A NARRATIVE OF THE Unfaithful and Vexatious Practices OF NICHOLAS CLARK ATTRONEY, AGAINST MARMADUKE JAMES CLERK, And His Servants.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year 1673.   

Out of the Eater came forth Meat, and out of the Strong came forth Sweetness,  Judg. 14.14. 
For Mr. W. M. at his House near BEDFORD. These.  
SIR,  
IT is some Years past, when I afflicted myself with words escaped from you against me, as one you heard was a Contentious Person; From that time I have carefully deposited all Papers (viz.) Letters, Certificates, Affidavits, Reports, Rules, and Judgements of Court, etc. upon which to ground a Relation; deeply resolving upon it, so soon as I could arrive within view of any probable Period of Proceed between Mr. Clark, and myself. Having finished this Narrative for you, and finding it troublesome to my slow Pen to Transcribe Others, which, some hints given me of the same conceit prevailing in these Parts, required (not of difficult belief since it hath reached Bedford) I thought good to be at the charge to Transmit these Lines to the Press, for such a number of Copies, as might disabuse both you, and others. The matter of fact is so impartially related, that I think (if need was) I could make Oath to each Particular. You will find in them one Arrest, and two Trials at Bar, which is all that I have of either, experienced in my whole life. The Subpoena in the Butcher's Case, is the only one (I remember) in eleven Years Residence at Aston, wherein I intended not a Suit, but to incline to a peaceable Agreement, to which I was necessitated by his open Denials to my Demand (a thing of ill consequence, amongst the rest, if not subdued) so reasonable, that leaving it to his own account upon Agreement (without all charge of Law) amounted to more than double to what demanded. There are divers in my Parish, in point of Forbearance, so long in Arrears, that I much believe (respecting some Circumstances) can scarce be paralleled in the whole County: however, let the Reputation of Contentious lie at his door, that does the wrong, especially when due Applications are made for Right to prevent Law. Leaving you to the perusal of the subsequent Relation, as also to the use of both Ears for the future, the rest is, that I am, SIR,  
Your Friend & Servant in the GOSPEL, Marmaduke James.   

A NARRATIVE of the Unfaithful and Vexatious Practices of NICHOLAS CLARK Attorney, MARMADUKE JAMES Clerk, and His Servants.  

1666.  
May.  A 'Bout the Fifteenth of May, 1666. resolving upon a Subpoena against one Smith a Butcher, I met with Mr Clark, who tendered his service the second time to the employment (the first being declined) The matter was, that the said Smith refused to pay for the wintering of a great number of Sheep in Mr. Burnaps ground, for which he affirmed that the said Smith ought to pay, in that he let him no Pasture Tyth-free; both of them acknowledging a Right, but each refusing to pay: It is here to be noted, that there was an ancient composition for Vicarage Tyths between Mr. Burnaps grounds, and the rectory, which he denied not to continue, till the Spring of the Year 1665. after the Butcher's Sheep were removed, who had paid as much for the Winter in question, as he did for the Winter before, when they were depastured Tyth-free; this I did not so fully understand till afterwards; however, Mr. Burnap seems responsable to the Butcher in equity (in not foreseeing the change of his mind at the Spring of the Year to renounce the said ancient composition) and the Butcher to me. This is one of the neat bones (amongst many others) that have been cast to breed Law; the Mercurial malice whereof, my kind, but not blind charity has ever imputed to some other head, than the person comprised in the premises.  
But to leave the digression, Mr. Clark (being ignorant as well as my , of these Circumstances) would by all means put Mr. Burnap into the Subpoena also, of which I understood not the reason, seeing the Butcher was Proprietor of the Sheep; however, finding his name therein, I sent my Servant John Weeks to acquaint him, that I intended him no trouble, but that it was Mr. Clarks Law to use his name, the ground of which appears best in the ensuing Story.  

June.  The Butcher having conferred with Mr. Burnap, repaired to me upon the sixth of June following, and with his consent (as he often told me) agreed the debt. Soon after I received a Letter, dated the one and twentieth of the said Month, from Mr. Clark, either to come up speedily, or send matter for a Bill, else Mr. Burnap would have Costs, because I Declared not against him; upon which I presently dispatched a paper of many debts forthwith to be formed into a Bill and put in against him, that was so greedy of a Suit.  

July.  By a Letter from Mr. Clark, dated the three and twentieth of the said Month, I am advertised to forbear any journey to London, seeing it was agreed betwixt him and Mr. Burnaps Council, that no Subpoena for Costs should be taken out, provided the said Bill against Mr. Burnap was not put in; notwithstanding I was served with the said Subpoena, bearing contemporary date with the said Letter.  
In the beginning of July following, through great inconveniencies, was I thus forced to London, where my Council (upon the treachery and baseness of proceed) advised to move the Barons the next morning (being the last day of the Term) to whose Chamber Mr. Clark somewhat heavily moving to make Affidavit, touching the truth in his Letters to me, met me there; and advised to save the Costs of Motion, because that Mr. Bab, Attorney for Mr. Burnap, assured him that the Subpoena should proceed no farther, seeing he found him the said Mr. Burnap so contentious a person.  

August.  In the Vacation following, I perceived that Mr. Clark, who would not do me the Justice to put in my Bill, had done me the courtesy to discover the matter of it to Mr. Burnap; whereupon he grew very importunate for a reference to any Clergy man, 
September.  at my own election; which was waved as more than I desired; and told him so far I was from doing him wrong, that I would refer myself to his own Council, and choice friend, for which I received many thanks of him: with whom Mr. Burnap, and I meeting October the Eleventh following, 
October.  Mr. Burnap acknowledged all the deuce demanded, only the Council suspended the Agreement of one particular, (viz.) that Fatting Cattle should pay by the head) till he could bring the opinion of Baron Atkins, which was said should be at the end of Michaelmas Term following.  

January.  
1667.  Many Terms passing and nothing declared by the Referree; in the interim finding strange indignities offered by the said Mr. Burnap (contrary unto the late kindness showed and acknowledged by him) I exhibited by Letter to Mr. Clark my suspicion of some undue proceed above, upon the aforesaid Subpoena (which Mr. Clarks persuasions kept from destruction so long before) he replied by Letter dated January the one and thirtieth 1666, that I need not trouble myself below, when there was nothing acted above. My jealousies not acquieseing in this answer, repaired to London; where I found an Attachment out upon the said Subpoena, with which acquainting Mr. Clark, (then become Under-Sheriff) and knowing how ill I was dealt with (things being under reference, and delay on that side) desired that he would suspend any Warrant upon the said Subpoena, till I could apply to the Barons (for that remedy which he had before so unhandsomely hindered) to which he answered, that I might be assured, what he could either in public or private capacity do for me. 
April.  Notwstanding granted a Warrant, the Execution of which came without teeth (no thanks to Mr. Clark) a few days after my Application to the Barons; which was the first day of Easter Term, being April 24. who forthwith made an order to the Remembrancer, to examine and report the truth of my Complaint within seven days.  
Mr. Burnap being sent for, appeared April 28. following with the aforementioned Council, also Mr. Bab and Mr. Clark: Mr. Burnap very ingeniously acknowledged all the four grounds of my complaint, but his Council and Attorney Bab, denied all the Suggestions in Mr. Clarks Letters, which the said Mr. Clark did not in the least defend, to his great amazement, that sometimes had known words, but never Letters eaten before.  
The Remembrancer declared, that the report must be against Mr. Burnap, but I being very desirous to manifest a peaceable disposition towards him (as a person seduced into these unquiet practices) besought the said Remembrancer, that laying aside the report, as the Barons had committed the Examination, so I the determination of the whole business to him; which (after some time associating Mr. Burnaps Council with him) he was prevailed with to undertake, and all things in about the space of an hour concluded.  
The unhandsome Results of this first Precedure are,  
Seeing that Mr. Clark did both put himself into the employment, and Mr. Burnap into the Subpoena besides my intention, he seemed to be more obliged to the honest prosecution of it: especially seeing the said Mr. Burnap would vexatiously proceed after the said Butcher with his consent (and I believe from his purse) had agreed and paid the Debt.  
Certainly, Mr. Clarks civility had been either to have put in my Bill, which was signified as my first desire, or at least stopped their Subpoena, or not delude me with a pretended stoppage, or not have hindered the reversing the said Subpoena while young, under colour of Mr. Babs' promises.  
Farther, Seeing under reference such foul play as to proceed to Attachment, which he secured me against by Letter dated Jan. 31. 1666. and respecting his promises as Sheriff in the said Letters, he should have been very tender of granting the said Warrant, but seeing that snapped me not before the Term (as intended) Mr. Clank upon the hearing should have stood both by his said letter of the 23. of June, to have proved the Subpoena as well as the Attachment collusive, respecting the agreement of Mr. Burnaps Council with him, as also the promise of the said Mr. Bab to him, which was utterly denied both by Bab and the said Council before the Remembrancer  
Peace being made that night, my Servant Harrison comes up with complaint to me yet in London, that he could not follow the work ordered him in my absence, by reason of a Warrant granted from Mr. Clark the tenth instant, and had narrowly escaped Arrest; I urging this unkindness upon Mr. Clark to his Client (that his Boy that whips the horse should be Plaintiff against his other Servant that holds the Plough, the Master being not worthy to be acquainted before the grant of the Warrant, nor afterwards, though I had been many times with him that Term at his Chamber) Mr. Clark pretends importunity to the act, and forgetfulness in the discovery, but promises to make peace at his coming down; the matter of this Suit, being that upon Easter Eve the sixth of that instant April, the said Harrison conceiving himself much injured by Frances Prat (a story too long here to relate) took him by the collar, and threatened to strike him, if so abused by him again. This coming to Mr. Clarks ear on Tuseday in Easter week, a Warrant was signed upon Wednesday the tenth as aforesaid▪ 'Tis not unknown that Offices are shut in the holidays, and if open, it was not probable, that an Original could be had to ground Wednesdays Warrant, upon the Tuesdays complaint.  
Upon the 29 of the said April, viz. 19 days after the grant of the said Warrant, I searched the Philesors Office, but would not discover the Attorneys Name (though much importuned to it by Philisor himself) being disposed rather to find the bottom of Mr. Clarks intentions, than to expose him to so great a damage, as upon it would ensue.  

August.  All the Causes of Hartford-shire searched, (with concealment of the Attorneys name) and no entrance found, this my confidence upon Mr. Clarks promises was confirmed, and that the Arrest was rather a Scarecrow, than any intended prosecution at Law, till towards the end of Harvest following, we heard Judgement was entered the Term before; which seemed the more strange, not only in relation to the want of a new. Original, and Mr. Clarks promise, but also that an Arrest in the middle of Easter Term, should arrive Judgement in Trinity following, and not so much as a Declaration given to the Defendant in the interim.  

September.  All means of peace was used by Arbitration, etc. but evacuated by Mr. Clark as upon good grounds we have reason to believe (too long here to relate) till at last the Boy was persuaded to release the debt, paying the Costs of Suit: But Harrison finding Mr. Clarks Bill double to what he was informed he ought to pay, and detaining it, craved time to advise; upon which, Mr. Clark called to his Servant for a Writ to Arrest him again (so quick is Mr. Clark at his Law.)  
The Defendants Attorney being informed of the unreasonableness of this Bill, with the various expenses already occasioned by the Defendants troubles, as also that the opinion of Sergeant Manard, Mr. Conniers, and others were for him, advised him to attend upon Mr. Clark, & him at the County Court, sitting at the Swan in Steavenage, 
October.  October 17. following, to make tender of 20 s. to take off the Judgement, and accept a Plea, that they might go to Trial; but no sooner was Harrison come into the Inn yard, than Arrested at the Suit of Mr. Clark, (this also again without Original) and kept Prisoner for the space of 3 hours upon Bond Bail, while the Writ of Inquiry was executed (in the sight of the poor man, not suffered to speak a word for himself;) the matter of this Arrest (as appeared afterwards, by Mr. Clarks Declaration) was for words spoken against his Bill upon the 17. of October; which was, in truth, words spoke by Harrison after his Arrest, to be Bailiff during his detention.  
Upon all these cruelties practised against a poor Servant (contrary to all honour as a Gentleman, Faith, and Truth as a Christian, and his Oaths both as Sheriff and Attorney. In Michaelmas Term following we complained to the Judges of the Common Pleas, who stopped the said Judgement, and upon Service of the Rule the said Mr. Clark threatened, 
January.  saying, He had done with the Servant, and would now begin with the Master: I offering appearance, the said Mr. Clark refused, saying, He would Sue me to the Outlawry, notwithstanding the fourth of Jan. following I was Arrested by him.  
The matter being that I had not paid him for soliciting the forementioned Cause of Mr. Burnap, and the Butcher; I had many Months before sent him 10 s. for the Subpoena, which was all that he had done (saving the trouble and charge he had given me in many journeys to London to retrieve his prevarications) he accepted this money, never objected against it as too little, gives no demand, or bill of particulars, yet now declares for his Solicitation (more truly called Sophist  
There being now three Actions on foot, in Hilary following we complained of all these Vexations to the Judges of the said Bench, who committed them to Mr. Pinsont then Prothonotary, who reported as followeth.  
Having examined the matter referred to me, 
Februa.  I humbly certify that upon Examination I find by the Oath of Marm. James, that near 3 weeks after the date of the Warrant upon which Harrison was Arrested, the said Marm. James searched the Philesors Office for Hartfordshire, and no Writ was taken out at the Suit of the Plaintiff Prat, which also is certified under the Philesors hand.  
By the said Mr. James his Oath, I find; that in Easter Term last, about the 29. day of April, the above named Mr. Nicholas Clark, who (as Attorney, managed the Cause for the Plaintiff though Under sheriff of Hartfordshire) did promise to make peace between the parties, and end the matter speedily; yet in Trin. Term Judgement was entered, the Plaintiff being a Minor not admitted to prosecute by his Procheinamy, though in the Declaration it is inserted that he is Specialiter admissus, which was also certified from Mr. Farmers Office.  
I find by the Oath of the Defendant Harrison, that he having heard of the Judgement, to prevent farther charges, used means to compose the difference, and thereupon it was agreed, he should pay the charge of the Suit, the Bill of which he received the 10: of October last, seven days before the Writ of Inquiry waa executed.  
I find also by the Oath of the Defendant Harrison, that he offering to bring away the Bill to be advised upon, the said Mr. Clark threatened him with a new Arrest, and afterwards, upon the 17. of Octob. the Defendant was Arrested at Mr. Clarks own Suit, and kept Prisoner for the space of three hours, and in the mean while the Writ of Inquiry was executed (as the Defendant was afterwards informed) and not notice given to the Defendant, or his Attorney.  
The Writ of Inquiry and Judgement was stopped Mich. Term last by Rule.  
Mr. Clark hath declared at his own Suit against Harrison for words supposed to be said of him concerning the said Bill of Charges.  
I find that the Bill of Charges amounts to 2 l. 12 s. 9 d. as it was delivered to the Defendant; of that, over and besides just Fees, 12 s. 6 d. besides 6 s. 8 d. which he charges for attending the Writ of Inquiry before it was executed.  
Upon the examination of part of this report, the Bench (all rising up) more than once declared, Mr. Clark did highly deserve to be thrown over the Bar, and for less than half what he had done, others had been so punished. But I not suffering the Council to move, much less to insist upon the Severity, and Mr. Clark submitting himself upon his knees; they ordered that both the Suits against Harrison should be taken off, and the charge of both the Servants, Plaintiff and Defendant laid upon him the said Mr. Clark, and 5 l. to be paid Harrison for his unjust disturbance: Farther commanded the said Mr. Clark to pursue what he moved (viz.) that the Suit of the said M. James should be referred to the Gentlemen of the Country, and so charging him against these vexatious ways, left him to his good behaviour.  
I divers times sent my Servant to him touching the said Reference, 
March.  but could hear nothing from him, though I offered to refer myself to the two Gentlemen of Mr. Clarks own nomination at London in the day of his distress (vix.) Mr. Field and Mr. Winch; but he neither seemed to meddle in the Action or Arbitration, 
1668.  but all at present amort: Save that in June following, his spirits so far revived, as to inform the Crown Office against the poor Servant Harrison (forgetting what he had said ere while, that he had done with the Servant, etc. the Copy whereof as 'tis upon the File, is this; Sir Thomas Fanshaw, I pray you exhibit an Information against John Harrison Labourer, for an Assault upon Francis Prat jun. done about the 15. of April 1667. at Aston, and I will prosecute the same, Nich, Clark, Norton, June 9 1668. This is the same business that he was upon his knees for, and so narrowly escaped the Bar but in February before; to this Harrison appeared, and then pleaded, expecting Mr. Clark Prosecution to Trial, as his note promiseth to the Master of the Office; upon which waiting almost the space of five years in vain (being not able to try it by Proviso) Octob. 24. last took out his discharge.  
But to return to Mr. Clarks Cause with me, that had now got heart by above a Twelvemonths fallow (by which time also through death, 
1669.  and removal, the Bench of Common Pleas was almost altered into oblivion of him, and his submission) the first action, 
April.  and my appearance to it, was waved; and the same thing (according to the former threats) revived, for I was (as the than Under-Sheriff informed me) near Sued to the Outlary (still without Original) which I superseded in Easter Term following, and leaving London, and my Cause with my Attorney to plead Non assumpsit, the next Term, who (being dealt withal Mr. Clark can best tell how) pleaded nothing at all, so that Judgement passed by default, which was some Terms afterwards overthrown by Writ of Error.  
Mr. Clerk much fleshed with this defeat, resolves to make it a total Rout, and therefore according to the time of the year he useth to accuse in (viz.) June (a month much to be observed for Midsummer-Moon, possibly she too then in Aries) he is much bend for the Crown Office, where he now informs against me in these words; 
June.  Sir Thomas Fanshaw, I pray you exhibit an Information of Perjury against Marm. James Clerk, and this shall be your Warrant, witness my hand, June 28 1669. Nich. Clark, Norton.  
This Information is grounded upon my first Affidavit, that stopped the Judgement against my Man Harrison, the true copy whereof followeth.  
Marmaduke James of Aston in the County of Hartfored Clerk, maketh Oath, that he this Deponent having been informed that there was a Warrant out from the Sheriff for Arresting the Defendant John Harrison, this Deponents Servant, did in, or about the 29. day of April last, repair to Mr. Nich. Clark then under-sheriff of Hertford-shire (who as this Deponent is informed acts in this Cause as Attorney for the Plaintiff in the name of another) and declaring to the said Mr. Clark a dislike of his proceed against the Defendant at the Plaintiffs Suit (the Plaintiff and Defendant being then both Servants to this Deponent) the said Mr. Clark advised this Deponent to make peace between them, which if he, this Deponent could not effect, the said Mr. Clark affirmed he would do it when he should come down into the Country, or to that effect; notwithstanding, about the sixth of May last in Easter Term the Defendant was Arrested, and forced to retain Mr. Draper an Attorney of this Court to appear for him, the matter in question being about a Stroke, or Assault pretended to be given by the Defendant Harrison to the Plaintiff Prat, being a Boy under the said Harrison in this Deponents Service, and this Deponent had not notice of any proceed at Law in the business, until after Trin. Term last, and then had notice, that Judgement was entered against the Defendant by non sum informatus: Upon which Judgement, this Deponent is informed a Writ of Inquiry is executed, without due notice given to the Attorney for the Defendant; which he, this Deponent, verily believeth to be true, for that Mr. Draper, the Defendants Attorney, did not above three days before the Writ of Inquiry was executed, acquaint this Deponent, that he had not due notice of the time of the execution of the said Writ of Inquiry: and this Deponent farther saith, that he hath caused search to be made in Mr. Farmer's Office, and cannot upon search find there is any admittance of a Guardian, or Procheinamy for the Plaimiff, although he be a minor, and although that the Plaintiff does pretend, that there is a Guardian, or Guardians specially admitted by the Court for that purpose, this Oath was made October 25. 1667.  
Upon this Affidavit Mr. Clark informs; That I having not God before mine eyes, but by instigation of the Devil, moved, and seduced, did falsely, maliciously, voluntarily, and corruptly speak, depose, swear, and make Affidavit, that Francis Prat was my Servant, whereas in truth, and in fact he was not my Servant at the time of the aforesaid assault, & that then indeed and in fact I had notice of all the Process at Law against Harrison, which is denied in the Affidavit. 
1667.  Of this I knew nothing till about 12 months afterwards, by accident a friend of mine heard Mr. Burgaine, than Under-Sheriff with Mr. Clarks assistance in the Office) inquire of Mr. Ward Attorney for Hartfordshire in the Crown-Office, 
June. Mr. Gr●● of Clements-I  whether there was not a Capias out against me, and upon the 14. of June following (still under the same unlucky and accusing Moon) Mr. Clark did send down a copy of Articles to the Commissaries Court, sitting then at Steavenage, 
June 14  in which was (amongst other things of like truth) inserted that I was guilty of Perjury, for which I stood Indicted in the Crown-Office.  
A while after I was cited to the Court to answer the said Charge, 
August.  where after matters had depended for above the space of 12 months to my great disgrace, and no proceed upon them; to vindicate myself from the aspersion in Michaelmas Term I did bring it by way of Proviso to Trial in Guildhall: In order to which, being come to London, upon the 26. of October (viz.) five days before the said Trial, by accident, heard I was excommunicate for want of Appearance (which I had performed by my Proctor 12 months before) Mr. Clarks design being (I suppose) to stop my mouth (wherein he was defective in his Law (for though it be true, I brought on the Trial, yet was I still but Defendant in Court, against whom Excommunication was no bar; however) I thought it inconvenient to stand so, upon what pretence soever, and therefore the next morning applying to the Judge of the Arches, was absolved by him, and received a Citation for Mr. Clark thither, where he now is, and we still leave him to make good the said Excommunication. 
October.   
The Trial was upon the 31. of October before Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief-Justice of England, who having perused the Record, stood up, and declared, that the Oath therein contained, he did believe was a true Oath, and somewhat possionately inquired after the Informant, what, who, where he was? to which no answer being given, after Proclamation made, with much ado, one appeared for Mr. Clark (who had absented himself, which is the more be observed, that since he was upon his knees, in the many bicker I have had with him, he has ever shunned the face of a Judge) the matter in Alligation was, that I confessed in my Affidavit, that Harrison was Arrested, and yet I knew of no proceed at Law. Methinks Mr. Clark should have considered, that as the Arrest was confessed, so it must be understood, as the entrance into, and not proceed at Law. The Judge throwing this off as frivolous, demanded if they had any proof; to which was replied, no. The Jury gave it at the Bar, and my Witnesses Harrison and Prat (who might very well have evidenced the Boys service, when the pretended assault was, being upon Easter Eve almost the middle point of that Year where in he served me) returned home again unsworn.  

september.  After this Trial, I ordered my Attorney to file a Bill against Mr. Clark for damage, who sending his Servant Mr. Brooks to him, promised to plead, so that things should be in forwardness against Hillary following; when Mr. Clark refused to stand to his word (a practice I am told somewhat usual with him, that well knows words are but wind) so that the said Brooks was forced to make Oath before Judge Wild, to constrain him to plead, or be forejudged, the copy of whose Affidavit bears date the 31. of Jan. last. 
●●nuary.   

1672.  Having now got Mr. Clark sure, it was time to have perusal of the Declaration, wherein being very much unsatisfied, I repaired to Council above, upon whose advice, and my motion, the Bench made a Rule, that I should have liberty to amend it, 
May.  and Mr. Clark still bound to plead; but here he gave me the slip, and I knew not how to collar him again, seeing that all the Law can do, is but to convict the person as guilty, and make him endure judgement, which by his Nihil dicit, is employed, and granted; the meaning of which seems to be for mitigation of damages, by declining a grave, and solemn hearing before the Lord Chief Justice, and a well stated Jury, to bring it to that of inquiry, whose verdict is not usually high in such matters, yet so far were they possessed upon hearing of the injury done me, they gave me 100 ll. damage, and the Prothonotaay assigned against him for that Suit five and twenty pounds Costs. To this Mr, Clark retardationis gratia (I suppose) has brought his Writ of Error, in which I presume his belief, 
July.  I desire his success may not be the same against me, that mine was against him, where the Error was so clear that no Council appeared against it, the more strange in that my Attorney was cajoled into such connivance (by what Artifice Mr. Clark knows best) that three times the Record was disfiled for amendment to avoid Error, but all in vain.  
It is here to be noted, that as upon the approach of the first Trial 'twas thought meet to perplex me with Excommunication; so upon the brow of this last, a strange thing happens (viz.) that all the Records of the past proceed (saving a piece of a sheet) were lost out of the Crown-Office, which, this uncouth thing with intimation of complaint to the justest of Men, Sir Matthew Hale, not a little amazed; and with marvellous celerity, all was Recorded anew, and forthwith put under Lock and Key at Westminster.  
But who is so bold as Bayard, acting without fear or wit? I dare not charge this imbesslement upon Mr. Clark, have found divers persons at work in other places (possibly for the credit of the Fraternity) yet cannot believe any of the Six would so concern themselves, as to venture either their necks or ears for him.  
To conclude all for brevity sake (many material passages being omitted in this story) these things seem to challenge observation.  
1. My own weakness, that when all things were so prepared in the first overture for Trial, and the Bench so disposed, that nothing but the Bar (so long insisted upon) would satisfy, that such a foolish humour should possess me as to stop the Counsels mouth (which was done at the Bar.) The sour look given me upon the interdiction, I have too often since remembered with its entailed proverb (viz.) Save a Thief from the Gallows, and he will hang you if he can: but verily I believed more of a Gentleman to be in Mr. Clark, than I have since found.  
2. The depth of Mr. Clarks plot in its several descents. To accuse of Perjury; a great crime in any man, especially in him whose Profession is truth.  
Next to conceal it so long, that according to the proceed of that Office I 〈…〉 ●nder a Cavias' for a Prison, which was not only enquired after by the Undersheriff as before, but also Mr. Horton the Attorney (that brought both the informations against us) professed to me a little before the last Trial, that he did wonder how I had escaped the Goal.  
Next how handsomely had the charge come to the Commissaries Court, when a Prison disabled both personal appearance, as also presumed conviction of Perjury to be the ground of it, and then Excommunication might have passed much more plausibly than it now did; under which I was to have been detained till the Living was forfeited; hence a person (whom I forbear to name) had not a little busied, as well his own friends as intellectuals, where, in the case, the Title would lie, whether in the Mean, or Supreme Patron, and if there, whether in the Broad or Signet Manual (such a stir there was about the Bear's Skin.)  
This cannot be reputed as a jealous, or fantastical conceit, since I had it (besides many other Circumstances) from a Judge himself, upon his personal knowledge as he professed; but the snare is broken, and I am escaped, God in his mercy preventing this infortunate Politician.  
3. The next strange thing is, that I being Mr. Clarks Friend, and Client, and had as richly requited him for the writings I had employed him in, as any I am confident ever did; that he should thus unhandsomely single out, innocent, or rather deserving me, to practise upon, as the object of his great power in Law: This question is of difficult solution, we must have recourse to opinion grounded upon observation of Circumstances.  
There was a certain person that had all along been an incendiary between me and the Parishioners; this person I found to be the only great acquaintance Mr. Clark had in my parish; and finding his actions in many things Retrograde; I began to suspect, & early in the very Embryo of his recidivations gave him caution against a dirty tongue, by Letter dated (as I find by the Copy) Sep. 27. 1667. notwithstanding which he proceeds, acted as one bewitched (in that upon conserence with him I could not find but in this disturbance in my Family he thought he did me a courtesy:) Feminine influence upon some men's minds, being like that of the Planets upon their bodies, changing them, and they know not how.  
4. The last is, that I should engulf myself in such troubles for a Servant, that some would not undergo for a Child; here is to be considered,  
That my first engagement was only to disimbroil my Servants, from whom Mr. Clark unloosing his Fangs, will fasten upon me, resolving by his strength and grandeur in Law, to make me deeply repent those first, though favourable proceeding against him.  
Farther, the Case was mine, and not my Servants, seeing the intent was through him to wound me. The aforesaid female malice interposing itself against all agreement with the people for their Tyths; to be eased of the trouble of taking them in kind, and attend my Studies; I had many years trained up this Servant the Defendant to the employment. The design being (no doubt) by crushing him with Law, to disable me any way to preserve my own, and the Rights of the Church: And in Reason upon this persons ruin after seven years' Service, how could I ever expect to find another furnished with that truth and boldness, that That Trust requires? To this sense the Defendant Harrison made Affidavit, Octob 25. Car. II. 19 That he, the Deponent had great cause to believe, that the whole business was set on foot, and managed by Mr. Clark, out of particular spleen he had against the Deponents Master: Which I also hearty believe, yet so, that my opposing the Cat's foot employed by the Monkey to fetch 〈…〉