he could. Now he did face it out bravely against God, but he was very timorous of man. So that, my lord, he does say at the same time at my lord Russel's trial, upon his oath, that he did believe that the religious obligation of an oath did not consist in the formality of applying it to the place, &c. but in calling God to witness. So that when he did call God to witness, before Dr. Burnet and my servant, and others, this is not consistent with the oath he has taken here, as the gentleman said at my lord Russel's trial, unless he has one soul in court, and had another at my house: these things are inconsistent and cannot be true; and if he swear both, under the religion of an oath, he swears himself perjured. Then, my lord, he talks of Aaron Smith: what have I to do with Aaron Smith? He says I sent him. My lord, there is nobody else speaks a word of it. Then, by a strange kind of construction and imagination, they will have it, that some papers here, which are said to be found in my study, have relation to this plot, as they call it; I know of none, nor am in none. Now, my lord, I am not to give an account of these papers; I do not think they are before you, for there is nothing but the similitude of hands offered for proof. There is the like case of my lady Carr, some few years ago: she was indicted of perjury, and, as evidence against her, some letters of hers were produced, that were contrary to what she swore in chancery, and her hand was proved; that is to say, it was like it: but my lord chief justice Keiling directs the jury, that though in civil causes it is a proof, yet it is the smallest and least of proofs;

but in criminal cases it was none at all. So that my lord Howard's testimony is single; and what he talks of those two businesses, that he calls a consult, and Aaron Smith, is destroyed by want of proof. What could six men do? Can my lord Howard raise five men by his credit, by his purse? Let him say as much for me, with all my heart; for my part I do not know where to raise five men. That such men as we are, that have no followers, should under. take so vast a design, is very unlikely: and this great design that was carried on thus, it had neither offi cers nor soldiers, no place, no time, no money for it. That which he said last time, which he forgot now: he talked of twenty-five or thirty thousand pounds; but no man knew where it was to be had: but last time he said, it was spoken in jest. Now this is a pretty cabal, that six men should meet about a business, and they neglect every one of the points relating to the thing they met about, make no step about the business, and if any one did speak of it, it was but in jest. This is a very deep maintaining of the plot. Then, my lord, as to these papers, I do not think I am to give any account of them: I would say nothing to the disparagement of Sir Philip Lloyd; I never saw him till he came to my house: but yet I say he is the king's officer, and when I am prosecuted at the king's suit, I think he ought to be no witness. The government of France is violent and absolute; but yet, a few years ago, a minister of state had his papers taken from him, and abundance of them had dangerous plots against the king in them; but because they were inventoried in his offi

cers' presence, or those deputed by him, there was no use could be made of them; it was an irreparable fault in the process, and that saved him. The similitude of hands is nothing: we know that hands will be counterfeited; so that no man shall know his own hand. A gentleman that is now dead told me, that my lord Arlington, about five years ago, desired him to write a letter, and seal it as well as he could. He writ it with care, and sealed it with a wafer and wax upon it; and within a few days my lord Arlington brought him five letters, and he did not know which was his own. The attorney shews these papers to me; I do not know whether they are my own, or no; but these very papers, such as they are, do abhor as much as any one can, such a design. Look upon them; you see they are all These papers may be writ perhaps these twenty years, the ink is so old. But, my lord, it is a polemical discourse; it seems to be an answer to Filmer, which is not calculated for any particular government in the world; it goes only upon these general principles, that according to the universal law of God and nature there is but one government in the world, and that is intire and absolute; and that the king can be bound by no law, by no oath, but he may make all laws, and abolish them as he pleases: and this whether of age or no, a man, or a child, of sense, or out of his sense. Now, my lord, what if any man in his cabinet should have written this book? Then he has another principle; he says, 'tis the same thing whether a king come in by election, by donation, by inheritance, or usurpation, or any

old ink.

other way; than which, I think, never was a thing more desperately said. Cromwell, when one White, a priest, wrote a book, wherein he undertook to prove, 'that possession was the only right to power,' though he was a tyrant, and a violent one † (you

* The title of the book (a curious one too, the above notwithstanding) is, The Grounds of obedience and government. By Thomas White, gentleman. (A secular Romish priest.)

There are two editions of it. The second edition was printed, London, 1655, in 16to. The motto to the title is, Salus populi suprema lex. See many circumstances relating to this learned able writer, and his works, in A. Woods' Athenae Oxonienses, and bishop Kennet's Hist. Register.

† Milton had held out the beacon to him in his sonnet, “To the Lord General Cromwell," May 1651; before he destroyed the Parliament, and, by authority of the army, set up tyrant for himself.

Cromwell, our chief of men, that through a croud,
Not of war only, but detractions rude,
Guided by faith, and matchless fortitude,

To peace and truth thy glorious way hast plough'd,
And fought God's battles, and his work pursu'd;
While Darwent streams with blood of Scots imbru'd,
And Dunbar field resound thy praises loud,

Yet much remains

And Worc'ster's laureat wreath.
Το conquer still ; peace hath her vict'ries
No less than those of war. New foes arise
Threat'ning to bind our souls in secular chains:
Help us to save free conscience from the paw
Of hireling wolves, whose gospel is their maw.

And in his Defensio secunda, he threw it out, nobly, a second time, in the following beautiful address to Cromwell, then selfmade Protector. "Tu igitur, Cromuelle, magnitudine illà animi

need not wonder I call him tyrant, I did so every day in his life, and acted against him too) it would be so odious a principle, he could not endure it, and used him very slightly for it. Now this Filmer, that no

macte esto; te enim decet; tu patriae liberator, liberatis auctor, custosque idem et conservator, neque graviorem personam, neque augustiorem, suscipere potes aliam; qui non modò regum res gestas, sed Heroum quoque nostrorum fabules factis exuperasti. Cogita saepiùs quàm caram rem, ab quàm cara parente tua, libertatem à patriâ tibi commendatam atque concreditam, apud te depositam habes: quod ab electissimis gentis universae viris, illa modò expectabat, id nunc à te uno expectat, per te unum consequi sperat :-Reverere tantam de te expectationem, spem patriae de te unicam; reverere vultus et vulnera tot fortium viorum, quotquot, te duce, pro libertate, tam strenuè decertârunt; manes etiam eorum, qui in ipso certamine occubuerunt: reverere exterarum quoque civitatum existimationem de nobis atque sermones; quantas res de libertate nostra, tam fortiter partâ, de nostrâ, republicâ, tam gloriosè exortâ sibi polliceantur: quae si tam eitò quasi aborta evanuerit, profectò nihil aequè dedecorosum huic genti, atque pudendum fuerit: teipsum denique reverere, ut pro quâ adipiscendâ libertate, tot aerumnas pertulisti, tot pericula adiisti, eam adeptus, violatem per te, aut ullâ in parte imminutam aliis, ne sinas esse. Profectò tu ipse liber sine nobis esse non potes; sic enim natura comparatum est, ut qui aliorum libertatem occupat, suam ipse primus omnium amittat; séque primum omnium intelligat servire atque id quidem non injuriâ. At verò si patronus ipse libertatis, et quasi tutelaris deus, si is, quo nemo justior nemo sanctior est habitus, nemo vir melior, quam vindicavit ipse, eam postmodùm, invaserit, id non ipsi tantùm, sed universae virtutis ac pietatis rationi perniciosum ac lethale propemodum sit necesse est; ipsa honestas, ipsa virtus decoxisse videbitur, religionis augusta fides, existimatio perexigua in posterum erit, quo gravius generi humano vulnus, post illud primum, infligi nullum poterit."