Mr.Carte, in his Life of the duke of Ormond, has given us some evidence to prove that this letter was entirely a forgery of the popular leaders, in order to induce the king to sacrifice Strafford.

He tells us, that Strafford said so to his son the night before his execution, But there are some reasons why I adhere to the common way of telling this story.1.The account of the forgery comes through several hands, and from men of characters not fully known to the public; a circumstance which weakens every evidence.

It is a hearsay of a hearsay.2.It seems impossible but young Lord Strafford must inform the king, who would not have failed to trace the forgery, and expose his enemies to their merited infamy.3.It is not to be conceived but Clarendon and Whitlocke, not to mention others, must have heard of the matter.4.Sir George Ratcliffe, in his Life of Strafford, tells the story the same way that Clarendon and Whitlocke do.

Would he also, who was Strafford's intimate friend, never have heard of the forgery?
It is remarkable, that this Life is dedicated or addressed to young Strafford.

Would not he have put Sir George right in so material and interesting a fact ?] [Footnote 7: NOTE G, p.167.What made this bill appear of less consequence was, that the parliament voted tonnage and poundage for no longer a period than two months; and as that branch was more than half of the revenue, and the government could not possibly subsist without it, it seemed indirectly in the power of the parliament to continue themselves as long as they pleased.