A REPLY To a Certain PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY An unknowing and unknown Author, Who takes upon him to answer the True AND PERFECT NARRATIVE OF The Several PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING The Lord Craven.  
PUBLISHED To undeceive those whom that Nameless Person hath so grossly abused with his Falsities, Mis-recitals, short Recitals, and Inventions( almost) in every page. of his Pamphlet.  
LONDON, Printed by R. White. 1653.   

A REPLY To a Certain PAMPHLET Written by An Unknowing and Unknown Author, Who takes upon him to answer the True And Perfect NARRATIVE Of the several PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING The Lord Craven.  

falconers Examination.  
Who saith,  
THat about a fortnight before the conclusion of the Treaty at Breda, the Lord Craven, 
falconers Information against the Lord Craven Feb. 10. 16●0  the Queen of Bohemia and her two Daughters came to Breda to the Scots King Charles, and went not thence till the King went to Honsleidike, a house of the Prince of Oranges. That during that time, this Informant saw the Lord Craven divers times in presence with the said King, and every day with the said King at the Court there, he being there with the Queen of Bohemia and her two Daughters, to take their leave( as they said) of the King of Scots before he went to Scotland: That several Officers, about thirty in number, made a Petition to the said King, to entertain them to fight for him against the Common-wealth of England, by the name of Barbarous and inhuman Rebels, either in England or Scotland, for the recovering of his just Rights, and reinstating him in his Throne, and deputed this Informant and Colonel Drury to present the said Petition, who indeed drew the same. That when the Informant and some other Officers came to the Court at Breda, intending to present the said Petition immediately to the Kings hand, but finding the Lord Craven very near to him, likewise the marquis of Newcastle, who presented his brother Sir Charles Cavendish to kiss the said Kings hand the evening before the said Kings departure, who this Informant saw kiss the Kings hand accordingly: the Lord Wilmot, the Earl of Cleveland, the Queen of Bohemia, the Lord Gerrard, &c. and a great bustle of business; This Informant, with Colonel Drury, applied themselves to the Lord Craven, entreating him to present the Petition to the Queen of Bohemia, to present it to the King of Scots: the said Lord Craven taking the Petition, and reading the same Cheerfully, said to Colonel Drury and this Informant, There is the Queen of Bohemia, deliver it to her, and I will speak for you: Upon which they applied themselves to the said Queen, and she presented the Petition: After which the King of Scots, the Lord Craven, the marquis of Newcastle, the Queen of Bohemia, with some other Lords went into a withdrawing room, where this Informant and company could not enter: But the Lord Craven came forth of the withdrawing Chamber, and  told this Informant and company, That they should receive an answer from the Queen of Bohemia to their Petition, and that he had spoken to the Queen of Bohemia in their behalf, who afterwards came and  told this Informant and company that she had delivered their Petition, and that the King had taken order for it. The next morning at three of the Clock the King departed, but this Informant and company had their Quarters satisfied by the Princess of Orange, according to the said Kings order upon their Petition, and thereby to enable them to follow the said King in the prosecution of these Wars against the Parliament of England, which was the effect of their aforesaid Petition: That this Informant saw the Lord Craven very often and familiar with the said King, and enter with the said King into the withdrawing Chamber, and stayed there, the last night the said King was at Breda, very late.  
Richard falconer.   

Colonel Hugh Reylys Examination.  
Who saith,  
THat during the late Treaty at Breda, 
Colonel Hugh Reyly● his Information against the Lord Craven. Feb. 10. 1650.  this Informant did oftentimes see the Lord Craven with the now King of Scots in his Bedchamber, and also walked abroad with him, there being no man more conversant with the King then he. That the said Lord Craven during the said Treaty, did twice go to Rotterdam and Dunhagh, and back again, being employed, as was commonly reported at Court there, by the said King. That the said Lord Craven had a charge from the King to look to one Mrs. Barlow, who( as is reported, and he believes to be true) had a child by the King of Scots, born at Rotterdam; which he did: and after the King was gone for Scotland, the said Lord Craven took the child from her, for which she went to Law with him, and recovered the child back again, as is reported.  
Hugh Reyly.   

Capt. Kitchingmans Examination.  
Who saith,  
THat the said Captain Thomas Kitchingman in April and May, 
Captain Ki●chingmans Information against the Lord Craven. Feb. 20. 1650.  1650. Saw the Lord Craven several times with the King of Scots at Breda, and wait●ng upon the said King several times at his Table at Breda; This Informant also saw the Earl of Oxford at the same time with the King of Scots at Breda, waiting upon the said King at his Table, and saw the Lord Craven, and the Earl of Oxford many times go into the withdrawing rooms after the said King: This Informant also saw the Lord Craven, and the Earl of Oxford in the Bowling-ally in Breda cast with the said King.  
Thomas Kitchingman.   

REsolved by the Parliament that the Lord Craven is an offender against the Commonwealth of England, 
The Votes of Confiscation  within the Declaration of the 24. Aug. 1649. entitled a Declaration of the Commons assembled in Parliament, declaring all Persons who have served the Parliament of England in Ireland, and have betrayed their trust, or have or shall adhere to, or aid and assist charles Stewart, Son to the late King, to be Traytors and Rebels.  
Resolved by the Parliament that the Estate of the Lord Craven be Confiscated accordingly.  
Resolved that the Commissioners for Compounding be impowred and required to Seize and Sequester all the Estate Real and Personal of the said Lord Craven, and to receive the Rents, Issues and Profits thereof to the use of the Commonwealth.  
Not long since there was published a true and perfect Narrative of the Case of the Right Honourable William Lord Craven, Baron of Hampstead Marshal, whereunto the Author subscribed his name as ready to justify the same: setting forth the truth of the proceedings therein, in Parliament at the Council of State, before the Commissioners at Habberdashers-hall, and Upper Bench: Serving out the particulars in their own times and colours, without any Comment or other Observation thereupon: Lest the Reader should apprehended the Author intended to bias him in his Judgement, or to led him in the least manner out of the way of his own reason( the just privilege of every Reader) which Narrative contains at large the Votes of Confiscation, Summons, and all other Votes which at any time passed in Parliament against the Lord Craven, with exact Copies of every Petition presented to the Parliament, by or on the behalf of his Lordship. And lastly, the Remarkable trial of falconer that Infamous and perjured person is set forth at large in the said Narrative; And albeit that Narrative was harmlessly penned, and voided of offence: Yet hath it received from a Censorious pen( in way of answer thereunto) ●uch bitter langue: As malicious, Scura●lous, False●, juggling, Undermining, Partial, Untrue, Unworthy, Unsufferable, Bespattering, &c. And much more unseemly expressions, fit only for the Disputants of Billingsgate: The Author( as well he might) being ashamed to put his name to so Scurrolous and Unjustifiable a Pamphlet. It was once Resolved as most prudent to have given no Reply thereunto, till the unknown Person had appeared to have owned the defence: But not hearing of him, and the Author of the said Narrative being desirous to undeceive those whom the unknowing person hath so grossly abused by his Falsities, Mis-recitals, short Recitals, and Inventions, almost in every page. in that Pamphlet: hath thought good to give an Answer to some things which he enforceth as material Objections against the Lord Craven. And first,   

Concerning the Declaration Aug. 24. 1649.  
IT is notoriously known, that the Lord Craven was by the late Parliament voted an Offender within the Declaration of the 24th of August 1649. and thereupon his Estate confiscated.  
To convince the nameless Author of his falsity and mistake, in publishing of that Declaration and Vote made upon it concerning the Lord Craven, and for the satisfying of such as are willing to be undeceived; it will be necessary in the first place, to observe the true ground of that Declaration, which was thus; Letters coming to the Council of State from Sir charles coat, dated at London-Derry the 14th. and 15th of Aug. 1649.( He being then Commander in chief for the Parliament in the Province of Ulster) Mr. Luke Robinson, one of that Council, was Ordered to report those Letters to the Parliament, which he did Aug. the 24th 1649. and the same being red in Parliament, did inform them of the potency of some Forces under the Lord Ards in Ireland,( who had formerly served the Parliament, but had revolted and declared for the late King against the Parliament▪) In one of which Letters then red in Parliament, Sir charles coat had this Passage; That the Parliaments Interest in those Parts was in danger to be wholly lost, and the Forces under his Command likely to be ruined and destroyed by a numerous Party of English and Scots, under the conduct of the Lord of Ards and other desperate enemies against the Parliament. After the reading of which Letters, there was much debate concerning the said Lord of Ards, and those English and Scots under his Conduct, who were formerly in the pay of the Parliament, yet had revolted to the King, and betrayed their trust there, and of the gareat aid and assistance of others, both English and Scots, who were Inhabitants in Ireland, and not in pay of the Parliament, yet adhered to the Enemy; the Parliament( hoping to disperse them by publishing a Declaration that they should be proceeded against as Traitors, and their Estates confiscated) thereupon passed this declaratory Vote, viz.   

Die Veneris 24. August 1649.  
REsolved upon the question by the Commons assembled in Parliament, That this House doth declare, that all persons, whether English or Scots, who have been under the pay of the Parliament of England in the service of Ireland, and have revolted and betrayed their trust there, and all other persons who have or shall adhere to, or assist charles Stewart, Son of the late King, or any the forces in Ireland, against the Parliament of England, are, and be adjudged to be Traitors and Rebels to the Commonwealth of England; And all their Estates shall be Confiscated, and their Persons proceeded against as Traitors, and Rebels; And that all such Officers as have so betrayed their trust be proceeded against by a Court marshal there.  
Ordered, That this Declaration be forthwith Printed and Published; And that it be referred to the Council of State to Communicate the same to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and such others there, as they shall think fit, that the same may be put in Execution.  
And those that shall cast their eyes into the Journal Book of that days proceedings in Parliament, may clearly satisfy themselves, that both that and the other Votes which passed that day, were onely grounded upon those Letters from Ireland, and wholly intended for Ireland; Where they shall find mention of Mr. Robinsons Report from the Council of State, concerning Sir charles coats Letters from Ireland, with mention of the Articles between General own O Neal, and Colonel Richard coat; With the Resolves of the House, that a former Vote of the House of the tenth of this month, in the Case of Colonel monk be communicated to Sir charles coat.  
That the House was well satisfied of the Diligence, faithfulness, and integrity of Sir charles coat; with directions for care to be taken for his better supply for the future; That the Messenger who brought those Letters should be rewarded.  
That those several Letters and Articles, together with the Vote of the House thereupon should be forthwith Printed and Published.  
And at the same time the Declaratory Vote before mentioned, did pass, entered only as a Resolve amongst the rest.  
From all which it may be observed,  
First, That this Declaration was grounded upon those Letters from Ireland; Which Letters say that the Parliaments Interest there was in danger to be lost.  
Secondly, That it pursued the very words of those Letters, English, and Scots in Ireland.  
Thirdly, It directeth, that Offenders against it be proceeded against in Ireland.  
Fourthly, That it be Printed and Published, and sent into Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant to put the same in Execution There. And for that clause, [ And all other persons, &c.] It is apparent that it had Reference to those other persons, English and Scots in Ireland; Who were not in pay of the Parliament; Yet did Aid, Assist, and Adhere to the late King and his Forces there in Ireland under the Conduct of the Lord of Ards.  
This Declaration was never ordered to be published as a Law in England; Neither was it ever passed in Parliament as a Law, But merely a [ Resolve upon the Question] Nor any Title put to it by Vote of Parliament, as is usual to all Laws made by the Parliament, but onely what Title the Printer pleased, and wherein he hath committed an error; Neither hath he printed it with that Letter which all other Laws since the change of the Government are printed with.  
But the nameless Author ( page. 22.) conceives he makes an unanswerable Objection, when he tells you,  
That the Parliament hath resolved, that the Lord Cravens Estate be Confiscate as an Offender against that Declaration.  
If the Parliament, who are Law-makers, without hearing what the Lord Craven could say against it; Declare that he is an Offender within a Declaration of Parliament, which was never Published or Declared to be a Law, and that therefore he shall forfeit his Estate: Who can control it but a Parliament? Otherwise, It might have been offered with much reason and modesty( besides what hath been already said as to the ground, end, and aim of that Declaration,) That the Lord Craven never served the Parliament in Ireland, England, or Scotland; Nor ever was in Ireland, nor in England since the troubles, and so could not betray his trust there; Nor as a private person could adhere to, or assist the King or his Forces in Ireland; Besides, the Lord Craven( and so for nine years together before that Declaration) was out of England, and never heard of this Declaration till he was condemned upon it unheard.  
Pag. 22. He again commits another absurdity concerning the Declaration of the 24. of August 1649. And tells you( that all other persons who have, or shall adhere unto, or assist charles Stewart, Son of the late King, are, and be adjudged Traytors, and Rebels to the Commonwealth of England, and their Estates shall be Confiscated; Which( saith this senseless man) meaneth all persons whatsoever, or wheresoever in these Dominions, or beyond the Seas, that have, or shall adhere to charles Stewart, Son of the late King.  
Answ. So that by his making this a distinct qualification within that Declaration, without reference to the clauses precedent or subsequent, which only relate to Ireland, or to the Clause of assisting against the Commonwealth of England, which he leaves out in his Case; he makes it Treason in any Person whatsoever, to assist the Son of the late King wheresoever beyond the Seas, whether against French, Italian, Turk or Tartar; and besides this, he deals most deceitfully with the Reader, For in reciting that clause,( that all other persons, &c. He leaves out after the word( King) this clause( or any the Forces in Ireland) yet, after that omission goes on confidently with the rest of the Declaration, and saith( and shall be adjudged Traytors, &c.) But it is no marvel if such mistakes happen, when the blind led the blind: For the Printer first erred in the Title of that Declaration, and the nameless Author draws his conclusions from the same.  
Pag. 21. He saith, speaking of the said Declaration, that it doth not follow, that the offence was judged by a Law afterwards made, for that the Law was made before, upon the change of Government.  
Answ. Under favour of this nameless Author; if any man, who before this Declaration was made, had adhered unto the Son of the late King, He may by this Declaration afterwards made, be proceeded against as a traitor, and his Estate be Confiscated: For the words are,( have Adhered) as well as those that shall adhere: And what greater argument can there be, that that Declaration was never intended as a Law, to reach the Lives and Estates of the People of England, for doing of things before that Declaration was made: We have a promise declared by Act of Parliament, that Laws of that Nature shall not be drawn into Example.  
Pag. 8. He undertakes to tell you what the Crime was which the Lord Craven committed against the Declaration of the 24. of Aug. 1649. for saith he, the Lord Cravens converse and familiarity with the King of Scots at Breda, and in the Privy-chambers with the King; and otherwise( being saith he, adherency to the Enemy of this Commonwealth) is consequently Treason by the known Laws of the Land.  
Answ. This man undertakes to name the Child, which hitherto was never done by the Parliament who adjudged the Lord Craven an Offender; for they never declared to this day what his Offence was.  
They only declared the Lord Craven was an Offender within such a Declaration, but never expressed for what; whether for Aid, Assistance or Adherencie to the King of Scots; nor was his Crime ever yet name, or reduced into any charge, that he might know it, and thereby make a legal defence.  
What is an Adherency, is described by that famous Lawyer, the Lord Cook, in his Pleas of the Crown, which is a giving of aid, Comfort or Assistance, which by the Declaration is not only to be given to the Son of the late King, but against the Parliament of England, otherwise it is not within that Declaration; and if that be so, notwithstanding the confidence of that nameless Author, the Lord Cravens Crime is yet as much to seek as ever it was, which was never yet declared or known; though his Estate be confiscate, sold and gone.  
Pag. 2. He saith, That the Commissioners for Comp●sitions being unresolved, whether the Declaration of the 24th of Aug. 1649. did intend that the Estates of such Persons shall be sequestered, who are beyond the Seas, and there have held Correspondency with the King of Scots, during their abode beyond the Seas; and therefore desired ●n explanation therein by the Parliament.  
Answ. 
See the Paper presented by the Commissioners, recited at large in the Narrative.  Here this nameless Author again deals deceitfully with the Reader, and most impudently and falsely fixes the scruple of the Commissioners for Compositions, as grounded upon the Declaration of the 24th of Aug. 1649▪ & so would fortify the Resolve of Parliament as grounded upon a scruple of that Declaration; whereas they in their Paper delivered to the Council of State & red in Parliament, did not so much as mention the said Declaration, nor any clause thereof; Nor was matter of Confiscation properly in Judgement before them; nor did they proceed upon that Declaration against any man, till by an additional Vote upon occasion of debate of the Lord Cravens Case, they were enabled thereunto.   

Concerning the Vote of Confiscation.  
Pag. 3. The unknowing Author saith, That the Lord Craven upon the Order of Confiscation of his Estate, addressed not, or applied himself unto the Parliament in any Petition; thereby endeavouring to acquit himself before those his proper Judges.  
Answ. This is an untruth, fit only to be owned by the father of untruths; for the Lord Craven, besides the several Petitions delivered by others who were ready to undertake on his behalf, and that Petition delivered in August 1651. subscribed by his Lordship in his own hand, which was presented to the Parliament, and not finding a reception thereof, did address himself to the Parliament by another Petition( which last Petition, and a Duplicate thereof had been in several Members hands nine moneths before) in expectation of an opportunity to present the same to the House; and at last came to be red in Parliament the 22 of June 1652. In which Petition he doth particularly take notice of the Votes of the 6 of March 1650. and therein asserts the falsehood of falconers Information, and his own innocence to the matter informed against him; and humbly prays that the Parliament( even that Parliament that condemned him unheard) would put his business into such away, as that he might be heard in his just defence by his counsel: But the Parliament, as by their Votes of that day, entered and remaining in the Journal Book appeareth, thought not fit to give way unto it, but on the contrary past a Vote( at that very time when his Lordship desired to acquit himself) to condemn his Estate to sale, without further hearing of him; and yet the unknowing Author would have the world to know that the Lord Craven did decline the Judicature of Parliament in the determination of his Cause, which no man that is not blind with Malice could suggest.  
2. As for the forementioned Votes of Confiscation of the sixth of March 1650. it is observable, that they are without any charge or accusation in themselves, nor do they refer to any impeachment, or other complaint or charge whatsoever depending in Parliament against him, to which he was called, or might answer, had his Lordship been here; which as it is not Parliamentary in the proceedings, so it remains still at the door of the Parliament, crying for a due examination, and that so great a Reproach may be taken from the Nation, who cannot but suffer under such unparallelled proceeding; for albeit the Parliament will not suffer their Power to be limited by others, yet certainly there are Rules as well and certainly known, as to the proceedings in Parliament against any mans Person and Estate, as any Rule at the Common-law; & when in time to come it shall be said that no president can be shewed of a man condemned, either by Act of Parliament or Judgement in Parliament, against whom there was not some Charge, Accusation, or Impeachment depending in Parliament, or some Indictment or Proceedings in some other Court, sent for and removed into Parliament, and whereunto the Party might make his answer, but that of the Lord Craven, men will certainly think him a prodigy that brought the Crime of his Confiscation into the World with him.  
The great Charter of the Peoples Liberties, for which so many battles were fought, and so much blood and treasure spent for so many Ages together, was made sacred by the solemn Oaths of our Fore-fathers for them and theirs, and also by a Law in the 42th year of King Edward the third, whereby it is Enacted, if any Parliament do ordain any thing contrary to the Concessions of it shall be voided; and as a testimony thereof, the said Statute as the true touchstone of all English Interests, hath been confirmed in Parliament above thirty times; and by the late Parliament by divers Acts, and especially by an Act of the 9th of February 1648. Who once declared, that they would maintain that Law which says, No man should be outed of his freehold, but by lawful Judgement of his Peers or by the Law of the Land; and to say truth, there was Reason for them so to do, considering that the Statute of the 25th Ed. 3. Cap. 4. Enacts that none be put out of his freehold, unless he be duly brought in to answer by due process of Law.  
The Statute of the 28th Ed. 3. Cap. 3. to avoid the mischief done to the People by false accusers, doth Enact that no man be put to answer without due presentment before Justices or matter of Record, or by due process according to the Law of the Land; and if any thing be henceforth done to the contrary, it shall be voided in Law and holden for error; now to those forementioned Laws, not only Judgements and proceedings in Parliament as well as in all other Courts of Record ought to be conformable; for as former Parliaments have Enacted that no persons be condemned, unless by due process of Law he be first brought to answer; so it hath been constantly held and practised for Law, that if the Parliament had at any time proceeded upon an insufficient Charge, and that the condemnation of the party had thereupon followed;( he not taking advantage thereof) the heirs of the parties that have fallen under such Judgements have been received to reverse such Judgements against their Ancestors, by saying that there was no Charge or legal Accusation to which they might answer; The several Judgements given in Parliament against Edward Mortimer Earl of March, against John Matravers, were reversed as being contrary to the Law to try a man without a Crime, or to put him to answer without a Charge; as appears by the Parliament Rolls, 21. Ed. 3. and 29. Ed. 3. which Records do express that to be the reason and none other; And certainly the Law was so taken to be in the late Parliament, when that memorable Person Mr. Pym once a Member of the late Parliament, who in his Speech in the Earl of Straffords Case concerning Breaches made upon the Law,( applicable to powers as well as to Persons) saith, That the Law is the safeguard, the custody of all private Interest; our honours, our Lives, our Liberties and Estates are all in keeping of the Law; without this every man hath a like right to any thing; all things will fall into a confusion; every man will become a Law to himself, which in the depraved condition of human nature must needs produce many great enormities; Lust will become a Law, and Envy will become a Law, Covetousness and Ambition will become Laws.  
Pag. 5. The unknown Author saith, that the Lord Cravens friends supposed he received hard measure in being judged before he was heard.  
Answ. It is sad that any man should account a condemnation of a person( unheard) but a supposed hard measure, which( indeed) was hard measure in the highest degree: When Adam did transgress, God very well knew what he had done, yet God would not condemn him till he had asked him where he was, what he had done, and had first heard what he could say for himself: The like saith God unto the Woman; and after both their answers, then God pronounces sentence upon them: The like dealing did God use towards Cain, for though he knew that he had murdered his brother Abel, yet God requires an account of him, and had his answer to it before he pronounces Judgement upon him.  
Pag. 23. He saith the Parliament upon the proof aforesaid, and for reasons best known to themselves in time of general Imbroylments; Ordered the Lord Cravens Estate to be confiscated; yet they ordered it not to be sold, but the Rents thereof were gathered, which are done ordinarily in order to trial and Judgement.  
Ans. Now he begins a little to weaken the validity of his witnesses testimony, and to help it out with this, That the Parliament for Reasons best known to themselves had confiscated the L. Cravens Estate: The Reasons of Parliaments to take away any mans Life and Estate, ought to be known to others as well as to themselves; and if the results of their reasons appear not upon Record by way of Charge, Impeachment, or Indictment, and that the party by due course of Law be called to answer unto the same: It is not for reasons best known to themselves will justify a Judgement that will reach a mans livelihood and estate, which by all Laws in the world is left to the Owner so long as he is thought fit to live; but in some particular cases of a near nature, Parliaments after a Judgement of life or estate, have added, a saving that it be not drawn into example to preserve the like Cases for their own Judgements; but for the unknown Author to say, for reasons best known to themselves they did confiscate his Estate, is in his sense, to say no more, then that they did it because they had a mind to it: He would also help out that hasty Vote of Confiscation yet further, in that it was passed in time of general Imbroylments; which is most false; for there was not in all England, either field-force, or garrison of the enemies at that time: And if there had been Imbroylments, was that any just warrant to condemn any man beyond the Seas( unheard) and concerning whom there was never any question before them.  
Then he saith further in excuse, That though his Estate was confiscated, yet it was not sold; for the Rents were gathered, as in case of Sequestration; here is still a mistake which the nameless Author is subject unto; for as soon as ever the Vote of Confiscation passed, his personal Estate throughout all England( which was of no small value) was seized upon as confiscate and sold, and much of it bought by Members of that Parliament who condemned him unheard, and who probably had then in their eye the purchase of his Estate; for some of them ever after that Vote of Confiscation, violently pressed on the sale of his Estate, and bought large possessions thereof at easy penny worths; It was not the Bill of Sale which passed Aug. 3. 1652. which confiscated the Lord Cravens Estate, but the Vote of Confiscation the 6th of March 1650. for the Bill of Sale did onely order the sale of the Estate forfeited, but did not create the Forfeiture; & if that were admitted to the Author, that the Vote went but to the profits and not to the Confiscation of the Estate; It is generally thought that the Author may easier find out falconers honesty, then a real difference between the thing itself and profits of it, and the Philosophers ston then either: And for the Nameless Author to compare this Confiscation to the proceedings upon a Sequestration, is the greatest error that can be imagined; For this is the known and just Rule which is punctually observed by those prudent Gentlemen, the Commissioners for Compositions sitting at Habberdashers-hall, not so much as to seize upon and secure any mans Estate, Rents or goods in the Tenants hands, till they have received probable testimony to prove the delinquency; and when they have so secured the Estate, they receive not a penny thereof, but reduce their proof into a Charge, give the Delinquent a copy thereof appoint him a time to make his defence, give him leave to examine witnesses, nay to cross-examine the witnesses that are sworn against him, and to except against them for perjury if there be cause, & then give him leave to be heard by his council( & not condemn him unheard) & after the hearing, in case they be not satisfied upon the defence, that they ought to clear the Delinquent, to pronounce Sequestration of his Estate, not upon a single witness, but upon the testimony of two at the least; and then and not before they issue out an Order to receive the Rents and profits of the Delinquents Lands: This just kind of dealing might the Lord Craven have had before these Commissioners, even in case of Sequestration, had he been so happy as to come before them: But whether he received the like in case of Confiscation, is left to the Reader to think, and the World to judge.  
Pag. 1. He saith, It is most false, that upon the single testimony of falconer, that scandalous and perjured Person, the Parliament had Enacted the Lord Cravens Estate to be sold.  
Ans. It will be made good too, or upon the whi●ling Author whensoever he will pull off his vizard, and show himself barefaced, That by and upon the single testimony of that since perjured person falconer( as to matter of crime carrying with it Treason and Confiscation) the late Parliament did by Vote Confiscate the Lord Cravens Estate( unheard) and afterwards Enacted the same to be sold, refusing to hear proof against that perjured witness before the Bill of Sale did pass, for what the other two witnesses Reyly and Kitchingman do say, That the Lord Craven was with the King at Breda, in his Chamber, at the Table, and Bowling-Alley, carries not Treason or cause of Confiscation along with it, for there is not the least proof by either of those witnesses, that the Lord Craven spoken one word against the Parliament at his being at Breda, whilst the King was there; nor do they, or either of them say any one word that may point that way. Besides, he did not repair out of these Dominions to the King, but the King repaired out of these Dominions into Holland, where the Lord Cravens residence was, and so had been for above twenty years before, and was then attending his Charge there under the Prince of Orange in the service of the States of Holland, as he was bound by the Oath of his employment, by whose Command, and in whose Attendance he came to Breda. The word of God saith, That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. And by the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. cap. 11. there must be two witnesses to convict any one of Treason: Whether these Rules have been observed in the Lord Cravens Case, the Reader is left to judge: But what was wanting in proof against the Lord Craven, to make him a Delinquent, he had a good and free Estate( a snare and Temptation to many) and his offence was ●●oner believed then known by his Judges, who were purchasers of his Estate.   

The Summons.  
THe Nameless Author saith Pag. 5. That upon the solicitation of some Friends of the Lord Cravens, the Parliament the third of July following, Ordered a Summons to be issued out, proclaimed and printed, requiring and commanding the said William Lord Craven by the Authority of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, to make his personal appearance before the Parliament the third of September 1651. there to make answer to all such matters as should be objected against him in the behalf of the Commonwealth of England, whereof he is not to fail at his Peril, which was printed and proclaimed accordingly. And Pag. 25. saith, the Lord Craven not accepting the favour of a Summons, his Name was put into the Bill of Sale for his Lands to be sold.  
Before I enter upon any Answer hereunto, I would ask the unknowing Author whether he thinks he said any thing for his Masters honour, or can he say any thing less then this; that they first confiscated the Lord Cravens Estate, and then summoned his Person to hear that he could say for himself; Certainly the Bishop hath forgotten that ever he was a Clerk: his Masters could not be so ignorant of the proceedings of all the known Judicatories under the Sun, which judge no man in Person or Estate, but upon an Answer, or for the contempt of the Party, as refusing the Law; but since he will have it granted to him that they did so, I will tell the Author of his unheard of Justification, what I conceive of it and him.  
First, It is most scandalously untrue, that any of the Lord Cravens Friends did solicit or endeavour that he might be then summoned; for the Lord Cravens Friends very well knew that there was no Cause for any such desire on his Lordships behalf, there being no Charge or Impeachment depending in Parliament, to which judicially and legally he could then be summoned to come and answer; and this will undeniably be evinced to any man of understanding, by the Petition preferred by his Lordships Friends on his Lordships behalf and red in Parliament, that very day the Order for Summons was conceived and brought forth, thereby setting forth, that his Lordship being far beyond the Seas in the parts of Germany, at the time of the passing of the votes of Confiscation, knew nothing of the Votes against him here in England; and therefore did humbly pray on the behalf of the said Lord Craven, that they might be permitted to sand an express unto his Lordship to acquaint him with the said Votes; but the Parliament( that or what else could be said for his Lordship, notwithstanding did summon the Lord Craven to appear within two Moneths, he being then in Germany 800 hundred miles distant from London) were not pleased to permit the Petitioners to sand to the Lord Craven, to give him notice of the proceedings in Parliament against him, nor to order the Summons to be personally served upon him according to Law( he having passed out of England by licence of Parliament into Holland, a place then in amity with this Nation) onely ordered the same to be printed, and published at the Old Exchange London, and in Westminster-hall, that the Lord Craven might at his peril take notice thereof.  
Secondly, It is to be observed, that the Vote of Confiscation of the 6th of March 1650. and the seizure thereupon of the Lord Cravens Estate, was before the Order for summoning of the Lord Craven about five moneths; And none of the free People of England, who are out of England, ought to incur any forfeiture for their contempt, in not returning into England without a personal Summons under some of the seals of the Commonwealth, which the Lord Craven hath not yet had, nor was any left for him in Holland where his Command was.  
And therefore to inform the judgement of the unknown Author, against the time that I shall have the occasion of knowing him, or he himself better; I will shortly show him, how the Law of this Nation that set the Meer-stones to, & raised the Hay & Hedge about every mans Estate, was before that Vote of Confiscation, and the Summons sent to the Lord Craven at the time of the proceeding against him, and is at this day: It cannot be denied but that by the Course of the Common Law, every man might pass the Seas for merchandise or travail without licence, unless he were by the Writ, de securitate invenienda quod se non divertat ad partes exteras sine licentia Regis, commanded to the contrary, and so the Law continued until the Statute of 5. R. 2. cap. 2. did forbid and defend the passages utterly of all manner of People( except the Lords and great Ones of the Realm, and true and notable Merchants, and the Kings Soldiers) to pass out of the Realm without the Kings especial licence, under the pain of forfeiting of all his goods; and that Act continued until the Statute of 4 Jac. cap. 1. which repeals the Act of King Rich. the second, and sets the Ports open again, and so they remain at this day; that is to say, any man may pass beyond the Seas without licence( if there be no inhibition to the contrary) into any country in amity with our Nation; but to make the Case short and full, the Lord Craven passed the Seas by licence of the same Parliament that confiscated his Estate and exposed it to Sale, for that he was beyond the Seas; that is to say, for not appearing upon a Summons made at Westminster, when his Lordship was in Germany, warranted in his being there, by his Letters of licence; then the Question is, whether his Lordship ought not to have been prrsonally summoned, especially having passed himself beyond the Seas by licence; It is common in the Exchequer to find seizures, Quia recusavit declinare se in regnum per mandatum Domini Regis, and so was the Case of William de Britain, E. of Richmond, whose goods were seized, because he disobeyed a Summons of return served personally upon him in Gascoign, this Record you may find in 19. E. 2. in Sca. 2. & 3. Phil. and M. Dy. 128. p. 61. It is agreed by all the Judges, that albeit the Party had gone beyond the Seas without licence, yet to induce a forfeiture, he must be in contempt, which could not be without a special Commandment under the great Seal or privy Seal sent to him there to return, 2 Eliz. Dy. 176. p. 30. Bartu and the duchess of Suffolk passed the Seas by licence: Bret the Officer that went with the privy Seal to recall them, was forced to swear the service upon them, which he did, specially not being permitted to come to them by the servants of Bartu and the duchess, but that in their presence he did it, and there it is admitted without scruple, that the Summons ought to be to his Person, and so is the opinion of the Judges of both the Benches, and the chief Baron, 13. El. Dy. 296. p. 19. and that the Parliament was of that judgement, it will clearly appear by a Statute made that same year, 13. El. c. 3. Rastal, whereby it is Enacted that they that have gone beyond the Seas without licence, and do not return within six Moneths after Proclamation made under the great Seal of England, shall forfeit the profits of their Estates; but he that passed the Sea by licence, had by that Statute six Moneths after the expiration of his licence to make his return: for the Law was then taken, that such a licence being for a time, it was not revokable by the King himself: Vpon this Act was the Estate of Sir Francis Englefield forfeited; but he had first refused to come home; being personally served with a privy Seal he was out-lawed for Treason in 26 El. in the Kings Bench, and that attainder confirmed by Act of Parliament in the 28th year of her reign: & if you look into the patent Rolls, you will find Pat. 1 El. ps. 4. a licence to Sir Francis Englefield to pass the Sea to the bains for his health, and all this before that any part of his Estate was Confiscated in Vote or otherwise; and why my Lord Craven should not have the same fair play for his Estate that Sir Francis Englefield had, who stood out-lawed of Treason before any thing was done more then the seizure of the profits for refusing to return, puts me into great wonder; It cannot be the difference of Estates, that could cause this diversity of Proceedings; for of cerain Sir Francis Englefield had an Estate not much inferior to my Lord; and since the difference was not in the quarry, it cannot be elsewhere then in the keeness of the Guests.  
Fourthly, If a Charge be in Parliament against any one being in England at that time, and afterwards goes beyond the Seas, Proclamation may be in England to summon him by a day, for that the Charge attached upon him being here, where he might have known what is done; and if he comes not, Judgement may be given against him upon his Flight, as it was in Sir Giles Mompestons Case, in the Parliament of 18 Jac. and as it was in the Case of Thomas Mortimer 21 R. 2. and in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland, 7 H. 4. and in the case of divers persons, who being in England at the time when they were impeached in the late Parliament of high Treason and other misdeameanors, fled, and were thereupon proceeded against by Proclamation in the nature of a Summons, which did issue forth under the great Seal, requiring them to answer the Impeachments depending in Parliament; but without a Charge or Impeachment, there can be no Proceedings or Forfeiture by any Rule of Law or known President in Parliament, unless the party being in England at the time of the Charge upon Proclamation made for his appearance, do not appear at the time; but if he be beyond the Seas at the time of the offence, as also of the Charge drawn upon him; no Forfeiture or Contempt can be fastened upon him without a personal Summons under Seal.  
Fifthly, This being the Law of England, that without a Charge depending in Parliament against one beyond the Seas for a Crime committed there, and a personal Summons thereupon, the life and Estate of such persons ought not to be taken away and forfeited; and the late Parliament having by their Declaration of the 9th of Februry 1648. declared as followeth, That they are fully resolved to maintain, and shall and will uphold, preserve and keep the fundamental Laws of this Nation, for, and concerning the preservation of the lives, properties and liberties of the people with all things inciden thereunto.  
It would therefore be very much for the honour of this present Parliament to give relief to the Lord Craven, who so contrary to Law and the fundamental Rules in Parliament hath had his Estate confiscate and sold, and himself forejudged his native country as an Exile.  
Fifthly, The words of the Summons are further observable: viz. To answer such things as shall be objected against him, a thing frequently used by the Lords of the council when Prerogative was uppermost, and by other Arbitrary Powers in those times; but till now it was never known in Parliament, neither was it ever alleged or thought a Contempt for not appearing to what should be objected against a man, or made a ground by Parliament to forfeit Life and Estate; The Old Law of England being that if a man, who had a personal Summons under Seal legally served upon him, and did not accordingly appear, his Estate for the Contempt was only to be seized quousque until he should come, and there was not to be any Forfeiture and Sale of his Estate; but if the Summons had been to answer unto such things as shall be objected against him, and for which his Estate is already confiscated and shall satisfy, then there had been something towards his Information as to the Crime: and albeit he knew not the Offence, yet he knew the price of it, be it what it will.  
He saith, Pag. 24. That the Lord Cravens not appearing upon the Summons, must needs argue his Guilt.  
Answ. This is but a mere surmise of the Nameless Author: for there were other Reasons which might more justly make the Lord Craven scruple his coming over at that time.  
First, He was declared an Offendor within a dubious Declararation unheard by the Lawmakers themselves, which tied up the Judgement of inferior Courts and Judges, before whom he might have been tried if he were such an Offendor,( as by the Vote he was declared to be) and his Life would then have been in equal danger with his Estate; To say the truth, it had argued his Lordship guilty of little care of his Person, if he had put himself into the hands of his Prosecutor who had already got his Estate confiscate quibusdam certis de Causis, an expression cast out of an evil spirit hating Law, Rule and Order.  
Secondly, That his Estate was thereupon confiscated unheard, and all his personal Estate seized upon and sold before Summons, which issued not until some Moneths after that Confiscation.  
Thirdly, That some of his Judges when his Estate was confiscated ( unheard) bought much of his goods, and were thereby engaged; and who afterwards violently pressed on the Sale of his Land, which some of them afterwards bought to make them Competent Judges of his life, might require a Consideration.  
Fourthly, The Summons was not according to the Law of England, nor the Course of Proceedings in Parliament, nor of any known Law since it was said, I will hear him when his Accuser comes.  
Before the Summons issued forth, the Parliament upon solemn debate refused to resume the consideration of that eager Vote of Confiscation, in order to a revoking or suspension thereof; what then might his Lordship expect, when such a Resolution had passed in confirmation of the Confiscation of his Estate, or to what end should he appear in England, when he had nothing left him but his Liberty and his Credit to live of?  
Fifthly, The Parliament after several applications made unto them, desiring falconers Perjury might be examined, thought not fit to give way unto it.  
Sixthly, And before the Bill of Sale did pass, the Parliament was informed by Petition on behalf of his Lordship, that an Indictment of Perjury was found against falconer; but notwithstanding they thought not fit to permit the business to be examined in Parliament, but proceeded to the Sale, and themselves stepped in first to buy.  
Pag. 23. He saith, The Parliament cannot be supposed to be so unworthy and treacherous, as to order a man to appear to answer to Crimes laid to his Charge, and then to take away his life.  
Answ. The Summons of the Lord Craven was to appear to answer to the Crime objected against him, then and yet unknown to him or any other but his Prosecutor, who wanted neither malice, nor bitterness of spirit to promote their design against him; the Examinations of falconer who is single and indeed hath no fellow for 〈◇〉 deadly sins, can be no legal Charge to answer unto; for they are but things preparatory out of which a Legal Charge, Indictment or Impeachment may be framed, if there be matter for it; and it was the constant practise in Parliament, to put to the Question every Article in a Charge or Impeachment against any Person; viz. whether upon the Examinations which the Chairman reported, they conceive the Article so fully proved, as to pass the same for an Article in the Charge or Impeachment; such was the care of the late Parliament of the Lives and Estates of the People at their first sitting( though it was not practised in the Conclusion) and afterwards the Parties impeached were heard upon the Charge, and not condemned without a Charge or unheard; And when Parliaments leave their known Rules, be their intentions never so upright, those that are by them declared and adjudged Offenders contrary to the known Law, may justly fear their lives to be in danger as well as their Estate.  
He saith, Pag. 2. That the Council of State received Information against the Lord Craven of five several men, and made oath of before the Commissioners, Anno 1650. and Pa. 3. That upon reading the said Depositions, the Votes of Confiscation passed.  
Answ. This is most false: for only falconers, Reylyes and Kitchingmans Examinations were presented to, and red in Parliament, when the Votes of Confiscation did pass; and had there been any more Examinations, that would have made the Lord Craven look like a Delinquent, there wanted not good will in the Prosecutor, to improve the same to the uttermost advantage of himself, as well as of the Commonwealth; Nor afterwards from the time of Confiscation, which was in March 1650. till August 1652. that the Bill of Sale did pass, was there any other Examination red in Parliament against the Lord Craven, or any Charge or Impeachment grounded upon any Examinations whatsoever in all that time.  
Object. But then he tells you, Pag. 49. That there are proofs of another Nature sufficient to confiscate the Lord Cravens Estate.  
Answ. If that hastier Vote of Confiscation may be Repealed, and the Lord Craven restored to his Estate again, the Nameless Author may then proceed with a Charge containing new matter, and the Lord Craven will, and then may( upon equal Terms) appear in person, and abide his Trial; otherwise it will be too like Halifax Law to condemn a man, and then inquire out a Cause for it afterwards; for so it is to confiscate and expose to Sale an Estate, and then afterwards to offer out new matter to warrant the same, which was not under judgement either at the Confiscation or Sale.   

The Address in Holland, called an APPEAL.  
HItherto the Author hath defended the Confiscation for Reasons best known to the late Parliament, now he shifts his sail, and seems to defend it for Reasons best known to the States of Holland; For he tells us, Pag. 3. The Lord Craven waving the Power and Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England, though the said Lord was a native Member and Subject of England; and the matter charged against him, being Treason against the said Commonwealth, De Groot Agent for the Prince Elector Palatine, the Lord Cravens very good and obliged Friend, at the Hague appealed in the said Lords Case, and on his behalf, from the judgement of the Parliament of this Commonwealth, to the States General of the united Provinces of the Netherlands, being a foreign State, May 13. 1651.  
Answ. Here the nameless Author endeavours to draw a belief in the Reader, that the Lord Craven had waved the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England, and had appealed to the States General of the united Provinces, then which nothing is more false, and the Conscience of this unknowing Author must needs fly in his face; for that the Lord Craven was 400 miles from the Hague at that time, and that what address was made to those States, was by the Orders of the Prince Elector Palatine, and by his direction to his Agent with that State, and only to obtain a friendly recommendation of the Lord Cravens Case to the Parliament of England, whose ambassadors were then there negotiating a firm Peace.  
But because that unknown Author further taketh upon him( Pag. 3.) to relate the particulars of that which was called an appeal in Holland, although he hath interlarded it with his own observations almost in every line, and hath omitted very much contained in that Paper called an Appeal; that every one that reads it, may see the malice and mistakes of that nameless Author.  
You shall have the words thereof verbatim, as also the Prince Electors Letter, the grounds of that Address, as the same are now remaining upon Record in Parliament.   

The Prince Electors Letter.  
OUr friendly service, &c. Forasmuch as we have given our faithful Resident, Peter de Groot, a Commission to propound unto your Lordships on our be, half in a matter about the Lord Craven; therefore it is our friendly request to your Lordships, to grant him a courteous Audience, and to give full credit to his Message, and to be mindful of the said Lord Craven in his affairs; in regard that he hath been many years in your service, and hath done much good service to us and our Electoral Family, and to hold him specially recommended; and we shall aclowledge such favour as though it were done to ourselves, and upon all occasions seek to requited herewith, &c.  
Exhibitum the 31 of May 1651.   

High and Mighty Lords,  
IN pursuance of the verbal Proposition made this day in your honourable Assembly by his Electoral Highness, my Lord and Master, comform to his Missive Letter of the 10 / 20 of this month, in the business of my Lord Craven, I have put in writing, and thereunto annexed the Depositions made or contrived against the said Lord Craven, the condemnation which followed thereon, the Confiscation of his Goods which rose upon it, the execution thereof decreed and partly done, with a confutation of the said Depositions, and a demonstration of the Nullities, as well as of the Injustice committed in the said Condemnation: That your Honours according to your accustomend goodness in relieving and assisting the oppressed, besides the merits of the Person, and the earnest request of his Electoral Highness, especially considering the justness of the matter for redress of your credit, and the opportunity which is given you by occasion of the Alliance with England now in hand, will be pleased to take such a course, as that the Deponents may be punished as perjured Calumniators, the Condemnation wrongfully done be annulled, and my Lord Craven be put again into the former possession and enjoyment of his rightful goods: The Depositions are three in number, whereof the first is ridiculous, the other two utterly false: If they were supsed to be all true, I have in the margin confuted them to be frivolous, and confirmed the confutation with true Certificates or Attestations, so as the Condemnation upon them cannot but be unjust: it is further voided, because it is not applicable to the matter, considering the Declaration whence it is formed( it only concerning those, who falling to the Kings side from the Parliaments service, are declared for Traitors and Rebells) considering the Person( who besides he never served the Parliament, and so cannot have been either rebel or Traitor: besides that he never gave any such assistance or aid to the King, yea is not charged therewith in his Accusations, how false soever they be: also during all that time was out of the country, whom according to the Laws of England itself,( a new Law made in his absence cannot prejudice except it appear that he had notice of it) And considering your Honors, who without a weakening of your Power and Honour, cannot suffer that a Person, who is not only an Inhabitant, but a sworn Servant of this State, should be condemned in a country who are in mutual Amity and correspondence with your Lordships for Civilities and Duty towards this State; and by Order of his Highness, as General, done and performed amongst your Honours, his Lords and Masters; All which being considered, your Honours are entreated, that in respect of the matter which is so just and important, amounting to about 150000 Gilders per annum; in respect of the person, who besides the twenty years service that he hath done this State, hath so bountifully distributed his means in this country in respect of your Honours own Authority, who according to the Declaration there anent, made about the Persons of the English Merchants at Rotterdam, do not permit that any of their Inhabitants( I forbear to say sworn ones) be bound to another State without their knowledge and consent; And in respect of the special recommendation of his Electoral Highness, your Honours would please to be so mindful of the said Lord Craven and his business, that he may be put again into the full possession of his Goods, so as he hath been formerly seized of them by revocation, annullation, or otherwise of canceling or avoiding the aforesaid condemnation, and the effect thereof: That your Honours would be pleased to grant your special Letters of Recommendation for that purpose to the Parliament, to request the ambassadors here for the like Recommendation & endeavours: and if need require, to make the same in your Treaties with the ambassadors of England, as hath been deemed to be done in other matters of the like nature: Assuring your Honours, that the said Lord Craven shall be always ready to employ his said Estate to the benefit or good of this country and her Inhabitants: and that his Electoral Highness, besides the many other engagements which he is obliged to this State, shall also account this as particularly done to his person or family, and shall take hold of all opportunities for to show his thankfulness therefore to this State and Inhabitants.  
The English ambassadors then in Holland having notice of this adderss, certified the Parliament thereof; yet the Parliament did not so much as reduce that into any Charge against the Lord Craven, neither was there any Cause it should be objected as a Charge against him, it not appearing he was privy to it, besides he was 400. miles distant from the Hague at that time: and it plainly appearing by the thing itself that it was not made by him, but by De Groot, by the express direction of the Prince Elector, whose Agent De Groot was, and then Resident for his Highness with the States of Holland: & therefore that cannot or ought not to be alleged as any good Ground to take away the Life and Estate of the Lord Craven: I have now shewed you the Credentials of monsieur De Groot, and his paper which by his Lords and Masters Order, he put in before the States of Holland in consequence thereof, which bespeaks only their mediation in his Lordships behalf, as a person that by long service to them, and a constant Observance of the Electoral Family, had merited from them, and from his Highness the Prince Elector, such succours, as by themselves or their Alliances they might best afford him in so great a storm and distress of his Estate and fortune.   

Concerning that Infamous Person falconer, lately convicted of a foul and palpable Perjury.  
THe unknowing Author saith, Pag. 14. 15. That several single witnesses were produced to blemish the Conversation of falconer: and Pag. 48. saith, That the Narrator doth with Deceit, partiality and untruth, designedly blemish the Justice of the proceedings of Parliament, and to undermine the Act by which the Lord Cravens Estate is by them adjudged to be sold.  
Answ. A man cannot speak Truth, that falconer is a perjured Person, or that he was in Newgate and other Gaols for suspicion of Felony, Robbery and Murder, and endeavoured to bugger a man, or that he drunk an Health to the Devil, swore wounds & blood he would bugger a mans soul to Hell, or that he said that our Saviour Jesus Christ was a Bastard, &c. But it must tend to blemish and undermine the Judgement and Proceedings of the late Parliament, and cast aspersions on the Conversation of falconer  
And indeed, when the Narrator offers any thing that carries Justice, Reason and Truth with it, and crosses the design of the unknown Author against the Lord Craven, then he flies to this Argument, The Parliament is undermined: the Judgement of Parliament is questioned.  
If the late Parliament had been pleased, according to the desires of several petitions to them presented, to have given way that the Informations as to falconers perjury in the Lord Cravens Case,( he being a single witness) and his abominable course of Life might have been examined in Parliament, themselves might have been the Judges thereof, which by their refusal came to be heard in the Court of Upper-Bench, where it held six hours Trial: and the said falconer was there by the Oaths of twelve good and true Men( nominated by the Court) convicted of false Perjury.  
And seeing the unknowing Author speaks so much of the Judgement of Parliament against the said Lord Craven, he must know, that what passed in Parliament against the Lord Craven, never passed with the clear Judgement of Parliament, but it met with great and high opposition, though by majority of voices it was concluded against him; for the Parliament was four times divided about the Lord Craven; the first time of division it was carried but by one single voice, the second time by two, the third time by three, and the fourth time by four voices: and when it was put to the question, whether the Lord Cravens name should stand in the engrossed Act for Sale, there were upon the division of the House, twenty in the negative, and only twenty three Members in the affirmative, and nine Members have contracted for near 5000 l. per annum: of the Lo. Cravens Estate, as appears by the Books at Drury-house; besides what is bought in other mens names for the use of Members of that Parliament; and those Members who were then in the late Parliament, and bore their witness against that more then hasty Vote of Confiscation, and the proceedings thereupon against the Lord Craven unheard, or without a Charge, were Persons of Honour, Wisdom, Integrity and Judgement; and if called( no doubt) will express the grounds of their great disassent to, and dissatisfaction of the proceedings against his Lordship( as being without instance in time) and the violence of the prosecution.  
And whereas he saith, there were several single witnesses produced against falconer at his trial; I appeal to that great Auditory who were then present,( being as many as that large Court of Upper-Bench was able to receive) to witness; whether as to the proof of this main Charge of Per●u●y against him, it was only proved by a single witness; f●r whereas falconer swore that in this Petition( pretended to be) promoted by the Lord Craven at Breda, the Petitioners did desire to be entertained to serve the King of Scots against the Parliament of England, by the name of Barbarous and inhuman Rebells; It was proved by three witnesses produced in Court, who red the Petition and signed it,( one of them being falconers own witnesses) that there were no such words in it, though falconer himself often pressed those words might pe put in, having then this design in preparation, and to put all out of doubt: besides the Testimony aforesaid, it was made apparent by the original draft of that Petition produced in Court in the face of falconer, all of his own hand-writing, and red in Court, and not denied by himself; and wherein there was not the least mention of the Parliament of England, or of Barbarous and inhuman Rebels, or to be listed or entertained to serve against the Parliament of England; and what stronger Testimony could there be then falconer against falconer in his own Case? all this is more then needs to be said in this business, for the Jury have found him guilty of Perjury: but only to take off that false suggestion of this unknowing Author.  
This Man can easily swallow falconers single Testimony against the Lord Craven, as ground sufficient to confiscate the Lord Cravens Estate, unheard, and without a Charge; but he cannot bear it, that this Infamous and Perjured Person falconer, should have so much as his Credit questioned by a single witness, though face to face; for it is( saith he) to blemish the Judgement of Parliament, and to fill the Peoples Ears with discourses concerning falconer, a witness for the Commonwealth.   
FINIS.