Examen historicum, or, A discovery and examination of the mistakes, falsities and defects in some modern histories occasioned by the partiality and inadvertencies of their severall authours / by Peter Heylin ...

ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE REIGN & DEATH OF KING IAMES, Of GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE and IRELAND, the first.

WE are now come unto the Reign of King Iames▪ as King of England, or rather as King of England and Scotland, under the notion of Great Britain, of whose reception, as he passed through Godmanchest••r, the Historian telleth us, that,

Fol. 270. At Godmanchester in the Coun••y of Notthamp∣tonshire, they presented him with 70 Teem of Horses, &c. be∣••••g his Tenants, and holding their Land by that Tenure.] But first, God••a••chester is not in Northampton, but in Hun∣ti••gtonshire. [ 27] And secondly, Though it be a custom for those in Godmanch••ster, to shew their Bravery to the Kings of Eng∣land in that rustical Pomp, yet I conceive it not to be the Te∣nure which they hold their Lands by: For Camden, who is very punctual in observing Tenures, mentions not this as a Tenure, but a Custom onely, adding withal, that they make their boast,

That they have in former time received the Kings of England, as they passed in their progress this way, with ninescore Ploughs brought forth in a rustical kinde of Pomp for a gallant shew:

* 1.1 If onely for a gallant shew, or a rustical Pomp, then not observed by them as their Tenure, or if a Tenure, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from

ninescore to 70. all Tenures being ••ixt, not variable at the will of the Tenants.

Fol. 273. This most honorable Order of the Garter, was [ 28] instituted by King Edward the third, &c.] So far our Author, right enough as unto the ••ounder, and rig•••• e∣nough as to the time of the institution, which he placeth in the year, 1350. But whereas he telleth us withal, that this Order was founded by King Edward the third, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 John of France, and King James of Scotland, being then Pris••ners in the Tower of London, and King Henry of Castile, the Ba∣stard expulst, and Don Pedro restored by the Prince of Wales, called the Black Prince; in that he is very much mistaken. For first, It was David King of the Scots, not Iames, who had been taken Prisoner by this Kings Forces, there being no Iames King of the Scots, in above fifty years after. Se∣condly, Iohn of France was not taken Prisoner till the year 1356. nor Henry of Castile expulsed by the Prince of Wales, till ten years after, Anno 1366. By consequence, neither of those two great Actions could precede the Order: But worse is he mistaken in the Patron Saint, of whom he tells us, that,

Fol. 273. Among sundry men of valor in ancient days, was Geo. [ 29] born at Coventry in England, &c.] This, with the rest that fol∣lows, touching the Actions and Atchievements of Sir George of Coventry, is borrowed from no better Author, then the doughty History of the Seven Ch••mpions of Christendom, of all that trade in Knighthood-errant, the most empty Bable: ••But had our Author look'd so high as the Records of the Order, the titles of Honor writ by Selden, the Catalogue of Honor, pub∣lisht by Mills of Canterbury, Camdens Britannia, or any other less knowing Antiquary, he might have found, that this most noble Order was not dedicated to that fabulous Knight, S••••. George of Coventry, but to the famous Saint and Soldier of Christ Jesus, St. George of Cappadocia: A Saint so univer∣sally received in all parts of Christendom, so generally attest∣ed to by the Ecclesiastical Writers of all Ages, from the time

of his Martyrdom, till this day; that no one Saint in all the Calender, (those mentioned in the holy Scriptures excepted onely) can be better evidenced: Nor doth he finde in Mat∣thew Parts, that St. George fought in the air at Antioch in be∣half of the English (the English having at that time no such i••••eress in him) but that he was thought to have been seen fig••ting in behalf of the Christians.

Fol. 275. Earldoms without any place are likewise of two kindes, either in respect of Office, as Earl-Morshal of England, or by Birth, and so are all the Kings Sons.] In the Au∣thority [ 30] and truth of this I am much unsatisfied, as never ha∣ving met with any such thing in the course of my reading; and I behold it as a diminution to the Sons of Kings to be born but Earls, whereby they are put in an equal rank with the eldest sons of Dukes in England, who commonly have the Title of their Fathers Earldoms. since it is plain they are born Princes, which is the highest civil Dignity next to that of Kings: It was indeed usual with the Kings of England, to bestow upon their yongest Sons some Earldom or other, un∣til the time of Edward the third; after which time, they were invested with the Title of Dukes, as appears evidently to any who are studied in their Chronologies: But that they, or any of them, were Earls by Birth, is a new piece of learn∣ing, for which if the Historian can give me any good proof, I shall thank him for it.

Fol. 278. Henry the eight thus cousened into some kindness, both by his own power and purse, makes Charls Emperor, and the French King his Prisoner, 1519.] Neither so, nor so: [ 31] For first, though King Henry did contribute both his power and purse to the taking of the French King Prisoner, yet to the making of Charls Emperor, he contributed neither the one nor the other. And secondly, though Charls were cre∣ated Emperor, Anno 1519 yet the French King was not ta∣ken Prisoner till six years after, Anno 1525.

Fol. 31••. Oswald united the Crowns of England and Scot∣land, which were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 afterwards for many Ages.] (3••) That

Oswald King of Northumberland here mentioned, was a Pu∣i••••ant Prince (as being the ninth Monarch of the English) I shall easily grant; but that he united the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland, is not any where found: Our Author therefore must be understood, of his uniting the two Realms of De••ra and Pernicia, (part of which last, hath for long time been accounted part of Scotland) which after his de∣cease were again divided.

Fol. 317. Whose Results, notwithstanding, are not to be ob∣truded on the S••culars, to be obs••rved with the Authority of Laws, until they be allowed by assent of the King and both [ 33] Houses.] An error far more pardonable in our present Author, to whom the concernments of the Church are not so necessary to be known or studied, then in our Church Hi∣storian, where before we had it, and which hath had a full Con••utation in our Animadversions, to which, for brevity sake, I shall now refer.

[ 35] Fol. 320. Rory Duke of Solia from France.] Either the Printer or the Author are mistaken here: The Ambassa∣dor who was sent from France, was neither called Rory, nor Duke of Solia, but Marquess of Rhosney, created afterward Duke of Sully, and Lord High Treasurer of that Kingdom, by King Henry 4. A Protestant, and therefore purposely se∣lected for that imployment: Of whom it is reported in the conference at Hampton-Court, that having observed the or∣der and gravity of our Church Service, in the Cathedral Chu••ch at C••n••erbury, he was heard to say, that if the like had been used in France, there would have been many thou∣sands of Protestants more then were at that present.

[ 36] Fol. 329. Ce••il fo•• his good Service was created Earl of Sa∣lisbury,] That is to say, (for so it must be understood) for his activity and diligence in discovering the Powder-Treason: But he was Earl of Salisbury before that Discove∣ry, call'd so by the Historian himself, in the course of tha•• Na••rative, and made so by King Iames in the M••y fore∣go••ng, at what time also, his Brother, Thomas Lord

Burley was made Earl of EXCESTER.

The like mistake I finde in the advancement of Thomas Lord Buckhurst to the Earldom of Dorcet, plac'd by the Au∣thor, fol. 342. in the year 1605. whereas indeed he was crea∣ted Earl of Dorcet in the first year of King Iames, March 13. Anno 1603.

Fol. 333. The Earl of Flanders, &c. being by Storm cast upon our Coast, &c. was fain to yield to all the Kings demands, in delivering up the Countess of Warwick, and other Fugitives resident in Flanders.] This story is well meant, but not right∣ly told, there being at that time no Earl of Flanders (com∣monly [ 38] so called) to be cast upon the Coast of England, nor any such Woman as a Countess of Warwick, whom King Henry the seventh could be afraid of; the truth is, that the person here meant, was Philip King of Castile, Duke of Bur∣gundy, Earl of Flanders, &c. who in his return from Spain, was driven by Tempest on the Coast of England, and being Royally Feasted by King Henry the seventh, was detained here till he had delivered into the Kings hands the Earl of Suffolk, who had fled into the Nether-lands for protection, and began to work new troubles against his Soveraign: The story whereof we have at large in the History of King Henry the seventh, writ by the Lord Viscount St. Alban, from fol. 222. to 225.

Fol. 334 The fate of that Family evermore false to the crown] This spoken of the Piercies, Earls of Northumberland, [ 39] too often false to the Crown, though not always so: For Hen∣ry, the second Earl of this Family, lost his life fighting for King Henry the sixth, in the Battle of St. Albans, as Henry his Son and Successor also did at the Battle of ••owton: And so did Henry the fifth Earl, in the time of King Henry the se∣venth, for his Fidelity to that King, in a tumultuous Insur∣rection of the Common People; not to say any thing of his Son and Successor, who dyed without any imputation of such disloyalty.

Fol. 362. Zutphen and Gelders did of right belong to the

Duk•• Arnold, who being Prisoner with the last Duke of Bur∣gundy, who died before Nancy, that Duke intruded upon his Possession, &c.] (40.) Not so, it was not Arnold Duke of Gelders, that was Imprisoned by Charls Duke of Burgundy, but his Son Adolphus, who having most ungratiously Impri∣son'd his aged Father, was vanquished by Duke Charls, and by him kept Prisoner, and the old Duke restored again to his power and liberty: In a grateful acknowledgement of which favor, he made a Donation of his Estates to Duke Charls and his Heirs, to commence after his decease; though it took no effect, till Conquered under that pretence by Charls the fifth, uniting it unto the rest of his Belgick Provinces, Anno 1538.

Fol. 423. Sir William Seymour, Grandchilde to the third Son and the Heir of the Earl of Hertford, created by Henry the eighth, whose sister he marryed, &c. And being thus near [ 41] the Crown, &c.] In this business of Sir William Seymer, now Marquess of Hertford, there are two mistakes. For first, the Earl of Hertford from whom he derived his discent, mar∣ried not any of the Sisters of King Henry the eighth, he ha∣ving but two Wives in all, the first, the Daughter of Filol of Woodland, from whom comes Baronet Seymer of the West; the second, Anne Daughter of Sir Edward, and Si∣ster to Sir Michael Stanhop, from whom discends the House of Hertford, still in being: Its true, King Henry married a Sister of Sir Edward Seymer, by him created Earl of Hert∣ford, but not é contra; the Earl of Hertford married not with a sister of his.

Secondly, The nearness of this House to the Crown [ 42] of England, came not from any such Marriage of this first Earl with that Kings Sister, but from the Marriage of Edward the second Earl, with a Neece of that Kings, that is to say, with 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Daughter of Henry Duke of Suffolk, and of F••a••ces his Wife, one of the Daughters of Charls Brandon Duke of Suffolk, and of Mary the French Queen, King 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sister.

Fol. 427. The late French King, Henry the fourth, had three Daughters, the one married to the Duke of Savoy, &c] This Marriage, both for the time and person, is mistaken also. [ 43]

First, for the time, in making it to precede the match with Spain; whereas the cross Marriages with Spain, were made in the year 1612. and this with Savoy not trans-acted till the year 1618.

Secondly, for the Person, which he makes to be the eldest Daughter of Henry the fourth, and Elizabeth married into Spain to be the second, whereas Elizabeth was the eldest Daughter, and Christienne married into Savoy the second one∣ly: For which, consult Iames Howels History of Lewis the 13. fol. 13. & 42.

Fol. 428. The story was, that his Ancestors at Plough, ••lew Malton, an High-land Rebel, and dis-comfited his Train (u∣sing no other Weapon but his Geer and Tackle.] But Cam∣den, [ 44] whom I rather credit, tells us, That this was done in a great fight against the Danes: For speaking of the Earls of Arrol. he derives the Pedigree from one Hay, a man of ex∣ceeding strength, and excellent courage;

who, together with his Sons, in a dangerous Battle of Scots against the Danes, at Longcarty, caught up an Ox Yoak, and so valiantly,* 1.2 and fortunately withal, what with fighting, and what with exhorting, re-infor∣ced the Scots at the point to sh••ink and recoyl, that they had the day of the Danes, and the King, with the States of the Kingdom, adscribed the Victory and their own safety to his valor and prowess.

Ibid. But to boot, he sought out a good Heir (Gup my Lady Dorothy) sole Daughter to the Lord Denny.] This spoken of [ 45] Sir Iames Hay, afterwards Viscount Doncaster and Earl of Car∣••••sle, who indeed married the Daughter and sole Heir of the L. Denny of Waltham: But he is out for all that in his Gup my Lady, her name being Honora and not Dorothy, as the Author makes it. And for his second Wife, one of the Daughters of Henry Piercy, E. of North-Humberland; she was neither a Do∣rothy,

nor an Hei••: And therefore we must look for this Gup my Lady in the House of Huntington, that bald Song being made on the Marriage of the Lady Dorothy Hastings, Daugh∣ter of George Earl of Huntington, with a Scotish Gentleman, one Sir Iames Steward, slain afterward at ••••••ington by Sir George Wharton (who also perisht by his Sword) in a single Combate.

Fol. 429. Amongst many others that accompanied Hays expe∣dition, was Sir Henry Rich, Knight of the Bath, and Baron of [ 46] Kensington▪] Knight of the Bath at that time, but not Baron of Kensington; this Expedition being plac'd by our Author in the year 1616. and Sir Henry Rich not being made Baron of Kensington till the 20 year of King Iames, Ann•• 1622.

Fol. 434. The chief Iudge thereof, is called Lordchief Iu∣stice of the Common Pleas, accompanied with three or four As∣sistants, or Associates, who are created by Letters Patents from [ 47] ••he King.] But Doctor Cowel, in his learned and laborious work, called The Interpreter, hath informed us otherwise: This Iustice, saith he, (speaking of the chief Justice of the Kings Bench) hath no Patent under the Broad-Seal: He is made onely by Writ, which is a short one to this effect: Regina Iohanni Popham Militi salutem: Sciatis quod constituimus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I••st••ciarium nostrum Capitalem, ad Placita coram nobis ter••••∣nandum, durante bene placito nostro, Teste, &c. For this he citeth Crompton, a right learned Lawyer, in his Book of the Iurisdiction of Courts: And what he saith of that chief Ju∣stice, the practice of these times, and the times preceding▪ hath verified in all the rest.

Fol. 450. She being afterwards led up and down the King•• Army, under oversight as a Prisoner, but shewed to the people 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [ 48] if recon••iled to her Son, &c.] Not so, for after the deat•• of the Marquess D'Aucre, she retired to Blois, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 liv'd for some years under a restraint, till released by the Du•••• of E••p••rnon, and prtly by force, p••rtly by treaty, restor•• again into power and favor with her Son, which she improv••••

afterwards to an omne-regen••y, till Richeleu her great Assist∣ant, finding himself able to stand without her, and not en∣during a Competitor in the Affairs of State, mde her leave the Kingdom.

Fol. 45••. By his first Wife he had b••t one S••n, ris••••g no high∣er in Honor then K••ight and Baronet: Yet af••erw••••ds he had preferment to the Gov••rnment of Ulster P••ovince in Ireland.] This spoken, but mistakingly spoken of Sir George V••lliers, [ 49] Father of the Duke of Buckingham, and his eldest son.

For first, Sir George Villiers had two sons by a former Wife, that is to say, Sir William Villiers Knight and Baronet, who preferred the quiet and repose of a Countrey life, be∣fore that of the Court; and Sir Edward Villiers, who by a Daughter of Sir Iohn St. Iohn of Lidiard, in the County of Wilts, was Father of the Lord Viscount Gra••d••son, now li∣ving.

And secondly, It was not Sir William, but Sir Edward Vil∣liers, who had a Government in Ireland, as being by the Power and Favor of the Duke his half•• Brother, made Lord President of M••nster, (not of Vlster) which he held till his death.

And whereas it is said, fol. 466. that the D••ke twi••te•• himself and his Issue, by inter-marri••ges with the best and most ••noble: If the Author, instead of his Issue, had said his ••••n∣dred, it had been more properly and more truly spoken: For [ 50] the Duke liv'd not to see the Marriage of any one of his ch••l∣dren, though a Contract had passed between his Daughter Mary and the Heir of Pembroke; but he had so disposed of h••s Female Kindred, that there were more Countesses and ••onorable Ladies of his Relations, then of any one Family 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Land.

Fol. 458. Henry the eighth, created Anne Bullen 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Pembroke, before he marryed her.] The Author here [ 51] ••••eaks of the Creation of Noble Women, and maketh that of ••nne Bullen to be the first in that kinde, whereas indeed it as the second, if not the third. For Margaret, Daughter

〈…〉〈…〉

〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉

Fol. 4••4 And that Com••t at Ch••ists birth was 〈…〉〈…〉 But first the Star which appeared at the birth of our 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and conducted the wise men to Ierusalem, was of condition too ••ub••ime and supernatural to be called a Comet: and so resolved to be by all••learned men who have written of it.

And secondly, had it been a Comet, it could not possibly have portended the death of Nero; there passing between the b••••th of Chr••st, and the death of that Tyrant about 〈◊〉〈◊〉 year••, too long a time to give unto the influences of th•• strongest Comet. So that although a Comet did presage th•• death of Nero, as is said by Tacitus; yet could not that Co∣met be the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which the Scriptures speak of.

Fol. 48•• Ferdinand meets at Franckford, with the three 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Men••••, Colen, and Trevours; the other three Silesia▪ Moravia, and Lu••atia, failing in their persons, sent••their 〈…〉〈…〉 [ 54] I more admire at this gross pie•••• of ignorance then at all the rest, Silesia, Moravia, and 〈…〉〈…〉incorporated with the Realm of 〈◊〉〈◊〉

being n••ver qualified with sending any Electors ••or th•• choice of the Emperour. The three Electors which he mean∣eth, were the Count Palatine of the R••••ne, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marquess of Brandenburg, and they not coming in Person to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at Frackford, appeared there by their Embassadors as at other times.

A like mistake, but far more pardon••ble, o••curreth Fol. 484. Where Da••mstal is said to be a Town of Bohemia; whereas indeed it is a Town of the Land of H••ssen, the [ 55] whole Territories of the Duke of Saxony being interposed be∣twixt this Town and the nearest parts of that King∣dom.

Fol. 489. The Lord Marchers after the Conquest were re••i∣dent upon the Confines and borders of the Welch, and other places not subdued; men of valour, of high blood of the Normans, with the name and priviledges of the Earls of Chester] That [ 56] the Lord Marchers on the Borders of Wales were at first many in number as it after followeth, is a truth undoubted. But their power being contracted into fewer hands, one of them (Roger Mortimer by name) was by King Edward the third made Earl of March. The Earldome of Chester was of ano∣ther foundation; conferrd by William the Conqueror upon Hugh sirnamed Lupus, Son to the Viscount of Auranches in Normandy, with all the Rites and Privileges of a County Palatine to him and to his Heires for ever. So that this honour being appropriated to the Heirs of that House, was not Com∣municable unto any of the rest of the Marchers, nor could those Marchers claim the stile and privileges of Earles of Chester.

Fol. 490. Sir. Edward Montague had three sons, Edward the eldest Knight of the Bath &c.] The Author here [ 57] is much mistaken in the House of the Montagues.

For first, that Edward Montague▪ who was 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. was not Brother to Iames Bishop of Winchester, a••d Henry Earl of Manchester, but their Brothers Son, that

is to say, the Son of another E••ward their eldest Bro∣ther.

Secondly, besides that, Edward, Iames, and Henry, there was another Brother whom the Author names not, though he could not chuse but know the man, viz. Sir Sidney Mon∣••••••••, one o•• the Masters of the Requests to the late King 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The••••fore to set this matter right, I am to let both him and his Rea••ers know, that Sr. Edward Montague chief Justice ••n the time of King Edward the sixth▪ was father of another Edward who lived peaceably and nobly in his own Country. To whom succeeded a third Edw••rd, who 〈…〉〈…〉 in the Wars, and gained the reputation of a good Comma••der▪ the elder Brother of Iames, Henry, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 before mentioned, and the father of a fourth Ed∣•••••••• who was made Knight of the Bath, at the Coron••tion 〈…〉〈…〉 Anno 1••03 and afterwards created Lord 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Bough••on in the nin••teenth year of that King Anno 1621. which honourable Title is now enjoyed by his Son (anothe•• Edward) Anno. 1658.

And thirdly th••••gh •• grant that Dr. Iames Montag••e Bi∣shop of Winch••ster (the second Brother of the four) was of great power and favour in the time of King Iames, and might have free accesse into the Bed-chamber of that King when∣soever he pleased▪ ye•• that he was of the Bed chamber (as the Author saith) that i•• to say, admitted formerly there∣unto and one of that number, I do more then doubt.

Fol. 506. Then comes Iohn Howard &c. created by Richard [ 58] the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Duke of Northfolk, but not Earle Marshal] In this and in the ••••st that follows, touching the succession of the Earls M••rsh••••ls, there a••e many mistaken.

F••r first t••is Iohn Lord Howard was by Richard the third ••ot onely created Duke of North-folk, but Earl Mar∣••••••ll also as appears by Camd••n Fol 483.

Secondly, as well Thomas Earl of Surrey the son of this [ 59] 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as an••th••r Thomas, the son of that Thomas, were both advan••••d 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the ••ffice of Earl Marshal as is affirmed

by such as have writ the Genealogies of this noble fa∣mily

Thirdly, that Thomas Howard, whom queen Mary re∣stored [ 60] unto the Office of Earl Marsh••l, was not the Grand-c••ilde of Thomas M••wbray, ••ut the Grand-child of the Grand-child of the Daughter of that Thomas Mowbray, as will ap∣pear to any who shall search that Pedigree. But this per∣haps may be an error of the Printer in giving us the name of Thomas Mowbray for Thomas Howard.

Fourthly, though Robert Dev••r••ux Earle of Essex is by our [ 61] Author placed next after this last Thom••s H••ward in the Of∣fice of Marshal; yet sure it is, that Georg Talbot Earl of Shrewbury came in between them, advanc'd unto that Dig∣nity by Queen Elizabeth Anno 157••.

Fol. 507. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the emine••t Stru••ture of the Library of St. Iohns in Cambridge where he had been Master for many years.] This spoken of Dr. Williams then Bishop of Lincoln [ 62] and Lord Keeper, who certainly was never Master of that Colledge; though by his power and and party in that So∣ciety he advanced Dr. Gwin who had been his Tutor, unto that place, as is affirmed in the Church History of B••itain. Lib. 11. fol. 225. It may be Mr. Williams was at that time of the same minde with ••harles Mart••l, of whom it is affirmed that he chose rather to make a King then to be a King. Non ••word regn••re, sed R••gibus 〈…〉〈…〉 as the old verse hath it. Or else perhaps we may say of him as T••citus does of Muti∣an••s. Cui facil••us er••t 〈…〉〈…〉; that is to say, that it was easier for him to procure the mastership for another, then to obtain it for hims••lf. But howsoever it was, it seemes to have been carried by strong 〈◊〉〈◊〉 canvas, of which Nation both the Pupil and the Scholer were, as ap∣peareth by these H••xameters following, in which the four Competitors are thus laid before us.

〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉

Fol. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that Protestation 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Regni negotiis, but left out Quibusdam, 〈…〉〈…〉 particular cases as the King 〈…〉〈…〉] This spoken of a Protestation entred b•• ••ome of the House of Commons Anno 1621. concerning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their pretended Rights and Privileges; in which they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mista••en, (and I wonder the Author did not see it) in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the ve••y grounds on which they built it. For by the writ of summons the Commons were not called to consult of any thing either great of little, difficult or not difficult, whatso••••ver it was; but onely 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consentiendum, & faciendum, to con∣sent to and perfo••m such things as by the great Councel of the Realm•• consisting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, should be then ordained, as by the very ••writ it self doth at large appear. By which it seems that the Commons assem∣bled in Parliament, were of themselves so far from being any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 o•• that supreme Cou••t, that they were not to be coun∣ted for a part of the Kings great Councel. So that the foun∣da••ion being 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Superstructure could not stand which was built upon it. But for the Protestation which gave the first hint to those bold demands, which afterwards were made by some of the Commons, it was this that followeth.

The Protesta••ion of the Commo••s.

Ia••. 19. 1621.

THe Commons now assembled in Parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concern∣•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 L••b••rties, Franchises, and Priviledges 〈…〉〈…〉 among others here mentioned, do 〈…〉〈…〉 Protestation following: That the Liber∣•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Priviledges, and Jurisdiction of

Parliament, are the Ancient and undoubted Birth∣right, and inheritance of the Subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affaires concerning the King, State, and defence of the Realm, and of the Church of England, and the maintenance and making of Laws, and redresse of mischief and grievances, which daily happen within this Realm, are proper subjects, and matter of Counsel, and debate in Parliament: And that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of Parliament hath, and of right ought to have Freedom of Speech, to propound treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same: And that the Commons in Parliament have likewise Liberty and freedom to treat of the matters, in such order as in their judgements shall seem fittest: And that every Member of the said house hath like Free∣dom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation, (other then by censure of the house it self) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning or de∣claring any matter, or matters touching the Parlia∣ment or Parliament businesses. And that if any of the said Members be complained of, and questioned for any thing done or said in Parliament, the same is to be shewed to the King by the advice and assent of all the Commons assembled in Parliament▪ before the King give credence to any private In∣formation.

Fol. 523. Hereupon the Members became Subjects again.] This I conceive to have been spoken by the Author in the [ 64] way of Irony, as in the same way of Irony, the Members of the House of Commons were sometimes called by King Iames the Five hundred Kings: For otherwise, our Author knows, as well as any, that the Members are as much Subjects in the time of their sitting, as they are or can be after the time of their Dissolution.

Fol. 527. And though Tiberius beheaded Cremutius for [ 65] words onely.] That Cremutius Cordus was impeached in the Se∣nate for words onely, is affirmed by Tacitus: But that he was beheaded for it by Tiberius, is affirmed by none; that Author telling us, that having made his Defence in the open Senate, and returning home, Abstinenti•• vitam finivit: He ended his life by a wilful abstinence from food: Nor was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sentenced by the Senate to any other punishment, then that his Books should be publickly burnt, (Libros per Aediles cremandos censuere Patres) which was done accordingly, the shame & grief whereof, made him end his life as before is said.

Fol. 528. But in a word, their great Wealth was one notable ba•••• to the Popes, and the Gulf of other Orders, Hospitallers, Knights of the Rhodes, and St. Johns: All these together smack this Order, and swallowed their Riches at one time; by consent of all the Princes in Christendom, where they had [ 66] their Habitations.] Where were our Authors Wits when these words fell from him? Hospitallers, Knights of Rhodes, and of St. Iohns, all these together; and yet all these toge∣ther make one Order onely, as Marcus Tullius Cicero, made one onely Orator: Called by these several names, for several reasons; called Hospitallers, because they had the charge of the Hospital at Ierusalem, erected for relief of Pilgrims to that holy place.

Secondly, Knights of St. Iohns, because founded in the Church of St. Iohn in Ierusalem, and dedicated unto him as their Patron Saint.

Thirdly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Rhodes, from the setled place of their

••abitation (after their expulsion out of Palestin) from the year ••••09. till the year 1522. when forc'd to leave that Island by Sol••man the Magnificent, they retired unto the Isle of Malta, from whence now denominated.

Fol 529. From whom Digby had knowledge of that Kings Prog••ess towards ••he North of Spain, to Lerma, a Town in Bis∣••ay.] That Lerm is scituate towards the Northern parts of Spain, I shall rea••ily grant; and yet not as a Town of Bis∣••ay, [ 67] but of old Castile, scituate not far from Burgos, the chief of that Province.

So also by a like error in Topography, St. Andrews, (Saint Anderos the Spaniards call it) is made to be a part of Biscay, [ 68] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 530. whereas indeed it is a well known Haven of the Realm of Leon and Ovi••do, neighboring on the Sea to Bis••ay, ••ut no part thereof.

And now we are thus fallen on the Coast of Spain, I should ••ake notice of the Procuration which is said by our Author ••o be left with the Earl of Bristol, for impowring him to Espouse the Infant••, within ten days after the Dispensation came from Rome, fol. 552.

But hereof th••re hath so much been said by the Observator [ 69] on the History of the Reign of King Charls, published by Haimon L'Strange Esq and the defence of those Observati∣••ns against the Pamphleter, that nothing needs be added here on that occasion.

Fol. 567. Indeed the Savoy Ambassador there said, That the ••ntention of the King of Spain was, for a cross match with France for himself.•• It is not to be doubted, but that the Spa∣niard [ 70] tryed all ways, and used all Artifices to divert the Treaty of a Marriage between the Prince of Wales and a Daughter of France: But I cannot look upon it as a thing conceivable, that he should pretend to any such cross Alli∣ance for himself, as is here alledged. He had before married the eldest Sister, who was still alive, and therefore could not pretend to the yonger also: And if it was not for himself (as indeed it was not) it cannot be imagined that he could give

himself any hopes of it for any of his yonger Brethren; there being so vast a disproportion between the Heir apparent of England, and any yonger Brother of the House of Austria▪ The Ambassador of Savoy might act something in order to the service and Designs of the Catholick King, which could not be advanced by any such suggestion as is here laid downs▪ And therefore our Author might have done very well to have spared his pains in giving us such a reason for the Interruption▪ which was made in the Treaty of this Marriage by the Agents of the King of Spain, as indeed cannot stand with reason.

And thus far have I gone in running over the most materia•• errors and defects of Mr. Sandersons Compleat History, (as he calls it) of Mary Queen of Scotland, and King James her Son▪ the sixth of that name in Scotland, and the first in England▪ before the coming out of that large and voluminous piece, entituled, A compleat History of the Life and Reign of King Charls, from his Cradle to his Grave; in the doing whereof, I proposed unto my self no other ends, then first to vindicate the truth, and next to do some right to the Author himself, whom I looked on as a man well principled, and of no ill af∣fections to the Church or State: And having finished it with as much brevity as I could, it was intended onely as an Ap∣pendix to the work precedent, though now upon the coming out of the other piece, it serves as a preamble to that, as ha∣ving the precedence of it both in time and method; what mo∣ved me to the undertaking and examination of the following History, I have declared at large in the Preface unto those Advertisements which are made upon it, wherein I have carried my self, with more respect unto his person, and far less Acrimony in the Phrase and garb of my Expressions, there he hath reason to expect.

His most unhandsome dealing with me in the Book it self; seconded by a more ridiculous manifestation of his Spleen and Passion in his post has••e Reply, &c. might well

have sharpned one of a duller edge to cry quittance with him: But I consider rather what is fit for me to do, then for him to suffer, and have not yet forgot the Lesson which I learn'd in one of the Morals of my Aesops Fables, where I was taught to imitate those generous Horses, Qui latrantes ca∣viculos cum contempt•• praetereunt, which said, I pass'd on with a quiet and pacifick minde to the rest that follows.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Camden Brit. l. 510.
• * 1.2

  Camden in Scot. fol. 42.