Master Glyns REPLY TO THE EARLE OF STRAFFORDS DEFENCE OF The severall Articles objected against him by the House of COMMONS Published by speciall direction out of an authentick Copy LONDON Printed for Lawrence Chapman Anno 1641. Master GLYNS Reply to the Earle of STRAFFORDS Defence My Lord of Strafford having concluded the recapitulation of his evidence Mr. Glyn applied himselfe to their Lordships in manner following MAy it please your Lordships my Lord of Strafford as your Lordships have observed hath spent a great deale of time in his evidence and in his course of answering hath inverted the order of the Articles He hath spent some time likewise in defending the Articles not objected against him wherein he hath made a good answer if in any wee shall presume to withdraw a while and rest upon your Lordships patience and I doubt not but to represent my Lord of Strafford as cunning in his answer as hee is subtill in his practice The Committee withdrawing for about the space of halfe an houre and then returning to the Barre Mr. Glyn proceeded as followeth My Lords your Lordships have observed how the Earle of Strafford hath been accused by the Commons of England of high Treason for a purpose and designe to subvert the fundamentall Lawes of both the kingdomes of England and Ireland and to introduce an Arbitrary and Tyrannicall government The Commons have exhibited Articles in maintenance of that charge My Lord of Strafford hath thereunto answered in writing The Commons have proceeded to make good their charge by proofe and thereunto my Lord of Strafford hath made his defence and this day my Lord of Strafford hath taken upon him to recollect his evidence and make his observation upon it the most he could to his advantage My Lords wee that are intrusted for the house of Commons stand here to recollect the evidence on our part and to apply it to the generall charge and how farre it conduces thereunto My Lord of Strafford in recollecting the evidence of his defence as I did mention before hath under favour exprest very much subtilty and that in divers particulars which I shall represent to your Lordships My Lords before I enter upon the recollection of the proofes produced on the behalf of the Commons I shall make some observations and give some answer to that recollection of his though very disorderly to the method I propounded to my selfe And first in generall it will appeare to your Lordships looking upon your notes and observing his recollection that he hath used the repetition of evidence on both sides in such manner as you know who useth Scripture that is to cite as much as makes for his purpose leave out the rest And likewise that in repetition of the evidence he hatâ— mis-recited plainly very much of the proofs on both sides likewise hath pretended some proofes to be for his defence which indeed were not and hee hath taken this farther advantage when it makes for his defence he hath disjoynted the proofes and testimonies and severed them asunder that it might appeare to your Lordships like raine falling in drops which considered in distinct drops bring no horrour or seeming inconvenience with them but when they are gathered together into an entire body they make an Inundation and cover the face of the earth He would not have your Lordships look on those Testimonies together but distinctly and asunder wch being put together look horrid as will appeare to your Lo. when you duly consider of them These bee the generall observations which in my Answer I doubt not but to make good But before I shall enter into observations of what hee hath spoken I shall answer in generall to some things which hee hath in generall alledged In the first place hee hath made a flourish this day and severall other dayes in the way of his defence That if hee could have had longer time hee could have made things appeare clearer and have produced more proofes Give mee leave to informe your Lordships that he is no way straightned of time for he hath bin charged above three months since he knew what was laid to his charge and therefore his pretence of want of time and of his disabilities to make better proofes are but flourishes And it appears plainly whatsoever he hath had occasion to make use of even the least paper though hee fetched it from Ireland there is not one wanting he hath copies of papers from the Councell Table from the Parliament of Ireland and all that may any way tend to his justification and yet he stands upon that flourish that if he had had time he could have made it more cleare My Lords he hath mentioned often this day and oftner the dayes before that many of the Articles laid to his charge are proved but by one witnesse and thereupon he takes the advantage of the Statute of E. 6. that sayes A man ought not to be condemned for high Treason without two witnesses My Lords this is a fallacy knowne to his own breast I doubt not and not taught him by any of his Councell or others learned The Treason laid to his charge is the subverting of the Lawes the evidence is the Articles proved and though some one Article appeares to be proved but by one yet put the evidence together you shall never find it to bee within the words or meaning of the Statute for the charge is proved by a hundred witnesses and because one part of the evidence is proved onely by one witnesse since when you put them together you will find a hundred witnesses it is not within the words nor meaning of the Statute neither will his Councell direct him to say so I am confident My Lords another observation I shall be bold to make is that hee was pleased to cast an aspersion as we must apprehend upon them that be trusted by the house of Commons this day That we that stand here alledged and affirmed things to be proved that are not proved Hee might have pleased to have spared that language we stand here to justifie our selves that we doe not use to expresse any language but what our hearts and consciences tels us is true and howsoever he is pleased to cast it upon us I am confident I shall invert it upon himselfe and make it appeare that hee hath bin this day guilty in the highest degree of what he most unjustly layeth to our charge And now my Lords to enter upon the particulars hee hath beene pleased to make it his generall Theame to day though hee hath not spoke much to day but what he hath spoken formerly that these particulars considered by themselves make not a Treason and therefore put together he wonders how they should make a Treason Several misdemeanours can never make a murther and severall murders can never make a Treason and he wonders it should be otherwise in this case My Lords he did instance it if my memory failes me not in
that must enforce the King what to doe to levie money to use his Prerogative to raise supplies upon his subjects without their consent against their will necessity must be his argument and this warre must be thē occasion of that necessity and without that he cannot suggest to the Kings eare or advise this necessity till this bee brought to passe And now he hath brought it to passe he began in the one and twentieth two and twentieth and three and twentieth Article to perswade the King that necessity hath surprized him by the Parliaments deserting of him that the Parliament had forsaken the King in denying supply and having tried the affections of his people hee was loose and absolved from all rules of government and had an Army in Ireland which he might employ to reduce this Kingdome That he spake these words to the King part is proved by two concurrent witnesses that is that having tried the affections of his people he was now loose and absolved from all rules of government which words are proved by two witnesses of eminent quality that is my Lord of Northumberland and Sir Henry Vane and truly howsoever my Lord in his speech pretends that the most materiall words are proved but by one witnesse it seeming that hee held it not a materiall charge that he counselled the King that he was absolved from all rules of government for my part if your Lordships be satisfied those words were proved I could willingly satisfie my owne Conscience in it and make no great matter to quit the rest for I know not how he could expresse it in higher termes then that the King was absolved from rules of government for then he might doe what he would It is true the latter words touching the Irish Army are expresly proved but by one witnesse master Secretary Vane but are fortified againe with such circumstances as make up more then one yea more than two other witnesses if your Lordships will have the patience to have it represented as it is proved For howsoever it be slighted by him if your Lordships will call to mind the words of Sir George Radcliffe his bosome friend to whom he had contributed without question his advice in all causes the said Sir George Radcliffe expressed it before and told some of his friends supposing that he never should be called in question and that the power of my Lord of Strafford had been enough to protect any thing he had done and out of the aboundance of the heart his mouth spake the King must now want no money if he did no body would pity him now he had his sword in his hand Sir Robert King proves it so My Lord Renula discovered the smoake of the fire that hee had just cause to suspect and on good grounds I am sure and if the Commons of England had not just cause to suspect him as I beleeve he is convinced they had good cause what is the reason this suspition should bee entertained at that time my Lord of Strafford being not then questioned for it and yet my Lord Renula should say Shall wee turne our swords upon our owne bowels shall we bring this Army to turne the points of our blades upon that Nation from whence we were all derived and that was before any conference with master Secretary Vane Sir William Penniman himselfe his owne witnesse and friend sayes at York before my Lord of Strafford was questioned that there was a common fame of bringing the Army into England and there is something in that surely and after all this to produce one witnesse that expresly proves the very words spoken in terminis as they bee charged if your Lordships put the whole together see whether there be not more then one witnesse And under favour my Lord Cottington if you call to mind his testimony I must justifie he did declare that he heard my Lord of Strafford tell the King that some reparation was to be made to the subjects property which must inferre he had advised an invasion upon the property else by no good coherence should a reparation bee made And that he testifies this I must affirme and most here will affirme it and I think your Lordships well remember it and that is an addition to it for if your Lordships cast your eye upon the interrogatory administred to my Lord Admirall and my Lord Cottington that very question is asked so that his owne Conscience told him he had advised something to invade upon the people when he advised to a restitution after things should be settled and so I referre it to your Lordships consideration whether here bee not more then one witnesse by farre It is true he makes objections to lessen this testimony first that this Army was to be landed at Ayre in Scotland and not here and this was declared to Sir Thomas Lucas master Slings by Sir William Penniman and others Secondly that others that were present when the words are supposed to be spoken did not heare any such words For the first perhaps the Army might be originally intended for Scotland and yet this is no contradiction but he might intend it afterwards for England surely this is no Logick that because it was intended for one place it could never be intended for another place so his allegarion may be true and the charge stand true likewise Beside that it was intended orriginally for Scotland what proofe makes hee Hee told severall persons of the designe but I will be tryed by himselfe he told some it was for Scotland he told others it was for England and why you should beleeve his telling on one side more then on the other side I know not though he pretends a reason of his severall allegations that the world should not know his designe but if you will not beleeve him one way why should he be beleeved the other way and if not the other way why the first way For the second severall persons were present when the words were spoken touching the Irish Armie and they were examined and remember not the words but one man may heare though twentie doe not heare and this is no contradiction at all For those persons whom he examined the Lord Treasurer Marquesse Hambleton my Lord Cottington did not heare the words that are proved by two witnesses concerning the Kings being loose and absolved from rules of government and if they did not heare those words no marvaile they did not heare the other and therefore that which hee himselfe pretends to be a convincing testimonie is nothing at all so that his objections are clearely taken away and the single testimonie fortified with testimonies that make above one witnesse and so the words are fully proved But to fortifie the whole I shall handle all these Articles together This designe to subvert the Law and to exercise an arbitrary power above the Law in this kingdome will upon the proofes putting them altogether and not taking them in pieces as my Lord
of Strafford hath done appeare to have been harboured in his thoughts and settled in his heart long before it was executed You see what his Counsels were That the King having tryed the affections of his people was loose and absolved from all rules of government and might doe every thing that power would admit and his Majesties had tryed all wayes and was refused and should be acquitted of God and man and had an army in Ireland wherewith if hee pleased he might reduce this kingdome so there must be a triall of his people for supply that is denyed which must be interpreted a defection by refusall and this refusall must give advantage of necessity and this necessity must be an advantage to use his Prerogative against the rule of the Law and consent of the People this is his advice which shewes that this very thing that hapned did harbour in his thoughts long before the breach of the Parliament and the occasion of the Armie Your Lordships have heard it confessed by himselfe That before this last advice he had advised the calling of a Parliament to the Parliament a proposition of twelve Subsidies was made for supply and which may be spoken with great assurance before they had consulted or given any resolution to that proposition the Parliament was dissolved upon a supposal that the supply was denied Now that this was predesigned by my L. of Strafford himselfe I beseech you observe these things following that is the words in the two and twentieth Article That his Majestie was first to try the Parliament and if that did not supply him then he would serve the King any other way His words are proved by Mr. Treasurer That if the Parliament supplyed him not hee would serve him any other way and this is before the Parliament set now if your Lordships heare the proofes of my Lord Primate which my Lord of Strafford slights taking it singly My Lord Primate before the Parliament was called when my Lord of Strafford was in Ireland and not yet come into this kingdome testifies my Lords saying That if the Parliament will not supply his Majestie the King was acquitted before God and Man if hee tooke some other course to supply himselfe though against the will of the Subjects I beseech your Lordships observe how he prophecies these things must come to passe and advised them accordingly My Lord Conway testifies that before the Parliament sate my Lord of Strafford said that if the Parliament would not supply his Majestie the King was acquitted before God and Man if hee tooke another course to supply himselfe though it were against the will of the subject and he doubts not but the Parliament would give what twelve Subsidies and your Lordships very well remember twelve were propounded but I beseech you observe the coherence of all the Parliament must be called they must be tryed if they deny there is necessity and this necessity is a warrant for the King to proceed so that my Lord of Strafford must be judged to be either a Prophet or to have this designe before hand in his thoughts Now the Parliament being broken before answer to the demand given he vents his counsell in the three and twentieth Article and how far it is proved your Lordships have heard Now comes the Bullion to be seized the Copper money to be advised and now comes he to tell the King that the Aldermen of London must be put to fine and ransome and laid by the heeles and no good would be done till some of them bee hanged so you heare his advice I beseech your Lordships observe what successe this advice tooke foure Aldermen were instantly committed and then the Councell of the three and twentieth Article is fomented First he foments the warre then there is a necessitie the defection of the Parliament must set the King loose from rules of government and now see whether the occasion of the warre the calling of the Parliament the dissolving of it be not adequate to what he propounded to himselfe namely to set up an arbitrary government Your Lordships remember how fresh my Lord of Bristowes memorie is touching my Lord of Straffords opinion upon the dissolution of the Parliament how he declared unto my Lord of Bristow instantly within three or fower dayes after That the King was not to be mastered by the frowardnesse of his people or rather of some particular persons and your Lordships remember Sir George Wentworths words spoken the very day of dissolving the Parliament which may be very well applyed as a concurrent proof to his intentions of bringing the Army into England He was my Lords owne brother that knew much of his Councell and his words are That the English Nation would never be well till they were conquered over againe So my Lords put all together if he declared his owne intentions if actions in executing of this tyrannicall and arbitrary power if Counsels of as dangerous consequence in as high a strain as can be be not a sufficient evidence to prove an intention and desire to subvert the Law I know not what can prove such an Interpretation and now I referre it to your Lordships judgements whether here be not a good proofe of the Article laid to his charge My Lord in the seven and twentieth Article hee is charged with levying of warre upon the Kings people by forcing them in Yorkshire to pay money to prove they were so forced you have heard by two witnesses that Sergeant Major Yaworth by Musketeers fower together in the towne and one by one out of the towne did compell them to pay the fortnights contribution else they were to serve in person That hee did this by warrant is likewise confessed by Sir William Penyman and whether this were an authoritie derived from or commanded by my Lord of Strafford that is the question and my Lords it is plainly proved that it was commanded by my Lord of Strafford for Sr. William Penyman himselfe being examined alledged that the warrant was made in pursuance of the relation and direction made by my Lord of Strafford Your Lordships heard what my Lord of Strafford did say before hand as is proved by two witnesses Sir William Ingram and Mr. Cholmeley that this money should be paid or levied on the subjects goods Then his declaration to Sir William Penyman in pursuance of which he made his warrant That it was the assent of the Lords of the great Councell that this money should be levied and taking all together whether it fixes it not upon him to be the authour and instrument it rests in your judgements in point of fact and so I suppose the seven and twentieth Article rests on him and so I shall conclude the evidence produced on the behalfe of the Commons And now give me leave to put your Lordships in mind of some evidences offered by my Lord of Strafford himselfe in his answer and in the passages of his defence for his clearing and