1666. May. A Bout the Fifteenth of May, 1666. resolving upon a Subpoena against one Smith a Butcher, I met with Mr Clark, who tendred his service the second time to the imployment (the first being declined) The matter was, that the said Smith refused to pay for the wintering of a great number of Sheep in Mr. Burnaps ground, for which he affirmed that the said Smith ought to pay, in that he let him no Pasture Tyth-free; both of them acknowledging a Right, but each refu­sing to pay: It is here to be noted, that there was an ancient compositi­on for Vicarage Tyths between Mr. Burnaps grounds, and the Rectorie, which he denied not to continue, till the Spring of the Year 1665. after the Butchers Sheep were removed, who had paid as much for the Winter in question, as he did for the Winter before, when they were depastured Tyth-free; this I did not so fully understand till afterwards; however, Mr. Burnap seems responsable to the Butcher in equity (in not foreseeing the change of his mind at the Spring of the Year to renounce the said anci­ent composition) and the Butcher to me. This is one of the neat bones (a­mongst many others) that have been cast to breed Law; the Mercurial malice whereof, my kind, but not blind charity has ever imputed to some other head, than the person comprised in the premises.

But to leave the digression, Mr. Clark (being ignorant as well as my felf, of these Circumstances) would by all means put Mr. Burnap into the Subpoena also, of which I understood not the reason, seeing the Butcher was Proprietor of the Sheep; however, finding his name therein, I sent my Ser­vant John Weeks to acquaint him, that I intended him no trouble, but that it was Mr. Clarks Law to use his name, the ground of which appears best in the ensuing Story.

June.The Butcher having confer'd with Mr. Burnap, repair'd to me upon the sixth of June following, and with his consent (as he often told me) a­greed the debt. Soon after I received a Letter, dated the one and twentieth of the said Month, from Mr. Clark, either to come up speedily, or send [Page 2]matter for a Bill, else Mr. Burnap would have Costs, because I Declared not against him; upon which I presently dispatch'd a paper of many debts forthwith to be form'd into a Bill and put in against him, that was so greedy of a Suit.

July.By a Letter from Mr. Clark, dated the three and twentieth of the said Month, I am advertis'd to forbear any journey to London, seeing it was a­greed betwixt him and Mr. Burnaps Councel, that no Subpoena for Costs should be taken out, provided the said Bill against Mr. Burnap was not put in; notwithstanding I was served with the said Subpoena, bearing contempo­rary date with the said Letter.

In the beginning of July following, through great inconveniencies, was I thus forced to London, where my Councel (upon the treachery and base­ness of proceedings) advised to move the Barons the next morning (being the last day of the Term) to whose Chamber Mr. Clark somewhat heavi­ly moving to make Affidavit, touching the truth in his Letters to me, met me there; and advised to save the Costs of Motion, because that Mr. Bab, Attorney for Mr. Burnap, assured him that the Subpoena should proceed no farther, seeing he found him the said Mr. Burnap so contentious a person.

August.In the Vacation following, I perceived that Mr. Clark, who would not do me the Justice to put in my Bill, had done me the courtisie to discover the matter of it to Mr. Burnap; whereupon he grew very importunate for a referrence to any Clergy man, September. at my own election; which was waved as more than I desired; and told him so far I was from doing him wrong, that I would refer my self to his own Councel, and choice friend, for which I received many thanks of him: with whom Mr. Burnap, and I meeting October the Eleventh following, October. Mr. Burnap acknowledged all the dues demanded, only the Councel suspended the Agreement of one particular, (viz.) that Fatting Cattle should pay by the head) till he could bring the opinion of Baron Atkins, which was said should be at the end of Michael­mas Term following.

January. 1667.Many Terms passing and nothing declared by the Referree; in the in­terim finding strange indignities offered by the said Mr. Burnap (contrary unto the late kindness shewed and acknowledged by him) I exhibited by Letter to Mr. Clark my suspition of some undue proceedings above, upon the aforesaid Subpoena (which Mr. Clarks perswasions kept from destructi­on so long before) he replyed by Letter dated January the one and thirtieth 1666, that I need not trouble my self below, when there was nothing acted above. My jealousies not acquieseing in this answer, repaired to London; where I found an Attachment out upon the said Subpoena, with which ac­quainting Mr. Clark, (then become Under-Sheriff) and knowing how ill I was dealt with (things being under referrence, and delay on that side) desired that he would suspend any Warrant upon the said Subpoena, till I could apply to the Barons (for that remedy which he had before so un­handsomely hindred) to which he answered, that I might be assured, what he could either in publick or private capacity do for me. April. Notwstand­ing granted a Warrant, the Execution of which came without teeth (no thanks to Mr. Clark) a few days after my Application to the Barons; which [Page 3]was the first day of Easter Term, being April 24. who forthwith made an order to the Remembrancer, to examine and report the truth of my Complaint within seven days.

Mr. Burnap being sent for, appeared April 28. following with the aforementio­ned Councel, also Mr. Bab and Mr. Clark: Mr. Burnap very ingeniously acknow­ledged all the four grounds of my complaint, but his Councel and Attorney Bab, denied all the Suggestions in Mr. Clarks Letters, which the said Mr. Clark did not in the least defend, to his great amazement, that sometimes had known words, but never Letters eaten before.

The Remembrancer declared, that the report must be against Mr. Burnap, but I being very desirous to manifest a peaceable disposition towards him (as a person seduced into these unquiet practices) besought the said Remembrancer, that lay­ing aside the report, as the Barons had committed the Examination, so I the de­termination of the whole business to him; which (after some time associating Mr. Burnaps Councel with him) he was prevailed with to undertake, and all things in about the space of an hour concluded.

The unhandsome Results of this first Precedure are,

Seeing that Mr. Clark did both put himself into the imployment, and Mr. Bur­nap into the Subpoena besides my intention, he seemed to be more obliged to the honest prosecution of it: especially seeing the said Mr. Burnap would vexati­ously proceed after the said Butcher with his consent (and I believe from his purse) had agreed and paid the Debt.

Certainly, Mr. Clarks civility had been either to have put in my Bill, which was signified as my first desire, or at least stopt their Subpoena, or not delude me with a pretended stoppage, or not have hindered the reversing the said Subpoena while young, under colour of Mr. Babs promises.

Farther, Seeing under reference such foul play as to proceed to Attachment, which he secured me against by Letter dated Jan. 31. 1666. and respecting his promises as Sheriff in the said Letters, he should have been very tender of grant­ing the said Warrant, but seeing that snapped me not before the Term (as intended) Mr. Clank upon the hearing should have stood both by his said let­ter of the 23. of June, to have proved the Subpoena as well as the Attachment collusive, respecting the agreement of Mr. Burnaps Councel with him, as also the promise of the said Mr. Bab to him, which was utterly denied both by Bab and the said Councel before the Remembrancer

Peace being made that night, my Servant Harrison comes up with complaint to me yet in London, that he could not follow the work ordered him in my absence, by reason of a Warrant granted from Mr. Clark the tenth instant, and had nar­rowly escaped Arrest; I urging this unkindness upon Mr. Clark to his Clyent (that his Boy that whips the horse should be Plaintiff against his other Servant that holds the Plough, the Master being not worthy to be acquainted before the grant of the Warrant, nor afterwards, though I had been many times with him that Term at his Chamber) Mr. Clark pretends importunity to the act, and for­getfulness in the discovery, but promises to make peace at his coming down; the matter of this Sute, being that upon Easter Eve the sixth of that instant April, the said Harrison conceiving himself much injured by Frances Prat (a story too long here to relate) took him by the coller, and threatned to strike him, if so abused by him again. This coming to Mr. Clarks ear on Tuseday in Easter week, a Warrant was signed upon Wednesday the tenth as af [...]said▪ 'Tis not unknown [Page 4]that Offices are shut in the Holy-days, and if open, it was not probable, that an Original could be had to ground Wednesdays Warrant, upon the Tuesdays complaint.

Upon the 29 of the said April, viz. 19 days after the grant of the said War­rant, I search'd the Philesors Office, but would not discover the Attorneys Name (though much importuned to it by Philisor himself) being disposed rather to find the bottome of Mr. Clarks intentions, than to expose him to so great a dam­age, as upon it would insue.

August.All the Causes of Hartford-shire searched, (with concealment of the Attor­neys name) and no entrance found, this my confidence upon Mr. Clarks pro­mises was confirmed, and that the Arrest was rather a Scare-crow, than any in­tended prosecution at Law, till towards the end of Harvest following, we heard Judgment was entered the Term before; which seemed the more strange, not on­ly in relation to the want of a new. Original, and Mr. Clarks promise, but also that an Arrest in the middle of Easter Term, should arrive Judgment in Trinity follow­ing, and not so much as a Declaration given to the Defendant in the interim.

September.All means of peace was used by Arbitration, &c. but evacuated by Mr. Clark as upon good grounds we have reason to believe (too long here to relate) till at last the Boy was perswaded to release the debt, paying the Costs of Sute: But Harrison finding Mr. Clarks Bill double to what he was informed he ought to pay, and detaining it, craved time to advise; upon which, Mr. Clark called to his Ser­vant for a Writ to Arrest him again (so quick is Mr. Clark at his Law.)

The Defendants Attorney being informed of the unreasonableness of this Bill, with the various expences already occasioned by the Defendants troubles, as al­so that the opinion of Serjeant Manard, Mr. Conniers, and others were for him, advised him to attend upon Mr. Clark, & him at the County Court, sitting at the Swan in Steavenage, October. October 17. following, to make tender of 20 s. to take off the Judgment, and accept a Plea, that they might go to Trial; but no sooner was Harrison come into the Inn yard, than Arrested at the Sute of Mr. Clark, (this also again without Original) and kept Prisoner for the space of 3 hours upon Bond Bayl, while the Writ of Inquiry was executed (in the sight of the poor man, not suffered to speak a word for himself;) the matter of this Arrest (as appeared afterwards, by Mr. Clarks Declaration) was for words spoken against his Bill upon the 17. of October; which was, in truth, words spoke by Harrison after his Arrest, to be Bayliff during his detention.

Upon all these cruelties practised against a poor Servant (contrary to all ho­nor as a Gentleman, Faith, and Truth as a Christian, and his Oaths both as She­riff and Attorney. In Michaelmas Term following we complained to the Judges of the Common Pleas, who stopped the said Judgment, and upon Service of the Rule the said Mr. Clark threatned, January. saying, He had done with the Servant, and woul'd now begin with the Master: I offering appearance, the said Mr. Clark re­fused, saying, He would Sue me to the Outlawry, notwithstanding the fourth of Jan. following I was Arested by him.

The matter being that I had not paid him for soliciting the forementioned Cause of Mr. Burnap, and the Butcher; I had many Months before sent him 10 s. for the Subpoena, which was all that he had done (saving the trouble and charge he had given me in many journeys to London to retrive his prevarications) he ac­cepted this mony, never objected against it as too little, gives no demand, or bil of particulars, yet now declares for his Solicitation (more truly called Sophist

There being now three Actions on foot, in Hilary following we complained of all these Vexations to the Judges of the said Bench, who committed them to Mr. Pinsont then Prothonotary, who reported as followeth.

Having examined the matter referred to me, Februa. I humbly certifie that upon Examination I find by the Oath of Marm. James, that neer 3 weeks after the date of the Warrant upon which Harrison was Arrested, the said Marm. James searched the Philesors Of­fice for Hartfordshire, and no Writ was taken out at the Sute of the Plaintiff Prat, which also is certified under the Philesors hand.

By the said Mr. James his Oath, I find; that in Easter Term last, about the 29. day of April, the above named Mr. Nicholas Clark, who (as Attorney, managed the Cause for the Plaintiff though Ʋnder sheriff of Hartfordshire) did promise to make peace between the parties, and end the matter speedily; yet in Trin. Term Judgment was entred, the Plaintiff being a Minor not admitted to prosecute by his Procheina­my, though in the Declaration it is inserted that he is Specialiter admissus, which was also certified from Mr. Farmers Office.

I find by the Oath of the Defendant Harrison, that he having heard of the Judgment, to prevent farther charges, used means to compose the difference, and thereupon it was agreed, he should pay the charge of the Sute, the Bill of which he received the 10: of October last, seven days before the Writ of Inquiry waa executed.

I find also by the Oath of the Defendant Harrison, that he offering to bring away the Bill to be advised upon, the said Mr. Clark threatned him with a new Arrest, and afterwards, upon the 17. of Octob. the Defendant was Arrested at Mr. Clarks own Sute, and kept Prisoner for the space of three hours, and in the mean while the Writ of Inquiry was executed (as the Defendant was afterwards inform'd) and no notice gi­ven to the Defendant, or his Attorney.

The Writ of Inquiry and Judgment was stopped Mich. Term last by Rule.

Mr. Clark hath declared at his own Sute against Harrison for words supposed to be said of him concerning the said Bill of Charges.

I find that the Bill of Charges amounts to 2 l. 12 s. 9 d. as it was delivered to the Defendant; of that, over and besides just Fees, 12 s. 6 d. besides 6 s. 8 d. which he charges for attending the Writ of Inquiry before it was executed.

Upon the examination of part of this report, the Bench (all rising up) more than once declared, Mr. Clark did highly deserve to be thrown over the Bar, and for less than half what he had done, others had been so punished. But I not suffering the Councel to move, much less to insist upon the Severity, and Mr. Clark submitting himself upon his knees; they ordered that both the Sutes against Harrison should be taken off, and the charge of both the Servants, Plaintiff and Defendant laid upon him the said Mr. Clark, and 5 l. to be paid Harrison for his unjust disturbance: Farther commanded the said Mr. Clark to pursue what he moved (viz.) that the Sute of the said M. James should be referred to the Gen­lemen of the Countrey, and so charging him against these vexatious ways, left him to his good behaviour.

I divers times sent my Servant to him touching the said Referrence, March. but could hear nothing from him, though I offered to refer my self to the two Gentlemen of Mr. Clarks own nomination at London in the day of his distress (vix.) Mr. Field and Mr. Winch; but he neither seemed to meddle in the Action or Arbitration, 1668. but all at present amort: Save that in June following, his spirits so far revived, as to inform the Crown Office against the poor Servant Harrison (forgetting what he had said ere while, that he had done with the Servant, &c. the Copy whereof as [Page 6]'tis upon the File, is this; Sir Thomas Fanshaw, I pray you exhibit an Information against John Harrison Labourer, for an Assault upon Francis Prat jun. done about the 15. of April 1667. at Aston, and I will prosecute the same, Nich, Clark, Norton, June 9. 1668. This is the same business that he was upon his knees for, and so narrowly escaped the Bar but in February before; to this Harrison appeared, and then pleaded, expecting Mr. Clark Prosecution to Trial, as his note promiseth to the Master of the Office; upon which waiting almost the space of five years in vain (being not able to try it by Proviso) Octob. 24. last took out his discharge.

But to return to Mr. Clarks Cause with me, that had now got heart by above a Twelve-months fallow (by which time also through death, 1669. and removal, the Bench of Common Pleas was almost altered into oblivion of him, and his sub­mission) the first action, April. and my appearance to it, was waved; and the same thing (according to the former threats) revived, for I was (as the then Under-Sheriff informed me) neer Sued to the Outlary (still without Original) which I superseded in Easter Term following, and leaving London, and my Cause with my Attorney to plead Non assumpsit, the next Term, who (being dealt withal Mr. Clark can best tell how) pleaded nothing at all, so that Judgment passed by default, which was some Terms afterwards overthrown by Writ of Error.

Mr. Clark much flesh'd with this defeat, resolves to make it a total Rout, and therefore according to the time of the year he useth to accuse in (viz.) June (a month much to be observed for Midsummer-Moon, possibly she too then in A­ries) he is much bent for the Crown Office, where he now informs against me in these words; June. Sir Thomas Fanshaw, I pray you exhibit an Information of Perjury a­gainst Marm. James Clerk, and this shall be your Warrant, witness my hand, June 28 1669. Nich. Clark, Norton.

This Information is grounded upon my first Affidavit, that stopt the Judg­ment against my Man Harrison, the true copy whereof followeth.

Marmaduke James of Aston in the County of Hartfored Clerk, maketh Oath, that he this Deponent having been informed that there was a Warrant out from the Sheriff for Arresting the Defendant John Harrison, this Deponents Servant, did in, or about the 29. day of April last, repair to Mr. Nich. Clark then Ʋnder-sheriff of Hertford-shire (who as this Deponent is informed acts in this Cause as Attorney for the Plain­tiff in the name of another) and declaring to the said Mr. Clark a dislike of his pro­ceedings against the Defendant at the Plaintiffs Sute (the Plaintiff and Defendant be­ing then both Servants to this Deponent) the said Mr. Clark advised this Deponent to make peace between them, which if he, this Deponent could not effect, the said Mr. Clark affirmed he would do it when he should come down into the Country, or to that ef­fect; notwithstanding, about the sixth of May last in Easter Term the Defendant was Arrested, and forced to retain Mr. Draper an Attorney of this Court to appear for him, the matter in question being about a Stroke, or Assault pretended to be given by the Defendant Harrison to the Plaintiff Prat, being a Boy under the said Harrison in this Deponents Service, and this Deponent had not notice of any proceedings at Law in the business, untill after Trin. Term last, and then had notice, that Judgment was en­tered against the Defendant by non sum informatus: Ʋpon which Judgment, this Deponent is informed a Writ of Inquiry is executed, without due notice given to the At­torney for the Defendant; which he, this Deponent, verily believeth to be true, for that Mr. Draper, the Defendants Attorney, did not above three days before the Writ of In­quiry was executed, acquaint this Deponent, that he had not due notice of the time of the execution of the said Writ of Inquiry: and this Deponent farther saith, that [Page 7]he hath caused search to be made in Mr. Farmers Office, and cannot upon search find there is any admittance of a Guardian, or Procheinamy for the Plaimiff, although he be a minor, and although that the Plaintiff does pretend, that there is a Guardian, or Guardians specially admitted by the Court for that purpose, this Oath was made Octo­ber 25. 1667.

Upon this Affidavit Mr. Clark informs; That I having not God before mine eyes, but by instigation of the Devil, moved, and seduced, did falsly, maliciously, voluntari­ly, and corruptly speak, depose, swear, and make Affidavit, that Francis Prat was my Servant, whereas in truth, and in fact he was not my Servant at the time of the afore­said assault, & that then indeed and in fact I had notice of all the Process at Law against Harrison, which is denyed in the Affidavit. 1667. Of this I knew nothing till about 12 months afterwards, by accident a friend of mine heard Mr. Burgaine, then Under-Sheriff with Mr. Clarks assistance in the Office) inquire of Mr. Ward Attorney for Hartfordshire in the Crown-Office, June. Mr. Gr [...] of Cle­ments-I whether there was not a Capias out against me, and upon the 14. of June following (still under the same unlucky and accu­sing Moon) Mr. Clark did send down a copy of Articles to the Commissaries Court, sitting then at Steavenage, June 14 in which was (amongst other things of like truth) inserted that I was guilty of Perjury, for which I stood Indicted in the Crown-Office.

A while after I was cited to the Court to answer the said Charge, August. where after matters had depended for above the space of 12 months to my great disgrace, and no proceedings upon them; to vindicate my self from the aspersion in Mi­chaelmas Term I did bring it by way of Proviso to Tryal in Guild-hall: In order to which, being come to London, upon the 26. of October (viz.) five days before the said Tryal, by accident, heard I was excommunicate for want of Appearance (which I had performed by my Proctor 12 months before) Mr. Clarks design being (I suppose) to stop my mouth (wherein he was defective in his Law (for though it be true, I brought on the Tryal, yet was I still but Defendant in Court, against whom Excommunication was no bar; however) I thought it inconvenient to stand so, upon what pretence soever, and therefore the next morning applying to the Judge of the Arches, was absolved by him, and received a Citation for Mr. Clark thither, where he now is, and we still leave him to make good the said Excommunication. October.

The Tryal was upon the 31. of October before Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief-Justice of England, who having perused the Record, stood up, and declared, that the Oath therein contained, he did believe was a true Oath, and somewhat possionately inquired after the Informant, what, who, where he was? to which no answer being given, after Proclamation made, with much ado, one appeared for Mr. Clark (who had absented himself, which is the more be observed, that since he was upon his knees, in the many bickerings I have had with him, he has ever shunn'd the face of a Judge) the matter in Alligation was, that I confest in my Affidavit, that Harrison was Arrested, and yet I knew of no proceedings at Law. Methinks Mr. Clark should have considered, that as the Arrest was confest, so it must be understood, as the entrance into, and not proceedings at Law. The Judg throwing this off as frivolous, demanded if they had any proof; to which was replyed, no. The Jury gave it at the Bar, and my Witnesses Harrison and Prat (who might very well have evidenced the Boys service, when the pretend­ed assault was, being upon Easter Eve almost the middle point of that Year where in he served me) returned home again unsworn.

[...]tember.After this Tryal, I ordered my Attorney to file a Bill against Mr. Clark for dammage, who sending his Servant Mr. Brooks to him, promised to plead, so that things should be in forwardness against Hillary following; when Mr. Clark refu­sed to stand to his word (a practice I am told somewhat usual with him, that well knows words are but wind) so that the said Brooks was forced to make Oath before Judg Wild, to constrain him to plead, or be fore-judged, the copy of whose Affidavit bears date the 31. of Jan. last. [...]nuary.

1672.Having now got Mr. Clark sure, it was time to have perusal of the Declarati­on, wherein being very much unsatisfied, I repaired to Councel above, upon whose advice, and my motion, the Bench made a Rule, that I should have liber­ty to amend it, May. and Mr. Clark still bound to plead; but here he gave me the slip, and I knew not how to collar him again, seeing that all the Law can do, is but to convict the person as guilty, and make him indure judgment, which by his Nihil dicit, is implyed, and granted; the meaning of which seems to be for mi­tigation of dammages, by declining a grave, and solemn hearing before the Lord Chief Justice, and a well stated Jury, to bring it to that of inquiry, whose verdict is not usually high in such matters, yet so far were they possessed upon hearing of the injury done me, they gave me 100 ll. dammage, and the Prothonotaay as­signed against him for that Sute five and twenty pounds Costs. To this Mr, Clark retardationis gratia (I suppose) has brought his Writ of Error, in which I presume his belief, July. I desire his success may not be the same against me, that mine was a­gainst him, where the Error was so clear that no Councel appeared against it, the more strange in that my Attorney was cajoled into such connivance (by what Artifice Mr. Clark knows best) that three times the Record was disfiled for a­mendment to avoid Error, but all in vain.

It is here to be noted, that as upon the approach of the first Tryal 'twas thought meet to perplex me with Excommunication; so upon the brow of this last, a strang thing happens (viz.) that all the Records of the past proceedings (saving a piece of a sheet) were lost out of the Crown-Office, which, this uncouth thing with intimation of complaint to the justest of Men, Sir Matthew Hale, not a lit­tle amazed; and with marvellous celerity, all was Recorded anew, and forthwith put under Lock and Key at Westminster.

But who is so bold as Bayard, acting without fear or wit? I dare not charge this imbesslement vpon Mr. Clark, have found divers persons at work in other places (possibly for the credit of the Fraternity) yet cannot believe any of the Six would so concern themselves, as to venture either their necks or ears for him.

To conclude all for brevity sake (many material passages being omitted in this story) these things seem to challenge observation.

1. My own weakness, that when all things were so prepared in the first overture for Tryal, and the Bench so disposed, that nothing but the Bar (so long insisted upon) would satisfie, that such a foolish humor should possess me as to stop the Councels mouth (which was done at the Bar.) The sour look given me upon the interdiction, I have too often since remembred with its intailed proverb (viz.) Save a Thief from the Gallows, and he will hang you if he can: but verily I believed more of a Gentleman to be in Mr. Clark, than I have since found.

2. The depth of Mr. Clarks plot in its several discents. To accuse of Perjury; a great crime in any man, especially in him whose Profession is truth.

Next to conceal it so long, that according to the proceedings of that Office I [...] [...]nder a Cavias for a Prison, which was not only enqui­red [Page 9]after by the Undersheriff as before, but also Mr. Horton the Attorney (that brought both the informations against us) professed to me a little before the last Tryal, that he did wonder how I had escaped the Goale.

Next how handsomely had the charge come to the Commissaries Court, when a Prison disabled both personal appearance, as also presumed conviction of Perju­ry to be the ground of it, and then Excommunication might have passed much more plausibly than it now did; under which I was to have been detained till the Living was forfeited; hence a person (whom I forbear to name) had not a little busied, as well his own friends as intellectuals, where, in the case, the Title would lye, whether in the Mean, or Supream Patron, and if there, whether in the Broad or Signet Manual (such a stir there was about the Bears Skin.)

This cannot be reputed as a jealous, or fantastical conceit, since I had it (be­sides many other Circumstances) from a Judg himself, upon his personal know­ledg as he professed; but the snare is broken, and I am escaped, God in his mer­cy preventing this infortunate Polititian.

3. The next strange thing is, that I being Mr. Clarks Friend, and Client, and had as richly requited him for the writings I had imployed him in, as any I am confident ever did; that he should thus unhandsomely single out, innocent, or ra­ther deserving me, to practice upon, as the object of his great power in Law: This question is of difficult solution, we must have recourse to opinion grounded upon observation of Circumstances.

There was a certain person that had all along been an incendiary between me and the Parishioners; this person I found to be the only great acquaintance Mr. Clark had in my parish; and finding his actions in many things Retrograde; I began to suspect, & early in the very Embrio of his recidivations gave him cau­tion against a dirty tongue, by Letter dated (as I find by the Copy) Sep. 27. 1667. notwithstanding which he proceeds, acted as one bewitch'd (in that upon con­serence with him I could not find but in this disturbance in my Family he thought he did me a courtesie:) Feminine influence upon some mens minds, being like that of the Planets upon their bodies, changing them, and they know not how.

4. The last is, that I should ingulph my self in such troubles for a Servant, that some would not undergo for a Child; here is to be considered,

That my first engagement was only to disimbroil my Servants, from whom Mr. Clark unloosing his Fangs, will fasten upon me, resolving by his strength and grandure in Law, to make me deeply repent those first, though favourable proceeding against him.

Farther, the Case was mine, and not my Servants, seeing the intent was through him to wound me. The aforesaid female malice interposing it self against all agreement with the people for their Tyths; to be eased of the trouble of ta­king them in kind, and attend my Studies; I had many years trained up this Ser­vant the Defendant to the imployment. The design being (no doubt) by crush­ing him with Law, to disable me any way to preserve my own, and the Rights of the Church: And in Reason upon this persons ruine after seven years Service, how could I ever expect to find another furnished with that truth and boldness, that That Trust requires? To this sense the Defendant Harrison made Affidavit, Octob 25. Car. II. 19. That he, the Deponent had great cause to believe, that the whole business was set on foot, and managed by Mr. Clark, out of particular spleen he had a­gainst the Deponents Master: Which I also heartily believe, yet so, that my oppo­sing the Cats foot imployed by the Monke [...] to fetch [...] [...]