BEfore I proceed to say any thing, in Answer to the said Address, I must humbly beg leave to return my hearty thanks, for the right your Excellency does in permitting me to justify my self from the many false Accusations contained therein; which I chearfully undertake, in consideration of my own Innocence, and your Excellencys justice in shewing so great a readiness to hear both partys, which tho' most neces­sary for the discovery of the truth, the Mannagers & Contrivers of that Address, did not intend should be allowed me, as plainly appears by the Prayer thereof.

This, My Lord, must seem a very extraordinary Proceeding, that an Assembly, which ought to take all imaginable care of preserving the Liberties and Properties of her Majestys Subjects, and Supporting the Courts of Judicature, should be induc'd to declare me guilty of Illegally using the power I am cloathed with, to the great hurt of several of her Majesties Subjects, and if tolerated, will be of evil Example, and render their Liberties and Properties precarious; and at the disposal of every Magistrate who will make his Will, and not the Law, the rule of his Actions, while they themselves transgress the fundamental Rules of Justice, and of Liberty and Property, in condemning me unheard, and praying your Lordship to do the same.

How ill grounded and untrue their charge is, your Excellency will easily discover, and whether the Promoters of this Address unwarrantably use the trust reposed in them to the evil example of the Province, whether they render the Liberties and Properties of the Subjects precarious, when they condemn without Proof, when they set themselves up as a Supream Court to hear and determine all such things as the Law in its ordinary [Page 2]course hath provided for, and take Cognizance of several matters that are already before some of the Courts, and must there be tryed, tho' they have not so much as the Power of administring an Oath to any one they examine? Or I, that have, to the utmost of my ability, endeavoured to keep up the Authoriy of the Courts, and never judged, much less con­demned any before Examination and a full hearing, thereby endeavouring to preserve the Liberties and Properties of her Majestys Subjects from being precarious, and have always set Justice, and the Laws, (as far as I knew them, being no Lawyer) before me as a Rule to govern my actions, and not my Will, as is asserted.

The Address tells your Excellency, That having examined into the truth of several Complaints made against me, do find &c. thereby intimating that several Complaints have been made: when by their own Votes and Report, not any Complaint, and but one Petition from persons summon'd to serve upon a grand Inquest for the Counties of Middlesex and Summerset, at a Court of Sessions held at Amboy the 8th of March last, appears to have been presented to them; by the prayer of which Petition, the Petitioners only desired the said Counties in General, and themselves in particular, might be relieved from some pretended unpresidented Proceedings, and unjust Fines, (as the said Petition did stile them) imposed upon them by that Court, which Fact, if they had been as true, as indeed they are not, only related to what happened at that Court, without so much as mentioning any other Complaint. This Petition being referred to a Committee, that Committee, as I am advised, could, nor ought not to have cognizance of any other matter, or thing, than what was referred to them, (viz.) the subject matter thereof: But the Committee taking upon themselves to go beyond the subject Matter and Prayer of that Petition, into affairs of quite another nature, which were neither referred nor mentioned to them, is wholly unpresidented and unwarrantable.

But to demonstrate the unaccountable Proceedings of the Committee, per­fectly to your Lordship; your Excellency will please to remark, That Mr. Willocks, the chief of the said Petitioners, because I desired him to take the Oaths appointed by several Acts of Parlaiment, in the room of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, &c. before I would admit him to serve on the said Grand Inquest, which he refused, was permitted to arrogate to himself the liberty of being chief Mannager and Examiner at the said Committee.

The Address further intimates to your Excellency, That they are sorry, that I, who have the honour of being of the Queens Council, and do not want sufficient Abilities for her Service, should by my imprudent Conduct, lay them under a necessity of so publick a Complaint against me. I am as little obliged to the promoters of the Address for that honour, as for their Complement, because the first was by some of their Members, or their Friends, opposed as much and as long as it could, and the last only used to aggravate the Crimes they would charge me with. The necessity they lay under of so publick a complaint, an impartial Judge will find difficulty to discern, be­cause supposing all they say true, (the contrary of which I have no doubt the whole Province believes) they are things of that nature that the establish'd Courts ought, and only can Judge of them, where accused, as well as the Accuser must be legally heard, and the Evidences on both sides duly weigh'd [Page 3]and considered, so that imprudent Conduct, not to give it a worse term, may more truly be turned upon the Mannagers of the said Address than me.

They would perswade your Excellency in the next place: That they cannot be so much wanting to the Country they represent, as to be silent in a Cause that so justly requires their Consideration. The said Addressors, My Lord, might have cleared this point, with mentioning but one Com­plaint, or other instance made to them by the Country, the neglect of which could give the least ground for supposition that they are wanting to the Country they represent, or required their consideration, so particularly, that without it no remedy could be had. But not one complaint being made against me, save that one Petition, before mentioned, the Country and I have more reason to be heartily sorry, that some Members among the Representatives have so far indulged their own private Resentments, and betrayed the trust reposed in them, to engage a whole Assembly in revenging a particular Picque, the more since my lawful Endeavours to recover those just Rights and Dues, which they have torn from me, only occasion that Picque; such Proceedings, I am fully convinced, your Excellency will never countenance, but on the contrary, that your Lordship will dis­courage by such proper methods as are consonant to your Lordships great Wisdom and Justice, all those, who, under colour of preserving the Queens Honour, and performing their Duty to their Country, endeavour to use the Power allowed them, only to make both a Party to and assisting in the Injurys they have done.

Being sensible that my Answer to the Address will oblige me to trespass too much upon your Lordships time, I will pass over many just Remarks, which might be made upon it, & confine my self, as much as is possible, to what is immediately conducing to my justification. Wherefore, I only deny, and so pass over the groundless Accusation, that those Arbitrary measures (as the said Address is pleased to stile them) with which the late Administra­tion under the Lord Cornbury so much abounded, were very much owing to my Counsel, I being one of the persons on whose advice his Lordship very much relyed; because the said Address it self, stiles it only Belief and Conjecture. What Arbitrary measures my Lord Cornbury used, are to me utterly un­known, and if any such were, how little they can affect me, I leave to your Excellencys consideration, since I had not, until last August, the honour of sitting in her Majestys Council, nor indeed much of his Lordships, Con­versation, besides, wholly incapable of advising a Nobleman of his many extrordinary Qualifications and great Sagacity.

The first thing the Address particularly accuses me with, is, That procur­ed the arresting of Mr. John Barclay on Whitsunday last, coming out of Church from the Sacrament, which said Address affirms, is a manifest breach of the Peace, and contrary to the Laws in that case made and provided. Here the Mannagers of the Address prevailed upon the Representatives to assume to themselves an absolute uncontroulable Power of determining what is a breach of the Law. But allowing that it was a breach of the Peace, it is not a Crime of so high a nature, but any inferiour Court, nay, a single Justice of the Peace by a law of this Province, might examine into, and punish it, without troubling your Lordship, which is evident not only from every days practise, but even from the Proceedings which have succeeded that sup­posed [Page 4]Crime, some of the said Committee having already perswaded the said Barclay to arrest Dr. Arents (who took him) for his alledged mistake, and found an Indictment against him, for his presumed breach of the Law. But I have no doubt of seeing that Fact justified, because I am sure its common in England, where I never heard such a case questioned; which is thus:)

The said Barclay refusing to answer a Bill filed in Chancery against him, after the time he had prayed, and was allowed him, elapsed, stood all the Contempts of the said Court for above a year, mostly sheltering himself your Exellencys Goverment of New-York, at length a Commission of Rebellion was sealed against him, directed among others, to the said Dr. Arents, which I delivered to him on the Saturday. He asked me, if he might execute it on the Sunday, if he should chance to see him? I told him, he might, being no common Process, but a Commission under the broad Seal of the Province to answer the Queen as a Rebel; accordingly Arents took him, after he was come out of the Church. If I erred in my Opinion in a point of Law, which is the utmost can be made of this Article, being no Lawyer, I cannot suppose your Excellency will take that to be so great a crime, as to deserve such publick Censure. I do not believe any Gentleman, tho' a Barrister, was ever before so treated, if he mistook in a point of Law, which is not yet determined I did.

But indeeed, one would think the close of this Article pen'd by a Papist or Non-Juror, such large Priviledge is given to the Altar, which if allowed, tends to protect Murtherers, Robbers or any Felones from being taken, if they Presume but to come to the Lords Table.

The Second Article says, I took from one John Brown his Horse, without assigning him any reason for it, and detains him to this day. Surely your Excellency will not judge this a matter of that moment or consequence to lay the Assembly under a necessity of so publick a Complaint, and that they should be wanting to the Country they represent, if they should be silent in a cause that so justly requires their consideration, &c. but on the contrary, that so trivial and mean a thing, is fitter for a Justice of Peace, or at most, that Court where Brown has been advised to sue me, than your Excellencys Considera­tion. But it serves to increase the number of Articles for them, and to convince your Lordship, what pains the promoters of the Address have been forced to take, how low and much beneath the Dignity of an Assembly, they are obleg'd stoop, to find seeming Accusations: To which I shall not trouble your Excellency with any further Reply, save that its untrue in all its parts, That I never took the Horse, detain'd, or have, or have had him in my Custody, but lay the Proof upon them, before that Court where they have commenced their Action against me. This I could easily manifest to your Excellency, but judge in too inconsiderable for your Lordships notice; besides, it might be prejudicial to me, in my necessary defence in its proper place.

Nevertheless, I cannot omit giving your Excellency another evident Demonstration of the Unreasonableness of the Address, in misrepresenting this matter on bare suggestion, either of some of the said Committee, or else their cheif Mannager, Mr. Willoks, for the which Misrepresentation there is as little foundation, even in the Report of the Committee it self, or what Brown said at the Committee, as the committee had warrant to meddle with the whole business, which was not referred to them.

[Page 5]The Address says, Sometime after the poor Man (Brown) had commenced an Action against me to recover, if possible, his Beast unjustly detained from him, one Reeves complained against one Mellin a Taylor, &c. insinuating, and so timing the matter, as if I had treated Brown severely on the account of his carrying away Melin, to revenge the suit which he, the said Brown had commenced against me. Whereas the Reverse is true; for the matter of Mellin was long before Brown arrested me. Melins affair happening in May, and Browns Writ bears test in May Court, but was not sealed until July, nor had I any notice of, or was arrested upon it until September following; from whence its evident, that Browns action against me for the Horse, might be the effect of Browns resentment for being committed, but could never be any reason for my committing him, as is insinuated.

Which brings me to the matter it self about Mellin. Your Excellency will here see the temper of some of the Leading Members of the Assembly, whose Rancor carries them so far beyond their Reason, that they state the facts different from, nay, repugnant, not only to the Report of the said Committee, but also prevert what was said by the persons they examined, of which I shall give your Excellency four particular Instances.

First, The said Address says, That one Revees complained against one Mellin a Taylor, for detaining a Coat of Reeves which I was pleased to call Felony, and was going to commit Mellin for Fellony. The Report is, That I issued my Warrant to the Constable to bring Mellin before me, upon John Revees his complaining of Fellony against said Millen.

2ndly, The Address goes on, Tho' Mellin proved, & Reeves afterwards confest; Mellin only detained the Coat he had made, till Reeves should pay him for the making of it. This being joyned to the fore-going, it is to be taken, that this Proof of Mellin, and confession of Reeves, were at the Examination. But the Report, and what was said, is quite otherwise (viz.) That I committed the said Brown into the Sheriffs Custody, where he remained until Bailed out, altho' Reeves afterwards declared, that the said Mellin had not stole the Coat, before pretended, but detained it for his pay. From whence its evident that this declaration of Reeves, if any such was, happened after Reeves was bailed out, and not at the Examination before me; and its plain, by the Report, from what A. Hudy said, and the Address it self confesses, that it was some time before Brown was bailed; neither is there one word in all the Report, that Mellin proved that he detained the Coat for want of payment for making it; all which much alters the state of the case; for when the matter was under examination before me, I could take no notice of discourse that happened many days after.

3dly The Address tells your Excellency, That Mellin finding there was no contending with absolute Power, found a way to escape from me, and was set over to Statten-Island by the aforesaid Brown, who was altogether ignorant of what had happened. The Report is, ‘At the desire of Mellin, John Brown carried him to Statten-Island, and Brown told Committee, that he knew Mellin was in trouble.’ So that not one word of Absolute Power, nor any thing that appears like it, can be gathered either from the Report, or what was declared to the Committee.

[Page 6] 4thly, The Address sets forth, ‘Upon which Sonmans, to gratifie his Re­sentment, contrary to Law, commits said Brown to Goal, and when the Sheriff had admitted him to Bail, he used many Threats to him for his so do­ing, ordering him to take him back again, telling him he would throw up his Commission and go to York, and desire my Lord to send Souldiers to Rule them; Which Threat, and Fear of being governed by Martial Law, induced the Sheriff to take him into Custody again, and keep him in Prison till my Lord Cornbury was pleased to allow he might be admitted to Bail.’ The Report is only thus, ‘But the next day he committed John Brown, which after some time, he, viz. the Sheriff, admitted to be bailed out; at which Sonmans was very angry, and said, he would go to York to my Lord, and throw up his Commission, and desire my Lord to send Souldiers to Rule them.’

Your Excellency sees that here is no mention of any Threats, nor any Command of mine to take him into Custody again, much less does the Sheriff say one word, That the Threats, or fear of being govern'd by Martial Law, induced him to take the Man again in Custody, or that he could not be bailed until my Lord Cornbury was pleased to allow it, who, I believe, was never applyed to about it: This is all an Addition of the Contrivers of the Address.

The next Sentence in the Address, is, ‘This Proceeding, as it was most unlawful and unjust, so it tended not only to render her Majesties Subjects intirely depending on my Lord Cornbury, or those he thought fit to honour with Magistracy, but to create in the Minds of People an aversion to her Majesties just and mild Government, when by a humor, a Gentleman of the Council could Dragoon them at pleasure.’

Here, My Lord, The Mannagers of the Address prevail upon the Re­presentatives, to take upon themselves, again, an absolute Power of asserting that Proceedings are most Unlawful and Unjust, when, in truth, they know not what the Proceedings are; for a learned Judge tells us, Examination without an Oath, is but loose Discourse. So, upon loose discourse, and that without hearing what the other side has to object to that loose discourse, the Promoters of the Address impose upon the Representatives, to judge of the Lawful or Unlawfulness, and Justice or Injustice of the Actions of the Officers of the Government. Whether this be asserting and protecting the Liberties and Properties of the Subject, or rendring them precarious, your Excellency will easily judge?

How any thing, even the Address, much less the Report says, can have the tendency by the Address mentioned, I confess, I understand not, nor how thereby Her Majesties Subjects are intirely made depending on my Lord Cornbury, or those he thought fit to honour with Magistracy. If Brown was uneasy under his Commitment, why did he not move for a Habeas Corpus, as the Law directs, and so obtain his liberty, which my Lord Cornbury, nor any other Magistrate, neither could or would have disobeyed. What they mean by a Gentleman of the Council could Dragoon them at pleasure, I protest I under stand not. The Addressers certainly designed not that Reflection upon me, because they and their Chief Mannager, Mr. Willoks, very well know that I had not the honour of sitting at that Board until some Months after; besides, not any Soldiers under [Page 7]that denomination, were ever here, that I know of; Nor indeed can I see the least pretence for that extravagant Expression, taking the fact in as bad a sence as the Mannagers of the Address, themselves, would gladly have it understood, since the most it amounts to, even then is that I said, I would desire such a thing, but that I ever did desire it, appears not.

But that your Excellency may be fully informed, l will presume to relate the fact truly, purged from the Glosses put upon it. Reeves having taken Mellin with his Wife, as Inmates into part of his House, complained to me, that he missed sundry things, particularly some Rum, Wool, working Tools, and lastly a Coat, Mellins had made for him, which Reeves had worn several times. That he the said Reeves being gone to work, Mellin had feloniously taken this Coat, and carried it to another house, where he and his Wife had retired, without giving him any the least notice. Where­fore finding Millins had taken the Coat, he believes he might also have taken some of the other things; therefore prayed a Warrant against him, (which I granted.) When both appeared before me, Reeves took his Oath to his Complaint, and produced some Witnesses, which affected Mellin as to the Wool: Mellin for his defence alledged, that he had made the Coat, confest the taking it out of the House when Reeves was abroad, and car­rying it away. I asked, if since he had made the Coat, he had not deli­vered it to Reeves, and whether Reeves had not many times worn it? If he had demanded payment of Reeves, and given him notice, that if he was not paid for the making he would take it in pawn? Mellin confest he delivered it to Reeves, and that Reeves had worn it, but could not prove he had either demanded payment for making, or given him notice, that he would secure the Coat if he was not paid. As to the Wool, and other things, he only answered, he knew nothing of them▪ without making any reply to what the Evidences said relating to the Wool. I then told him, I must commit him. Whilst I was writing the Mittimus, I gave the Constable charge of him, who let him escape, altho' I called to him expresly, that I should require him at his hands. Presently after, I was informed, upon Oath, That John Brown had carried said Mellin over a Cannoe to Statten-Island, tho' Brown was told the whole matter. Whereupon I sent a War­rant for Brown; being come before me, I asked him some Questions about this affair, but he refused to make any direct Answer; whereupon I told him, he must find Sureties to appear, and answer at the next Sessions; which he absolutely refused; and putting his Arms on his side, turned about short, and bid some of the Company get him horse, he would ride to Goal in state. I then committed him.

The next day, being told, That the Sheriff had taken upon himself to bail Brown, though commited as an accessary to Felony; I went to Woodbridge to inform the Sheriff of his Error, and warn him of the Inconveniencies he might suffer thereby. At the entrance into the Town, I met Brown, with the Constable and another returning to Amboy. I enquired the reason thereof? The Constable told me, The Sheriff had accepted of Bail I answered, That the Sheriff could not do that; and commanded the Constable to bring Brown back before me; which, though often repeated, the Constable utterly re­fused to do. I went into the Town; ask't the Sheriff, by what Authority he bailed a Prisoner so committed? He told me, There were three Men bound [Page 8]in One Thousand Pound a piece to deliver Brown to him again, whenever he should be demanded. I advis'd him to demand him presently; related to him what had happened with the Constable, adding, That I would complain to my Lord of this Contempt, which if he would not direct to be prosecuted, I would lay down my Commission, for that it was to no purpose to keep it, if I could not be obeyed; and if People could not be ruled by the Laws, or the Civil Magistrate, my Lord must send down Soldiers to compel them. The Sheriff, sensible of his Error, sent for Brown again, and kept him until he thought fit to apply to the Secretary to be bailed, who immediately bailed him, without any direction or allowance of my Lord Cornbury, who, I be­lieve, was never spoke to about the Bailment, as is insinuated by the Address. I indeed complained to his Lordship of the Disobedience of the Constable, whom my Lord directed to be bound over, and the Grand Jury have found the Indictment against him. Mellin was afterwards taken up, but soon bailed▪ and the Attorney General preferred an Indictment to the Grand Jury against him last November Court, the Names of four Witnesses being upon the back of the said Indictment, who were also Sworn; but the said grand Jury, of which Mr. Royce (the Chair-man of this Committee) was Fore­man) were pleased never to Return the said Indictment into the Court, nor so much as sent for one of the Witnesses. Your Lordship will now judge whether my procedure is Unlawful and Unjust: I humbly conceive, if a Justice of Peace is not protected in the Execution of his Office, but is suffered to be Affronted, his Commands disobeyed, and those he thinks fit to Commit, car­ried away out of the Government, that excellent Constitution, which has provided so useful an Officer, will soon be lost.

But here I must again take Notice to your Excellency, That supposing every thing in this Article alledged, was true, its not of that nature to lay the Representatives under a Necessity of so publick a Complaint, Or that they should be wanting to the Country they represent, if they were silent, much less that it so justly requires their Consideration; forasmuch as I am advised, That the matter no way concerns them, because the utmost the whole Charge can amount to, is, That I wrongfully committed Mellin and Brown, which if I did, they had their Remedy, in the ordinary course of the Law, before the established Courts, without presuming upon your Lordships time, who cannot, if they are wronged, adjudge them any Sa­tisfaction, but must at last leave the matter to be determined by the Law.

The Third Accusation is in a Case depending between the Queen and Mr John Harrison, upon an Information exhibited by the Attorney General, he the said Sonmans endeavoured to perswade the Sheriff to pack a Jury, as the Address untruly relates. The Report, and what the Sheriff said at the Committee, being quite otherwise. I know not what the Address means. The Sheriff said (according to the Report of the Committe) That it was upon a Tryal of John Harrison, at a Supream Court at Burlington, in a Cause depending between the said Sonmans and Harrison. So here the Causes differ. And in truth, I cannot make any Answer to it, since I know nothing of the Matter. I had no Causes depending between Harrison and my Self, that could come on, or were ready for Tryal at that Court at Burlington: If it was a Cause of the Queens, I had no business with it, [Page 9]nor was acquainted with any steps taken, in order to bring it to Tryal, much less to pack a Jury; wherefore I absolutely deny the Charge, nor know any thing of the Fact, Cause or Time. I confess, I have many times advised the Sheriff to be careful to get good Juries, and not to impannel any he thought Partial, or inclining to any Party; nor am sensible that I have therein committed any fault; tho', with submission, I think the said Representatives would have done well, and had reason enough to have en­quired into the Reason how such strange both Grand and Petty Juries have been impannelled of late, who have all along gone directly contrary to the Charge given them by the Court, and the fullest Evidence that could be; and whether some others have not pack't Juries to their own purpose, which has occasioned some Presentments and Verdicts to go accordingly.

The Fourth Article is represented to your Excellency as a great Instance of my Injustice and Partiality, but will, I doubt not, appear as much to my Advantage, as now it seems the contrary, when it is truly related. The Fact, My Lord, is thus: Michael van Vechten (who, of the two mentioned in this Article, is more my Friend and Acquaintance than Alexander Walker) arrested Walker for 130 l. in the Court of Common Pleas, in which Court there is a standing Rule, That all Writs shall be signed by the Party himself, or his Attorney. The Writ was not signed by said Van Vechten, but by Mr. Gorden, who was not at that time allowed to practise as an Attorney. Mr. Gorden appeared for the Plantiff, Van Vechten; the Attorney General for the Defendent, Walker. The Cause being called, Mr. Attorney General for the Defendant, moved, that the Writ might abate, because it bore Test in the Vacation, and was not signed by van Vechten or his Attorney, as the Rule required. Being sensible that Mr. Gorden watched for an opportunity of Complaint against me, altho' he was not allowed to plead, I suffered him to say all he could for his Clyent, only told him, He ought not; but however, gave way to his Pleading. After a long Debate I gave Judgment, That the Writ should abate, because it bore Test in the Vacation; which is certainly a good Reason for Abatement. The Defendant thereupon made out his Bill of Costs, which, as the Ordinance allows, I taxed, tho' I cannot remember the Sum; but be it what it will, I dare maintain my Taxation, by the Ordinance then in force. As to what the Address says, Where a Writ of the Plantiffs abates, no Costs ought to be paid: All former Practice in this Province Confutes such an Assertion. And that the unfairness of the Address may more plainly appear, I must add, That by the Oath of the Judge of said Court, I ought not to give Counsel or Advice to either Party; yet the Address accuses me for not doing that, when it tells your Excellency in the same Article, That another Writ signed in the same manner as that was, met with no Objection from me, but was allowed of. There was indeed another Cause called, between Jacob Arents Plantiff, and Robert Mellin Defendant, both who appeared in Person; The Plantiff moved for a Rule to oblige the De­fendant to plead to his Declaration, but the Defendant made no exception to the Writ, which I never saw, nor indeed was it my business to look after it. From whence its evident, That except I had seen the Writ, and, con­trary to my Oath, been of Council for the Defendant, I could not make any Exception to it.

[Page 10]But that the Partiality of the Address, and particularly of Mr. Gorden, who only spoke to this matter before the Committee, may appear to your Excellency as clear as the Sun at Noon, I must beg your Excellency will be pleased to observe, That at at the very last Court of Pleas held at Amboy, the 11th of March, Mr. Gorden pleaded in Abatement for the Defendant to this very Writ they accuse me of passing without being signed by the Party, for that it was not sign'd by the Party, according to the Rule of the Court; but before the Court gave Judgment, agreed to put in an issuable Plea. I told Mr. Gorden, if they had not agreed, I must have given Judgment for the Defendant, because the Reason pleaded for Abate­ment, was good.

Before I pass from this Article, I must beg leave to represent to your Excellency, That what ever the matter of Facts, here charged, are, they are not such as belong to the Representatives, nor obliges them to such extraordinary Proceedings, since if I have erred, the party injured could and may yet have his Remedy at the established Courts, and not by such unpre­sidented Methods.

The Fifth Article Complains of my refusing to bind Alexander Walker to the Peace, on pretence, That I was immediately going out of Town on your Lordships business, tho' I staid in Town part of the next day; which Accusa­tion I utterly deny; no regular Complaint being ever made to me. I confess, that on Sunday, about three of the Clock in the afternoon, as I was sitting at Dinner, and then just going out of Town, Mr. Gorden told me a story to the purpose in the Address set forth; to which I answered, that I was to go out of Town as soon as I should rise from the Table, that I should be back at night, and go away next morning early, therefore advised him to apply to some other Justice of the Peace, which he promised to do. But I must also inform your Excellency, that nothing of what Mr. Gorden said appeard to me, Himself confest it, all Hear-say; he was neither the Party hurt, or threatned to be hurt, had not seen any body hurt, or heard any threatned, nor shewed me any Authority or request from the grieved Party, if any there was, for what he did, much less made or offered to make Oath, as the Law requires, that any thing he said was true, or that any body was in any danger or fear; and all Examinations, without Oath, are but loose discourse, upon which no Justice can answer the binding any one over. And I have much reason to believe, the matter of fact was otherwise than Mr. Gorden reported, for tho' I returned at night, and went not out of Town until Ten the next morning, I heard nothing of Mr. Gorden, or the Presons he pretended to appear for.

The Sixth Article relates to my own private particular Affairs: that matter is already brought before the Supream Court, where it must have its determination, wherefore shall not trouble your Excellency with any other answer, then, that I deny the fact. Tho' I cannot omit observing to your Excellency that this cannot be any instance of my rendring the Liberties and Properties of her Majesties Subjects precarious, nor a Crime of that nature, as lays the said Representatives under a necessity of so publick a Complaint. Which if the said Representatives should neglect, they should be wanting [Page 11]to the Country they represent, since the meanest Court in the Province has power to take notice, and punish any such crime, when its proved before them. The whole matter is of so mean and inconsiderable a nature, that the Mannagers of the said Address ought to blush when they trouble your Lordship with such triffles; its a hard case when an Assembly are forced to strain the trust reposed in them, to so great a degree, only to gratify the private revenge of a few of their Members.

The Seventh Article is of a piece with the former, to which I shall therefore only answer, That I utterly deny the facts, for which some of the Members of the said Representatives presented me; that I have much reason to believe the Grand Jury themselves did not believe what they brought in; but were imposed upon and over born by some, who never minded the Oath they had taken, and that those Indictments are False, Scandalous and Malitious, invented for a handle to fling dirt, which plainly appears in their being so laid and contrived, that the main accusations can never come regularly to be tryed, the sham Indictment being found by an In­quest not of the place where the fact is alledged to be committed.

I may boldly affirm to your Excellency, that I am not conscious of any guilt, which can make me fear any honest Grand Jury, that will be bound by the Oath they take, (viz.) that they shall not present any body for hatred or malice, or excuse any for fear, favour or Affection) nor have ever after an unpresidented manner hindred the Grand Inquest from doing their Duty at the last, or any other Court.

What I did at the last Court of Sessions at Amboy, the 8th of March, your Excellency has been pleased to approve of, viz. Not to admit any to serve upon the Grand Inquest, who refus'd to take the Oaths to the Queen, as by Law required. This, My Lord, is what the Mannagers of the Address are pleased to call Hindring a Grand Inquest from doing their Duty, after an unpresidented manner; Tho' I may more truly say, That the said Inquest being led by Mr. Willocks, who publickly declared, he would not take the Oaths, and was pleased to term it, Taking the Lords Name in vain, did, after an unpresidented manner, with-draw from, and not attend the said Court, as they ought to have done. The Reason of which, and why the Sheriff did not summons another Grand Jury, as he was commanded, I pre­sume the said Representatives, or at least some of them, know best, there being but too much Reason to believe, that whole matter was so ordered by some Members of the Representatives, who being conscious of the Riots and Breaches of the Peace they had lately been guilty of, were justly appre­hensive of their Crimes, and would not escape due Prosecution. How care­ful some of the Representatives have been of tolerating evil Examples, How Anxious to preserve the Liberties and Properties of the Subjects from being precarious; Whether they have been wanting to the Country they represent; Whether they have been silent in a Cause that might justly require their Con­sideration; and lastly, Whether they protect those that publickly stand up in Defiance against many Acts of Parliament? I shall leave to your Excel­lencys just Considerations, when your Excellency shall please to reflect, that all this Accusation is only because I would oblige a Grand Jury-man to take the Oaths, which, it seems, is so great a Crime, in the Eyes of many of the [Page 12]Representatives, that it lays them under a Necessity of so publick a Complaint against me.

To the Eighth and last Article, I say, and confess, That in four Criminal Causes depending before, and tryed this last Court of Sessions at Amboy, I did not admit a Quaker to serve on the Jury, which I have no doubt but your Excellency will be pleased to approve of, for the following Reasons,

First, Because I never heard, by any Instruction of her Majesty, the Quakers were admitted to be upon Jurys. I have heard, and do believe, that an Instruction to the purpose following, may have been given, viz.

‘Whereas we are informed, that divers of our good Subjects inhabiting those Parts, do make a Religious Scruple of Swearing; and by reason of their refusing to take an Oath in Courts of Justice, and other Places, are or may be liable to many Inconveniencies, Our Will and Pleasure is, that in order to their ease, in what they conceive to be matter of Conscience, so far as may be consistent with good order and Government, you take care, that an Act be passed in the General Assembly of our said Province, to the like effect as that past here in the Seventh and Eighth year of his late Majesties Reign, Entituled, An Act that the Solemn Affirmation or Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath, in the usual form; and that the Law be transmitted to Us, and Our Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, &c.’

But, with submission, I humbly conceive this so far from allowing them to serve upon any Jury, that it does not so much as direct that they shall have the benefit of the Act there mentioned; but on the contrary, from the very words, it plainly appears, that her Maiesty gave no direction against that Law, nor allowed, much less directed that they should have the ease by that Law given them, but that they are, or may still be liable to the many Inconveniencies in this Province, to which they were exposed in England before that Act was made; for, if otherwise, what Reason can be assigned for these words in the Instruction, ‘Our Will and Plesure is, that in order to their Ease, &c. you take care that an Act be passed, &c.’ Likewise, these fore-going, ‘And by reason of their refusing to take an Oath in Courts of Justice, and other Places, are or may be liable to many Inconve­niences.’

Secondly, Because even by that Instruction, whereby Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to admit the Quakers to bear and share in several Offices in this Goverment, nothing is contained, as I am advised, that can be construed to extend to permitting them to serve on Juries; which will plainly appear to your Excellency from the Instruction it self, which I have heard, and do believe, may be in these words, viz.

‘And whereas we have been farther Informed, that in the first settlement of the Government of our said Province, it may so happen, that the number of Inhabitants fitly qualified to serve in our Council, and in the General Assembly, and in other places of Trust or Profit there, will be but small, It is therefore our Will and Pleasure, that such of the said People, called Quakers, as shall be found capable of any of those Places or imployments, [Page 13]and accordingly be elected or appointed to serve therein, may upon their taking and signing the Declaration of their Allegiance to us, in the form used by the same People here in England, together with a Solemn Decla­ration for the true discharge of their respective Trusts, be admitted by you into any of the said Places or Imployments.’

From which words in the Preamble, We have been informed, that in the first Settlement of the Government, it is plain that that Instruction took its rise only from Information: Against the truth of which, I shall not trouble your Excellency with any arguments here, tho' the contrary, I am assured of from many good hands. But, my Lord, here is not one word of being admitted to serve on Juries, in the whole Instruction; it seems to be re­strained to the Council, General Assembly and other Places of Trust or Profit, under which denomination that of a Jury-Man, as I humbly con­ceive, cannot well be accounted.

Besides, your Excellency will please to Remark, That the Preamble gives the Reason of this Instruction, viz. That in the first Settlement it may so happen, that the Number of Inhabitants fitly qualified to serve, &c. will be but small. It is therefore plainly intimating, That if there were a sufficient Number to serve, that Instruction would not have been given. Now, My Lord, in this Cause complained of, a sufficient Number to serve were impan­nelled; so that, at best, an Officer may err in admitting a Quaker, but can­not (with submission) if he does not.

3rdly, Because the last Clause, but one, of the Act of the 7 & 8 of William the 3d, mentioned by her Majesties Instructions, and recommended to be past here, in order to the case of the Quakers, in express words forbids it; which, for the more certainty, I shall presume to trouble your Excellency with, and are these: ‘Provided, and be it Enacted, That no Quaker or reputed Quaker, shall, by virtue of this Act, be qualified or permitted to give Evidence in any Criminal Causes, or serve on any JƲRY, or bear any Office or Place of Profit in the Government, any thing this Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.’

The Conclusion of the said Address is so very extraordinary, that I would not any way alter it, but shall repeat the words, ‘Were there no more to be said against him than his being indicted for Perjury and Adultry, we humbly conceive would justifie what we are to desire of your Lordship, a Person of that Character being a scandal to her Majesties Council; and we believe your Excellency will think it a Reflection on the publick Admi­nistration to continue him in that Station; We therefore pray, that your Excellency would remove him from your Presence, her Majesties Council, and from all Places of Trust and Profit in this Province.’ So That the said Representatives in very plain Terms desire your Excellency, first, To Condemn me unheard, or before any thing is proved against me, upon their bare Affirmation, as a Scandal to her Majesties Council, and that it will be a Reflection on the Publick Administration to continue me in that Station. Therefore, 2dly, with the same justice, they pray your Excellency to pro­ceed to Execution, viz. To Remove me from your Excellency's Presence. Her Majestys Council, and from all Places of Trust and Profit in this [Page 14]Province. I hope your Excellency will please to Pardon me, if I say, This Desire and Prayer of the said Representatives is directly contrary to the Liberties and Properties of the Subject, to the express words of the Great Charter of England, The Petition of Right, the many other subsequent good Laws, that in all Reigns have been Enacted for the benefit of the Queens Subjects, and only to be equalled under a French or Turkish Go­vernment; therefore the most Unjust and Unreasonable that evere were made.

For, were nothing to be said against the Form and Substance of the said Indictment, as much there is; were they found (as a Grand Inquest ought to be) by impartial unprejudiced Men, the contrary of which is evident, the chief Men being known to be my professed Enemies, because I have many Demands on them in Civil Causes, had they been brought into the Court in the usual manner, which they were not, but in a Me­thod altogether strange, or had they been without any manner of other Objection, yet even then, your Excellency knows, they are only a bare Affirmation, to which the Party never had any Opportunity of being heard, much less making any Defence. For which reason the Law directs, That the Party shall be summoned, not to be judged, much less con­demned, but heard, that Time and Opportunity may be given him to make his Defence and invalidate the Evidence, which may have been Wrongfully or Maliciously given against him. But this bare Accusa­tion shall, by the Desire of the Addressers, who ought to be the most careful Protectors of the Liberties of the Province, as far as the Law directs, nay, to make new Laws to help the Defects of the former, if Occasion requires it, be deemed so full a Conviction and Proof, that Judg­ment and Execution shall follow upon it.

By this Rule, My Lord, any Gentleman who has the honour of serving the Queen, or any other Officer of the Government, shall be Turned out, Ruined in his Reputation (which ought to be dearer to him than his Life) and treated as a high Criminal, Convicted without being heard, or any Proof against him, whilest his only Crime is, that a few leading Men, tho' his known Enemies, have Interest enough with a Sheriff to be returned on a Grand Inquest.

But, My Lord, the matter of this Address is yet more extravagant; for all Examinations of the Grand Inquest are upon Oath, but much of what I am charged with, in the said Address, is only upon a bare Rela­tion given, without the Life of an Oath, or any thing else to oblige the Relator to speak the Truth, mannaged by one, who publickly refuses to give any assurance of his Allegiance to the Queen, or Fidelity to the established Government. And for several other Charges, they do not by the Report of the Committee, or any other Proceedings of the Assembly, appear to have been so much as told the said Representatives, but must be things framed by the Mannagers of the Address.

Your Excellency will be pleased to Remember, what a learned and just Judge has left as a standing Rule, viz. That all Questions and Tryals, where Witnesses are examined, the Examination is upon Oath by the Law, by all our Books, Statutes, and every days Practice; Examination without an Oath is but loose Discourse. Yet the Promoters of the said Address, [Page 15]prevail upon the Representatives, to take upon themselves a much greater Power than the House of Commons it self ever claimed, viz. not only of Examining, but Condemning, and praying Execution. Whereas the House of Commons, even in Impeachments for High-Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanours, never pray any farther, but that the Per­son Impeached may be put to answer for all and every of the Premises, and that such Proceedings, Examinations, Tryals and Judgments may be upon every of them, as is agreeable to Law and Justice. The same Judge says, in another place, Magna Charta, The Petition of Right, and other good Laws of the Land, ordain, That Mens Tryals should be by the established Laws, and not otherwise; That they are the very words of the Petition of Right.

In pursuance of which, Lords, upon Impeachments of the House of Commons, are tryed before the House of Lords, and if the said House of Commons find reason to accuse a Commoner, they proceed not to condemning, and addressing that he may be removed from all his Places of Trust and Profit, but that direction may be given, that he be prosecuted, in order to his acquitting and discharging himself of the Crimes laid to his charge, if he can, or else of being legally convicted; which Prosecution must be by the established Laws, which Laws the Act of the twelf and thirteenth of William the 3d, for the further Limitation of the Crown and better secu­ring the the Rights and Liberties of the Subiects, says▪ are the Birth Right of the People of England. I shall not need to trouble your Excellency here with a relation of what happened on the occasion of the Impeachments of the House of Commons, against my Lord Oxford, my Lord Sommers, my Lord Portland, and my Lord Hallifax, and that the House of Lords resolved so, and did Address his late Majesty, that his Majesty would be pleased not to pass any Censure upon their Lordships, until after their Lordships should be tryed upon the said Impeachments, and Judgment be given according to the usage of Parliament and the Laws of the Land, because your Excel­lency being a Member of that Noble House, and present at most of those Proceedings, must be better acquainted with them, than I can, and will not fail of making due Reflections thereon.

But contrary to all this, the said Address prays your Excellency, as I said before, to Condemn me, nay, go on to Execution, without any such Examination, before any Tryal by the established Laws, without any legal Evidence, before being heard, and all in a summary way, with­out any Judicial Proceedings whatsoever.

How far the Advisers of the Address, by this Conclusion, and indeed the whole Address justly entitules them to the several Crimes of Illegally using the Power they are cloathed with, to the great hurt of her Majesties Subjects, giving an Evil Example, and rendring Liberties and Properties precarious, and at the disposal of every Assembly, that shall make Envy and Spleen, and not the good of their Country, the Rule of their Actions; whether they, by their unpresidented ways, lay not themselves under the Necessity of publick Censure? Whether they are not wanting to the Country they represent, when they thus endeavour to make it a Party to the Injuries they do, and neglect Matters that iustly concern the whole Province's Wellfair? Whether they break not through all Laws, abuse their Ma­jesties [Page 16]Subiects, tho' in considerable Offices? Whether they deserve not Publick Reproof, that thus use the Places they sit in, so contrary to the end for which they are sent? Whether this does not tend to render her Majesties Subjects entirely Depending on the Caprice of a Party in an Assembly, and Create in the Minds of People an Aversion to her Majesties just and mild Government, when some leading Men in an Assembly can Displace any of the Council at their Pleasure, without being allowed to speak for himself, or having the Accusation proved against him? Whe­ther they encourage not Grand Inquests to Neglect doing their Duty, and discourage Magistrates from tendring the Oathes to the Queen and Go­vernment, prescribed by sundry Acts of Parliament? And, lastly▪ Whe­ther they do not Defeat her Majesties good Intentions to her Quaker Subjects, and render her Government uneasy to the People of that Perswasion, when they neglect passing an Act as the Queen directs, and endeavour to per­swade them, That they may act contrary to Law? I say, how far the Advisers to this Address ingross to themselves these several Crimes, with which they unjustly endeavour to load me, I shall submit to your Excel­lencys judgment, and that of all judicious Men.

And altho' I might now close my Answer, with justly turning their Conclusions upon the Mannagers of this Address, by retorting, That were there no more to be said against them, than their Attribtrary, Unjust and Illegal Conclusions; I humbly conceive it would justify what I could desire of your Excellency, Persons of that Principle, and who hold those Tenets, being unfit to represent a Province, it might be believed, your Excellency would think it dangerous for the publick Safety to continue them in their Sta­tions, and I should pray, that your Excellency would remove them from your presence, their places in the Assembly, and from all Places of Trust and Profit in this Province. I say, tho' I might justly finish with this, yet I will not presume so far, or any way to direct or prescribe to your Excellency, much less follow an example, which, I think deserves to be avoided; nei­ther shall I trouble your Excellency with any further Remarks on the un­presidented, unwarrantable, unjust and unreasonable Request of the said Address, nor take upon me to recount the Numberless Pernicious Inconve­niencies, that must necessarily flow from such proceedings, since they are too obvious to escape the meanest, much less your Excellencys Observation.

But for that the matters and things in the said Address contained, are either no Crimes, or false in fact, or miserably mis-represented, and if any Faults be committed, tho' I must insist upon it, that not any appears to your Excellency, by the said Address, they are such as are and must be regularly tryed before the Establisht Courts, according to the known Laws of her Majestys Kingdoms, and the Custom of said Courts, and cannot be exami­ned or tryed any other way; and for preventing the many ill and unwar­rantable consequences that must needs attend such uncommon and illegal ways of scandalizing all Officers, but especially those that have the honour of being of her Majestys Council, to whom some Civility and Respect is or ought to be done, I humbly pray, that the said Address may make no impression upon your Excellency, but be utterly disregarded, and that your Excellency will be pleased, so effectually to discountenance such new and unpresidented Methods of villifying Officers of the Government, particularly [Page 17]those whom her Majesty has thought fit to honour with a Place, in her Majestys Council, that I may in some sort be justified thereby, and receive all the satisfaction the nature of such an Address will bear, and to your Excellency in your Wisdom and Justice shall seem meet; which is humbly submitted to your Excellency's Judgment.

THe foregoing Answer being prepared and written long before the death of his late Excellency, the Lord Lovelace, I have presumed to deliver it to your Honour, in the same stile and manner as it was first intended, without any alteration, assuring my self that your Honours Judgment will easily discern the grounds of so unwarrantable and unpresidented a Proceed­ing, and your Justice give me such ample satisfaction as the nature of the thing will bear. All which is most humbly submitted to your Honours Judgment, by