Mr. De Labadie's Letter To his Daughter Mrs. Delabadie, Nurse to the pretended Prince of Wales.

Written in Characters, and Deciphered by Dr. Wallis, Professor of Geometry in Oxford.

Which said LETTER is referred to by Mr. Fuller in his Two Narratives, and is a plain demonstration of that hor­rid Imposture.

WITH Reflections upon it, and a full Answer to the Material Objections, in a late Pam­phlet, Entituled, The Truest Account of Mr. Fullers Discovery, &c.

By another Hand.

Printed in the Year, 1696.

Mr. De Labadie's Letter To his Daughter Mrs. De Labadie, &c.

THAT Madam De Labadie's Letters and Papers Domon­strating the Management of the suppositious Birth of the pretended Prince of Wales; were found in her fathers Trunks some years ago, and put into the hands of the Govern­ment, is very well known, the memory whereof being Lately reviv'd by Mr. Fuller, in his two Books on that Subject, [Page 4] and the truth of it called in question by another, published since, in favour of that pretended Prince: It is thought fit, for the satisfaction of the Nation, to publish the following Copy of one of those Letters from Mr. Labadie to his Daughter, with some Remarks upon it; to make it appear, that what Mr. Fuller hath advanc'd concerning that horrid Imposture, is as well Demonstrated as a thing of that nature can be, except those who were Actors in the Affair would confess it, which we have now no reason to expect.

The Reader is desired to take notice, that the following Letter directed to Mrs. De Labadie, is one of those that the Late Q. of Blessed Memory or­dered to be Printed, but the perform­ance of the same was prevented by the L. N. Pretending they were mis-laid, as Mr. Fuller acquaints us, in his further Confirmation, pag. 5. And being in Cy­phers, was amongst other Papers of that sort, Committed to the Care of Dr. Wallis, Professor of Geometry in Oxford, and by him Deciphered.

The Letter is thus. TO Mrs. De Labadie, present.

I Am so troubled about what you told me last time I saw you, that I cannot forbear any longer Writing to you; to know how her Majesty be­haves her self in that hazardous un­dertaking.

I must Confess, the only thoughts of it makes me tremble. I hope Ne­vertheless, that the Ingenuity of her [Page 6] Country, and the Goodness of her Cause will bring her off.

Lord what a happy thing it would be, if we could get a Successor for our King, that would settle our Fore-fa­thers Profession in our Country, which can never be but by this means.

I am afraid of those Hereticks that are about her, if these could be put out of the way it would be a very good thing. Adieu, my Dear, and don't fail to write to me by the bearer, and in the same hand. I rest

Your ever Loving,

Having accounted already for the Au­thority of this Letter, it remains that we proceed to our Remarks.

In the first place, the Intreigue con­cerning the Sham Prince is so plainly ex­press'd in the Letter, that it can admit of no other Gloss, yet to obviate such Ca­vils or Evasions as the Faction abounds with; we shall make the following Animadversions upon it.

Here's, in the first place, an hazard­ous matter to be undertaken by her Ma­jesty, that Mrs. De Labadie is acquainted with, and which she imparts to her fa­ther. Now her Majesties being really with Child, could not in Common sense be called an undertaking; but her Coun­terfeiting to be so, might very well be express'd by that Name, and have the Epithet of hazardous as properly ad­join'd. And Mrs. Labadie being design'd for her Nurse, she was the fittest person in the World to bear a part in the Management, and that the Queen was [Page 8] only to Act the matter, is evident from Mr. De Labadie's Concern to know how she behaved her self: Whereas had there been a real Pregnancy, and a Natural Birth, there had been no need of any such En­quiry, nor no Cause for his Trouble, but rather for his Joy.

But that the Only Thoughts of it should make him tremble, as he expresses it in the second Paragraph, is yet a plainer demon­stration of the hazard and danger to which he was apprehensive their Party would be expos'd, if her Majesty did not behave her self as she ought; which yet nevertheless he is in great hopes she will, because of the Ingenuity of her Country, and the Goodness of her Cause. It's true, that the Ingenuity of the Itali­ans, in matters of Love, has been noted for many ages, of which the Book writ­ten by her Countryman, Ovid de Arte Amandi, is a Famous Instance; but that there's any other Ingenuity, in Childbear­ing among the Italians, than what is Na­tural to all other Women, is a thing not so much as pretended to; and then, as to [Page 9] her being brought off by the Goodness of her Cause, it plainly discovers that her Cause was not the Common Cause of all Mothers, which is, by the appointment of the Almighty, to Replenish the Earth; but hers was to Replenish the Church of Rome: and this is a fresh Instance of the Principles of the Romish Party, that there are no means, how unhallowed soever, which they don't think lawful to put in practice for the advancement of their Cause.

His next Paragraph contains a plain Declaration what that Cause is, viz. To get a Successor for their King, that would settle their Forefathers Profession in their Country. This is truly very pleasant; o­ther Kings use to get Successors for them­selves; but K. Iames, poor Prince! must have one got for him. If there were not other Circumstances which prove this Imposture to be a Cheat of another Na­ture, we should be tempted by this Ex­pression, to think that our Monarch had, [Page 10] like Henry King of Castile, got some body else to lie with his Queen, seeing he was not able to get her with Child himself; but if that had been the Mat­ter, there had been no need of the Queen's being so very Circumspect in her Behaviour, nor of making use of the Ingenuity of her Country, to Coun­terfeit a Big-Belly, but it was plain that a King of Clouts, in the strictest sense, was to be Paum'd upon the Nation, and that was the true Reason which made all this Precaution Necessary.

We are at a Loss, to understand, whether by the Last Sentence, viz. Which can never be but by this means, the Author understood, that the Popish Re­ligion could never be Establisht in Eng­land without such a Successor; or that there was no other way to procure a Successor but by this means: If it be the Latter, then it is a plain demonstra­tion, that they knew the Queen to be Impotent as well as the King, or other­wise [Page 11] they might have made use of the King of Castiles Means above-mentioned, which the Goodness of the Cause, and her Majesty's Italian Ingenuity, would soon have perswaded her to; but if it be the former, then we hope it will open the Eyes of our Protestant Iacobites, and convince them, that the Chief Thing aim'd at by this Intrigue, was the over­throw of the Protestant Religion.

But the Concluding Paragraph gives us the Finishing Stroke, viz. He was a­fraid of those Hereticks that were about the Queen. Why what's the Danger from those Hereticks? why truly they sus­pected, that the Queen, like the Grecian-Horse, was Big, with Designs against our Troy; but they, poor Souls, were attend­ed with Cassandra's Fate, viz. They were not believed till the Plot discover'd it self: but if there had been no Imposture De­sign'd, Why should they be in such a Mortal dread of the Hereticks; Could they kill, with a bare Look, like the Ba­silisk? [Page 12] Might not the Queens naked Breast and Belly have been exposed to the View of the Heretical Ladies without any danger? Might not such Persons have been present at the Labour, and have been admitted to see the Child actually delivered from the Queen's Body? Or was it below the Queen of England to have been Delivered on a Pal­lat-Bed in the view of the next Heiress, any more than it was below the late Queen of France to be Delivered of the Present King upon a Pallat-bed, the Duke of Orleance, who was the next Heir, being an Eye-witness.

But the Case is plain, the Protestants who were concerned in Conscience and Interest to be strict observers, were more likely to discover the Imposture then others; and therefore it was necessary they should be put out of the way.

So that we have the True Reason from Mr. Delabadies Pen, why no Pro­testant [Page 13] Lady was ever Admitted to View the Queen's Breasts, and try the Reality of her having Milk, either be­fore, or after the Pretended Birth; and that same is the Reason why no La­dies of the Reformed Religion were ever admitted to see, or feel her Belly: and, in short, this unfolds the Myste­ry of all those Precautions made use of to Amuse the World, and to prevent a Discovery, as her different Reckonings, the keeping of the Place of her Lying-In uncertain, and the Methods taken to have all her Physicians and Servants absent at the Time of her Pretended Delivery, except those concerned in the Intrigue: And for that very same reason it was that she pretended to be delivered in Bed Covered, and that the Protestant Ladies might have no oppor­tunity to satisfie themselves, it was Or­dered, that the King and Council should be present in the Room when all things were prepared for the Im­posture, that so there should be a neces­sity [Page 14] of the Queen's being covered and a Plausible Reason why the Ladies should not desire the contrary: and by this means it was impossible that they could be either Eye-Witnesses of the Birth, or actually discover the Cheat.

We come now to Examine the Ar­guments advanced by the Author of the Pamphlet, Intituled, The Truest Account of Mr. Fuller's Discovery of the True Mother of the Pretended Prince of Wales, Born the 10th of June, 1688▪ by a Person of Quality. But before we touch on the Particulars, it is necessary that the Author should be a little Un­maskt.

He pretends, Page 1. That the Suc­cession of the CROWN is otherwise Legally and Sufficiently Secured against any Title or Plea from the said Prince, and that it may reasonably be thought, that the Noise some Little Writers have [Page 15] lately made about this Affair, has pro­ceeded only from some sordid desire of Lucre, by the Sale of their Copies, and of rendring themselves Popular and Gracious with the Unthinking Mob, ra­ther than out of any Zeal to Serve the Government.

And, Page 5. That the Persons sup­posed, or declared our Enemies, have True Faults enough to imploy our Censures, and therefore 'tis neither a part of Generosity, nor Christian Cha­rity, to charge 'em with uncertain Sus­picions, or any thing but what will bear the Test of a Visible Proof. All this is only an Amusement, by which the Author would Impose upon the World, as if he were no Enemy to the Present Government; and that he had only undertaken this Province out of a respect to Truth; but they must be very silly Birds indeed, who are caught with such Chaff: The whole design of this Pamphlet is to fix a Note of Inju­stice [Page 16] upon the present Government, as having charged such things upon the late King, as he was never guilty of, and particularly in relation to this Counterfeit Prince.

We come now to consider his Argu­ments, which are, pag. 1. That Whether the Birth of the pretended Prince of Wales were Legitimate or Supposititious, has not yet been thought a Question worthy enough to be examined by publick Authority, Which is a downright untruth; for the Late King Iames, thought it worthy to be proved by such depositions as he was able to procure, and to have the said Depositions, how Lame and Defective soever, entred on a publick Record in Chancery; as our Author owns himself, pag. 5. and 22. and that they were pub­lisht by Authority, just before the Re­volution, pag. 20. By which its appa­rent, that the Question was thought worthy of a Decision on his side, by all the authority that he was Master of, which does naturally imply that [Page 17] the truth of the matter was question­ed by some Authority or other, and that it was really so, is plain to the View of the World by the Prince of Oranges Declaration, wherein he desir'd that the Examination of this Question might be referred to a free Parliament; and this he was impowered to demand by the Authority of our Laws, ac­cording to which his Princess was the presumptive Heiress to our Crown. But King Iames durst not adventure to bring the matter to this Touch-stone, and therefore its apparent that instead of alledging, that this Question has not been thought worthy enough to be ex­amined by publick Authority, our Au­thor ought to have said, that the late King Iames durst never submit the matter to such an Examination.

But we shall suppose the Gentle­mans meaning to be this, that neither the Convention nor any of the Parli­ments, since the Revolution, have thought [Page 18] the matter worthy their Examination. And if it be so, it's the less for the Cre­dit of his Party, for then it must of necessity follow that they thought the matter so palpable that it needed no further Enquiry.

But if he mean that the Parliament or Convention ought to have made a scrutiny into this affair, before they had proceeded to the settlement of the Crown: He may be pleased to consi­der, that they were not under the least obligation to do so, for the late King had so much diffidence of the Justice of the English Nation; that he durst not trust them with the Deter­mination of the point, but immediately sent to France his Queen with her pre­tended Son, Nurse, Midwife, and other Servants, who must have been exa­mined if the matter had been submitted to their Enquiry, and having, in stead of calling a free Parliament, according to the Princes desire, recall'd the Writs [Page 19] for Summoning of one, which he had endeavour'd to make for his Interest, and then withdrawn in person from the Kingdom, the succeeding Con­vention, and following Parliaments, had all the reason in the World to take it pro confesso, that he own'd the Imposture, and therefore there was no reason that they should give themselves any further trouble about it.

The Gentleman is likewise desir'd to Consider, that the Late K. Iames, had by the methods above-mentioned rendered any such Examination wholly impracticable; for if the Parliament had been entrusted with such a Nation­al Concern, the Queen, the Child, and all the Deponents, then in being, ought to have been personally present, that they might have answered such Inter­rogatories, as the Wisdom of the Nati­on should have thought fit to pro­pound to them, but whereas instead of ordering it so, the Late King sent the [Page 20] principal persons out of the way, who could best have attested the Reality of the Birth, or of the Imposture; it's an Argument sufficient to convince an In­different person, that there were some deeds of Darkness in the Case, which could not abide the Test of an Ex­amination.

If it be answered that the Parlia­ment however ought to have summon­ed those Witnesses to appear before them, or at least to have Examined such as Remain'd behnid. We Reply that the Late K. Iames having thought it his Interest to carry off the Witnesses, would certainly never have suffered them to come, for that had been a direct owning the Convention, Parlia­ments Authority and Power, to examine and decide that Question which he would never have submitted to, tho they had been call'd by himself, and much less when they were called by another; and therefore it had been [Page 21] very imprudent in them to have de­ferred the Settlement of the Nation upon that account, especially seeing the Late King did never desire that they should make an Enquiry into that affair; and as to the Examining of the Witnesses that were left behind, it was to no purpose, seeing the most mate­rial Witnesses were carried beyond Sea, so that it if it should have hap­pened upon the Cross Examination of those that were left here, that the Im­posture should have been discovered, the party would still have raised a Cla­mour that Justice was not done them, because the most material Witnesses were absent.

Our Author, page 5. Says, he will now lay before us, Some proofs of another nature from a numerous Troop of Hon­ourable Eye-Witnesses, whose Testimony is on publick Record, and which, tho contra­dicted by Mr. Fuller and his Secretary; yet never was retracted and much less [Page 22] Condemned, nor any other Equivalent Contradictory Testimony entred as yet in the like Records against it, these all u­nanimously declare the Late Queen to be his true Mother. A very plausible sto­ry, and a handsome skreen indeed to cover the Imposture, but will no more abide the Test of an Examination, than the pretended Birth; The Gentlemans Confidence is truly superlative to im­pose upon us in this manner, as if the Depositions imported that the Depo­nents, been made by such as were all of 'em Eye-Witnesses of the Prince's Birth, when by the same depositions it's plain and evident, that the Queen was covered in her Bed, and pretend­ed to be so delivered, so that it was morally impossible for any of them to be Eye-Witnesses of the delivery; and this the Gentleman may soon be con­vinc'd of, if he do but cast his Eye on the very first of his Depositions, which is, that of the Countess of Sunderland; wherein we are told, that the Mid­wife [Page 23] pull'd her Ladyship by the Coat, which was the sign agreed on betwixt them, to let her know that it was a Son, which had been altogether Need­less if the Countess had been an Eye-Witness; and it is plainer still by the reason of the private Sign, which was, that the Queen had charg'd the Mid­wife not to let Queen Dowager know presently, whether it was a Son or a Daughter, so that neither the Coun­tess of Sunderland, nor yet the Queen Dowager, whose Religion and Cha­racter entitled her to a pretence of see­ing all that could be seen, were Eye-Witnesses of the Birth, tho present all the time of the pretended Labour. Hence then it appears, that our Au­thor does plainly equivocate in a Jesui­tical manner, for the support of his Popish Cause, for every body will ea­sily perceive the difference betwixt be­ing Eye-Witnesses, that a Child lately Born was taken out of the Bed from the Queen, where she lay covered; [Page 24] and being Eye-Witnesses that the Child was really Born of the Queen's Bo­dy.

Then whereas he says that they do all Unanimously upon Oath declare the late Queen to be his true Mother, it is notoriously false. There are many of 'em indeed who talk of the Queens being Delivered, but that proceeded on­ly from the common Idea which all Mankind form to themselves in such cases, when they see or hear of a Wo­mans being in Child-bed, but that they could justly depose upon Oath, That the Queen was his true Mother, was morally impossible, seeing they were not Eye Witnesses of his being Born of the Queen's Body.

As to their Evidences never being re­tracted, we know no reason why it should be expected, many of the Wit­nesses were so devoted to the Cause as Wilks Iurini de Labadie, &c. That to [Page 25] make use of the common Expression, they would swear through an Inch­board to serve it; and as for that part of the Evidence which relates to the see­ing of the Queen's Shift wet with Milk, and a Child taken out of the Bed from her, there's no need of retracting it, for no body questions the Truth of it; as to the Milk, it might either be Counter­feit or real, without prejudice to our Cause, it being no extraordinary Phae­nomenon in Nature for those to have Milk who have had no Children for se­veral Years, tho there's more reason to suspect a Counterfeit in this Case, and as to the Child there's no doubt of it, being taken out of the Queen's Bed, but all the question is how it came there. The Author tells us, pag. 8. in Mrs. Dauson's Depositions, That the Queen was wholly left alone immedi­ately before her (pretended) Labour, and that while she was in her imagina­ry pains, she saw the Fire carried into the Queen's Room in a Warming-Pan [Page 26] to warm the Bed, though all agree that the Pan was covered; and the Author knows the Report which did then Uni­versally obtain, that the Child was brought in the same from a neighbour­ing Apartment; and now that Mr. Ful­ler has Discovered Mrs. Mary Greys be­ing brought to bed in the Narrow Gal­lery, between the Queen's Apartment and the Great Chapple at the very same time, there's no room left to doubt but her Child was conveyed to the Queen's Bed; and if there was not some such abominable Cheat in Hand, why should the Queen have been left alone in such adangerous condition as she was then pretended to be in? Why should the King have gone to the other side of the House with all the Men? Why should all her own Servants be sent to the Chappel, as if there had been no reason to attend up­on the Queen, but that the Imposture might be carried on with the more se­crecy by the few that were to be Actors in the Intrigue.

[Page 27]What other Reason can there be as­sign'd for the Queens sudden Removal to St. Iames's, and that also in the Night; and why there was no more publick Provision made for her Lying In, and that it was not so much as talkt of, or seemingly apprehended by her Servants that very Morning, in so much that they were all sent from about her, but because they could not be certain whether Mrs. Grey should bring forth a Dead or a Living Child, or a Son, or a Daughter, till the very Critical Minute; that so if it had ei­ther been a Female or a Dead Child, they might have found some other way either to carry on the Imposture, or drop it at that time, but as soon as Mrs. Grey was delivered of a Boy, then all of a sudden the Queen's pre­tended Labour comes on: We don't know what de facto proof would satisfy our Author, but certainly all those things, together with the Queens being [Page 28] covered in Bed, and that neither of the Princesses nor their Deputies, nor none of the Privy Councellors, nor Ladies, Protestants, or Papists, were suffered to be the Eye Witnesses of the Childs being actually taken out of her Body, as they ought to have been, considering the strong and Violent suspition there was of a Cheat, I say, that all those things being Considered, it is as strong a proof of the Impo­sture, at least, as his Depositions are of the Real Birth, for which there is but one single Witness who swears positive, and that is the Midwife; a begotted Papist, and a Tool fitted for the de­sign, so that he has no reason to object against the single Testimony of Mr. Fuller, when the Title of their pre­tended Prince has no more but one to support it, and that also the Evidence of such an one whose Testimony can­not be reviv'd in a civil Cause. We would moreover, desire our Author to recon­cile the Contradiction between the [Page 29] depositions of the said Mrs. Wilks and the Lady Bellasis, the former swears that she cut The Childs Navel string in Bed, and that as soon as it was cut, the Child cried; The latter swears, that she saw the Child taken out of the Bed with the Navel-string hanging to his Belly; and opening the Receiver, saw it was a Son, and not hearing the Child cry, and seeing it a Little black, she was afraid it was in a Convulsi­on fit. Now this Lady deposes she stood behind the Midwifes Chair, and therefore it's strange she should not have heard the Child cry, as well as the Midwife. But for these things, we refer to the Compleat History of the pretended Prince of Wales, where the depositions are considered more at Large.

Then as to the Testimonies being on publick Record▪ He must give us leave to tell him, that there can be no less laid on that Examination, [Page 30] where the King was Defendant, the Papists Maintainers, so that His Ma­jesty sat as Judge, and the Popish Defendants were examined for them­selves, and none to interrupt them.

By that same Rule which the party think his present Majesty, and the Parliament were obliged to have sum­moned the Witnesses who made those depositions, in order to have made an Enquiry into that affair, the Late King was obliged to have made publick Proclamation, that all who know any thing concerning the matter should come and depose upon Oath, such their knowledge, with his Royal promise to Indemnify and not molest them, and the Examination ought to have been made in presence of the two Prin­cesses, and the Princes their Husbands, who should have had Liberty to put such Cross questions to the Evidence as they thought fit. But nothing of this being done, and the Late King [Page 31] having also declin'd to submit the En­quiry into the whole affair unto a free Parliament, our Author must give us leave to retain our suspicion; not­withstanding his strenuous endeavours to amuse the World with his Nume­rous Train of Eye-Witnesses. The In­stance of a forged Bond from a Gen­tleman in Grays-Inn, to his Laundress after he was Dead, and to which the Witness swore positively at first, pleads strongly for the necessity of Cross In­terrogatories, seeing upon the Rebound the same Witnesses who swore that they saw him sign the Bond, did af­terwards discover that it was by a Pen put in his hand, and guided by ano­ther after he was Dead.

Then as to their Testimonies never being condemned, nor any other contra­dictory equivalent Testimony entred, it's plain from what is already said, that King Iames hath rendred that im­practicable in ordinary course of Law, [Page 32] nor is it indeed necessary. Our Author being a Person of Quality, cannot be ignorant that the Imposture designed by the former Queen Mary, was never, for any thing we know, condemned by Pub­lick Authority. Nor did Queen Eliza­beth cause any contradictory equivalent Testimony to be entred against it, and yet the Truth of the Imposture is gene­rally believed, nor would it have failed of coming as great a Length as this, if Philip II. had not been of a more gener­ous temper than Iames II. and Lewis XIV.

It was certainly much better Found­ed than this last Imposture, for not only the Privy-Council sent Orders a­broad to make Prayers for the Child, but the Parliament was so far impos'd upon as to enter into the consideration of Provisions for the Child, which was far greater Circumstance of the Reality of the Pregnancy, than any thing that can be pretended to in this of the Last [Page 33] Prince of Wales, and therefore iti snot to be wondred at that so many Lords and Ladies should be deceived in this case, seeing they were not allowed to see the Actual Delivery, and so they have rendered the Birth of their sup­posed Prince, for ever uncapable of be­ing proven that way by any but the Tool of a Midwife, who cannot be ad­mitted as a Witness in Law, so that all the proof which they can pretend to now is only that the Child was taken out of the Queen's Bed, &c. whereas all this might have been prevented had the Princess of Denmark, or any o­ther Protestant Ladies been allowed to see the Child taken out of the Queen's Body.

It is also observable, that the for­mer Queen Marys Imposture was ma­naged in the same manner, for none during her pretended bigness was ad­mitted, on behalf of the Lady Eliza­beth, to view her Breasts or Belly, and several persons were put out of favour and discarded for speaking plainly in the Case, there being a General suspicion [Page 34] amongst Protestants then, as there was now, as appears by Bakers History, and Foxes Acts and Monuments; it must be own'd that Queen Marys Game was much harder to play then the Late Queens, because King Philip was an utter Enemy to the Imposture, but it cannot be so said of the Late King Iames, for it is evident that he was a Zealot in it.

It may be objected, that Queen Ma­ry Tudors design having miscarried, there was no need of making any en­quiry into that affair, or of entring a Contradictory Testimony against it. We answer that it's true, there was not the same need as in the present Case, yet if the matter could have been detected; It must be own'd that it would have been of great use, and a convincing instance to future Ages, that the Papists think no means unlawful, how wicked soever, if they can any way subserve to promote [Page 35] their Church, for this supposed Pregnancy was by the Privy Council ascribed to providence, and the Divine care of Christs only flock, for the throwing down of the Protestant Heresie, and the Physicians, Ladies of Hon­our, &c. Justify'd the Queens conception as to all signs, so that it would have certainly been of very great use at that time, and have tended much to bring the Popish Idolatry into disrepute, if the methods of the Imposture, how they rais'd her Belly, and how they impos'd upon the Privy Council and Parliament, had been fully displaid.

And therefore seeing the Parti­culars of that Imposture, tho al­lowed to be one, on all hands, ne­ve [...] came to Light, nor that none of the Cabal did ever confess it [Page 36] on their Death beds, or other­wise; we are not to wonder if this Intrigue should never be fully discovered, especially now that they have prevented the Evidence of Mrs. Mary Grey, who there's all the Reason in the World to believe, was the true Mother of our pretended Prince.

Our Author after having finish­ed his account of the Depositions tells us, page 22. That none of the Witnesses were under any force, neither were they all of one Religion, yet they unani­mously gave in their Testimony upon Oath, and suffer it without any Contradiction to be publick­ly Recorded in the Court of Chancery, as their standing Te­stimony, that the Late Queen Mary, was the true Mother of the pretended Prince of Wales.

[Page 37]To all which it's answered, that their not being all of one Religion, is nothing at all to the Advantage of his Cause; for it must be own'd to our shame, that there are a sort of Protestants in England as bad, nay, worse than the Papists themselves; Charnock, King, Keys, Rookwood, Louick, Parkins, Friend, and Cranborn, were not all of one Religion, yet they were all in one Design against the Laws and Re­ligion of the Nation; and it's ob­vious to any Man that peruses their Tryals and last Speeches, that such of them as professed them­selves to be Protestans, were a great deal the worse fMen and Christians, than those of 'em that Died Papists, and we have a very late Instance of one who calls him­self a Protestant, and a very devout one, who forswore himself at his Tryal, [Page 38] and denied such things with the most dreadful of Imprecations, which he hath since Confessed to be true.

Then as to the Witnesses being under no force, it is as little to the purpose, They were all of one Faction, a very few of them ex­cepted, and so willing to promote the Design, that there was no need to force them to an Attestation, and whereas he will have it, that they gave their Unanimous Testimony upon Oath, That the Queen was the true Mother, he will find it otherwise upon a second perusal of the Depositions, as has been al­ready noted, They only Swear what they heard and saw, but not one of them Deposed, That they were Eye Witnesses of the Birth, though our Author has the Con­fidence to say so again and a­gain. [Page 39] —And upon the whole it is demonstrable, that of all the thirty seven Witnesses, there's only the Widwife who Swears to the thing it self, and all the rest swear only to Circumstances, which being his own Exception against Mr. Fullers Evidence, pag. 23. He must needs allow it to be as Valid against theirs. He alledges, Ibid, that most of the Witnesses were of high qua­lity, and that others of them had intimate knowledg in the truth of the Fact. As to their Quality we shall say nothing; but certainly Iudith Wilks, when she gave in her Evidence at the Chancery Bar, did not appear like one who deserves that Character, and it was indeed observable that she went at other times richly Apparelled, yet then she came habited in a Green Apron, and a Tattered Scarf, that her seem­ing Simplicity and Meanness might [Page 40] create a belief in the Spectators, that she was neither capable of manag­ing such an Intrigue, nor fit to be intrusted with it; and she being the only Witness who Swears home, and having no pretensions to Qua­lity, that big word is of no signi­ficancy to our Author.

But because we would not be un­derstood to reflect upon those of Quality, or were undoubtedly of the Protestant Religion, and yet made use of as Evidence in this Case; we desire it may be observed, that let their Probity and Quality be never so Eminent, matters were so ordered that they were not al­lowed to be Witnesses of the Birth; but having been then at Court, they could neither handsomly nor safely refuse to give an Account of what they heard and saw when the King desired it: But as we have al­ready [Page 41] said, the Examination was neither fairly nor impartially ma­naged. Nor durst any of them, but with the hazard of their Lives, have at that time said any thing which could Administer the least Ground of Suspicion, and tho we will grant our Author that none of 'em were under any force, yet he cannot pretend but they had cause enough of fear; and whereas he alledges that others of the Witnesses had intimate know­ledge in the truth of the fact: It is a Notorious falsehood, for none of 'em pretend to it but the Popish Midwife.

His ridiculing the Escape, Examination and Tragical fate of Mrs. Grey, is but a very ordinary piece of Wit. Does he think that Lewis XIV. and Mary of Mo­dena are persons of such a Refin'd [Page 42] Honour and tender Conscience, that they would scruple the Mur­der of such an Insignificant wo­man as Mrs. Grey, when it's plain to the World that their boundless Ambition and Zeal for Idolatry, hath involv'd Europe in Blood and Flames? Was it of no Concernment to those two per­sons, to prevent the discovery of the horrid Imposture by such a Material Evidence? Was it below the French Kings Grandeur, to Enquire whether her escape had been favoured by the Prince of Oranges Friends, as we are told by Mr. Fuller they did at first suspect it to have been? Is Lewis XIV's. Conscience, which is so much hardened with Blood and Destruction, that it can digest the Assassination of Soveraign Prin­ces, become so very tender of Late, that it cannot away with [Page 43] the Blood of a private Woman? Or is it reasonable to think that they would trust this poor Crea­ture to our Authors Oublies, when they had before-hand Condemn'd her to perpetual Oblivion? Were not Coleman and Plunket hang'd to prevent telling of Tales, and what reason can our Author as­sign, why Mrs. Grey should have more favour? Or supposing she should have escap't into England, and there made a discovery, does our Author think that his Extra­ordinary Invention of Charging it as a Forgery of the Prince of Orange, and his Friends, would have satisfied the World, and was it not more wisely done in the French King and his Messalina, seeing our Author has put us in mind of it, to prevent the occa­sion of such a superlative piece of Wit, then to venture the need of [Page 44] making use of it? Might it not have been possible for Mrs. Grey, if she had got into England, to have di­rected us to other Concur­rent Testimonies to have strengthened her own? How does this person of Quality know that she could not have brought the true Father, as well as the true Mother for a Witness, or why may we not suppose that Mrs. Grey could have quoted such Cir­cumstances, as might have turn'd a great part of his thirty six Circumstantial Wit­nesses, against his suppositi­tious Prince? Tho our Au­thor [Page 45] could not or would not foresee such dismal Con­sequences, of Mrs. Greys E­lopement from the fat Bel­lied Monks, to whom she was married, yet Lewis XIV. and his Messalina could see further, and therefore rather than the whole Catholick cause should suffer, it was expedient that one Woman should Perish, and thus his Messalina.

Ne Scelerata fit, facit Scelus.

The Gentleman is so hugely addicted to the A­pocrypha, that none but Apo­cryphal [Page 46] Authors will down with him; In the begin­ning he attacks us with the Noble Zorobabel, and he brings up his Rere with the Cheva Lier Lestrange, but we would have our Author to know that tho Sir Roger was for­merly quoted from the Pul­pit, the Commissioners of Enquiry, who were imploy­ed to examine whether his works were to be found in the Canon, have made an unanimous return of non est Inventus; and thus we bid our Author Farewel.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.