YOURS of the 10th instant came the last night to my hands; and I give you many thanks for your kindness therein expressed; and more particularly, that you have so often endea­voured to rescue me from the slanders of such, as without either knowing my Per­son or Offence, have given me those un­charitable and unjust terms, worse than which, the greatest Offenders can hardly deserve. Sir, Your Countrey is not the only place where I have been so traduced: but my misfortunes having made my Name known where in person I have ne­ver been, and my Adversaries being as malicious as numerous, I have heard from other hands, That I have elsewhere met with the like treatment. But to do my self that Justice which I think is in­cumbent on me, in order to the clearing my self from those undeserved Calumnies with which I have been, and am daily slandered, I have herein sent you a parti­cular Account of what, and how, and for what I did so unjustly suffer under our late Male-administration. And seeing the Ho­nourable late Committee of Lords (ap­pointed to examine into the Death of the Right Honourable Arthur (late) Earl of Essex) is dissolved, by the last Dissolution of Parliament, and most of the Depositi­ons and Examinations taken before this Honourable Committee have been read before the Honourable House of Lords, (and so no longer to be thought a Secret). I do humbly conceive it's neither an of­fence, or divulging a Secret, to publish what (since this happy Revolution) hath been proved for the clearing of That Truth which (when I first engaged) to assert, was the highest Offence.

By the Proceedings before this Honou­rable Committee, you will in some mea­sure perceive what great pains those Ho­nourable Persons have been at, in the ma­ny Committees which have herein sat, and the many Examinations taken before their Lordships: All which had long since been published to the World, had it not been for the Prorogations and Dissolution which have happened, depending this Prosecution. But when the Honourable House of Lords shall think fit to revive this Committee, and order this Report to be made, I hope I shall have an opportu­nity to vindicate my self in some other way than at present is proper.

Sir, Tho this Letter may at first sight seem much longer than you think the Subject-matter required; yet when you shall have read the whole, and observed the numerous Examinations and Deposi­tions which herein have been made, what industrious and villanous Oppositions it hath met with, not only in false Reports and sly Insinuations, but the many false Oaths which have been procured, to de­stroy the belief of this barbarous Mur­ther; you will (I hope) not find this [Page 2] Discourse so tedious in its perusal, as at the first glance you may fear it will prove.

Sir, With the leave of a late Author upon this Subject, I have freely borrow'd of that Discourse: Yet in all parts not observed his Method; but according to your Command, shall begin with the Reasons that moved me to this Prosecuti­on: In order to which, I shall in the first place give you a short Relation of my Lord's Commitment to the Tower, with the Depositions taken before the Coroner upon my Lord's Body; for the reading those Depositions proved the occasion of my first engaging herein.

The Right Honourable Arthur (late) Earl of Essex was committed to the Tower the 10th of July 1683. by virtue of a War­rant from Secretary Jenkins; which War­rant ran as followeth:

The first night his Lordship lay at Capt. Cheek's, the then Lieutenant of the Tower; but the next day was removed to Major Hawley's (then Gentleman-Porter of the Tower;) and the two Warders placed upon his Lordship, were Nathanael Monday and Thomas Russel; one to stand at my Lord's Chamber-door, or in his Chamber; and the other at the Stairs-foot; and thus by turns. Paul Bomeny, my Lord's Ser­vant, was permitted to be with his Lord­ship. At Major Hawley's my Lord lay Wed­nesday night and Thursday night; but Friday morning about 9 of the Clock, his Lord­ship was found with his throat cut through both Jugulars and Arteries, even to the Neck-bone, on both sides the Neck. The next day, being Saturday, the Jury sate; and before them were sworn the aforesaid Paul Bomeny, Thomas Russel, and two Chyrurgeons; whose Informations are as followeth, according to the Print; but that (as I shall observe in its own proper place) varies in the Original from Bome­ny's Information.

Upon these Informations, the Coro­ner's Jury found my Lord Felo de se.

The Substance of these Informa­tions in short is this, viz.

That my Lord of Essex called for a Penknife to pare his Nails; but the Penknife not being ready, his Lordship required a Razor, which was delivered him; with which Razor his Lordship retired to his Closet, and locked him­self in: But soon after, the Closet-door being opened, my Lord was found with his Throat cut through both Ju­gular and Arteries, to the Neck-bone, and the Razor (as before delivered) ly­ing by him.

These Informations taken by the Co­roner were published the next Monday after my Lord's Death; and I the 16th of July buying one of these, that very Morning (with one Mr. William Hatsel) went to Wanstead, to the House of one Mr. John Evans, (then an Officer of the Custom-House). Upon reading the last part of Bomeny's Information, which de­posed, That when they opened my Lord's Closet-door, they found his Lordship on the ground, with his Throat cut, AND THE RAZOR BY HIM; Mr. Evans de­clared, That could not be true; for Friday morning about Ten of the Clock, being upon the Custom-house-Key with one Mr. Edwards, the said Mr. Edwards told him (with several others), ‘That his Son being in the Tower that morn­ing, just before the Death of the Earl of Essex was known, he was standing just over-against the Earl's Chamber-window, and saw a bloody Razor thrown out of that Window; which he went to take up; but a Maid came out of Captain Hawley's House, and took it, and forthwith ran with it into my Lord's Lodgings, and up Stairs immediately, several times cry­ing out Murther▪ and then coming down, pretended the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat.’

Upon hearing Mr. Evans give this Relation, I declared, If this was true, what was sworn before the Coroner must be false; and I did not believe they had sworn false for nothing; but must con­clude my Lord was murdered. Hereup­on I did desire the said Mr. Evans to in­form me where this Mr. Edwards lived; for I protested, I would enquire into the matter. Mr. Evans then told me, Mr. Edwards lived in Mark-lane, by the Tower.

When I came to Town that After­noon, about Six of the Clock, I did forthwith acquaint several of my Friends with my Design of making immediate enquiry into the Truth of this Story; which if I found reason to believe, I thought it was proper to be taken up­on Oath before some Justice of Peace, in order to a further enquiry. By most of my Acquaintance I was disswaded from it; they telling me, That if my Lord was indeed murdered, the Persons and Interest concerned in the Murther were too Powerful for me to engage; and therefore I must expect nothing but Ruine by medling in the matter. To all which disswasions, I generally gave this Answer: That I would do nothing herein, but what I could justifie to God and a good Conscience: And the threat­ned Ruine I did not fear, or would there­by be deterred; for if my Lord was in­deed barbarously murdered, the same Principles and Practices that murdered him, might take off many of those Ho­nourable Persons they then had, or should take into Custody, and pretend, as they did in this Case, That this was done by the Prisoners themselves, to a­void an Infamous Execution: So that God only knew in how many Mens Destruction such treacherous practices might determine. But if those bloody [Page 6] Men once found, that such their Design was suspected, and like to be detected, in all probability, they would desist from the like villanous Practices; and seeing this would be more for the Interest of the Publick, than I could possibly be either in my Liberty, or otherwise, I was re­solved to Sacrifice that, and whatsoever else I had, to the Service of my Coun­try.

My Friends finding me thus resolved to engage, they advised me at first to in­form my Lords Honourable Family here­with, and to observe such Directions as from them I should receive; wherefore that very Monday Evening, I went to St. James's Square to my Lords House, where I found Sir Henry Capell under great dis­order, by reason of that deplorable Acci­dent. I did inform Sir Henry of what I had heard, but told him, That I had not then spoken either with the Boy, or his Father, who (as I was informed) lived in Mark-Lane by the Tower; and if Sir Henry thought fit, I would the next Morning go with any whom he should appoint, to Discouse the Father and Him; Sir Henry thanked me for my Information, but said he was then under such a con­cern for so great a Misfortune, as had herein befaln his Family, that he hardly knew what he did or said, &c. The next Morning I went to Mr. Edwards, to whom, as soon as I had told the cause of my coming, the old Man seemed much surprized and concerned, and in Tears told me he was Ruin'd; to which I an­swered, That I did suppose he was not ignorant what great things the Father of this Unfortunate Lord had done, and suffered for His Majesties Interest, and how this very Lord himself had been highly in His Majesties Favour, having been imployed in Places of the greatest Honour and Trust; and therefore, if his Lordship fell by treacherous Hands, none (in reason) could be supposed so zealous for a Discovery, as His Majesty would, who could protect him from whatsoever Danger might seem to threaten him; be­sides, if there were any Danger, I stood principally subject to it; but the Danger I did not fear, considering of what Con­sequence this might prove, by being in­quired into; at length Mr. Edwards gave me the same Information (in substance) I had the day before received from Mr. Evans. I then desired to see his Son, who being then at School, I could not speak with him; but that Afternoon about Two of the Clock I went again, and was then told, That the Boy had denied all, which denial was occasioned hy his Sisters telling him, He should be Hang'd for what he had herein declared; this the Sister could not deny; but as soon as the Boy was called into the Parlour, where I with several others were, before I questioned him about it, I discoursed him concern­ing the danget of a Lye; and after I had solemnly enjoyned him to tell me the very Truth: The Boy then declared to me, as he did at first to his Father and Sisters, and told me, That his Sisters Threats had frightned him into a Denial. Upon this, I took in Writing the Substance of what the Boy declared, and the next day drew it into a formal Information, which followeth:

This the Boy declared he was ready to attest; but finding several Justices of the Peace very shy, I thought it proper to carry these Informations to the Secre­tary of State, and know his pleasure therein; accordingly, Thursday the 18th of July, about Four of the Clock I deli­vered these Informations of the Boy and [Page 8] his Mother, to whom the Boy had dis­cover'd it, as soon as he came from the Tower. My Lord Sunderland seemed much surprised, and after some pause, told me, That I should bring the Persons (who were not then with me) the next Morn­ing, and if it were proper, he would take their Depositions.— The next Morning about Nine or Ten of the Clock, I went with the Boy and his Sister, (the Mother not being well) to whom the Boy had likewise, as soon as he came from the Tower, revealed what he had as before seen. As soon as I came to the Secreta­ries Office, I sent his Lordship word, that according to his Lordships Order, I did attend. Immediately upon which (be­fore my self, or either of the Informants were examined) Mr. Atterbury the Mes­senger came to the Office, and took me into Custody; the only Instance where such as came to give Information on the behalf of the King, Note. were so treated before any Accusation against them) and some short time after, thus in Custody, I was called in before the then King and Council.

The first Question (to my remem­brance) asked, was, What made me en­gage in that mater? To which I answer­ed, That I was altogether unrelated to, and unacquainted with that Honourable Family; so that there lay no more per­sonal Obligation upon me first to move, than upon any Man whatever, who might have met with the like Infor­mation; but it was my love to Truth and Justice first ingaged me in it; and through the Grace of God, my Duty therein I would do, though death stared me in the face every step I made. I can't but here observe the carriage of the then Duke of York, who with a concerned Countenance, leaning his Elbow upon the board, covered his Face with his Hand, upon which I did immediately imagine, that somewhat within did more trouble him, than all the trouble from without did me; for though I stood as the supposed Criminal, I had reason to guess — somebody else was the real one. I did then observe to His Majesty the in­coherence and Contradictions sworn be­fore the Coroner by Bomeny and Russel, who were the Persons that pretended to prove the Self-murther before the Coroner; upon which his Highness called for those Informations, but said nothing in an­swer; His Majesty then took them, and said as little; but the then Lord Keeper North having read them, went about to re­concile those Incoherences and Contradi­ctions; upon which I did object against what his Lordship said, as insufficient, and further urged the Objections I had before made. His Lordship seemed very angry that I made those Reflections; but, with submission, I think, by printing the Coroner's Depositions, every man was in some sort appealed to, whether what was so sworn, and printed, was not sufficient to induce every impartial Person (for such the Coroner and Jury ought to have been) that the Earl of Essex did in­deed cut his own Throat; and the print­ing those great Incoherences, and contra­dictory Depositions, argued as great im­policy in the Authority that published them, as the deposing them did villany in the Informants, or the believing them want of understanding (not to say hone­sty, integrity and impartiality) in the Coroner, and most of the Jury. After some time spent in the Examination, I was ordered to withdraw into the Secre­tary's Office, and repeated Orders given by the then King, that I should be kept close (perhaps that I might not hear the Boy, or his Sister examined) the Boy was then called in, and at first (as I was af­terwards informed) did not deny the truth of his Information; but being not then past Thirteen, and frighted by be­ing before so great Authority, he wept; upon which his then Majesty stroked him upon the Head, and said, did you not in­vent [Page 9] this to excuse your truenting? To which the Boy trembling, answered, yes (this the Boy declared at home after his Exa­mination). Then the Sister was called, who declared how the Boy, upon his first coming from the Tower, had in­form'd her as before set forth; and tho after threatned to be whipt, never retra­cted till the Tuesday, when I having been there, his Sister had frighted him into a denial, which as soon as I came the se­cond time, he retracted, and stood to his first Information, saying, his Sister had frighted him, and told him he should be hanged, and his Father would be un­done; the fear of which made him deny it: She further declared, that she did verily believe they never knew or heard of me till the Tuesday after my Lord's death, and that I never did give, or offer her Brother one Farthing, but still en­joined him to speak nothing but the truth, (this the Sister did after declare was the substance of her Examination). After the Sister's Examination was over, I was the second time called for, and told by my Lord Keeper, that I would have suborn­ed the Boy; to which I answered, that I was well satisfied of my Innocency in, and abhorrence of all such Practices, which in this case appeared impossible, seeing the Relation of the Boy was several days before I ever saw or heard of the Boy; nevertheless I was ready to give what Bail his Lordship should be pleas'd to command; upon which I was ordered to give Bonds with Two Securities in Two thousand Pound apiece; this I did that very afternoon; but the omission of the Under-Secretary, in the form of these Bonds, was very advantageous to me, and my Security; for whereas the Con­dition of all Council-bonds were to con­clude, and in the mean time to be of the good behaviour; this Clause in mine was left out, by which my Friends were sa­ved from that, which otherwise would (as you will afterwards find) have ruined them. Standing thus under Two thou­sand pound to answer to an Information of Subornation, I thought I was in Self-justice bound to make what further in­quiry I could, to strengthen the Boy's Evidence. To which my Lord Keeper (without the least colour) suggested, I did endeavour to suborn the Boy to swear. In this Inquiry I was dayly hur­ried up and down, and found most Peo­ple afraid to discover what they herein knew; and which was more, few of my Acquantance could I prevail with to go with me upon these Inquiries; for my Misfortunes, with the danger that from the corruption of the then Times naturally threatned men, deterred all from engaging any ways herein. But at length I met with a Gentle­man, Mr. Cragg. who readily went with me upon all occasions. In a constant search after many particulars (which would be too tedious here to repeat) I was likewise informed of a Girl that had also seen the bloody Razor, as before, thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window; upon which I went to St. Katherine's, where the Girl lived, and several Persons being present, I took in writing what she could say herein, and what her Aunt and Mr. Glasebrook, to whom she related it as she came from the Tower, could testify; which Relation was as followeth.

About this time I was informed, That the Report of the Earl of Essex's Death was at Tunbridge about Nine of the Clock that very Morning he died, whenas my Lord's Death was not known in the Tower till about Nine; whereupon I rid to Tunbridge, but I found the person very shy, and unwilling to appear in the mat­ter. I had no sooner returned to London, but I was told, the same Report was at Marleborough in Wiltshire (about 70 Miles from London) the very morning of the Earl's death; whereupon I rid to Marle­borough, resolving to trace the Report as near as I could to the Author. When I came to Marlborough, I met with one Je­remiah Burgis, whom before this I never to my remembrance saw or heard of; who declared, That the very Morning my Lord died, he was at Froome in So­mersetshire (about 30 miles distant from Marlborough, and an hundred miles from London) and being there at the Dolphin, he was informed that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower. I did desire Burgis to write me a Letter to the Master of the House at Froome, to inform me (if he could remem­ber) who it was that reported this at his House. I did at Marlborough like­wise speak with one Lewis, who did also inform me, ‘That about Two of the Clock the day the Earl died, as he was riding up Husbands-Hill, (not far from Andover) he overtook a Gentleman, riding a very easie Traveller's pace; and as they were discoursing of the News in the Countrey, the Gentleman said, He had heard a report of the Earl of Essex, that he had cut his Throat in the Tower: But the Gentleman was al­together a Stranger to him, and there­fore he could not inform me how or where to find him.’ With Burgis his Letter I was riding to Froom: but when I came within about six miles of the place, at a Town called Bradford, I stopt at an Inn-door to drink a Glass of Cyder; [Page 11] upon which, one Beach an Attorney, (no­torious in his Countrey and Generation) informed a Justice of Peace then there, That I looked like a disaffected person, by wearing Band and Cuffs, and there­fore in that dangerous Time I ought to be examined; upon which, the Justice came out to examine me, and there came with him one who knew me, so that the Justice seemed well satisfied: But Beach taking the Justice aside, tells him, That he ought to be more strict, and search me; for by my wearing Band and Cuffs, it was plain I was disaffected to the Government, (of this I have been often told by some then there); upon which the Justice told me, He must search me. When I perceived this, I thought it proper to give the Justice a particular Account of the Occasion of my being in the Countrey; as also, what Papers I had about me; which Papers being read, after some Debate, and advising with Beach, he made a Warrant for my Com­mitment, the Form whereof, in the Con­clusion, was the most Illegal I ever saw.

The Warrant ran in these words, viz.

It was long before I could prevail with the Justice to let me hear my War­rant read; but when I told him by the Statute I would have a Copy of it within six hours after I was brought to Gaol, 31 Car. 2. he read it to me; finding the Conclusion to be so Arbitrary, I told him he could not justify his Warrant; which should the Jaylor obey, I might be kept a close Pri­soner during life. For I was not to be admitted to Pen, Ink or Paper, or con­verse, till the Jaylor heard from the King and Council, without which I must pe­rish in Prison without Conviction or Tryal: I told him, That all such Warrants of Commitment ought to conclude, till he be discharged by due course of Law; but the Justice told me he would main­tain the Legality of his Warrant. By vertue of this Warrant I was carried to Wiltshire Gaol (about 30 miles distant from Bradford) where I found the Keeper of more sense or honesty than either his Worship, or his Cabal; for there were several Attorneys in the Inn when I was examined; (with whom Mr. Justice ad­vised) for the Goaler told me, that not­withstanding the strictness of my Com­mitment, [Page 12] I should discourse with whom I would, himself being by; and write to whom I would whilst he was present and saw it. Thanking my Keeper for this Civility, I did immediately demand a Copy of my Commitment, and writ to London for my Habeas Corpus thereupon, which within some short time I received, and was brought to London to be bailed; but all the Judges being out of Town, I was, according as the Statute herein directs, to be carried before my Lord Keeper (North); but his Lordship ordered the Goaler to bring me before him at the Council that Afternoon; as soon as I ap­appeared before his Lordship, my Lord seemed well pleased at a supposed, but mistaken advantage he thought to have had against my Bail; for his Lordship smiling, told me, notwithstanding he did not expect that I should have had much regard to my self, yet he did believe I would have had that just respect to my Bail, as not to ruine them by those new matters then to be laid to my Charge. To which I answered, I knew not where­in I had prejudiced my Bail, of whom the only thing required was my appear­ance the then next Term, which (if God permit) I would do, and thereby in­demnify them: No, replied his Lordship (smiling) the good behaviour was like­wise required; A notorious breach where­of appears in these matters you stand afresh charged with. I did humbly ap­peal to the Bonds themselves, and in the Condition there appeared the Omission before observed. For which his Lord­ship was very angry with Secretary Jen­kins, who immediately transferred the blame thereof to his under-Secretary. When his Lordship found, that by this neglect my Bail was slipt from his hands, his Lordship was resolved to hold me fast enough; and therefore demanded Bonds with Sureties in Twelve thousand pounds, for my Appearance, and as much more Security for the Good Behaviour. I did hereupon desire his Lordship, That he would consider the Statute upon which I then came to be Bailed; and, as that Sta­tute required, his Lordship would consi­der my Quality, and the nature of my Offence: As for the first, I was a younger Brother, and my Father living; and as to the second, the pretended Crime, it was of the very same nature with that under which I stood bound with Sureties in Two thousand pound for my Appear­ance. My Lord Keeper reply'd, That according to the Statute, he did consider both my Condition and the Offence, and re­gulated his Demands accordingly; for had I been an Alderman of London, my Quality answerable to the Crime, for e­very Six thousand pound his Lordship would have demanded Twenty; so that then I must have given Eighty thousand pound Bonds in Bail and Suretyship; which (to the best of my remembrance) is twice as much as I ever yet heard de­manded of any Nobleman in England, though under a Commitment of High-Treason. Whilst I was before the Coun­cil, I desired his Lordship, that some of those Witnesses might be sent for out of the Countrey where the Report was of the Earl's having cut his own Throat in the Tower, before his Lordship was dead. Up­on which, one of the Lords of the Coun­cil (to the best of my remembrance, the now Marquess of Hallifax) said, This is just as it was in the Case of Sir Edmund­bury Godfrey. But the Lord Keeper, I found, would not send for Witnesses to prove what his business was industriously and oppressively to stifle. Not being able to comply with these hard terms, I was remanded to Wiltshire-Gaol: But that night lying in Town, I read the Sta­tute, and advised with some of my Friends, who found that the Good Beha­viour could not be demanded, but that Bail to answer the Cause of Commitment, was all the Statute did require. I did therefore the next morning desire my [Page 13] Keeper to carry me to his Lordship's House in Great-Queen-street; and for the Reasons before observed, I did hope his Lordship would not insist either upon the Good Behaviour, or yet upon so great Bail. My Keeper accordingly carried me: But before his Lordship that time saw me, my Keeper did acquaint his Lordship with the Occasion of his bring­ing me once more before his Lordship. Upon which, the Lord Keeper sent for me, and told me, That the Good Beha­viour he neither did or could require; and if I would give Bail to answer my Commitment, I might have my Liberty. To which I replied, That in so large a Sum as was demanded, I could not; but in all would give Ten thousand pound Bail, which I hoped his Lordship would judge sufficient. His Lordship said, What was agreed upon at the Council, he could not there change: but my Keeper should bring me down that afternoon to the Council; and if there it could be com­plied with, I should be bailed. That af­ternoon I did accordingly attend the Council, where I found his Lordship's mind changed, and returned to his first Demand, Twelve thousand pound for my Appearance, and Twelve thousand pound more for my Good Behaviour; notwithstanding that very morning he had (as before) declared he could not by Law require it.

His Lordship did represent my Offence such as deserved the greatest Punish­ment, and told me, Such Practices might shorten my days, (or words to that ef­fect). I replied, That I was not conscious of my having done any thing which de­served a Prison, much less Death: but the manner of Death I did not fear; and if in the way of my duty I met it, I could as chearfully die at Tyburn in a Halter, as in my Bed of a Fever.

Having thus suffered in the defect of this Act, I cannot but here take notice of one great Omission in this Statute. This Act inflicts a Penalty of One hundred pound upon the Gaoler that denies the Prisoner, or any on his behalf, a Copy of his Warrant; and Five hundred pound Penalty on every Judge that refuses to grant an Habeas Corpus upon the Statute, for the removal of such Prisoners; but inflicts no certain Penalty upon the refu­sal to bail the Prisoner that shall upon this Act be brought before them; so that if the Judge either demand Ten times more than the Quality of the Prisoner, or the Nature of the Offence requires, or refuseth to take any Bail whatsoever, there can no Action of Five hundred pound for this refusal be brought, for no Penalty in this Case is enacted. It's very strange, that the Statute should lay so great Pe­nalties upon the denial of the means of Bail, (viz.) the Copy of the Warrant, and Habeas Corpus; and yet not enact an express Penalty for refusal of the end, (viz.) Bailing the Prisoner; for what signifies either a Copy of the Commit­ment, or an Habeas Corpus thereupon, if Bail be not procured? This is the put­ting the Prisoner to a very fruitless Ex­pence.

I must confess, seeing the Statute re­quires the Judge shall Bail the Priso­ner, taking Recognizance with one or more Sureties, according to the Quality of the Person, and Nature of the Offence, a Special Action of the Case lies against such Judge upon his refusal: But if there be little Damages sustained, as it may hap­pen; for though one Judge refuse, ano­ther may grant the Prisoner his Liberty upon Bail, and consequently so proved, the Jury being sworn to go according to Evidence, as well in the Damages, as in the matter directly in Issue, must go ac­cording to Proof, unless they think the extravagant Verdicts of late Times, (which found One hundred thousand pounds, where not one Farthing was proved), will excuse them, in giving Fifty times more than was sworn to be [Page 14] sustained. Few words more in the Statute would I humbly conceive, have sufficiently provided in this Case; for in the Statute, wherein it is said, That if the Judges shall deny any Writ of Habeas Corpus, by this Act required to be granted, being moved for as aforesaid, (it had been added, or shall refuse such Bail as the Quality of the Prisoner and Nature of the Offence requires), they shall severally forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved the Sum of Five hundred pound, to be recovered in manner aforesaid: These few words would have given the Five hundred pound for refusal of Bail, as well as denying the Habeas Corpus; whereas without the like Clause, the Statute may (in effect) be daily evaded.—To return.

But now, instead of being sent back to Wil [...]shire, I was turned over to Mr. Atter­bury the Messenger, where upwards of five Weeks, I lay at no less Charge than 4 l. and odd Money per Week directly, besides other Collateral Expences; this being too great for my Fortune to com­ply with, I was advised to remove my self to the Kings-Bench; but before-hand, to agree with the Marshal upon Security, to have the Liberty of the Rules; this I did by a Friend, who told me, That upon giving the Marshal 2000 l. Security for my faithful Imprisonment, and 5 s. 3 d. per Week Chamber-Rent, he had promi­sed to allow me the Liberty of the Rules. Whereupon (after some Opposition) I re­moved my self; but the Marshal I found false to his Promise, for he having got me into his Custody, demanded two Men for my Security in 10000 l. a piece, and 10 s. 3 d. per Week, Chamber-rent, and then assured me, I should have the Liberty of the Rules. To these Terms (so much above our first Agreement) I sub­mitted. But the Marshal the second time unjustly disappointed me; for un­der this Security and Chamber-rent, I was ordered to be kept close Prisoner at no less Charge, than 2 l. 5 s. 3 d. per Week; and under this strict Confine­ment, the Marshal refused to give me back my Security-bonds, which at last I was forced with Guineas to redeem. For this severe and unjust Usage, the Marshal pretended the special Order of the then Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, before whom at the Kings Bench-Bar, I was the then next Term bailed; after which, with all possible Industry and Diligence, I re­newed my former Inquiries. But about the 12th of that November, I was taken up by the City-Marshal, by Virtue of a Warrant of the Lord Mayor, or Court of Aldermen, as Illegal in the Cause, as the other was in the Conclusion of the Com­mitment: for the only Cause (if it can properly be so called) in the Warrant, was, My being suspected to be Disaffected to the Go­vernment; finding the words so general, and not one particular Instance to justify that Suspition of Disaffection, I could at first give no probable guess at the Informati­on. By the City-Marshal I was first car­ried before Sir James Edwards, and after that, the then Lord Mayor, before whom I refused to answer such general Questi­ons as were asked, without seeing my Accuser, and hearing my Accusation; but I soon found what was the pretence of my Commitment, which I had grounds to suspect, was designed to be stretched to the highest Offence, nothing less than Treason; for I was charged with be­speaking several Hundreds of the Prote­stant-Flails, with a Design therewith to Massacre the Kings (then called) Loyal Subjects. Refusing to answer the Lord Mayors Questions, I was committed to Captain Richardson, who was ordered forthwith to carry me before the King and Council; as soon as I came there, my old Friend, the Lord Keeper North, began to interrogate me in several Particulars; but I refused to answer any, till I saw my Accuser, and heard my Accusation; his Lordship told me, my not answering that Honourable Board, was a contempt, for which I might be prosecuted. To [Page 15] which I replied with Submission, ‘I did not understand I was obliged in strict­ness of Law, to answer to any Accusa­tion, till I came judicially to be tryed, where I should both see the Accuser, and hear my Accusation.’ At length the King ordered my Accuser to be called in, whose Charge (in Substance) was this, (viz.) ‘That such a time, about four Years and a half before, I came to his Shop, and bespoke a Pocket-Flail; which by Descripti­tion, I did order him to make; the next day after I bespake three more, which I was to fetch the third day.’ And did likewise de­clare, ‘He should make me several hundreds, but I came not according to my Promise for either of the three, or did he make any of that number I pretended to bespeak.’ That ‘I did bespeak one, and the next day three, I did confess to be true, and like­wise fetched one of the three the third day; but these not being made accord­ing to Direction, I would not have the other two. As for the Five hundred, or any such Number I should bespeak, I did declare, (as the Truth was) that part of the Charge was very Malicious and False.’ Major Richardson being then there, as foolishly as maliciously, endea­voured to frustrate my Defence; for he told His Majesty, the true Cause I came not according to my Promise for any of that great number I had bespoke, he would give His Majesty. For Captain Richard­son declared, ‘That almost three years be­fore, he had been in that Turners Shop, where seeing one of those Instruments (it being the first that he ever saw) he demanded of the Turner what he called them; who answered, A Pocket-Flail; and then further told him, 'That the Gentleman for whom he made the first above a year before, pretended he would then have several hundreds made, and bespoke three Flails after the first, but came not for either of the three, or any of that number which he pretended he did want.’ Captain Richardson de­clared upon this, ‘He did believe there was a general Design against the Go­vernment, and therefore he did Charge the Turner, That if the Gentleman came according to his Promise, he should endeavour to secure him; which Caution he did suppose I had heard of, and therefore came not according to my Promise.’ Of this most ridiculous Sug­gestion, I took immediate advantage, and told His Majesty what the Captain al­ledged, could not possibly be true, even by his own Suggestion. For he confes­sed, That the Turner told him when he first saw the Flail, that I had bespoke a great Number above a year before, and was forthwith to have fetched one of them, but came not according to my ap­pointment; and yet the Captain alledges, That his Caution so long after given, did influence my not coming a year and a half before. Immediately upon this, the King saw this Charge mixt with such folly and falshood, that His Majesty thought fit to order my immediate Discharge. As soon as I came into the Room next the Coun­cil, Captain Richardson took me by the Hand, and protested he was extreamly glad I was discharged; but considering his good Service, in just before endea­vouring to prevent it, I gave little Cre­dit to this Assurance. Being once more at Liberty, I continued, as before, my Inquiries, in which I was daily hurried up and down; for having made it my business to get the Names of most of the Soldiers upon Duty that day my Lord was Murthered, I was in a constant In­quiry after some of them; for I had rea­son by some Information I had received, to believe that not a few could speak not only to the throwing out of the Bloody Razor, but to that which was more ma­terial, the sending in the Ruffians to my Lord, and from whom those Villains went commissioned. But as I spoke with any of those Soldiers, I perceived them very shy, and denied to me, what they [Page 16] had before freely confessed to their inti­mate Acquaintance; and afterwards told their Friends, they would not be brought into trouble, by testifying their Know­ledg therein, which they knew would most certainly prove their Ruin.

Whilst I was Prisoner in the Kings-Bench, I (with the rest of the Kings Pri­soners) was several times search'd; but having still notice some short time before such Search, I conveyed away such Papers, as being seized, might have tended to my Prejudice. But in such hurries, I lost a List of such Names that could have declared that which was not a little material to this Discovery.

In Hillary Term 83. Mr. Speake and my self were tried upon an Information; the substance whereof was, ‘That where­as Arthur late Earl of Essex, the 13th of July’ (being Prisoner in the Tower for High-Treason) ‘himself feloniously, and as a Felon of himself, did Kill and Mur­ther, and the day after, was by the Co­roners Inquest so found; The said Lawrence Braddon and Hugh Speake, well knowing hereof, but contriving, and ma­liciously, the Government of our said Lord the King, of this Kingdom of England into hatred, disgrace and con­tempt, to bring, &c. did falsly, unlaw­fully, maliciously, and seditiously Con­spire, and endeavour to make the King's Subjects believe, that the said Coroners Inquisition was unduly taken, and that the said Arthur Earl of Essex, by certain Persons unknown, IN WHOSE CUSTODY HE WAS, was killed and murthered, in order to which they the said Lawrence Braddon and Hugh Speake, did falsly, un­lawfuly, unjustly, maliciously, and se­ditiously Conspire to procure certain false Witnesses to prove, that the said Arthur Earl of Essex, by the said Persons un­known, was killed and murthered. Vide Tryal, p. 4.’

Observe, The Information doth not Charge us, or either of us with conspi­ring, or endeavouring to Suborn false Witnesses; because to prove that, some Money, or other Consideration must have been prov'd offered, or promised; which they being not able to prove, the Information saith we did Conspire to pro­cure false Witnesses. And yet, because Subornation would represent the matter most Odious; in the Title page of the Tryal, it was expressed, Upon an Informa­tion of High Misdemeanor, Subornation, and spreading False News.

This Information charges Mr. Speake and my self with falsly, unlawfully, ma­litiously and seditiously endeavouring to procure false Witnesses to prove, That (the Right Honourable) Arthur, late Earl of Essex, was killed and murthered by persons unknown, in whose Custody he was; but to destroy this conspired Charge of Mr. Speake, and my self, against those in whose Custody my Lord was (at the time of his death) the then Attorney-Ge­neral tells the Court, That they would give an Account of the Earl's Death, how he murthered himself, and for that they had a CLOUD OF WITNESSES (Speake and Braddon's Trial, pag. 30.) But when this Cloud appeared, it consisted in Major Hawley (at whose House my Lord was murthered) Russel the Warder who then kept the Chamber-door) Bomeny my Lord's Servant, (then attending on his Lordship) and Lloyd the Sentinel (who kept the out­ward Door whilst my Lord was murther­ed). Here are Three ( Monday being the 4th) of the Men in whose Custody my Lord was, and consequently (according to the Information) the very Men, Mr. Speake, and my self, had conspired to charge with my Lord's Murther; and these very Men, in whose Custody my Lord was, were like a Cloud of Witnesses brought to prove, that those Men, in whose Custody my Lord was, did not murther his Lordship, but that the [Page 17] Earl himself, feloniously, and as a Felon of himself, did kill and murther.

How very ridiculous would it have looked, should the then Court, or King's Council have thus spoke to those Three Witnesses, (viz.) ‘Gentlemen, YOU (being three of the men in whose Custody my Lord was at the time of his death) are designed to be charged by the Defendants Speake and Brad­don, with the murther of my Lord; but WE have thought it convenient and JUST by YOU to prove, that YOUR SELVES did not murther this unfortunate Lord, but that this Lord himself feloniously, and as a Felon of himself, did kill and murther, as UPON ONLY SOME OF Bomeny's and Russel's Infor­mation before the Coroner, which are at large herein before printed. YOUR DEPOSI­TIONS he hath been already found by the Coro­ner's Inquisition. Do YOU therefore upon Oath but purge YOUR SELVES, and lay this Murther to my Lord's own door, and WE will inflict exemplary punishment upon these Defendants, whose Conspiracy ten­ded to the charging YOU as Actors in it, or Privy thereunto.’

I do humbly conceive, that all this was virtually included in the Examination of those Witnesses, whose Oaths were not only admitted to purge themselves, but to render such as Criminals as should endea­vour to charge them. Should the like be practised in protection of all accused (I am well satisfied) no man would turn Ac­cuser.

If any shall say, THESE (being the men attending on my Lord at the time of his death, and his Lordship then a close Prisoner) are the persons to be presumed pri­vy to what was done BY his Lordship just before his death, and therefore the parties which as to that could be sworn.

I answer, As they were THE MEN which were to be presumed privy to what was done BY his Lordship just be­fore his death, because they were the persons whose Stations were so near his Lordship, for this very reason they were THE PARTIES which were likewise to be supposed privy to what was done TO HIS LORDSHIP just before his death; and therefore ad­mitting that his Lordship fell by Trea­chery and Violence, these were THE MEN must be presumed conusant there­of. Wherefore these mens Testimony being in effect a Self-discharge, ought not here to have been admitted.

With all submission to that great Ju­stice, Judgment and Policy, which drew and managed this Information a­gainst Mr. Speak, and my self, I think herein the managers of this Prosecution extremely failed in their proof; for Mr. Speake, and my self, being accused with falsly, &c. conspiring to charge those in whose custody my Lord was, with murther­ing my Lord; The Duty incumbent on the then King's (or rather DUKE's) Council was to prove, That we, or one of us, did use indirect means, by Bribes, Threats, or the like, to procure those False Witnesses; and this (or whatever else was brought to prove this Information) ought to have been de­posed not by such as appeared in Court (in effect) with Halters about their necks to swear for their OWN lives; being virtually told, This do, and you shall live; but in the day ye fail thereof, ye shall surely die: But this Information ought to have been testified by men who stood recti in Curia, which were neither themselves to be hanged for murthering my Lord, provided they would not (by consequence) prove he did murder himself; or to be not only saved, but well rewarded in case they did (though contradictorily) confirm the same.

As for all those Witnesses which were produced against us, to prove any Bribes, or the like, I do suppose Prejudice it self will not pretend to say, that by the Trial (which none can believe Sir George Jeffe­ryes would order partially, in our favour, to be printed) the least colour of proof is given by any.

That Nation is happy whose Govern­ment answers the true end of Governours, (viz.) To be terrors to Evil-doers, and a praise to those that do well; but when once this end is inverted, and Justice (or ra­ther that which a Corrupt Court falsly calls so) becomes a SKREEN to Male­factors, and punishment inflicted on those who would punish them, then is that Kingdom in a much worse condition than it could be by the state of Nature. For Ju­stice thus corrupted, would prove as fatal to the Body Politick, as the poisoning all Drugs, Simples, &c. would to the Bo­dy Natural.

This by the perversion of all Law and Justice would probably have proved our general Fate, had not God (in mercy) by our present Sovereign, removed the Source hereof. —But to return.

Upon my Tryal, I did expect all that the most inveterate and milicious Rage could utter, and therefore was not sur­prised with all that Fury, and unjust Inve­teracy, that appeared in the Court; espe­cially the MOUTH thereof; for in the midst of his Rage, when I was falsly re­presented under the most odious Chara­cter, worse than a Common Robber, or Burglar (for these Mens Crimes tended only to a private Mischief, but mine to a general Confusion); I could not for­bear smiling upon the then remembrance of this Story. A Neighbour of mine, whom long since I knew in the Country, an illiterate plain Country Farmer, who had a Wife of as violent Spirit as liv'd; and one day she came into the Room where her Husband was (with several Neighbours); as soon as She came, tho there was not, or it seems had been, the least colour for a provocation, for he still carried himself well towards her, She flies into the greatest Rage imaginable, calling him all the Names that Malice could invent, or Rage could utter; and had She not been prevailed upon, might have done him some Mischief. The Husband in the midst of this great Storm, well know­ing all to be false with which the Fury of his Wife had charg'd him, stood as a Man altogether unconcern'd, and appear'd rather pleasant than displeased. One of his Neighbours then ask'd him, How it was possible for him, so to receive the scurrilous and bitter Railing of that furi­ous Woman? To which the Husband smilling, calmly replied, That his Wife talked of a Man he did not know; and therefore, what reason had he to be con­cern'd, when he was not the Person she spoke of, &c? I did ask my Conscience, an Infallible Evidence, according to the Truth, to condemn or acquit, Whether I was this profligate Villain his Lordship did so infamously Characterize; and I found that impartial Judge (by whose Sentence at the last day I shall stand or fall) did acquit me from that Crime, which his Lordship's Corruption against his be­lief unjustly charged me with; and there­fore I thought I might well say to my self, as that honest Countrey-fellow did to his Neighbours, I am not the man thus railed at; but his Lordship reviled a man I was not acquainted with, or knew, and therefore stood very much unconcerned at whatsoever his Lordship's corrupt vi­rulence falsly and malitiously (in subser­vency to that bloody Design that com­mitted the Murther) without the least colour of Crime applied to me, who was as innocent of the Offence, as of the far­fetcht strained and groundless Aggrava­tions. Let any impartial man read the Tryal, and well observe what is sworn, if in the Evidence he find the least ap­pearance of an Offence, I dare suffer what I have already undergone; but if men will take the malicious and grounless In­sinuations of a time-serving, mercenary Council, &c. or the corrupt Charge of as corrupt a Judge for Evidence, they will find me painted in the worst of colours. I did not expect that my Innocence would prove my protection against these unjust [Page 19] and violent Proceedings, and therefore I might have saved my self, and Friends, the troube of a Defence; and with that Welchman, who sleeping at the Bar, whilst the Evidence in a Capital Crime was swearing against him; and being awaked by his Friend, and advised to prepare for his Defence, starts up, and rubs his Eyes, saying, If they have a mind to hang hur, they will hang hur whether hur make hur De­fence or no.— But desiring in some mea­sure to satisfy the World that there were strong grounds to believe this unfortu­nate Lord was treacherously butchered, I thought it proper to produce some Witnes­ses in order thereunto; but when I found that some of these so produced, were so brow-beaten by the King's Council, and saw that they were afraid to testify the Truth, and upon Oath denied what I knew to be true, I thought it convenient not to produce many of these whom I had subpoened, because they should not be baffled, and spoiled by the Court; for should any of these Witnesses upon Oath (through fear) have denied what they knew to be true, and afterwards (when Truth in this case became not Criminal, which I did still believe I should live to see) testi­fy the very truth, their former Denial would be produced to invalidate their af­ter Testimony, and so their Credit be de­stroyed.

As soon as the great Council against me came into Court that Morning, I was tried, before ever the Information was read, he told me he would do my business; upon which I desired he would have the patience to tarry till the Jury had done it to his hands; to which he replied, he did not doubt them; and I found by woful ex­perience he had no reason; for the Jury, without the least proof, found me guilty of the whole matter charged upon me in the Information, and the Defendant Hugh Speake, guilty of all but the conspiring to procure false Witnesses, and of that they found him Not guilty.

In this Verdict I stand only guilty, (could such a thing be possible) of a con­spiracy to procure False Witnesses. It was never before known th [...]t one o [...] could commit a Conspiracy. For the no­tion of a Conspiracy I take to be the combining together of two or more to do that which is ill. But when Falshood▪ are to pass for Truths, Contradiction, must be admitted for Sense; & quod fi [...]ri non debet factum valet. Upon this Verdict Mr. Speake was fined 1000 l. and because (the Court said) I was the greatest Cri­minal, my Fine was 2000 l. and both ordered to give Security during life.

But Mr. Attorney-General at the Trial was pleased otherwise to express it; for Sir Robert Sawyer tells the Court, They need but read Mr. Speake's Letter, and they would find it ten times worse than what Mr. Braddon had done. For which his Lordship seem­ed very angry with the Attor­ney-General, and told him, Trial pag. 53. None should appear so great an Actor in the business as my self.

His Lordship's Behaviour at this Trial was so very remarkable, that (as I have been informed by several) he was scarce ever seen more passionately to express himself. And though my Trial shews great bitterness of expression, yet it is not printed in all its parts as it was spoke, but some of the Billingsgate-railing left out; yet such as it is, by his Lordship's Au­thority published (I do humbly conceive) there have few, if any Trials been stuff d with such foul-mouth'd Invectives. But his Lordship in this was to act counter to his Title; for though the Duty of his Place required his greatest encouragement to the detection of Blood, and the punish­ment of such vile Offenders, at this Tri­al his business was quite different: For (as I have been long since informed) one day, not long after my Trial, his Lord­ship having drunk very freely, upon some discourse with relation to the [Page 20] Earl's Death, a Gentleman took then an occasion to tell his Lordship, That my Trial was excellently well managed by his Lordship and the whole Court. To which his Lordship made answer to this effect, (viz.) That though he was well sa­tisfied the Earl of Essex was murdered, his business was to stifle it. This Gentleman is altogether averse from betraying the com­mon Rules of Conversation, by appearing as an Informer or Evidence in judicially exposing what passed over a Glass of Wine; Whether the effects of Wine in this veri­fied the Proverb [In vino veritas), I know not: but it appeared notorious to per­sons unprejudiced, that there was just ground to believe his Lordship's Cor­ruption did herein endeavour to stifle what his love (had he any) to Justice in the duty of his Place, should have zealously strove to detect.

Under this Fine I lay Prisoner for a­bout five years: But about August 1687. Graham and Burton came over to the Kings-Bench to treat with several of the King's Prisoners, in order to their Dis­charge; and they brought with them a List of such Prisoners; in which List perceiving my Name the ONLY Name crossed, I did enquire how my Name be­came so marked? To which I was an­swered, That as soon as His (then) Ma­jesty had seen my Name, he called for a Pen and Ink, and with his own hand crossed it; by which I perceived I was designed for Judgment, not Mercy; and upon application was so told; for I was inform'd, that no man was more obnoxious to His Majesty than my self, who was the only person that ever cast Blood in his face: But if his own conscience by a just application threw it there, I could not help that; I am sure they that said it, talk­ed without Book; for nothing at my Trial, or at any time after proved against me, made any such thing appear. I must confess, several Witnesses at my Trial subpoena'd, could have mentioned some­what with relation to his (then) High­ness's Guilt in this matter; but I found it was a Truth too hot, which that Court would not hear, and therefore thought it not proper to call them, but left them till such a Season wherein Truth in this matter should not be prosecuted as the highest Offence.

And thls brings me to the Proofs that have in this Case been taken before the late Right Honourable Committee of Lords. But before I do begin with the Evidence, it may not be amiss to give some short Account how this Case came before that Right Honourable House, where it was oc­casionally brought, upon the motion of the Right Honourable the Lord Lucas, then Governour of the Tower.

For the day before the Convention sate, (viz.) the 21st of February 1688. having a Warrant against several as suspected privy to, or concerned in the Murther of this Honourable Patriot; and amongst the rest, against Major Hawley, at whose House my Lord was murdered, and Russel the Warder before-mentioned; both which belonged to the Tower: I desired a Friend of mine to acquaint the Ho­nourable Governour therewith, so that these persons might be secured. As soon as the Lord Lucas saw the Warrant against these two, he did order them both to be be secured; and the next day there was several Depositions, with relation to my Lord's Murther, taken before Justice Robins, who that very day carried Copies of them to my Lord Lucas; upon which, his Lordship the very next day moved the House of Lords for their Lordships directions as to the disposal of Hawley and Russel, and thereupon produced these Informations Mr. Robins had before brought him. Upon reading of these, the House entred into a debate of the matter, and then called me before their Lordships, before whom I gave a short Account of what is as before most mate­rially mentioned. After which, their [Page 21] Lordships constituted a more general Committee.

This Committee having several times met, there was a close Committee ap­pointed; the Order for which follow­eth:

Before this Right Honourable Com­mittee, there have been above Sixty persons examined, of which most were examined upon Oath, and many of these several times before this Com­mittee, which in all have sate above thirty times, and several times adjourn'd when other extraordinary Occasions hin­der'd their Lordships from taking the Depositions of such as then attended to be examined. In May last, three of the four Lords of this Committee, (viz.) the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Monmouth, and the Lord Delamere, being commanded by His Majesty into the Countrey, the Earl of Devon (being Chairman of this Ho­nourable Committee) the 22d of May brought such Depositions and Examina­tions as in this Case had then been taken, into the House: But the House not ha­ving time that day to read them, it was deferred till the then next day. Upon the reading of them (it appearing, that the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Mon­mouth, and the Lord Delamere were absent in His Majesty's Service, for the Earl of Devon that very morning went into the Countrey), their Lordships thought fit to suspend the full Examination of the matter, till these three Lords return­ed. This appears by the Order follow­ing.

These Depositions lay sealed up with the Clerk of the Parliament till the 26th day of October, when their Lordships of the first Committee moved for reviving the Committee; which the House revi­ved by this Order.

Several other Persons were now exa­mined before their Lordships, who having finished their Examinations, they began to reduce those Depositions and Examina­tions into such order, as to their Lord­ships should seem most meet, but this was hardly finished before the 27th Day of January, when the last Parliament was prorogued, and the 6th of February dissolved, and consequently all Procee­dings hereupon stopt till their Lord­ships shall think fit to revive the Com­mittee in order to bring in their Re­port.

The Substance of what hath been de­posed before the Honourable Lords of the late Committee, and some Justices of the Peace, I shall, in as short an Abstract as I can well reduce it, here give you; in which I shall observe, for the most part, as it falls in order of time; and first, what passed before my Lord's Murther; secondly, the day of his Death; thirdly, af­ter the day of his Death.

As to the first, before my Lord's Mur­ther; it is deposed by Dorothy Smith to this effect: ‘That about nine days be­fore my Lord's Death, being Servant with one Holmes in Baldwins-Gardens, and standing upon the Kitchen-stairs, she heard several Papists discoursing (in the Parlour of the said Mr. Holmes's House) concerning the taking off the Earl of Essex; and it was then and there decla­red, That they had been with His High­ness, and His Highness was first for poy­soning the said Earl; but that manner of Death being objected against, it was pro­posed to His Highness, That the Earl should be stabbed; but this manner likewise not being thought proper, His Highness had concluded and ordered his Throat to be cut; and His Highness had promised to be there when it was done. About three days after this, (viz.) about six days be­fore the Earl's Death, some of the a­foresaid persons met again at her said Master's House, where she heard them declare to this effect, That they had resolved the Earl's Throat should be cut; but they would give it out, That he had done it himself; and if any should deny it, they would take them up, and punish them for it. This Informant being hereupon much troubled in her mind, and wil­ling to prevent (if possible) this inten­ded Mischief, did hereupon advise with one Mr. Billinger, who before that time had been her Master; but the said Mr. Billinger told her to this effect: That if she valued her life, she should not discover it to any; for the Papists then carrying all before them, she was ruined if she did. Wherefore she did not before my Lord's Death (to her remembrance) discover it to any o­ther, unless she might to Mrs. Billin­ger, in which she can't be positive: But the day of my Lord's Death, about Two or Three of the Clock the same day, some of the aforesaid Consult co­ming to her said Master Holmes's House, [Page 23] one leap'd about the Room as extreme­ly over-joy'd, and strikes the said Mr. Holmes on the back, and cried, The Feat was done, or we have done the Feat; And further said, He could not but laugh, to think how like a Fool the Earl of Essex look'd when they came to cut his Throat.’ She further saith, ‘That about five years since, living with Mr. Rowdon of the Old-Exchange, she was willing to dis­cover what she had as before heard, to her said Master and Mistress, and Daugh­ter; but her said Master Rowden was not free to hear all she could say with relation hereunto, but advised her to hold her peace; for by such her dis­course she might ruine. Him and all his Family.’ This is further confirmed by the Oaths of Mr. Rowden, Mrs. Row­den, and Mrs. Mary Rowden: And Mrs. Rowden doth further depose to this ef­fect; (viz.) ‘That the said Dorothy Smith hath some years since with great concern declared, That she did hope to live to see the day wherein she might fully testifie her knowledge herein; and this she would do, when she might without danger.’

Mr. Adams and his Wife have deposed to this effect: ‘That November last was two years, this Dorothy lived with them as their Servant; and in tears hath often declared her over-hearing the Papists consult of my Lord of Essex's Murther several days before his Death, and by whose Order the Earl was to be mur­dered: But these Informants knowing the danger of such discourse (the late King James being then in so great Power) did advise her, for her own Safety, and the Safety of those she lived with, not thus to discourse: But the said Dorothy in tears did usually an­swer, That it lay upon her mind night and day; and she could not be quiet in her thoughts, that the Earl of Essex should be falsly charged with cutting his own Throat, when she had heard the Papists resolution to cut it them­selves, and after own they had done it. And if ever she might with safety testi­fie the Truth herein, she would; and did hope those Men that did it, might suffer for it.’

Richard May deposeth to this effect ‘That (to the best of this Informant's remembrance) before the Death of King Charles the Second, observing Do­rothy Smith to be very melancholy, he desired to know the cause; upon which she said, That somewhat which she knew with relation to the Death of the late Earl of Essex, was the cause of her trouble; and it was not safe for her to reveal it to any. Upon which, this Informant advised her then to be silent in the mat­ter. But about the beginning of Fe­bruary, after our now King's coming, finding it safe for the said Dorothy Smith herein to declare her knowledge, this Informant went to the said Dorothy Smith, and told her, She might now safely speak what she knew as to my Lord's Death; upon which, the said Dorothy Smith told this Informant, How she had heard the Papists seve­ral days before my Lord's Death, de­clare How the Earl's Throat was to be cut, and by Whom ordered, (with several particulars in relation there­unto); upon which, this Informant discovered this to Mr. William Tornay, who thereupon told this Informant he would reveal this to Mr. Braddon, then upon the Prosecution of my Lord's Murther; and some short time after, Mr. Tornay told this Informant, That he had therewith acquainted Mr. Brad­don, and desired this Informant, with the said Dorothy Smith, to meet the said Mr. Braddon, and the said Mr. Tornay, such a time, at the Cross-Keys in Watlin-street, where they met accor­dingly: But when Mr. Braddon had [Page 24] been particularly informed herein by the said Dorothy Smith, the said Mr. Braddon declared, That unless the said Dorothy could make it appear, That she had long since revealed this, he would esteem it as a new-made Story, and a Lye. Upon which, the said Dorothy mentioned the Names of several to whom she declared she had long since revealed it; but by all was enjoined to Secrecy.’

Mr. William Tourney hath likewise de­posed what herein relates to him. And I am ready to depose, That I never heard of this Dorothy Smith, till Mr. Tourney about February last was Twelve Month, informed me of her; and I never to my remembrance, saw the said Dorothy Smith, till the said Mr. May had, as before, brought her to the Cross-Keys in Watlinstreet, where I first discoursed her in the pre­sence of Mr. May, Mr. Tourney, and ano­ther. Here are five or six Witnesses prove the very Substance of this Evidence, re­vealed some years since, when it was lit­tle less then Death to discourse it, which clearly proves it is not a new-made Story, and strongly argues the truth of the Re­lation; for it can hardly be supposed, that this Woman should often under the greatest Concern and Danger imaginable, declare any thing of this nature, unless the Relation was really true; Because she could (rationally) then propose no Advantage by this Invention; but was still told, and convinced of the Danger. Wherefore 'tis rational to suppose, that only the power of Truth moved her to declare what she so often in Tears related. But as a further Argument of the truth of this Deposition, I shall briefly relate what Informations have been taken in Contradiction to this Relation, and how these Informations have been detect­ed as false in every particular, which corroborates the Truth of the Accusati­on: For as a true Defence detects and fru­strates a false Charge; so a false Defence (being discovered to be such) as strong­ly strengthens a true one. The Depositi­ons in opposition to Smith's Evidence, were,

Dorothy Hewits a most violent Papist, who the 9th of April, 1689. before Mr. Justice Dolben deposed, ‘That in April before my Lord of Essex's Death, the said Dorothy Smith was turned away from Mr. Holmes's, upon Suspicion of having stoln a Silver Spoon; and that from April 1683. to nine Months next after, one Elizabeth Christopher, then Elizabeth Cadman, was Servant to the said Mr. Holmes, and no other Maid-servant in all that mean time.’

Elizabeth Christophers (of a very loose Character) who in this particular upon Oath, the 9th day of April, 1689. before Mr. Justice Dolben, confirms Hewit's Te­stimony; but that these two are for­sworn, appears by many Depositions. For,

It's proved by Robert Bond, that Dorothy Smith did not go to Mr. Holmes's Service, till the beginning of June, 1683. and that Green Beans were fit to be eat, before she left that Service in which she li­ved, just before she went to Holmes's House.

It's further proved by five Witnesses, Elizabeth Mor­ris, Ann Du­pine, Katherine Coldham, Sarah Douthwait, and Robert Bond. That Do­rothy Smith was Servant at this Holme's, when Green-pease were very plenty and cheap (which is naturally evident it must be in the latter end of June, or sometime in July, which is about two Months after Hewit swore Dorothy Smith was turned away; and it's positively sworn by one, that Dorothy Smith was Servant in Holmes's House in July 1683. after the Death of the late Earl Essex; and this Informant remem­bers [Page 25] the time, by a very remarkable par­ticular. So that here are five or six De­positions in Contradiction to Hewit's and Christopher's Evidence, which was design­ed to destroy the Credit of Dorothy Smith's Testimony; but this Opposition thus de­tected, adds strength to what it was de­signed to prejudice. But it was further sworn by Hewit, that the 6th of July, 1683. (which was the Friday in the Week before my Lord's Death) she went with the said Mr. Holmes into the Countrey, and the first Night lay at Wickham in Buckinghamshire, the next Night at Oxford, and continued there till the 9th; and the 9th, this Informant went with the said Mr. Holmes to Alderminster in the County of Worcester, to the House of one Mr. Nathanael Swan, Minister of the said Town, and continued there till the 23d of the said Month of July, and then re­turned, &c.

Nathanael Swan Clerk, deposeth before Mr. Justice Dolben the 9th of April, 1689. ‘That about the 9th of July, 1683. Hewit and Holmes came to his House in Alder­minster, and continued there till about the 23d.’

This last Information is of little force (tho the Parson designed well) for it swears, about such a time Holmes came to his House, and about such a time went away; but about makes the time very uncertain.

This was designed to destroy that part of Dorothy Smith's Testimony, which de­clares Holmes in Town, the day my Lord was murthered.

When I found Mr. Holmes endeavoured to prove (as before sworn by Hewit) him­self out of Town, from the 6th of July, 1683. to the 26th or 27th of the same Month; I did endeavour to enquire out all such, as either Mr. Holmes, or Mrs. Hewit were well-known to, or traded with; and therefore I made inquiry after those, with whom (in that Month and Year) they Bought of, or Sold to, all Shopkeepers, Taylors, Butchers, Fish­mongers, Shoemakers, Hatters, &c. and such as upon inquiry, I received such Cha­racters of, as I might expect fair Satisfaction from, I did desire to see their Books in that Month of July, to see whether any Goods were bought in Town by the said Mr. Holmes, or Mrs. Hewit (for proving Hewit in Town, proves Holmes likewise in Town, because it's sworn, and can be proved, they both went out of Town to­gether) or any Money paid between the 6th and 26th of July, by either of these. After a very long and tedious Inquiry (all those Tradesmen being altogether stran­gers to me) I providentially met with one Mr. Welstead, who very readily shewed his Book, wherein is entred according to his Information, which fol­loweth:

John Welstead of St Dunstans in the West, London, declareth, and is ready to depose, ‘That in July 1683. he liv'd in Poppins Alley, nigh Fleetstreet, very near Mrs. Dorothy Hewit, and often wrought for the said Mrs. Hewit; and between Monday the 9th of July, 1683. and Mon­day the 16th day of the same Month and Year, this Informant made, or caused to be made a Dust-gown for the said Mrs. Hewit, as appears by this In­formants Book, ready to be produced; and the very same Week, (viz.) be­tween Monday the 9th of July, 1683. and Monday the 16th of the same Month and Year, (but in the very day this In­formant is not certain); this Informant carried the said Gown to the said Mrs. Hewit, who did then pretend she was about going into the Country; but how long after the Dust-gown so delivered, the said Mrs. Hewit did go into the Country, this Informant know­eth not.’

This Book hath not been of any use to Mr. Welstead for almost five Years, and it was a very great Providence this had not been torn out, seeing the Book for [Page 26] some years had been used as wast Paper, and the very next leaf to this torn out, and lost. As soon as Mrs. Hewit understood such a Taylor's Entry was against her Oath, she, with Mrs. Holmes's Wife, went to this Taylor, and desired to see his Book; which being shew'd, Hewit first pretended that this Entry was forged, and new; but Mr. Welstead declared he could safely, and would depose, "That the En­try was real; it was then pretended, that the Gown was sent into the Countrey af­ter Mrs. Hewit; but when in answer to that, Mr. Welstead declared he could de­pose, "That Mrs. Hewit was in Town when that Dust-gown was made and de­livered, and that she then pretended she was about going into the Countrey, (but how many days after she did go, he could not tell). Mrs. Hewit told him, if he did swear that, he would take off her Bro­ther's life, and Holmes.s Blood would be upon his head.

Some time after my Lord's Murther, this Holmes abusing his Wife, she told him, He was a murtherous Rogue, and he well knew she could hang him when she pleas'd. To which Holmes answered, That he little thought she would have spoken of it, who of all the World had the least reason: For, said this scurrilous Fellow, You Bitch, you Whore, Don't you remember I bought you a good Sat­tin Gown and Petticoat, and therefore you above all the World ought not to prate. But she replied, He was a murtherous Rogue for all that.

I have been the more large and parti­cular in this Evidence, as well because it hath met with such villanous Opposition by false Oaths, as for that it alone proves by what Party, and by whose Order this Unfortunate Lord was treacherously mur­thered.

The next thing previous to my Lord's Murther, are the several Reports in many places in England (before my Lord's death, or before it could be known) that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower. This is proved by Eight Witnesses. Mr. Hubland, Merch. Mrs. Hubland. Mrs. Meux. Treherne. Jeremiah Burgis. Thomas Feilder. — Savage. Mr. Butler. It is as to this sworn, ‘That at Frome’ (which is about 100 Miles from London) ‘it was reported the very next morning af­ter my Lord's Commitment to the Tower (viz.) the 11th of July, 1683. that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower:’ And this Informant, the week after my Lord's death, meeting the Gen­tleman which had before given him this Information, and desiring to know how before my Lord's death he could declare it; the other replied, That all men concluded my Lord would either cut his Throat, or turn Evidence against his Friend my Lord Russel; but it was generally believed that my Lord would rather destroy himself, than be made a Witness.

This Report so far off the very next morn­ing after my Lord's Commitment, proves the Tower to be the place (before my Lord's Commitment) pitched upon as the most proper for this perfidious Tragedy.

But the very next day (viz.) the Wed­nesday after my Lord's Commitment, was it reported about 60 miles off, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower for this reason (viz.) The King and Duke coming into the Tower to view the Tower, the Earl of Essex was afraid the King would have come up into his Chamber, and seen him; but his Guilt and Shame was such, that he could not bear the thoughts of it, and therefore cut his Throat to avoid it.

Observe in this previous Report sixty miles from London, the next day after my Lord's Commitment, the very pretended Reason for the Self-murther is given; which Reason carries in it an accident that could never be before reported, or indeed expected, but by those which were the most secret in this Treacherous Cru­elty; for herein is it said, the Wednesday [Page 27] before the King and Duke went to the Tower, that the King and Duke were in the Tower when the Earl cut his Throat, &c. It is notorious that the King and Duke did not go till Friday morning, and their then going was a surprize to their very Guards, for it seems they had not been there together above once since the Restauration. In short, These several Reports proved by Eight Witnesses, all agree in the manner how, and place where; and one more particularly sets forth the pretended Reason wherefore. I do therefore humbly submit to every im­partial Reader, whether these very Re­ports do not strongly prove, that the manner, place, and pretended reason, were all agreed upon before this barba­rous complicated Tragedy was acted. For otherwise, how could it possibly be so particularly related so far off, and so long before it was done?

I shall in the 2d place observe what passed in the day of my Lord's murther, which proves his death to be such.

Bomeny and Russel before-mention'd, did before the Coroner's Jury upon Oath de­ny that any men were let into my Lord that morning my Lord died. The like did John Lloyd, the Soldier that kept the outward Door, depose at my Trial, pag. 57.

Nathanael Monday, who was my Lord's other Warder, and likewise Russel, before the Lords have denied that any men were that morning let into my Lord. But that there were some Ruffians a little before my Lord's death let in to murther him, plainly appears by the Proofs following.

Mr. Samuel Story deposeth to the effect following. (viz.) ‘The 21st of January, 1688. being the day before the Con­vention sat, John Lloyd (Sentinel upon the late Earl of Essex at the time of his death) was taken up as suspected privy to the said Earl's murther; and being therefore in custody, the said Lloyd, with tears in his Eyes, wrung this Informant by the hand, and declared, That by spe­cial Order of Major Hawley, or one of my Lord's Warders, he did let in two or three men into the Earl's Lodgings just before his death, and he was very sure, and could safely swear that Major Web­ster (then there in custody, suspected as one of the Ruffians that murthered my Lord) was one; and that as soon as he so let them in, he heard a noise in my Lord's Chamber, and somewhat thrown down like the fall of a man; soon after which it was said, the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat.’

This Lloyd the same day before the Ju­stice did confess the letting in some men a little before the Earl's death, as appears by his Examination following.

After Lloyd had lain some time close Prisoner in Newgate, he did desire to see one Mr. Tempest, a Neighbour of his, who having permission of the Secret Commit­tee to discourse Lloyd, thereupon went to Newgate, where he found the said Lloyd very melancholly; when Mr. Tempest first came, Lloyd told him, that he did hope, as he was his Neighbour, he would be his Friend, and true to him; to which the o­ther answered, that he would, if the said Lloyd was ingenuous in his Discovery; whereupon the said Lloyd (after often pressing the said Mr. Tempest to be true to him) told him, that when he was first seised, he did confess to a Gentleman, who was altogether a stranger to him, the letting in some men into my Lord of Essex just before his death; and this Con­fession did lie upon his Conscience, and troubled him night and day; upon which the said Mr. Tempest replied, That the like he had confessed to several the same day he was taken; and he declared the same before a Justice of Peace; but if it was false, he ought to retract it, and be sorry for having said it; whereupon the said Lloyd renewing his Request, that the said Mr. Tempest would be true to him, said, it was indeed very true, but it was what he should not have confessed.

Lloyd did then farther declare, ‘That upon the letting in those Men, there was so great a bustle in my Lord's Chamber, that the said Lloyd would have forced in after them, but the Warder had made fast the outward door, so that he could not; and that upon the bustle he did hear somewhat thrown down like the fall of a Man, which he did suppose was my Lord's Body; and soon after, it was cry'd out that my Lord of Essex had cut his Throat.’ This is the substance of what Mr. Tempest hath deposed before the Lords.

By this it appears more than probable, not only that my Lord was murthered, but that there was some villanous Oath of Secrecy entred into by those concern'd therein, not to discover what they knew with relation thereunto; for what other as likely reason can be assigned for Lloyd's being troubled in Conscience (as he pre­tended) for having confessed what at the same time under repeated injunctions of secrecy, he confirmed to be true, though he said he should not have confessed it?

But to put this matter beyond all doubt, that some men were bustling with his Lordship just before his pretend­ed Self-murther discover'd, evidently ap­pears by this Information following.

Martha Bascomb declareth, and before the Lords in substance hath depos'd, ‘That a little before the death of the late Earl of Essex was discovered, this Informant was walking up before the Earl's Chamber-window, and hearing a very great trampling and bustle in my Lord's Chamber, this Informant stood still, and looking to the Window of the said Chamber, saw three or four Heads move close together, and heard one in the Chamber (which seemed to be one in this bustle) cry out very loud, and very dolefully, Murther, murther, murther; this Informant not then know­ing it to be my Lord's Lodging, nor thinking any other of this Cry, than what might be occasioned by some ac­cidental quarrel, walked up towards [Page 29] the Chappel, but not out of sight of the Lodgings, and about a quarter of an hour after (or less) it was first cryed out in the House, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat; upon which this Informant went down to the House, and being shewed the Chamber where the Earl lay, she found that was the Chamber where she saw the men, and heard the bustle, and Murther cried out, as before related.’ This Informant further saith, ‘That some few days af­ter this, telling Mr. Perkins and his Wife (whom she then kept in her ly­ing in) of what she had seen and heard, as before declared; the said Mr. Perkins advised her not to speak of it, for her divulging it, in all probability would prove her ruine.’

Mr. Perkins hath upon Oath confirmed the latter part of Martha Bascomb's Infor­mation, which clearly proves this not a newly-invented Story.

I think this proof is little less than oc­cular Evidence of the Murther; for my Lord was a close Prisoner, to whom (as was pretended, and sworn by such as kept the Chamber-door) none was ad­mitted that Morning; but his Lordship cut his Throat in all silence; whereas it is here deposed, that several were bustling together in my Lord's Chamber before his death (and this part agrees with the Confession of the Sentinel who let in the Ruffins) and one in this bustle (which can be presumed to be no other than my Lord) cry'd out several times very loud, and very dolefully, Murther, Murther, Murther.

And as a farther Confirmation of these Men being (and by whom) sent to mur­ther my Lord, Elizabeth Gladwin and Sa­rah Hughes declare, (and before the Lords in substance have deposed) ‘That the day of the death of the late Earl of Es­sex, (viz.) the 13th of July, 1683. about Eleven of the Clock the same day, one Ruddle, in the hearing of these Infor­mants, did declare, That he was in the Tower that morning, where it was re­ported that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat, but he was sure he was mur­thered, and that by the Order of his ROYAL HIGHNESS; for the said Ruddle then declared, That he did observe His Majesty and Royal Highness part a little from those that attended them, and discoursed (to the best of these Infor­mants remembrance); The said Ruddle declared it was in French, concerning the Prisoners then in the Tower, and his HIGHNESS declared, That of all the Prisoners then there, the Earl of Essex ought to be taken off; but His Majesty said he was resolved to spare him for what his Father had suffered; upon which his HIGHNESS seemed very dissatisfied; and a little before the death of the said Earl, his HIGHNESS parted a little way from His Majesty, and then two men were sent into the Earl's Lodgings to murther him.’ —So far before their Lordships.

The said Ruddle declared this with great earnestness and passion, and protested he thought no man safe who was against the Popish Interest, if once they began thus bare-faced to cut Throats. And he protested his blood did so boil aginst his Royal Highness, that if he could have got a Party that would have stood by him, he would have shot his Highness dead upon the spot, for so bare-fac'd a mur­ther had before scarce ever been commit­ted under a Civil Government.

John Bampton and his Wife both de­clare, and in substance before the Lords have deposed, ‘That about one of the Clock, the very day the late Earl of Es­sex died in the Tower, one Robert Meak that morning (a Soldier in the Tower) came to these Informants House, and these Informants desired the said Meake [Page 30] to give them the best account he could how the Earl of Essex cut his own Throat; to which the said Meake (with some earnestness and passion) answered, That the said Earl did not cut his own Throat, but was barbarously murthered by two men sent for that purpose by his ROYAL HIGHNESS to the Earls Lodg­ings just before his death.’

What Ro. Meake did further declare, and what was since his fate, you will hear in its proper order.

I do expect it will be objected, That these four are but hearsay Evidence. To which I shall answer almost in the very words of a late Discourse on this Subject, (viz.) Seeing there is reason to believe that the sti­fling the first murther occasioned the addition of these two Soldiers blood (as you will hereaf­ter have some grounds to uppose) I think such Informations ought not to be slighted; for af­ter that rate it's but taking off such as knew any thing with relation to a murther, and you are very secure from any discovery, though never so many upon Oath give an account of what those men (whose mouths have been by murther stopt from giving their own rela­tion) have declared in the mattor. These two Soldiers related the same as to the sending the Men into my Lord's Lodg­ings in two Houses as far distant as Dukes-place and Baldwin's-Gardens; and I am ve­rily persuaded that neither Hughes nor Gladwin ever spoke to Bampton and his Wife in their lives, for neither two re­member to have seen or heard of the other Informants. And who could imagine that two Soldiers should declare with such concern and earnestness that which was so very dangerous to be spoken, if their love to truth, and hatred of such a treacherous and bloody Murther had not even forced it from them, to the hazard of almost their lives by such their Relation?

'Tis true, no man ought to suffer bare­ly upon hear-say Evidence, but such Te­stimony hath been used to corroborate what else may be sworn, and of it self may (in some cases) be enough to give satisfaction in the general of the truth of a matter, and no farther is it here us'd: and I would have all men consider the many such Testimonies heretofore pro­duced, amongst which I shall only men­tion one which had an immediate relation to my self. Mr Blaithwaite (Clerk of the Council in 1683. and as I think still in that post) at my Trial, pag. 22. being sworn on the behalf of the King, against Mr. Speake and my self, in his Rela­tion of what the Young Edward's Sister should declare to the Council-Board (viz.) That Braddon compelled the Boy to sign it, (the Paper the young Edwards signed). This you find to be Hear-say-Evidence, and the Author (the Sister) then in Court, but testified no such thing; therefore this Hear-say-Evidence ought (if any ought) to have been rejected: and yet this Hear-say-Evidence (though not confirmed by the Author then upon Oath) was not only admitted, but or­dered to be Printed in the Trial in large Capital Letters. How much sooner ought the Evidence of Bampton and his Wife (as to what Meake declared), and of Hughes and Gladwin, as to Ruddle's Ac­count, be particularly remarked, seeing Meake and Ruddle we cannot now pro­duce in Court, (as that Author was), they (especially the first) being supposed to be murdered by way of prevention, by that bloody Party that murdered my Lord.

But the next Account of these two Men being sent, as before, by His High­ness, shall be from the first hand. Mr. Peter Essington declareth, (and before the Lords in substance hath deposed), ‘That he this Informant was in the Tower that morning the late Earl of Essex died; and about a quarter of an hour before the said Earl's Death was discovered, this Informant observed His Highness to part a little way from His Majesty, [Page 31] and then beck'ned to two Gentlemen to come to him, who came according­ly; and this Informant did observe His Highness to send them towards the Earl's Lodgings; and less than a quar­ter of an hour after, this Informant did observe these very two Men to return to his Highness, and as they came they smi­led, and (to the best of this Informant's hearing and remembrance) said, The business is done; upon which, His High­ness seem'd very well pleased, and im­mediately thereupon His Highness went to His Majesty; soon after which, News was brought to the King, That the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat.’

I do expect that will be objected to this, which heretofore hath been, (viz.) That it cannot be thought the late Duke of York (admit he was so bad as to give Order for such a Fact) would be so im­politick as to send the Ruffians, so that any People might see their Mission and their Return. But I desire such would consi­der this Murther in all its Circumstances, and then tell me, Whether those bloody Varlets had not all the reason in the world to have all the Security could be expected or desired? You well know, that my Lord of Essex was deservedly ve­ry Popular; and therefore a Parliament that should have had the least Informa­tion of this treacherous and bloody Mur­ther, would have prosecuted the matter with all the diligence and vigour such a piece of barbarity deserved. Now, should they, in such their Inquisitions, have detected those treacherous Villains, these bloody Men without a full dis­covery must have expected no Mer­cy; and should the Duke have em­ploy'd them in his Closet only, and they could not by any Circumstance have given satisfaction that they were his hired Journey-men in this piece of great Service, their Evidence against him had not been the tenth part so credible as it would have been, could they have proved that they were sent by His High­ness towards the Earl's Lodgings just before his Death, and soon after return­ed to His Highness, before others knew that this cruel Tragedy was finished. This Circumstance, I say, would have so corroborated their Evidence against their Master, that none could in the least have doubted of the truth of their be­ing so employed, that were once satisfied they were, as before, sent by, and re­turned to His Highness. This then obli­ged his Highness, under no less obligation than Self-preservation, to skreen those his faithful and ready Servants from any Prosecution, well knowing that his own Interest (and indeed Life) was wrapt up in theirs.

Wherefore I think this matter was ve­ry cunningly managed (as to the Secu­rity of these Cut-throats from the hands of Justice, either in their Punishments or Prosecution). And it could not pos­sibly have been done with greater Safety to the persons of those that did it.

The Centinel Lloyd declared, He could not be positive whether Major Hawley or the Warder let the men into the outward door: But Major Hawley pretends, He could not; for he (as he saith) went out of his House at Five a Clock in the morning, and did not go nigh his own House till News of my Lord's Death was brought him by Monday the War­der; and therefore he could not open the door to any that went in just before my Lord's Death. This reason of Major Hawley is equally true with what else he saith in his Defence, as appears by this Information.

That Major Hawley was in the House when my Lord was murdered, seems farther probable from the Relation of Mary Johnson, then at work in Major Hawley's House at the time of my Lord's Death; and what Account she hath here­of given, appears by these two Informa­tions.

But it seems Major Hawley's Principles were ever averse to those brave True English Champions that opposed the late Court-Arbitrary-designs, and could af­ford those Honourable Lords, and Truly-worthy Knights and Gentlemen, no bet­ter Titles than Rogues. This appears by what he declared the very day that a great number of Honourable Lords (amongst which, this unfortunate Lord, I hear [...] was one) and Worthy Knights, Gentle­men and Citizens, dined together at Mile-end-Green; for some time that after­noon Hawley told Mr. Bunch, then a War­der, That above Two hundred Rogues that day dined together at Mile-end-Green; but he did wish that he had Forty of the biggest of them there in the Tower, that they might be made shorter by the Head; for till then the Land would never be at quiet. This in substance is deposed by the said Mr. Bunch, who with one Mr.— are ready likewise to depose, That some time since discoursing with one — a Servant-maid in the Tower at the time of my Lord's Murther, but since turned out, they told her, That it was supposed to be Major Hawley that occasioned her be­ing turned out of the Tower; but she re­plied, It could not be the Major, for he was the best Friend she had in the world, upon the account of somewhat which she knew with relation to the Death of the late Earl of Essex.

I have some grounds to believe, that not a few in the Tower, that morning my Lord was murdered, could discover se­veral things very material in order to a farther detection; and particularly, as to the coming out of the Ruffians after they had perpetrated this not to-be-paral­lell'd treacherous Cruelty; for I have been informed by some, who that very morning my Lord was murdered were in Leaden-hall-Market, That there came a Servant-maid (who then lived, as she said, in the Tower) to that Market the very same morning; and wringing her hands, she wept, and cried out, The Earl of Essex was murdered; upon which, the People gathering about her, advised her to silence, telling her she would bring her self into trouble by such expressions; the Maid thereupon declared, She was sure it was true, for she saw the Men that murdered him, just as they came from his Lodgings.

I have used all diligence possible to find this Maid out; but neither of those I have met with could tell me her Name, or the Name of the person in the Tower with whom she lived. Not long after my Lord's Death, I was likewise inform­ed of the Name of one who declared he saw the Ruffians just as they came out of my Lord's Lodgings, and did observe some Blood upon the Cloaths of one of them: But having been obliged in a hur­ry often to convey away my Papers, this Name I have lost. I do wish I could find men as free, as their Duty obliges them in this matter, to declare what they knew.

I have reason to suppose many men would be then examined; and whoso­ever there is that can discover any thing material with relation to this Murther, and in silence stifles it, by such his silence he consents to the Blood of my Lord: and though our Law may not reach his Offence, yet he who knows it, will one day lay it to his Charge; for if God re­quires that all Governments should make diligent Inquisition for Blood, in defect whereof he will require the Blood of the Slain at the hands of such Magistrates on whom this neglect is chargeable; then on those more especially will the greatest guilt lie, who refuse or neglect to give Information to those ordained for such Inquisition.

But, to return:

Bomeny and Russel, you find, have be­fore deposed, That there was a Razor de­livered to my Lord, wherewith to pare his Nails; which his Lordship having done, he retired into his Closet, and there cut his Throat. The Closet-door being opened, Bomeny and Russel have declared they saw the Body there lie in its Blood, and the Razor lying by him.

This is, in short, the substance of these Mens Relations, whose Interest it is to prove the Self-murther. That this Story is false in every part, I doubt not but to convince every unprejudic'd person, and hope to satisfie all who are not blinded with prejudice,

First, That his Lordship did not pare his Nails that morning he died, as all these have sworn or declared; nor was there any Razor delivered to my Lord for that purpose that morning he died.

Secondly, That his Lordship's Body was not locked into the Closet, when first found.

Thirdly, That there was no Razor ly­ing by the Body when these three first saw the Body; but the Razor laid there after my Lord was murdered, to colour the pretended Self-murther.

That my Lord's Nails were not par'd, John Kittlebeater hath deposed, That he being one of the Coroner's Jury, did ve­ry narrowly observe my Lord's Nails on his Fingers and Feet, and could not dis­cern either of them par'd or scrap'd.

I shall now prove Bomeny's Relation to be false, by what Russel swore; and Russel's Deposition forged by what Monday declared the very day, and some time af­ter my Lord was murdered; and Mon­day's Account in every material part a fiction, by the Depositions of the two former: In order to which, I shall give you Bomeny's first Information, taken in the Coroner's own hand, which is as fol­loweth:

This Information is verbatim as the Coroner took it from Bomeny's own mouth: But the Coroner proceeding to ask further Questions, Bomeny began ex­tremely to hesitate, and thereupon desi­red he might write his own Information; which being granted, he retired from the Coroner and Jury into the next Room; where having been some considerable time, he brought the Information first mentioned, according as it is there ob­served to be in the Original.

James Whitechurch declareth, (and in substance before the Lords hath deposed), ‘That the very day the Earl of Essex died, he went with one George Jones to the Tower, to discourse Nathanael Monday concerning the Death of the said Earl; and when they came to the Tower, meet­ing with the said Monday, he gave them this Account: That as soon as the Gen­tleman Gaoler had opened my Lord's Chamber-door, that very morning he the said Monday (by Order) went into my Lord's Chamber, and tarried there, because their Orders were, That one of the Warders should be in his Lordship's Chamber, and the other at the Stairs-foot; and that they had this farther Order, Not to suffer his Lordship to have a Knife, or any thing like it, but whilst he used it in cutting his Meat; and that being done, all Knives and such-like were to be taken from him; with which Orders having acquainted my Lord, his Lordship answered, He should take nothing ill from them in ob­serving their Orders.’

This Informant further saith, ‘That the said Monday did then declare, That he tarried with my Lord in his Cham­ber two hours or better that very mor­ning; and that whilst he was with my Lord in his Chamber, he did observe his Lordship pared his Nails with the Heel of a Razor. This Informant fur­ther saith, That the said Monday did fur­ther declare, Before he left his Lord­ship, and went down Stairs to stand below, he called up Russel, his fellow-Warder, to stand in his Chamber; and as he went down Stairs, he lighted his Pipe, and sate at the Stairs-foot; but before he had half smoaked his Pipe, he heard it cried above stairs, That my Lord had cut his Throat; whereupon he the said Monday ran up stairs, and push­ed the Closet-door open, and there found my Lord dead. This Informant further saith, That the said Monday did further declare, That when he came up stairs, he asked Mr. Bomeny and Russel, Where they were whilst my Lord was in the Closet? The said Bomeny answer­ed, [Page 36] He was sitting upon the Bed in my Lord's Chamber; and the said Russel declared, He stood at my Lord's Cham­ber-door, just without the door: Where­upon he the said Monday (as the said Monday declared) checked the said Rus­sel for not keeping in the Chamber ac­cording to Order.’

Richard Jordan declareth, ‘That on the day Mr. Braddon was tried, in Hilla­ry-Term, 1683. (upon the account of the late Earl of Essex) this Informant heard Nathanael Monday declare, That the very morning the late Earl of Essex died, as soon as the Gentleman-Gaoler opened the Chamber-door, which was about Seven of the Clock, the said Monday stood as Warder above-stairs up­on the said Earl; and at the first open­ing the door, did observe the said Earl to have a Razor in his hand, paring or scraping his Nails with it; and this the said Monday declared he saw a long time before Russel stood Warder above stairs upon the said Earl.’

By these two Informations, you may perceive what Monday declared; My Lord had this Razor in his hand about Seven a Clock in the morning, long before Russel came up stairs to stand Warder upon my Lord; and that my Lord pared his Nails with the Heel of the Razor.

By the way, I cannot but here take notice of what Monday would have in­sinuated, (viz.) That the Government was jealous my Lord would destroy him­self; for otherwise, how should there be Orders given not to suffer his Lordship to have a Knife, &c? This was said, the more easily to induce people to believe that my Lord did indeed cut his own Throat: but Monday will not now pre­tend such Orders were given him. And observe how inconsistent Monday's Relati­on is! for he pretended that they had Orders not to suffer his Lordship to have a Penknife or Razor, &c. and yet at the same time confessed he left this Razor with his Lordship.

Russel the Warder hath before deposed, and now declares, That this Razor he saw Bomeny deliver to my Lord, whilst he stood Warder at my Lord's Cham­ber-door, after Monday was gone down stairs.

Let us now compare these three mens Relations as to the time of delivery of the Razor; by doing which, it will plainly appear that no Razor at all was delivered to his Lordship. For the clear­er understanding hereof, I suppose Bome­ny under Examination with the Jury, and answering according to what he hath sworn,

Did you deliver this Razor to my Lord?

Yes.

When did you deliver this Ra­zor to my Lord?

About eight of the Clock that morning my Lord died.

This is according to what he first swore; but he then withdraws to write his own Information, which point-blank contra­dicts this his Oath in that particular; for he is then examined, and answereth as followeth:

Do you remember the very time that you delivered the Razor to my Lord?

Yes.

When did you deliver this Razor to my Lord?

About eight of the Clock on Thursday morning, being the day before my Lord's Death.

This, as you observe, he swears in the Information himself writ, and brought to the Coroner.

Bomeny then to withdraw, and let Rus­sel answer to this particular.

Mr. Russel, do you know when this Razor was delivered to my Lord?

Very well; for I saw it delive­red to my Lord by Bomeny.

When did you see this Razor de­livered?

Less than a quarter of an hour before we found my Lord dead. I stood Warder at my Lord's door; and I heard his Lordship ask for his Pen­knife to pare his Nails; and Bomeny said, It was not brought; upon which my Lord required a Razor, saying, It would do as well; and I saw Bomeny give my Lord the Razor, it being then about Nine a Clock.

Who first stood as Warder at my Lord's Chamber-door, or in my Lord's Chamber, yesterday morning before my Lord died; was it You or Monday?

Monday, upon my Lord's Cham­ber-door being opened, first stood at the door; and after he had been there as long as we use to stand, he called me up, and then went down and stood at the Stairs-foot, at the House-door, where I did before stand.

Then this Razor you saw delive­red to my Lord after Monday went down Stairs, and whilst you stood as Warder at my Lord's door?

It is very true; for I am sure I stood by Bomeny when he delivered the Razor, and saw it delivered to my Lord.

What distance of time do you say there might be, from the time this Ra­zor was delivered, to the time of my Lord's Death?

I am sure it could not be half an hour from the time of the delivery of the Razor, to the time we found my Lord dead in the Closet.

Russel withdraws, and Monday is exa­mined.

Mr. Monday, did you see my Lord have any Razor in his hand yesterday mor­ning before his death?

Yes, I did.

What time was it, when you saw my Lord have the Razor in his hand?

About Seven of the Clock, as soon as the Gentleman-Gaoler had opened my Lord's Chamber-door; for I first stood Warder above Stairs; and as soon as the door was opened, I saw my Lord have the Razor in his hand, and observed him to pare his Nails with it.

Was this before Russel came up to my Lord's Chamber-door, to stand Warder there?

Yes, almost two hours.

This is according to their own Infor­mations and Relations. Now, can you believe that this Razor was delivered by Bomeny at Eight of the Clock on Friday morning, according to his first Oath; and yet not delivered till Eight of the Clock on Thursday morning, according to Bomeny's second Oath? And can you also believe that the Razor was not deli­vered till about Nine of the Clock on Friday morning, according to Russel's Information; and at the same time give credit to Monday, who declared, My Lord had the Razor by Seven of the Clock, two hours before Russel came up to stand Warder at my Lord's Chamber-door?

These three are of equal Credit, and consequently you have as much reason to believe Bomeny as Russel, and Monday de­serves equal Credit with either of the former: But all cannot be credited; nei­ther can Bomeny's Contradiction be recon­ciled: Or can One of these be thought True, without giving the Lie to the other Two?

Therefore upon the whole matter, you cannot reasonably believe there was any Razor at all delivered.

If any shall say, that all Three in the main agree, That my Lord had a Razor delivered him to pair his Naile, and their Contradictions is only in point of Time.

I Answer, 'Tis true, it's a Circumstan­tial Contradiction in point of Time; and the Contradiction of the Two Elders in the History of Susanna, was a Circum­stantial Contradiction in point of Place; for the first swore they took Susanna in Adultery under a Mastick-tree, and the se­cond under a Holm-tree: both these agree in the main, viz. That they found her in Adultery; but by this Contradiction, as to the place, where, Daniel convinced all then present, that these two Elders were perjured in their Evidence (and conse­quently Susanna innocent of her Charge) and thereupon these Two Accusers justly suffered, what by Perjury they would have unjustly caused to be inflicted upon the Innocent. And I never yet heard any deny Daniel's wisdom in this Dete­ction; or arraign his Justice in the punishment those Two False Accusers thereupon suffered.

Secondly, That my Lord's Body was not locked into the Closet. I will now suppose that Bomeny, Monday and Russel, were to answer as to the opening this Door, according to their former Infor­mations, and you will find their Contra­dictions, as to this, as gross as the for­mer.

Bomeny first appears.

Mr. Bomeny, Was my Lord's Bo­dy locked into the Closet, when he was first found dead?

Yes.

Who opened the Door?

When I had knocked at the Closet-door, my Lord not answering, I did open the door, and there saw my Lord ly­ing a-long in his Blood, and the Razor by him, and I then called the Warders.

This according to his first Information, taken (as before) by the Coroner.

About an hour after this, the Jury did again examine him as to this Point; and he answering according to the Informa­tion, which (as before) he writ in the Room next the Jury, and then you will find it as followeth.

Mr. Bomeny, Did you first open the Closet-door upon my Lord's Body?

No, I did not, but Russel did; for after I had knocked at the Door thrice, calling, My Lord; my Lord not answering, I took up the Hangings, and peeping through a Chink, I saw Blood, and part of the Razor; whereupon I cal­led the Warder Russel, and the said Russel pushed the Door open.

At my Tryal, Bomeny being asked who did first open the Door, upon Oath a [...] ­swered, he knew not who opened the Door.

Mr. Russel, Did you find, the Clo­set-door lock'd upon my Lord's Body?

Yes.

Who first opened the Closet-door?

When Bomeny saw my Lord's Body through the Chink, he cried out, my Lord was fallen down sick; where­upon I went to the Closet-door, and opened it, the Key being on the outside.

Here Russel makes no difficulty in open­ing the Door; but observe Monday's An­swer.

Russel withdraws, and Monday is called.

Mr. Monday, Where were you when my Lord was first found dead?

I was standing at the foot of the Stairs, and hearing a great noise of my Lord's Death, I ran up Stairs, and found Bomeny and Russel endeavouring to open the Door; but the Body being so close and strong against the Door, neither could.

Who then opened the Door?

I being much stronger than either of these two, put my Shoulder a­gainst the Door, and pushing with all my might, I broke it open.

Upon the whole matter you find, first, Bomeny opened the Door before he called either of the Warders, according to Bo­meny's first Information taken (as before) by the Coroner; and secondly, That he did not open the Door, for Russel opened it, according to Bomeny's second Informa­tion (which himself writ) and Russel's Depositions: And thirdly, That neither Bomeny nor Russel could open the Door, because the Body lay so close against it, and so Monday broke it open: This ac­cording to Monday's account of the mat­ter.

These Contradictions before observed of themselves, are (as I do humbly con­ceive) sufficient to convince the man not byas'd, that this Unfortunate Lord was treacherously murthered; for our Law supposes every man destroy d by violent means, to be murther'd by others, unless the contrary appears to the Coroner, and his Jury; now those which in this case come to testify the contrary, are so noto­riously self-destructive in their Evidence by their gross Contradictions, that all these three appear treacherously false, and therefore these mens Evidence thus contradictory, cannot prove the Self-murther, but rather demonstrate the con­trary; for these three being the only Men, who by their Stations near my Lord at the time of his Death, could then be supposed capable of giving any account how my Lord came by his death; (for Bomeny attended upon my Lord in his Chamber; and Monday and Russel, the two Warders which alternately kept my Lord's Chamber-door, for when Monday kept my Lord's Chamber-door, Russel stood at the Stairs-foot-door, and this by turns); and seeing these mens Relations, for the Reasons before observed, are no­toriously false, there was a Truth which these Perfidious Men thought neither con­venient or safe to declare, which would have detected the true manner of my Lord's Death, and in what parts these Three stood related thereunto.

I would fain ask the Coroner, and his Jury, What Inquisition they would have brought in upon my Lord's Body, in case Bomeny, Monday and Russel should have de­clared they would not discover what they knew with relation to my Lord's Death? I am apt to have such a Cha­ritable Opinion of the Discretion and In­tegrity of these Gentlemen, as to believe they would have been so far from finding my Lord Felo de se, that they would have found him murthered by others, and these three concern'd therein: for by their respective Stations at the time of my Lord's Death, they could not be ig­norant of the true manner thereof; and by their refusals to discover their know­ledge therein, they (tacitly) would have confessed their guilt, either as Actors in that Cruel Tragedy, or privy and consent­ing to it. Now as such their first positive refusal would have rendered them guilty before the Coroner, and his Jury; so their false and contradictory Account makes some of 'em more Criminal, by so great an addition to their first Offence. For in the first, by their silence they would have endeavour'd to conceal the Mur­ther, and their Guilt therein; So here by their many false Relations (which have so plainly appear'd, for Con­tradictions cannot be true) have they de­signed to attain the same end.

And for my own part, (admitting what is sworn against them to be true) I think these Three are worse Criminals than those Ruffians who cut my Lord's Throat. For some of the latter were not so intru­sted with my Lord's Body, as properly to be termed treacherous, neither have they appear'd by falsities to conceal their Guilt by perfidiously transferring the same on him whom their own Hands have de­stroyed; But two of the three former (viz.) Russel and Bomeny, if what is sworn against them be true, have superadded the great­est Treachery and falsity to Blood, and [Page 40] therefore stand guilty of a complicated Villany, by which they have, as much as in them lay, murther'd his Lordship's Honour, and stain'd his Family with such guilt, as nothing but the discovery of Truth, and a just recrimination of those Treacherous Men can wipe off.

But as a farther Argument of the Closet­door's not being locked upon my Lord's Body; it appears, That when Bomeny, Monday and Russel pretended my Lord was lying in that posture wherein they first found him, his Lordship s Legs were part out of the Closet-door, as you see in the Figure at the beginning of this Book; this is declared by Will. Turner and Sam. Peck, who before the Lords have in substance de­posed, ‘That these two Informants were Servants to the late Earl of Essex at the time of his death, and brought some Provisions into the Tower just upon the first discovery of my Lord's Death, of which as soon as they heard, they ran up Stairs, and found my Lord's Legs lying upon the Threshold of the Closet-door, and a print of a bloody Foot up­on my Lord's Stockins.’ This proves not only that the Closet-door could not be locked (as was sworn and declared by Bomeny and Russel) but likewise that some­body had been with the Body in the Clo­set, or otherwise how came the print of a bloody Foot upon my Lord's Stockins, as these swear to have observed?

In the third and last place, I shall dis­prove that part of these Mens Relations which saith, That the Razor was locked into my Lord's Closet when his Lordship was first by them seen dead. Those Three have all deposed, or often declared, ‘That the Razor was found by my Lord's Body locked into the Closet; and all Three denied that there was any bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window just before my Lord's Death was first discovered to those out of the House.’

William Edwards, aged about Eighteen years, and Jane Loadman, aged about Eighteen years, have both before the Lords in substance deposed, ‘That a lit­tle before my Lord's Death was disco­vered, they saw a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window, and that just after there came a Maid in a White-hood out of Captain Hawley's House;’ which Maid, William Edwards hath deposed, ‘took up the Razor, and run with it into Major Hawley's House, and up Stairs, crying out Murther; and immediately hereupon was it first said, that the Earl of Essex cut his Throat.’

Thomas Edwards, Father to the said Wil­liam Edwards, Sarah Edwards, Ann Ed­wards, and Elizabeth Edwards, Sisters to William Edwards (in substance before the Lords) have deposed, ‘That the very morning of my Lord's Death, when W. Edwards came home, he did give this Information (in substance) to these Infor­mants.’

William Edwards did farther depose to this effect; ‘That the very morning Mr. Speke and I were try'd, going into Westminster Hall to be an Evidence at that Trial, he met with Major Hawley, who in a threatning manner told him, That if he might have the management of him, the said William Edwards should be whipt once a Fortnight for seven years together; which Threat of the said Major Hawley did so terrify this Infor­mant, (he being then about Thirteen years of Age) that he was afraid to speak the Truth at that Trial, lest he should severely suffer for so doing.’

Mrs. Smith, Aunt to Jane Loadman, and Mr. Glasbrook, did de­pose, Braddon's Trial, pag. 43. ‘That this Relation Jane Loadman gave as soon as she came from the Tower that morning.’ [Page 41]Mrs. Gibbons hath before the Lords (in substance) deposed the same.

Here are two Children (aged then a­bout Thirteen years) altogether stran­gers to each other, and whose Relations were as much strangers to one another, that gave the same Relation, exactly a­greeing in several Circumstances, and this Story by them was told when there could not possibly be any use made of it to prove my Lord's being murthered. For here are Seven or Eight Witnesses have (for both Parties) deposed, that this Story was related by these two about Ten of the Clock the very day my Lord died, when it could not possibly be known what would be sworn before the Coro­ner's Jury the then next day. Now the only use made of it, is to contradict the Depositions of those which before the Co­roner would have proved the Self-mur­ther. Which Depositions (as before ob­served) were not taken till the Saturday (which was the day after these two Chil­dren had given this Relation) and not published before the then next Monday morning. Nay, these two Children were first so far from using it as an argument of my Lord's being murthered, that both of them (to their respective Relations) when checked for saying that my Lord cut his own Throat; in their Childishness and innocent Simplicity, urged this as an Argument of my Lord's Self-murther; For they declared they were sure 'twas true, for they saw him throw the Razor out of the Window. But these two Children were not the only Persons that saw this Razor thrown out; for several others that very morning my Lord died, declared, That the bloody Razor was thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window before my Lord's Death was known, and that a little Boy did endeavour to take up this Razor, but was prevented by the Maid, who took it up, and ran with it into the House, and up Stairs, immediately whereupon my Lord's Death was discover'd. This Re­lation Robert Meake, before mentioned, did give, the very day of my Lord s Death, to Bampton and his Wife (as they have deposed before the Lords). The same Account did the aforesaid Ruddle give before Twelve of the Clock the day my Lord died, to Hughs and Gladwin, as they have testified before the Lords. This Relation of these Two you find agrees ex­actly with what William Edwards declared. And that the throwing out this bloody Razor was commonly reported in the Tower just after my Lord's Death was known, appears by the Testimony of several Persons; for John Salbury hath de­posed, ‘That being sent as one of my Lord Russel's Guard to the Old-Bayly, a they were returning to the Tower that morning, one met them in great haste, and declared he just then came from the Tower, and that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower, and thrown the Razor out of the Window; upon which one reply'd to this effect,’ That my Lord had a good Resolution, first, to cut his Throat, and after to throw the Razor out of the Window. He farther testifieth, ‘That when he came into the Tower, he heard it declared by several, that the bloody Razor was thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window before his Death was known.’ Grimes and Bostick both, likewise in the Tower that very morning, have deposed, ‘That the throwing out of this bloody Razor was talked of by several then in the Tower upon the first discovery of my Lord's Death, some then and there declaring, That they saw this bloody Razor so thrown out.’ But if these many Testi­monies will not satisfy, I shall next give you the Confession of him who declared he threw it out, and of the Sentinel who stood by my Lord's Lodging-door, and confessed he saw it thrown out.

Mr. Samuel Story did farther depose, ‘That the very day Major Webster was ta­ken up, to wit, the 21st of January, [Page 42] 1688.’ as suspected to be concern'd in my Lord's Murther; The said Webster being then charged as concern'd in my Lord's Murther, declared, ‘He did nothing but throw the Razor out of my Lord's Chamber-window.’ Being asked what made him throw the Razor out? he said he was under such a consterna­tion, that he knew not what he did. Up­on this Confession of Major Webster, Lloyd confirm'd the same, saying, ‘That it was indeed true that the bloody Ra­zor was thrown out; for it was thrown out just over his head, and a little Boy did endeavour to take it up, but the Maid came out of the House, and took it up, and run immediately in with it, and then discover'd my Lord's Death:’ That this Maid did carry up the Razor, and then discover my Lord's Death, far­ther appears by the Testimony of John Nuthill, who deposeth, ‘That just before my Lord's Death was known, he was leaning over the Pales before Major Hawley's House, and asked my Lord's Sentinel how his Lordship did? To which the said Sentinel answered, Very well: And this Deponent did then observe a Maid run into the House in great hast, and up Stairs (when a Warder and ano­ther were coming down my Lord's Stairs, but declared nothing of my Lord's Death, as this Deponent could hear, who stood about six foot from them) but she immediately came down, and cried, my Lord had cut his Throat. And this Informant did observe the said Maid to have a Razor in her hand, either as she ran up stairs, or as she came running down.’

The several large Notches in the Ra­zor, as you may observe in the Cut, are Self-evidences of its fall from some height upon an hard Body; for these Notches could not be made by my Lord against his Neck-bone, as a Surgeon foolishy or Knavishly suggested to the Coroner's Jury.

To sum up all in a word with relation to this Particular. Major Webster (one of the supposed Ruffians) Mr. Story. confessed he threw the bloody Razor out of my Lord's Win­dow. Lloyd the Sentinel likewise Mr. Story. own'd that he saw it thrown out. Edwards and Loadman have deposed, That they did see the bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window; Mr. Tho. Edwards. Sarah Edwards. Eliz. Edwards and Ann Edwards. four have deposed, That Edwards declared (just as he came from the Tower that morning) he saw it thrown out. Mrs. Smith. Mr. Glasebrooke. Mrs. Gibbons. Three have sworn that Load­man gave this Relation as soon as she returned from the Tower that very morning; (and these Children, and their Relations, far distant from, and altoge­ther strangers to each other); Bampton and his Wife as to Meake. Hughs and Gladwin as to Ruddle. two Soldiers in every part of their Relation, the very day of my Lord's Death, did at two Places, far distant from each o­ther, declare this mat­ter; and Grimes, Salisbury and Bostock. three more have deposed, That the throwing out of the Razor was gene­rally discourst in the Tower just upon the first discovery of my Lord's Death. This I do humbly conceive to be sufficient to convince any but Prejudice it self, that the Razor was seen thrown out, and conse­quently that it could not be locked into the Closet with the Body, as Bomeny and Russel have deposed, or often declared. Whereas Bomeny swore before the Coroner, That peeping through a Chink of the Clo­set-door, he saw the Razor; this appears to be impossible, considering the Position of the Razor, and the Circumstances of the Chink.

For the Razor they all declare lay in the upper part of the Closet by the Close-stool, where the Letter R. stands in the Closet, according to the Figure; the only Chink of the Door is in that part next the Chimney, where the streak and Letter C [Page 43] stands; now looking throw that Chink when the Door is locked, you cannot see within three foot of the place where the Razor was said to lie; this was about a year since demonstrated to the Right Ho­nourable the Lord Lucas, now Governor of the Tower, and to several Gentlemen more.

The Maid, who is supposed to have ta­ken up the Razor, denies it, and in her defence saith to this effect;

But this is a forged Lye throughout; for William Turner, Samuel Peck, and the Porter, do all three declare, That the Maid was not with them whilst they were bringing in the Provisions, neither did the Warder that kept the Gate in the least scruple the letting in my Lord [...] Provisions; this they all say, they are rea­dy to depose.

All men, I find, are to seek of the reason that should move these Men to throw the bloody Razor out of the Cham­ber-window before my Lord's Death was discovered. But if we consider the amaze­ment that might naturally seize these men upon the least disturbance in this Deed of Darkness, we must not expect that what is done under a sudden Confu­sion, should be according to the deepest Policy. And you find that Webster did confess, That when he threw the Razor out, he was under such a confusion, that he knew not what he did. This Disor­der might be occasioned by some ones coming up Stairs, who was not then pri­vy to the Murther, before they had laid all things aside, as they designed they should be found by such as were not im­mediately concern'd in it; and Webster having the bloody Razor in his hand, which was designed to be laid by the Bo­dy, as the pretended Instrument of the feign'd Self-murther; upon the coming up of one, of whom he was not aware, he under a surprizing fear of a discovery, threw the Razor out of the Window, and the Maid was afterwards sent for it, and then was it laid by the Body as the pre­tended Instrument of Death. For this I have some reason, which I think not fit now to publish.

That Major Webster was one of the Ruffians, and consequently might be the Man who threw this bloody Razor out of my Lord's Chamber-window (as himself confessed, farther appears probable by his producing (that day my Lord was mur­thered) the Earl's Pocket-handkerchief all bloody (the Handkerchief was known [Page 44] by the E, and Coronet upon it) and sha­ked it, saying, there was the blood of a Traytor; and the very next morning a Purse of Gold of 49 Guineas, and a Pistol, which, rejoycing, he produced to some of his Neighbours, and immediately after my Lord's Death lived at a rate much a­bove his Quality (being a poor Alehouse-keeper, and Under-bailiff of the Tower Liberty) and (as I have been credibly in­formed) in some few months after my Lord's Death, lost at Gaiming several hundreds of Pounds, which made those that had well known his Poverty, con­clude he robbed; but ill got, ill spent; for his Extravagancy and Losses soon re­duced him to his former necessity; whereupon one upbraiding his Wife (or his Whore as he now calls her, for he saith he never married her, and therefore though she is living, he keeps, or hath married another.) I say, upbraiding his Wife with her Husband's Poverty, she replied, That her Husband not long be­fore, had five hundred Guineas; where­upon the other declared he could not come by them honestly, for his Trade would scarce find him Bread. In Ale­house-keeping he run very deep in the Brewer's debt; but just after my Lord's Murther, he paid his Brewer Thirty Guineas in part, which made the Brewer wonder how he came by so much Gold. But not discharging the whole Debt, and beginning to contract new, the Brewer su­ed him, and at last in Execution seised his Goods; whereupon M [...]jor Hawley (for what reason is not unsuspected) was a daily Solicitor to the Brewer for this Webster, and at last offered a considerable Sum in discharge of the Debt.

This Webster very much abusing his Wife (or Whore) she told him, ‘That he was a Fool as well as a Rogue, to abuse her so, when he knew it was within her power to hang him, and one in the Tower, and naming (as I have been informed) Major Hawley for the Man in the Tower.’ A great part of this is deposed, and the whole ready to be proved. — But farther, to disprove my Lord's cutting his Throat in the Closet:

Had my Lord cut his Throat standing in the Closet, that part of the Wall as high as his Throat would have been all bloody; for the Closet being about three Foot and two Inches wide, it could not be otherwise; for the Blood out of so large an Orifice might have gushed five Foot. Or, if my Lord had cut his Throat kneeling, the blood in the Wall would then have been as high as his Throat might have been in that posture. But there was no blood a foot higher than the Floar, therefore he could not cut his Throat either standing or kneeling. Nei­ther can it be supposed to be done lying along, for then the Wound beginning at the left side, (and his Lordship being Right-handed) and ending at the Right, the Razor would have lain on the right, whereas the Razor lay on the left-side of the Body. But lest the Circumstances of the Body, as first pretended to be found, might prove a detection of this Vil­lany, care was taken that before the Co­roner's Jury saw the Body, the Body should be stript, and the Cloathes carried away, and the Room and Closet washed, so that the Body might appear as naked of its first Circumstances, as it was of its Cloathes. This particular was so noto­riously irregular, or rather criminal in some degree, that all men know the Law requires the contrary. For by the first Posture of the Body, with the Circum­stances of the Cloathes, &c. great light may be given to the true manner of his Death. But that in this Case was not to be discover'd, and therefore such Pra­ctices were necessary. My Lord's Cloathes were not only carried way, but when demanded by the Jury, as what might be serviceable in their Inquisition, the Co­roner was upon this Question immediate­ly called into the next Room, and re­turning, told the Jury, It was the Body, and not the Cloathes, they were to sit upon; [Page 45] the Body was there, and that was sufficient. It is an unhappiness the Coroner hath forgot (as he swears) who those were which were in the next Room, whilst the Jury sat, and to whom, whilst they sat, he did several times go; but had the Ju­ry seen the Cloathes upon the Body in its first Posture, these would of themselves have convinced them, that my Lord of Essex was murthered; for how could there be a print of a bloody Foot upon my Lord, and yet none (as they pretended) had been in the Closet with him? Or how could his Lordship with such an In­strument as the Razor, cut twice through the neck of his Cravat? For Alice Carter and Mary Johnson, who (together with Major Webster) stript the Body, have de­clared, as hath been deposed, the neck of my Lord's Cravat was cut in three pieces. The Circumstances of the pretended In­strument of Death, gives strong suspicion of the Murther; for the pretended In­strument of the Self-murther, was a French Razor about four Inches and a quarter in its Blade, and had no Spill or Tongue at the end, as you may perceive by the Fi­gure thereof in the Cut. Wherefore this Razor in its use must be held by the very Blade, and not less than two Inches of that could well suffice to be held in his hand for that strength and steadiness the cutting twice through the Cravat, and afterwards so deep in the Neck, required. And then the Wound, if made at once, would not have been above two Inches and a quarter deep, no more of the Blade being outside the Hand, which length could not at once possibly make a Wound above three Inches in depth; I do suppose none do believe his Lordship cut twice to effect it.

The largeness of the Wound at first, did make very ingenious Physicians and Surgeons say, that they supposed it impossi­ble for any man to cut his Throat, accord­ing as the two Surgeons upon my Lord's Body deposed, the Wound being such, both Jugulars and Arteries quite divided, and cut to the very Vertebres of the Neck: now in cutting the first Jugular Artery, there would immediatly have issued such a quantity of blood and spirits, as would have soon incapacitated him from dividing the second; and though as Ingenious an Ana­tomist as most in England, before their Lordships would not say that he thought it impossible his Lordship should so cut his Throat; yet he did confess, that he never saw or heard of any before, who cut through both Jugulars and Arteries to the Neck-bone, as my Lord's was cut. This Gentleman for some years having been Physician to Bedlam, he may be sup­posed to have as many Instances of Self-violences as any Physician in England; and of all men, none do it with that good-will and vigor as the Destracted do, and therefore should make the deepest and largest Wounds. But I think I need not insist in this Case upon such Arguments, considering what is before said to be proved. Now to proceed with the Jury.

These Gentlemen, had they not been hurried into their Inquisition (as you will hereafter find they were) by the Bo­dy as it was left naked, upon a strict view might well have been satisfied his Lordship fell not a Self-sacrifice; for it's proved there were five Cuts in his Right hand (viz.) Mr. Shillingsford. one almost on the top of the Fore-finger, and another upon the same near the Hand; Turner and Peck. one upon the Fourth Finger, and another upon the Little-Finger, and Mr. Sherwood the Surgeon upon the Body. a fifth about two Inches long in the very Palm of the Right­hand; can it be suppos'd that his Lordship made these Wounds (and that upon his Right-hand) for trial how sharp the Razor was, and how well it would perform what he designed to execute? These Cuts cannot be supposed to be made by holding the Razor. No, these were pre­vious to that direful Cut; and the effects of his strugling with those bloody Men, [Page 46] when he so often cried out, Murther, murther, murther; as he then used his Tongue to discover, so did he likewise his Hands to prevent that treacherous Wound he perceived designed for his Destruction; and in thus striving to put off the Instrument of Death, did his Right hand receive these several Wounds. Mr. Fisher, one of the Coroner's Jury hath deposed to this effect; ‘That he asked Bomeny, whether his Lord was not esteemed a good man, for such he had heard him represented? Bomeny answer­ed, As good a man as lived. Upon which Fisher said, Then it was very strange so good a man should be guilty of so bad an Action, for nothing could be worse than Self-murther; whereupon Major Hawley told Fisher, Whoever thought that Action unlike his Lord­ship, did not know my Lord of Essex; for every one that was but well ac­quainted with the Earl, knew it was his Lordship's fixed Principle, That any man might cut his own Throat, or otherwise destroy himself, to avoid a dishonourable and infamous Death, and therefore this was like my Lord of Essex's avowed Principle.’ Fisher believing this to be true, was the more easily inclin'd to believe that his Lordship had followed such his own fixed Principles. But when Major Hawley was questioned for this Sug­gestion to the Jury, he positively deny'd it, and for answer saith, that he was not nigh the Victualling-house in the Tower all the time the Jury was there considering of their Inquisition: And as for the Princi­ple, he could not say it, for he never heard it said to be my Lord's Principle, till their Lordships charged him with ha­ving suggested it. I know it is commonly discoursed about Town, that such was his Lordship's Principles; and this was industriously spread immediately upon my Lord's Death; but observe, Major Haw­ley was the man that suggested this to the Jury, that they might the more easily be­lieve the Self-murther. And the Ma­jor's now denial of this Suggestion, or that he ever heard it said to be my Lord's Principle, when the matter is positively sworn against him (I think) naturally argues that this was a false, forg'd, and maliciously invented Story by that bloody Party that murthered my Lord, and Haw­ley the man by them pitch'd upon as the most proper Person to corrupt the Jury (the then proper legal Judges of the man­ner of my Lord's Death) with this trea­cherous and villanously contriv'd Sug­gestion; so that the Jury might the more easily be inclin'd to believe my Lord's Self-murther upon Evidence as incon­sistent as false. And the Major's dis­owning that he was near the Jury at the Victualling-house whilst they were up­on their Enquiry, implies his being conscious that he was there for a very ill purpose, and therefore thought it not safe to own his being with them; but he was too officiously there, not to be remembred; for when some of the Ju­ry moved for Adjourning their Inquisi­tion, in order to the giving notice to my Lord's Family; so that if any thing could be proved on my Lord's behalf, it might be by them heard: Hawley immediately enters a Caveat, and prevents it; for he tells the Jury, That they could not Ad­journ, but must immediately dispatch their Enquiry; for His Majesty was then in Council, and had sent for their Inqui­sition, and would not rise till it was brought him. This further suggestion caused the Jury to make more haste than good speed; and so, without that time which was convenient, ended their In­quisition. But Major Hawley denies this likewise, and protests, He was not nigh the Jury at the place, or did at all thus hasten them. But this is positively sworn against him by some of the Jury; and many of the Jury declare they remem­ber the Major with them at the Victual­ling-house. The indiscretion in the Co­roner [Page 47] and his Jury, I cannot but ob­serve, which was, their suffering Bomeny and Russel to come together, and hear each other's Examination; and, which was more foolish, to permit Bomeny, when he began to hesitate in his Exa­mination, (which alone gave reasonable grounds of suspicion that he was telling a Lye; for Truth would have readily occurr'd; but Lies were first to be in­vented, before they could be given in Evidence), to write his own Examina­tion; and not only so, but in the Room next the Jury, where his Tutors were ready to instruct him: and yet, after all, this forged Deposition needed further Amendments at Whitehall, (as you will immediately hear); for as it was sworn, it was not thought fit to be exposed All men must agree, That the Circumstan­ces in which Bomeny and Russel stood re­lated to my Lord at the time of his Death, render'd them highly to be sus­pected as privy to my Lord's Death, if not acting in it, in case my Lord did not destroy himself: For, could Russel keep my Lord's Chamber-door (as him­self upon Oath confesses) and be igno­rant of what violence was offered to his Lordship within the Chamber, (the Room not being fourteen Foot square)? Or could Bomeny be waiting on his Lord in the very Chamber, and a stranger to the true manner of his Death? Wherefore, in common Discretion and Justice, these Two (and Monday, the other Warder, who first that morning kept the Chamber­door, with the Centinel that kept the outward Door) should upon the first Discovery have been seized, and separa­ted, and kept apart, and examined a­part, so that neither might have been privy to the others Examination, by which the Truth would have been soon detect­ed; for had my Lord destroyed himself, all their Depositions would have so har­moniz'd (though separately and crosly examined) that the Truth would the more plainly have appeared; whereas on the other hand, in case his Lordship fell by Treachery, then such Proceedings would have immediately discovered it to the Jury; for then these Warders, and Ser­vants, and Centinel, not being able to soretell what Questions the Jury would ask them, consequently could not pre­viously agree upon their Answers. And should their Examinations, upon this Management, have materially interfer'd, and thwarted each other, (as it's natural to suppose they would; for though Truth be still the same, yet Lies are al­most infinite), these Depositions would have been so far from proving my Lord a Self-Murtherer, as they would have plainly discovered the contrary, and these men guilty in a most perfidious and barba­rous connivance.

For, admitting that these men, upon their cross and separate Examination, should have answered the Jury as it is before represented (which is according to their own Oaths, or repeated Rela­tions), can it be supposed that any Co­roner and Jury could be so void of com­mon Sense and Honesty, as to give cre­did to such, and so many Contradicti­ons? But, alas! such fair Practices were not to be expected, where such a foul Villany was to be concealed. And there­fore, instead of securing apart the two Warders, Servant, and Centinel, poor William Turner and Samuel Peck (whose Depositions are before mentioned) were to be locked up close, (with Bomeny for a colour), as though these two Men were more to be suspected than my Lord's two Keepers. And thus in Custody were these two innocent Men kept, whilst the two Warders and Centinel, the more-to-be-suspected Criminals, were permitted to go at large. But this was contrary to His then Majesty's Com­mand: For as soon as King Charles the Second (then in the Tower) had heard of my Lord's Death, he did immedi­ately [Page 48] send the Lord Allington, Sir C —, and Thomas Howard, Esq; to my Lord's Lodgings, with Orders, That such as were attending upon my Lord at the time of his Death, should be secured and examined, and all things to remain till the Coroner's Jury had seen the Body. In Obedience to which Command, Sir C— coming into the Lodgings, be­gan to take some Examinations; but was soon interrupted by one, who told Sir C—, His Majesty did command him immediately to go to the Old-Bailey, and give notice to the then Attorney-General of my Lord's Death, and to know what was to he done therein. Sir C— by the same Gentleman de­sired His Majesty's leave to finish those Examinations he was then upon; but the same Messenger came the second time, with positive Orders (as from His then Majesty) for Sir C—'s immediate going in Obedience to this repeated Command. Sir C— went: But Sir C— remembers not who this Gentleman was, which thus twice came with Orders as from His then Maje­sty. It's a great misfortune, Sir C— remembers not; for by the Messenger (it's strongly suspected) it would be soon found, His then Majesty's Authority (in this Command) was used by him who too often abused it.

This great haste to the Old-Bailey, (when that Great Patriot, but unfortu­nate Lord Russel was there Trying) and the indirect use, by malicious Ap­plication of this pretended Self-Mur­ther to the taking off him, of whom we were no longer worthy. — This gave to an Honourable person then up­on the Bench just grounds to suspect, that this Noble Earl was murdered without Form of Law, the more easily to destroy that great Lord under colour of Justice.

The Coroner's Inquisition, and the Depositions of Bomeny and Russel being carried in all haste to White-hall in order to their immediate publication; they were there perused, and it being found that Bomeny and Russel had point-blank contradicted each other; (for the first, as before observ'd, had sworn the deli­very of the Razor the day before my Lord's Death) and the second, that it was not deliver'd till the day of his Death. These Contradictions were not thought convenient to be exposed, lest they should give just ground of suspicion that the whole was forged; and therefore a Reconciler was ordered to amend the one, so it might be agreeable to the other, it matter'd not how inconsistent or contradictory they were in the Original, for those could be seen by none but the Coroner himself, in whose custody they were; and 'twas to be supposed, that the Coroner would not then dare to contra­dict what Authority had ordered, so to be printed; and hereupon was that Altera­tion made, as was before observed, in Bo­meny's Information, page 3. but this done (as some years since observed by an Inge­nious Author upon this occasion) without the least congruity either to Sense or Grammar; for nothing can be more ap­parent, than that the foregoing part of the Information relates wholly to Thurs­day: but at last, without any regard to what Bomeny had before sworn, on Friday the 13th Instant, is foisted in, contrary to all Rules of Grammar, and common measures of Sense as well as Justice, which justly esteems this printed Infor­mation forged. This forged Reconci­liation is done with the greatest incon­gruity and absurdness, as well as falseness imaginable; and I know not whether the folly of the Suborner (for without doubt the Suborner and Reconciler in this case are the same, or of the same stamp) or the Perjury of the suborned in that false Information be most con­spicuous.

The Soldiers that were in the Tower that morning my Lord was murther'd, having made such Discoveries as satisfied them my Lord was treacherously taken off; they used too great freedom in their discourse with relation thereunto; and therefore (as Robert M [...]ake declared to two who have diposed it) ‘An Officer called several of them together, and under se­vere Threatning enjoin'd them not to speak one word of what they had either seen or heard with relation to my Lord's Death. Wherefore the said Meake desired his Friends not to divulge what he had told them; for should it be known, it would prove his rune:’ but some short time after, Meake declared (as three have deposed, ‘That he did believe he should be privately murther'd for what he knew, and had said with relation to my Lord's Murther, and therefore he desi­red Bampton or Davidson (as they have both sworn) to keep him company that very day, for he much fear'd he should that very day be destroyed. But both of them (fearing the danger themselves might be in) refusing, that very night was the said Meake thrown into the Tower-ditch.’ As for Ruddle before-men­tioned, all the Information I can have of what is become of him, is, That not long after my Lord's Death he was drawn out of the Tower, and sent to the East-Indies, and at Fort St. George shot to death, but for what reason I cannot learn. There was one Mr. Hawley, a Warder in the Tower that very morning my Lord was mur­ther'd, and by what he had observed with relation thereunto, he had reason to de­clare to a Friend, That it was a piece of Villany throughout. This Mr. Hawley being in Westminster-Hall whilst I was upon my Trial, said, He wonder'd what made me stir in it, when to his knowledge I knew nothing of the matter; upon which one Mr. B. said, Mr. Hawley, If you know Mr. Braddon knows nothing in this, what must you know? to which Mr. Hawley made no reply. But this Gentleman's knowledge in the matter cost him too dear; for about March next after my Lord's Death, being missing, one of the Warders, suspected to be a Papist, said, Mr. Hawley had been prating about the Earl of Essex 's Death, and therefore was forc'd to fly. But six Weeks discover'd how he fled, for he was then found in a River by Rochester so changed through the barbarity he had met with, that neither his Face or Body could be known by his nearest Relations; and his Cloathes were all taken off except his Stockins and Shoes, by which he was dis­covered to be the Man; for he wore three Stockins upon one Leg, and two Stockins and a Seer-cloth upon the other, and (as I have been informed) the lining of the Toes of his Shoes cut out. By these remarkable Circumstances his Wife knew him. She had used all possible di­ligence for finding her Husband; in or­der to which she offer'd in several Ga­zetts an Hundred pound Reward to any that could discover his Body dead or alive, but it was six weeks before he was found. Several of the Soldiers in the Tower, that morning my Lord was mur­thered, I have been enquiring after, but have been told they were kill'd in the West against the late Duke of Monmouth.

But considering what fate befel Haw­ley, Ruddle and Meake, before mentioned, I have reason to suspect that other may likewise have been murthered by way of prevention

Besides such addition of blood, other violent Methods were used to prevent a discovery, by punishing such Soldiers as seemed to disbelieve (upon very good grounds) my Lord's Self-murtner. This appears by this Information following.

Richard Jorden declareth, ‘That (some time that Summer the Earl of Essex died, and not long after the said Earl's Death) he saw a Solder tied to the Wooden­horse in the Tower (by order of Lieute­nant [Page 50] Collonel Nichols) and whipt after a very cruel manner.’ And this Depo­nent heard the said Lieutenant-Collonel tell the Soldier, he ought to be hanged. This Deponent further declareth, ‘That he was just after informed by the Mar­shal that whipt the said Soldier, that by order of Lieutenant-Collonel Nichols he gave the said Soldier 53 Stripes (tho the usual number was but 12.) and that the said Soldier had lain a Fortnight be­fore in close custody, and been fed with Bread and Water, and all only for the Offence following;’ (viz.) Some short time after the Death of the late Earl of Essex, Dr. H. of Nor­folk, Prebend of Norwich. a Di­vine coming into the Tower, the said Soldier was sent with him to shew him the Tower, and as the Doctor was almost over-against Major Hawley 's, the Doctor asked the said Solder, which was the Chamber wherein the late Earl of Essex did cut his Throat; where­upon the said Solder (pointing to the Cham­ber in which the Earl had been Prisoner) said, that is the Chamber in which it is said the Earl of Essex cut his Throat. The Doctor then asked the Soldier, what he did believe? to which the Soldier answered, That he did believe in God; but being prest by the said Doctor to tell him, whether he did believe my Lord cut his Throat? The Soldier then replied, be would not say he did believe it; for which only saying, the Punishment aforesaid was in­flicted.

And the more effectually to prevent any discourse that might give the least credit to my Lord's being murthered, our then Misgovernment took all possible care to punish, or rather oppress such as should declare their belief thereof; a­mongst which one of the Coroner's Jury upon the Earl's Body, suffer'd under this Tyranny; for this man, some time after my Lord's Death, discoursing concerning the Earl's Death, and the several Irregu­larities which he observed practised upon my Lord's Body before they saw it, and how they were not permitted to make that Inquiry which was necessary; said to this effect; ‘That he did believe they ( viz. the Coroner's Jury) were all infatuated to bring my Lord in Felo de se; but he did suppose, had they not been hurried into their Inquisition, they should have found it otherwise.’ For this Discourse this honest poor man was prosecuted upon information, and fin'd (at first I have heard) 300 l. but it appearing he was very poor, his Poverty prevail'd for a mitigation of his Fine; and his Age and great Infirmities of Body (together with the charitable In­tercession of a Gentleman of Interest in the then times) avoided the corporal pu­nishment which he had otherwise under­gone.

If such practices as these were us'd by our then Court to prevent my Lord's but being suspected to be mur­the'd, it could not be suppos'd that any encouragement should be given to a full detection, and therefore all proposals in order thereunto, were to be rejected; an Instance whereof was as followeth, (viz.)

About six weeks after my Lord's Death, there was a Letter (unsealed) left with one Mr. Cadman, then living in Durham Exchange; the Letter was dire­cted to the Right Honourable the Coun­tess Dowager of Essex; the substance of this Leter was, That if her Honour could prevail with the King for the Author's par­don, he would ingenuously make a full disco­very, how, by whom, and whose Order my Lord was Murthered: and this Letter did assure her Honour, that the DUKE of YORK and — were authorizing this Murther.

This Letter was subscribed P. B.

By the Hand that writ it, and the Let­ter subscribed, it was Paul Bomeny before­mentioned, (who did once blasphemously say, That he could as well tell how my Lord [Page 51] came by his Death, as God Almighty him­self) for the Letter was fairly writ, in a hand between a Roman and an Italian, and such an Hand Bomeny, when he would write fair, did write; besides, the two letters subscribed, are the letters of his Name.

I do suppose it may be objected, That this Letter cannot be thought to be writ and subscribed by Bomeny); for the Letter, had it been brought in accusation against him, and prov'd to be his, would have cost him his life, seeing herein he confess'd himself guilty of the Fact.

But, with submission, I think Bomeny by this Letter, could it have been proved to be his own writing, was in no danger at all of being punished; for had they seized Bomeny, they would have catched a Tarter; should they have proceeded a­gainst him for this Murther, upon this Confession, the World would have be­lieved the whole Contents of this Letter to be true; and consequently that the Duke of York, and — authorized (or rather commanded) this most treache­rous Murther. And then pray consider what that Government could have got by such prosecution, conviction and punish­ment.

This Letter was carried by Cadman to a Justice of Peace, and by him to the Se­cretary of State: but this Bookseller was never sent for, nor any enquiry made af­ter the Author.

The backwardness of the then Govern­ment in not examining into the matter, gave just grounds of suspicion they were too well satisfied in the Truth of the Contents; which was of such a nature, as it could not bear an Inquisition; for that would have centred in His Ruine, who was then by Blood, and Cruelty, and other illegal and oppressive Methods, endeavouring the total Subversion of our Church and State; and this by the removal of some of the Chief of those Noble Lords and Worthy Gentlemen, who had ever opposed their Arbitrary De­signs. Amongst which, this Noble Lord and the Right Honourable the Lord Russel they did esteem two of the Chief.

Had none then in Authority and Pow­er been concerned in this barbarous Treachery, and had our then Government had the least desire to know this Truth, in order to a just Punishment of those bloody Villains; with what diligence would they bave search'd out the Author, who desired no other Reward than the Security of his Life; and in order to his Indemnity (if they could no otherwise have found him out) a Proclamation of Pardon would immediately have been issu­ed forth, by which the Author would have been assured of his Life; and then, with­out doubt, according to his promise, would have laid open this bloody deed of darkness? Hath our Age ever seen, or known recorded, any Murther (admit this one) committed within this King­dom, that hath been (all its Circum­stances considered) attended with such aggravations? We have seen a Reward of 200 l. (as well as a Pardon) by Pro­clamation offered for the discovery of those bloody Ruffians, who barbarously wounded (but design'd to have murder­ed) that Worthy Gentleman, Mr. Arnold. And was there not 500 l. and a Pardon by Proclamation promised to Him or Them that should detect the Murther of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey? Such means as these would have been likewise in this Case used, if such who then misled Charles 2. and corrupted the State, had not been the deepest in this black Contrivance.—

This Bomeny, soon after my Lord's Death, gives an eminent Divine an Ac­count to this effect, (viz.) That his Lord did use to be taken with sudden frenzical Passions; and in particular, with one that morning he died, just before his Death: For (said this vile Judas) as soon as my Lord saw my Lord Russel go to his Trial, he struck his Breast, and said, Him­self [Page 52] was the cause of my Lord Russel 's mise­ry, seeing he had vouched for that Gentle­man whose Treachery would prove my Lord Russel 's Ruine, &c. and hereupon fell al­most distracted. — But this Fellow's re­peated Oaths give the Lye to this For­gery. Before the Coroner, in the coclusi­on of his first Page 35. Deposition, he swears, That on Thurs­day- night, (which was the night before his Lord's Death) the Earl was very merry at Supper, AND DID NOT SEEM TO BE DISCONTENTED THE NEXT DAY. And when one of the King's Council at my Trial, page 55. at the lower-end, ask'd such a Question as seem'd either to imply my Lord's being melancholy, or else would have had Mr. Bomeny. — For the Que­stion was thus worded, (viz.) Did you observe your Lord melancholy, Mr. Bomeny? Bomeny answered, Yes; but we took no no­tice of it; for he us'd to be so, and we had no reason to suspect any thing more than ordinary.

Had this Varlet rested in the general Affirmative, without proceeding farther, his Answer would (it's probable) have better served the design of the Question: but by the latter-part of his Answer, he destroy'd that Service which the first word [Yes] might have otherwise done. And observe what a point-blank Contradicti­on this Evidence at the Trial is to what he deposed (before the Coroner) the very next day after my Lord's Death, when (had this been true) it would have been fresh in his memory, and he would (without doubt) have sworn it. But this was according to some after-instruction, not thought of at the time of the Coro­ner's Inquest.

In the next place, I shall give you some Account of what was sworn against one Mr. Holland, so much talk'd of in this Affair, by which you will have some ground to suppose a more convenient In­strument than a Razor gave this barba­rous and treacherous wound.

When Holland was imprisoned for Mr. Gatford's Robbery in Newgate, my Lord Sunderland sent often thither, and took a more than ordinary care of him; where­upon Major Richardson told my Lord's Gentleman, That he did much wonder his Lordship would be so kind to so pro­fligate a Fellow. To which it was an­swered, That his Lordship had a very great kindness for Holland, because he had been Servant to my Lord Spencer (my Lord Sunderland's Son); but it seems somewhat else was in the matter; for it's deposed by John Waytis, ‘That observing Holland to be frequently furnished with Money by my Lord Sunderland, and —, this Informant asked Holland how his Lordship became so kind to him? To which Holland replied (with his usual phrase) Damn him, he had done that for him, that HE DURST NOT DO OTHERWISE. And when this Informant was once saying, It was whisper'd that the late Earl of Essex was murdered; Holland said, Damn him, it was not a farthing matter if twenty such were taken off.’ He that so little [Page 54] valued the lives of Twenty, would not in all probability much boggle to be con­cerned in the murdering One.

Holland writ a Letter to the Earl of Feversham, wherein he represented me as endeavouring to suborn him to appear an Evidence in the Case of the late Earl of Essex; which Letter was read in the House of Lords. But that which Holland falsly called endeavours to suborn, I shall truly and faithfully (as it can be prov'd) declare, and appeal to every impartial Reader, Whether it deserves that infa­mous Name?

Having some reason to believe Hol­land one of the Ruffians, I did use all means possible for his Apprehension; but I found that Holland lay very private, and, as I had reason to believe, designed to fly beyond Seas, (as his own Letter before mentioned declared). Hereupon I ap­plied my self to some of Holland's Ac­quaintance, and by them being brought to Mrs. Holland, I told her, That I had reason to believe her Husband was con­cerned in this villanous Murther, and herein I was confirmed by Mr. Holland's absconding; for Innocence desires a Tri­al, but Guilt still flies from Justice. I then told her, That if her Husband were really guilty of this Fact, and would im­mediately surrender himself, ingenuously declaring, how, by whom, with whom, and for what hir'd to do this barbarous Mur­ther, her Husband should have a gene­ral Pardon, and both Him and Her pro­vided for: But if her Husband was in­nocent, (notwithstanding whatsoever was said to the contrary), and should take upon him a Crime (for any advantage whatsoever) of which he was not guilty, he deserv'd to be Hang'd here, and Damn'd hereafter, seeing by his Perjury he would make Justice an Instrument of executing the worst of Murthers.— But if he were indeed the Man, and should surrender himself, and discover the whole matter, he must be sure to keep within the limits of Truth; for should he be detected in the least Perjury, no man was ever more vigorously prosecuted, nor any more severely punished, than he (for such his Perjury) must expect to suffer.

These were the Arguments with which I would have suborn'd (as that Letter calls it) Holland to a full Discovery: And I do appeal to all the World, Whether, ad­mitting this to be true, (as it will be pro­ved when occasion serves) I deserve this villanous Charge? For the truth of this, I do appeal to the Consciences of Mrs. H. Mr. P. and Mr. S. with whom I se­veral times treated in this Affair.

I shall now mention one or two more Objections against my Lord's being mur­der'd, and then draw to a Conclusion. The first is this, (viz.) the Right Honourable the Lady Countess-Dow­ager of Essex, having heretofore de­clared (whether lately, I cannot say) That she did believe her Lord cut his own Throat; and being so possessed, some time after this Committee had se­veral times sate, she desired several Lords (amongst which some were of this Right Honourable Committee) to meet at her House; and after her Honour had ac­quainted their Lordships with the occa­sion of her request, an eminent Divine (and now Bishop) did inform their Lord­ships what were the Reasons that moved her Honour to believe that her Lord did indeed lay violent hands on himself; the Chief, if not the Only whereof, was, That some short time before my Lord's Commitment to the Tower, his Lordship seemed to be un­der a great concern of mind; but then de­clared, That the trouble he was in did not arise from any thoughts of Self-preservation, for Himself was the least of his Care; but the thoughts of his Family, what would after his Death become of them, was what did indeed trouble him: As for himself, he was resolved what to do; SEVERAL TIMES VERY RESOLUTELY REPEAT­ING [Page 55] THAT EXPRESSION, AS FOR MY SELF, I AM RESOL­VED WHAT TO DO. This I was told by a Gentleman then present, who (as I have great reason to believe) would have represented every thing to the best advantage (as far as Truth would permit) on the behalf of such Objections. But, with all submission to such Judg­ments as are sway'd with this Objection, I think it carries not that force which many imagine: For is there nothing to which that Resolution of his Lordship might so probably have relation, as a Self-destruction? was that the only, or the most likely thing he was resolved to do? I do humbly conceive, a little con­sideration may afford us both a more cha­ritable Opinion of his Lordship's Reso­lution, and somewhat more probable than Self-murther to be assigned as what his Lordship was resolved to do. For when I consider the time when his Lordship was apprehensive of the like danger as threat­ned him just before his last Imprisonment, (viz.) when my Lord Shaftsbury and my Lord Howard, &c. were committed to the Tower, and a Gentleman who had a very great Honour for his Lordship, (as all good men had, who had the honour to know him) in true Zeal for his Lordship's preservation, (having heard that the Court designed likewise to commit my Lord of Essex, and to take off many in Form of Law; or rather, that which they falsly called so) went to his Lord­ship, and informed him of what he had been told, and humbly submitted it to his Lordship's Judgment, Whether it were not proper for some time to withdraw, till the fury of the Court by time was a little appeased? This Gentleman told his Lordship, He found by the Papists, that they did design to take off several; and his Lordship being to their Arbitrary and Popish Designs as great and profess'd an Enemy as any, he did fear his Lordship might not be safe from their pretended Justice, when once within their Power My Lord hereupon smiled, and said ve­ry sedately, and yet very resolutely, That he would not stir, though he did expect the Court would proceed very far, not only to the Imprisoning, but against the Lives of ma­ny; and if God in his Providence should think fit to suffer him to fall a Sacrifice to the Malice and Rage of the Court, he did hope, and did not doubt, but the World should see that he could die with as GREAT RESOLUTION as ever his Father did; for he was ready at all times, and up­on all occasions, to lay down his Life for hi [...], Countrey.

Reflecting therefore on my Lord's de­clared Resolution of his not stirring, though then under the like danger, as in this case apprehended, and with what readiness, courage, and chearfulness he could lay down his Life for his Country; and like­wise the knowledge that he may be supposed to have of the then Court-Designs (which those Villains, nine days before his Death declared; for it is Vide D. Smith's E­vidence first mentioned. sworn the Papists then said, The Earl knew so much of their Designs, and was so very averse to their Interest, that they could never carry them on, UNLESS HIS LORDSHIP WAS TAKEN OFF; AND HIS LORDSHIP WAS THEREFORE TO BE MUR­DERED.) I say, when I consider these things, and that the more this Ho­nourable Lord knew of the black Intrigues of the Court, the more so good a Man, and so true a Patriot must be supposed to hate them; I can't but imagine that this brave State-Champion, when he had been once satisfied, that the Court, under co­lour of Law, would have taken him off, had RESOLVED AS TO HIM­SELF, to lay open those Popish Arbi­trary Court-Contrivances, and justified that just Design of standing upon their Guard; there was no other way (under God) to defend what was so grosly inva­ded. [Page 56] Now, though his Lordship might suppose, by dealing thus plainly, he should the more exasperate the Court; so that their Malice would be more in­veterately bent in his Destruction; yet that he declared he FEARED NOT, but was ready chearfully to lay down his life in so just a cause. And should this daring true Lover of his Countrey have thus ex­pired, by his State-Martyrdom, he would have given such satisfaction in the Truth of what he thus couragiously, with his last breath, should have affirmed, as would have raised a general hatred against those Arbitrary and Popish Court-resolutions; and this might so suddenly have given another so general a Resurrection to that just Cause, as would have totally routed those true and only Enemies of both Church and State. Our then Enemies, under colour of Law, were industriously endeavouring the total Subversion of our Laws; and whilst in shew they seemed to maintain the Protestant Church, they were secretly contriving its total Destruction, by wresting those very Laws which were chiefly designed as destructive to Popery, and making them productive of what they were enacted to destroy: For by a malicious and furious Prosecution of all Protestant Dissenters, they did hope to raise so ge­neral Animosities between the Conform­ing and Non-Conforming Protestants, that they might, through such division, have an opportunity to fulfil that notori­ous Jesuitical Maxim, Divide & Impera.

The late E. of Essex had the least reason to despair of the late King's Mercy; for should his Lordship have been convicted through False Evidence, or Corrupt Judg­ment in the Court, by their adjudging that to be Treason which the Law never made, or designed to make so, (as they did in the Case of the Right Honourable the Lord Russel, and some others.) No Nobleman in England had better grounds than his Lordship to presume upon the late King's Mercy, seeing his Lordship's Father had sacrific'd his life in that King's Service; wherefore his then Majesty had good reason to declare (when His High­ness, not many hours before the Earl's Death, said, the Earl ought to be taken off) that he was resoved to spare his Lordship for what his Father had suffered; (this you find before by Hughs and Gladwin. 29. two sworn to be declar'd by Ruddle, who heard it that very morning my Lord was murther'd); And this account of Ruddle seems the more probable by what his then Majesty is generally said to have declar'd soon after he heard of that deplora­ble Accident, (viz.) That he did much wonder his Lordship should murther himself, and not trust to his Mercy, seeing he ow'd him a Life.

Considering therefore that his Lord­ship had so good cause for hopes of Mer­cy under the greatest danger [even Con­viction] there is the less reason to be­lieve, THAT HIS LORDSHIP HAD RESOLV'D TO DESTROY HIM­SELF.— I find this Objection from the Right Honourable the Countess Dowager of Essex, hath been generally us'd as what should convince every man that the late Earl did indeed cut his own Throat.— But I would fain ask those Gentlemen (who immediately run away with this as what is sufficient to answer whatsoever seems to prove the contrary) Whether it is within the power of belief or disbelief of a fact, either to alter the nature, or destroy the existence of a Fact. Most certainly none will be so ignorant as to assert, That any thing becomes true by being believ'd, or false by being discre­dited, for then according to different per­swasions a thing would be, and not be at the same time, which is impossible. Wherefore no man should be implicitly sway'd by the bare belief, or disbe­lief of another, (without knowing and examining the reasons of that belief, or disbelief) for this is to act in the belief of matters of Fact, which we justly con­demn [Page 57] in the Church of Rome in matters of Faith— But when the truth of a Fact is question'd, and reasons given pro & con, every man is naturally sway'd by those Testimonies which to him seem the strongest for the proof, or disproof of that Fact, and no man (but such as are easily impos'd upon, or are willing to impose upon others) will oppose to such Evidences as naturally proves a Fact, another's bare disbe­lief of the Fact. But before any unprejudic'd Person will be influenc'd (by another's disbelief) against the proof of the Fact, he will know, and well weigh the grounds of that disbelief, and compare their strength and natural efficacy with that Evidence that seems to prove the contrary; and having judicially weigh'd both in an unprejudic'd ballance, which side draws down, MUST natural­ly draw his belief; for no man can be­lieve what he would, but every man MUST believe according as his Judg­ment stands inclin'd to assent upon such Evidence as to him seems sufficient.— Prejudice, I must confess, naturally in­disposes and corrupts men on either side according as they stand affected; For as some are induc'd to ASSENT upon such Evidence as is in it self INSUFFICI­ENT, so others many times DISSENT up­on such as is SUFFICIENT. Amongst the first of these (viz.) the CREDU­LOUS, a Reverend B. some time since rang'd me. For tho his Lordship (here­tofore) did charitably excuse me from any malice or ill design, yet (as I have been credibly inform'd) he hath been pleas'd to say that I am of a very strong imagination, and possess'd with a Phancy that a thing is, without rational grounds to believe the thing to be. But I dare now appeal to his Lordship's own Judgment, whether Credulity is more justly charge­able on the belief of the Self-murther, or its contrary. That is to say, whether such as believe the late Earl of Essex murther'd himself, because his Lordship, some days before his Death, several times declared, as for himself he was resolv'd what to do. And To an Emi­nent Divine. because Bomeny pretended (contra­ry to what he twice swore) that morning of his Lordship's Death, my Lord was taken with a fit of a Phren­sy; and because Bomeny, Monday, Russel and Lloyd (the three latter being three of those Vid. before page 16, 17. in whose custody my Lord was, and who, as Mr. Attorney in his Information against Mr. Speak, and my self, sets forth, were consequently charged with my Lord's Murther) to save their own lives, with Halters about their Necks, endeavour to prove his Lordship a Felo de se by their Relation, which in every part is contra­dictory to each other.

For Bomeny first Before the Coroner. Vide the Deposition, pag. 34, 35. swore he delivered my Lord the Razor about Eight of the Clock in the morning the very day of his death, and within two hours Vide the Se­cond Deposition, pag. 2, 3. depo­sed, ‘he did deliver this Razor to his Lordship about Eight of the Clock on Thursday morning, the day before his death.’ But Russel Russel's De­positions, p. 4. de­posed, ‘That he saw this Razor deliver'd by Bo­meny about Eight or Nine of the Clock on Friday morning (being the day my Lord dy'd) and did ever declare, and still asserts that this Razor was delivered AFTER Monday the Warder had left my Lord's Cham­ber-door, and that it was delivered R's Deposit. page 4. within less than half an hour of the time they found his Lordship dead in the Closet;’ both which Whitechurch and Jorden, p. 35, 36. Monday (if Contradi­ctions can) confirmed by declaring that this [Page 58] Razor my Lord had, and pair'd his Nails with it. When his Lordship's Cham­ber-door was first opened that morn­ing (viz.) about Seven of the Clock, about two hours BEFORE Russel came up stairs to stand Warder at the Door; Bomeny first Bom. Dep. p. 34, 35. swore that he first opened the Door upon my Lord's Body; in his Bom. Dep. p. 2, 3. second Informa­tion deposed, ‘That he did not, but (seeing blood and part of the Razor through the Chink) he call'd Russel the Warder, and Russel push'd the Door open;’ and in his Speak and Braddon 's Trial, p. 55. third Oath declar'd, ‘he knew not who open'd the Door.’ Russel Page 4. depos'd before the Coroner, ‘That he first open'd the Closet-door, the Key being on the outside’ (and he mentions no difficulty in the doing it) but Monday White-church 's Inf. page 35. declar'd, ‘the day my Lord dy'd’ (and Jord. Inf. page 36. afterwards con­firm'd the same) ‘that my Lord's Body lay so close against the Door, that neither Bomeny nor Russel could stir the Door; but he being much stronger than either, thrusting with all his might, broke it open.’

These Mens Depositions and Relations THUS AGREEING in every part in proof of the Self-murther, can't but satisfy all men (except such as are, like my self, of strong imaginations, and too easily inclin'd credulously to believe the contrary.) And whereas Bomeny, Monday and Russel have Bom. Dep. p. 2, 3. Bom. Dep. 35. Speak and Braddon 's Trial, p. 57. depos'd, or often declar'd, ‘That the Razor was lock'd in­to the Closet with the Body, and Mond. and Russ. in their Examination before the Lds. no Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window before his Death was dis­cover'd.’—

It's Vide ante page 42. the Second Column. prov'd (I do humbly conceive, to the satisfaction of more than the Credulous) that there was a bloody Razor thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-window (which is about sixteen Foot from the Closet where the Body lay) and the Maid who caried up this Razor, first Discover'd my Lord's Death to those out of the House, (wherefore the Razor was afterwards laid by the Body for to colour the (pretended) Self-murther) and when my Lord's Body was seen in the very po­sture in which the Warders pretended it was first found, his Lord­ships legs Turner and Peck, p. lay part out­side the Closet-door (and therefore the Door could not be lock'd) and upon his Stockin the print of a bloody Foot coming out of the Closet; wherefore somebody before that, and after my Lord was Dead; had come out of the Closet.

Is there not rational grounds from the many contradictions before observ'd, for any man (tho not possess'd with prejudice against the Self-murder) to believe that there was no Razor delivered to my Lord just before his Death, nor the Closet-door lock'd upon the Body, or the Razor first found lying by the Body (as these have Sworn, whose Interest and Lives depend upon the proof of the Self-murder) and consequently their relation a forgery through­out, by which they would prove his Lordship Felo de se.

But farther, to excuse from partiality such as disbelieve the Self-murder upon the Evidence before observ'd in all parts contra­dictory; and from credulity, because they are perswaded that his Lordship fell by trea­chery and violence, seeing they find it D. S. p. 22. Sworn to this effect; (viz.) That about nine days [Page 59] before my Lord's Death, the Papists declared, That because the Earl of Essex knew so much of their designs, and was so very averse to their Interest, he was to be taken off; and that his HIGHNESS HAD CONCLU­DED AND ORDER'D HIS THROAT TO BE CUT, and had promis'd to be there when it was done, and about three days after these men said that it was resolved the Earl's Throat should be Cut, but they would give it our he had done it himself; and if any should deny it, they would take them up and punish them for it; and the very day it was done, after my Lord's Murder, they seemed extremely overjoy'd, and confessed, THEY HAD DONE THE FEAT, AND COULD BUT LAUGH TO THINK HOW LIKE A FOOL THE EARL OF ESSFX LOOKED WHEN THEY CAME TO CUT HIS THROAT; and that this is not a new made Story, but long since revealed to many who did caution this Deponent to secrecy, ap­pears by the Testi­mony of Mr. Rowden, Mrs. Rowden, Mrs. Mary Rowden, Mr. Adams, Mrs. Adams, Mr. May, and Mr. Tourny, p. 23, 24. six or seven Witnesses; and for a farther confirma­tion of the truth of that Consult, Mrs. Hewits, Christophers, and Mrs. Swans, p. 24, 25. three Depositions which were made to destroy the Creditt of that Depo­nent, are detected, and (by Morris, Dupine, Baldham, Doush­wait, Bond and Mr. Welstead, p. 24, 25, 26. many Wit­nesses) proved false in every part; but as farther rational grounds (and not strength of imagi­nation) for this barbarous Murther, Mr. Hubland, Mrs. Hubland, Mrs. Meux, Trehem, Burgis, Savage and Mr. Butteo Maynoe, will attest the same, p. 26, 27. Eight Witnesses have proved, That before the Earl's Death, or before his Death could be known, was it reported in many Parts of England, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower; all these several previous Reports agreed in the manner how, (viz.) cutting his Throat; and place where, (viz) the Tower; (though at some of those Places when so reported, it could not be known that the Earl of Essex was a Prisoner in the Tower) and one of these previous Reports, the next day after my Lord's Commitment, (viz.) the Wednesday, pretended to give the reason wherefore the Earl cut his Throat (that is to say) because the King and Duke being in the Tower, he was af aid his (then) Majesty would have come up into his Chamber, and seen him; but his Guilt and Shame was such, as he could not bear the thought of it, and therefore cut his Throat to avoid it: this being said about 60 miles off, two days before the King and Duke went to the Tower, and the very next day after my Lord's Commitment; wherefore many that are not of too strong an imagina­tion credulously to believe without grounds from those very particular previous Reports, as to manner, place, and pretended reason, are apt to think that the MANNER HOW, THE PLACE WHERE, AND PRETENDED REASON (to be given out) WHEREFORE, were all previously agreed upon some days before my Lord's Death; for they cannot perceive how my Lord's Death, in all its parts (as it was afterwards pretended to be acted) could be so particularly related in so many, and far distant Places from each other.

And though those who had my Lord in close Cu­stody, Monday & Rus-declare this be­fore the Lords. to excuse themselves from a barbarous and bloody Treachery, did declare, That no men were let in to my Lord that morning he died, yet many rational men, not credu­lously inclin'd to believe without cause, are ve­rily persuaded to the con­trary, because it is Hughes and Gladwin, Bam­pton and his Wife, 29, 30. pro­ved, That two Soldiers (who have been prevented from giving their own Rela­tion) [Page 60] the day of my Lord's Death de­clared, That they saw His HIGHNESS send two men to the Earl's Lodgings to mur­der the Earl, and that his HIGHNESS did send two Men towards the Earl's Lodg­ings just before his Death, and tbat these two Men soon after returned, and said, The Business was done, ap­pears by the Mr Essington, 30. Testimony of him who saw His HIGH­NESS send those Men, and their return to His HIGHNESS: And it's farther Lloyd's Con­fession, Mr. Story, Mr. Tem­pest, 27, 28. proved, That the Centinel who kept my Lord's Outward-door, con­fessed, by special Order he let in two or three to my Lord, (of which Webster was one, who that night produced my Lord's bloody Pocket-handkerchief, and the next day a Purse of Gold of 49 Guineas and a Pistol, though he was very poor before) just before his Death; and that upon those mens going in to my Lord's Chamber, there was so great a trampling and bustling, that the Centinel would have forc'd in after them, but could not, because the first door was made fast; and that upon the bustle, he heard some­what thrown down like the fall of a Man, which he did believe to be my Lord's Body; soon after which, it was pretended my Lord cut his Throat: And for what those Men were thus bustling, appears by the Murther which was several times very loud and very dolefully cried out during this bustle; and this heard by Mrs. Bascomb, 28. one who saw this bustling, and soon after revealed it, but was cautioned to secre­cy for her safety, by Mr. Perkins, 29. him who in this respect upon Oath hath confirmed the same; And that his Lordship made use of his Hand to prevent, as well as his Tongue to discover that Villany, which he saw de­sign'd his Destruction, is verily believed by those who find it proved, That there were several Cuts in my Lords Right-hand, (viz.)

Mr. Stulling­ford, 40. One upon his Fore-finger, near the top; another on the same Finger next the hand; Turner and Peck. One upon the fourth Finger, another on the Little-finger, and a fifth Mr. Sherwood the Surgeon, 45. about two Inches long in the Palm of his Hand. And lest my Lord's Cravat, which was Mary John­son, who stript the Body, con­fessed this. Johnson and To­vey, 32, 33. and Alice Car­ter declared the same. cut in three pieces, and the print of a bloody Foot upon my Lord's Leg, as before observed (with other Circumstances, which might have been dis­covered, had the Jury seen the Body in its first posture, and the Cloaths in which his Lordship died) might have occasioned a Discovery, speedy care was taken that the Body should be This is sworn by the Coroner, and several of the Jury. stript (though His then Majesty T. Howard, Esq; had ordered all things to remain till the Co­roner's Jury saw the Body), and the Cloaths carried a­way, and the Room and Closet washed, before the Jury sate upon the Body. And when Mr. Fisher, p. 44. one of the Jury desir'd to see the Cloathes in which my Lord dy'd, the Coroner hereupon was immediately call'd into the next Room, and returning in some heat, told the Jury, it was the Body, and not the Cloathes they were to sit upon; the Body was there, and that was sufficient; and when it was per­ceived that Mr. Fisher, p. 46. some of the Jury were doubtful of my Lord's Self-murther, be­cause his Lordship was (very deservedly) esteem'd a very good man, and therefore not to be thought Felo de se: Major Hawley, to remove this Objection, and to corrupt the Jury with a lie, tells them to this effect, (viz.) That whosoever did believe Self-murther un­like my Lord of Essex, did not know his Lord­ship, for every man that was well acquainted [Page 61] with the Earl, knew that it was a fixt Principle in his Lordship, that any man might cut his Throat, or otherwise dis­pose of his Life to avoid a dishonourable and infamous Death; and therefore this Action was according to the Lord of Es­sex 's avowed Principles. — But when Ma­jor Hawley was charg'd (before the Lords) with this Suggestion, he did utterly deny it, and professed that he never heard it said to be my Lord's Principle, till their Lordships charg'd him with having suggested it, and therefore be could not suggest it: Besides, he was not nigh the Jury at the Victu­alling-house any time whilst they were there upon their Inquisition; but the Major had given them another reason not to forget his being then there; for (it is prov'd by one, and ready to be prov'd by many then present) that some of the Jury were for adjourning their Inquisition, and immediately to give notice to my Lord's Relations, so that if any thing could be prov'd on my Lord's behalf, it might be heard. This Major Hawley steps in and prevents it, by protesting P. 46. 2d Col. that his (then) Majesty had sent an Express for their Inquisition; and His Majesty had declared, that he would not rise from Council 'till it was brought, and therefore they could not adjourn, but must immediately dispatch. —In answer to this, the Major protests that he was not near the Jury at that House, and so did not, or could hasten them. But the Major was so well known to the Coroner, Surgeons and Jury, that it's highly improbable all should be mistaken.

The timing my Lord's Death, and the speedy hurrying it away to the Old-Bayly, and the immediate use that was made thereof as an Evidence from Heaven of his Lord­ship's Guilt, and of the truth of the Charge against the Right Honourable the Lord Russel, then upon his Tryal, and the corrupt influence it had upon the Court, Council and Jury, (so that they did at one stroke virtually destroy two of as great Patriots as this Age or Nation ever knew, and of whom we were no longer worthy.) This might be us'd by Impar­tiality it self as a probable Evidence of this Treacherous Cruelty.

The unjust Methods and Violence us'd to prevent any search after, or discovery of this unfortunate Lord's Death, are far­ther rational Inducements for sober men to believe this Murther, when they find that Vide p. 8. I was committed as soon as I came to White-hall with the Persons to be sworn with relation to my Lord's Death, and this before either my self or any person had been examined, and consequently before any thing criminal could appear against me: And afterwards Mr. Speak and my self pro­secuted, and represented (especially my self) as the worst of Criminals, tho' nothing like a Crime was proved against me, admitting for true, every thing sworn at my I do appeal to the Tryal as Printed. Tryal, where those in whose Custody my Lord was, Vid. 16, 17. and consequently whom we would have accu­sed of my Lord's Murther were called a CLOUD of Witnesses to prove the Self-murther.

The Prosecution of Mr. Colson, page 52. one of the Coroner's Jury, for declaring, That he believed they, (viz.) the Jury, were all infatuated to find his Lordship Felo de se; but he did sup­pose, had they not been hurried, they might have found it otherwise, is an other instance of the severity of the Government, with re­lation hereunto; and the cruel usage of an Ab Jorden, p. 49. old Sol­dier, in feeding him with Bread and Water in the Hole, and afterwards causing him to receive Fifty three stripes with great force (tho the usual Number was but Twelve) and then telling him, He ought to be Hanged for saying what he did, and so dis­carded him; and all this, only for declaring (when often pressed to give his opinion with re­lation to my Lord's death, Whether he did believe [Page 62] his Lordship cut his own Throat? Declared, That he would not say he did believe it. But greater Cruelties than these, some bloody men may be supposed to have used to pre­vent a discovery of my Lord's Murther; for Mr. Hawley, who Vid. ante. pag. 49. KNEW THAT I KNEW NOTHING WITH RELATI­ON TO MY LORD'S DEATH; and his too freely imparting his own Know­ledg'd in the matter, is thought to have caused him (not to run away, but) to be murther'd.

And honest Robert Meake Bampton and his Wise, and Davidson, p. 49. protested the ve­ry day he was murther'd, that he did fear that same day he should be murther'd for what he knew, and had declar'd concern­ing my Lord's murther; and the very next morning was found dead in the Tower Ditch.

And whether poor Ruddle was shot to death in the Indies (where I've heard he so dy'd) for his knowing and revealing what he knew of this Murther, time may discover.

To proceed no farther.

Now whether that CLOUD of (three or four) Witnesses, in whose Pag. 16, 17. custo­dy my Lord was, to avoid being charg'd with treache­rously consenting to my Lord's Murther, with Halters about their Necks, by contradictions endeavouring to prove the Self-murther, — or that GREAT CLOUD of (upwards of sixty) Witnesses (for more have been, and will be examin'd with relation to my Lord's Murther) which swear not for their own lives, but stand recti in Curia, being Per­sons unprejudic'd, deserve the most credit — must be left, first, to the Right Honourable the Lords, before whom this Cause will (in convenient time) be reviv'd; and afterwards to such other Judicatures before which this matter may hereafter be brought; till when it's not proper to publish what might be far­ther said. — But I do humbly conceive I have herein already furnish'd you with suffi­cient grounds to satisfy some (who have been deceiv'd by misinformation) that there are more Arguments than they could have ex­pected, to clear his Lordship's Innocence, and less reason for them to believe, that I have us'd such villanous Practices as my greatest Enemies have suggested, or (as some of my pretented Friends would Insinuate) am pos­sess'd with such heat of imagination, as cre­dulously to believe a thing to be without ra­tional grounds to convince me that it is.

Sir, As you already have, so I doubt not but you will (as becomes a Friend) endeavour to rescue me from the slanders of such as have unjustly accus'd me; and likewise from those Reproaches which have been uncharitably ta­ken up against,