A PRINTED PAPER Caldoro THE LORD Digby's Speech to the Bill of Attainder OF THE Earl OF STRAFFORD.  
Torn IN pieces, AND blown AWAY.  
Printed in the year. 1641.   

A PRINTD PAPER called THE LORD Digby's Speech to the Bill of Attainder OF THE Earl OF STRAFFORD.  
Torn in pieces and blown away.  
THe sandg, that is the incohaerent self-dividing & self-forsaking speech, that endeavours to show how the same man, might both condemn and acquit the same man (the Earl of Strafforde) doth not so much call for the stroke of an hammer, to batter it, as a puff of wind to blow it away, to encounter it with the Votes of the two houses of Parliament, with the united opinion of the judges, with the learned Argument in Westminster Hall (before the committees of both houses) were to Kill a fly with an Axe, and to honour, rather than to overthrow it. For certainly the strength of it, is only great in the kindness (that I say not the weakness) of the Reader, stealing a way the affection, not convincing the judgement; if Arguments be raised from it; they are such as need an hospital, being blind and lame, if Arguments be raised against it the speech falls before them, like grass before the Mower.  
Will you see an Argument of this paper, and indeed a paper Argument?  
If it doth not appear to him by two testimonies, that the Army of Ireland was to be brought over to reduce this kingdom than the Earl of Strafford is not guilty of High Treason.  
Now doth he believe himself in this proposition, when he seeth divers other charges of Treason besides laid against him; if three or four treasons be objected and proved, is it a sufficient cause of clearing if on be not proved to his mind, and as he says but by a single Testimony, though the other by more? if the author can not be drawn to a better belief by the cords of Reason, I think he would certainly be drawn to it, by the cords of a comparison. If himself were tied with three or four cords, and a friend had freed him from one, would he tell his friend, let me alone for I am free enough, though I am bound by the rest; surely I think the other cords (after some stay at least) would persuade him to change his mind by his inability to change his place.  
But faults in this paper do not go alone For is he not willingly blind when he sees not the very clause, Of reducing this kingdom by an Irish Army manefestly appearing in the former, and as it were looking him in the face? For a former Testimony of two witnesses saith, that his majesty is absolved from all rules of government and may do what power will admit: certainly most besides himself do see what power will admit the use of an Irish Army and any other that the same power can purchasc, or command. So that where he quarrels for want of an Irish Army he hath gotten now about his ears, Irish, English, Dutch. &c.  
But yet again he multeplies and is fruitful in absurdeties. He says, that he hath no notion of subverting Law treasonable but only by force; certainly this Argument than will never subvert the Law, for it hath no force in it, it is an Argument taken only from his own Ignorance, and runs, or rather haults thus, he knows no other therefore there is no other: to frame this right it should run thus.  
There is no way of subverting the Law, but that which I know, but I know no way of subverting the Law, but by force. Now in the first of these is to much knowledge, and in the latter to much Ignorance.  
But who saith this? Is it some ancient judge or Father of the Law, that hath swallowed and digested the great volumes of that judicious and weighty profession? Or is it the speech of one that looks more into the court than the inns off Court? I pray behold an Engine strongly framed to lift up and overpoised the trust and belief of a whole Kingdom in point of Law, A young gentleman knows it not.  
But if he be not skilful in common Law, he may be some what skilful in common Reason, and that may tell him; that if nothing but force can subvert Law, than judges can not subvert Law upon the seats of justice; For though they wilfully pronounce judgement contrary to Law; stop lawful defences and rob the Subject of the benefit of Law; and let lose the prerogative upon the Law to destroy it, except they drive the Subjects away from Courts of justice by Halberds & Guns; they may take the Law from them by false judgements, denying Prohibitions Habeas corpus, & all legal Remedies and yet not subvert the Law. If this author's estate should be lost by this way of injustice, he may comfort himself (and let it be his comfort alone) that it is not lost by Subverting the Law. O unhappy Tresilian that thou didst not live in the times, when such Patronages might have been given thee, for then mightest thou have lived out thy time; since thou couldst not commit Treason by subverting the Iron laws, but only by Iron.  
And now I am fallen upon Tresilian, I may not forget this author's Argument, to which this Tresilian will give an unhappy conclusion.  
He argues thus:  
The Earl of Straffords practices have been as high, as tyrannical, as ever any. But the practices of Tresilian and others have been as high as high-Treason. Therefore the Earl of Straffords practices have been as high as high Treason.  
Thus you see how this Author with the help of Tresilian hath pronounced sentence against the E. of Strafford. So that if he had no other judge this one thus assisted would condemn him, when he goes about to save him.  
But that is nothing to the purpose, that he is condemned; for though he be condemned; and so condemned, that he can never be absolved till he be dispatched into another world, yet this Author will not have a hand in this dispatct.  
A merciful Inference and most unsuitable to the premises, especially if it come out of the mouth of a judge. Mark how it sounds in such a mouth, I being a judge condemn you as guilty of murher or of as high a treason as ever any, but I will have no hand in your sentence or dispatch. If judges should ride their Circuits and end their Assies in this logic, granting the premises, and denying the conclusion, were it not most vain & a mere mockery of justice? For it were only to fi●d faults and not to correct them, and to turn justice into mere words. It would shortly make a kingdom a den of thieves, murderers and traitors, and safe for none to dwell in; no not for those that teach this doctrine; though they may be thought by teaching to deserve it. Nec enim Lex equiar ulla &c.  
Lastly, who can believe this man's suspicions rather than Sr. Henry Vanes Oath upon advised Recollection? And oath that gets an addition of belief from the speeches going before (Jointly testified by the truly Noble Earl of Northumberland) and backed by a memorial written the same day when the words were spoken: which words called venomous by this paper, had their venom from the speaker, not the hearer, and being Recorded the same day wherein they were spoken, did arise thereby to such a pregnance of Testimony, that it became very great, and might in a wise man's eye (be it M. Pym or any other) look very near as big as two.  
But though the testimonies be big, or many, and the charges many also; and the Earl of Strafford as high and tyrannical in practices as ever any (by this author's confession) yet he must at once be both condemned, and saved. Though in his saving, the Votes of both Houses be condemned, and the kingdom and law in danger not to be saved.  
FINIS.