THE LIFE and DEATH OF King CHARLES the First WRITTEN By Dr. R. PERINCHIEF Together with ΕΙΚΩΠΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ REPRESENTING His Sacred Majesty IN HIS SOLITUDES and SUFFERINGS AND A VINDICATION Of the Same King CHARLES the Martyr PROVING Him to be the Author of the said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against a Memorandum of the Late Earl of Anglesey and against the Groundless Exceptions of Dr. Walker and others LONDON Printed for Joseph Hindmarsh at the Golden Ball over against the Royal Exchange 1693. A VINDICATION OF King CHARLES I. c. THIS of late is become a Controversie and hath exercised several Pens and the Province I have undertaken is to digest the whole into as plain and familiar a Method as I am able to represent the Exceptions fairly and to answer them to add to illustrate and confirm what I conceive needs it to sum up the Evidence on both sides and to compare them and to make such Remarks as plainly arise from the Respective Evidence and by that time I have done this it will I presume be very easie for the Reader to determine the Controversie and to assign the true Author of this Book and repudiate the false one and Pretender In order to this I shall in the first place consider a Memorandum said to be written by my Lord of Anglesey in a vacant Page of one of these Printed Books which is in these words MEMORANDUM King Charles the Second and the Duke of York did both in the last Session of Parliament 1675 when I shewed them in the Lords House the written Copy of this Book wherein are some Corrections written with the late King Charles the First 's own Hand assure me that this was none of the said King 's compiling but made by Doctor Gauden Bishop of Exeter which I here insert for the undeceiving others in this Point by attesting so much under my Hand Anglesey To this it hath already been answered That both the said Kings have attested the contrary by their Letters Patents to Mr. Royston granting him the sole Privilege to Print all the Works of King Charles the First Those of King Charles the Second bear Date Nov. 29. 1660 and expresly mention the Fidelity of Mr. Royston to King Charles the First and to himself and in these remarkable Words In Printing and Publishing many Messages and Papers of our said Blessed Father especicially those most excellent Discourses and Soliloquies by the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those of King James bear date Febr. 22. 1685 and expresly refer to the first Edition of the King's Works 1662 in which his Majesty declares That all the Works of his Royal Father were Collected and Published Now a Man would imagine that there could not be any possible Dispute which was to be preferr'd a Publick and Authoritative Attestation of the Kings themselves or a private Memor by a third person For the immediate Question here is not Who was the Author of this Book But who was so in the Opinion and Judgment of those two Kings And I would fain know whether the Testimony of my Lord of Anglesey is a better proof of their Sence and Judgment than their own Testimony or a private obscure unattested posthumous Hand-writing a more valid Evidence than the Broad Seals And this one would think abundantly sufficient to determine this part of the Controversie that is that a Man's Word is to be taken for his own Sense and Opinion before that of his Neighbours and that high and authoritative Evidence is always to carry the Cause in opposition to that which is no Evidence at all However as clear as this is Dr. Walker hath something to say to it tho I think stranger Answers were never given in such a Case And in the first place he tells us Pag. 28. That good Manners rather than want of good Reasons restrain him from fuller answering meaning I presume that these Kings did not speak truth tho he would not say so and accordingly he says afterwards it was but conniving at a vulgar Error which it was not their interest too nicely to discover Now this Answer plainly gives up the Cause it pretends to maintain for if it was not their Interest to discover it how came they both so frankly to tell it to my Lord of Anglesey and as the Memorandum speaks they both did assure him that at was none of the said King 's Compiling and that I think is a little more than a nice Discovery even a very plain and peremptory assurance So that if this be an Answer to the Letters Patents 't is equally so to the Memorandum And the same Interest I suppose which kept it a Secret from the whole Kingdom would have kept it a Secret from my Lord of Anglesey too especially considering that it was not only far more easie but also far more honourable to have concealed a matter of Fact within their Knowledge than to have wrongfully attested it and contrary to their Knowledge under the Great Seal of England But notwithstanding that Dr. Walker in further pursuit of this scandalous Answer tells us that this is Odiosum Argumentum designed not for real proof but to involve the Answerer in some Odium or Danger and which Respondents may dismiss unreplyed to not because they cannot but because they dare not answer it Why what was the matter what Danger was there in reflecting on those two Kings had the Doctor spoke out and in express Terms declared his Mind Was he afraid to be called to account and punished for it A Man that reads this would imagine that the Doctor was a perfect Stranger in his own Country and that he wrote his Book in some remote Corner of the World But when he daily saw the vilest things spoke of those two Kings especially one of them that ever were said not only of Kings but of the worst of Men when a great part of this pass'd into the World not by stealth or connivance but under the Authority of a License and in such seemed meritorious in such a case to talk of Odium and Danger and Fear is to scorn his Readers and to suppose they had all lost their Senses And therefore in plain terms the Doctor did not know how fairly to answer this and created imaginary and invisible Odiums and Dangers to get rid of an Argument he could not tell what to do with However in the next place the Doctor answers That Kings use not so critically to inspect all the minute Particulars of their general Royal Grants Meaning no doubt that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was such a minute Particular as needed great Criticalness to find it out among the rest whereas all the World knows what a mighty Figure that Book leaves among the renowned Works of that Glorious Martyr And the Truth is this Answer plainly insinuates that those two Kings knew nothing at all of this Books being inserted among the rest of their Father's Works and accordingly he tells
the Isle of Wight that I read over the above-mentioned Book which was long before the said Book was Printed in his Bed-chamber writ with his Majesty's own Hand with several Interlinings Moreover his Majesty King Charles I. told me Sure Levet you do design to get this Book by heart having often seen me reading of it I can testifie also that Royston the Printer told me that he was imprisoned by Oliver Cromwell the Protector because he would not declare that King Charles I. was not the Author of the said Book Signed and sealed October 16. 1690. Will. Levet 4. The next Evidence is that of Mr. Royston which contains very material Circumstances viz. That the October before the King sent a Message to him to prepare all things ready for the Printing some Papers which he purposed shortly after to convey to him and which was this very Copy brought the Twenty third of December next following This is very near to a direct Evidence and the King 's sending to him to prepare himself and this Book being sent to him accordingly is a plain proof that these were the Papers the King designed to send him and the King had intentions of Printing them in October which it seems according to Dr. Walker and Mrs. Gauden was before he had seen them or heard any thing of them I shall not need to add any more to this but that this Testimony of Mr. Royston is corroborated by two others as Mr. Thomas Milbourn Printer by Jewin-street who told Dr. Dr. Hellingwerth's Defence of King Charles I. pag. 12 13 14. Hollingworth before sufficient Witnesses That in the Year 48 he was an Apprentice to Mr. John Grisman a Printer when Mr. Simonds by Mr. Royston sent the King's Book to be Printed and that his Master did Print it That Mr. Simonds always had the Name of sending it to the Press that it came to them as from the King and they understood it no otherwise that they had Printed several other things with C. R. to them and that it looked to them like the same Hand and the same sort of Paper with others that were so marked and looked upon as the King's Papers for the King kept the Original by him and Mr. Odert the Secretary transcrib'd them To the same purpose Mr. Clifford Reader of Prayers at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street who assisted Mr. Milbourn in the Printing it and who further adds That the King intituled his Book the Royal Plea but Doctor Jeremiah Taylor coming accidentally to Mr. Royston 's Shop he having an assured Confidence in him shewed him the first Proof from the Press which when the Doctor viewed under that Title he told him the Title would betray the Book That Dr. Taylor wrote to the King to let him know it would be in danger of suppressing by two Informers Chelsenham and Jones who would understand the Book by the Title And therefore he thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be a better Title and less taken notice of by the Informers being Greek and agreeing with the Title of his Father's Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to which the King consented And adds further That he never heard nay that he is sure that Dr. Gauden never was concerned in that Book by which Milbourn and himself Printed it and that they had no part of the Copy from Dr. Walker for it was that transcribed by Mr. Odert they Printed it by To these Testimonies cited by Sir William Dugdale and in this manner strengthened and confirmed we may add 1. The Testimony of Doctor Gauden himself when Bishop of Exeter and attested by Mr. Long Prebendary of the Church of Exeter Dr. Walker's Account examined pag. 4. viz. That he had heard him often affirm that he was fully convinced that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intirely that King's Work This I confess is not a direct Proof to the Matter but it is full against Dr. Gauden for if he was fully convinced that it was intirely the King's Work he would himself never pretend to have any hand in the Composure of it 2. The Testimony of two Authors of two Books and both of them Printed 1649 whose Names I know not tho possibly by the Titles of their respective Books they may be known to some other persons The first is certainly a person of Worth and Learning and the Title his Book bears is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written in answer to a scurrilous Pamphlet against the King's Book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the Author pag. 4. hath these Words The Author might have informed himself of divers who have seen the Original Copy manuscribed by the King himself he might have seen it himself for asking And afterwards I take it to be the King's Book I am sure of it I knew his Hand I have seen the Manuscript I have heard him own it These are plain and express and if the Author was known I doubt not but his Person would give Value to his Testimony for his Writings plainly shew him a great Man and of excellent Qualifications The other is the Author of a Book called the Princely Pellican written on purpose as the Title Page asserts to satisfie the Kingdom that the King was the Author of this Book And the Account the Author gives of himself is this Pag. 1. that he had been a constant Servant to the King and that he had remained constantly in his attendance upon his Majesty to the last Man that the King was oft times pleased to communicate his private Councils and Addresses to him And after having given this Account of himself he proceeds to give Account of the Book and in the first place tells us the very Beginning of the King's Resolutions to undertake it Pag. 4. That he was pleased some few days after he had retired from his Parliament to communicate his Thoughts in his Garden at Theobalds to some of his Gentlemen who were nearest to him and of whose Intimacy and Abilities he stood most confident how he had set his hand to Paper to vindicate his Innocency in the first place by shewing the Reasons he had of receding from the Parliament And that not so much as one Lane had falien from his Pen which with Honor he might not confirm The Author goes on His next Essay as he told us he intended should take its Discourse from the faithfullest Servant and incomparable States man that any Prince could rely on meaning the Earl of Strafford and then gives us the King 's particular Discourse condemning himself for suffering his Hand to thwart the Resolution of his Heart c. And particularly recites at large the Discourses of his Attendance on that Subject with his Majesty He tells us further Pag. 19. that the King told them That as his Morning Devotions took up the first so he ever reserved the next for these Meditations he had now in hand The Author yet further tells us Pag. 21. That at Naseby
other Secret in the World but this that the divulging of it would gratifie Mr. Milton These therefore are mystical Expressions and prove nothing and the utmost that can be built upon them is Presumption and Conjecture which are far too feeble to support that which is raised upon them However if this were supposed and that such was the meaning of those Expressions it will still be resolved into the single Testimony of Dr. Gauden himself and how valid that Testimony is in this Case we shall see presently And in the mean time this plainly contradicts Dr. Walker's Evidence which is that Dr. Gauden told him that He could not positively and certainly say that King Charles the Second knew that he wrote the Book And it would look very ridiculous to present a Petition to that King and to use it as an Instance to recommend him to his Favour that in behalf of the Royal Family he had done like a King meaning he had writ the Book and at the same time not know whether that King knew he was the Author of it But of this also more presently In the mean time as to Dr. Gauden's Services and which possibly may be the Plea he made to the King he did indeed write and publish two Books the one A Protestation against the King's Death Printed for Mr. Royston 1648 and another proving the Non-obligation of the Covenant which might put him into the King's Favour and in truth it is very probable that the Protestation was the only thing Dr. Gauden was concerned in and being Printed by Mr. Royston and about the same time might be the occasion of all this Mistake and might be the Book he gave to the Marquess of Hertford c. if any such thing was ever done Among these Papers there is also said to be A Letter of Mrs. Gauden 's after the Death of her Husband to her Son Mr. John Gauden in which she speaks of the Book commonly called the King's Book and calls it the Jewel and adds that her Husband hoped to make a Fortune by it and wonders it should be doubted whether her Husband wrote it but says she has a Letter of a very great Man to clear it up There is also said to be a long Narrative of Mrs. Gauden 's Hand-writing shewing that her Husband wrote the Book and sent to her Son with the Letter This Narrative sets forth that after her Husband had wrote the Book he shewed it to the Lord Capel who approved it and was for the Printing it but wished the King might have a sight of it that an opportunity was taken to convey it to his Masesty by the Lord Marquess of Hertford when he went to the Treaty at the Isle of Wight That the Marquess after his return from thence told her Husband that he gave the Book to the King and his Majesty did well like it but was for putting it out not as his own but anothers but it being urged that Cromwell and others of the Army having got a Reputation with the People for Parts and Piety it would do best to be in the King's Name His Majesty took time to consider of it That her Husband not hearing the King's Pleasure about it and finding Dangers hastening on him he having kept a Copy by him sent it by one Mr. Simonds to the Press together with a Letter that Mr. Royston was the Printer but did not know but the King wrote it that Part was seized in the Press together with her Husband's Letter and Mr. Simonds was taken That nevertheless the Work was carried on and finished a few days after his Majesty's Death that when it was Published the Parliament was inraged and her Husband conceiving his Life and Estate in danger fled to Sir John Wentworth 's near Yarmouth intending thence to pass the Seas but Mr. Simonds falling sick and dying and her Husband not being discovered he altered his purpose and returned home That there was an Epistle first intended that the first Title was Suspiria Regalia but changed to Icon Basilice and that there were two Chapters added That the Marquess of Hertford the Lord Capel Bishop Duppa and Bishop Morley were at first the only persons privy to it That Bishop Duppa of Winchester being very sick her Husband went to the King and acquainted him that he was the Author of the Book and for the truth thereof appealed to Bishop Duppa his Majesty's Tutor who was yet living and made an Apology for Printing it without his Majesty's Father's Order or his but pleaded the Circumstance of Time and the King's Danger that his Majesty told her Hurband That till then he never knew that he wrote it but thought it was his Father's yet wondered how he could have time and ob served that it was wrote like a Scholar as well as like a King and said if it bad been published sooner it might have saved his Father's life that at the same time the King gave him a Promise of the Bishoprick of Winchester That he afterwards acquainted the Duke of York that he was the Author c. This is the Sum of the Evidence that is Collected from these Papers And from hence I have these things to observe 1. That this is all finally resolved into the single Testimony of Dr. Gauden himself and of what Consideration that ought to be in the Case before us will appear from these Particulars 1. A Man 's own Evidence in his own Cause labours under very great Prejudices and as the Wisdom of all Lands exclude a Man from bearing witness for himself so such Testimony can never be admitted to conclude and determine a Matter in Controversie in these two Cases 1. When there is another Claim and Pretender in possession of the thing in controversie in such a Case a Man 's own single Testimony signifies nothing nor is of any Validity The Book bears the Name of King Charles and hath for many years been acknowledged to be his and if Dr. Gauden should have said That he was the Author and not the King it would not be sufficient to defeat the King's Title nor to advance his own Because a Man 's own Testimony is incompetent to determine the Controversie between two Rival Authors on the one side there is the Authority of the Book it self which in every Line owns it self to be the King 's as speaking in his Name and the general Reputation of the World consequent upon that On the other is only the affirmation of another Pretender who would claim it for his own upon his own Evidence For let this Evidence pass through never so many Channels it is one and the same Evidence still if one Man tells a hundred that he did such a thing and they all testifie that he said so there are indeed a hundred Witnesses that he said it but there is but one that he did and that is himself if therefore Dr. Gauden acquainted the King the Duke of York my Lord
Words of some of them Vpon which I must also confess that I concluded they were originally from the King but others have drawn a contrary Argument from the King 's correcting the Papers yet I put this under my hand that the Major told me that he did suppose them originally from that learned Prince Which is the totum that can be intimated from Sir Your humble Servant Richard Duke In this Testimony of Mr. Duke these things are to be cleared 1. That there is a difference between this account and that of Sir William Dugdale's But notwithstanding both their Evidence are very consistent and by no means contradictory Sir William Dugdale says that Major Huntintdon through the favour of Fairfax restored to him the Manuscript after Navesby Fight Mr. Duke only says that the Major saw them lying on the Table c. which the Major might very well do and yet before that restore them to the King from General Fairfax which as Mr. Duke says nothing of so neither doth what he says any ways contradict so that Mr. Duke's Evidence is not contrary to Sir William's but a Supplement to it and a further account of the Major's Knowledge of this matter He testifies indeed more than Sir William but by no means interferes with him So likewise when Sir William says it was at Hampton Court this is easily reconcil'd because Mr. Duke speaks diffidently that it was at Holmby-House as he remembers but is not positive but it might be some other place as these Expressions plainly denote 2. The next thing is that Mr. Duke does not say in express terms that those Meditations which the Major saw lying upon the Table several Mornings and the King correct them that those were the same that were printed in the King's name But it is plainly imply'd for Mr. Duke says that from the Major's account to him he conceiv'd they were originally from the King and is positive that the Major told him that he supposed them originally from the King that is plainly the Meditations in Controversie for the Word originally here can refer to nothing else but to another Pretender And the saying that others have drawn a contrary Argument from the Kings correcting the Papers yet further proves it So that as Mr. Duke did not so it is plain the Major himself did not mean any other Papers than the original Manuscript of the King's Book or of some part of it which he saw lie on the Table and the King correcting it The Sum therefore is that the Testimony of Major Huntington as it is represented by Mr. Duke is contradictory to the same represented by Dr. Walker and the Validity of the respective Testimony must depend on the Credit of the respective Witnesses And how much Dr. Walker's Testimony is to be rely'd on in this Case I have shewn already and Mr. Duke's Testimony is confirm'd by another Mr. Cave Beck in a Letter to Dr. Hollingworth attesting That Major Huntington at Ipswich assured him that so much of the said Book as contained his Majesty's Meditations before Navesby Fight Dr. Holl. Charact. of King Charles I. p. 27 was taken in the King's Cabinet and that Sir Thomas Fairfax deliver'd the said Papers unto him and ordered him to carry them to the King and also told him that when he deliver'd them to the King his Majesty appeared very joyful and said he esteemed them more than all the Jewels he had lost in the Cabinet 2. The next Evidence is that of Mr. Herbert afterwards Sir Thomas Herbert who not only saw it as Sir William Dugdale says but moreover had the original Manuscript given him by the King and which was wrote by the King 's own hand This hath never yet appeared publickly to the World and therefore I shall set it down at large as it was transmitted to me by the Reverend Mr. Cudworth Rector of Barmbrough in Yorkshire and attested by several worthy and learned Persons in these Words In a Manuscript Book in Folio of Sir Thomas Herbert's well bound fairly written and consisting of 83 Pages and by him called Carolina Threnodia having the Picture of King Charles I. in the Front and beginning thus SIR By yours of the 22d of August last I find you have received my former Letters of the 1st and 13th of May 1678. And seeing it is your farther desire I should recollect what I can well remember upon that sad Subject more at large I am willing to satisfie you therein so far forth as my Memory will assist Some short Notes of Occurrences I then took which in this long Interval of time and several Removes of my Family are either lost or so mislaid at present I cannot find which renders this Narrative not so methodical nor so large as otherwise I should and probably by you may be expected Nor would I trouble you much with what any other has writ but in a summary way give you some Court Passages which I observed during the two last years of his Majesty's Life and Reign being the time of his Solitudes and Sufferings In pag. 21. Nevertheless both times be carefully observed his usual times set apart for private Devotion and for writing Mr. Harrington and Mr. Herbert continued waiting on his Majesty as Grooms in the Bedchamber he also gave Mr. Herbert the Charge of his Books of which the King had a Catalogue and from time to time had brought unto him such as from time to time he was pleased to call for The sacred Scripture was the Book he most delighted in read often in Bishop Andrew's Sermons Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity Dr. Hammond's Works Villalpandus upon Ezekiel c. Sandy's Paraphrase upon King David's Psalms Herbert's divine Poems and also recreated himself in reading Godfrey of Bulloigne writ in Italian by Torquato Tasso and done into English Heroick Verse by Mr. Fairfax A Poem his Majesty much commended as he did Ariosto by Sir John Harrington a factious Poet much esteem'd of by Prince Henry his Master Spencer's Fairy Queen and the like for alleviating his Spirits after serious Studies And at this time it was as is presumed he composed his Book called Suspiria Regalia publish'd soon after his Death and intitled The King's Portraicture in his Solitudes and Sufferings Which Manuscript Mr. Herbert found among those Books his Majesty was graciously pleased to give him those excepted which he bequeathed to his Children hereafter mentioned in regard Mr. Herbert tho he did not see the King write that Book his Majesty being always private when he writ and these his Servants never coming into the Bedchamber when the King was private until he call'd yet comparing it with his Hand-writing in other things he found it so very like as induces his belief that it was his own having seen much of the King's Writings before And to instance particulars in that his Majesty's Translation of Dr. Sanderson the late Bishop of Lincoln's Book de juramentis a like Title concerning Oaths all of
to be in the King's Name and his Majesty took time to consider of it In Dr. Walker's Evidence Dr. Gauden could not positively and certainly say that King Charles II. knew that he wrote it But in Mrs. Gauden's he told that King himself that he was the Author of it and appeal'd to Bishop Duppa for the truth of it In Dr. Walker's he gave this as a Reason why he could not positively say it viz. because the King was never pleased to rake express notice of it to him But in Mr. Gauden's the King took express notice of it to him and told him that till then he never knew that he wrote it but thought it had been his Father's yet wondered how he could have time c. That had it been published sooner it might have saved his Father's Life And all this by a very good token That at the same time the King promised him the Bishoprick of Winchester In Dr. walker's he collects the King's knowing it by inference and takes it for granted because he is sure the Duke of York doth and he knowing it he does not question but the King also doth But in Mrs Gauden's he acquainted the King himself and not only so but he acquainted the King first and the Duke of York afterwards as Mrs. Gauden expresly That he afterwards acquainted the Duke that he was the Author And by the same token That he then told his Highness that the King promised him the Bishoprick of Winchester So that if it had not been said so expresly this telling the Duke must be subsequent to that Promise which as Mrs. Gauden says was at the same time that he told the King And lastly In Dr. Walker's the Reason of Dr. Gauden's Assurance that the Duke knew it was for that the Duke had spoken of it to him but in Mrs. Gauden's That he had acquainted the Duke himself And now how like ye this my Masters Is not this rare Evidence to convince the World that agrees at this rate Do men use to believe a matter of fact upon the Credit of Witnesses who contradict each other Methinks the example of Daniel may serve to shew us the value of such Testimony as well as to teach the King Gratitude The two Elders were both positive as to the fact but their differing in circumstance detected their Falsity And the two Elders did not differ from one another by many degrees so much as Dr. Walker and Mrs. Gauden In short either Dr. Gauden told these things respectively to Dr. Walker and Mrs. Gauden or he did not if he did not their Evidence is of no value if he did his own is of no value as contradicting himself And so I have done with this part of the Discourse the Evidence that is produced to intitle Dr. Gauden to this Book And I appeal to all the World whether such Testimony so circumstantiated be fit or ever was admitted to determine the least Controversie in the World And if there was no more to be said for the Kings being the true Author but only the bare Name and general Acceptation that is abundantly sufficient to vindicate it to him from all that is here offered and no rational and unprejudiced man can alter his Sentiments and translate it to Dr. Gauden upon such Evidence and much less if this be consronted by plain direct and unexceptionable Evidence in behalf of the King And this is the third thing viz. 3. I shall produce the Evidence that hath appeared to prove the King the Author of this Book and altho there are some others and which are of good Credit and may deserve Consideration yet I shall confine my self to these which are plain and direct and come home to the very Case a Testimony that plainly gives Evidence to the King's Title and that Evidence unexceptionably convey'd to us Some of these and these the most considerable are summ'd up by Sir William Dugdale in his short view of the late troubles in England p. 380. in these Words I shall make it evident from the Testimony of very credible Persons yet living that he had begun the penning of them long before he went from Oxford to the Scots For the Manuscript it self written with his own hand being found in his Cabinet which was taken at Navesby Fight was restored to him after he was brought to Hampton Court by the hand of Major Huntington thro the favour of General Fairfax of whom he obtain'd it and that whilst he was in the Isle of Wight it was there seen frequently by Mr. Thomas Herbert who then waited on his Majesty in his Bedchamber as also by Mr. William Levet a Page of the Back Stairs the Title then prefixed to it being Suspiria Regalia who not only read several Parts thereof but saw the King divers times writing farther on it Add hereunto the Testimony of Mr. Richard Royston a Bookseller at the Angel in Ivy Lane who having in these rebellious times adventured to Print divers of his Majesty's Declarations Speeches and Messages about the beginning of October 1648. the King being then in the Isle of Wight was sent to by his Majesty to prepare all things ready for the Printing some Papers which he purposed shortly after to convey unto him which was this very Copy brought to him on the 23d of December next following by one Mr. Edward Simonds a reverend Divine who received it from Dr. Bryan Duppa then Bishop of Salisbury and afterwards of Winchester In the Printing whereof Mr. Royston made such speed that it was finish'd before that dismal 30th of January that his Majesty's Life was taken away In this Summary are four considerable Evidences Major Huntington Mr. Herbert Mr. Levet and Mr. Royston three of them directly to the thing and Mr. Royston's so circumstantiated as amounts very near to a direct Evidence 1. Major Huntington To this Dr. Walker excepts p. 33. that at Tunbridge the Major told him that all he knew or ever said concerning it was when that Book was published and so confidently reported to be the Kings then surely or I believe these are the Papers I see him so usually take out of his Cabinet But this was but my Conjecture and I never declared it to be otherwise for I assure you I never read one Line or Word of the Papers in the King's hand I was not so rude and I cannot say there was one Passage in those Papers which is in this printed Book For how should I never having looked into them Now this Evidence of Dr. Walkers is confronted by another of Mr. Rich. Duke 's in a Letter to Dr. Charles Goodal June 15.92 in these Words Sir I confess that I heard Major Huntington to say more than once that whilst he guarded Charles I. at Holmby-House as I remember he saw several Chapters or Leaves of that great King's Meditations lying on the Table several Mornings with a Pen and Ink with which the King scratched out or blotted some Lines or