U. I cannot answer.

A. Why would you clear yourself of Martin, and not of these, but that you are guilty?

U. Not so, my lord. one, but not in the other.

I have reason to answer in the

A. I pray let us hear your reason; for I cannot conceive of it, seeing they are all written concerning one matter.

U. This is the matter, my lord. I hold the matter proposed in them to be all one; but I would not be thought to handle it in that manner, which the former books do; and because I think otherwise of the latter, I care not though they should be fathered upon me.

Buckhurst. But, I pray you tell me, know you not Penry?

U. Yes, my lord, that I do.

Buck. And do you not know him to be Martin?
U. No, surely, nor do I think him to be Martin.
Buck. What is your reason?

U. This, my lord: when it first came out, he, understanding that some gave him out to be the author, wrote a letter to a friend in London, wherein he denied it, in such terms as declare him to be ignorant and clear in it. Buck. Where is that letter?

U. Indeed I cannot tell you. For I have forgotten to whom it was written.

Buck. You will not tell where it is.

U. Why, my lord, it tendeth to the clearing of one, and the accusation of none.

Buck. Can you tell where Penry is?

U. No, surely, my lord.

Buck. When did you see him?

U. About a quarter of a year ago.

Buck. Where did you see him?

U. He called at my door and saluted me.

Buck. Nay, he remained belike with you.

U. No, indeed; he neither came into my house, nor did

he so much as drink with me.

Buck. How came you acquainted with him?

U. I think at Cambridge; but I have often been in his

company.

Buck. Where?

U. At various places.

A. What say you? did you make these books? or know you who made them?

U. I cannot answer to that question, my lord.

B

A. You had as good say you were the author.

U. That will not follow.

Cobham. Mr. Udal, if you be not the author, say so; and if you be, confess it: You may find favour.

U. My lord, I think the author, for any thing I know, did well; and I know he is inquired after to be punished; therefore, I think it my duty to hinder the finding of him out, which I cannot do better than thus.

A. And why so, I pray you?

U. Because, if every one that is suspected do deny it, the author at length must needs be found out.

A. Why dare you not confess it, if you be the author? Dare you not stand to your own doings?

U. I professed before, that I liked of the books, and the matter handled in them: but whether I made them or no, I will not answer. Besides, if I were the author, I think that by law I need not answer.

A. That is true, if it concerned the loss of your life.* Fortesque. I pray you by what law did you preach at Newcastle, being forbidden at Kingston ?

U. I know no law against it, seeing it was the official, Dr. Hone, who silenced me; whose authority reacheth not out of his own archdeaconry.

F. What was the cause for which you were silenced?
U. Surely I cannot tell, nor yet imagine.

A. Well, what say you of those books? who made them? and where were they printed?

U. Though I could tell your lordship, yet dare I not; for the reasons before alleged.

B. I pray you let me ask you a question or two concerning your book.

U. It is not yet proved to be mine. But I will answer to any thing concerning the matter of the book, so far as I know.

B. You call it a Demonstration. I pray you what is a Demonstration? I believe you know what it is.

U. If you had asked me that question when I was a boy in Cambridge of a year's standing, it had been a note of ignorance in me, to have been unable to answer you.

Egerton. Mr. Udal, I am sorry that you will not answer, nor take an oath. You are like the seminary priests; who say, there is no law to compel them to accuse themselves.

* His judges actually tried him for his life, and condemned him.

U. Sir, if it be a liberty by law, there is no reason why they should not challenge it.

Buck. My lord, it is no standing with him. What sayest thou, wilt thou take the oath?

U. I have said as much thereunto as I can, my lord. Aubery and Lewin. You have taken it heretofore; and why will you not take it now?

U. I was called to answer certain articles upon mine oath, when I freely confessed that against myself, which could never have been proved; and when my friends laboured to have me restored, the archbishop answered, that there was sufficient matter against me, by my own confession, why I should not be restored: whereupon I covenanted with mine own heart, never to be mine own accuser in that sort again.

B. Will you take an oath?

U. I dare not take it.

B. Then you must go to prison, and it will go hard with you. For you must remain there until you be glad to

take it.

U. God's will be done. I had rather go to prison with a good conscience, than be at liberty with an ill one.

B. Your sentence for this time is, to go close prisoner to the Gatehouse, and you are beholden to my lords here, that they have heard you so long.

U. I acknowledge it, and do humbly thank their honours

for it.*

In the conclusion, Mr. Udal was sent to the Gatehouse. Take the account in his own words. "I was carried to the Gatehouse by a messenger, who delivered me with a warrant to be kept close prisoner; and not to be suffered to have pen, ink, or paper, or any person to speak to me. Thus I remained half a year, in all which time, my wife could not get leave to come to me, saving only that in the hearing of the keeper, she might speak to me, and I to her, of such things as she should think meet: although she made suit to the commissioners, and also to the council, for more liberty. All this time, my chamber-fellows were seminary priests, traitors, and professed papists. At the end of half a year, I was removed to the White-lion in Southwark; and then carried to the assizes at Croydon."+ July 24th, Mr. Udal, with fetters on his legs, was taken to Croydon, and indicted upon the statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 3. State Tryals, vol. i. p. 144-146. Edit. 1719. + Peirce's Vindication, part i. p. 132.

before Baron Clarke and Serjeant Puckering, for writing
a wicked, scandalous, and seditious libel, entitled "A
Demonstration of the Truth of that Discipline which
Christ hath prescribed in his Word for the Government of
his Church, in all Times and Places, until the end of the
World." It was dedicated " To the supposed governors of
the church of England, the archbishops, lord-bishops,
archdeacons, and the rest of that order." In the dedication of
the book, are these words, as inserted in the indictment, and
upon which the charge against him was founded: "Who
"can, without blushing, deny you (the bishops) to be
"the cause of all ungodliness: seeing your government is
"that which giveth leave to a man to be any thing, saving
" a sound christian? For certainly it is more free in these
"days, to be a papist, anabaptist, of the family of love;
“ yea, any most wicked one whatsoever, than that which we
"should be. And I could live these twenty years, any
"such in England; (yea in a bishop's house, it may be)
"and never be much molested for it. So true is that which
"you are charged with, in a Dialogue' lately come forth
"against you, and since burned by you, that you care for
"nothing but the maintenance of your dignities, be it to
"the damnation of your own souls, and infinite millions
"more." His indictment said, "That he not having the
fear of God before his eyes, but being stirred up by the
instigation of the devil, did maliciously publish a scandalous
and infamous libel against the queen's majesty, her crown
and dignity."+

Mr. Udal being brought to the bar, and his indictment read, humbly requested their "lordships to grant him to answer by counsel ;" which the judge peremptorily refused, saying, "You cannot have it. Therefore answer your indictment." He then pleaded not guilty, and put himself upon the trial of his country. In opening the case, Mr. Daulton, the queen's counsel, made a long invective against the new discipline, as he was pleased to call it, which, he affirmed, was not to be found in the word of God. When he had done, Mr. Udal observed, that, as this was a controversy among learned divines, he thought Mr. Daulton might have suspended his judgment, especially as he himself had formerly shewed some liking to the same cause. Upon which the judge said, "Sirrah! sirrah! answer to the

*Fuller's Church Hist. b. ix. p. 221, 222.-Strype's Whitgift, p. 343. ↑ State Tryals, vol. i. p. 147.

Ibid.

matter." "Mr. Daulton," said he, "go on to prove the points in the indictment;" which were the following:

1. That Mr. Udal was the author of the book. 2. That he had a malicious intent in making it.

3. That the matters in the indictment were felony by the statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 2.

The first point to be proved, was, that Mr. Udal was the author of the book; and here it is observable, that his judges did not stand upon the formality of bringing him and his accusers face to face, and cause them to appear as witnesses against him in open court; but only their exami nations were produced, to which the register swore. And, first, Stephen Chatfield's articles were brought forwards, containing a report of certain papers he had seen in Mr. Udal's study. Upon seeing them, and asking whose they were, Mr. Udal answered," a friend's." Chatfield then desired him to get rid of them; for he feared they concerned the state. He added, that Mr. Udal told him at another time, that if the bishops put him to silence, he would give them such a blow as they never had. Chatfield was then called to witness these things, but he did not appear. Daulton said, he went out of the way on purpose. And when the judge said, "Mr. Udal, you are glad of that;" the prisoner replied, "My lord, I heartily wish he were here. For, as I am sure he could never say any thing to prove this point; so I am able to prove, that he is very sorry that he ever made any complaint against me, confessing he did it in anger when Martin first came out, and by their suggestions whom he has since proved to be very bad men.' Mr. Udal added, "That the book was published before he had this conversation with Chatfield." And as he proceeded, the judge interrupted him, saying, the case was sufficiently clear.

The examination of Nicholas Tomkins was next produced. This Tomkins was now beyond sea, but the paper said, that Mr. Udal had told him, he was the author. But Tomkins himself afterwards said, "That he would not for a thousand worlds affirm any more, than that he heard Mr. Udal say, that he would not doubt, but set his name to the book, if he had indifferent judges." When Mr. Udal offered to produce his witnesses to prove this, the judge. said, "That because the witnesses were against the queen's majesty, they could not be heard.'

The confession of Henry Sharp of Northampton, was next read, who, upon his oath before the lord chamberlain,