Master Glyn's REPLY TO THE Earl OF STRAFFORDS DEFENCE OF The several Articles objected against him by the House of COMMONS.  
Published by special direction, out of an authentic Copy.  
LONDON, Printed for Lawrence Chapman, Anno 1641.   

Master Glynss Reply to the Earl of STRAFFORDS Defence.  
My Lord of Strafford having concluded the recapitulation of his evidence, Mr. Glyn applied himself to their Lordships in manner following.  
MAy it please your Lordships, my Lord of Strafford (as your Lordships have observed,) hath spent a great deal of time in his evidence, and in his course of answering hath inverted the order of the Articles; He hath spent some time, likewise, in defending the Articles not objected against him, wherein he hath made a good answer, if in any: we shall presume to withdraw a while, and rest upon your lordship's patience; and I doubt not but to represent my Lord of Strafford as cunning in his answer, as he is subtle in his practice.  
The Committee withdrawing for about the space of half an hour, and then returning to the bar, Mr. Glyn proceeded as followeth.  
My Lords, your Lordships have observed how the Earl of Strafford hath been accused by the Commons of England of high Treason, for a purpose and design to subvert the fundamental laws of both the kingdoms, of England and Ireland, and to introduce an Arbitrary, and tyrannical government: The Commons have exhibited Articles in maintenance of that charge: My Lord of Strafford hath thereunto answered in writing. The Commons have proceeded to make good their charge by proof, and thereunto my Lord of Strafford hath made his defence; and this day my Lord of Strafford hath taken upon him to recollect his evidence, and make his observation upon it, the most he could to his advantage.  
My Lords, we that are entrusted for the house of Commons, stand here to recollect the evidence on our part, and to apply it to the general charge, and how far it conduces thereunto.  
My Lord of Strafford in recollecting the evidence of his defence, as I did mention before, hath (under favour) expressed very much subtlety, and that in divers particulars, which I shall represent to your Lordships.  
My Lords, before I enter upon the recollection of the proofs produced on the behalf of the Commons, I shall make some observations, and give some answer to that recollection of his; though very disorderly to the method I propounded to myself.  
And first, in general, it will appear to your Lordships, (looking upon your notes, and observing his recollection) that he hath used the repetition of evidence on both sides, in such manner as you know who useth Scripture; that is, to cite as much as makes for his purpose, & leave out the rest. And likewise, that in repetition of the evidence, he hat● misrecited, plainly, very much of the proofs on both sides, & likewise hath pretended some proofs to be for his defence, which indeed were not: and he hath taken this farther advantage; when it makes for his defence, he hath disjointed the proofs, and testimonies, and severed them asunder, that it might appear to your Lordships, like rain falling in drops, which considered in distinct drops bring no horror, or seeming inconvenience with them; but when they are gathered together into an entire body, they make an Inundation, and cover the face of the earth. He would not have your Lordships look on those Testimonies together, but distinctly, and asunder, which being put together look horrid, as will appear to your Lo. when you duly consider of them.  
These be the general observations, which in my Answer I doubt not but to make good: But before I shall enter into observations of what he hath spoken, I shall answer in general to some things which he hath in general alleged.  
In the first place, he hath made a flourish this day, and several other days in the way of his defence, That if he could have had longer time, he could have made things appear clearer, and have produced more proofs. Give me leave to inform your Lordships that he is no way straightened of time, for he hath been charged above three months' since▪ he knew what was laid to his charge, and therefore his pretence of want of time, and of his disabilities to make better proofs, are but flourishes. And it appears plainly, whatsoever he hath had occasion to make use of, even the least paper, though he fetched it from Ireland, there is not one wanting; he hath copies of papers from the council Table, from the Parliament of Ireland, and all that may any way tend to his justification, and yet he stands upon that flourish, that if he had had time he could have made it more clear.  
My Lords, he hath mentioned often this day, and oftener the days before, that many of the Articles laid to his charge are proved but by one witness; and thereupon he takes the advantage of the Statute of E. 6. that says, A man ought not to be condemned for high Treason without two witnesses. My Lords, this is a fallacy known to his own breast, I doubt not, and not taught him by any of his council, or others learned.  
The Treason laid to his charge, is, the subverting of the laws; the evidence is, the Articles proved: and though some one Article appears to be proved but by one, yet put the evidence together, you shall never find it to be within the words or meaning of the Statute; for the charge is proved by a hundred witnesses: and because one part of the evidence is proved only by one witness, since, when you put them together, you will find a hundred witnesses, it is not within the words nor meaning of the Statute, neither will his council direct him to say so, I am confident.  
My Lords, another observation I shall be bold to make, is, that he was pleased to cast an aspersion (as we must apprehend) upon them that be trusted by the house of Commons this day, That we that stand here, alleged and affirmed things to be proved, that are not proved: he might have pleased to have spared that language; we stand here to justify ourselves, that we do not use to express any language, but what our hearts and consciences tells us is true; and howsoever he is pleased to cast it upon us, I am confident I shall invert it upon himself, and make it appear, that he hath been this day guilty, in the highest degree, of what he most unjustly layeth to our charge.  
And now my Lords to enter upon the particulars, he hath been pleased to make it his general theme to day (though he hath not spoke much to day but what he hath spoken formerly) that these particulars considered by themselves make not a Treason, and therefore put together he wonders how they should make a Treason: Several misdemeanours can never make a murder, and several murders can never make a Treason; and he wonders it should be otherwise in this case. My Lords he did instance it (if my memory fails me not) in a case of Felony; That if a bloody knife should be produced in the hand of the party suspected to have slain the man, if the party had been there seen before the death, it were a strong evidence; but there must be death in the case, the fact must be committed, else there can be no murder: but he himself might answer himself, for there is a great difference: There cannot be murder but there must be death, but he knows very well there may be Treason and yet no death; it is too late to forbear questioning Treason for killing the King, till the King be killed: God forbid we should stay in that case, for the very intention is the Treason, and it is the intention of the death of the Law that is in question, and it had been too late to call him to question to answer with his life for the death of the Law, if the Law had been killed, for there had been no Law then; and how should the Law then have adjudged it Treason, when the same were subverted and destroyed? and therefore he is much mistaken.  
The greatest traitor, in the memory of any that sits here to hear me this day, had a better, a fairer excuse in this particular than my Lord of Strafford, and that is Guido Faux; for he might have objected, that the taking of the Cellar, the laying of the Powder under the Parliament House, the kindling of the match, and putting it near, are not so much as a misdemeanour, if you look no further; for it was no offence in him to lay Barrels under the Parliament House, and to kindle the match, and to lay it near; but collect all together, that it was eâ intentione to blow up the King and the State, there is the Treason: but God be blessed it was not effected; So that the rule is the same. Nay, my Lord of Strafford hath not so much to say, when he is charged with a purpose and intention to subvert the Law; for to that purpose gave he traitorous counsels, and executed actions, thereby discovering his intentions to destroy the kingdom, and to destroy the King's claim by Law, and descent. It is true, they were not put in execution, but they declared his intentions; therefore this gives an answer to his first flourish, which is not so great an Argument as the greatest traitor might use for himself, and yet it proved Treason in him.  
My Lords, he hath been pleased to divide his Treasons into two parts, and his division I allow of; that is, Treason by Statute-Law, as he terms it, though it be Treason by the Common-Law; and constructive Treason: And upon that method he hath recited the evidence produced on either part; Give me leave to follow and trace him a little, and afterwards to discharge my duty in taking my own course, and representing the evidence as it appears, truly; and I will avoid (as much as I can) to fall into my Lord of Straffords error, in misreciting a Particle; if I do, it shall be against my will.  
He begins with the fifteenth Article, and pretends that that is not proved; the ground and foundation of that Article was a warrant issued out by himself to a Sergeant at arms, one Savill, which gave directions and power to that sergeant to lay soldiers on any person that should contemn the process of the council▪ board in Ireland; that was the effect: Now (Says he) this warrant is not produced, and adds, that the Judges will tell your Lordships, that if a man be charged with any thing under hand and seal, the deed must be produced and proved, or else no credit is to be given to it. truly, my Lords, it is true, if it had been a Bond, or a Deed, where those that seal it use to call their neighbours to testify, and be witnesses to it, perhaps it might be a colourable answer, that because we do not produce the Deed, and prove it by witnesses, you can therefore give no credit to it: But, my Lords, in case of authority to commit high treason, I suppose my Lord of Strafford, nor any other did call witnesses to prove the signing, sealing and delivering of the warrant for execution of high treason; and therefore it is a new way and invention found out by his Lordship, for aught I see, to commit high treason, and to give authority for it; and it is but taking away the original warrant, and he shall never be touched for any treason. But I beseech your lordship's patience, till I come to open that Article, and your Lordships will find the warrant, (though it be not produced,) proved by three or four witnesses, and his hand & seal proved too. And whereas he pretends the Sergeant at arms is no competent witness, because he excuses himself; my Lord mistakes himself, for I take it to be no excuse to prove a warrant from any person whatsoever, if it be to commit high treason: and therefore savil testimony is the more strong, being so far from excusing, that he doth accuse himself: And though he is charged with laying of soldiers upon the King's people, contrary to an express▪ Act of Parliament made in 18. H. 6. yet my Lord is pleased (I know not how to term it, whether it be merrily, or otherwise) to use his rhetoric, Here is a great levying of war, when there is not above four musketeers, or six at most, laid upon any one man.  
My Lords, it is a plain levying of war, and without all question, and in all sense, it is as much mischievous to me to be surprised by four or six musketeers, to enforce me to any thing they would have, as if there were an Army of forty thousand brought upon me; for if that strength will but over master me, it is all one to me whether I be mastered by four, or by four thousand. And therefore let not this be a rule, that to send four, or six, or ten musketeers up and down is not considerable, because of the smallness of the number (the danger is the same;) yet this is no levying of war, because they go not in troops of greater number, as it pleases my Lord of Strafford to affirm.  
My Lords, your Lordships remember what the effect of the Warrant is sworn to be, that howsoever the Sergeant at arms, and his Ministers that executed it, brought but four, or six, or ten, yet the Sergeant might have brought all the Army of Ireland, for there was authority so to do.  
And admitting the matter of fact proved, he mentions an Act of Parliament made 11. Eliz. whereby a penalty is laid upon men that shall lay soldiers on the King's subjects, and yet (as my Lord observes) it must now be Treason in the Deputy.  
My Lords, the very casting of an eye upon that Act, shows it to be as vainly objected, as if he had said nothing; for in truth it is no other than as if he should say, The King hath given me the command of an Army in Ireland, and therefore I may turn them upon the bowels of the King's subjects: It is no more in effect.  
Your Lordships have heard him the other day mentioning two Acts of repeal, and I expected he would have insisted upon them; but it seems he hath been better advised, and thinks them not worthy repetition, nor indeed are they. And if the matter of fact be proved upon the fifteenth Article, I am confident he will find the Statute of 18. H. 6. to be of full force.  
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear, that when levying of war upon the King's subjects is in agitation, and he charged with high Treason, he should make mention of the Yorkshire men, and the army now on foot, whereby he would insinuate, that if he be charged with high Treason, than they must be likewise, though they lie quartered, and have meat and drink with the assent of the people; which may breed ill blood for aught I know.  
From the fifteenth Article he descends to the three and twentieth, and that is the Article whereby he stands charged with speaking of words, and giving of council to his majesty to incense him against his Parliament, pretending a necessity, and telling him he is loose and absolved from all rules of government; that he had an Army in Ireland which he might make use of to reduce this kingdom. In this he is pleased to begin with the testimony of my Lord Ranelagh, conceiving an apprehension and fear in him, that the Army should go over to England, which my Lord says, is no more but his saying, and master Treasurer Vane's.  
I pray God my Lord Ranelagh had not much cause to fear; but by the same rule he may lay a charge of unwarrantable fear upon all the Commons; for sure the Commons of England did fear it, else they would not make an Article of it: But my Lord Ranelagh's fear did not arise from a slight cause, and he showed himself a good commonwealth's man in expressing it, and he is to be commended for it, howsoever it be apprehended by my Lord of Strafford.  
For his observation of the single testimony of Mr. Treasurer Vane, give me leave to take the same latitude as his Lordship did; for he shows to three or four Articles what he could have proved; as to the Article concerning the Army, he could have proved the design of it by Sir John Burlacy, and some others, if they had been here. But by this rule and liberty he hath taken to allege what he could have shown, give me leave to tell you what we might have shown, and are ready to show: We could have made it express, and proved it by notes taken by Secretary Vane the fifth of May, when the words were spoken, which notes should have been proved, if we had proceeded on the three and twentieth Article, to corroborate the testimony of Mr. Secretary Vane, and that by two witnesses. We could likewise have shown how we came to the knowledge of it, it being by means unknown to master Secretary Vane, and have made him an upright counsellor and witness: but we shall prove his intentions to bring in the Irish Army another way, when I come to open my own course and method.  
My Lords, he pretends these words were spoken the fift of May, but when they were testified by master Treasurer, he did not speak of the fifth of May, and yet now my Lord remembers the day; and I wonder how he came to the knowledge of the day, unless he likewise remembered the words.  
But that my Lord observes, is, That being spoken then, how should he persuade the King, that he had an Army in Ireland, when in truth he had none there? for the Army was not on foot till a month after. This, my Lords, is plainly answered; and if he had thought of his own answer, he had answered himself: for he tells you, that in April before, he had taken a course for the levying of the Army, he had nominated the officers, giving direction for raising it: And, the day of the Rendezvous of the Army was appointed the 18. of May. And so in his own answer he makes an answer to the objection, and the objection is taken away out of his own confession.  
From that Article he falls to the seven and twentieth Article, whereby he stands charged with levying money by force upon the King's people in Yorkshire: he is pleased to observe, that all the proofs for the maintenance of that Article, is only the levying of money with four soldiers by Sergeant Major Yaworth. Where he is pleased to disdain the war, because it was so weak, yet it was too strong for them (God help them) that were forced upon pain of life to pay it. And whereas he pretends the warrant was not from him, I shall reserve that till I come to the Article, and when I come to the proofs, I believe it will remain fixed upon him.  
And there he left his Statute Treason, and now he falls to the second kind of Treason, and that was the introductive or constructive Treason: He begins with the third Article, that is, concerning some words that he should be charged to have spoken in Ireland; & I shall desire that your Lordships would be pleased to look upon your notes, how he answers that Article; My Lords, says he, I am charged to say that Ireland was a conquered Nation, and that their Charters were nothing worth, and bind the King no further than he pleaseth; therefore I am a Traitor because I speak the truth. There was his answer in his collection. And for their Charters he says, he might might very well say so, for he intended it no otherwise, but according to the validity of them, for they were several ways questionable, and ought not to bind, unless they were good in law. But if you look upon his Arguments, he hath, like a cunning orator, omitted the principal part of the Article; and that is, that Ireland is a conquered Nation, and they were to be governed as the King pleaseth, the King might do with them what he lists; this he omits: although they be proved by three witnesses, and are appliable to his intentions fully; yet he could make use of so much as makes for him, and leaves out the rest, like your Lordships know whom.  
Then he descends to the fourth Article, and this concerns some words he should speak upon an occasion betwixt him and my Lord of Cork, that he should tell my Lord of Cork, he would have neither Law nor lawyer's dispute or question his orders. And upon another occasion, that he would make my Lord of Cork and all Ireland know, that all Acts of State (which are Acts of council) there made, or to be made, should be as binding as any Act of Parliament: This he said was proved but by one witness: and I extremely marvel to hear him say so; for the latter words we proved by four, or five, or six witnesses, that is, that he would have Acts of State as binding as Acts of Parliament. Whereas he says these are all the words produced against him in the time of seven years' government there, your Lordships have heard of many words, and if we would trouble your Lordships further in this kind, we could prove such words spoken, as often almost as he remained days in Ireland, that is, for the mis-recital. The other part two witnesses proved; but the residue, That they must expect law from the King as a conqueror, That Acts of State should be equal to Acts of Parliament, And when an Act of Parliament would not pass, he would make it good by an Act of State, these speeches at other times were proved by five witnesses.  
Then he falls back to the second Article, touching the words, That the Kings little finger should be heavier than the loins of the Law.  
My Lords, these words were proved expressly by five witnesses, to be by him spoken; and if he had produced five hundred that had said he did not speak them, they had not been equivalent to disprove five; but he produces none. Sir William Penniman repeats other words, and inverts them, and none but he. Another party, a Minister, reports a report that he heard concerning these words, but, my Lord, saith he, the occasion of the speaking of them was not mentioned. Truly perhaps it might be the forgetfulness of my Lord's memory, but let me put him in mind. And your Lordships remember that the occasion was expressed by one, and that is Sir David fowls, that he laying a command upon Sir David to repair a bridge, and calling him to account why it was not repaired, Sir David fowls told him, he could not do it by law. And therefore omitting it, my Lord said to him, Sir, some are all for Law and Lawyers, but you shall know that the King's little finger will be heavier than the loins of the Law. Here is the occasion, though he would have another business, the knighting money to be the occasion.  
From the second he falls to the three and twentieth Article, that is, concerning words, That he should counsel his majesty, that he might use his Prerogative as he pleased; but in saying there was no proof offered, he here begins to fall upon the other fallacy, that is, to pull things asunder (whereas we produce them together) and would make that that is a faggot, to be but a single stick; but, under favour, when I come, with your lordship's patience, to open the force of the proofs, and put them together, he shall find (contrary to his expectation) that they are fully proved by the testimony of many witnesses, upon consideration of the precedent, concurrent, and subsequent acts and intentions of my Lord of Strafford.  
I shall not now run over my Lord Primates testimony, or my Lord Conwayes, or master Treasurers, or my Lord of Bristols, but make use of them in their proper places, when I shall put all together, to show his design, and to prove his speaking of the words.  
Then he comes to the five and twentieth Article, which I shall not insist on, though he pretends it not proved; I shall refer that to my recollection, that I may not answer to his pieces, but bring all together, and then the horror of his fact shall more speciously appear. Only this (under favour) I cannot pass over, when he comes to justify an advice and counsel of the Kings being loose and absolved from all rules of government, and that he might use his Prerogative as he pleases, he is pleased to mention the argument of the Judges in the ship-money, and what they should deliver, he makes the warrant of his counsel. Now your Lordships may observe, he would justify his actions by law, in some cases, where it is to his advantages, but in other cases he must be ignorant of the Law.  
But, my Lords, for him to mention any thing in the Argument of the Judges, concerning the ship-money, which is now condemned, and to make that a ground of his counsel and advice to the King, and not the judgement in truth, but the argument of the council at Barr, that therefore he is loose, and absolved from all rule of government; for him to make the Parliaments deferring to give supply, to be that necessity which was insisted upon in the counsels argument, and to be such an unavoidable necessity, as to beget an Invasion upon propriety and liberty, it rests in your judgements, and the judgements of all that hear me, what argument this is, and what he declares his opinion to be this day.  
In the latter part, let me close hands, and agree with him; he says, proofs must be taken by themselves, they must not be judged by pieces, but together; and now in good time I shall join with him, and shall desire the same judgement, That things may not be taken asunder, but judged together, according to his own words.  
For the twentieth Article, he is thereby charged with being an Incendiary between both Nations, and an occasion of drawing two Armies into this kingdom, and to incense the war.  
My Lords, I remember (if I did not misconceive, and my memory misprompt me) my Lord said, he could have no occasion to incense a war, being a man of estate, and should have no benefit by it, having sufficient to live without it: but in due time I shall make it appear, to my apprehension, and I believe to your Lordships, when you have heard it, that the incensing of this war, and provoking of it, was the principal instrument of bringing to pass his design of subverting the laws, through the whole work of it.  
My Lords, in the passage of this, he takes occasion to speak of the testimony of master Secretary Vane, who testifies, that my Lord was for an offensive, and himself for a defensive war: whence my Lord argues, here is no great difference, for both were for a war: but, my Lords, is there no difference between an offensive and defensive war, in case of subjects that live under one King? is there no difference to bring an Army to offend them, and for the King to raise a force to defend himself? truly I think there is a great difference, and a very material one too: but your Lordships see he makes no difference between them.  
My Lords, in the four and twentieth Article he mentions, that he is charged with being an occasion to break the Parliament, and lays hold of that, as in the other Articles, that it was not proved, but declined. My Lords, when he shall hear the repetition of the evidence, though part of the Article was not particularly insisted upon, yet I believe it will appear to your Lordships, and the world, that he was the occasion of breaking the last Parliament, and it is expressly proved by witnesses enough; and though he says, how should anybody think him an occasion of it; that did so often advise Parliaments? yet I shall show anon, that when he did advise them, it was to compass his own design and plot, without which his ends could not be brought to pass.  
He came from the four and twentieth Article to the seven and twentieth, and he answers against that Article, that when Armies are in the field, men cannot walk so peaceably, as an attorney with his box and papers in Westminster hall. I know not what he means; but when two Armies are in the field, they may raise war against the King's people, as well as the King for his just defence; it is the way to make his people terrified with armies, and to avoid them as a serpent, and therefore it is a dangerous aspersion, as I conceive.  
With these he concluded, except some things that he took, by way of artificial insinuation, to persuade your Lordships, that it was dangerous to raise a Treason that had lain asleep I know not how many hundred years, and create a Treason. A strange thing indeed it is, that a man should be charged with a Treason for subverting the Law! A strange thing that one should be charged with Treason for killing a Justice sitting in the seat of justice, and yet it should be no Treason to destroy King, and kingdom, and people, and all; all which are destroyed, if the Law be subverted.  
And now having touched upon what he hath spoken, with your lordship's good favour, I shall crave leave to run the course I have propounded with myself, and that very briefly, that is, upon the whole matter to show how far the evidence, produced on the Commons part, doth prove the charge.  
My Lords, That laid to his charge is a design and purpose to subvert the fundamental laws of two kingdoms, and to introduce an Arbitrary and tyrannical government; not that he did effect it, but that he did intend it: for if he had done it, it had been t●● late to question it, he had left no rule whereby to cal● him to trial; but his intention and his endeavour are his charge.  
My Lords, how far this is proved; if your Lordships be pleased to call to mind, the Articles, and the evidence produced on the Commons part, your Lordships will find, I believe, that his words, his counsels, and his actions, do sufficiently prove his endeavouring to destroy.  
In the first Article, where my Lord of Strafford hath the first opportunity offered him to put this endeavour in execution (that is the first place of eminency amongst his other places and commands, which, I take it, was his being made precedent of the North) he is no sooner there, but there be Instructions procured to enable him to proceed in that Court, almost in all causes; for a man can scarce think of a cause which is not comprehended within the Instructions obtained after his coming thither: but I shall put your Lordships in mind of two clauses of the Instructions procured in the eighth year of this King, and after he was President; that is, the clause of habeas Corpus, and Prohibitions; that no man should obtain a Prohibition, to stay any suit that should be commenced before him, in the council of York; that if any man should be imprisoned by any process out of that Court, he must have no Habeas corpus. A Prohibition is the only means to vindicate the estate of the subject, if it be questioned without authority. A Habeas corpus is the only means to vindicate his liberty, if it be detained without law: but these doors must be shut against the King's subjects, that if either they be questioned▪ or restrained before him, there must be no relief. How far he could go further I am to seek, there being no means for the subject to ●●lieve himself, if he be questioned for his estate with●●… authority; no means to redeem himself, if his person be imprisoned without law. And he had so encircled himself about, that if the Judges should fine the party that returns not the Habeas corpus, according to law, there was a power, and a warrant, by the Instructions, to the Barons, to discharge the Officers of that fine. And now I refer it to your lordship's judgements, whether this be not to draw an arbitrary power to himself.  
For the execution of this power, it is true, it is proved to be before the instructions in the eighth year of the King; but than it riseth the more in judgement against him; for your Lordships have heard how he went into a grave Judges chamber, blaming him for giving way to a Prohibition, granting Attachments against one that moved for a Prohibition; and though this was done before the Instructions were granted, yet the Instructions coming at the heels of it, showeth his disposition and resolution more clearly, for he acts it first, and then procures this colour to protect it: and though he pretends there was no proof, yet I must put your Lordships in mind, that when these things were in question, concerning the apprehension of a Knight, by a Sergeant at Arms, he kneels to his majesty, that this defect might be supplied, and this jurisdiction maintained, else he might go to his own Cottage.  
And here being the just commencement of his greatness, if you look to the second, it follows, that at the public Assizes he declared, that some were all for law, but they should find the King's little finger heavier than the loins of the law. He did not say it was so, but he infused it as much as he could into the hearts of the King's people that they should find it so; and so he reflects upon the King, and upon his people: The words are proved: And to speak them in such a presence, and at such a time, before the Judges and country assembled, they were so dangerous, & so high expressions, of an intention to counsel the King, or act it himself, to exercise an arbitrary government, above the weight of the law, as possibly could be expressed by words. And this is proved by five witnesses, and not disproved, nor is any colour of disproof offered, but only by Sir William Penniman, who says, he heard other words, but not that he heard not these words: If he doth, he must give me leave not to believe him; for five affirmations will weigh down the proof of a thousand negatives.  
He stays not long in England with this power (though while he stays you hear how he vexes the subject) but then he goes into Ireland; and as his authority increases, so he ampliates his design; and no sooner is he there, but the third Article is laid to his charge, That when the City and Recorder of Dublin, the principal City of Ireland, presented the Mayor, upon a solemn speech and discourse concerning the laws and liberties (as your Lordships know that is the subject matter of a speech at such presentments, as when the Lord Mayor of London is presented to the King) I beseech your Lordships observe the words he then used, they were a conquered Nation, and that we lay not to his charge, but they were to be governed as the King pleases, their Charters were nothing worth, and bind but during the King's pleasure.  
I am to seek, if I were to express an arbitrary power, and tyrannical government, how to express it in fitter words, and more significant terms than these, that the people shall be governed at the Kings will, that their Charters, the sinews and ligatures of their liberties, lands, and estates, should be nothing worth, and bind no longer than the King's pleasure, specially being spoken upon such an occasion, and the words proved by two or three witnesses of credit and quality.  
From thence we descend to Articles, that show the execution of his purpose. There be three things a man enjoys by the protection of the law; that is, his life, his liberty, and his estate. And now, my Lords, observe how he invades, and exercises a tyrannical jurisdiction, and arbitrary government over them all three. I shall begin with the fifth Article, that is concerning my Lord Mountnorris and Denwit. My Lord Mountnorris, a peer of that Realm, was sentenced to death by procurement of my Lord of Strafford; who, howsoever he pretends himself not to be a Judge in the cause, yet how far he was an Abettor, and Procurer, and Countenancer, and drawer on of that sentence, your lordship's very well remember; he was sentenced to death, without law, for speaking words at a private Table, God knows, of no manner of consequence in the world, concerning the treading upon my Lord of Straffords toe; the sentence procured seven months after the words spoken, and contrary to law, and himself being put in mind of it, my Lord Mountnorris desiring to have the benefit of the law, and yet he refusing it.  
And then it was in time of peace, when all the Courts of justice were open, and to sentence a man to death of that quality, my Lord of Strafford himself being present, an author, a drawer on of it, makes it very heinous. Your Lordships remember this Article was fully proved, and though he pretends his authority by a letter from his Majesty, I shall in due time give a full answer to that, so that it shall rise up in judgement against him, to aggravate his offence, and that in a great measure.  
Here he exercises a power over life, his excuse was, that he procured a pardon for my Lord Mountnorris; but the power was exercised, and the tyranny appeared to be the more; he would first sentence him to death, and then rejoice in his power, that he might say, There remains no more but my command to the Provost marshal to do execution. To exercise a power over his life, and to abuse him afterwards, is very high; but no thanks to him that the sentence of death was not executed, it was the grace and goodness of his Majesty that would not suffer my Lord Mountnorris, a person of that eminence, to be put to death against law.  
But the other was hanged, and, as appears, against law; and though my Lord pretends the party was burnt in the hand, yet that was not proved, nor material: and for him to do this in time of peace, when the Courts of justice were open, it argues a desire in his breast to arrogate a power above law.  
And in truth I may not omit some observations that my Lord made this day; he hopes his Majesty would be pleased to grant him a Pardon. I perceive he harboured in his thoughts, that he might hang the King's subjects when he would, and then get a Pardon of course for it. The Lord bless me from his jurisdiction.  
My Lords, give me leave to go back again, here is power over the lives and liberties of the subject; but he exercised likewise a tyrannical power over his estate. Your Lordships may be pleased to remember the fourth Article, where he judges my Lord of Corks estate, in neither Church land, nor plantation land, and therefore had no pretence of a jurisdiction; for it is a lay fee divolved by Act of Parliament to the Crown; yet he deprives him of his possession which he had continued for twenty nine years, upon a paper petition, without rules of law. And whereas my Lord of Cork went about to redeem himself (the law being every man's inheritance, and that which he ought to enjoy) he tells him, he will lay him by the heels▪ if he withdraw not his process: and so when he hath judged him against an express Act of Parliament, and Instructions, and bound up a great peer of the realm, he will not suffer him to redeem that wrong, without a threat of laying him by the heels, and he will not have Law nor lawyer's question his Orders, and would have them all know, an Act of State should be equal to an Act of Parliament: Which are words of that nature, that higher cannot be spoken, to declare an intention to proceed in an arbitrary way.  
The next was in my Lord Mountnorris his case, and Rolstone. And here I must touch my Lord with misrepetition. Rolstone preferred a petition to my Lord Deputy, my Lord Deputy himself judges his estate, and deprived him of his possession, though he cannot produce so much as one example, or precedent (though if he had, it would not have warranted an illegal action) but he cannot produce a precedent, that ever any Deputy did determine concerning a man's private estate; and if he hath affirmed it, he proved it not: some petitions have been preferred to him, but what they be non constat. But, though never any knew the Deputy alone to determine matters of land, yet he did it.  
To the seventh Article we produce no evidence; but my Lord of Strafford cannot be content with that, but he must take upon him to make defence for that which is not insisted upon as a charge; but since he will do so, I refer it to the book in print, where he determines the inheritance of a Nobleman in that kingdom, that is, my Lord Dillon, by a case falsely drawn, and contrary to his consent; and though he deprives him not of his possession, yet he causes the Land to be measured out, and it is a danger that hangs over his head to this day. And had we not known that we had matter enough against my Lord of Strafford, this should have risen in judgement against him; but I had not mentioned it now, if he had not mentioned it himself.  
The eighth Article contains several charges, as that of my Lord chancellor, how he imprisoned him upon a judgement before himself and the council, how he enforced the seal from him when he had no authority, nay, though it were excepted by his Patent that he should no way dispose of it; but he looked not to Authority, further than might make way to his will.  
Another concerns the prime Earl of that kingdom, my Lord of Kildare, whom he imprisoned, and kept close prisoner, contrary to the King's express command for his deliverance; and in his answer my Lord acknowledges it, but says, that that command was obtained from the King upon a misinformation.  
These things I would not have mentioned, if he had passed them over; but since he gives them in, give me leave to mention, and say, we had a ground to put them into charge, and could have proved them, if there had been need, punctually and expressly, and I believe little to my Lord's advantage.  
But Your Lordships I think do remember my Lady Hibbot's case, where the Lady Hibbot's contracts with Thomas Hibbots for his inheritance for 2500. l. executes the contract by a Deed, and Fine levied, deposits part of the money, and when a Petition was exhibited to the L. Deputy and council for the very estate, your Lordships remember how this came in judgement before my Lord Deputy; there was but a petition delivered, there was an answer made▪ and all the suggestions of the petition denied; yet my Lord spoke to Hibbots himself, that was willing to accept the money, not to decline the way that he was in by petition; five hundred pound more will do him no hurt to carry into England with him: and yet, without examination of a witness, a Decree was made to deprive this Lady of her estate: And the purchasing of this land by my Lord of Strafford was proved by two witnesses, though not absolutely, yet by confession of Sir Robert Meredith, and others, whose names were used in trust for my Lord of Strafford, and that it proved according to my Lord of Straffords prophecy; for the man had five hundred pounds gain above the Contract with my Lady Hibbots:  
But after, the lands were sold for seven thousand pound; so that the Lady Hibbot's offence was her making of a bargain whereby to gain five hundred pounds; But there was no offence in my Lord, to make a bargain for three thousand pounds, and to gain four thousand pound presently: this you see proved by Hibbots the party, and by master Hoy the son of the Lady Hibbots.  
So that here is a determination of a cause before the council Table touching land, which was neither plantation, nor churchland, without colour of the instructions, contrary to law, to statute, to practice; and if this be not an exercising of an unlawful jurisdiction over the Land and Estates of the subject, I know not what is.  
In his answer to this case he did open it (yet whether he mistook or no I know not) that he had a letter from the King, but he produces none in evidence; and that is another mis-recital. I am sorry he should misrecite, and fix it upon the person of his sovereign in a case of this nature.  
Now he falls more immediately upon the liberty of the subject, and that is by the Warrant mentioned in the ninth Article, to be issued to the Bishop of Downe and Conner, whereby he gives power to him and his Officers to apprehend any of the King's subjects that appeared not upon process out of his ecclesiastical Courts, expressly contrary to law; and your Lordships have heard how miserably the King's subjects were used by this warrant, as hath been proved by a Gentleman of quality, Sir James Mountgomery: And howsoever he pretends it was called in, it was three whole years in execution, before it was called in; and though he pretends his predecessors did ordinarily grant Warrants of that nature, yet he proves no such thing.  
My Lord Primate was examined, and he says, that Bishop Mountgomery did tell him there was such a Warrant, and one witness more speaks of one Warrant, and that is all the witnesses produced, and that but to be a copy too. Your Lordships have heard how he exercises his jurisdiction and power over particulars, and that in a numerous manner; now your Lordships shall find it universal, and spread over the face of that kingdom that was under his jurisdiction, and that is in the tenth Article, which concerns the customs: where he doth impose upon the King's subjects a rate and tax against law, and enforces them to pay it, or else punishes them for it; which is expressly an arrogating to himself of a jurisdiction above the law.  
My Lords, in his answer he pretends that this is rather a matter of fraud than otherwise: in truth and so it is, and that a great one too. But as it is a fraud, a disservice, and deceit to his majesty, so it is likewise an exercise of a tyrannical jurisdiction over his subjects: That it is a fraud to his majesty it plainly appears, for the King lost exceedingly by it; whereas before the rent afforded the King was 11050. l. there was improved by the new lease, that my Lord of Strafford took but 1350. l. and I beseech your Lordships observe how much the King lost by it; for my Lord had comprehended in his new lease the impost of wine, for which the King before that time received 1400. l. a year; and likewise the custom of London Durry, Colerane, and Knockfergus, for which the King had reserved 1700. l. a year, besides the moiety of the seizures: so here is 5000. l. that the King lost of the old rent expressly: and, if your Lordships please, observe the gain and benefit my Lord of Strafford made by it; in one year he and his sharers received 39000. l. and in the last year 51000. l. and that expressly proved upon two accounts: and if this be his dealing, where is his service to the King in his pretence to advance the customs?  
It is true, he says, the King hath five eighth parts, but it was but within these two years, the King had it not before. And I would very gladly have heard whether the King received his part of an account of 55000. l. if he had received it, I believe we should have heard of it.  
My Lords, there is something more; here is a new imposition on the King's people without law, and yet I will do my Lord of Strafford no injury: but I tell you how the proof stands; It was a book of rates framed before he came to the form, for the book of rates was in March, and the date of his assignment is in April following; and therefore my Lord saith, it could not be for his benefit. But, my Lords, all this while my Lord of Strafford was in England, and in agitation for the procuring of it, and they come one upon the heels of another, and I beseech you observe cui bono; the book of rates was procured within a month of the Patent, but God knows whether it were not within the compass of his intentions to take the Patent; and therefore whether he were not the Instrument of raising rates, it rests in your lordship's judgement, and all that hear me; I am sure the benefit redounded to himself: and so here is an arbitrary government in imposing and forcing to pay, for that I desire your Lordships to take with you; and he might as well have raised nineteen shillings on a pound, as nine pence, or three pence, by the same rule of Law.  
The next Article in number was the eleventh, and I would be glad my Lord had not mentioned it; it concerns the pipestaves, wherein he pretends he did the King great service, and that, he says, was the reason of our passing over it: but that was not the reason; it had been a foul business if we had opened it; but having enough besides, we made not use of it: for the substance of the proofs by multiplicity of witnesses had been, That the parties themselves that bought the pipestaves for four pound odd money, were fain to sell them to his Instruments for six pounds, and after to buy them again for ten pounds, else there must be no licence to export them: But that I would not have mentioned if he had let it slip over.  
I come to the twelfth Article, and that is concerning the Tobacco, wherein he pretends the King's service, and, if my memory fail me not, the desire of the Parliament, that he should take this into his hands for the King.  
My Lords, therein, under his favour, he hath misrecited the evidence, and spoken that he cannot justify; for he can show no such desire of the Parliament. It is true, there was a desire of the Parliament, that the King would be pleased to take his customs into his hands for the advancement of his revenue, that it might go to maintain himself, and he might not be abused, and others live by it; but to take the Tobacco into his hands, he never did, nor can produce a witness to prove such their desire; and therefore, under favour, he fixes a wrong upon the Parliament, and injures your Lordships by his reciting that he neither did nor can make good; for there was no such thing.  
But if you observe the course he takes, he makes Proclamation to hinder the importing of Tobacco into Ireland; that if it be imported, it must be sold to him at his own rate; and by this means he first hinders the liberty of the subject from doing what the law allows him, and so takes on him an arbitrary power; and secondly, he engrosses this commodity to himself, deceiving his majesty, to whom he professeth so much fidelity; for whereas there is 5000. l. rent to the King, he, by the computation of Merchants, receives near 140000▪ l. a year: And because their computations are not always true, I do not care if I allow him 40000. l. mistaken, and then he will gain near 100000. l. so that if he intends the King's benefit, it is wonder he told not his majesty of the great profit that might thereby have risen, and let him partake of it, as in justice he should have done, according to the trust reposed in him: but you have heard of no such matter. And surely my Lord of Strafford would not have omitted it, if it had been for his advantage, especially in this presence, where he omits nothing to clear himself, or to insinuate with his Majesty.  
Now I come to the thirteenth Article, the Article concerning Flax, which I know is fresh in your lordship's memories, and I believe will be so in the memories of the subjects of Ireland for many years, how he engrossed it into his hands, and interrupted the trade of the poor people, whereby such miseries and calamities befell many of that Nation, that, as you have heard it proved, thousands die in ditches for want of bread to put in their mouths. And whereas he pretends that this was proved but by one witness, and that man to be imprisoned, and of no credit, though he was his own instrument; your Lordships remember Sir John Clatworthy his testimony, and another's, and his own Warrant produced, and acknowledged here to justify the execution of it, and such a thing was thereby taken into his own hands, that I profess I never heard the like, that the poor people should be constrained to use their own as he pleased, and that pleasing of himself laid an impossibility on the people to execute his pleasure, which was a bondage exceeding that of the Israelites under the Egyptians; for there was not laid so much upon the Children of Israel, but there was a possibility to perform; they might with much labour perchance get stubble to burn their brick, but the natives here must have a charge laid upon them without possibility to perform, and the disobedience must cost them no less than the loss of their goods, which drew with it even the loss of their lives for want of bread. This was not proved by only one witness, but by many. And your Lordships remember the remonstrance of that Parliament of Ireland, which declares it to a greater height than I have opened it.  
The fifteenth Article is that of levying war upon the King's subjects, expressly within the Statute of 25. E. 3. and 18. H. 6. Your Lordships have heard the Warrant proved by the party himself, to whom it was directed; whereby power was given to lay soldiers upon any party, that did not obey my Lord of Straffords orders at the council Table, but not to circumscribe him to a certain number; but the Seargeant at Arms, and his ministers, might lay as many as they would. It is true, this warrant was not itself produced, but a copy was offered, which was not read; and therefore I will not offer it to be proved, but the party that executed the Warrant itself, proves it to be under the hand and seal of my Lord of Strafford, he proves the express authority of it, which was to the effect I opened; three or four more, who saw and read it, proved the same: and that it was under the hand and seal of my Lord of Strafford, that accordingly it was executed upon divers of the King's subjects; it was proved by three witnesses expressly in the point, how by colour of this Warrant the Sergeant at arms, and his Officers, sent soldiers to lie in the houses and lands of the King's subjects; how the owners were thereby forced out from their own habitation; how their goods were wasted and devoured, their corn and victuals eaten up, and the soldiers never left them, as long as any part of their estates remained to maintain them.  
My Lord of Straffords defence is, that it hath been used before his time in Ireland; wherein he hath again misrecited; for he did not offer a proof, nor a particle of a proof, that ever any man did know soldiers laid upon any party for refusing to appear to a Warrant, or for other contempt at council Table, before himself did it; but he offered to prove, that formerly soldiers were sent against Rebels, and that after they were declared to be Rebels, and justly too; and he proved an use and custom to force men to pay the contribution money due to the King, but that was by consent of the people, who granted a contribution of 20000 l. a year, for increase of the King's revenue; and that it might not be upon record in the Exchequer, and so claimed as due in time to come, they consented that soldiers should be laid upon them that refused it; and the word (consent) is within the Statute of 18. H. 6. Again, did he prove all manner of rents were levied by soldiers? no such thing; but such rents as were designed for payment of the Army: he proved by Sir Arthur Terringham the laying of soldiers once for the payment of a sum of money; but sir Arthur being demanded whether it were the King's rents, or comprehended within the same general rule, he could make no answer thereunto.  
Your Lordships remember, he says he did not know it, and therefore probably it was the King's rents; and doubtless it was so.  
But if he had produced precedents, it could not be an authority for Treason, that if people did not appear to his orders, he must levy war against the King's subjects; and for his extenuation of the war, that the same was of no great danger, there being not above five or six soldiers laid at a time. I would to God the people oppressed by it, had cause to undervalue it: I am sure four or six musketeers are as strong to oppress a man as four thousand; so the matter of fact is strongly and expressly proved. Besides, though there came not above four or five to a house, yet the authority given to the Sergeant was general; he might have brought more if he had listed: and in truth he brought as many as the estate of the party would maintain.  
And as to the not producing of the Warrant, I have already answered it. If it were in the case of a Deed wherein men call for witnesses, it were something; but God forbid that the Treason should be gone, and the Traitor not questionable, if his warrant can be once put out of the way.  
The next Article which is laid to his charge is, for issuing out a Proclamation, and Warrant of restraint, to inhibit the King's subjects to come to the fountain, their sovereign, to deliver their complaints of their wrongs and oppressions. Your Lordships have heard how he hath exercised his jurisdiction, and now he raises a battery to secure and make it safe. If he do wrong, perhaps the complaint may come to the gracious ears of a King, who is ready to give relief, and therefore he must stop these cries, and prevent these means, that he may go on without interruption. And to that end he makes propositions here, that the King's subjects in Ireland should not come over to make complaint against Ministers of State, before an address first made to himself. It is true, he makes a fair pretence and show for it, and had just cause of approbation, if he had intended what he pretended; But as soon as he came into Ireland, what use made he of it? he engrosses the proceedings of almost all the Courts of Justice into his own hands, and so pre-possesses the King by a colourable proposition, and prevents their coming over before they had made their address to himself, and then he becomes the wrong doer, and issues Proclamations for the hindering of the King's subjects to seek redress without his leave; which is as great a proof of his design, and as great an injury to the people, governed under a gracious Prince, as a heart can conceive. And what his intention was in exhibiting this proposition, it will appear in the sentence of a poor man, one David, who was censured, and most heavily fined for coming over into England to prosecute complaint against my Lord of Strafford. It is true, that this was not the cause expressed, but this was the truth of the matter. Your Lordships remember a clause in the order at council board, whereby is set forth the cause wherefore the party is not sentenced, which I never saw in an order before, nor should now, but that my Lord foresaw there was danger in it, that he might be charged in this place for the fact; and therefore puts in negatively why the party was not censured. Clausula inconsulta inducit suspitionem. And how defends he this Article? he says, his predecessors issued Proclamations to hinder the King's subjects from going over, lest they should join with O Neale and Tirconnell beyond sea, and so it might be dangerous to the State; but because they may join with foreigners, shall they therefore not come to the King to make just complaint? what this argument is, I refer to your lordship's judgements.  
Then he pretends a former precedent, affirming that the like Instructions were given to my Lord of Faulkland; but was there any, that none should come to their sovereign to make their just appeal if injured? Surely there was never any such Instruction before, and I hope never will be again.  
The next Article is the nineteenth: And now when he had so plentifully exercised his tyranny over the lives, the liberty, and the estates of the King's subjects. A man would think he could go no further; but see a Tyranny exercised beyond that, and that is over the Consciences of men: hitherto he dealt with the outward man, and now he offers violence to the inward man, and imposes an Oath upon the King's subjects, and so exerciseth a tyranny over the Consciences of men.  
And setting aside the matter of the Oath, if he hath authority and power to impose such an Oath as he shall frame, he may by the same power impose any Oath to compel Consciences.  
He pretends a Warrant from his majesty to do it, but the King's Ministers are to serve the King according to law; and I dare be bold to say (and we have good reason to thank God for it) if any of the King's Ministers tell him that any Command he gives is against law, there is no doubt but in his goodness and piety he will withdraw his Command, and not enforce execution; and therefore if there were an error, the King is free, and the Ministers to be justly charged with it.  
But there was no Command from the King to compel and enforce them to take the Oath by the power of the Star-chamber, to commit them to prison, to impose heavy fines, and tyrannize over them; all which he did in the case of Steward.  
And now one would have thought he had acted his part, when he had acted as much as lay in his own power; and yet he goes beyond this, he was not content to corrupt all the streams (which was not a diverting of the course, as he spoke in his answer; for he not only turned the course of the water, but changed the nature of it, converted it into poison, a legal and just proceeding into a tyrannical and Arbitrary government, which is not turning, but corrupting of the clear and crystal streams to bitterness and death.) But yet the fountain remains clear, and perhaps when his hand is taken off, you shall have the streams run as pure and uncorrupt as ever they did. This is it troubles him, remove but this obstacle, and the work is perfect; and therefore now he will go about to corrupt the streams: if he can but infuse his poison into the King's heart, which is the Fountain, than all is done; and now he attempts that, and approacheth the Throne, endeavours to corrupt the King's goodness with wicked counsels; but God be thanked he finds too much piety there to prevail.  
And therefore the next Article is that, that charges him to be an Incendiary to the war betwixt the two kingdoms: and now I shall be bold to unfold the mystery, and answer his objection: To what purpose should he be an Incendiary? were it not better to enjoy his estate in peace and quietness, then have it under danger of a war? Now your Lordships shall have the Riddle discovered.  
The first thing he doth after his coming into England is, to incense the King to a war, to involve two Nations, of one faith, and under one sovereign, to imbrue their hands in each others blood, and to draw Armies into the field.  
That he was this Incendiary, give me leave to revive your lordship's memories with the proofs which will make it plain; and first give me leave to note unto your Lordships, that his majesty, with much wisdom, did in July 1639. make a pacification with his subjects, and even at the very heels of this pacification, when all things were at peace, upon the tenth of September, which was the next month but one, your Lordships remember the sentence of Steward in the Star-chamber of Ireland, for not taking the oath; your Lordships may call to mind the language my L. of Strafford was pleased to use of the Scots: when all was in quietness, he than calls them no better than traitors and Rebels, if you will believe what the witness testifies, whom my Lord is pleased to call a schoolmaster: And truly admit he were so, because he is a schoolmaster, therefore not to be believed, is a non sequitur. And another witness, one Loftus, speaks to the words, though not in the same manner; but, I say, the tenth of September, when things were at peace and rest, when the King was pleased to be reconciled to them by that pacification, what boiled in his breast then to the breaking forth of such expressions, I know not, unless it were an intention to be an Incendiary.  
My Lords, I must say and affirm, and he hath not proved it to the contrary, that all this while (I am confident) there was not any breach of the pacification on either side, and it lies on his part to prove there was: But the Parliament of Scotland then sitting, and making preparation for their demands in pursuance of the Articles of pacification, he, coming over into England in September, immediately upon the pacification, answers, That he found things so distracted here▪ that it was fit the Scots should be reduced by force, if they could not be otherwise: yet no breach appears, no war was denounced, there was no intention of a war: But see what harboured in his breast all the while?  
The fourth of December following, my Lord Traquaire made his relation to the council of the Scots proceedings: and all this while there was no Demands brought by the Scots themselves, nor reason of their Demands brought by others, though they were prepared; yet you have heard his advice was for an offensive war, and that the Demands were a just cause of the war. And though he pretends he said no more than what the rest of the Lords of the council concurred with him in, I will join in issue with him in that, and if some of your Lordships be not satisfied, you have many noble Lords among you, from whom you may be satisfied that it is not so; I am sure he proves it not. It is true, in the proposition of the Demands some of the Lords of the council did say, that these Demands hypothetically, if the Scots did not give satisfaction by their reasons, were a just cause of war; but not any Lord of the council was of opinion, that the very Demands, positively, without hearing of the reasons, were a just cause of war, but himself; and I believe the noble Lords of the council their Consciences can tell them, and I believe will deliver it to the rest of the peers, that I speak truth.  
For the offensive war he pretends a concurrence of the rest, but it was disproved; many were for it upon these terms, if they did not give reasons, and show just cause for their Demands; and many were against an offensive war upon any terms, and therefore herein he fixes that upon the Lords of the council, that he cannot make good.  
All this while his intentions are discovered by a matter precedent, but after the breach he discovers his anger further towards the Scottish Nation, and makes it his design to incense the King to this war.  
My Lords, he is not at an end yet, for he confesses himself that he advised the King to call a Parliament; and now I come to his work of merit, but it was to his destruction, and serves to prove this Article directly; for to what purpose was this Parliament called? Exitus acta probat; it was no sooner set, but within three weeks a proposition is made for supply towards a war against the Scots: who was the cause of calling the Parliament? himself; and therefore who was the cause of this proposition but himself? and so the calling of the Parliament is a concurring evidence of his being an Incendiary to put on the war; and it shall appear anon absolutely, that he was the occasion of it, though he thinks there be no proof of it.  
Did not he go over into Ireland, and by his solicitation there, Subsidies were granted by the Parliament, only to maintain this war, and to show their engagement in it? and who was the occasion of drawing them on, I refer to your lordship's judgements, by the circumstances precedent.  
Your Lordships heard his good opinion of the Scots, when he began to discourse with the Citizens touching money, and their affording of the King supply, and seizing the mint, by giving them no better expressions than Rebels; for, saith he, you are more forward to help the Rebels, than to pay the King his own: I know not who he meant, but certainly the Scots were in his thoughts; so that from the beginning he incensed the war against them: first, he exclaimed against them during time of peace. He alleges in his answer, that things were found in such distraction, that it was fit the Scots should be reduced by force▪ he gave advice precipitately without hearing the reasons, and not concurrent to the council, for an offensive war; and putting all together, I refer it to your lordship's judgement who is the Incendiary; for how can it be proved more clearly, unless it should appear under his hand and seal, proved by two or three witnesses?  
Now, my Lords, how comes this to be his design? here the mystery comes to be unfolded. Having thus incensed to the war, and engaged the King to the uttermost, and having a Parliament now dissolved without supply, he sets up an Idol of his own creation, as a means to draw on his design, and that was necessity; necessity is it that must enforce the King: what to do? to levy money, to use his Prerogative, to raise supplies upon his subjects without their consent, against their will, necessity must be his argument, and this war must be the occasion of that necessity, and without that he cannot suggest to the King's ear, or advise this necessity, till this be brought to pass.  
And now he hath brought it to pass, he began in the one and twentieth, two and twentieth, and three and twentieth Article, to persuade the King▪ that necessity hath surprised him, by the Parliaments deserting of him; that the Parliament had forsaken the King, in denying supply, and having tried the affections of his people, he was loose, and absolved from all rules of government, and had an Army in Ireland which he might employ, to reduce this kingdom.  
That he spoke these words to the King, part is proved by two concurrent witnesses, that is, that having tried the affections of his people, he was now loose, and absolved from all rules of government; which words are proved by two witnesses of eminent quality, that is, my Lord of Northumberland, and Sir Henry Vane: and truly, howsoever my Lord in his speech pretends, that the most material words are proved but by one witness (it seeming that he held it not a material charge, that he counselled the King that he was absolved from all rules of government) for my part, if your Lordships be satisfied those words were proved, I could willingly satisfy my own Conscience in it, and make no great matter to quit the rest; for I know not how he could express it in higher terms, than that the King was absolved from rules of government, for than he might do what he would.  
It is true, the latter words, touching the Irish Army, are expressly proved but by one witness, master Secretary Vane; but are fortified again with such circumstances as make up more than one, yea, more than two other witnesses, if your Lordships will have the patience to have it represented, as it is proved.  
For howsoever it be slighted by him, if your Lordships will call to mind the words of Sir George Radcliffe, his bosom friend (to whom he had contributed without question his advice in all causes) the said Sir George Radcliffe expressed it before, and told some of his friends (supposing that he never should be called in question, and that the power of my Lord of Strafford had been enough to protect any thing he had done, and out of the abundance of the heart his mouth spoke) the King must now want no money; if he did, nobody would pity him, now he had his sword in his hand.  
Sir Robert King proves it so. My Lord Renula discovered the smoke of the fire that he had just cause to suspect, and on good grounds, I am sure; and if the Commons of England had not just cause to suspect him (as I believe he is convinced they had good cause) what is the reason this suspicion should be entertained at that time, my Lord of Strafford being not then questioned for it? and yet my Lord Renula should say, Shall we turn our swords upon our own bowels? shall we bring this Army to turn the points of our blades upon that Nation from whence we were all derived? and that was before any conference with master Secretary Vane.  
Sir William Penniman himself, his own witness and friend, says, at York, before my Lord of Strafford was questioned, that there was a common fame of bringing the Army into England, and there is something in that surely; and after all this, to produce one witness that expressly proves the very words spoken in terminis, as they be charged, if your Lordships put the whole together, see whether there be not more than one witness.  
And, under favour, my Lord Cottington, if you call to mind his testimony, I must justify, he did declare, that he heard my Lord of Strafford tell the King, that some reparation was to be made to the subject's property; which must infer, he had advised an invasion upon the property; else by no good coherence should a reparation be made. And that he testifies this, I must affirm, and most here will affirm it; and I think your Lordships well remember it: and that is an addition to it; for if your Lordships cast your eye upon the interrogatory administered to my Lord admiral, and my Lord Cottington, that very question is asked; so that his own Conscience told him, he had advised something to invade upon the people, when he advised to a restitution after things should be settled: and so I refer it to your lordship's consideration, whether here be not more than one witness by far.  
It is true, he makes objections to lessen this testimony; first, that this Army was to be landed at air in Scotland, and not here; and this was declared to Sir Thomas Lucas, master Slings by, Sir William Penniman, and others. Secondly, that others that were present, when the words are supposed to be spoken, did not hear any such words.  
For the first: perhaps the Army might be originally intended for Scotland, and yet this is no contradiction but he might intend it afterwards for England; surely this is no logic, that because it was intended for one place, it could never be intended for another place; so his allegarion may be true, and the charge stand true likewise.  
Beside that it was intended orriginally for Scotland, what proof makes he? he told several persons of the design, but I will be tried by himself, he told some, it was for Scotland, he told others it was for England; and why you should believe his telling on one side, more than on the other side I know not; though he pretends a reason of his several allegations that the world should not know his design, but if you will not believe him one way, why should he be believed the other way? and if not the other way, why the first way?  
For the second, several persons were present when the words were spoken touching the Irish army, and they were examined, and remember not the words; but one man may hear, though twenty do not hear; and this is no contradiction at all: For those persons whom he examined, the Lord Treasurer, marquess Hambleton, my Lord Cottington, did not hear the words that are proved by two witnesses, concerning the Kings being loose, and absolved from rules of government: and if they did not hear those words, no marvel they did not hear the other: and therefore that which he himself pretends to be a convincing testimony, is nothing at all; so that his objections are clearly taken away, and the single testimony fortified with testimonies that make above one witness, and so the words are fully proved.  
But to fortify the whole, I shall handle all these Articles together, This design to subvert the Law, and to exercise an arbitrary power above the Law in this kingdom, will (upon the proofs putting them altogether, and not taking them in pieces as my Lord of Strafford hath done) appear to have been harboured in his thoughts, and settled in his heart long before it was executed.  
You see what his Counsels were, That the King having tried the affections of his people, was loose and absolved from all rules of government, and might do every thing that power would admit, and his Majesties had tried all ways, and was refused, and should be acquitted of God and man, and had an army in Ireland, wherewith if he pleased he might reduce this kingdom: so there must be a trial of his people, for supply that is denied, which must be interpreted, a defection by refusal, and this refusal must give advantage of necessity, and this necessity must be an advantage to use his Prerogative against the rule of the Law, and consent of the People; this is his advice. which shows that this very thing that happened did harbour in his thoughts long before the breach of the Parliament, and the occasion of the army.  
Your Lordships have heard it confessed by himself, That before this last advice, he had advised the calling of a Parliament: to the Parliament a proposition of twelve Subsidies was made for supply, and (which may be spoken with great assurance) before they had consulted, or given any resolution to that proposition, the Parliament was dissolved, upon a supposal that the supply was denied. Now that this was predesigned by my L. of Strafford himself, I beseech you observe these things following, that is, the words in the two and twentieth Article, That his majesty was first to try the Parliament, and if that did not supply him, than he would serve the King any other way.  
His words are proved by Mr. Treasurer, That if the Parliament supplied him not, he would serve him any other way; and this is before the Parliament set: now if your Lordships hear the proofs of my Lord Primate (which my Lord of Strafford slights taking it singly) My Lord Primate before the Parliament was called, when my Lord of Strafford was in Ireland, and not yet come into this kingdom, testifies, my Lords, saying, That if the Parliament will not supply his majesty, the King was acquitted before God and Man, if he took some other course to supply himself, though against the will of the Subjects. I beseech your Lordships observe how he prophesies these things must come to pass, and advised them accordingly.  
My Lord Conway testifies, that before the Parliament sat, my Lord of Strafford said, that if the Parliament would not supply his majesty, the King was acquitted before God and Man, if he took another course to supply himself, though it were against the will of the subject, and he doubts not but the Parliament would give, what? twelve Subsidies: and your Lordships very well remember, twelve were propounded; but I beseech you observe the coherence of all: the Parliament must be called, they must be tried, if they deny there is necessity, and this necessity is a warrant for the King to proceed; so that my Lord of Strafford must be judged to be either a Prophet, or to have this design before hand in his thoughts.  
Now the Parliament being broken before answer to the demand given, he vents his counsel in the three and twentieth Article, and how far it is proved your Lordships have heard. Now comes the Bullion to be seized, the Copper money to be advised, and now comes he to tell the King that the Aldermen of London must be put to fine, and ransom, and laid by the heels, and no good would be done till some of them be hanged, so you hear his advice; I beseech your Lordships observe what success this advice took; four Aldermen were instantly committed, and then the council of the three and twentieth Article is fomented.  
First, he foments the war, than there is a necessity, the defection of the Parliament must set the King loose from rules of government, and now see whether the occasion of the war, the calling of the Parliament, the dissolving of it, be not adequate to what he propounded to himself, namely, to set up an arbitrary government.  
Your Lordships remember how fresh my Lord of bristol memory is, touching my Lord of Straffords opinion upon the dissolution of the Parliament, how he declared unto my Lord of Bristol instantly within three or four days after, That the King was not to be mastered by the frowardness of his people, or rather of some particular persons; and your Lordships remember Sir George Wentworth's words spoken the very day of dissolving the Parliament: which may be very well applied as a concurrent proof to his intentions of bringing the Army into England. He was my Lord's own brother, that knew much of his council, and his words are, That the English Nation would never be well, till they were conquered over again. So my Lords put all together, if he declared his own intentions, if actions, in executing of this tyrannical, and arbitrary power, if Counsels of as dangerous consequence, in as high a strain as can be, be not a sufficient evidence to prove an intention, and desire, to subvert the Law, I know not what can prove such an Interpretation: and now I refer it to your lordship's judgements, whether here be not a good proof of the Article laid to his charge.  
My Lord in the seven and twentieth Article he is charged with levying of war upon the King's people, by forcing them in Yorkshire to pay money: to prove they were so forced, you have heard by two witnesses, that Sergeant Major Yaworth, by Musketeers, four together in the town, and one by one out of the town, did compel them to pay the fortnight's contribution, else they were to serve in person: That he did this by warrant is likewise confessed by Sir William Penyman; and whether this were an authority derived from, or commanded by my Lord of Strafford, that is the question; and, my Lords, it is plainly proved, that it was commanded by my Lord of Strafford, for Sr. William Penyman himself being examined, alleged that the warrant was made in pursuance of the relation, and direction made by my Lord of Strafford.  
Your Lordships heard what my Lord of Strafford did say before hand, as is proved by two witnesses, (Sir William Ingram and Mr. Cholmeley) that this money should be paid, or levied on the subjects goods; Then his declaration to Sir William Penyman, (in pursuance of which he made his warrant) That it was the assent of the Lords of the great council, that this money should be levied; and taking all together, whether it fixes it not upon him to be the author and instrument, it rests in your judgements in point of fact: and so I suppose the seven and twentieth Article rests on him, and so I shall conclude the evidence produced on the behalf of the Commons.  
And now give me leave to put your Lordships in mind of some evidences offered by my Lord of Strafford himself in his answer, and in the passages of his defence, for his clearing and justification, but tending directly to his condemnation.  
I will enter upon some passages he mentioned to day, and often before▪ When he is charged with invading the estates of the peers of the kingdom of Ireland, and determining them, upon paper petitions in an arbitrary way▪ your Lordships have heard him speak it before, and repeat it this day, that he did it out of compassion for the more expeditious proceeding on behalf of the poor, against these mighty▪ But then, my Lords, I beseech you compare some other part of his proceedings. Your Lordships remember the business of the Flax, which concerns the poor wholly and universally; and if compassion had been the rule and direction of his actions towards the poor▪ surely this would have been a just cause to have commiserated them in this case; but he exercised his power over them, and over them wholly, and over them universally: and therefore it shows, it is not his compassion to the poor, nor respect to the rich, or mighty, that will any way restrain or obstruct his ways, to his own will. And therefore you may see what truth there is in his answer, by comparing one part of the charge with another, when the business of the Flax brought that calamity upon the King's Subjects, that thousands of them perished for lack of bread, and died in ditches.  
Secondly, your Lordships have often heard him use a rhetorical insinuation, wondering that he should be charged with words, and they strained so high as to be made treason, to question his life, and posterity, though the words might be spoken unadvisedly, or in discourse, or by chance: your Lordships remember the fifth Article touching his proceedings against my Lord Mount-Norris where words were spoken in an ordinary discourse at dinner, and slight ones, God knows, of no consequence at all, such as another man would scarce have hearkened after, and yet my Lord extends them to the taking away of my Lord Mount-Norris his life; gets a sentence of death against him, and that against Law, with a high hand, in such a manner, as I think your Lordships have not heard the like; and therefore, I beseech you, compare one part of his answer with another, and see how ready he is to make use of any thing that may excuse himself; and yet when he comes to act his power, you see his exercise of it.  
You have heard how he magnifies his zeal for advancing the King's benefit, & revenue, and his care of his service, and would shelter and protect himself under it, to justify an exorbitant action▪ but if your Lordships call to mind the business of customs for Tobacco, (which in truth were the King's right and due, and a great profit was thereby advanced; and he trusted to advance it.) The King must lose of his former rents in the case of custom, and received a small rent in the case of Tobacco, my Lord himself in the mean time imbursing such vast sums of money: where is then the discharge of his trust? where is his care to advance the King's rents▪ to increase his revenue? Compare that part of his answer with this, and see what credit is to be given to his affirmation.  
My Lords, throughout the passages of his discourse he insinuates, (and never more than this day) with the peers of the realm, magnifying them almost to idolatry; and yet my Lords, when he was in his kingdom, in Ireland, and had power over them, what respect showed he then to the peers of the kingdom, when he judged some to death, trampled upon others in misery, committed them to prison and seized on their estates; where then was the Peerage he now magnifies?  
And to show it was an insinuation for his own advantage, you may remember, when there was an unlawful Act to be committed, that is, the levying of money in the North, what regard had he then to the peers of the kingdom, when he comes to justify and bolster up high treason itself, under the name and authority of the great council, where most of the Peers of the Realm than were? and so by this time I know what credit your Lordships give to his words spoken, when he lies under your mercy, and power: But what do I speak of the Peers of the kingdom, and his using of them? My Lords, he spared not his sovereign, his majesty in his whole defence; for being charged with offences of a high nature, he justifies those offences under the pretence, and under the authority of his majesty, our gracious King and sovereign, even murder itself, in the case of Denwit, and my Lord Mountnorris. Treason itself, in the fifteenth Article by a command in Ireland, and in the seven and twentieth, by a pretended authority from his majesty in the face of his people; he justifies my Lord Mountnorrice his sentence by a letter from his majesty, Denwits' sentence by a Commission from his majesty, and he read three or four clauses to that purpose.  
My Lords, my Lord of Strafford doth very well know (and if he doth not know it, I have a witness to produce against him, which I will not examine, but refer it to his own Conscience, that is, the petition of right;) that the King's servants are to serve him according to law, and no otherwise: he very well knew if an unlawful act be committed, specially to a degree of Treason and Murder, the King's authority and warrant produced, is no justification at all. So then, my Lords, to mention the King's name, to justify an unlawful act in that way, can do him no good; and his own understanding knows, it may do the King harm, if we had not so gracious a King, that no such thing can do harm unto.  
But, my Lords, to produce the Kings warrant to justify his actions under his Patent and Command, what is it else, but so far as in him lies, in the face of his people, to raise a cloud, and exhale a vapour? to interpose betwixt the King and his subjects? whereby the splendour of his glory and justice cannot be discovered to his people.  
My Lords, what is it else, when the people make complaint against the Ministers (that should execute justice) of their oppression, and slavery, and bondage? For the Minister, when he is questioned, to justify this under the King's authority, what is it, I say, but, as much as in that Minister lies, to fix this offence, to fasten this oppression upon the King himself, to make it to be believed, that the occasion of these their groans proceeded from his sacred majesty? yet God be thanked the strength of that sun is powerful enough to dispel these vapours, and to disperse the cloud that he would have raised; but in the mean time my Lord is nothing to be excused.  
My Lords, he may pretend zeal to the King's service, and affection to his honour, but give me leave not to believe it, since, when he is questioned by all the King's people, and in the face of his people, and offences laid to his charge, which himself now confesses to be against law; he should justify it under the King's authority; that savours not of a good servant: I will say no more.  
My Lords, he is charged with exercising of a tyrannical power over the King's people, and in his defence your Lordsh●ps have often heard (and I may not omit it) that he shelters himself under the protection of the King's Prerogative, though he be charged with tyranny of the highest nature that may be: see then how foul and malignant an aspect this hath. My Lords, what is it else, but to endeavour, as much as in him lies, to infuse into the King's heart an apprehension, that his Prerogative is so bottomless a gulf, so unlimited a power, as is not to be comprehended within the rules of law, or within the bounds of government? for else why should he mention the Prerogative, when he is charged to exceed the law? What is it else, but, as far as in him lies, to make the people believe (for I may not forget the words he hath used) by his magnifying of the Prerogative, that it hath a special stamp of Divinity on it, and that the other part of the government that God pleases to put into the King's hands, had not that stamp upon it? as if anything done by one, was to be justified by authority derived from heaven, but the other not.  
These expressions your Lordships remember; and I may not omit to put your Lordships in mind of them; and I can expound them no otherwise, then, as much as in him lies, to make the subject believe and apprehend that which is the buckler and defence of his protection, to be the two edged sword of his destruction, according to the doctrine he preached; and that that which is the Sanctuary of their liberty, is the snare and engine of their slavery. And thus he hath cast a bone of contention, as much as in him lay, betwixt King and people, to make the subjects loathe that glorious flower of his crown, by fixing a jealousy in them, that it may be a means of their bondage and slavery.  
But there is so much piety and goodness in the King's heart, that I hope, upon fair understanding, there will be no such occasion; but no thanks to the party, that so much adva●●ed the prerogative in the case and condition he stands in, to justify that which is laid to his charge of high treason.  
My Lords, I beseech you give me leave; there is no greater safety to Kings and people, then to have the throne encircled with good counsellors; and no greater danger to both, then to have it encompassed with wicked and dangerous ones; and yet I beseech you call to mind how he hath attempted to deprive the subject of all means to discover this danger, by insinuating to your Lordships, what a dangerous thing it were, if counsellors should be called in question for giving of counsel; for who then (saith he) would be a counsellor? where is your safeguard? where is the King's service? Is not this, as much as in him lies, to deprive the people of the means whereby they must make themselves happy, and whereby the King must be happy, that is, by his having good counsellors about him? and yet he infuses that venom, that the questioning of counsellors is dangerous both to King and peers, if it should be brought into example. My Lords, for many years by past, your Lordships know an evil spirit hath moved amongst us, which in truth hath been made the author and ground of all our distractions, and that is necessity and danger: this was the bulwark, and the battery that serves to defend all exorbitant actions: the ground and foundation of that great invasion of our liberties and estates, the judgement in the ship money, and the ground of the counsel given of late to do any thing, and to persuade the King that he was absolved from all rules of government; and yet your Lordships have observed in the course of his defence, how often he hath raised this spirit, that God be thanked hath been laid, to the great comfort of King and kingdom, by your Lordships, and all the Commons in Parliament. And when he stands under this question, and goes about to justify his exorbitant actions, how often hath he created this Idol again? and therefore I am afraid he discovers too much his own heart in it.  
My Lord: I may not omit some other passages in his defence, how he hath cast scandals upon three Nations in this place; that is, in his first day of defence, when the Irish Remonstrance, made by all the Commons of Ireland, was produced by the Commons of England; he expressed in a passion, that things were carried against him by faction and correspondence, and (if he had time he would make it appear) with a strong conspiracy. Here is a scandal cast upon the Parliament of Ireland with a reflection on the Commons of England; howsoever, it is true your Lordships may remember the recantation he made that day, which I will not omit, desiring not to lay any thing to his charge but what is true; but it is the reflection of a scandal that I cannot omit to put your Lordships in mind of; and the rather, because this Remonstrance, presented from the Parliament of Ireland, did bear date before my Lord of Strafford was charged here, which is very remarkable, viz. the seventh of November; and therefore, though he pretends a correspondence, certainly there could be none then, for he is not charged here till the tenth.  
And the same day, justifying a sentence in the Castle Chamber, your Lordships remember he affirmed, that unless a strict hand were kept upon the Nation there, they would find it hard to prevent perjury, one of the most crying sins in Ireland. Now to lay an aspersion upon the subjects of Ireland, being under the government of the same King with us, how fit this is to be done by a man in that condition that my Lord of Strafford is, I refer to your consideration.  
Another passage I remember, whereby in his defence he fell upon that Nation; in answer of which I may not omit to do the service I owe to the Commons for whom I am trusted, and that is, that talking of an arbitrary and tyrannical government, in reference to some Orders of the Commons House in Ireland, he used words to this purpose: You talk of an Arbitrary government, look upon these Orders, here is an Arbitrary government: and yet when he produced the Orders, they appeared to have so much justice and discretion in them, that he can lay nothing to the charge of them, though in a passion he is not backward to asperse them.  
My Lords, if this lion (to use his own language) now that he is chained and muzzled under the restraint and question of high Treason, will here take the boldness to vent this language, and express this malignity, how would he do if he were unchained? how would he devour? how would he destroy? &c.  
My Lords, something concerns your Lordships; your Lordships remember that he was not backward in his own answer, to fix a charge of high Treason upon the Lords of the great council; and howsoever, he hath affirmed this day, I must open it again, that the charge of the seven and twentieth Article he fixes in his answer to be by consent of the Lords of the great council, though he hath since recanted it; and yet you have heard him allege, that he will stand and fall by the truth of his answer.  
My Lords, I am now at an end. You have my Lord of Strafford here questioned for high Treason, for going about to subvert the fundamental laws of both kingdoms, in defence whereof your noble Ancestors spent their lives and bloods. My Lords, you are the sons of those fathers, and the same blood runs in your veins, that did in theirs; and I am confident you will not think him fit to live, that goes about to destroy that which protects your lives, and preserves your estates and liberties.  
My Lords you have the complaints of three kingdoms presented before you against this great person; whereby you Lordships perceive that a great storm of distemper and distraction hath been raised, that threatens the ruin and distraction of them all.  
The Commons, with much pains and diligence, and to their great expense, have discovered the Ionas, that is, the occasion of this tempest.  
They have still and will discharge their Consciences, (as much as in them lies) to cast him out of the Ship, and allay this Tempest.  
They expect and are confident your Lordships will perfect the work, and that with expedition, lest with the continuance of the storm, both Ship, and Tackling, and Mariners, both Church and commonwealth be ruined and destroyed: The danger and horror of this storm, your Lordships shall hear by the Gentleman that is next to speak.  
FINIS.