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. Aubrey 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 "Å 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."+

،،

6

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

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 examinations 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,

had declared, "That he heard Mr. Penry say, that Mr. Udal was the author of the Demonstration."

This was all the evidence of the fact, upon which he was convicted, not a single living witness being produced in court. The poor man had, therefore, no opportunity to ask any questions, or refute the evidence. And what methods were used to extort these confessions, may be easily imagined from their non-appearance in court, and having testified their sorrow for what they had done. What man of common understanding, would hang his dog on such evidence as this?

To prove Mr. Udal guilty of sedition, and bring him within the statute, the counsel insisted, that his threatening the bishops, who were the queen's officers, was, by construction, threatening the queen herself. The prisoner desired liberty to explain the passage; when he insisted, that offence against the bishops was not sedition against the queen. But all that could be said, was set aside, and the judge gave it for law, even without allowing the two remaining points of the indictment to be examined, "That they who spake against the queen's government in causes ecclesiastical, or her ecclesiastical laws, proceedings, and officers, defamed the queen herself." Upon this the jury were directed to find him guilty of the fact, and the judges taking upon themselves the point of law, condemned him as a felon. Fuller even confesses, that the proof against him was not pregnant; for it was generally believed, that he wrote not the book, but only the preface. His enemies. might as well have condemned him without the formality of a trial. The statute was undoubtedly strained beyond its meaning, and evidently with a design to reach his life. The good man behaved himself with great modesty and discretion at the bar; and having said as much for himself as must have satisfied any equitable persons, he submitted to the judgment of the court.

"The case of Mr. Udal seems singular," says Hume, 66 even in the arbitrary times in which he lived. He was thrown into prison on suspicion of having published a book against the bishops, and brought to his trial for this offence. It was pretended that the bishops were part of the queen's political body; and to speak against them, was to attack her, and was, therefore, felony by the statute. This was not

• Strype's Annals, vol. iii. Appen. p. 262.-State Tryals, vol. i. p. 147-152.

+ Fuller's Church Hist. b. ix. p. 222.

the only iniquity to which Udal was exposed. The judges would not allow the jury to determine any thing but the fact, of his being the author of the book, without examining his intention, or the import of his words. In order to prove the fact, they did not produce a single witness to the court: they only read the testimony of two or three persons absent. They would not allow Udal to produce any exculpatory evidence, saying, it was not permitted against the crown. His refusing to swear that he was not the author of the book, was employed against him as the strongest proof of his guilt. Notwithstanding these multiplied iniquities, the verdict of the jury was brought against him. For, as the queen was extremely bent upon his prosecution, it was impossible he could escape."

Mr. Udal was convicted at the summer assizes, 1590, but did not receive sentence till the Lent following. In the mean time, pardon was offered him, if he would sign the following recantation, dated February, 1591:

"I, John Udal, have been heretofore, by due course of "law, convicted of felony, for penning or setting forth a "certain book, called The Demonstration of Discipline;' "wherein false, slanderous, and seditious matters are "contained against her majesty's prerogative royal, her "crown and dignity, and against her laws and government, "ecclesiastical and temporal, by law established under her "highness, and tending to the erecting a new form of "government, contrary to her laws. All which points, I "do now, by the grace of God, perceive to be very "dangerous to the peace of this realm and church, seditious "in the commonwealth, and infinitely offensive to the "queen's most excellent majesty. So as thereby, now seeing "the grievousness of my offence, I do most humbly, on my knees, before and in this presence, submit myself to "the mercy of her highness, being most sorry that I have "so deeply and worthily incurred her majesty's indignation "against me; promising, if it shall please God to move her "royal heart to have compassion on me, a most sorrowful, "convicted person, that I will, for ever hereafter, forsake all "undutiful and dangerous courses, and demean myself "dutifully and peaceably; for I acknowledge her laws to be "both lawful and godly, and to be obeyed by every subject.”+ No arguments or threatenings of the judges could prevail upon Mr. Udal to sign the above recantation. He could

66

* Hume's Hist. of Eng. vol. y. p. 345, 346.

+ Strype's Annals, vol. iv, p. 26, 27.—Baker's MS. Collec. vol. xv. p. 45. VOL. II.

с