strong; but I find in the Old Law, 13. &c. That if the Wife, or the nearest Relation in Blood, or a Friend which was as his own Soul, did but so much as secretly intice to Idolatry, the Relation or Friendship in this case, was to be no Impediment to the Discovery, Pro­secution and Punishment; for the Person thus inticed, was not to pity, spare or conceal his Relation or Friend, but was positively commanded to Kill him; his Hand was first to be upon him, and then the Hand of all the People. Now most certainly such a Villainous and Treacherous Murder, attended with such Aggravations, must be most Odious in the sight of God, whose first express Law did positively Enact, That whoso sheddeth mans blood, [...] 6. by man shall his blood be shed; the reason whereof follows, for in the image of God made he man.

In my opinion this Wife did what she ought to have done; for though it may well be supposed, that there was a strong Conflict between her Affection towards her Husband (especially when the best, in Suc­cession to the worst) and her duty to Justice; yet it's most certain the latter ought to have the ascendant; for whosoever loves Husband or Wife, Father or Mother, Bro­ther or Sister, more than what is Just, Righteous and Good (for that is the meaning of, more than me) at the last day most assuredly shall be rejected by him who hath positively enjoyned us to hate all those Rela­tions for his sake and the Gospels, or (which is the same) for our Duties-sake, consi­dered as Christians. But how much higher Aggravations do attend the unparallel'd Murder of this Honourable, though unfor­tunate Peer?

I shall now say but one thing more, with relation to Webster, and that is this; When Webster was before the Honourable Committee, Mr. Braddon desired [...] of their Lordships leave to ask Webster one question; which being granted, Mr. Braddon demanded of Webster, Whether the next day after my Lord's Death, he did not produce to such a man a Purse of Gold, about 49 Guinea's, and a Pistole. Webster denied it; Mr. Brad­don desired him to recollect himself, and be positive; Webster declared, He was positive he did not, nor to his remembrance in his Life ever shewed that man any Gold, much less so great a Sum. Mr. Braddon perceiving some of their Lordships seemed angry, the que­stion was put so plain, after Webster had withdrawn, Mr. Braddon informed their Lordships, That Webster (as he had been told) was a sort of a hanger on at Gaming­houses (where he could play but for little, being very poor) and should this fellow understand it was positively sworn against him, that he did produce such Gold, in all probability he would forge somewhat in answer to it and it was not unlikely, but he might pretend that those Guinea's he had won at Gaming, and was overjoy'd at being so rich: with this his Invention (upon deliberation) might furnish him, in which his presence of mind under Guilt, could not be so ready; but if hereafter he should so pretend, it would plainly appear to be false, having so positively denied it to their Lordships; when, [Page 97]had it been true, it would have immediately oc­cured to his mind, and as readily he would given it in answer.

Doth not Webster still deny the produ­cing any Gold?

No; but pretends the Gold he shew­ed Osborne, was what he had won at Ga­ming.

That Sham can't now take, against his positive denial before their Lordships.

I shall lastly speak of Holmes, and then conclude. It seems Holmes and his Wife of­ten quarrelled, and sometimes Holmes would beat her. One day, as he was Abusing her, she was heard to say, He was a Murderous Rogue; and she told him, That he could not but remember that she could hang him when she pleased: To which Holmes answered, That he little thought she would have spoken of it, who of all the World had the least reason. For said this scurrilous Follow, You Bitch, you Whore, don't you remember, that I bought you a good Sattin Gown and Petticoat, and therefore you above all the World ought not to prate: To which she replied, He was a Murderous Rogue for all that.

By the falling out of Murderers, Mur­der is many times detected; a very notori­ous Instance of which, I have often heard related, which was as followeth: A Water­man and his Servant in the Night, carrying a Gentleman down the River, whom they percei­ved to have a great Charge about him, these perfidious Villains by Signs, concluded to throw this Gentleman Over-board, which they did ac­cordingly, and so drowned him, and then shared the Spoil; soon after which, they both lived much beyond their former Circumstances, at which all that knew them, admired; but none but themselves knew the reason, till many years after, when these two being Drunk, and at Play, fell out about their Game, and they were then over-heard to accuse one the other, in this matter, the Master the Man, and the Man the Master, as the most Criminal. Upon which they were both Seized, and they then Confessed the whole Matter, each endeavouring to aggravate the Guilt of the other, in Mitigation of his own. But they were both thought deserving of Death for their cruel Treachery, and were Executed accor­dingly.

Had we not already been too trouble­some to you in this particular and satisfa­ctory Relation, I should beg one favour further.

Your further Satisfaction in this Mat­ter may command from me whatsoever is convenient to be told, and beyond that, I desire you not to move me.

More than you have already decla­red, I don't now desire to know; but I perceive there have been very many Per­sons in this Case, Sworn to many Particu­lars, so that the Relation of the whole Mat­ter hath been long, but to me not tedious, because I have received full Satisfaction in that, wherein before I was extreamly Abused by Misinformation. Sir, If it may not be too tiresome to you, I would desire you to Abstract the most material Proofs before mentioned, and give us, as short as you well can, the substance of what is before de­posed.

In this I shall readily serve you, but I shall not observe the very same Method as before, but shall begin with the Disproof of my Lord's Self-murder, by destroying those forged Informations which would prove him so; and Secondly, shall prove him barbarously Murdered.

First, For the disproof of the Self-mur­der.

The Right Honourable Arthur late Earl of Essex, was Committed to the Tower, Tues­day the 10th of July, 1683. and there were placed over his Lordship two Warders, (viz.) Monday and Russel, and one Servant, (viz.) Paul Bomeny, permitted to be attend­ing on my Lord; the very next Friday morning, about Nine of the Clock, his Lordship was found Dead in his Closet, with his Throat cut through both Jugular Arteries, to the Neck-bone.

Now, seeing our Law presumes every Man destroyed by violent Hands, is Mur­dered by others, unless such Evidence ap­pears as gives Satisfaction in the contrary, [Page 98]and proves him a Self-murderer. This Lord had been found barbarously Murdered, had not Bomeny, Monday, and Russel, appeared to prove otherwise; and they endeavour to prove it (shortly) thus.

My Lord of Essex (they say) called for a Pen-knife to pare his Nails, which Pen-knife not being ready, he required a Razor, which was accordingly delivered him, with which his Lordship having pared his Nails, he retired into his Closet, and locks himself in, and there cut his Throat; the Razor (before delivered to pare his Nails) lying by the Body.

But that this Relation is forged, and that there was, First, no Razor delivered to my Lord to pare his Nails, nor had his Lord­ship pared his Nails with any.

Secondly, Neither the Body locked into the Closet: Nor,

Thirdly, The Razor lying locked in by the Body, when my Lord was first know to be Dead, is evident from what follows, which clearly detects this Forgery. For the first of these, that there was no Razor delivered to my Lord.

This appears by the Contradictions of Bomeny, Russel and Monday, as to the time of the delivery of this Razor; for Bomeny first Swears, he delivered this Razor to my Lord to pare his Nails on Friday morning at eight of the Clock; and within two hours, posi­tively swears in the Deposition himself writ, that he delivered it on Thursday morning, at Eight of the Clock (being the day before his Death); and this as to the Thursday, he swears Positively and Circumstantially; Positively, for he doth expressly name Thursday, as the day on which the Razor was delivered; and Circumstantially, for he doth swear the Razor was delivered the ve­ry next Morning after my Lord came to Captain Hawley's; and his Lordship went to Hawley, on Wednesday the 11th of July. But

Russel Swears a Point-blank Contradi­ction to Bomeny's Oath; for Russel deposeth, and now declares, That on Friday Morning, in less than half an hour before they found my Lord Dead in his Closet, he stood as Warder at my Lord's Chamber-door, ( Mon­day, that Morning having first stood as War­der on my Lord, and was then gone down to stand below Stairs) and heard my Lord ask Bomeny for a Pen-knife to pare his Nails; which being not ready, his Lordship requi­red a Razor, which he did immediately see Bomeny deliver his Lordship. But

Monday doth as directly give the lye to Russel, as Russel did to Bomeny; for Monday the day may Lord dy'd, declared, he saw my Lord have a Razor in his Hand, paring his Nails with it, at Seven a Clock that Morn­ing my Lord died, and this about two hours before Russel came up, to stand as Warder at my Lord's Chamber-door.

Wherefore, unless it can be reconciled how this Razor should be delivered Thursday Morning at Eight of the Clock, according to Bomeny's Oath; and yet not delivered till Friday Morning Nine of the Clock, within half an hour of the time his Lordship was found Dead, and delivered whilst Russel stood Warder at the Chamber-door, as Russel deposeth; and notwithstanding this, my Lord to have had the Razor, and pared his Nails with it, two hours before Russel came up Stairs to stand Warder at my Lord's Cham­ber, as Monday declared, the very day my Lord died. I say, Unless these Contradicti­ons can be reconciled, it can't be thought that any Razor at all was delivered: And then, whereas all declared my Lord pared his Nails with the Razor; by strict Obser­vation, it appeared his Lordship's Nails were not newly, before his Death, either pared or scraped.

Secondly, That the Closet-door was not locked upon my Lord's Body, appears by the Contradictions of these three, as to the opening the Closet-door.

Bomeny first swore, He did open the Door, (when my Lord would not answer upon his knocking at the Door) and there saw my Lord lying Dead in his Blood, and the Razor by him, and he then called the [Page 99]Warders; but immediately swears in Con­tradiction to his first Oath, that he peeped through a Chink of the Door, and saw Blood and part of the Razor, and then without opening the Door, ran and called Russel, who thereupon first opened the Door: And at Mr. Braddon's Tryal, Swears he knew not who opened the Door.

Russel deposeth he did first open the Door, and makes no difficulty in it; then comes Monday, and gives the lye to both: For

Monday (the very day my Lord died) declared (what he hath since often confirm'd) That neither Bomeny or Russel could stir the Door, my Lord's Body lay so close and hard against the Door; and he being stronger than either, put his Shoulders against the Door, and pressing with all his might, broke it open.

Whosoever there is, that can reconcile these Contradictions (in these three Mens Relations) and make all appear credible, ‘— Erit mihi Magnus Apollo.’

A further Argument, That the Closet­door was not locked upon the Body, appears by my Lord's Legs lying upon the Threshold of the Closet-door, when the Body was pre­tended not to have been stired from its first Posture.

Thirdly, That there was no Razor lying locked in with the Body, when the Body was first found, appears by the bloody Razor's being thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window, (which is about seventeen Foot di­stant from the Closet-door, where the Body lay) and no noise of my Lord's Death, till after the Maid carried up the Razor, which Maid thereupon first discovered my Lord's Death.

And, as yet other Arguments of the Per­jury of these perfidious Villains, add the Mathematical Impossibility of the Wound, seeing not above two Inches of the Razor must be without my Lord's Hand, (had he done it himself) and yet the Wound above three Inches deep. Moreover, by many Eminent Doctors and Chyrurgions, the Wound is thought to be naturally Impossi­ble to have been done by my Lord himself, because upon cutting the first Jugular Artery, such an Effusion of Blood and Spirit would have immediately thereupon followed, that Nature would not have been strong enough for to cut through the other Jugular Arte­ry, to the Neck-bone on the other side; much less, to make so many, and so large Notches in the Razor against the Neck-bone, as an old Foolish or K — Chyrurgion sug­gested to the Coroncis Jury.

Wherefore by what is before observed, as to the many Contradictions, it plainly appears, that these three (as it is said in the History of Susanna, Verse 61.) are convicted of false Relations by their own Mouths; and those other Arguments before observed, are further Detections of these three Men's Perjuries. It then remains as at first, (viz.) That here is a Body found Dead by violent Hands, and the manner of the Death not discovered, (for it can't be, according to these three Mens Relations, for the Reasons be­fore observed). The Conclusion that the Law makes in such Cases, in this therefore holds good, (viz.) That this Honourable Lord was Murdered by the violent and cruel Hands of barbarous and bloody minded Men.

Secondly, For the Proof of the Murder. In this I shall first consider what is most mate­rial, which passed before my Lord's Death.

Secondly, The day of his Death. And then

Thirdly and Lastly, After the day of his Death The

First, Before my Lord's Death. I shall consider,

First, The previous Resolutions by Pa­pists to cut my Lord's Throat. And then,

Secondly, The many previous Reports be­fore my Lord's Death, that his Lordship had cut his Throat in the Tower.

For the first of these, D. S. declares, That about nine Days before the Death of the late Earl of Essex, she heard several Papists consul­ting together, concerning the said Earl: And [Page 100]this Informant heard them say, the Earl of Essex was to be taken off, and that they had been with His Highness, and His Highness was first for Poysoning the Earl; but that manner of Death being objected against; it was then said, one did propose to His Highness, Stabbing the Earl; but this way His Highness did not like: at length His Highness concluded, and ordered his Throat to be cut, and His Highness had pro­mised to be there when it was done. Some few days after, some of the aforesaid Persons declared, It was resolved the Earl's Throat should be cut, but they would give it out, that he had done it himself; and if any should deny it, they would take them, and punish them for it.

Secondly, For the previous Reports before my Lord's Death.

It's proved by eight several Witnesses, That before the Earl's Death, (or before it could be known) it was Reported, That the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower; amongst the rest, it was at Froome, which is about an hundred Miles from London, the Wednesday Morning; and at the same time, at Andover, about Sixty Miles from London, tho at neither of these Places, especially the former, could it then be known, that the Earl was a Prisoner in the Tower, his Lordship being not committed to the Tower, till the Tuesday in the After­noon. All these Reports agreed in the man­ner How, (viz.) cutting his Throat, and the place Where, (viz.) the Tower; and (which is further) at Andover, the Wednesday Morning before my Lord's Death, it was reported, not only in the manner How, and place Where, but likewise the pretend­ded Reason Wherefore, was given; for it was then, and there said, That the Earl of Essex being a Prisoner in the Tower, and un­derstanding, that the K. and Duke were come into the Tower, his Lordship was afraid the K. would have come up into his Chamber, and seen him; of which his Lordship's Guilt and Shame would not bear the thoughts, and therefore he did cut his Throat to avoid it. This being declared two days before my Lord's Death, when it could not have been in the least fore-thought, that the King and Duke would have come together into the Tower, where they had not been above twice together since the Restoration. I say, This previous Report, which so particular­ly cloathed this Action with the how, where, and wherefore, clearly proves, That all things were so resolved upon to be done, or otherwise it is impossible it should have been reported under these three Essential Qualifications, as to Manner, Place, and Rea­son, before it was indeed done, especially at Andover, where it could not then be sup­posed to be known that my Lord was so much as a Prisoner in the Tower; this Rea­son the Papists themselves gave out just after my Lord's Death.

Secondly, What passed the day my Lord died.

These then attending on my Lord, (viz.) Russel and Monday, the Warders; Bomeny the Servant, and Lloyd the Centinel at the Door, did all deny that day my Lord died, that there were [...] any Men let into my Lord's Lodgings that Morning, before my Lord's Death. But it now appears, That there were some Ruffians, a little before my Lords Death, sent into his Lodgings to Murder him, which they did accord­ingly.

R. M. a Soldier in the Tower, that Morn­ing my Lord of Essex was Murdered; about one of the Clock, that very day, nigh Aldgate, told B. and his Wife, That the Earl of Essex did not cut his own Throat, but was barbarously Murdered by his Royal Highness's Order: For the said Meake declared, That just before the Earl's Murder, His Highness sent two Men to the Earl's Lodgings to Murder him, which after they had done, they threw the Razor out of the Win­dow. Likewise, a Soldier that Morning in the Tower, about Eleven of the Clock, that very Morning my Lord died, in Baldwins Gardens, informed G. and H. That the Earl of Essex did not cut his own Throat, but was barbarously Murdered by his Royal Highness's own Order. For the said R. then declared, That a [Page 101]little before the Earls Murder, his Royal High­ness parted a little way from His Majesty, and then two Men were sent into the Earls Lodgings, to Murder my Lord; which when they had done, they did again return to his Highness.

Mr. E. declares, That he saw his Royal Highness, just before the Earl's Death, part a little from his Majesty, and then beckoned to two Gentlemen to come to him, who came according­ly; His Highness thereupon sent them towards the Earl of Essex 's Lodgings, and about a quarter of an hour after, this Informant saw these very two Men return to His Highness, and as they came, they smiled; and to the best of this Informant's hearing, and remembrance, said, The Business was done; upon which His Highness seemed very well pleased, and then went to His Majesty, to whom the news was immediately brought, That the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat.

Lloyd, the Centinel at my Lord's Door the day my Lord dyed (till the 21st of January last) did deny the letting in of any men, (and Russel and Monday still deny it) but now Lloyd doth confess, That just before my Lord's Death, two or three Men, by Major Hawley's special Order, were let in, and im­mediately he heard them (as he did suppose they were) go up stairs into my Lord's Room, where there was a very great bustle and stir, so great, that this Centinel decla­red, he would have forced after them, had not the first Door been made fast; upon the bustle, he heard somewhat thrown down like the fall of a Man, which he did suppose was my Lord's Body; soon after which, it was cryed out, My Lord of Essex hath out his Throat. Here is not only these mens going in, but a great bustle confessed immediately thereupon to ensue in my Lord's Room, and the Body of a Man in this bustle to be thrown down; this is in a Close Prisoner's Room, where no one is admitted, but his Servant; and those that kept the Door de­ny'd upon Oath that any were in my Lord's Chamber that Morning my Lord died, be­fore his death. But these Warders being supposed privy to the Fact, would not own the admitting of those Men, which them­selves let in with such a murtherous Design; and it is to be presumed, that this Centinel was not a stranger to the matter, but en­joined to secrecy; for otherwise he would never have declared to a Friend, under a repeated request of secrecy, that this Con­fession (as before) laid upon his Conscience, and troubled him night and day; for tho' it was indeed very true, that he did let in these Men, it was what he should not have confessed. This Confirmation to his Ac­quaintance (under a great and repeated in­junction of secrecy) argues, first, That this Confession was indeed true. And

Secondly, That there is some cursed Confederacy (it's probable by Oath) entred into to stifle this Murther; for what other probable Reason can be assigned for that trouble of Conscience in this Confession, ☜ seeing himself at the same declared it was true, tho' he should not have said it? There are some other Arguments that this Senti­nel was particeps Crimines in the Privity; first, his Retraction in part of what he did confess: for, upon his being first appre­hended, he owned the throwing out of the Razor before my Lord's death was known; but he now retracts, and disowns it. Ano­ther Instance of his Privity is his now pre­varicating, in his now pretending that these men were let in an hour, or more, before my Lord's death; whereas, at first, he de­clared they were let in immediately before my Lord's death; for, as soon as let in, he heard several go up stairs into my Lord's Room, and heard the bustle, &c. as before. A third Argument of this Centinel's Privity, is his not declaring the whole Truth, which he must know; for one at a greater distance, that saw these Russians as they were bustling with my Lord, and heard the bustle, did likewise hear one of these in the bustle (as it seemed to be) and therefore presumed to be my Lord, cry out very loud, and very dole­fully, Murther, murther, murther. The Cen­tinel who could hear the trampling, or in­deed the very walking in my Lord's Cham­ber, could not but hear this Murther, so loud and often repeated. It appears by five [Page 102]Cuts in my Lord's Right Hand (viz.) two upon his Fore-finger, ☞ one upon upon the Fourth Finger, another on the Little Fin­ge, and the fifth about two Inches long in the Palm of his Right Hand; that his Lord­ship in this bustle made great resistance, for these Cuts can be supposed to be done no otherwise, than by endeavouring to put off the Cruel Instrument of his Death.

The next thing that I should observe, which happened the day my Lord dy'd, and gives us reason to believe the Murther, is the Irregularities committed upon the Body, before the Jury saw the Body; the Body was stript and washed, and the Room and Clo­set washed, and my Lord's Cloathes car­ried away (tho' all men know the Body should have remained in its first posture till the Coroner's Jury had seen the Body.) Sir T. R. (as himself saith) declared to the Lords, That the Body was not stirred from its first po­sture till the next morning about Ten of the Clock; to this Sir Thomas hath not sworn (for he was not sworn before the Lords) and its well he hath not, ☞ for herein he is so much mistaken, that the contrary can be proved by almost twenty Witnesses. Had the Body remained in its first posture, by my Lord's Cravat's being cut in three parts, the Jury would have plainly seen, that his Lordship could not so do it with the Razor; and then secondly, they would have per­ceived the print of a bloody Foot upon my Lord, ☞ as he lay in the Closet, by which it appeared some one had been with the Body in the Closet; and several other Material Circumstances might have been discovered, which by the total (illegal) alteration of the Circumstances of the Body, &c. were destroyed.

About Three of the Clock in the After­noon, that day my Lord died, some of those bloody Men (who had been at the Consult) met at Homes's House, and one of them leaped about the Room, as overjoyed; and as the Master of the House came into the Room, he strikes him upon the Back, and cry'd, the Feat was done, or, we have done the Feat; upon which the Master said, is the Earls Throat cut? to which the other replied, Yes; and farther said, he could not but laugh to think how like a Fool the Earl of Essex looked when they came to cut his Throat.

To destroy the Testimony of this D. S. Homes hath produced Two Witnesses, who (by many Witnesses) appear to be forsworn in every part of their Depositions. His De­fence being false, his Charge therefore may be concluded true.

Thirdly, and Lastly, What past after the day of my Lord's Death.

That very Morning several Soldiers (which were presumed able to discover what was material, with relation to my Lord's Death) were called together (as M. then said) and enjoined to secrecy under very severe Penalties.

About Ten of the Clock in the Morning, the next day after my Lord's Death, the Jury met, and were surprized to see all the Circumstances of my Lord's Body changed from what was first discovered.

After the Jury had seen the Naked Body at Hawleys, the Coroner adjourned them to a Victualling-House in the Tower, when one of the Jury demanded a sight of the Cloathes; but the Coroner was immediate­ly called into the next Room, from which returning to the Jury in some heat, he told them, It was the Body, and not the Cloathes, they were to sit upon; the Body was there, and that was sufficient.

One of the Jury then said, My Lord of Essex was esteemed a very Sober, Sedate and Good Man (which Bomeny then confirmed, saying, His Lord was a very Pious Man) and therefore it was improbable so Good a Man should be Guilty of the worst of Actions. Upon which M. Hawley told the Jury, They were misinformed in my Lord's Character, for every Man that was well acquainted with my Lord, well knew, that it had ever been a sixed Prin­ciple in my Lord, that any Man might cut his Throat, or any otherwise dispose of his Life, to avoid a dishonourable and infamous Death; wherefore this Action which they thought un­like his Lordship, was according to my Lord's [Page 103]avowed and fixed Principles. This made the Jury the more easie believe, that my Lord had indeed done it.

Some of the Jury were for Adjourning their Inquisition to some further day, and in the mean time to send notice to the Earl's Relations, so that if any thing appeared on my Lord's behalf, it might be pro­duced. Hawley, hereupon, assured the Jury, That they could not adjourn their Inquiry, for His Majesty had sent one for their Inquisition, and would not rise from Council till it was brought him. This the Jury believing, immediately made all haste possible, where­as otherwise they might have been more strict and particular in their Examinations. Hawley, ☞ in answer to this, totally denies all, and protests that he was not nigh the Jury in the Victualling-house all the time the Jury sate, though most of the Jury can say the contrary; and as for the suggesting Self-murder to be my Lord's Principle, he did protest he did never hear it said to be my Lord's Principle, till their Lordships in this Committee told him it had been so declared. ☞ This clearly proves, that the pretended Principle of Self-murder, was a Forgery of that Bloody Party which mur­dered my Lord, and Hawley pitched upon as the most proper Person to corrupt the Jury with the belief of it.

The backwardness of the then Government from examining into this Matter, and their unjust Proceedings against the Prosecution, (for they Discouraged, Prosecuted, and Ru­ined him who did humbly offer the Matter to a Judicial Consideration, though no Crime or Colour of Offence was proved against him) is farther Evidence of this Murther.

The Government turned the Old Edwards out of his place, for what his Son said in this Matter, and hereby inverted the old Proverb, For here the Son's eating Sower Grapes, had set the Father's Teeth on edge.

A poor Soldier was barbarously Whipt (after he had been cruelly managed in Prison) for only saying, That he would not say, he did believe the Earl of Essex cut his own Throat: But a more barbarous Cruelty is justly suspected to have been committed, in the After-murther of several ( viz. of Meake and Hawley, &c.) to prevent a De­tection of this.

Though the Government heretofore had received private Intimations, and in Print publick Applications for a Pardon, and thereupon a Promise of a full Discovery; and in both these the Duke of York parti­cularly charged, as the chief Contriver of this Horrid Cruelty, yet the then Govern­ment would never permit such an Inquisi­tion to be made, but punished those that dispersed those publick Challenges. Had His Highness been really Innocent, none would have been more Zealous for such a Proclamation of Pardon, For Innocence de­sires a Tryal, and it's only Guilt that flies from Justice. Another Argument of this Murder, and likewise of Major Webster's Guilt there­in, is Webster's producing my Lord's Pocket­handkerchief all Bloody to some of his Neighbours, rejoycing at the Blood of a Traytor; and the very next day, to some of the same Persons, he produced part of the Price of Blood, viz. a Purse of Gold, wherein there was 49 Guinea's and a Pistole, which he shewed in great Ostentation; but all this was but a small part of that Vil­lainous Reward; for some time after my Lord's Death, when his Wife was upbraided with her Husband's Poverty, she replied, Her Husband long since was not so poor, for he had 500 Guinea's; at which the other being startled, answered, most certainly he could not come by them Honestly: To which it was said, That he got them by his Trade: But to that it was replied, That his Trade could hardly get Bread: Therefore there must be some other way.

The Wife might speak truth, for his Trade, viz. Murther, in which it is sup­posed he hath been more than once con­cerned, might get it, which Trade the Wife might mean, though the other mis­understood her.

That his Wife was not a Stranger to his Guilt, appears by her often telling him (upon her hard usage) That he was a Fool [Page 104]as well as a Rogue, to use her so very ill, with­in whose power he well knew it was, to Hang both him and another in the Tower. Another Instance of this kind there happened, when Homes and his Wife (some time after my Lord's Death) quarrelled; Homes abusing her, she told him, He was a murderous Rogue, and he must well know that she could at any time hang him for it. To which Homes an­swered [with his usual Scurrilous Lan­guage) You Bitch, you Whore, you of all the World have no reason to speak, for do not you remember I bought you a good Sattin Gown and Petticoat: Whereupon the Wife replied, You are a murdering Rogue for all that.

When Thieves fall out, Honest Men know what is become of their Goods.

We not this Woman of a loose Character, and bigotted to that Bloody Re­ligion, which in such Cases esteem Murder Meritorious; this Gown would have been a constant Memento of that Blood, for the Concealment whereof, this Garment (in part) was given.

Sir, I have, as briefly as I well could, complied with your request, and I hope you are now convinced of your former Mistake.

I do assure you I am, and I give you many thanks for this great Satisfaction, and I shall endeavour, what in me lies, to rescue the Memory of this Right Honourable Lord, from that dishonourable, undeserved Im­putation of Self-murder, by laying the Guilt at that door which seems most deserving; and though herein I may displease some of my most intimate Acquaintance, yet I think in Justice I stand bound to unde­ceive many of their mistake in this Self-mur­der: Especially when these, through what I have declared, have been deceived in this Matter; and whatsoever my former opi­nion may have been, through Misinfor­mation, it is now such, that none living shall more cordially Pray, That the God of Justice, who hath so many times remarkably appeared in the Detection and Punishment of Blood, may eminently manifest himself — in the full Discovery and just Punishment of all Con­trivers, Actors, Aiders and Abettors herein; and likewise that all Concealers of what they know in this matter, and all such as endeavour to stifle or frustrate this Just Prosecution, may be made exemplary in this World; in order to which, may that only Just and Wise God (whose are every good and perfect Gift) pour down upon our Senators, such a Spirit of Wisdom, as may conspicuously detect every Arcana of this Blood-thirsty and most barbarous Murder, with all its vile and astonishing Dependences.

Amen.