tion, turned chiefly upon thofe books which had been published against the church and the Bishops; which they wanted to fix upon Udal as the author. The first step of their proceedings after the examination, was, to prove Mr Udal author of the book entitled, the Dialogue. They obferved a very prepofterous method in attempting to do this; the pretended witneffes were not brought into the court, but only their examinations, which the Registerer fwore to this was contrary to the ufual method of trial, which requires, that the accufed and accufers be brought face to face; but they were determined to find Udal guilty at all events. He made an excellent defence, and anfwered with great calmnefs and readiness of thought, and obferved great decency in all his replies. He was required to fign a fubmiffion the court had drawn up for him, which he refused; upon which fentence of death was paffed upon him, and the execution thereof publicly ordered; but next morning by private orders from the court, he was reprieved till her Majefty's pleasure was further known. In a few months after he died in prifon through grief.

The Puritans, though they disapproved of these fatyrical pamphlets, were made to fuffer feverely on account thereof. Mr Cartwright, as the chief of the Puritans, was fufpended from his charge in Warwick hofpital, and fummoned to appear before the high commiffioners, who committed him to the fleet prifon, with feveral others of his brethren. The commiffioners wanted to difco

ver where they held their affociations, how of ten, and who were prefent at them; what matters were treated at them; who corrected or fet

forth the book of difcipline, fcribed and fubmitted to it.

and who had fubMr Cartwright an

Mr

fwered to these and fundry other interrogatories which were put to them, which the civilians accounted infufficient, fo he remained with the rest of his brethren in prifon.

On the thirteenth of May this year, they

were brought before the ftar chamber, 1591. which was a court compofed of certain Noblemen, Bishops, Judges, and Counsellors, of the Queen's appointing, to the number of twenty or thirty, with her Majefty at their head, who was fole judge when prefent; the reft of the members being only to give their opinion by way of advice, which the might. difallow or not as the pleased. In the abfence of the Queen, the determination was by a majority, the Lord Chan cellor having the cafting vote. The proceedings of this court were exprefsly contrary to the laws of the land, for they neither proceeded by jury nor the ftatute law, and yet their determinations were as binding-as acts of parliament. The ty ranny of this court was intolerable; almost all ranks of perfons felt its oppreffions; its fines were fo arbitrary and exorbitant, that few ever came before it but were ruined.

When Mr Cartwright and his brethren came before this court, the Attorney General reproached them bitterly for refufing the oath, and when

O02

Mr

Mr Fuller, Counfel for the prifoners, offered to answer in their behalf, he was ordered to fit down and be filent. From the ftar chamber, they were fent back to the high commiffion, where Bancroft had a long difpute with Mr Cartwright concerning the oath; from thence they were remitted back to the ftar chamber, and a bill was prefered against them, confifting of twenty articles, condemning their affociations as unlawful meetings. To this they answered, that their affociations were lawful and orderly, and in nothing contrary to the laws of the realm; that they exercifed no jurif diction, nor moved any fedition; but tranfacted all their affairs with all due refpect to the Queen and the church; as for the oath they did not refuse it in contempt of the court, but becaufe they believed it contrary to the law of God and nature. This answer not being fatisfactory, they were sent back to prifon, where they remained for two years without any further trial or being admitted to bail. King James of Scotland interceded for them, in a letter directed to the Queen, the twelfth of June this year, and many others alfo wrote letters in their behalf, but without fuccefs; for the Archbishop would not confent to their enlargement, unless they would acknowledge the church of England to be a true church.

All applications proving ineffectual, they 1592. refolved at laft to petition the Queen, which they did. This petition bears date in April one thousand five hundred and ninetytwo. In this reprefentation, they answer all the charges

charges brought against them concerning the oath, fchifm, rebellion, fupremacy, excommunication, concerning their conferences and fingularity, with great calmness and modefty. Though perfecution had much ruffled their tempers, yet there is nothing in their petition but what is decent, grave, and fober. Mr Cartwright was fome time after this fet at liberty, upon his promife to live quietly, and was restored to his hofpital at Warwick, where he spent the remainder of his days in quietnefs, without any further difturbance; but the rest of his brethren continued under fufpenfion, and their families expofed to want and indigence, and many of them ready to ftarve. Some of them were fufpended for seven years, fome for five, others for four, and many for two years: during which time they were expofed to great want, hunger, and diftrefs, all which they fuffered with great refignation and fubmiffion to the will of providence.

The proceedings of the high commiffioners, made their authority at laft to be called in queftion. Mr Cawdery, Minifter at Luffingham, in Suffolk, had been fufpended by the Bishop of London, for refufing the oath ex officio: but because he did not fubmit to his Lordship's fentence, he called him before the high commiffioners, who deprived him for non-conformity and deficiency of learning, and gave away his living to another, though Mr Cawdery was one of the most learned clergymen and best preachers in that country, and offered to give proof of his learning before his judges. He at laft appealed to the court of ex

chequer,

chequer, and ferved a fubpena upon the Chaplain who poffeffed his living here the jurifdiction of the high commiffion was tried before all the judges. Dr Aubery confeffed, that their proceedings were contrary to the ftatute primo Eliz. but was established upon the canon law, which was ftill in force. The iffue of the affair was, the court confirmed the fentence of the commiffion, and Cawdery and his family were fuffered to pine away in beggary and want. This bold ftand which Mr Cawdery made, ftaggered the Archbishop fo much, that he declined the bufinefs of the high commiffion, and afterwards fent his prisoners to the ftar chamber.

Mr Morrice, Attorney of the court of wards, and Member of Parliament, wrote a learned treatife, to prove that no prelates or ecclefiaftical judges have any authority to compel any subjects of the land to take an oath, except in caufes teftamentary or matrimonial; this he proved from fcripture, the authority of councils, the practice of the Heathen Emperors, and the decretals of the Pope, and laftly from the laws of the land. Dr Cofins answered this performance, and Morrice had a reply prepared, but the Archbishop would not fuffer him to publish it. This was the method the Archbishop took in putting a fpeedy end to controverfies, which he knew would expofe his own error, and fhew the world the abfurdity of his conduct.

This year fome of the Minifters who were under confinement, took the oath ex officio, and dif

covered