Dr. Walker's Invisible Champion FOILED: OR, AN APPENDIX To the late Narrative of the Siege of Derry: WHEREIN All the Arguments offered in a late Pamphlet to prove it a False LIBEL, are EXAMINED and REFUTED.  
By JOHN MACKENZIE, Publisher of the said Narrative.  
LONDON, Printed for the Author, and Sold by the Booksellers of London. 1690.   

Dr. WALKER's Invisible Champion FOILED, etc.  
I Am sorry to find Dr. Walker's Reputation sunk so low, that his Friend who undertakes his Defence, dare not publish his Name. For since he dare not, and yet makes so bold with other men's Reputations, he looks much more like a Libeler than one who by owning what he writes, renders himself accountable to the Public for the Truth of it. And if I may make any conjecture about my Accuser, either from this disingenuous Practice, or from his admirable Style and Humour (which are all of a piece with it,) 'tis the same Gentleman that wrote Remarks on Mr. Osborn's Vindication: But I fear he will have as little success in disproving what he calls a Libel against Dr. Walker, as he had in justifying, or rather palliating the Doctor's real Libel against Mr. Osborn: And as Mr. B. was better employed than to throw away his time in refuting such a heap of falsehoods as his former Scribble contained, dressed up in a medley of Grub-street and Billingsgate, so should I have served this, if he had not endeavoured to amuse the World with some show of Proof for the few things he has to say against my Narrative.  
'Tis no inconsiderable Argument of the Truth of that Relation, that one whose Inclination and Interest led him to take so much pains to blast the Credit of it, has produced no greater Objections against it. There being not above two or three passages, and only one of any moment in the Narrative itself that he ventures to nibble at: For the greatest part of his Powder and Shot is spent against a passage or two in the Preface, where he tells us the Venom lies. But how little execution he has done either on the Preface, or on the Narrative, will appear by a particular examination of all that's material in his Certificates about 'em: For the scurrilous Humour which he will needs without any occasion given him vent against Religion, I think it unworthy of my notice.  
I have said in the Preface to my Narrative, That that part of it which gives an Account of the Siege of Derry itself, was offered by me to be reviewed by such of the Officers of Derry as are now in Town, several of whom, as Colonel Crofton, Colonel Murray, Lieutenant Colonel Blair, Capt. Alexander Sanderson, etc. having heard it read in the presence of Sir Arthur Rawdon, Sir Arthur Langford, Colonel Upton, and several other Gentlemen, and being desired upon every material Paragraph to object against any thing either misrepresented or omitted in that Relation, freely professed their assent to it.  
Here are two things asserted, That that part of the Narrative was offered to be reviewed by such of the Officers of Derry as were then in Town: And that several of 'em, particularly those named, had heard it read, and freely professed their Assent to it.  
Against which, after abundance of such language as is suitable to his Breeding, he produces three Certificates; and I doubt not but he may obtain many more of the same kind from the like Persons.  
Against the former Assertion he brings a Certificate of 17. called Derry Officers, then in Town, who declare, They never saw my Narrative before it was printed, and do not now approve of it, p. 3. 4.  
Now if he please to put on his Spectacles, and compare the words of the Preface with those of this Certificate a little better, He may perhaps be able to discern, that the contradiction betwixt 'em lay only in his Imagination, That it might be offered to be reviewed by those who had not leisure or inclination to be present at the reading of it. And that it was ●●tually offered to be reviewed by the Chief Officers of the Regiments he mentions; and that they were desired to bring any others with 'em that they thought capable of giving me any Information, appears by the following Certificate.  

WE whose Names are subscribed, do hereby certify, That on the 28th of February last passed, we consented and agreed with Coll. Murray, Coll. Hamil, Lieutenant Coll. Blair, and Capt. Sanderson, to meet at the Fountain Tavern in the Strand on the next day, being the first of March, to peruse that part of Mr. Mackenzie's Narrative which related to the Siege of London-Derry, and desired the said Gentlemen to inform Coll. Crofton, and any other Officers they knew in London, that were capable to give any account of the said Siege, all which Persons might have liberty to hear the said Account, and be admitted to make any objections thereto before it was printed.  
Witness our hands this 22d of May, 1690. Art. Langford. Will. Conyngham.   
And now let the Reader judge, whether the everlasting Shame with which he would charitably brand me on this occasion, be not much more due to his Ignorance or Malice, or both. I would here only add, That whether these 17 Persons mentioned in this Certificate approve the Narrative or no, I think myself little concerned, unless they had showed me any mistakes in it. Some of 'em it may be did very good Service; but for others of 'em perhaps they may dislike it, because it makes no more mention of themselves: But that was not any defect of mine, but their misfortune, in having done nothing more memorable; besides, some of them are not in the list of Officers, which I had from the only Store-keeper: But it is fit to return them as such, that they may do some service.  
Against the latter Assertion he produces two Certificates, one of Colonel Crofton's, that I did not read all that part that related to Derry, (he should have said the Siege of Derry,) and that he objected several things against it, and does not assent to, or approve of it. Another of Captain Sandersons, that he did not assent to two particulars viz. The Articles against Dr. Walker, and the discouraging Sermon, not knowing any thing of 'em.  
For Captain Sanderson's Certificate, 'Tis no way contradictory to the true intent of the Prëface, which in asserting their Assent to the Narrative, cannot be reasonably thought to imply, they personally knew the Truth of every particular related in it. 'Tis sufficient that there was no passage they could object against the Truth of: But how little regard is due to either of these Certificates, so far as they contradict what is said in the Preface to the Narrative, will appear by the Testimony of the following Gentlemen then present, whose Credit must be allowed by all that know 'em sufficient to overpoize theirs in this matter.  

WE whose Names are subscribed, do Certify, That that part of Mr. John Mackenzie's Narrative, which relates to the Siege of London-Derry, (particularly the passages now controverted in the Pamphlet, entitled, Mr. Mackenzie's Narrative a false Libel) was (before the printing of it) on the first of March last, at the Fountain Tavern in the Strand, read in our presence and hearing, before Coll. Murray, Coll. Crofton, Lieutenant Coll. Blair, Captain Alexander Sanderson, and Captain Samuel Murray, late Officers at Derry, who being frequently desired and urged while it was a reading to object freely against any thing either misrepresented or omitted in that Relation; and to that purpose several stops and pauses being made at the end of material Paragraphs, told us that where they made no Objection, we might take it for their assent to what was read, and accordingly there were but two or three passages about which any doubt was raised, and even as to those, the Objectors upon hearing the Debates about them, acquiesced in the Evidence given by others for the truth of them; particularly Coll. Crofton, and Captain Sanderson owned the change of the Government (page 30.) to be truly represented; the former also owned that there were such Articles against Dr. Walker, and the latter denied not his having heard frequently of them.  
Given under our hands this 8th of May, 1690. 

Jo. Cuningham.  
Arth. Rawdon.  
Art. Langford.  
Arthur Upton.  
David Cairnes,  
Sam. Bull.  
W. Cuningham.  
Joh. Abernethy  
J. Boyse.     
I must add, That this Certificate from Coll. Crofton is the more strange, because he not only confirmed what is said of Coll. Lundy, Dr. W. and Major. General Kirk, which he has also since owned before Sergeant Osborn, and other Gentlemen, but acquainted us with some passages that on his Information were inserted: Nor do any then present remember any material Objections he made, except one, which was against the Meeting, (which at Coll. Lundy's persuasions signed a Paper of Surrender) being called a Council; but he could not deny what is said of 'em to be true; and whatever Names he would now assign 'em, they then called themselves a Council. And now for the civil Language, of a Spirit of Lying, brassy Impudence, bold Asseverations, gross Prevarication, studied and deliberate Lie, etc. which this Pamphleteer uses on this occasion; the Reader will better understand where to apply it.  
For the Articles against Dr. W. I need no other Instance of this Gentleman's extraordinary Confidence, than his saying they were never exhibited but in my Narrative. 'Tis a sign he is an entire Stranger to Derry, that has the face to deny what was so publicly known there, and there are yet so many living Witnesses of. But as this Advocate of Dr. W—'s, has said nothing to disprove the Articles themselves, so his big words about 'em do not much affright me. Dr. W. will I suppose be wiser than to offer himself to a fair Trial upon 'em; And whether in such a Trial he be cleared or cast, concerns not the truth of my Narrative, which only affirms such Articles were drawn up, and a considerable number of Officers engaged to prosecute him upon 'em, till Governor Baker diverted 'em, by offering to put the Government into the hands of the Council of 14. whereof he was made Precedent: And 'tis not probable, they would undertake to bring such a charge against him without strong presumptions of the Truth of it.  
The next thing which this Pamphleteer falls upon, is to prove Dr. W. Governor of the Garrison as well as the Stores: That he was Governor of the Stores, and therein Assistant to Governor Baker, is asserted in the Narrative, and no way denied in the Preface: But that the care of the Military Affairs of the Garrison was committed to him, or that he shown himself a Hero in the management of 'em, is not asserted in the Narrative, because it is not true, and therefore the Preface does but justly expose his pretenosins to it.  
Now to prove Dr. W. Governor of the Garrison, as to the Military Affairs of it as well as Governor of the Stores: Here are 3 Certificates produced, one signed by 17, called Derry-Officers, another by Captain Bennet, and a 3d by Mr. Squire (whom he calls the present Mayor.)  
On which I need only make the following Reflections, to show the insufficiency of 'em, to the end for which they are brought.  
1. He has not (though great pains were taken to that purpose) produced the testimoney of one Officer for what he asserts concerning Dr. W's. being chosen Governor, that was present to vote at the Election of Governor Baker on the 19th of April. For Colonel Crofton, I can show him a Paper under his own hand, wherein he affirms that Colonel Baker was sole Governor of the Garrison. What Lieutenant Coll. Blair has said of that matter, will appear in its due place: And for Colonel Murray, he did to the Doctor's Face deny him to have been Governor of the Garrison, before the Commit of his Majesty's Privy Council, Coll. Hamil, and Lieut. Coll. Blair, being then present, and not offering to contradict what he said, though the Dr. made his appeal to 'em. And sure these Gentlemen that sign this Certificate, cannot pretend to know that matter better than those who were present when it was transacted. And even some of these very Persons have frequently declared the quite contrary to what they here certify, as Capt. Macullogh, Capt. Watson, etc. so little regard is due to their Assertions, who are so little constant to themselves.  
2. 'Tis strange that neither these 17 Persons nor the Pamphleteer for 'em, should offer the least syllable to invalidate the Truth of those matters of fact which plainly overthrow what they here certify.  
I might upon a little more leisure have produced the Testimonies of more of those present at Governor Baker's Election, for the Truth of what is there related; but I need 'em not while the matters of Fact there mentioned stand uncontradicted. 'Tis strange that Dr. W. should be chosen Governor of the Garrison, and the Military Affairs of it, when he did not so much as stand a Candidate with Coll. Baker, and the other two Competitors; nay when he was not so much as present till after Coll. Baker was elected Governor, and the Regiments were concluded on: And as it is in itself a most improbable thing, that they should in their circumstances, while their Safety entirely depended on their Union, set up two Governors entrusted with equal Power, and much more that they should commit the Military Affairs to one who they knew could not pretend to the least Skill or Conduct in 'em; so the falsehood of it is evident from the very reason alleged by Coll. Baker for desiring an Assistant, and from what he spoke on that occasion, and from the Nomination of his Assistant being left to himself. Besides the frequent Attempts of Dr. W. to assume more to himself, and the vehement opposition he still met with in all of 'em, 
* See Narrat. P. 37, 38. 44.  plainly show the Vanity of his pretensions: For if he was Governor of the Garrison, he was such a one whose Authority was so very insignificant and contemptible in it, that were it not for the liberal Reward that Name has so luckily produced him, he had better never laid any claim to it: But with the good leave of the Writer of the Epistle, annexed to the end of that Pamphlet, these passages do not merely prove that his Government was opposed, as he would now gladly colour the matter, but that his pretensions to the Military part of it were rejected with disdain by the major part of the Garrison, who were forced by such rude treatment to check his busy confident Humour, in incermedling with more than belonged to his Province.  
3. 'Tis yet more strange, That these 17 Persons should never acquaint us with the manner of his being chosen Governor as to the Military Affairs, nor give us the least Instance of one thing done by him in pursuance of his Trust as such a Governor.  
These 17 Persons speak not one syllable of the manner of his being chosen Governor: But perhaps that defect may be thought abundantly supplied in the Certificate of Gervase Squire, Esq which I shall set down at length, that what I shall offer to invalidate it may appear the more plain and unexceptionable.  

I Do hereby Certify, that Dr. George Walker, during all the time of the Siege of the City of London-Derry, and until Major General Kirk came into the said City, executed the Office and Place of Governor of the same joint with Colonel Henry Baker, until the said Bakers sckning (of which he diel) and after with Colonel Job. Mitchelburn, who was in a general meeting of the Field, and other Officers of the said Garrison, elected to act as Governor in the said Baker's place, (during his sickness) as well in all things relating to Military Affairs, as in seeing the Provisions gathered and distributed; the management of the Provisions to the best advantage, was a great means by which the said City held out so long: And I do also certify, that it being agreed upon by the said Governors and Council, that I should administer an Oath of Fidelity (then agreed upon to be taken by the said Governors and Council,) I administered the said Oath to the said Dr. Walker, and Coll. Baker, as Governors of the said City (the said Dr. Walker having the Precedency) as well as to the Members of the said Council, all which I am ready to depose upon Oath, if required: And I do further certify, that I never saw a Pamphlet entitled, A Narrative of the Siege of London-Derry, or any part of it, published by Mr. John Mackenzie, until after it was printed; and having perused it since, I do not approve of it.  
Witness my hand the 9th day of April, 1690. Ger. Squire, Mayor.   
I shall not now insist on it, That as Mr. Squire was not then Mayor of that City; so his Reputation is not of so great weight as this Pamphleteer would in kindness to Dr. Walker make it: But I shall by clearing those matters of Fact which this Certificate gives a very confused Account of, show its weakness and falsehood.  
To this purpose the Reader must know, That neither Coll. Baker, nor Dr. W. were sworn at all at the time of their Election, viz. the 19th day of April, (nor indeed any of those that were then made Colonels.) The occasion of their being sworn was this: The greatest part of the Officers in the Garrison were in May extremely jealous of the Treacherous Designs of Dr. W. and to a high degree disgusted with Governor Baker himself for giving so much ear to the advice of one, of whose Integrity they had so deep a suspicion. Governor Baker to remove all occasion of their sears, and give them full satisfaction in that matter, agreed to the Motion of putting the Government into the hands of a Council of 14. of which they were contented Governor Baker should be the Precedent, (every Regiment deputing one to sit in it, and both City and Country having some to represent 'em.) And if Mr. Squire had pleased to acquaint us what the Oath was which he administered, it would have cleared the whole Affair. For it was no more than this, That they should be true to the Garrison, and have no Treaty with the Enemy, without the Knowledge and Order of that Council. Nor was there any difference in the Oath as taken by Governor Baker, by Dr. W. or any other Member of that Council. Now when this Council of 14. had the Government put into their hands, when Coll. Baker was the only Precedent of it, when Dr. W. had no more power than any other Member in it (his Concern in the Stores excepted) when the Oath Administered to all of 'em was the same, with what face can this Gentleman pretend to have Administered this Oath to Governor Baker and Dr. Walker as Governors of the said City: Nay, to have allowed D. Walker the Precedency, who was not Precedent of the Council? For if he were sworn first in these Circumstances, it could be no other than a mere compliment paid to his gown; for the precedency was evidently due to Coll. Baker, and Mr. Squire could not (whatever he might intent) by Administering that Oath to Mr. Walker make him any more a Governor of the Garrison, than each Member of that Council might as justly pretend to be. Note here, that Mr. Squire in this Certificate mentions not one word of Dr. Walkers being chosen Governor.  
Having said so much to Mr. Squire's, I need say the less to Capt. Bennets Certificate. For not to mention the Obscurity of his Expressions concerning Dr. Walker's Governourship, 'tis strange that he should not only insinuate that Colonel Baker and Dr. Walker were Sworn at the time of their Election; but that this was during his stay there, both which are notoriously false. The Election was on the 19th. of April: The Oath was Administered about the latter end of May; And both by Dr. Walker's Account, and the Relation that's said to be published by himself, Captain Bennet left Derry about 23d. or 24th. of April. And so insignificant is his Certificate, as well as false, that were all true that he saith concerning Dr. Walkers signing any Writings with Colonel Baker to Lieutenant General Hamilton, or giving him a little Money to bear his Charges, or being called a Governor in the Irish Army: 'Tis all consistent enough with his being Governor of the Stores only, if we consider his forwardness, and Colonel Baker's Complaisance. And Captain Bennet might by these weak Arguments, be as easily led to fancy that Dr. Walker was chosen Governor of the Garrison, as he was that Colonel Murray was chosen the General of their Forces, because he usually led 'em out in their Sallies, as is asserted in the printed Relation which is known to be Mr. Bennets. But that the Reader may the better conjecture what it was indeed that moved Captain Bennet to Sign such a paper for Dr. Walker, do but observe the following Certificate from two of Derry Officers.  

WE whose Names are Subscribed, do Certify, that about the 20th. of April last, being in Company with Captain Joseph Bennet in the City of London, and Discoursing about his and our going for Ireland, he demanded whether we had owned or approved of Mr. John Mackenzies Narrative of the Siege of , declaring to us, that if we did, we-needed not go for Ireland with any expectation of Employment in the Army there; nor any who would not express their dislike or disapproving of the same, by reason of Major General Kirks and Doctor Walkers Influence there, or words to that purpose.  
As witness our Hands this 12th. Day of June. 1690. Samuel Murray. Alexander Heron.   
And as none of the Certificates allege any thing done by Dr. Walker as Governor in respect of the Military Affairs, so I would desire his Advocate to give us some Instances of that kind, which methinks 'twere an easy matter to have done, if his pretensions were true. For I hope they will not allow him to have been a mere cipher in that Station; And a few such Instances would have signified more than all these Certificates. And one would think, as my Narrative mentions, so many things done by Colonel Baker as plainly show, that he had the Conduct of their Military Affairs: So Dr. Walkers account should furnish us with the like Evidence of his sharing with him in that part of the Government. I have to that purpose reviewed his Narrative, and shall (to supererogate for once) take the pains to examine all the passages that give the least ground to imagine that the Military Affairs of the Garrison were under his Conduct.  
In p. 21. of Dr. Walker's Account, 'tis said, the Governors divide the Outline into 8 parts, and each Regiment had its own ground, and each Company knew their own Bastion— The Drummers were enjoined to quarter in one House.  
Now the Division of the Outline was made by the Officers themselves; and the quartering the Drummers in one House, was the contrivance of Governor Mitchelburn, and that not till the last Month of the Siege. And the enjoining all parties to forget their Distinctions, etc. and to betake themselves to their several Devotions, mentioned in the same page, was an Order I never heard of in Derry: But those who have so liberally given Dr. Walker the Conduct of our Military Affairs, might very well (to carry on the Humour) give him the Conduct of our Ecclesiastical too, and make him Bishop, as well as Governor of the City.  
In p. 24. Mr. Walker is said to have found it necessary to Mount one of the Horses, to make our flying Horse rally, and to relieve Colonel Murray.  
Now tho' this grand Feat itself be no very-convincing Argument of his Governourship; because it might be done by him as Colonel of a Regiment, (it being more proper for a Colonel, than a Governor to expose himself to so Eminent hazards) yet the Credit of it is much more spoiled by the unhappy Disputes that have arisen about the matter of Fact. For some have started such cross questions about the Armour of the Rider, as well as the Colour of the Horse, as I fear will go near to dismount the Doctor in the next Edition of that Account, and leave Colonel Murray to get off as well as he can without him.  
In p. 26. Mr. Walker is said to draw a Detachment of 10 Men out of each Company, and (after putting 'em into the best order their impatience could allow) to Sally out at the Head of them, with all imaginable silence at Ferry-key-gate.  
Now I have heard indeed, that Governor Baker and other Officers were about to Detach such a number of every Company; But the Soldiers were too eager to wait any of those Formalities, and ran out in what order best pleased themselves. But I never was informed before, that Mr. Walker was so foolishly prodigal of his Life, as to Sally out at the Head of 'em: For if he did so, it was not only with all imaginable silence, but with so wonderful Secrecy too, as to be neither seen nor heard by any of those that are said to follow him. No he understood his Post in the Stores too well to expose his person in any of the Sallies. And therefore the Gentleman that wrote the Vindication of his Account might have spared that long and Learned Apology he has made for the Doctor, as if in the Siege he had been forced to do so many things inconsistent with the Character of a Clergyman. For as to the Enemy, he was a Man of Peace all the time, and was guilty of Shedding no other Blood to Stain his Coat with, but that of the grape.  
In p. 26. 'tis said the Enemy hung out a white Flag, to invite us to a Treaty, and Mr. Walker ventured out to come within hearing of the Lord of Louth and Colonel Oneal, and in his passage, had 100 shot fired at him, but he got the shelter of a House, and upbraided 'em with this perfidious dealing, and bid 'em order their Men to be quiet, or he would command all the Guns on the Walls to be fired at 'em.  
Now besides that Dr. Walker might be sent on a Treaty without being Governor of the Garrison, (as several others were;) I have heard some incredulous people say, that the smoke of the 100 shot was as invisible as the flying of the Bullets; and they could not imagine whereabouts the House stood (all without the Gates, next the Irish Camp, being pulled down) that so happily yielded the Doctor a safe shelter, till he could call to the Men on the Walls to fire the Guns at these Treacherous Villains.  
In p. 32. 'Tis but barely asserted (and without the least ground) that Colonel Mitchelburn was appointed during Governor Baker's Sickness to Assist Governor Walker, that while the one commanded in the Sallies, the other might take care of the Town.  
On the contrary, Colonel Mitchelburn was Deputed by Governor Baker to his own Post, and consequently Mr. Walker was only his Assistant, and as I presume that Dr. Walker will no more pretend to have Commanded in the Sallies, so the Garrison by this time understood him too well to lay any great stress on his care of the Town.  
In p. 33. 'Tis said by the Contrivance of our Governor and Colonel Mitchelburn, etc. we Countermine the Enemy before Butcher's- Gate.  
'Tis a sign how he minded those Affairs, that talks of our Counter-mining the Enemy: For neither they nor we ever drew a Mine. We did indeed Counter-line 'em, but this was purely Governor Mitchelburn's Contrivance, and 'twas a double injury in Dr. Walker, at once to rob him of the sole Honour of that Action, and the Title of Governor too.  
In p. 37, 38. There is a pleasant story about the Suspicions of the Garrison concerning Dr. Walker, occasioned by some Discourse of one Mr. Cole, whom Dr. Walker is said to have confined on the account of it, etc.  
Now the story is strangely misplaced at the end of the Siege; whereas Captain Cole came into Town about the 9th. or 12th. of May: And he was confined by Governor Baker, not Mr. Walker; and that not for any Discourses against Mr. Walker; but on Suspicion of his being an Agent for the Enemy, among whom he had been detained for some time. And so far were the Garrison from being brought to a better Opinion of Mr. Walker by any thing Mr. Cole discovered (as is here idly suggested) that soon after in the same Month, the Articles against him were drawn up.  
And yet these are the only passages in that Account, that carry any colour of an Argument for Dr. Walker's being Governor as to the Military Affairs. And sure if he was such a Governor, he was not so extremely modest, but he might have given us some true Instances of his Military Conduct, especially when he had the confidence to impose upon the World so many mistaken ones. Likewise the Doctor will have Captain Darcy to be prisoner in Derry, and one of the Signers of the Letter, with the Lord Nettervile, etc. to Lieut. General Hamilton, the beginning of July, when it is certain, the said Darcy left Derry before May, 3 or 4 days, Mr. Walker being privy to it.  
And as these three Considerations are sufficient to blast the Credit of these three Certificates, so far as they contradict either the Narrative or the Preface, so for the three Letters annexed, viz. of Captain Alexander sanderson's, Lieutenant Colonel Blair's, and from the Officers of Colonel Lance's Regiment, I shall only say, that as they were written to Dr. Walker, to beg his Recommendation of 'em, so they only give him the Name of Governor, (which the Narrative owns was often given him, as Colonel Baker's Assistant in reference to the Stores.) And these Letters are not the only Evidence, how fulsome Compliments, necessity and hope of Preferment (especially hearing that nothing was to be done at Court for them, but by Dr. Walker's Interest) has drawn from too many of 'em, to one of whom they expressed other thoughts before. For Captain Alexander Sanderson, how particularly he approved what the Narrative relates concerning the change of the Government, was before observed from the Testimony of such as were present. For Lieutenant Colonel Blair, that the Title of Governor wherewith he Complemented Dr. Walker, was never intended by him any otherwise than I have explained, appears not only by the foresaid Testimonial, but by the following Certificate also.  

I do hereby Certify, that about the 15th. Day of of April last, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Blair declared to me in the presence of Mr. John Mackenzy, that he was earnestly Solicited to Sign a Certificate contradictory to the said Mr. Mackenzie's Narrative, and was threatened if he refused, with the danger he might be exposed to by Major General Kirk's, and Dr. Walker's Interest, when he returned to Ireland: But he refused to Sign any such thing; he added also, that though he had in Ireland Subscribed two Letters, one of his own, the other with some other Officers of his Regiment; wherein they had Complemented Dr. Walker with the Title of Governor, in hopes of being by his Interest put on the new Establishment: Yet he knew, and was ready to give it under his Hand, that be acted only as Governor of the Stores.  
Given under my Hand this 8th of May. 1690. John Abernethy.   
And as this Discourse of the Lieut. colonel's unriddles the whole Mystery of these seeming contradictions, in what these Gent. writ and speak concerning Dr. W. so it gives a shrewd specimen of the Artifices (of Threats as well as Flattery) used to suppress the plain Truth in these matters: For that such methods have not been tried with him alone, appears by so many of 'em having changed their Note soon after they came to this Town.  
For the Arguments to prove Dr. W's Governourship from its being owned by the King, the Parliament, the Privy-Council, London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cambridge and Oxford, I shall only add, that as I know not that they have owned him Governor in any such sense as I have here opposed, (viz. with reference to the Military Affairs of the Garrison) so if they have done it, 'tis a much stronger Proof of that Gentleman's extraordinary Confidence in imposing such a Mistake on 'em, than of their Weakness in believing it at first, till better informed; but I suppose if he'll inquire better, he'll find several of 'em are undeceived, and of another Opinion. And if on the score of this small Trick, and the admirable success of it, he will needs compare Dr. W. with the English Rogue, Spanish Gusman, and Crafty Clansy, he may (as being related to him) use the greater freedom with him; but most People will beg his Pardon for thinking it so great a piece of Wit to lead those who had only his own Account of that Matter, and the Account of such as designedly abetted him, into that Mistake concerning him.  
And so much for Dr. W's Governourship.  
The only material Passage that relates to the Narrative of the Siege against which the Pamphleteer has any thing to except, is the Article against Dr. W. for Embezelling the Stores, and the Order occasioned, thereby that his Note should not be accepted by the Store-keepers, unless signed by Gou. Baker or Major adam's. Against this he produces a long Certificate of Mr. Curling's, wherein he affirms that Dr. W. neither could nor did embezzle the Stores, and he never knew the Dr's Orders disputed. Now Mr. Curling does not understand the meaning of that Article; for the Dr. was suspected to have embezzled the Stores by disposing of 'em when taken out of private Houses to his own advantage, without ever suffering 'em to come into the Store-keepers hands. And as my Narrative only affirms this to have been one of the Articles, so the Officers concerned in drawing 'em up, thought themselves capable of proving it, and the Order mentioned was really made on that occasion; and if Mr. Curling himself never saw the Dr's Orders disputed, others as well as myself have several times seen his Note rejected by Mr. Harvey on this very Account, that neither Gou. Baker's nor Major adam's his Hand were annexed to it, and after their Decease Governor Mitchelburn's.  
But there is one dangerous Paragraph in that Certificate of Mr. Curling's, which I must take notice of, 'tis the last, in these words: And lastly, I do declare that some Persons (concerned in putting out this Pamphlet, [viz. The Narrative.] as I presume) since I came to London, did come to me, and would have drawn me by great Promises to have bespattered and abused the Reputation of the said Dr. W.  
Upon which Clause the Pamphleteer thus insults; And do not your Ears tingle? are not your Faces covered with a Blush, who have plotted, caballed and contrived such a scandalous Libel, and more calumniating Preface, and now to hear that some of you have been tampering to pervert Truth, and to add Subornation to Bearing false Witness.  
Here is a desperate Charge, but if he that brings it do not blush when I have cleared this matter, it will be only because he has steeled his Forehead.  
I hope none can be presumed a better Interpreter of Mr. Curling's words than Mr. Curling himself, and what he meant by the Passage last quoted, will best appear by this Certifieate of his own.  

I Edward Curling do hereby Declare, that whereas it is mentioned in a Certificate under my hand, dated the 25th. of April, which is inserted in the Pamphlet entitled Mr. John Mackenzie 's Narrative of the Siege of  a false Libel, etc. that some Persons since I came to London did come to me, and would have drawn me by great Promises to have bespattered and abused the Reputation of Dr. George Walker, that all I meant or intended therein, was only a Discourse that one Mr. Hugh Galibraith had with me soon after I came to this City, touching a certain Letter of Dr. Walker's, which he was told I had, and often was very earnest to have seen or procured it, saying it should be 50 pounds in my way, or words to that effect, in case I would procure it for him; neither were any other Proposals or Promises made to me by him or any other in that behalf, or towards any other bespattering or abusing of Mr. Walker's Reputation, or to have sworn any thing against him, which was never in the least proposed to me by any Person whatsoever, which I Certify, as  
Witness my Hand this 19th. day of May, 1690. Edw. Curling. Witness. Thomas Boulton.   
Here the Reader may see by his own Explication, the [some Persons] mentioned in the former Certificate, amount only to [one Mr. H. G.] And by the way, Mr. G. was no more concerned in the Publishing that Narrative than the Ar. Bp. of Tuam, George Philip's Esq or Mr. Wilkinson himself: Their drawing him by Promises to bespatter and abuse the Reputation of Dr. W. amounts to no more than Mr. G's encouraging him to expect so much Money for delivering up that Letter (which by the way is a very improbable Story, and expressly denied by Mr. G. himself.)  
And now let the Pamphleteer and the other Gentlemen concerned in procuring this Certificate clear themselves as well as they can of the guilt of Suborning Mr. Curling to express so innocent a practice of Mr. G's, as desiring to obtain a real Letter of so considerable importance, by so suspicious words as these; That some Persons concerned, as he presumes, in publishing that Narrative, would have drawn him by great Promises to have bespattered and abused the Reputation of the said Dr. W. I am sure this looks in good earnest like shrewd tampering to pervert Truth.  
But perhaps the Reader may be curious to know what this Letter of Dr. W's was which Mr. G. was so solicitous to procure, and what is become of it; to gratify him therein, I shall give the best account I can of it, from the Relation of Mr. Curling, mentioned in the following Certificate, and the rather because it confirms what is said concerning Dr. W. in the Narrative, and shows how little regard is due to all the good words Mr. Curling has bestowed on him in his first Certificate.  

WE the Subscribers do certify, That on the third of February last, or thereabout; we heard Mr. Edward Curling (who had been in  during the Siege) say publicly on the Exchange, That Mr. George Walker was never Governor of that Garrison, but only of the Stores; and be further said, that Mr. Walker was a great Rogue and Villain, and had endeavoured to betray the said City into the Enemy's Hands: And for that end, had Corresponded with Lieutenant General Richard Hamilton; which the said Curling affirmed, he could prove by a Letter now in his Custody, written by Mr. Walker to the said Lieutenant General Hamilton, the which Letter he offered to show to Mr. John Mackenzie, and us the Subscribers at six a Clock that Evening, in expectation whereof Mr. John Mackenzie and we waited on him at the time and place appointed, and he accordingly met us, and having searched many papers be had in his Portmanteu, found not the Letter, for which he appeared to be much troubled, declaring that he believed that Captain Godfrey (to whom he had given the Key of his Portmanteu that morning, to get out some  he had in it) had Stolen the Letter; notwithstanding the said Edward Curling very solemnly declared, that he fully remembered the Contents of the said Letter, and could prove the same by divers that had seen it. The Contents of which Letter he solemnly Affirmed, were as followeth, viz. Mr. Walker first excused himself for not performing his Engagement to the said Lieutenant General, showing that the Mobile were in a great Tumult and Rage against him; but he hoped they would be soon quieted, faithfully promising that he would perform his Engagement, only requested the Lieutenant General's Patience for a little time, and that he confidently expected the Lieutenant General would not fail the payment of the five hundred pounds; and the securing his Life and Fortune, and procure King James' favour to him. The Contents of this Letter as related here, he promised to Swear before any Magistrate in the City of London, if desired. All which was Mr. Curling's own voluntary Proposal (neither expected nor desired by us) upon our first meeting with him in London.  
Subscribed this 7th. of May. 1690. John Abernethy. Hugh Galbraith.   
And now unless the Letter itself could be produced, we cannot expect any clearer Evidence what the Contents of it were, than these two last Certificates compared together. And as I hope Dr. Walker's Advocate will no more upbraid me with Mr. Curling's Certificate, so he must thank his own folly (to say no worse) that his senseless Triumphs upon it have made it necessary to lay open this whole matter, which indeed does sufficiently bespatter, but (if Mr. Curling his own Witness may be believed) does no way abuse, i. e. injure or wrong the Reputation of Dr. W.  
For the Appendix relating to Captain James Hamilton, and the passage concerning him in Sir Arthur Rawdon's Memoirs; I need only quote Sir Arthur Rawdon's own ingenuous Reply in a Letter to a person of Quality, a Friend of his in Town.  
— There is one Passage in that Pamplet, because it belongs something to me, I beg leave to take notice of, which is about Lundy's being sworn aboard the Ship: In the first place I must needs say, I meant ro particular Reflection on Coll. James Hamilton, whose forwardness every where, especially at Cladyfoord, are too great demonstrations of his Zeal and Integrity to the Cause, to be at all blemished; but as it was matter of Fact, I could not omit it; for being accidentally in that Ship with Will. Ponsonby and others, that I have forgot, and Lundy coming aboard, after some small Discourse we were told they had private Business, so that we withdrew out of the Cabin, and stayed above Deck with Capt. Beverly, till we were wet with rain; what was done in the Cabin in the mean time I know not, nor did I hear till next day, that most People were dissatisfied with Lundy for refusing to take the Oath publicly again, though much pressed to it, particularly by Coll. George Philip's; and though now the excuse is, that the Mayor was a Papist, yet they found a Protestant Mayor there who Proclaimed the King, etc. namely, Mr. Campsie. There is a Mistake of mine taken notice of too in the Book, viz. saying that the Officers Civil and Military, etc. which was from my not remembering the Instructions, which I never heard but once. I find in the Printed Book, inserted in my Memoirs, That the Bishop was by at the Proclaiming the King, etc. though I suppose I meant the Mayor, but the Mistake is not great, and of no consequence. I beg your Pardon for this trouble, etc.—  
Arth. Rawdon.  
I shall only add here, that as all that Sir Arthur Rawdon's Memoir saith about the Swearing of Lundy, is, that if he were Sworn, it was very privately, so this may very well consist with the Truth of what Captain Mervin and Captain Corry Certify: And yet his refusing to Swear publicly in those Circumstances, was a very suspicious sign of his ill intentions, and therefore justly taken notice of.  
For the grave Letter at the end, I see nothing in it of Argument against any thing in the Narrative. For sure 'tis but a sorry proof of Dr. Walker's being Governor of the Garrison, that some who were at first so Charitable as to believe what he pretended to, altered their Sentiments when better informed; but that this was owing to any mistake about his persuasion, is only an idle fancy of the Writers. But sure those have little reason to complain of Dr. Walker's Account being Attributed to the A. B. of T. who with far greater Confidence, father the Preface to my Narrative on Mr. B. and thence take occasion to say whatever their Wit and Malice could suggest against him. But how little either of 'em could furnish 'em with to his prejudice, appears by what this Pamphleteer has said. For he is forced here to renew the same Accusation he had brought in the Remarks on Mr. Osborn's Vindication, viz. That when Dr. King and Dean Manby were picqueering he took up a Flail, and threshed them both, and while the Dr. was engaged in a Duel with a pernicious Apostate from the Protestant Religion, he came behind his Back and stabbed him, only because he incidentally reflected on that persuasion, whereof Mr. B. is ambitious to be the Celebrated Champion. And in his Remarks on Mr. Osborn's Vindication, he saith, he could tell Mr. B. what harm his Book did the Protestants, and what use the Papists made of it against the Church at that time.  
Now if this Pamphleteer's passion had not blinded his Wit, he would in prudence have concealed what casts so unhappy a Reflection on some of his own Coat, but can never lessen the Reputation of Mr. Boyse in the Judgement of any but such ignorant Bigotts as himself. For since he will bring that matter on the Stage, the plain Truth was this.  
Dean Manby printed his Considerations, that moved him to change his Religion, which were nothing else but the old Banter about the Mission of Protestant Bishops and Priests revived. Dr. K. in his Answer, chose to insist on such principles as were only calculated to defend the Mission of the English Bishops and their Clergy, but left the Ministers of other Protestant Churches (that had not Bishops for their Reformers) in the lurch: Nay, he laid down such Notions as made Church-Rebels of them, as well as the Dissenting Ministers, (whom with their Flocks he expressly excluded from the Catholic Church.) Mr. B. wrote Reflections on both these Papers, wherein he laid down the true and common Notions of Protestant Writers about Mission, and on those endeavoured to justify the Reformed Ministry abroad, and particularly those at home: And now can this Scribbler have the Impudence to pretend that that Book should injure the Protestants and give the Papists advantage, which vindicates the Mission of all the Ministers of Protestant Churches (those of the Ch. of England included as much as any) from the Schismatical Principles of the Papists on the one hand, that deny the validity of all Protestant Orders, and those of Mr. Dod-well and his Followers on the other, that deny the validity of any Orders but what are derived from Diocesan Bishops. If Mr. B—'s Flail did on this occasion thresh 'em both, it was because both deserved it: Nor did he stab Dr. K. but rather warded off the stab which his unhappy Notions would have given, not only to his Brethren in Ireland, but those in France, Piedmont, etc. too, and all out of a narrow Zeal for the Church of England. I shall only add that Mr. B. was so far from opposing any just endeavours then used to stem the Tide of Popery, that he preached as many Sermons against it in the late King James' Reign as perhaps any one Clergyman in that Kingdom.  
And on this occasion I can hearty join with the Writer of this Epistle in his Prayers, that God would rebuke that Spirit of bitterness and evil-speaking that exposes us to the scorn of our common Adversary, and contempt of all: And I could wish he had given some good Advice of that kind both to this Pamphleteer, and to the A. B. of T. who in a Sermon preached at Windsor, 1684. and since printed, vents his Passion in such expressions as these, p. 32. But while I am speaking of these things, methinks I hear a Voice saying to me, as to the Prophet, Son of Man, seest thou what they do, they of the Church of Rome? Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations, A People, etc. And so he goes on to describe the Dissenters. And so p. 35, 36.— In return of all which, I hear her (speaking of the Church of England) crying out in the words, and with the tears and compassion of our Blessed Saviour, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, etc. O ye of the Foreign Reformation, how often would I have gathered you under the wings of my Communion, and covered or excused your defects, but ye would not, but now these things are bid from your eyes, and your house is left to you desolate. And O ye of the Domestic separation, how often would I have gathered you, but so often have I stretched forth my hands to a gainsaying and disobedient People: And the same Person in a Sermon preached at Bow-Church, Oct. 23. 1689. speaks to the same purpose.  
P. 15. That Church (viz. The Church of England) would gather all the parts of the Protestant Religion under her wings as a Hen doth her Chickens, but they would not: But as soon as the Sun shines, and the Bird of prey is removed, too many begin again to scatter and divide, and quarrel, as if they would pick out their Mother's Eyes, and then one another, etc. The Reader may observe what a Spirit of meekness, healing, and moderation is in the Mouth of this great Prophet, as well as what a Spirit of Truth, Ingenuity and Candour is in the mouth of this ignorant and scurrilous Pamphleteer.  
For my part, I am not in the least conscious to myself of having said any thing against any Party of Protestants: And if some have the cunning to interest a Party in their Reputation, as if whatever is said to expose their Treacheries, were leveled against all others that are of their persuasion, I cannot help their weaknesses who so grossly misunderstand the Design of my Narrative. But what I have said concerning two or three particular Persons, is no more than what was not only true, but necessary to have been said, in giving that plain Account of these Transactions, which the misrepresentation of others gave too just occasion for. And if the Pamphleteer will needs draw that perverse Inference from my Narrative, That all the brave and glorious Actions in the Siege were performed by the Dissenters, and Coll. Murray at the Head of 'em, All inglorious Actions, and treacherous Attempts are to be imputed to the other part of the Garrison, and principally to Dr. W. let him look to his Conclusion, for the premises are true: But I confess I should deny the Inference, because several of the Officers that are much commended, were of the Church of England, though but very few of the common Soldiers.  
To show further how little Credit is due to Mr. Squire's Certificate, which the Pamphleteer boasts so much of, I shall produce Mr. Squire to confute himself in the following Certificate, though not in its due place, because it came but late to my hands.  

I Do hereby Certify that Gervase Squire, Esq of the City of Derry, did soon after his coming over for England, upon my enquiry concerning Mr. Walker, inform me, that he was not Governor of the said City, but Coll. Baker, and that he had only the Stores committed to his Trust.  
Given under my hand this 14th. Day of June, 1690. Gervase Byfeld.   
I should not have taken notice of another small Mistake relating to Derry, suggested in Mr. Walker's Narrative, if it had not been also inserted in a Letter, subscribed H. R. (probably Hugh Rowley) set down in Mr. Cox's History of Ireland, Part 2d. that Mr. Philips should have sent to the Citizens of Derry on approach of the Irish Forces to shut their Gates, and that they accordingly did so; ascribing that to him which was inconsistent with the Cities' Declaration, Letters subscribed by himself, in my Narrative mentioned, and the Account given by those who were principally concerned in that Affair.  
Having said so much to clear my Narrative from the Aspersions cast upon it by this idle Pamphlet, I think fit to desire the Author if he scribble again, to be so honest as to set his Name to it, for I shall not think myself concerned to encounter any longer with Spectres and Hobgoblins.  
Any Person that hath a desire to see the Originals of these Certificates, may find them at my Lodging, at the Golden Ball and Tobacco-roll in Clements-lane, near .  
FINIS.