THe sandge, that is the incoherent self-divi­ding and self-forsaking speech, that endevor to shew how the same man, might both con­demne and acquit the same man (the Earle of Strafford) doth not so much call for the stroke of an hammer, to batter it, as a puffe of wind to blow it away, to encounter it with the Votes of the two Houses of Parliament, with the united opinion of the Iudges, 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 then to overthrow it. For certainly the strength of it is only great in the kindnesse (that I say not the weaknesse) of the Reader, stealing away the affection, not con­vincing the Iudgement; if Arguments bee raised from it; they are such as neede an Ho­spitall, being blinde and lame, if Arguments [Page 2] be raised against it the speech falls before them, like grasse before the Mower.

Will you see an Argument of this paper, and indeed a paper Argument:

If it doth not appeare to him by two Testi­monies, that the Army of Ireland was to bee brought over to reduce this Kingdome then the Earle of Strafford is not guiltie of high treason.

Now doth he beleeve himself in this proposi­tion, when he seeth divers other charges of trea­son besides laid against him; if 3. or 4. Trea­sons be obiected and proved, is it a sufficient cause of clearing if 1. be not proved to his mind, and as he saies but by a single testimony, though the other by more; if the Author cannot bee drawn to a better beliefe by the cords of reason. I thinke he would certainly be drawne to it, by the cords of a comparison. If himselfe were tied with three or foure 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) wold perswade him to change his minde by his inability to change his place.

But Faults in this paper doe not goe alone; For is he not wilingly blind when he sees not the Iery clause▪ of reducing this Kingdome by an Irish Army manifestly appearing in the former and as it were looking him in the Face; For a former testimony of 2. witnesses saith, that his Maiesty is absolved from all rules of goverment and may doe what power will admit: certainly [Page 3] most besides himselfe doe see what power will admit the use of an Irish Army and any other that the same power can purchase, or command. So that where he quarrels for want of an Irish Army, he hath gotten now about his eares, Irish, English, Dutch, &c.

But yet againe he multiplies and is fruitfull in absurdities. He saies, that he hath no notion of subverting law treasonable but only by force; certainly this Argument then will never subvert the Law, for it hath no force in it, it is an Argu­ment taken onely from his owne ignorance, and runs, or rather halts thus, he knowes 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 too much knowledge, and in the latter too 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 iudicious and weightie profession, or is it the Speech of one that lookes more into the Court then the Innes of Court, I pray behold an Engine strongly framed to lift up and overpoise the trust and be­liefe of a whole Kingdome in point of Law, A young Gentleman knowes it not.

But if he be not skilfull in Common Law, he may be somewhat skilfull in common Rea­son, and that may tell him, that if nothing but [Page 4] can subvert Law, then Iudges cannot subvert Law upon the seates of Justice; for though they wil fully pronounce judgment contrary to law; stop lawfull defences, and rob the subject of the benefit of law; & let loose the Prerogative upon the Law to destroy it, except they drive the Sub­jects away from Courts of iustice by Halberds & Guns; they may take the Law from them by false iudgments, denying prohibitions habeas corpus, and all legall Remedies and yet not subvert the Law. If this Authors estate should be lost by this way of iniustice, he may comfort himselfe (and let it be his comfort alone) that it is not lost by sub­verting the Law. O unhappy Tresillian that thou didst not live in the times, when such patronages might have beene given thee, for then mightest thou have lived out thy time, since thou couldst not commit Treason by subverting the Iron Lawes, but onely by Iron.

And now I am fallen upon Tresillian, I may not forget this Authors argument, to which this Tresillian will give an unhappy conclusion.

He argues thus:

The Earle of Straffords practises have bin as high, as tyrannicall, as ever any▪ But the practises of Tresilian and others have bin as high as high Treason. Therefore the Earle of Straffords pra­ctises have been as high Treason.

Thus you see how this Author with the helpe of Tresilian hath prononced sentence against the E. of Strafford, So that if he had no other Judge this one thus assisted would condemn him, when [Page 5] 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 dispatcht into another world, yet this Au­thor will not have a hand in this dispatch.

A merciful Inference and most unsutable to the premises, especially if it come out of the mouth of a Judge. Marke how it sounds in such a mouth, I being a Iudge condemne you as guilty of murther or of as high a treason as any, but I will haue no hand in your sentence or dispatch. If Judges shuld ride their circuits and end their Assies in this Logick, granting the premises, and denying the conclusion, were it not most vaine and a meere mockery of Justice? For it were only to find faults, and not to correct them, and to turne Justice into meere words. It would shortly make a Kingdome a den of Theeues, murderers and Traytors, and safe for none to dwel in, no not for those that teach this doctrin, though they may be thought by teaching to deserue it. Nec enim Lex equiar ulla, &c.

Lastly, who can beleeue this mans suspitions ra­ther then Sr. Henry Vanes oath upon advised Re­collection? and oath that gets an addition of be­liefe from the speeches going before (iointly te­stified by the truely Noble Earle of Northum­berland) and backt by a memoriall written the same day when the words were spoken: which words cald venemous by this paper, had their venome from the speaker, not the hearer, and be­being [Page 6] 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 mans eye (be it Mr. Pym or any other) looke very neere as big, as two.

But though the Testimonies be big or many, and the charges many also; and the Earle of Strafford as high and tyrannicall in practises as ever any (by the Authors confession) yet hee must at once be both condemned, and saved. Though in his saving, the Votes of both Hou­ses be condemned, and the Kingdome and Law in danger not to be saved.