THere is one Mr. Sanderson, who hath lately written a booke which he calls a Compleat Hi­story of Mary Queen of Scotland, and James (her son) the sixth of Scotland, and first of England: In which, he hath compiled, not a History, but a Libel against all the good men and good actions of those times, and with most servile flattery, praised and exalted the bad, both men and matters. His whole book is a rapsody of notes and scattered papers, from other men, collected without either order or method; being exceed­ingly defective both in time, place and nominati­ons: and written in so unseemly and disjoyn­ted a stile, that you may easily perceive he hath ta­ken up other mens words, without understand­ing their matter; and unlesse it be where he rails on persons of honour (which he doth plainly, and often, though sometimes very falsly) his language is dark, harsh, and unintelligible. But [Page 2] that you may the better know what ware you are like to have out of this mans shop, I shall give you his character, and trace him from his pa­rent. His father was a Gentleman, though poor, (but that I take to be no sin, though this man doth, and how he can clear himself from that offence, I know not) he was of kin to Sir Walter Raleigh, and in the time of his prosperitie and greatnesse was his servant, and intrusted with receiving great sums of money for him, out of his Office of Wines, and other his places, by which he became in arrears to Sr. Walter Raleigh, in di­vers great sums: which after his troubles (being a prisoner in the Tower) Sr. Walter sent unto Sanderson for; But he was so far from paying them (presuming that Raleigh was there friend­lesse) that he pretended Sr. Walter Raleigh should owe him 2000 li. Whereupon Sir Walter in great anger, commenced a suit against Sander­son, which was managed by his servant and so­licitor, John Shelbury; And Sanderson being over­thrown and found in arrears to Sir Walter Raleigh, in very great sums, was cast into prison, and there dyed a poor contemptible beggar. And hence originally sprang all the spleen and malice of this man to Sir Walter Raleigh. For this man himself, he lived, for ought I could ever hear, at first very obscurely, and (as I conjecture by some passages [Page 3] in his book) studied Hiraldry, for he often brings in many impertinent digressions to shew his skill that way. But afterwards, he tells us he was servant to the Lord Ross, in his Spanish Embassie; a fit servant, no doubt, for such a Ma­ster: For what that Lord was, I shall not need to mention, it being so notoriously known to most men yet living. After this he tells us, he was at the siege of Breda, under the Earl of Oxford; to whom in his book he was pleased to give the ti­tle of a deboyst Lord; with many other unhand­some Epithites. But I cannot learn that this man had ever any relation to the Court (more then at large) until he became Secretary to the Earl of Holland, when he was Chancellor of Cambridg, where he behaved himself so corruptly, that he was with great disgrace and scorn, tur­ned out of his place, for taking Bribes of divers Scholars to make them Doctors, and Batchelors of Divinity, when the King came to an enter­tainment at Cambridg: So that for a long time af­ter, these men were by every boy called, Sandersons Doctors. A pretty while after this, he married the late Queens Landresse, and so might per­chance creep again into her chamber below stairs; but for any other imployment in Court, after his Secretary-ship, I could never hear he had any: And now you may guesse what liquor you are like [Page 4] to draw out of a vessel thus seasoned.

I shall proceed to examine some particulars in his book, wherein I shall absolutely decline saying any thing concerning the Queen of Scots, or that part of the Story, both the errors, and excellencies of that Lady, and the inevitable causes of her deplorable destinie, being suffici­ently known to all. Only I shall observe, that in some passages of Queen Elizabeths Raigne, he gives a harsher censure upon Essex, and his offen­ces, then any writer heretofore. As likewise in fol. 128. he seemes to intimate out of some dis­course between Davison the Secretary, and Queen Elizabeth, That she would have had the Queen of Scots poysoned, by Paulet and Drury her keep­ers; which they refused. But is it likely Kings should want fit ministers for such mischiefs, when common men can hire them daily? I think not; and if they refused, others might easi­ly have bin had; But this is a scandal raised upon that excellent Princesse, which I never heard, or read of before. There is no Innocence so clear, which this mans pen will not slubber: For what need she have gon so fouly to work to take away her life, whom the whole Parliament of Eng. petitioned her to execute? which this Author confeseth, fol. 117. and I hope it is no secret, that her death proceeded even frō the Scots themselves; [Page 5] yea even from those whom K. James sent to solicit for her: Witness that speech of the Master of Gray, tua non mordet. As for her Son, King James, truly I believe none will deny him to be a Learned Prince, and of great experience, which the trou­bles and vexations he had endured in his youth, by his own undutiful and head-strong Scots sub­jects, had well taught him. But it cannot be denyed, that he failed even in that which he most boasted of, his King craft; for he never treated with any Prince, or State in Christendome, that he was not over-reached; he spent more in frivi­lous Embassies, then would have raised an army to have setled his Children in their inheritance: and being wooed, and courted to have been head of all the Protestant Princes in Christendome, (which would have impowred him to give the Law to all this part of the world) he refused; and inclined to their enemies, whereby (as much as in him lay) he ruined the one, and advanced the o­ther.

And whereas his accession to this Kingdome hath been thought by some the greatest happinesse that ever befel the Nations, it hath proved (by what secret predetermination of the allseeing God no man knoweth) the greatest misfortune to both. For after a miserable and wasting civil war, we see his posterity (deserving Princes in [Page 6] their own persons) overthrown, and cast out of their inheritance, and (according to humane reason) very unlikely to repossesse it.

And for his own haereditary Kingdome (who were a people famous in war, and high in repu­tation,) they are become the most despicable conquered people, upon the face of the whole earth. They who within this twenty yeares looked upon themselves as conquerors of this na­tion; they who in the last two Kings Raignes had all the power, riches, offices, mariages, wealth and greatnesse, within their command in both Kingdomes, are now ruined at home, both in Kirke and State. The former (unto which by faire or foul play, they endeavoured to model all the Reformed Churches of the West) hath now, no where a being: And the latter subjugated to a forreign power. All their great and Ancient Families (of which they so much boasted) even plucked up by the roots, and those few remain­ing, so poor, as they can not shew their faces. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes; but according to humane judgment, much of this may be attributed to the greatnesse, power, and prodigality of that nation, in their accesse to England, (whereby they became insolent and proud, apted thereby for any undertaking; and per­chance, for some falshoods and treacheries, even [Page 7] to their own native Princes;) to King James his dying in distast with the Parliament; to his often deserting the Protestant cause, both at home and abroad: And to his leaving the Crown poor, and in debt, whereby his Successor was often put to his shifts, and forced to open the purs-strings of his Subjects, whereby he shut their hearts towards him, and encouraged them to demand such things, as nothing but extreme poverty and necessity, could enforce a Prince to grant.

But enough of this, I shal only novv take notice of such aspersions as this Author is pleased to bestow on particular persons of honour and worth, as if he meant throughout his whole book, to make it his businesse to raile at good men, and defend the bad.

And first we light upon Cobham, and Raleighs Treason: where in the character of Raleigh, he allows him a grand enemy to the Spaniard, and opposer of the peace; yet immediately after, believes him a con­spirer with the Spaniard; but tells us not in what particular he should have served him. Fol. 284. he tells us that the seventh of Novemb. 1603 was the day of Raleighs arraignment, and the Jury called to the Bar, being a Middlesex Jury, against whose persons he did not except. Tis true, he did not, for he knew not any one of their faces; and being con­fident [Page 8] of his own innocence, onely wished they might have honesty, and understanding; both which they wanted. But there was appointed for him another Jury, the foreman of which was Sir Michal Stanhope, the next, Sir Edward Darcy, the next, Sir William Killegrew, all men of honour, and near servants to the late Queen Elizabeth; But these being found not for their turn, they were all changed over night, and those others put in their places. The arraignment is in Print, therefore I shall not trouble my self with the par­ticulars of it. I shall only demand why Cobham was not brought face to face to accuse Raleigh, be­ing under the same roof with him, in so much, that King James himself taking notice of it, said, that if Cobham could have said any thing against Raleigh, they would have brought him from Con­stantinople to have accused him. And I would fain know, what it was that ever Cobham accused Raleigh of; for yet I never could. Likewise, whether ever any man was condemned by a sin­gle witnesse, and he not present neither. And it is certain, that letter of Cobhams under his own hand written the night before his tryal, wherein upon his salvation he clears Raleigh from all man­ner of Treasons, against the King or State, is yet extant, and was produced at a Committee of Parliament, by Mr. Carew Raleigh. But you may [Page 9] perceive the spleen of this Author to Raleigh, in that he saith, he tired the Court and Jury with imper­tinencies, when as all other men present at his ar­raignment, thought never man spake better for himself; nay divers which came thither his e­nemies, went away with pity, and commiserati­on of his injuries and misfortunes; and even Cook the Attorney himself, being retired into a garden to take some ayre, when his man brought him word that the Jury had condemned Raleigh of Treason, answered, surely thou art mistaken; for I my self accused him but of misprision of Treason; and this relation upon the word of a Christian, I have received from Sir Edward Cook's own mouth.

And since we are now fallen upon this busi­nesse, we will take it all together, and see what he saith concerning Raleighs last voyage, and death, though it happened 14 years after. Fol. 459 and Anno. 1617 he tells us, that Sir Walter Raleigh, wea­ried with long imprisonment, and having there spent his time well in the History of the World, made his petition more passable to the K. whose love to learning, granted him now at last his liberty, and not long after gave him leave to wander after a design, to the Western world, where be had been in several Climats before. Whereas it is well known, King James forbad Sir Walter Ra­leighs book, for some passages in it which offended [Page 10] the Spaniard, and for being two plain with the faults of Princes in his Preface. Sir William St. Johns, and Sir Edward Villiers, the [...] of Buck­inghams half-Brother, procured Sir Walter Raleighs liberty, and had 1500 li. for their labour, and for 700 li. more, offered him his full pardon, and liberty not to go his Voyage, if he pleased; both which he refused; and the rather, because he was told by the Lord Chancellor Verulam (who was no fool, nor no ill Lawyer) That his commis­sion from the King under the great seal of Eng­land (wherein the King made him General of his forces by Land and Sea, and gave him Marshal law over his people) was as good a pardon for all former offences, as the law of England could afford him.

And for the aspersions which he lays upon his Voyage; as that it was a trick only to get his liberty, and that he knew of no Mine; If so, Raleigh was a mad man to hazard his life in such a long Sea journey, and to expend above 10000 li. of his own estate (as tis well known upon oath he did) vvhen he might have avoyded that trouble and stayd at home for the disbursing 700 li. But it is most cer­tain, that Raleigh did really and truly believe in the mine, and so did Kemish too, upon good and just grounds, having had a true trial of the ore, and not with false and Chymical tricks, as this [Page 11] trifling lyar would intimate.

But for the particulars of these passages, and the true cause of the fayling of that Voyage, I shall refer you to Sir Walter Raleighs own Apolo­gy, now in print, and to be had every where; upon the verity of which he took his death. And for this Authors base aspersion, and surmise up­on the death of Kemish, it was so well known to all those who were in the ship, how, and in what manner he killed himself, (first shooting himself with a Pistol, and then stabbing himself with a knife, to dispatch, lest he should be pre­vented upon the noyse of the Pistol, his Cabbin door being locked on the in side,) that there can be nothing more plain and evident, then that he killed himself: But this unworthy Author will seek scandals from every thing. So he saith, he set out this Voyage with other mens money; when it is well known (though he had many adventures) that he received 8000 li. from the Countesse of Bedford in ready money, which he had lent her; that he sold a house and land at Micham in Surry, for 2500 li. all which money, and more, he spent every farthing in this Voyage; for ten ships (and he had no lesse) with their men, ammunition, and victuals, would not be set out with the adventures of a few fifty, and hundred pounds alone.

This Author likewise saith; That Raleigh had [Page 12] but a mean fortune, which he meant to advantage by this Voyage. He may thank K. James for the meannesse of his fortune, who took away Sherborne from him for want of a word, after he had been 7 years in the Tovver, and gave it to his favourite, Summerset; But vvhen K. James came into England, Raleigh vvas Lord Warden of the Stanneries, Lord Leivetenant of Devonshire and Cornwall, Captain of the Guard, and Governor of Jersey; he had a long lease of the Office of Wines; he had most of the Earl of Des­monds estate in Ireland; he had the daughter and heyre of Basset to his vvard, to marry to his son; her estate vvorth 3000 li. per. an. vvho vvas taken from him, and married to Mr. Henry Haward, vvho dyed suddainly at the table; and she after married to the Earl of Newcastle, vvho professed he vvould never have married her, if young Walter Raleigh had been alive; conceiving her before God to be his vvife, for they vvere married as much as children could be; he had likevvise Sherborn, vvhich vvas lately valued by the State at 5000 li. per-an. and this vvas no beggerly estate, all vvhich he lost for his supposed treason: And it is certain that many years after, he and Cobham be­ing prisoners, upon the sute of Q. Ann (being there­unto pressed by Sr. W. R.) Cobham vvas re-exami­ned before some of the Lords of the Councel at the Tovver, and did clear Sir W. R. from all treasons vvhatsoever.

[Page 13] Tis likewise true, that the whole design and intention of his Voyage, was by K. James (under Raleighs own hand) delivered to Gondomare, and thereupon there was 300 Spaniards sent to St. Tho­mae, which made that resistance there that was: and Raleigh found his own letter, under his own hand, in the Governor of St. Thomas Closet, which letter he brought back, and shewed it to the Lords of the Counsel.

Now whereas he saith, They had matter enough to take away his life in this his last businesse, why did the Lords of the Councel then, for a whole year together examine him at the Tower every week, to pick out what they could to condemn him? and yet, when all was done, they were fain to tell the King, that if he would take away his life, he must take advantage of his former condemnation, which was accordingly done.

The next scandalous passage we meet with, is fol. 365. concerning Will. Earl of Pembrook, and Philip Earl of Montgomerie his brother, who he saith were men of considerable descents, though of no fame in their merits; when all men know William Pembrook was a man of Honour, Valour, and Learning; and as well beloved as any man in this Nation. But he leaves not the other brother so, but farther saith, though the King was no quarreller, yet he hated a coward. (Strange! that the King should hate that [Page 14] in his favourite, which was so predominant in himself) and turned Montgomery out of his af­fection, for being switcht by a mean Gentleman (Ramsey) a Scot, at a publick horse-race. T [...]ough this favourite was urged to revenge, and backed by the English, forty to one, to defend him: he basely put it up to his death, and the dishonor of a Gentleman. That this passage in the main parts of it is true, cannot be denyed; but aggravated with these circumstances, most slan­derous and base, and in every part of it most un­fit to be left to posterity in Print, being a parti­cular and malicious blot upon a noble family, and no way fit to be recorded by a Chronicler: & it is most notoriously false that the King deserted Montgomery for this action; for though he were then in fancy with Carr, yet after this he gave Montgomery greater gifts, and was kinder to him then ever he had been before in all his life; and the rather, for putting up this injury, lest it should have bred a national quarrel (which it had like to have done) and which King James dreaded a­bove all things in the world; for it is certain there was a sword put into Montgomeries hand (being in an hunting posture without weapon) to re­venge himself; and he sought for Ramsey all o­ver the field, but he was conveyed out of the way by the Scots; and Mr. Pinchback by name, said to Montgomery, My Lord, let us break our fast with [Page 15] them here (meaning the Scots) and sup with them at London. For which speech King James ever hated Pinchback to his dying day. Ramsey was committed close prisoner to the Tower, and there lay until he had made all possible submissions that could be invented; and it is well known that King James was alwayes kind to Montgomery to the very last, as this Author himself confesseth in another place of his book, fol. 592 therefore a false and malicious suggestion, meerly brought in to brand Montgomery with a lasting disgrace.

The next businesse we shall take notice of, is, the poysoning of Overbury, wherein he strives all he can to extenuate that foul murther, both in Summerset and his Wife; and magnifying the justice which was done therein, forgets that Summerset and his Wife, who were principals, and drew in all the rest (for money and rewards) were pardoned, and only the poor accessaries hanged. And what an unworthy character doth he give of that poor unfortunate Gentleman Overbury, saying, That he was of an impudent and Thrasonical disposition, that he had little in him that was solid, for religion or moral ver­tue, and that he was naught, and corrupt, making him the baud to Summersets lust with Essex his Wife; and ma­king him brag of that imployment? when as all men that ever I met with, have ever held Overbury to have been a sober, religious, and learned Gentle­man, [Page 16] and so it appeareth by what hath come out in publick of his writing; besides, he doth in this disparage Summerset, whom he would defend, by making him chuse so weak, and vitious a per­son, for his most intimate friend, and indeed his governor. Haply Overbury might have some tincture of pride in him, (as indeed who would not, that had the power and interest of such a fa­vourite at his command; that commanded the King himself, and often was known to threaten him if he denyed what he desired?) But that he should be his baud to Essex his Wife, is most un­likely, when all the world knows he was her greatest enemy, and that his hatred to her, and the House of the Hawards was his ruine. How doth this passage agree with that which follows after, wherein this Author sayes (in the relation of this Ladies Divorce from Essex) that she was a pure Virgin, and so delivered in upon oath from the inspection of divers Ladies? But this Author often forgets and contradicts himself: Haply Overbury had hindred, or thwarted this Gentleman in some il­legal projects (of which they say, he had alwayes store) which he had offered to Summerset, and therefore he is not only contented his body should have been poysoned whilst alive, but he will (as far as in him lyes, if any would believe such a fellow) murther his fame too, after his death.

[Page 17] I shall next only mind you of a letter which he sets down fol. 421 of Summersets to the King, wherein there is this passage, speaking concer­ning his estate, which he desired the King to spare. And I may say further, that the Law hath not bin so severe upon the ruine of innocent posterity, nor yet cancelled nor cut off the merits of Ancestors, before the politick hand of State had contrived it into these several forms, as fitted to their ends and government. And yet this man (Summerset) could begg all the lands of Raleigh, could begg the 10000 li. fine of the Earl of Northumberlands, and could enjoy the greatest part of the forfeited Lands of the Earl of Westmor­land, without any scruple. But we are alwayes blind in our own affaires.

And in fol. 429 I take notice of another scan­dal which he throws upon his quondam Master, Henry Ritch, Baron Kensington, and Earl of Holland, scoffing at him for imitating the Earl of Carlile, in his expensive wayes, and calling him the natural son of the then Earl of Warwick; which why he should do, I can not imagin, for certainly, the Lady Ritch was the then lawful wife of the Lord Ritch, af­ter Earl of Warwick, and if any of her children were to be stiled natural, it were those which she had by the Earl of Devonshire, not these by Ritch: For as this Author saith in another place, King James told Devonshire, that he had gotten a faire [Page 18] Wife, with a foul soul; But no doubt this Author had a pick at Holland, for turning him out of his service, as is mentioned before.

I omit his slight character of Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury, scoffing at his judgment in the bu­sinesse of Essex his Divorce, calling him Puritan, and a fomentor of factions: His despising our Nation in the expedition of the Palatinate, brand­ing them with the fag end of an old Ballad; say­ing, they went abroad to fight, and so came home againe; as if they had only danced a morice thither; when it is well known, they defended Manheinu, and Frankendale nobly, and Hydelburge with so much honour, that Sir Gerard Herbert (Commander in chiefe there) lost his life at push of Pike.

How contemptuously doth he speak of the Earls, Oxford, and Essex, terming them young men, apprehending no danger, and so ignorant, they knew not how to avoid any? How improbably doth he cast the compiling of the History of the Councel of Trent upon a Protestant, thereby to vilifie the work, as partial? fol. 471 And how doth he throughout his whole book, contemne and vi­lifie, both the Reformers, and Reformation of Religion?

I shall now only give you an Item, of some few of his mistakes. He tells us that King Hen. 8 was a Lutheran, when all Story assures us, he li­ved [Page 19] and dyed a Papist. Tis true, he put down Monasteries for his own profit, and he declyned the Popes Supremacy for his own pleasure; and for defending of these, he put Sir Thomas Moor, and Bishop Fisher to death, with many others: But at the same time, he put multitudes to death, for not subscribing and submitting to the six Articles, which were all of them ranke Po­pery.

He tells us, fol. 487 that all our marriages with Spain have been unfortunate to this Crown; and then ravels into the story of the Black Prince, as if he had mar­ried in Spain; but if he will read our English Chro­nicles, he shall find, to speake the truth, (though I love not the nation) that the Spanish wives were good; and that it was the French wives which proved so unfortunate to our Kings. Such was Elenor, Wife to Hen. 2, who set all his Sons toge­ther by the eares with him. Such was Isabel, Wife to Ed. 2, who for the love of Mortimer, suffered her husband to be miserably, and cruelly mur­thered. And such was Margaret, Wife to Hen. 6, who by her pride, perversnesse, and evil govern­ment, was one of the chief causes in the ruine of that meek and gentle Prince; vvhom she lived to see murthered in the Tovver, and her onely Son, the Prince, stabbed to death at Tewxbury field, and her self sent home poor and miserable, to her [Page 20] more poor and beggarly Father, in Provence: I need name no more.

Another mistake he hath concerning the Duke of Buckinghams talking with Yelverton in the Tow­er; which surely the Duke never did: But that Sir William Balfore should tell him so, as being then Lieutenant of the Tower, can not be, for Balfore came in to be Lieutenant, after Sir George More, which was long after this time.

Another such mistake he hath in point of time, relating the publick combat, which should have bin between the Lord Rey, and David Ram­sey, which he saith, was in the time of King James; when in truth, it was in the Reign of King Charles, and after the Marquis Hamiltons expedition into Germany.

Speaking of the troubles of the Earl of Middle­sex, he tells us, that to his knowledg the Duke bought Chelsey house; for the truth of this, I refer my self to the Widow Countesse of Middlesex, now living, who hath told me many times, that the Duke had Chelsey for nothing, and that her hus­band never received one peny for it.

In another story, he inverts the same just upon Middlesex; saying, that he bought Copthall of the Countesse of Winchelsey, when I my self know very well, that the Lady gave Copthall, furniture and all, to Middlesex and the Duke of Lenox, to be made [Page 21] Countesse; and Middlesex indeed bought out the Dukes estate; but his mistakes, ignorances, and wilful errors, are infinite, both in the language, and the matter. I shall therefore conclude with that wholsome advice, which once that Grave and Learned Lord Chancellor Elsemore, gave to Sir Ed­mond Scony, presenting him with a book, in hope he would have given him something, (being then very poor, his father yet alive) which book, the Chancellor having read over, saith to Sir Ed­mond: Sir Edmond Scony, you gave me a book, for which I will give you [I humbly thank your Lordship, cryes Sir Edmond] I will give you good counsel; Read more, and write lesse, Sir Edmond; for indeed it is a very foolish book: So say I, Read more, and write lesse, Mr. Sanderson; for in­deed it is not only a very foolish, but a very false, and scandalous book, far fitter for the fire, then for the Presse.