Fact is an Impeachment of Treason what would They have had us to do or wherein is our fault What would They have had us said We were Impeached of Treason so and so particularizing how can that be There is no such thing Then they would have us said Nul tiel Record and We must have been condemned for failing in our Record then indeed we had been where They would have had us but having done according to our Fact if that Fact will oust this Court of Jurisdiction I see not how we should plead otherwise or what answer they will give to it This must needs be agreed to me If this Impeachment be in the nature of an Appeal surely an Appeal does suspend the Proceedings upon an Indictment for that Fact and so 't is expresly in my Lord Dyer fol. 296. Stanley was indicted and convicted of Murder and before Judgment the Wife brought her Appeal and They moved for Judgment No said the Court here is an Appeal brought They could not go to Judgment till the Appeal was determined So the Stat. 3. H. 7. Cap. 1. and Vaux's Case 4 Rep. 39. If this then be of the nature of an Appeal this Suit ought to have its Course and Determination before you proceed on this Indictment Inferiour Courts have never taken upon them to meddle with the Actions of Superiour Courts but leave them to proceed according to their Laws and if that be done in any Case there will be as much regard had in this great Cause to the Court of Parliament as in others In the Earl of Northumberland's Case Cotton's Records 5 H. 4. fol. 426. He confesses himself guilty of an Offence against his Allegiance the King would have the Justices to consider of it No said the Parliament 't is matter of Parliament and the Judges have nothing to do with it The Lords make a Protestation to this purpose and went on themselves and adjudged it to be no Treason There is that Record more Rot. Parl. 11 R. 2. Pars 1. N. 6. I only offer these things with what my Lord Coke sayes Hath been formerly thought Prudence in the Judges to do So I hope That if the matter be good the form is as good as the matter can be put into and therefore we hope you will allow us the benefit of it The Attorney General argued thus for the King Notwithstanding what hath been said I take it this is a Naughty Plea and there is no matter disclosed therein that we can take Issue upon The great substance of the Arguments of the Prisoners Counsel is against him for 't is least he should escape but he pleads this Plea that he might escape For the Cautions given you what a difficult thing it is for two Jurisdictions to interfeir Fitz-Harris is much concerned in that matter who hath forfeited his Life to the Law yet he would fain live a little longer and is concerned that the Judicature of Parliament should be preserved I observe 't is an unusual Plea It concludes Si Curia procedere vult I wonder they did not put in aut debeat you have no Will but the Law and if you cannot give Judgment you ought not to be pressed in it but it being according to Law that Malefactors be brought to condign punishment We must press it whatsoever the Consequences are It is the Interest of all the Kingdom as well as of the King that so notorious a Malefactor should not escape or the Truth be stifled but brought into Examination in the face of the Sun but They say if it be not Law you will not proceed it ties up your Hands But they give not one Instance to make good what they say Put the Case it had been a good Impeachment he had been arraigned upon it and acquitted and had afterwards come to be Indicted in this Court and would not plead this in Bar but to the Jurisdiction it would not have been a good Plea Then certainly an Impeachment depending singly cannot be a good Plea to the Jurisdiction This Court hath a full Jurisdiction of this Case and of this Person and this you had at the time of the Fact committed What then is it that must oust this Court of Jurisdiction For all the Cases that have been put about matters not originally examinable in this Court make not to the matter in question where the Fact is done out of the Jurisdiction of the Court that may be pleaded to the Jurisdiction but where the Court may originally take Cognizance of it I would know what can oust that Jurisdiction less than an Act of Parliament I will be bold to say the King by his Great Seal cannot do it To say the Proceedings in Parliament ought to be a Bar that is another Case the Party may plead it in Abatement or Bar as the Case requires For the Cases they put the Reasons are that the Court had no Original Jurisdiction There is not one of the Cases cited but where it was out out of the Jurisdiction of the Court originally As for the Case of the five Lords in the Tower I observe the House of Lords removed the Indictments into their House fore-seeing that the King might have proceeded upon them if not removed thither But our Case is quite another thing for those Lords were not fully within your Jurisdiction The Case of 11. R. 2. will be nothing to our purpose at all that was in the Case of the Lords Appellants a proceeding contrary to Magna Charta contrary to the Statute of Edw. 3. and the known Priviledges of the Subject Those proceedings had a Countenance in Parliament and they would be controuled by none nor be advised by the Judges but proceed to the trying of Peers and Commoners according to their own Will and Pleasure And between the time of 11 R. 2. and 1 H. 4. see what Havock they made by those illegal proceedings and in 1 H. 4. these very Lords were sentenced and it was resolved by Act of Parliament That no more Appeals should be any more in Parliament The other great point is this There is nothing at all certainly disclosed to you by this Plea therefore there is nothing confessed by us only the Fact that is well pleaded They say They have pleaded it to be secundum Legem Consuetudinem Parliamenti but I say They must disclose to you what is the Law and Custom of Parliament in such Case or you must take it upon you upon your own knowledge or you cannot give Judgment There are three things to be considered of the Parliament the Legislative part the matters of Priviledge and the Judicial part For the two first both Houses proceed only Secundum Legem Consuetudinem Parliamenti But for the Judicial part they have in all times been guided by the Statutes and Laws of the Land and have been ousted of a Jurisdiction in several Cases as by the Statute of 4 Edw. 3. 1 H. 4. And the Lords
time the Judges resolved it at the Council-Table that they could not be proceeded against upon those Indictments tho' the Parliament was dissolved That was a stronger Case than this of Fitz-Harris for there the Inferiour Court was first possessed of the Cause and yet the general Impeachment tyed up the Hands of the Court But here the Parliament was first possest of the Cause which the Inferiour Court cannot take out of their Hands An Impeachment differs also from an Indictment in that in an Indictment you cannot plead auter foitz Arraigned but must plead Auter foitz Convict or Acquit as in Sr William Wishople's Case But in an Impeachment They will acknowledge that after Articles exhibited They cannot proceed upon an Indictment for the same Offence although the Defendant be neither Convict or Acquit I shall say no more but observe how serupulous the Judges have been to touch upon a Case where they had the least suspition that the Parliament had or pretended a Jurisdiction or were possessed of the Cause I am sure I could never obtain any thing by any Labours of mine in those Cases But upon such Motions They being aware of the Consequence would alwayes worship afar off and never come near the Mount They ever retired when They came near the Brink of this Gulf. My Lord If you retain this Cause in consequence you charge your selves with this Mans Blood I leave it to your Wisdom to consider it Then Mr Pollexfen proceeded thus I shall not make any long Argument But I would fain come to the Question if I could for I cannot see what the other side make the Question Our Plea is objected against both for the matter and form But if for the matter it be admitted that an Impeachment for the same matter will out this Court of Jurisdiction I will say nothing of it for that is not then in Question The Chief Justice assented to this saying No not at all Then Mr Pollexfen added The matter then seems to be agreed and only the manner and form of the Plea are in question for the manner they say 't is not alledged there is any Impeachment upon Record I confess Form is a subtile matter in it self and 't is easie for one that reads other Mens Words to make what Construction he will of them even Nolumus to be Volumus To answer the Objection I think 't is as strongly and closely penn'd as can be He was Impeached Quae quidem Impetitio c. What can the Quae quidem signifie but the Impeachment just mentioned before The great Question now is whether this be not too general to alledge that he was Impeached in Parliament and not saying how or for what Crime tho' there be an Averment that 't is for the same Crime whether this Plea should therefore be naught 1st For this of the Averment be the Crimes never so particularly specified in the Record that is pleaded and in that upon which the party is brought in Judicature yet there must be an Averment which is so much the substantial part of the Plea that without it it would be naught and it must come to be tryed Per Pais whether the Offence be the same or not Then the Objection to the generallity is not to the substance but rather an Objection to the Form on their side because the plea alledges the substance that 't is for the same Treason which had not Mr Attorney demurred but taken Issue on must have been tryed Per Pais To speak to the general Allegation that he was Impeached for Treason and not saying particularly what the fact was If they admit the Law That an Impeachment suspends the Jurisdiction of this Court They admit a great part of the fact and then the Question will be what Impeachment will take away the Jurisdiction and there can be but two sorts the one at large where the Offence is specified the other in general words where the Commons Impeach such a one of Treason Now if such an Impeachment be good then have we the most plain Case pleaded that can be as plain as the Fact that this is an Impeachment in Parliament and then this Court is ousted of its Jurisdiction The Court and We are to take notice of the proceedings in other Courts as other Courts are to take notice of the proceedings of this generally the Writ or Declaration as 't is in Sparrye's Case does in all Civil Causes set forth the particularity of the thing in question yet in some Cases it doth not do so but the Course and Practice of some Courts admits general proceedings Now where that is so the party cannot mend himself by making their Course otherwise then it is for he must not say it is more particular then the Course of the Court does make it Therefore he hath no other way by the Law to bring his matter on and help himself but by an Averment that 't is the same The Law must be govern'd by its own proceedings and take notice of the nature of the things depending before the Court and if there is as much of certainty set forth as the Case will admit and is possible to be had We must permit the party to plead as he can and help himself by the Averment Then the Question is Whether an Impeachment generally be good or no If they say it is not then the bottom of the Plea is naught and all is quite gone But if they say it is then I have pleaded my matter as it is For I cannot say that that is particular or make that particular that is not and I have done all that is possible for me to do in my Case I have pleaded what is in the Record and as 't is in the Record from which my Plea must not vary and I have averred 't is for the same matter and you have confessed it by the demurrer I would not entangle the Question but I see not how they can extricate themselves out of this Dilemma if they admit a general Impeachment is good In December 1678. the Lords in the Tower were Indicted and after Decem. the 5th the Commons considering that it was intended to bring them to Tryal before the Peers They purposely to have the carriage and prosecution of this horrid Treason and to take off the Prosecution upon the Indictment Impeach the Lords and the Impeachment is just the same as this in our Plea of Treason but not of any particular Fact Now the Judges took so much notice of it that tho' the Parliament was dissolved before the particular Articles were carried up yet in February following some of the Judges are here and they will rectifie me if I am mistaken the Opinions of the Judges being asked about it at the Council-Board upon the Petition of the Lords to be either bailed or tryed They declared that the Impeachment tho' thus general was so depending in Parliament that they could not be tryed We have pleaded as our
towards them because they laboured under many Difficulties as the Tide then ran He therefore desired Sr Robert to call Mr B. by the Name of Johnson That they did hope to bring the Earl's Murder upon the Stage before they could any of those in the Tower to a Tryal That Sr H. Capel had told Mr B. that it was a thing too great for him That Mr B. had been at great trouble and charge about it and that as times went he knew few would have undertaken it besides himself Mr Lewis of Marlborough being called by Mr Braddon witnessed That upon the day of the Earl's Death riding within three or four Miles of Andover fifty two Miles from London between three and five in the Afternoon a man told him for news that he heard the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat and that at his going home to Marlborough the next day he told his Neighbours what he had heard the day before and that they thereupon said It was done but yesterday how could you hear it so soon Mr Feilder of Andover witnessed That upon the Wednesday and Thursday of the Week in which the Earl of Essex dyed it was the common talk of the Town of Andover †Note in like manner it was proved in the Tayal of the Lord Stafford that it was reported at a great distance that Sr Edmundbury Godfrey had murdered himself before it was known at London what was become of him that he had cut his Throat that the Women talked of it as they came in out of the Town and that on the Saturday night in that Week the certain news of it came Mrs Edwards the Boys Mother testified that the Boy came from the Tower and told her that he had seen the King c. and that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat and then wept and further said That he saw a Razour thrown out at the Window and was going to take it up but a short fat Woman came and took it and went in again that he told her all this weeping and crying and never denyed it till after Mr Braddon had been there and then denyed it upon this occasion when Mr B. came his enquiry put them all into a great damp and after he was gone the Boy being then at School her Husband said to her Daughter Sarah Don't you say any thing to your Brother and when he comes in we will talk to him that her Daughter was grievously affrighted thereat and so amazed that so soon as the Boy came in She told him that there had been a Gentleman to enquire about what he had said and that he thereupon said to her Why Sister will any thing of harm come and upon her answering him That She did not know but it might be her Father and the Family might be ruined he then denyed what he had said but at the same time he came to his Mother and cryed he should be hanged this was also acknowledged by the Daughter Sarah Edwards the Boy 's Sister testified what the Boy had declared of seeing the Razour c. And that She told him upon Tuesday the 17th of July that a Gentleman had been there to enquire about it and that the Boy did thereupon ask her whether any harm would come of it and that upon her answering him that She could not tell he did deny what he had declared That Mr B. came again soon after upon the same day and found them all daunted upon their hearing the Boy deny it and Mr Brad. ask'd him about it bad him speak the Truth telling him * Indeed Jovian Hicks many others of our passively Obedient and Non-Resisting Gentlemen of the Cassock have handled many Texts of Scripture at a very unwarrantable rate to decoy Mankind to the foolish Exchange of their glorious title to Freedom for that of Slavery But we have here the first instance of a Man's preaching up the lawfulness of Perjury from the dreadful Judgment of Heaven upon Ananias Sapphira It was a dreadful thing to be a Lyar and bad him read the 5th of the Acts where he would find that two were struck dead for telling a Lye She further testified that Mr Braddon came the next day the Wednesday about noon and that then her Brother probably having read the 5th of Acts did again own that what he had declared ahout the Razour c. was true that Mr Braddon wrote down what he acknowledged and she further confessed that she told the Boy that his Father would be in danger of loseing his Place The matter pinching at this time the Chief Justice to perplex the Cause and divert from the Evidence fell to hectoring Mr Wallop Counsel for the Defendants a Person of great Integrity and Master of more Law than all the Judges then upon the Bench telling him in a most scurrilous manner that he was zealous for Faction and Sedition as every Man was deemed to be at that Conuncture who was so hardy as to stand up in any honest Cause in that Court and impetuous in the worst of Causes and that his Lordship could see nothing in all this Cause but villany and baseness which in truth to an high degree was most evident in the carriage of the Court and Prosecutors of this Cause and that Mr Wallop should not have liberty to broach his Seditious Tenets there Such the asserting the native Rights of English-men were in that day esteemed by the Bene placito Judges of that Court Mrs Burt then produced by Mr Braddon testified That She was present when Mr Braddon came to speak with the Boy and that he said to him if it be true that you have spoken own it for 't is a dreadful thing to be found in a Lye and that Mr Braddon advised him to read the 5th of Acts and that the Boy then said Sir it is true and what I said I will speak before any Justice of Peace in the World and he then told Mr Braddon the whole Story Jane Lodeman a Girl 13. years old called by Mr Braddon declared that she did not know young Edwards and testified that she saw an hand throw a bloody Razour out of the Earl of Essex's Window and presently after heard two Shriekes or two Groans and saw a Woman come out in a White-Hood but did not see her take up the Razour and she added that she presently told all this to her Aunt Here Mr Solicitor was pleased to sport himself with the Girl by way of Dialogue thus Solicitor Was the Razour bloody Girl Yes Solicitor Very bloody Girl Yes Solicitor Are you sure 't was a Razour or a Knife Girl I am sure 't was a Razour Solicitor Was it open or shut Girl It was open Solicitor What colour was the handle Girl Sir I cannot tell I see it but as it flew out Solitior Was it all over bloody Girl No. Solicitor All but a little speck Girl It was very bloody Then Jeffryes finding the
I have given their Lordships satisfaction in all points and need to give no further Evidence I acknowledge I did go at that time privately a By-Road by the name of Brown as for Jones I appeal to him himself and call God to witness I never saw the Man before now in my Life All that has been said against me except what this Fellow Saxon testifies is but Hear-say nay indeed but Hear-say upon Hear-say at the third and fourth Hand It is at the pleasure of any two Men in the World to take away the Lives Honours Estates of any of your Lordships if it be a proof sufficient to make you guilty of Treason for them to swear you were intended to be drawn into Treason Upon the whole matter my Lords I must leave my Case to the consideration of your Lordships I am not Master of so much Law or Rhetorick as the Kings Council to plead in my own Cause But I hope what Evidence I have offered has given your Lordship full satisfaction that I am not Guilty of what I stand charged with My Lords I would beg you to consider this that if I with those other two Gentlemen that he has named had had any transactions of this kind with such a Fellow as Saxon so as at first sight to put such large confidence in him Can it be imagined I so little regarded my own Life and all that is dear to me as to have surrender'd my self were it not that I was certain of my own innocence and integrity Life it self my Lords is to be preferred above all things but Honour and Innocence and Job saith Skin for Skin and all that a Man hath will he give for his Life and why should I be presumed to have so little a value for it as voluntarily to deliver up my self to destruction had I been Conscious that there was any one who could really testifie any thing that could hurt me Besides my Lords This very Fellow Saxon is but one Evidence and surely one Witness will never be sufficient to convict a Man of Treason tho' thousands of Hear-says and such trivial circumstances be tack'd to it especially when tack'd to an evidence which I dare say your Lordships are far from thinking it deserves credit Would not any of your Lordships think himself in a very bad Condition as to his Fortune if he could produce no better Evidence to prove his Title to his Estate than what has been now produced against me to take away my Life and if such Evidence as this would not be sufficient to support a Title to an Estate certainly it can never be thought sufficient to deprive a Man of Life Honour Estate and All. My Lords God knows how soon the Misfortune of a false Accusation may fall to the Lot of any of your Lordships since that may happen I question not but your Lordships will be very cautious how by an easie Credulity you give encouragement to such a Wickedness For Knights of the Post will not end in my Tryal if they prosper in their Villany and perhaps it may come home to some of your Lordships if such Practices be encouraged My Lords the Eyes of all the Nation are upon your Proceedings this day Nay I may say your Lordships are now judging the Cause of every Man in England that shall hereafter happen to come under the like Circumstances with my self For accordingly as you Judge of me now just so will Inferiour Courts be directed to give their Judgment in time to come Your Lordships very well know Blood once spilt can never be gather'd up again and therefore you I am sure will not hazard the sheding of my Blood upon a doubtful Evidence If it should be indifferent or but doubtful to your Lordships which upon my Proofs I cannot believe it can be whether I am Innocent or Guilty Both God and the Law require you to acquit me My Lords I leave my self My Cause and all the Consequences of it with your Lordships And I pray the All-wise the Almighty God to direct you in your determination Mr Solicitor General then said May it please your Grace and you my Noble Lords The Evidence against this Noble Lord is of two Natures part of it is positive Proof and part is Circumstantial and tho' it be allowed that there must be two Witnesses in cases of Treason and that Circumstances tho' never so strong to fortifie one positive proof cannot make a second positive Witness yet I crave leave to say that there may be Circumstances so strong cogent so violent and necessary to fortifie a positive Testimony That will in Law amount to make a second Witness such as the Law requires My Lords If a man comes and swears against another That he said he will go and kill the King and another Man that did not heare these words testifies his lying in wait That Circumstance of lying in wait that was an Action indifferent in it self when applied to the positive Proof will be a second Witness to satisfie the Law It is not my duty to carry the Evidence in this Case further than it will go and I am sure it is not my Duty to let it lose any of its Weight My Lord Our positive prooff is but one single Witness and that is Saxon Mr Solicitor then repeated his Evidence and went on saying This I must acknowledge standing single will make but one Witness but whether the Circumstances that have been offered by the other Witnesses be such violent Circumstances as necessarily tend to fortifie and support that positive Evidence and so will supply the defect of a second Witness is the next Question I come to consider Mr Solicitor then repeated the Evidence of the Lord Grey and Mr Jones how truly let any who will be at the trouble of reading the Tryal at large judge and proceeded saying Here my Lord is the main Circumstance that renders the matter suspitious But tho it was not observed in she whole Proceeding of the Tryal Vaux witnessed that my Lord sent to him and engaged him the 26th of May to go out of Town with him the next day That very night that Jones came to Town the 27th of May does my Lord Delamere at ten at Night go out of Town under the disguise of the Name of Brown and a By-Road into Cheshire this I say is the Circumstance that renders the thing suspitious But now my Lords comes the Question the main Question how it is made out that my Lord Delamere had notice Jones brought the Message from the Duke of Monmouth Jones indeed does not say that he imparted it to him But Story says that Brand who knew of the Message did acquaint him that my Lord had received it at the Coffee-House and that Night went out of Town It is true this is but a hear-say but that which followed being matter of Fact My Lord 's going out of Town that Night and in such an unusual suspitious
and engaged to him the King should never let the Paper be seen and said this was the time to gain the King's favour It being long ago Mr Row declared these things as he believes and to the best of his Remembrance Mr Robert Yard being examined declared that the Advertisement concerning the Duke of M. which was put into the Gazete was what was handled in Council the day after the Duke came in It was the giving an Account of what passed betwixt the King and the Duke That he had the Paper either from the Lord Sunderland or Sr Leoline Jenkins John Hambden Esq declared himself thus His Case is so twisted with those of the Noble Persons whose Murders you enquire after that he knows not how to speak of theirs without relating his his own and that he looks upon himself almost as much murdered as any of them by reason of his Sufferings My Lord Russell and Col. Sidney were clap'd up in the Tower after which he was sent for and brought into the Cabinet Council or select number of Lords and askt whether he was of the Council of six so the Lord Howard was pleased to call it He saw there the King the Lord Keeper North and Lord Hallifax there were some others present whose faces he did not fee he does not remember a Clerk with them my Lord Keeper asked some Questions and so did the King He was pressed much to confess he claimed the Liberty as an English-man not to accuse himself he was sent to the Tower and made close Prisoner he was kept in the strictest custody for twenty Weeks when he had been there after the Lord R. was executed and a little before Col. Sidney was executed he had an intimation by a private note that there was an intention to try him for a Misdemeanour he was bailed out upon 30000 l. After this it happened the D. of M. came in and had a Pardon but several coming to see him he spoke some things freely which did not please the Court and at the Old Dutchess of Richmond 's he spoke as if those Gentlemen that were put to Death dyed unjustly Whereupon after the King was told this by a Lady he would have him confess his being concerned in the Plot and a Paper was drawn to that purpose which the King would have him sign which he did A Gentleman viz. Sr James Forbes came to him from the Duke with the Copy of the Paper the Duke had signed to own the Plot as soon as he saw it he said it was a Confession 〈◊〉 the Plot and according to the Law then in practise it would hang him because a Paper had been given in evidence against Col. Sidney upon which he was condemned for if a Paper which was said and not proved to be writ by him could supply the place of a second Evidence then a Paper which could be proved to be written and signed by the D. of M. might much more properly be made use of as his Evidence to hang other People He said he was told by Sr James Forbes that the D. was in a manner forced to do it and perswaded and overborne in it by the Lord H. when Sr James Forbes went back the D. was concerned to madness and said if he lived till next day he would have the Paper again and accordingly he went to the King and told him he could not rest till he had it The King with great indignation threw him the Paper and bid him never see his face more and he believes he did not and so the Duke went away and by that he escaped the Tryal then He was told by Mr Waller who is since dead that the Duke's owning the Plot to the King was the cause of Colonel Sidney's death for the King ballanced before He was after this brought to a Tryal for Misdemeanour and was convicted on the Lord Howard's evidence He pleaded Magna Charta that a Salvo Contenemento but the Court fined him 4000 l. and to Imprisonment till the Fine paid and security for the good Behaviour The King made his choice of putting him in Prison and he was committed to the Marshal's House in the King's Bench where he was ten Months He offered several summs of Money and they answered they had rather have him rot in Prison than he should pay the Fine After this they put him in the Common Prison where he was kept ten or eleven Months very close then they contrive a Writ called a long Writ to reach his Real and Personal Estate whilst he was thus a Prisoner After this he heard a new Witness appeared which was after the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth He was sent Close Prisoner to the Tower by the Lord Sunderland's Warrant and put into such a Room where he had no conveniency and with two of the Rudest Warders in the Tower to lie in the Room with him After seven or eight weeks he was removed to Newgate where he was kept close eleven weeks his Friends offered Money for his Pardon to some in power who were the Lord Jefferyes and Mr Petre the summ was 6000 l. and that was effectual It is not possible for a Man to suffer more than he did By the help of the Money on condition he would plead Guilty to his Indictment he was to come off His Friends advised him to it because it could hurt none there being none living of those called the Council of six but the Lord Howard Whereupon pleading guilty he was discharged paying 3 or 400 l. to Burton and Graham for the charge of his Pardon As for the Subject matter of what he confessed * The designing to rise in Arms to rescue the Laws and Liberties of his Country when threatned with destruction no man will think he ought to be ashamed that thinks my Lord Russell was Murdered And he said this was the way that our Ancestors always took when the Soveraign Authority came to so great a height as may be made out by many instances he said Custom had made this the Law of England and that all Civilized and well governed Nations about us had used the same way Notwithstanding his pleading Guilty he hath been very ready to secure the Kingdom and he was one of the two or three Men that received Letters from Holland of this Revolution And he saith he thinks King William's coming into England to be nothing else but the Continuation of the Council of six and if not he desires to be better informed Being asked by the Lord H. how he came to send his Wife to the Man whom he thought was instrumental in obtaining the Paper which he thought endangered his Life He answered did not he send his Wife to the Lord Jefferies Mr Petre and others who should he send to but to those in power and who could help him but those in power He did not think that the Lord H. struck directly at his Life or that his Lordship had any personal