Informations before mentioned viz. Faulconers Reylyes and Kitchingmans all which were destinctly read by the Clerk and after some debate these Votes following did pass against the Lord Craven unheard and not having any other Charge against him Die Jovis 6 Martii 1650. REsolved by the Parliament that the Lord Craven is an offender The Votes of Confiscation against the Commonwealth of England within the Declaration of the 24. Aug. 1649. Entituled a Declaration of the Commons assembled in Parliament declaring all Persons who have served the Parliament of England in Ireland and have betrayed their trust or have or shall adhere to or aid and assist Charles Stewart Son to the late King to be Traytors and Rebels Resolved by the Parliament that the Estate of the Lord Craven be Confiscated accordingly Resolved that the Commissioners for Compounding be impowred and required to Seize and Sequester all the Estate Real and Personal of the said Lord Craven and to receive the Rents Issues and Profits thereof to the use of the Commonwealth Resolved that the Commissioners for Compounding be impowred and required to seize and Sequester into their Possession the real and personal Estate of all such Persons as shall appear to them to be offenders within the Declaration of the 24th August 1649. aforesaid and to receive and take the Rents Issues and Profits thereof to the use of the Commonwealth Hen. Scobel Cler. Parliam Which Declaratory Vote of the House of Commons of the 24 of August 1649. followeth in these words viz. Die Veneris 24 August 1649. Master Robinson reports from the Council of State a Letter from Mr. Luke Robinsons Report Sir Charles Coot from London-Derry of the 15 of August 1649. and another of the 14 instant with Articles of Agreement between General Owen Oneal and Col. Richard Coot in the behalf of Sir Charles Coot Lord President of Conaught Dat. 22 May 1649. which were all this day read REsolved upon the question by the Commons assembled in Parliament That this House doth declare that all persons whether English or Scots who have been under the pay of the Parliament of England in the service of Ireland and have revolted and betrayed their Trust there and all other persons who have or shall adhere to or assist Charles Stewart Son of the late King or any the forces in Ireland against the Parliament of England are and be adjudged to be Traitors and Rebels to the Commonwealth of England and all their Estates shall be confiscated and their persons proceeded against as Traytors and Rebels and that all such Officers as have so betrayed their Trust be proceeded against by a Court-Marshall there Ordered by the Commons assembled in Parliament that this Declaration be forthwith Printed and Published and that it be referred to the Council of State to communicate the same to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and such others there as they shall think fit that the same may be put in execution Hen. Scobel Cler. Parliam Sir William Craven and Master Rushworth repaired again to the A second demand of the charge against the Lord Craven Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall and demanded a Copy of the Informations against the Lord Craven to the end that he might be heard before he was condemned for that they understood the Commissioners had seized and secured his Estate and did purpose to Sequester the same Master Moyer returned this answer That it was not usual with them to condemn any man unheard that they had a full purpose to have given A further Answer of the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall liberty to the Lord Craven to make his Defence to the Informations given against him but now their hands were tyed up for the Parliament had Voted his Estate to be confiscate and they were required to Sequester all the Estate real and personal of the Lord Cravens to the use of the Common-wealth Hereupon Master Rushworth forthwith repaired to the Parliament to inform himself of the proceedings against the Lord Craven there Took a Copy of Master Atturny-Generals Report the Informations aforesaid and the Votes of Confiscation thereupon and immediatly a Petition was drawn on the behalf of the Lord Craven in the name of Sir William Craven and James Pickering Esq Commissioners intrusted by the Lord Craven for the management of his Estate which from the 12 of March 1650. to the 12 of June 1651. they endeavoured by their friends to get delivered in Parliament but could not obtain it until the said 12 of June that the House took into consideration the first Bill of sale of Delinquents Estates When the Lord Cravens name being propounded to be inserted into the Bill it gave a handsome opportunity to that Member of the House who had so long attended to deliver Mr. James Chaloner the said Petition to get the same delivered which Petition then presented and read was in these words viz. To the Supreme Authority of this Nation the Parliament of the Common-wealth of England The humble Petition of Sir William Craven Knight and James Pickering Esq Commissioners deputed by the Lord Craven for the managing of his Estate in his absence Humbly sheweth That your Petitioners are informed that by a late Vote of this Honourable House the Lord Craven is declared an Offender within the The first Petition presented on the behalf of the Lord Craven declaration of the 24th of August 1649. Whereby his Estate is made liable to confiscation and the Commissioners for Compounding are impowred and required to seize and Sequester all the estate real and personal of the said Lord Craven That the Lord Craven being beyond the Seas in Germany at the time of the passing of these Votes knoweth nothing of the Votes against him here in England and your Petitioners being desirous to discharge their Trust in giving his Lordship timely notice of the said proceedings against him Do humbly pray on the behalf of the said Lord Craven that your Petitioners may be permitted to send an Express unto his Lordship to acquaint him with the said Votes And that this Honorable House would be pleased in the mean time as to the confiscation of his estate to suspend their former Order And Your Petitioners shall pray c. Upon the reading of this Petition the House thought not fit to make any order to suspend the Votes of Confiscation or to give leave to send an Express The Parliament afterwards falling again upon the debate of the The house devided about the Lord Craven first Bill of Sale for Delinquents estates it was then propounded that the House would give leave to speak against the former Votes of confiscation of the Lotd Cravens estate upon which the House was devided 24 were for resuming the debate and 25 were against it So it was carried by one Vote onely not to resume the consideration of the said Votes of confiscation The Votes which passed that day in Parliament were as followeth viz. Thursday 3. July
company in the said deposition mentioned that they should receive an answer from the said Queen of Bohemia to the said Petition nor that he the said Lord Craven had spoken to the Queen of Bohemia in their behalf As the said Richard Faucloner in and by the said deposition hath deposed And so the Jurors aforesaid upon their Oaths aforesaid do say That the said Richard Faulconer in manner and form aforesaid Corruptly Wilfully Falsly and Maliciously of his own proper Act Consent and Agreement did commit wilfull false and corrupt perjury To the great dishonor of Almighty God and to the great dammage loss and infamy of the said William Lord Craven and in contempt of the Laws of this Commonwealth To the evil Example of all others in the like case offending And against the publique peace c. The reason wherefore this Indictment did not recite the Oath in haec verbae as in the former Indictment but assigned the Perjury in the material parts of the Oath was by reason it came lately to knowledge that the original Oath could not be found and therefore the Oath was to be proved by the Entries in the book of Parliament and at Haberdashers-Hall and by the Testimony of the Persons who administred the Oath The next day after the Indictment was found the Prosecutors for the Lord Craven moved the Court for a Habeas Corpus to bring Faulconer to the Bar to plead to the Indictment who being brought into Court desired time to plead till the next Term. Whereupon the Court made this order That the said Faulconer having now in Court appeared unto the Indictment should have time to plead unto the same untill the beginning of the next Term so that the issue thereupon may be tried at the Bar in open Court the same Term. Term Pasch 1652. Faulconer having all this vacation neglected to appear or plead to the Indictment the Prosecutors for the Lord Craven were enforced again to move for another Habeas Corpus to bring Faulconer to the Bar to appear or plead to the Indictment who appearing desired longer time to attend his Counsel which the Court granted accordingly and the ordinary Rules of Court were given unto him for the peremptory dayes of pleading or Judgement to be entred against him and the very last day when the last Rule was out and not before he pleaded Not guilty And the Court ordered That the issue upon the Indictment of Perjury against the Defendant be tryed at the Bar upon Friday in the morrow of the Ascension of our Lord and that the Sheriffe of Middlesex do attend Andrew Broughton Esq with the Book of Freeholders forthwith so that an indifferent Jury may be returned between the said Keepers and the said Defendant to try the issue aforesaid by consent of the parties on both sides Mr. Broughton accordingly appointed the Sheriffe to attend him the next day in the afternoon with the Book of Freeholders who accordingly named the Jury and notice was given by the Sheriffe requiring them to appear at the day of Tryal The Trial of Richard Faulconer Friday May 20. 1653. THe Jury appearing according to Summons and Faulconer being brought in Custody the Court proceeded to Triall and ordered the Indictment to be read which being afterwards opened by Mr. Boynton the Evidence was managed by Mr. Maynard Mr. Hales Mr. Twisden Mr. Wilde Mr. Philips Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Drury who were of Counsel for the Commonwealth against the said Faulconer Before the Counsel for the Commonwealth proceeded to produce any Witnesses they offered unto the Court and the Jury something in general concerning the Indictment That the Indictment was for the crime of Perjury willfully and corruptly committed That Faulconer makes an Oath that there was a Petition delivered in which there was a very sharp reflexion as he swears upon the Parliament by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebels he swears he was deputed to deliver it being drawn by himself and Drury subscribed by 30 Officers that in order to the delivery thereof they did require the assistance of the Lord Craven that he promised to speak for them and brought them an answer but they hoped to prove unto the Jury that this Oath which Faulconer did take was very false that it was by design a design for money that the consequence of it was very notorious the ruine of that Gentleman of his Estate Fame and Fortune That Witnesses will be produced to prove what in truth the Petition was there was a Petition delivered but not a Petition to this effect at all and Faulconer knew the contrary we shall produce what it was and that under his own hand whereby it will appear that there was no such matter in it as he hath deposed the Witnesses themselves will best speak the Particulars For the opening of some things concerning this Oath of Faulconer it is to be observed he took this Oath before the Commissioners of Haberdashers-Hall at White-Hal and was there reduced into Writing and a Transcript was made of the Original which Transcript was sent to the Council of State and they ordered the same to be reported to the Parliament and being reported there is entred in the Journal Book and there remains a Record in Parliament The first thing therefore insisted upon by the Counsel for the Commonwealth was the proving of a true Copy of Faulconers Proofs of Faulconers deposition by a Copy thereof temaining at Haberdashers-Hall deposition in respect the Original was lost or rather imbezeled by Faulconer to prove the same A Copy thereof was produced in Court which agreed verbatim with that deposition of his which was filed upon Record at Haberdashers-Hall the Proper Court where it ought to remain and though that upon the File was but a Copy yet it was filed as evidence of that Deposition he was sworn unto by them but this was Faulconers deposition transmitted to the Council of State opposed by the Counsel for Faulconer as not sufficient proof and thereupon a Copy of an order of the Council of State of March 6. 1650. was produced unto the Court whereby it did appear that the Depositions against the Lord Craven had been transmitted to the Council of State by the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall Mr. Atorney General produced as a witness and it appeared further by the said Order that Mr. Attorney General was appointed by the Council of State to report these Depositions to the Parliament so transmitted to that Council by the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall and the Attorney General being sworn in Court did declare that he reported no other Depositions to the Parliament then what he received from the Council Faulconers deposition reported to the Parliament by Mr. Atorney General of State and that the Depositions produced to him in Court whereof the said Faulconers was one was endorsed with the hand-writing of the Lord Bradshaw then Lord President of the Council of State and that the Votes of confiscation
A true and perfect NARRATIVE Of the several proceedings in the CASE CONCERNING The Lord Craven BEFORE The Commissioners for Sequestrations and Compositions sitting at Haberdashers-Hall The Council of State the Parliament And upon the Indictment of Perjury Preferred and found against Major Richard Faulconer The Single and Material Witness against the Lord Craven CONCERNING The Petition to the King of Scots VVhich as the said Faulconer pretended was promoted at Breda by the Lord Craven and wherein as the said Faulconer deposed The Parliament of England was stiled by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebels SHORTLY After which Oath the Lord Cravens Estate was Voted by Parliament to be Confiscate LONDON Printed by R. White 1653. To the Reader AT the Trial of Richard Faulconer upon an Indictment Term. Trin. xx Maii. 1653. of Perjury at the Upper Bench Bar in Westminster-Hall in the case of the Lord Craven It was there publikely pleaded on his behalf That there was nothing objected against the credit of Faulconer so long as there was any other stone to turn though there were endeavors in Parliament before the Lord Cravens Estate came to be sold to prevent the Sale thereof And therefore when all Refuges failed if they can undermine the credit of this man then they hope to undermine the Act of Parliament And that after many transactions and settlements grounded upon this mans Information now must he be blasted by an Artificial Indictment a great while after These passages thus let fall by those who it seems had not perfect knowledge of the proceedings in Parliament in the Lord Cravens Case might with some of the Auditory at so great a Tryal pass as certain truths It is therefore thought necessary to publish a Narrative to clear those mistakes And yet it must be acknowledged that no exception was taken either to the Person of Faulconer or to the matter contained in his deposition against the Lord Craven before the Votes of confiscation of the Lord Cravens Estate did pass For that it was impossible for the Lord Craven being neer 800. miles distant in Germany when those Votes did pass to be here upon an hours warning to make his exception to Faulconers Deposition The Parliament passing the Votes of confiscation the same day Faulconers Deposition was reported and read in Parliament Neither the Lord Craven nor any on his behalf being then heard or summoned to be heard nor could any on his behalf procure a Copy of the Depositions before the Votes of confiscation It is therefore held requisite more particularly to make known the several transactions in this husiness and what application hath been made from time to time unto the Parliament by and on the behalf of the Lord Craven after the confiscation and before the Bill for Sale of the Lord Cravens Estate did pass that the falsity of this mans Oath might be examined in Parliament or such other way as the Parliament should please to direct and appoint which the Parliament after many applications to that purpose not thinking fit to give way unto an Indictment of Perjury was preferred in London against the said Faulconer the Parliament sitting and the Indictment found by the Grand-Jury and the Parliament made acquainted therewith before the Bill for Sale of the Lord Cravens Estate did pass and at the Sessions when the said Indictment was found Faulconer might have been also tried had not the principal witness against Faulconer been committed by Captain Bishop after he was served with a Subpaena to give Testimony against Faulconer and kept in Prison from the first day of the Sessions till the Sessions was over and then set at liberty and before the next Sessions the Bill for Sale of the Lord Cravens Estate did pass And forasmuch as the said Captain Bishop the Prosecutor of the Lord Craven and a Contractor for a good part of his Estate appeared more then a witness at the Tryal of Faulconer and hath since that Verdict endevoured to obstruct Judgement upon the same against so notorious and infamous a person It is further thought necessary to publish the proceedings at the Tryal of the said Faulconer that the World as well as the Jury may Judge of the credit of this mans Testimony against the Lord Craven upon which so heavy a Judgement as that of Confiscation was grounded And with what indifferency the said proceedings at the Tryal are related it is submitted to the Judgement of the Gentlemen of the several Inns of Courts and Practisers of the Law then present in Court and to all others who heard and took Notes at the said Tryal Anth. Craven A NARRATIVE Of the Proceedings in the Lord Cravens Case MAjor Richard Faulconer being imployed as a Spie into Holland at his return gave Information to Captain George Bishop then Secretary to the Committee of the Council of State for Examinations against William Lord Craven which Information being prepared and reduced into writing by Captain Bishop The Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall were sent for to White-Hall to administer an Oath there unto the said Faulconer who came accordingly And upon the tenth of February 1650. the said Faulconer was sworn before the said Commissioners to the Information following viz. Febr. 10. 1650. The Information of Major Richard Faulconer of Westbury in Hampshire taken before Samuel Moyer James Russel Edward Winslow Josias Barners and Arthur Squib Esquires Commissioners for Sequestrations and Compositions upon Oath Who saith THat about a fortnight before the conclusion of the Treaty at Faulconers Information against the Lord Craven Breda the Lord Craven the Queen of Bohemia and her two Daughters came to Breda to the Scots King Charles and went not thence till the King went to Honsleidike a house of the Prince of Oranges That during that time this Informant saw the Lord Craven divers times in presence with the said King and every day with the said King at the Court there he being there with the Queen of Bohemia and her two Daughters to take their leave as they said of the King of Scots before he went to Scotland That several Officers about thirty in number made a Petition to the said King to entertain them to fight for him against the Common-wealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebels either in England or Scotland for the recovering of his just Rights and re-instating him in his Throne and deputed this Informant and Colonel Drury to present the said Petition who indeed drew the same That when the Informant and some other Officers came to the Court at Breda intending to present the said Petition immediately to the Kings hand but finding the Lord Craven very neer to him likewise the Marquess of Newcastle who presented his brother Sir Charles Cavendish to kiss the said Kings hand the evening before the said Kings departure who this Informant saw kiss the Kings hand accordingly the Lord Wilmot the Earl of Cleveland the Queen of Bohemia the Lord Gerrard c.
and a great bustle of of business This Informant with Colonel Drury applied themselves to the Lord Craven intreating him to present the Petition to the Queen of Bohemia to present it to the King of Scots the said Lord Craven taking the Petition and reading the same Chearfully said to Colonel Drury and this Informant There is the Queen of Bohemia deliver it to her and I will speak for you Upon which they applied themselves to the said Queen and she presented the Petition After which the King of Scots the Lord Craven the Marquess of Newcastle the Queen of Bohemia with some other Lords went into a withdrawing room where this Informant and company could not enter But the Lord Craven came forth of the withdrawing Chamber and told this Informant and company That they should receive an answer from the Queen of Bohemia to their Petition and that he had spoken to the Queen of Bohemia in their behalf who afterwards came and told this Informant and company that she had delivered their Petition and that the King had taken order for it The next morning at three of the Clock the King departed but this Informant and company had their Quarters satisfied by the Princess of Orange according to the said Kings order upon their Petition and thereby to inable them to follow the said King in the prosecution of these Wars against the Parliament of England which was the effect of their aforesaid Petition That this Informant saw the Lord Craven very often and familiar with the said King and enter with the said King into the withdrawing Chamber and staid there the last night the said King was at Breda very late Richard Faulconer Jur. 10. Feb. 1650. Coram nobis Samuel Moyer James Russel Edward Winslow Josias Barners Arthur Squib Colonel Hugh Reyly was likewise sworn before the said Commissioners at the same time whose Information was in these words viz. Febr. 10. 1650. The Information of Colonel Hugh Reyly taken before Samuel Moyer James Russel Edward Winslow Josias Barners and Arthur Squib Esquires Commissioners for compounding c. Who saith THat during the late Treaty at Breda this Informant did oftentimes Colonel Hugh Reyly his Information against the Lord Craven see the Lord Craven with the now King of Scots in his Bed-chamber and also walked abroad with him there being no man more conversant with the King then he That the said Lord Craven during the said Treaty did twice go to Rotterdam and Dunhagh and back again being imployed as was commonly reported at Court there by the said King That the said Lord Craven had a charge from the King to look to one Mrs. Barlow who as is reported and he believes to be true had a child by the King of Scots born at Rotterdam which he did and after the King was gone for Scotland the said Lord Craven took the child from her for which she went to Law with him and recovered the child back again as is reported Hugh Reyly Jur. 10. Feb. 1650. Samuel Moyer James Russel Josias Barners Edward Winslow Arthur Squib Captain Thomas Kitchingman was ten dayes after sworn before the said Commissioners whose Information was as followeth viz. Feb. 20. 1650. The Information of Captain Thomas Kitchingman taken upon Oath before the Commissioners for compositions c. Who saith THat the said Captain Thomas Kitchingman in April and May Captain Kitchingmans Information against the Lord Craven 1650. Saw the Lord Craven several times with the King of Scots at Breda and waiting upon the said King several times at his Table at Breda This Informant also saw the Earl of Oxford at the same time with the King of Scots at Breda waiting upon the said King at his Table and saw the Lord Craven and the Earl of Oxford many times go into the withdrawing rooms after the said King This Informant also saw the Lord Craven and the Earl of Oxford in the Bowling-ally in Breda Castle with the said King Thomas Kitchingman Jur. coram Commissionar Febr. 20. 1650. Sir William Craven having notice that the Lord Cravens estate was in danger of Sequestration and considering that himself and his children by Elizabeth daughter to Fardinando Lord Fairfax upon whom a great part of the said estate was setled were like to be concerned therein desired Mr. Rushworth to go with him to the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall and to desire a Copy of the Charge against the Lord Craven and accordingly a Copy of the depositions taken against the Lord Craven was demanded by Sir William Craven and Mr. Rushworth To whom Mr. Moyer in the name of the rest of the Commissioners answered That they had not fully considered of the Informations against the Lord Craven But said that very speedily a Copy of the Charge should be delivered and power should be given to the Lord Craven to examine and cross examine witnesses whereupon at that time they departed being confident that they should never be deprived by those Commissioners of that common justice of being heard before condemnation March 4. 1650. The Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall having taken into The Commissioners scruple to Sequester the Lord Craven consideration the said Informations of Faulconers Reylys and Kitchingmans were not satisfied in their judgements that they could Sequester the Lord Craven thereupon Wherefore they presented their doubt in that case to the Council of State which doubt or quere of theirs as it is recorded and recited in an order of the Council of State was as followeth Tuesday 4. Martij 1650. At the Council of State at White-Hall Upon perusall of the depositions touching the Lord Craven presented to this Council from the Commissioners for Sequestrations c. sitting at Haberdashers-hall And of their certificate wherein they mention that they have given orders for the seizing and securing the said Lords estate but offer it as a doubt whether the Parliament hath made it matter of Sequestration for any person living beyond the Seas to hold correspondency with or repair to the person of the now King of Scots when he was beyond the Seas And desire it may be offered to the Parliament for a Rule which may inable them to proceed to Sequestration in that and other cases of like nature It is ordered by the Council that Mr. Atturny Generall do report this matter to the Parliament and in respect the retarding of Sequestrations where persons may be esteemed justly sequestrable tends much to the prejudice and disadvantage of the State to desire that the Parliament will be pleased to give some directions therein for the expediting of Justice in this and the like cases Ex. Gualter Frost Secr. March 6. 1650. Mr. Prideaux Atturney Generall makes his report to the Parliament Mr. Atturny Generals Report according to the directions of the said order which report of his is entered in the journal book agreeing verbatim with the order of the Council of State of the 4. March and he also made a report of the three
London and that he was examined there concerning the Information given by Faulconer against the Lord Craven and that after he was sworn before the Lord Mayor He gave the same evidence to the Grand Jury which he had formerly given to Captain Bishop upon his examination Whereupon the said Captain Bishop took the Writ under seal out of his hand with which he was served to appear and said to Drury How durst you be examined against the Commonwealth and not acquaint me first therewith and said further Mr. Mayor meaning the Lord Mayor had better have done something else then to have suffered that Indictment to be found and immediatly calls for a Messenger and Commits the said Drury to the custody of one Midleton a Messenger to the Council of State who forthwith carried Drury away Prisoner into the Strand to the house of the said Midleton where the said Drury was kept by him in strict custody from Monday that the Indictment was found and the Sessions begun till Saturday that the Sessions was past by which Restraint of Drury who had Faulconers own hand-writing to produce against himself and being otherwise the most material witness against Faulconer there could be no further prosecution upon that Indictment that Sessions and before the next Sessions the Bill for sale of the Lord Cravens Estate did pass After the preferring and finding of this Indictment several business of publike concernment did interrupt the Parliaments present passing of the Bill for sale So that the Parliament had several debates upon the said Act and the 20 day of July the said Bill being committed to a Committee to fill up the full number of 30 persons and to present their names unto the House Mr. Rushworth attended with a Petition in the names of Sir William Craven and Sir Edmund Sawyer and caused the same to be presented unto that Committee then sitting in the Speakers Chamber in the Parliament House therein taking notice that the Indictment of Perjury was found which Petition was as followeth To the Honourable the Committee of Parliament appointed to consider of the names of several persons to present to the Parliament whose Estates may be forthwith sold The humble Petition of Sir William Craven and Sir Edmund Sawyer Knights who have been Commissioners long intrusted by the Lord Craven in the management of his Estate Humbly sheweth THat your Petitioners in their Petition presented to the Parliament A third Petition on behalf of the Lord Craven about a Moneth since and remaining in the Clerks hand did most humbly beseech them that they would be pleased to permit such Testimony to be produced not onely by witness but by writing under the hand of Richard Faulconer the Single and Material Witness against the Lord Craven as to the Petition mentioned in Faulconers Deposition which they hoped would make it clearly appear unto the Parliament that the information given by the said Faulconer upon which the Vote which then passed for the Confiscation of the Lord Cravens Estate is chiefly grounded is altogether false and untrue in all the Material parts of his Examination That the Parliament not thinking fit to permit the said Petition presented as aforesaid to be read the said Faulconer is since indicted of Perjury and the Grand Jury have accordingly found the same That a Warrant was accordingly obtained to apprehend the said Faulconer thereby intending to have brought him to his speedy Trial all Perjuries being excepted by the Act of Oblivion but one of the chief Witnesses against the said Faulconer who gave Evidence to the Grand Jury being since restrained of his Liberty was the only obstruction why in a Legal course the Law was not prosecuted against the said Faulconer this last Sessions at Newgate Your Petitioners humbly beseech you that you would be pleased to present to the Parliament the consideration of the whole matter that this business may be further and speedily examined in Parliament or otherwise as they in their wisdom shall think fitting and that in the mean time the Lord Craven may be omitted out of the present Bill of sale And your Petitioners shall pray c. This Petition was delivered to Aldermam Allen then Chairman to the Committee sitting in the Speakers Chamber upon the Bill for sale and word was sent up with the said Petition that there were some attending at the door to avow the same and accordingly the Petition was read at the Committee but they thought not fit to take any notice of the information therein given nor to report the same to the Parliament that their pleasure might be known thereupon The Parliament again had in debate the said Act upon a Report thereof made by the Lord Grey of Grooby and past many of the Amendments whereupon it was much pressed by several Members that a Petition in the name of Sir William Craven and Sir Edmund Sawyer on the behalf of the Lord Craven might be read before the Act did pass the House at that time thought not fit to hear the same but declared that before the Bill was put to the question the Petition should be read and shortly after ordered the Bill to be ingrossed and to be brought into the House on Tuesday August the third Tuesday August 3. 1652. Accordingly on that day the Speaker tendred the ingrossed Act to the House to be put to the question to pass as a Law And the Member of the House in whose hands the Petition remained as he Sir Gilbert Pickering went into the House was desired by the Petitioners to present the Petition and to procure them to be called in to avow the same for that they would make good every particular in the said Petition and more if need required then what was thetein contained which said Member went into the House and accordingly presented the same which was read by the Clerk and is remaining still in his custody and was in these words To the Supream Authority of this Nation the Parliament of the Common-wealth of England The humble Petition of Sir William Craven and Sir Edmund Sawyer Knights who have been Commissioners long intrusted by the Lord Craven for the managing of his Estate Humbly sheweth THat your Petitioners in their Petition presented to the Parliament A fourth Petition on behalf of the Lord Craven above a Moneth since and remaining in the Clerks hands did most humbly beseech them that they would be pleased to permit such Testimony to be produced not only by Witness but by writing under the hand of Richard Faulconer the single and material Witness against the Lord Craven as to the Petition mentioned in Faulconers deposition which they hoped would make it clearly appear unto the Parliament that the Information given by the said Faulconer upon which the Vote which then passed for confiscation of the Lord Cravens Estate is chiefly grounded is altogether false and untrue in all the material parts of his examination That the Parliament not thinking fit to
permit the said Petition so presented as aforesaid to be read the said Faulconer is since indicted of Perjury and the Grand Jury have accordingly found the same That a Warrant was obtained to apprehend the said Faulconer thereby intending to have brought him to his speedy Trial all Perjuries being excepted out of the Act of Oblivion but one of the material Witnesses after he gave evidence to the Grand Jury was the same day commited at White-Hall to the custody of one Midldton a Messenger of the Council of State and by him kept in strict custody till the Sessions was ended which was the only obstruction why in a Legal course the Law was not prosecuted at that time against the said Faulconer Your Petitioners take the boldness humbly further to inform the Parliament that it appears by search in the books kept at New Prison and Newgate That the said Richard Faulconer was committed first to New Prison and then to Newgate in April Sessions 1651. upon suspition of Felony where he should have been tried for the fact but that as your Petitioners are informed and hope to prove there was a stop made to the said proceedings meerly upon an Affidavit That he was in the Parliaments service besides it is well known that the said Faulconer was altogether a Stranger to the Lord Craven and hath since his coming over lately confessed to Testimony of good Credit that the Lord Cravens deportment at Breda was altogether inoffensive as to the Commonwealth of England and that he understood nothing of the said business more then that a consideration was desired to be had of the present wants and great necessities of the Petitioners All which your Petitioners humbly submit to the consideration of the Parliament beseeching you to omit the Lord Craven out of the Bill of Sale till this business be fully examined in Parliament or by a Committee or such other way as you in your wisdom shall think fit and until that other Examinations taken by some deputed by the Council of State which as is reported tend to clear the Lord Craven be reported to the Parliament as well as those Examinations have been which seem to make against the Lord Craven And your Petitioners shall pray c. After the reading of the said Petition there was very great debate about the same but none of the desires in the Petition were thought fit to be granted and thereupon it was put to the question Whether the Lord Craven should stand in this Bill to have his Land sold and it was carried in the affirmative by three voices there being 23 in the affirmative and 20 in the negative the Votes which passed that day were in these words following viz. Tuesday the third of August 1652. A Bill for sale of several Lands and Estates forfeited to the Commonwealth for Treason appointed to be sold for the use of the Navie was this day read the third time The humble Petition of Sir William Craven and Sir Edmund Sawyer Knights who have been Commissioners long intrusted by the Lord Craven in the management of his Estate was this day read An intercepted Letter directed A Monsieur Monsieur Carleton a Ezglisse de Chapelle Bruzelle was this day read The question being put that William Lord Craven do stand in the Bill it passed in the affirmative Resolved by the Parliament that William Lord Craven do stand in the Bill Hen. Scobel Cler. Parliam After the passing of these Votes several Members of the House were acquainted that a great part of the Lord Cravens Estate was entailed and especially Comb-Abby a Mannor of the Lord Cravens worth 2500 li. per annum entailed by John Lord Craven upon Sir William Craven and the heirs male of his Body the very next in remainder at this day after the now Lord Craven which entail was had in consideration at the marriage of Sir William Craven with Elizabeth daughter to Ferdinando Lord Fairfax the Lord Craven then engaging not to destroy the same Thus much being intimated to several Members of the House it was answered by some of them that special notice was taken of the entayling of this Estate and that a Clause was added to this Act which was not in the former Bill for sale which would resolve the question A Copy of which Clause being procured and agreeing with that which was afterwards in the printed Act was in these words And be it further Enacted by this present Parliament and by Authority thereof That all Reversions and Remainders expectant upon any Estate tail upon any convetance made by the said Traitor or Traitors or anyother person or persons by or under whom they or any of them Claim of any the Manors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of any the Traitor or Traitors in this Ast or in the aforesaid Act for Sale of several Lands and Estates forfeited to the Commonweath for Treason named not actually vested in the possession of such Tenant in Tail by the death of such Traitor or Traitors before the Five and twentieth day of March One thousand six hundred fifty two which by Fine and Recovery might be Docqued by any of the said Traitor or Traitors are and shall be to all Intents and Purposes Forfeited for their said Treasons And as well the said Traitors and their Heirs and Assigns and all other persons and their heirs in Reversion or Remainder upon any such Estate shall be for ever barred as if such Traitor or Traitors had actually levied a Fine and suffered a Recovery for doing thereof Any Allowance Law Statute or Vsage to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Wednesday August the 4. 1652. The House again resuming the debate of the ingrossed Act for Sale A Proviso was tendered by Mr. Strickland on the behalf of Sir William Craven who was privy to the agreement of the said marriage of Sir William Craven viz. Provided that this Act nor any thing therein contained shall extend A Proviso tendered on the behalf of Sir William Craven rejected to make void any remainder use or reversion setled upon Sir William Craven Knight out of the Estate of William Lord Craven or John Lord Craven his brother whose Estate is since descended to William Lord Craven at or before this marriage with Elizabeth daughter of Ferdinando Lord Fairfax deceased any thing in this Act contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding But this Proviso after the reading thereof and some debate thereupon was rejected And the Bill for Sale of the Lord Cravens Estate immediatly thereupon passed as a Law The Lord Craven shortly after having notice that the Bill was The Lord Craven resolvs of a further address to the Parliament past for Sale of his Estate and that the Surveyors were sent down into the Country to Survey the same in order to a present Sale and being desirous to preserve the same though confiscated yet from being cantanized into several hands was desirous again humbly to Petition the Parliament and
of the Lord Cravens Estate did pass upon the report of the said Depositions which he presented to the Parliament from the Council of State Mr. Fermin Chief Clark to Mr. Scobel Clark of the Parliament Faulconers deposition entred in the Journal of Parliament did depose in Court that the very same Depositions shewed in Court to Mr. Attorney General endorsed with the Lord Bradshaws hand-writing were entered in the Journal Book as read in Parliament that day when Mr. Attorney General did make his report unto the Parliament which he knew the better to be true for that he received the same from the hands of Mr. Scobel or Mr. Darnel the Clark assistant in Parliament the same day they were read in Parliament to be entred in the Journal Book and Votes of confiscation entred with Faulconers deposition that he did enter the same accordingly with the Votes of confiscation which passed upon the reading of those Depositions and afterwards he and Mr. Darnel did examine the said Depositions whereof the said Faulconers was one after the same were so entred into the Journal Book The Journal Book of Parliament produced in Court to prove Faulconers deposition And for the further satisfaction of the Court he produced the Journal of Parliament wherein the said Depositions and particularly that of Faulconers were entred which were read in Court out of the Journal whereby it did appear that the Depositions of the said Faulconer Kitchingman and Reyly were entred into the said Journal and did agree verbatim with the Copy of Faulconers and their Depositions remaining at Haberdashers-Hall and with the Copy reported by Mr. Attorney General from the Council of State to the Parliament Mr. Winslow one of the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall Mr. Winslow produced to prove Faulconers deposition being one before whom the said Faulconer was sworn did testifie upon Oath in Court that the deposition of Faulconer produced unto him and whereupon there was an endorsement of the Lord Bradshaws hand-writing Was as he did believe a true Copy of that deposition to which the said Faulconer was sworn at White-Hall for that he findeth his own hand subscribed thereunto as examined by him to be a true Copy and said it was usual with the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall when they take Examinations concerning any person of quality to appoint one of themselves to go from the Table to examine the Copy by the Original But whether when he subscribed his name unto the Copy produced unto him he did examine the same by the original deposition before it was sent for away by the Council of State or afterwards or by the transcript remaining upon the File as a Record at Haberdashers-Hall he could not positively remember But conceives that the Copy to which his hand is subscribed as examined by him to be a true Copy was taken when they had the Original in Custody but cannot certainly say it Mr. Barners Another of the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall Mr. Barners produced to prove Faulconers deposition before whom also the said Oath was taken did testifie upon Oath that to the best of his remembrance the particulars mentioned in Faulconers deposition then read in Court were the same to which the said Faulconer was sworn unto by himself and the rest of the Commissioners though he could not remember every Syllable and Letter Mr. Winslow and Mr. Barners were again produced to declare The clause of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells c. proved by Mr. Winslow and Mr. Barners what they did remember concerning this clause in the deposition of the said Faulconer viz. That several officers about thirty in number made a Petition to the King of Scots to entertain them to fight for him against the Commonwealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells either in England or Scotland c. and thereupon Mr. Winslow did declare unto the Court that he did well remember that clause in Faulconers deposition when he was sworn thereunto but whether the number of Officers were thirty or no he could not tell but a certain number of Officers were named Mr. Barners did declare the like but whether the word Inhumane Mr. Barners was in he could not positively say But was certain that Barbarous Rebells was contained in that clause and that when Faulconer was sworn unto the same it was first read unto him and amended in several places and then he swore it to be true And Mr. Barners said that he did remember his deposition the better for that himself and the rest of the Commissioners had severall debates upon it at Haberdashers-Hall whether they should thereupon Seize Sequester or secure the Lord Cravens estate Having thus traced this Oath of Faulconers which was taken at White-Hall and brought to Haberdashers-Hall afterwards brought from Haberdashers-Hall back again to White-Hall and from White-Hall to the Parliament and there entred in the Journal book as the grounds upon which the Vores of confiscation did pass and having withall proved that particular clause of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells c. the Counsel for the Commonwealth concluded as to that point and left it to the Jury to Judge and to Faulconer to produce the Original which he hath got into his custody if he can find any variance in it from the deposition recited in the Indictment And to prove that Faulconer had got the Original Oath into his custody Mr. Knight a witness was produced who did testifie upon Oath that being in the company of Faulconer he did shew him a writing written with Captain Bishops own hand so far as he could judge one mans hand to be like another and that Faulconers name was subscribed thereunto and that Faulconer told him the said Knight that that writing was the Original Deposition he was sworn unto against the Lord Craven and which he kept on purpose to keep Mr. Bishop in aw Faulconer being then in necessity and want and that the said Faulconer further said unto him the said Knight that he had received 20. li. for the business of the Lord Cravens and was to have more but said he deserved 2000. li. for what he had done In the next place the Counsel for the Commonwealth did apply themselves to prove the falsity of the Oath viz. That there was no such thing in the Petition mentioned by Faulconer in his Deposition As that thirty officers did Petition to be entertained to fight for the King of Scots against the Commonwealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells c. and being to prove a Negative they applied their proof to a certain time and place which Faulconer in his own Deposition did prove for them for he swears that the Petition was delivered the Evening before the King of Scots went from Breda and that the said King went away the next morning at three a clock He swears further that he and Drury drew the Petition and were deputed to deliver the same accordingly they
by Mr. Bishop to the same effect which he had now done in Court being asked by the Court if the words Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells were in that first Petition the said Drury answered Faulconers endeavour to have Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells inserted in the Petition that Faulconer moved to have Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells inserted into that Petition so drawn by himself but was answered by the Petitioners that they were Souldiers of fortune it was uncivil language and so they would not give way unto it being demanded by the Court who was deputed to deliver the last Petition he said Captain Brisco was one in regard he had many wounds at Canon-Froom that the King might commiserate his case the more and that he the said Drury was also deputed with Brisco to deliver the same because he was known to the Queen of Bohemia and some other persons of quality and Faulconer was not at all deputed Being asked if the Lord Craven was present at the delivery of the first Petition He answered no the Petition was delivered three weeks before But the Lord Craven was present when the last Petition was delivered to mind the King of his promise the said Drury further informed the Court that afterwards Faulconer being discontented that he got no moneys said as he was going into the Town This is a horrid thing that we should Faulconer swears he will into England and do mischief be in this case to follow a thing they call a King God dam me I will go into England and do all the mischief I can Proofs as to the Credit of Faulconer IN the next place the Counsel for the Commonwealth did apply Mr. Woolridge's Testimony against Faulconer themselves to offer proof as to the credit of Faulconer Mr. Woolridge of Clements Inn Attorney at the Common Law being sworn did testifie to this purpose That being in his chamber at Clements Inn about this time 12 Moneth Faulconer came to him asked how some of his Countreymen neer Petersfield did that he asked Faulconer where he had been of so long a time Who answered he had been in the Low-Countries had seen some Lords sit in Counsel for the King that he had been sworn against the Lord Craven which would bring a great deal of advantage to the State that he had moneys for the doing of it and said that he had received already 80. li. it was that summe here mentioned said Mr. Woolridge to the best of his remembrance but Faulconer said he did expect Faulconers confession that he had received 80. li. for what he had done in the Lord Cravens busines a greater reward that the said Faulconer hath been as wicked a man as any in England that he spent his Estate and left the Countrey did wicked acts while he was there that being at Petersfield he drunk an health to the Devil in the middle of the Street of which information being given we sent to the Justice of the Peace in the Town and had him bound over to the Sessions for doing of it but said he did not see him drink the Health to the Devil Mr. Jackson of Petersfield being produced testified about Faulconer drinks a health to the Devil upon his knees five years ago Faulconer was Ranting and Drinking of Healths that he did drink a health to the Devil and said this I have spent my Brothers Estate and my own I will never want money for whilst there is any in the Nation I will get it one way or other and I will do something of Infamy to be talked of that the name of Faulconer shall never dye being asked in what manner he did drink the health he answered in the street down upon his knees that he was present and thousands can witness it that he was had before a Justice of Peace for it James Greham being sworn did testifie that in May 1647. after Faulconers attempt to Bugger a man Faulconers Oaths the Siege at Excester it was his fortune to fall into the company of Faulconer and as he was with him in the Cellar he was swearing Dam him Blood and Wounds takes a two twenty-shilling piece of Gold puts it into his hand and said God dam him Blood and Wounds he would bugger his soul to Hell and these words he used frequently to Man Woman and Childe bugger bugger bugger and correct him for it he would say Dam him blood and wounds he would do it being asked by the Court if Faulconer did any thing upon him he answered no He was able to deal with as good Man as he Mr. Hughes hath often heard Faulconer swear dam him and sink Faulconer a Dammee blade Faulconer said Christ was a Bastard him and such wicked expressions Mr. Bradley did testifie that he heard Faulconer say our Saviour Christ was a Bastard and a Carpenters son and carried a basket of Tools after his Father Mr. Dyer being produced did declare that Faulconer confessed Faulconer procures one to personate another man to him that he had Ten pound of a man by procuring one to personate Captain Bishop it was thus as Faulconer told him that a Citizen as he remembred Faulconer said did desire Faulconer to get Captain Bishop to do a business for him which Citizen did promise him twenty pound ten in hand and ten afterwards whereupon Faulconer said he got one to personate Captain Bishop and to go along with him to the Citizen which man so personating Captain Bishop promised the Citizen upon the account of Major Faulconers good services for the publick to afford him his best assistance in the effecting of what was desired in his Petition which Story Faulconer himself told And Faulconer further said Faulconers intent to murder Captain Bishop that Captain Bishop had used him ill in keeping him so low in money that he had it one time in his thoughts as Captain Bishop came from the Committee-Chamber through the Guard-Chamber down the Stairs to have cut his throat being asked by the Court what moneys Faulconer had of Captain Bishop he answered he paid to Faulconer with his own hands by Captain Bishops directions Fifty pound paid to Faulconer by Captain Bishops direction Faulconer counterfeits another mans hand to get money of Captain Bishop twenty pound at one time and about thirty pound more at other times in several Portions that Faulconer confessed to him he had twenty pound afterwards being demanded what it was for he gave that money he said I will not speak to that I cannot speak to that Capt. Ballard being produced did testifie that about three or four years ago he came to Faulconers Lodging and saw him write a Letter in his chamber and that he writ it as if it had come from Colonel Burgess from Jersey and set Burgess his name to it and Faulconer would have had him the said Ballard to carry this Letter to one Captain Bishop that belonged to the Council of State and to say
he had the Letter from one of Bristol and get some money of Bishop for that Intelligence mentioned in the Letter of which the said Ballard was to have half but he the said Ballard refused to go with the same knowing it to be unjust Mr. Powel a Justice of Peace of the County of Middlesex did Faulconer committed to Newgate for suspition of Felony testifie to the Court that this Faulconer was brought before him upon suspition of Felony and committed which Mittimus he produced in Court that afterwards the Lord Chief Justice Rolls did send for him out of New Prison to Newgate that Faulconer hath A reputed high-way man Faulconer committed to Ailesbury Gaol for suspition of Felony Robbery and murder a common name for a Robber upon the high way Mr. Goodman Gaoler of Ailesbury did testifie unto the Court that the said Faulconer the 20th of March 1648. was committed to Ailesbury Gaol by Sir Thomas Sanders Mr. Bulstrode and two other Justices of the Peace upon suspition of Felony Robbery and Murthers and tendered a Certificate thereof in Writing unto the Court. The Defence made on the behalf of Faulconer 1. THe evidence being given on the behalf of the Common-wealth Mr. Windham Mr. Latch Mr. Lechmore and Mr. Haggat of Counsel for Faulconer did offer something to the consideration of the Court before they did produce their witnesses viz. That although it concerns every man that perjury should be punished Matter offered by Faulconers Counsel before they descended to Proof For every mans Life Liberty Fortune and Estate depends upon an Oath and in these times it is somewhat dangerous if they should be forsworn So on the otherside if Faulconer be not forsworn it is but just he should be acquit That the Counsel for the Commonwealth have endeavoured to prove that there was a Petition but that there was no such words in the Petition as are suggested and have endeavoured to impeach the credit of Faulconer That they have produced a Copy of Faulconers Oath which ought not to be admitted because it is but a Transcript of a Transcript a Copy of a Copy brought from Haberdashers-Hall to the Council of State and from the Council of State to the Parliament and there the Copy is entred in the Journal Book And the witnesses that have been produced do not swear positively to the Oath as it is in writing and one particle may turn the whole sense of an Oath And though these words Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells were in it Yet how it is applied and how the sense of it fals it cannot be judged but by the Original writing it self and it concerns the Counsel for the Keepers to produce it How it should come into Faulconers hands there is no account given but by one Knight Who saith Faulconer shewed him a thing which Faulconer said was his Original deposition against the Lord Craven but the credit of Knights Testimony is left to the Jury It is sworn that that Copy produced in Court was examined but Mr Winslow doth not positively say it was examined by the Original when in their custody That as to the witnesses produced against the credit of Faulconer they did hope to counterpoise his life to be as of a man that might be credited That in the Petition delivered at Breda there is something of those words though there be not Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells which was but a nominal thing yet the prostrating of themselves to prosecute the cause is desired may be observed though the actual words be not there yet the sense doth bear it that the case is somewhat hard with Faulconer who was imployed at the Court at Breda as an Emissary as a Spye And at his return in giving an account of his observations at Breda let something fall concerning the Lord Craven without any design in him and that what Faulconer delivered in his deposition was with qualifications as he did believe to his best remembrance and the like Hereupon Captain Bishop was produced on the behalf of Faulconer Captain Bishops dicourse not applicable to the perjury in question as a witness whose discourse was long and consisted of three parts 1. It took notice how the Council of State sent for him from his habitation at Bristoll to be imployed in matters of great trust and afterwards what trust was reposed in him and Mr. Scot in order to the safety of the Nation 2. By way of Argument on behalf of Faulconer he did declare what services Faulconer had done for the Commonwealth and that Faulconer was one by whom this Commonwealth sate safe at this hour and by whom he enjoyed his life And what an ill requitall this was to be thus proceeded against The third part of his discourse was to declare what particular designs the State formerly had in hand and what designs the enemy had against the State and what service he did to countermine the enemy in their designs The last of the three being not as was conceived so advisedly spoken in publike and which would be more unfit to be in print Shall therefore here be past over in silence as also what Captain Bishop said at large concerning the two first particulars In respect they are no proofs pertinently to be applied as to the perjury in question A brief account only shall be therefore given what Captain Bishop properly spoke as a witness As a witness Captain Bishop said he had never seen Faulconer The substance of Captain Bishops Testimony in drink or misbehave himself but ever observed him as a sober man that he did draw Faulconers information which Faulconer did deliver as the substance and that he must say that the words or to that effect should have been put in and that it was his fault they were not in and he could not tell but that they were in That the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall were desired to come to White-Hall to Administer an Oath to the said Faulconer privately least danger should befall the witnesses if they were discovered That Horsnel was formerly an Agent for the Prince and was to receive orders from Tom Cook in the Tower and was ordered to be tried by the high Court of Justice That Colonel Drury was a Papist in Arms and being brought before him to be examined still had the Lord Craven in his mouth before he was asked a question The like of Brisco He said that before Drury and Brisco came from beyond Seas his Agent gave him notice of their coming And thereupon he laid wait for them and caught them that Drury said when he was examined that he had not a penny of money that he did not commit him to Prison but took his Paroll and in commiseration gave him two shillings six pence for his Supper He said further that Drury did contradict himself in what he had formerly informed the Council of State and to that end produced in Court the Copy of Druries Information which being read in Court
that the words Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells should be put in but is was rejected by them that were there as a thing uncivil so their own witness concurs with Drury As for the Deposition on Record at Haberdashers-Hall which being filed there it is proof of it self which no man may aver against when it is recorded We have shewed it there traced it here brought a Copy of it endorsed with the Lord Bradshaws hand shall it be believed that a man shall be confiscated and loose his Estate and not so much as an Oath taken against him It is apparent there was an Oath and it is hoped you will believe that which the Parliament hath Recorded and expresly proved by the Gentlemen of Haberdashers-Hall here present which you will believe before any Imaginations can be made on the otherside They have endeavoured to say something touching the conversation of this man to uphold his credit But Gentlemen of the Jury You are to consider of the man what damnable blasphemy hath come out of his mouth you have heard it If a man will go so high as to kneel down to drink a health to the Devil I hope there is no excuse for that his good services must not plead for him to comply with God-dammees that will not justifie him he was not sent to do any such thing But we have not rested there Have we not proved him a personator of other men a Decoy and things that a man should be ashamed to name the two and twenty shillings peece he took out and what base vilde words he spake not fit to be repeated That will not be palliated by any service whatsoever And for that which Mr. Bishop hath said nothing shall be said against him but what appears to you that Mr Bishop hath gone beyond a witness for when he hath done his Testimony acteth and manageth the business and in that is not equal to others that do not For his expression that Faulconer is one of them by which the Commonwealth of England sits safe at this hour It is God we sit safe by and not by him I blame him not for his service but when we are upon a question of truth I say truth and righteousness is beyond all the service in the world They say my Lord Craven furthered the Petition and promised to second it Gentlemen you must distinguish that which my Lord Craven knew that which he knew not There is not one witnes from beginning to ending that ever can speak one word that my Lord Craven knew what the first Petition was In that Petition was the expression of venturing their lives which was three weeks before the latter which was singly to desire they might have money for their quarters The first Petition had some expressions relating to their former service and some expressions of their readiness for the future but that Petition my Lord Craven never saw but was delivered to one Long three weeks before and Drury did put it down in his Deposition when he was examined by Mr. Bishop which agrees with that which was read in Court But the particular time when the latter Petition or Memorial was delivered with which the Lord Craven is charged was the evening before the King went from Breda They say that here is no corruption proved and a man cannot be guilty without corruption but certainly he that swears a thing that is false it must of necessity be corrupt Faulconer swears that thirty Officers did subscribe the Petition Doth he bring any one to confirm his Testimony or the least colour of evidence to what he hath sworn It was further pressed by the Counsel for the Commonwealth that the Jury would distinguish these two things between the Petition framed and dictated by Drury and writ by Faulconer and that other Petition delivered the night before the King went from Breda the first is produced and proved to be Faulconers own hand that Petition was three weeks before which begs for maintenance and proffers service the Copy of which was brought forth before any Evidence was given by them for Drury upon his Examination before the Council of State made the same known and which agrees verbatim with that read in Court so the dictating of that Petition was by Drury the writing by Faulconer the delivery was to Secretary Long and that was the thing whereof they did expect an Account but that was not the Petition to which the Testimony of Faulconer at all goes that Petition of which this Oath is spoken and to which it is applyed is the Petition which was drawn the Evening before the Scots King went from Breda that is the Petition talked of in the Deposition that is the Petition upon which we pitch and therefore if in that Petition there be none of these words that which he hath sworn unto is false for in that Petition we say there was no such words as Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells nor such words of proffer of service or malignity but a meer desire of supply and they have not offered the least proof to the contrary And Secondly that it was not promoted by the Lord Craven for the Petition was delivered by them to the Scots King before such time as the Lord Craven came into the room so that my Lord Craven was no Promoter of the Petition and had he been a Promoter of it there was no such thing in it as might give offence no not the least mention of the Parliament or any thing that might offend and whereas they object that this Oath was not corrupt the very words of his expression are very considerable for he doth remarkably fix the words in his Deposition To sight against the Commonwealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells why would he fix such an Emphasis upon it as that was it could not be a bare mistake nor the words to this effect as Mr. Bishop would have had in could never have served the turn for to say that he would fight against the Barbarous and Inhamane Rebells or to that effect there is no such effect in the one Petition nor in the other Then a second thing is that this Faulconer being as he deposeth the contriver of the Petition it could not be a meer oversight and mistake in him And then when he could not have his desire beyond Seas to get moneys he said He would come here and do what mischief he could The Counsel urged further Gentlemen of the Jury what is become of the original Deposition it concerns not us to know no more then the Original of Depositions taken in the Countrey it lies upon them that are for the Oath to make it out It cannot be presumed that the Parliament would confiscate a Noble Mans Estate and order it to be sold would they enter it into the Journal Book and make it a Record should it come and be transmitted from Haberdashers-Hall the proper Judicatory for that business to the Council of State and from the Council of State to the Parliament and then not to be a true oath or false Copy that is not to be born that a false Copy should sell a Gentlemans Estate and that a false Copy should be recorded to stand to all Eternity After the Reply was made every Judge in Court spoke what they in their Judgement thought fit for the better direction of the Jury whereupon the Jury withdrew and the next day brought in their Verdict that they found the said Faulconer guilty of the Perjury mentioned in the Indictment The Order following was thereupon made viz. By the Court. The Defendant was this day brought into Court under the Custody Middlesex The keepers c. against Faulconer of the Marshall of this Court upon an Indictment for Perjury whereunto he had formerly pleaded Not guilty And the Jury thereupon being impannelled and sworn found him guilty of the Perjury in the Indictment mentioned And thereupon the said Faulconer is committed to the Custody of the said Marshall there to remain untill c. FINIS