tenant-General, with an army to invade Scotland, and there to pursue them as her enemies, sparing the rest. He entered into the land, made open war upon them, blew up their houses with powder, wasted their country, and drove the rebels out of Scotland. The one matter now that I am to disclose, is, that the Duke of Norfolk, knowing all this, adhered unto, comforted, and relieved the rebels themselves, by procuring money to be distributed to the Earl of Westmoreland, the Countess of Northumberland, and others of them; and this is manifest treason. The other matter is, that the Duke of Norfolk, knowing all this to be true, adhered unto, comforted and relieved the said lords of Scotland, the Queen's enemies, receivers and detainers of her rebels; and this is also treason. And first for the aid

ing of the rebels: After the rebellion and the overthrow of the rebels by the Queen's power, they fled into Scotland, where they were driven to hard shifts, and were enforced to sue to the Pope for help; they wrote to him, and the Pope granted them relief, and wrote letters to comfort them. These letters came to the Bishop of Rosse; the money was assigned in Flanders; the Bishop of Rosse sent to the Duke of Norfolk, for his advice, and for his help to convey the money to them. The Bishop thought it best to have the money sent by the west-borderers, where the Lord Herries was, and with him Leonard Dacres: but the Duke was not willing that Dacres should have part of it; but had more mind to have his brother of Westmoreland* relieved, and to that end he devised with Bannister for the sending of the money. In the mean time, behold how that course was interrupted: The Queen's Majesty had a treaty with the Queen of Scots, wherein one special article was, that the rebels should be delivered. This the Scottish Queen was loth to do; she asked the Duke of Norfolk's counsel in it; he advised her in no wise to deliver them, for that were too much against her honour; nevertheless, as he feared that the article concerning the delivery of the rebels might be some stay to the conclusion he

*The Countess of Westmoreland was sister to the Duke of Norfolk.

desired, he gave advice that the rebels should depart out of Scotland. Rosse wrote to them to that end, and therewith sent them the Pope's letters, and so they all departed into Flanders, except only Leonard Dacres, the Lord Herries, and the Earl of Northumberland, who would also fain have gone if they might; and so by this occasion, the sending of the money into Scotland was disappointed. Then was there another device taken to distribute it in Flanders; and because it should not all be suddenly wasted, it was agreed by the Bishop of Rosse, that it should be distributed monthly. This plan was opened by Barker to the Duke, who approved of it, and desired it to be done accordingly. A man was sent over for this purpose, and the money distributed. The Countess of Northumberland wrote over to the Bishop of Rosse a letter of thanks. Hereupon report was made to the Duke, that it was done as he had appointed.

Now the Duke will ask us, what proof we have hereof? We say, the Confessions of Rosse and Barker. Against this he taketh exception; he saith they are traitors, and have confessed treason against themselves, and are of no credit, and therefore not to be received as sufficient witnesses against him. This exception hath been answered already by my lords the Judges, that by the law they are sufficient witnesses; and your Lordships are to judge how far they are to be credited. But now let us examine their credit. First, for the Bishop of Rosse, he is a wise and a learned mán, a Bishop and an Ambassador, a great friend to the Duke of Norfolk; so far in credit with the Scottish Queen, that he hath been the principal manager of all her affairs; and therefore the fittest man for this treason. The Duke objects that he is so often produced for every matter against him; surely there is great cause, and great difference between him and all others. He knew all; he dealt in all; and where the rest had every one his own part only to play, the Bishop of Rosse was continually on the stage. Why should the Bishop of Rosse accuse the Duke falsely? What should move him to it? Does he speak from malice against the Duke? That cannot be; the Duke never offended him; the Duke was ever his greatest friend, and he the greatest friend

to the Duke, and the chief advancer of the marriage that the Duke so earnestly sought. Besides that, how

hath he told it? Not at first as of malice, and desirous to do the Duke an evil turn; but with leisure after other former confessions; for a long time he held off and would disclose nothing, till he could no longer withstand apparant truth disclosed by others. Again, he hath in his Confession touched his own mistress whom he loved, upon whom he depended, and to whom he could have no malice; he hath disclosed the treacheries of the Pope, so that he hath offended him also, and can get no more benefices at his hands; he hath offended the King of Spain and the Duke of Alva; he has fallen out with all his friends by his Confession; except he had been mad and a stark fool, instead of being a very wise man as he is, he would not have thrust himself into all those animosities, and have told an untruth to his own so great loss and hindrance. Would he, for malice to the Duke of Norfolk, undo his own mistress the Scottish Queen, and bring down upon himself the hatred of the Duke of Alva, the Spanish King, and the Pope? Would he endanger, and, purchance ruin himself, by confessing his own treasons, merely for malice to the Duke of Norfolk ? it cannot be; I must needs believe him; he is a credible traitor. As for Hickford and Bannister, they are both still in credit; the Duke excepteth not against them, and yet they accuse him deeply. Barker is misliked, and counted by the Duke not worthy to be believed. It is objected that he is brought forth to prove everything; that he is the base instrument always played on. But the reason why he proves so much is that the Duke so continually used him. Barker was his secretary,-- privy to all his affairs, the writer of his cyphers, and the common carrier of letters and messages between him and the Scottish Queen. Things must be done by means and instruments; heads need the service of inferior members; heads devise that which hands and feet put in execution. And, sometimes, bands and feet may become accusers of the head; as in a robbery or other shrewd turn done, the length of a foot in the snow or mire hath often betrayed the criminal. If the Duke of Norfolk had himself, for

every message and matter to be treated with the Bishop of Rosse, with Rudolphi, and the Spanish Ambassador, trotted through dirty Smithfield, and the streets of London unto Thames Street, and other places, it must needs have raised notable suspicion. But Barker, a sly fellow, of sufficient skill, exercised in these matters, and acquainted with the practices, might well go to all places without being suspected. Besides, the Duke himself agreeth with the Bishop of Rosse and Barker in confessing sundry circumstances, which he calleth his errors, and inferior faults; and as he dealt with these persons himself, and gave them credit in his own affairs, there is no reason why he should now take from them the credit of their confessions.

But it is objected there are but two of them; the fault is in the Duke of Norfolk that we produce no more, for there are more if they were here, and by the Duke's means they are absent: Liggons, Cuthbert, and Rudolphi could tell the same story, but the Duke hath caused them to be carried away. It is unreasonable, therefore, tha he should take advantage of his own wrong; and their absence must stand for great testimony against him, and be judged to concur with them that are present, and have confessed. Rudolphi, the greatest testimony of all, is indeed in person withdrawn ; but his Letters are the strongest evidence. He hath testified by his Letters against the Duke of a matter that himself well knew; not constrained, not examined, but by advertising the Duke, consistently with the tenor and course of the treason, of the answer to his message. My Lord of Norfolk says he dealt for him in other private matters, and not in this treason; if that were so, then the Scottish Queen had not commended him to the Duke; the instructions had not been so penned; the answer had not been so returned. But saith the Duke, it is true, Rudolphi talked with me indeed, he required my letters to the Duke of Alva, for the Scottish Queen; but I was angry with him, I would not write by him, I departed from him in anger, and thus in anger away he went.' And whither went he? straight to the Duke of Alva, and from thence to the Pope, even to the same places and perons to whom he should have gone for the Duke, if the

Duke had been without anger, best pleased and contented with his journey. To what intent, and of what message went he thither? even the same that the Duke said he was angry to have had mentioned to him. What effect had it? gentle audience, great promises, and agreements to the requests; as if he had travelled not for a man angry with the matter, but most desirous to have it effected. What answer returned he? even the same that accordeth with the instructions concerning the treason, the very ground and foundation of his mission. He reporteth questions asked by the Duke of Alva, agreeing only with the matter of the treason, and no private cause. He writeth of the course to be kept in execution of the treason, which he would not have done to him that was angry to hear of it. He braggeth too of his ten thousand Walloons, old beaten soldiers; -if the Duke of Norfolk had been a true man, and angry with the matter as he now saith, and had done his duty; though they had come, his Walloons, his old beaten soldiers, they might have been so new beaten of the old English fashion, as they were never so swinged in their lives!*

If the Duke says it was Barker's single device, to send these messages, to procure these treasons, and work all these mischiefs of his own head; to what end, I pray you, should Barker do it, but to advance the marriage of the Duke his master, and the Scottish Queen? and was this without the Duke's privity? could Barker compel the Duke to take a wife at his pleasure? Examine now, I beseech you, all these witnesses, and weigh their credits together; considered severally, their credit is great; join them all together, much greater; but severally examined, and all according in one, they are greatest of all, and not possible to be false. Add, too, that the Duke's own confessions of circumstances concerning himself' do exactly corre

* The reporter seems to have been greatly moved by this part of Wilbraham's speech: he says, this point Mr Attorney spake with such a grace, such cheerfulness of heart and voice, as if he had been ready to be one at the doing of it; like a hearty true Englishman, a good Christian, a good subject, a man enough for his religion, prince, and country.' It must be acknowledged that the speech an extremely good one, both as to argument and expression; and it is remarkably well reported.