The author of these tracts was Samuel Rowlands, a prolific writer of the end of the sixteenth and early part of the succeeding century. He appears to have commenced his literary career in the year 1598 by the publication of a collection of sacred poems entitled "The Betraying of Christ, Judas in Despaire, the Seven Words of our Saviour on the Crosse, &c.," but soon found that humorous pieces were more saleable, and these being perhaps more suited to the bent of his mind, he changed his style accordingly.

The Knave of Clubbs upon its appearance in the year 1600 gave such offence, on account of the severity of its satire and the obviousness of its allusions, that an order was made that it should be burnt, first publicly, and afterwards in the Hall Kitchen of the Stationers' Company. The order is dated October 26, 1600, and is worded as follows: "Yt is ordered that the next court-day two bookes lately printed, th'one called The Letting of Humor's Blood in the Head Vayne, th'other A Mery Metinge, or 'tis mery when Knaves mete, shal be publiquely burnt, for that they conteyne matters unfytt to be published; then to be burnd in the Hall Kytchen, with other Popish bookes and thinges that were lately taken."

The first tract mentioned in the order as containing matters unfit to be published was one of the most popular of Rowlands' productions. It was originally printed under the title given above, but upon its condemnation by the Stationers' Company, the bookseller changed its title to "Humour's Ordinarie, where a man may be verie merrie and exceeding well used for his sixe-pence," and published an edition of it without date; but after the feeling had subsided in 1611, it again appeared with its original title, although the printer thought it prudent not to put his name on the title page. The Knave of Clubbs was reprinted and edited for the Percy Society in 1843 by Dr. Rimbault, and I am indebted to that gentleman's introduction for the preceding account of this curious book.

The Letting of Humor's Blood was reprinted in 1815 with an introduction and notes by Sir Walter Scott, who says of Rowland,

"It has been remarked, that his muse is seldom found in the best company; and to have become so well acquainted with the bullies, drunkards, gamesters, and cheats, whom he describes, he must have frequented the haunts of dissipation in which such characters are to be found. But the humorous descriptions of low life exhibited in his satires are more precious to antiquaries than more grave works, and those who make the manners of Shakespeare's age the subject of their study may better spare a better author than Samuel Rowlands."

On May 26th, 1604, the attention of the House of Commons was called to these books as tending to the derogation and scandal of the proceedings of that House in the matter of the Union, and a Committee was appointed to consider the heads of a message to be sent to the Lords touching the same, and on June 1st the Committee was named.

Shortly after this an inhibition from the Convocation House issued, and on June 21st, 1604, it was resolved "to pray conference touching the instrument read by the bishops at the late conference, taxing the intermeddling of this house in matters of religion." Also "to desire the submission of the Bishop in writing, to be delivered unto them publicly in the House, before the Lords; and that the books might be prohibited and suppressed."[15]

These books were both reprinted in one volume in the year 1641.

It is said that for writing this comedy, wherein the authors were accused of reflecting on the Scots, they were committed to prison, and were in danger of losing their ears and noses. They however received pardons, and Jonson, on his release from prison, gave an entertainment to his friends, amongst whom were Camden and Selden. In the midst of the entertainment his mother drank to him, and showed him a paper of poison, which she intended to have given him in his liquor, having first taken a portion of it herself, if the sentence for his punishment had been executed.

This book was printed without any author's name, and generally passed as the production of Sir Edwin Sandys; but it appears from a subsequent edition published at the Hague in 1629, that the first impression of 1605 (at least so it is alleged) "was but a spurious stolne copy, in part epitomized, in part amplified, and throughout most shamefully falsified and false printed from the author's original, in so much, that the same knight was infinitely wronged thereby, and as soon as it came to his knowledge that such a thing was printed and passed under his name, he caused it (though somewhat late, when it seemes two impressions were for the most part vented) to be prohibited by authority, and as many as could be recovered to be deservedly burnt, with power also to punish the printers." This is referred to in a letter from Chamberlain to Carleton, of November 7th, 1605, preserved among the Domestic State Papers, where the writer says, "Sir Edwin Sandys' books burnt." There were subsequent editions in 1632, 1638, and 1687.

On February 24th, 1609, this book was referred to in the House of Commons by Sir Edwin Sandys, as "very unadvised and undiscreet; tending to the disreputation of the House, and power of the common laws;" and on the 27th of the same month a Committee was formed to consider the book and to report thereon to the Lords.[16] On March 25th, 1610, a proclamation was issued prohibiting the buying, uttering, or reading of this book, in these terms:—

"This latter age and tymes of the world wherein wee are fallen, is soe much given to verball profession, as well of religion as of all comendable morall virtues, but wanting the actions and deedes agreable to soe specious a profession, as it hath bredd such an unsaciable curiosity in manye men's speritts, and such an itching in the tonges and penns of most men, as nothing is left unsearched to the bottome, both in talking and writing. For, from the verie highest misteries in the Godhead, and the most inscrutable councells in the Trinitye, to the verie lowest pitt of hell, and the confused actions of the divills there, there is nothing nowe unsearched into by the curiositie of men's braynes; men not being contented with the knowledg of soe much of the will of God as it hath pleased him to reveale, but they will needes sitt with him in his most privie closett, and become privye of his most inscrutable councells, and therefore it is noe wonder that men in theis our dayes doe not spare to wade in all the depest misteries that belong to the persons or state of kinges or princes that are Gods upon earth, since wee see (as wee have alreadye saide) that they spare not God himself; and this license that everie talker or writer nowe assumeth to himself is come to this abuse, that manye Phormios will give councell to Hanniball, and manye men that never went out of the compasse of cloysters or colleges will freelie wade by their writings in the depest misteries of monarchie and politique government. Whereuppon it cannot otherwise fale out but that when men goe out of their element and meddle with thinges above their capacitie, themselves shall not onlie goe astray and stumble in darknes, but will misleade alsoe divers others with themselves into manye mistakings and errors, the proofe whereof we have lately had by a booke written by Doctor Cowell, called the Interpreter. For he being onlie a civillian by profession, and uppon that large ground of a kynd of dictionarie as it were, following the alphabet, haveing all kynd of purposes belonging to goverment and monarchie in his waye, by meddleing in matters above his reach he hath fallen in manye thinges to mistake and deceave himself; in some thinges disputing soe nicely uppon the misteries of this our monarchie that it may receave dubtfull interpretations, yea in some poynts verie derogatorie to the supreame power of this crowne; in other cases mistakeing the true state of the parliament of this kingdome and the fundamentall constitutions and priviledges thereof, and in some other poynts speaking unreverently of the comon lawe of England and of the workes of some of the most famous and antient judges therein; yt being a thinge utterlie unlawfull to anye subject to speake or write against that lawe under which he liveth, and which wee are sworne and are resolved to mayntayne. Wherefore uppon just considerations moveing us hereunto for preventing of the said errors and inconveniences in all tymes to come, wee doe hereby not onlie prohibitt the buying, uttering, or reading of the said bookes, but doe alsoe will and straightlie comaund all and singuler persons whatsoever whoe have or shall have anye of them in their handes or custodie, that uppon payne of our high displeasure and the consequence thereof, they doe deliver the same presentlie uppon this publication to the Lord Maior of London, yf they or anye of them be dwelling in or neere the said cittie, or otherwise to the Sheriff of the county where they or anye of them shall reside, and in the twoe universities to the Chauncellor our Vicechauncellor there, to the intent that further order maye be given for the utter suppressing thereof. And because there shalbe better oversight of bookes of all sortes before they come to the presse, wee have resolved to make choice of commissioners that shall looke more narrowlie into the nature of all those thinges that shalbe putt to the presse either concerning our authoritie royall, or concerning our goverment or the lawes of our kingdome, from whom a more strict accompt shalbe yelded unto us then hath beene used heretofore. Witnes our selfe at Westminster, the fyve and twentith daye of March.

"Per ipsum regem.[17]"

This charge was given by Lord Coke at the Assizes held in Norwich on the fourth of August, 1606, and it was printed in the next year with an epistle dedicatory to the Earl of Exeter by R. P[ricket]. It was suppressed the day after publication, as appears from a letter of John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, dated Feb. 13, 1607.[18]

For writing this book, Nicholas Fuller, a barrister of Gray's Inn, was imprisoned by Archbishop Bancroft, and several notices of him appear in the Domestic State Papers.

In a letter from Carleton to Chamberlain of September 16th, 1607, the writer says, "The king went to Lambeth to encourage the Archbishop to proceed against Nicholas Fuller." Chamberlain writing to Carleton on December 30th, 1607, says that "Mr. Fuller has paid his fine, but submissions are expected which he cannot digest;" and again in a letter of January 5th, 1608, he says that "Fuller the puritan is freed."[19] This scarcely tallies with another account of Fuller, which says that on his imprisonment by Archbishop Bancroft, he remained in durance, and so died on February 23rd, 1619, aged 76 years.

Vorst was a celebrated Arminian divine. He was born at Cologne in 1569, and became Professor of Theology at Leyden in 1610; of which he was deprived in 1619 in consequence of a decision of the Synod of Dort. He died in 1622. In 1611 his books were publicly burnt in St. Paul's Churchyard and both the Universities by the King's order.[20]

Suarez was a Spanish Jesuit. On Sunday, November 21st, 1613, some books of this author derogatory to princes were publicly burnt at Paul's Cross.[21]

I have not been able to meet with a copy of this book, but the following extract from a letter from Rev. Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, dated June 24th, 1613[22] furnishes a brief notice of the author, and the proceedings against him for this publication.

"There hath lately come forth a proclamation against one Cotton, a west country gentleman and a great recusant, charging him with high treason against the King and state for having published a very scandalous and railing book against his Majesty; and promising a very large reward to whosoever could apprehend him and bring him in. At the very self same time, this Cotton being to cross the Thames and enquiring of the watermen what news, they not knowing the man told him what was newly happened concerning himself. Whereupon being landed, he muffled himself in his cloak, thinking thereby to pass unknown to any of his acquaintance that he might haply meet. But he had not passed thence many paces when one Maine, a follower sometimes of the late Lord of Devonshire, and a sure friend of his, meeting him in the street and discovering well what he was, warned him likewise of danger, with protestation nevertheless not to make any benefit of the discovery of his friend, but wishing him to provide for his own safety. Thereupon Cotton demanding his opinion what he thought fittest to be done, he advised him to submit himself to the king's mercy: whose counsel he followed, and presently went and surrendered himself into my Lord of Southampton's hands, and so rests at his Majesty's mercy."

And in another letter from Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, of June 30th, 1613,[23] the writer says "My last letters advertized you of what had lately happened concerning Cotton, who yielding himself to the king's clemency, doth nevertheless utterly disavow the book, and constantly denieth to be the author of it, Hereupon his study hath been searched, and there divers papers found, containing many several pieces of the said book, and (which renders the man more odious) certain relics of the late saints of the gunpowder treason, as one of Digby's fingers, Percy's toe, some other part either of Catesby or Rookwood (whether I well remember not) with the addition of a piece of one of Peter Lambert's ribs, to make up the full mess of them. If the proofs which are against him will not extend to the touching of his life, at least they will serve to work him either misery and affliction enough."

The following is a copy of the proclamation for the apprehension of Cotton:—

"By the King.

"A proclamation for the search and apprehension of John Cotton, Esquire.

"Whereas John Cotton of Warblington, otherwise of Subberton, in the Countie of Southhampton, Esquire, is by sundry strong and vehement presumptions, discovered to have committed matter full of very strange and execrable high treasons, against our person and state; and the same John Cotton (as it should appeare by all circumstances) hath, upon a guiltie conscience, and some privie intelligence of search intended for him, fled from his house and dwelling, and lurketh or wandreth in unknowen places; although it standeth not with the course of justice to condemne any man unheard, yet for that the presumptions and proofes appeare to be so forcible against him, as if after this publique notice, he shall not forthwith come in, and render himselfe, we shall have iust cause to conclude him guiltie; we have thought fit, (besides our more secret directions) to have recourse to the industrie and love of our people, which never failed us, in any case that concerned our safetie or honour, for his bringing forth or apprehension.

"Wherefore wee doe charge and command all our Justices, Mayors, Sheriffes, Bayliffes, Headboroughs, and Constables, and also all officers of our ports, to doe their best and utmost endeavours, to search for, and apprehend the said John Cotton; (of whom, for the better informing of those that know not his person, wee have caused a description to be hereunto annexed.) And doe neverthelesse require all our loving subiects, not only to be aiding and assisting to our said officers therein, but likewise to use their owne particular diligence, care, and industrie, aswell for the finding out and apprehending of the said John Cotton, as for the giving intelligence and advertisement unto any of our justices or officers, where hee hath beene at any time lately seene or met, or otherwise where there is any likelyhood that he should harbour, repaire, or be received.

"And for the better encouragement of our loving subiects to doe their duety in this case (which wee take so much to heart) wee doe hereby declare, signifie and promise, that whosoever shall apprehend and bring into the hands of any our officers of justice, the person of the said John Cotton living, shall have for his reward the summe of one thousand crownes.

"And on the other side, if any of our subjects shall voluntarily receive, harbour, convey, favour, or conceale the said John Cotton, wee doe signifie unto them all, that we shall account them as partakers, and abettors of the said treasons: and if any of our officers, or others shall neglect or let passe any opportunitie, occasion, or meanes for the performance, or executing of their duety in this behalfe, we shall proceede against such persons to their condigne punishment with all severitie according to our lawes.

"Given at our Palace of Westminster the eleventh day of June, in the eleventh yeere of our reigne of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland.

"God save the King.

"John Cotton is of the age of fourtie eight yeeres, or thereabouts, of a reasonable tall stature, slender of body, the haire of his head and beard flaxen, but now inclining to white, well complexioned, with somewhat a long and leane visage.

"¶ Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the King's most excellent Maiestie.

"M.DC.XIII."[24]

For this publication Wyther was committed to the Marshalsea, where he remained several months.

For writing this book Edmund Peacham, Rector of Hinton St. George, in the county of Somerset, was deprived of his living by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on December 19th, 1614.[25] On the 18th January, 1615, Mr. Secretary Winwood, the Master of the Rolls, the Lieutenant of the Tower, and others, were directed by the Council to examine Peacham, then imprisoned in the Tower, respecting his authorship of a treasonable book, and if he should be obstinate in refusing to give needful information, to use the manacles. In a letter from Chamberlain to Carleton of February 9th, 1615, Peacham was said to have been racked, but nothing could be got from him; and the king was much incensed against him. Most of the judges concurred in finding his case treason. He was tried and condemned for high treason in the course of the year 1615, and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, but he died in Taunton gaol in the early part of the year 1616, as appears in a letter from Chamberlain to Carleton of March 27, 1616.[26]

This book was called in "for too free censuring of princes."[27]

This publication fell under censure because it favoured the Calvinists. Dr. Mockett's intention was to give foreign churches a fair notion of the doctrines of the English church; and for that purpose he had translated the Prayer Book into Latin, adding Jewel's Apology and Nowell's Catechism. But in his translation of the Articles he had omitted the latter part, which sets forth the power of the church in rites and ceremonies and in controversies of faith. Besides this, instead of printing the Homilies at length, he had given an abbreviation of them, not fairly representing the opinions of this church; and moreover, in a treatise of his own, he had not given the see of Winchester precedence over all others next to London, but only over those whose bishops were not privy councillors. Dr. Montagu, Bishop of Winchester, was at that time on bad terms with Archbishop Abbot, whose chaplain Dr. Mockett was; the king was appealed to; and the result was a public edict by which the book was ordered to be burnt.[28]

This sermon occasioned much controversy, and caused the preacher to be summoned before the Court of High Commission, but he finally submitted to the authority of the Court, and on May 4th, 1621, signed a formal recantation of the assertions in his book "that either adultery or long desertion dissolves marriage." This submission is preserved among the Domestic State Papers of the period, and is endorsed by Archbishop Laud.[29]

This book, of which I have not been able to meet with a copy, appears to contain an attack on the Lord Chancellor, accusing him of injustice in a chancery suit, and also slanderous words towards the king. For its publication Mr. Wraynham was cited into the Star Chamber, and received a severe sentence, which was however, through the instrumentality of the Chancellor himself, reversed, as appears from the following pardon preserved among the State Papers, and dated July 16th, 1619. "Grant to John Wraynham, at intercession of the Lord Chancellor, of pardon of the sentence of imprisonment for life, fine of £1000, standing in the pillory, loss of his ears, &c., to which he was condemned by the Star Chamber, for presenting a slanderous petition to the King against the Lord Chancellor, who decided a cause against him; also of pardon for putting his case and proofs into a book, with an epistle to the King, and an epilogue, in which were slanders and insolencies both against His Majesty and the Chancellor."

These two books were written by John Williams, Esquire, of Essex, barrister of the Middle Temple, who had been expelled the House of Commons on account of his being a Roman Catholic, and in them he affirmed that the king would die in the year 1621, grounded upon the prophecy of Daniel. These books Williams at his trial told the court were enclosed in a box sealed up, and thus secretly conveyed to the king; and were never printed or published. On May 3rd, 1619, he was arraigned at the King's Bench, Westminster, for this libel, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, which sentence was carried out two days afterwards over against the Mews at Charing Cross.

Two manuscript copies of Balaam's Ass are extant, one in the University Library of Cambridge (Dd. III, 84, art. 2), and another in the Lansdowne M.S., No. 213, p. 59. It is entitled "Balaam's Asse, or a Free Discourse touching the Murmurs and Feared Discontents of the Time, and directed to his then Majestie King James, by way of Humble Advertisement."

Among the manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library is a duodecimo (class mark Ii, vi. 51), written in a hand of the seventeenth century, containing "Notes of cases in the Star Chamber, 17-20 James I." On the last leaf is written the following, in the same hand:—

"A parcel of a pamphlett cast in the courte by Williams, bearinge the title of Balaam's Ass, for which he were after executed.

These four letters evidently designate Henry, Edward, Elizabeth, and James.

The copy of Balaam's Ass in the Cambridge University Library consists of forty eight pages of small folio, neatly written in a hand of the seventeenth century.[30]

The following account of Williams's execution is taken from the State Papers of the period.[31]

"Immediatly upon his comming to the gybbett, hee ascended up the ladder, where, turning his face to the people, hee first began with a hearty prayre for the longe lyfe and prosperous raigne of the King, and then hee proceeded to the acknowledgment of his fault, saying that hee had bin too buisy and sawcy with his majesty, and that hee was heartily sory for that hee had so much offended and distasted the King in wryteing that booke, which hee was ledd to doe out of an inconsiderate love to his contry; then hee told Mr. Dean and Mr. Fanshaw who told him that confession was not answerable to his offence that hee wold gladly speak and express him self in any thing they doubted of, wherupon Mr. Fanshaw demaunded of him if there were noe more of them bookes abroad; to which hee protested that there was not an other booke nor a peece of itt in the world besydes that. Hee questioned him further why hee wrote an Epistle to his Contrymen; he said, because it might come the sooner to his majestie's veiwe: and why he wrote a Propesy in his booke of the desolation of Whytehall, wherin he tooke upon him to tell so precyzely the year, the month, and the day, when the sayd howse shold be ruyened; to which hee aunswered, that hee hoped they wold not thinke him so fond as to conceave himself to be illuminated with any divine or propheticall spiritt, but that which hee wrote was Ironiee. Then he fell to clear himself of an imputation ... upon him yesterday that hee was an Atheist, by reason of a passage in his booke, but hee professed himself to bee a right Romayne Catholicke, and that his fayth was, that he hoped to be saved cheifly and more effectually by the blood of our Saviour shed for his sins; to which Mr. Dean answered that hee ought absolutely to relye upon the death and passion of our Saviour, and alleadged a place in Saint John that noe man cold come to the Father but by the Son only, wherupon hee demanded that if they wold have him make repetition of his fayth againe ... was the same as before hee wold. Mr. Dean told him that they wold willingly joyne with him in his prayres to God, hee said hee had done his devotions ere he came to that place, and so gave the executioner a handkerchef, which hee tyed about his head, and whylst hee was so doeing hee prayed in Latin, and pulling the handkercheif over his eyes hee said, 'Post tenebras spero lucem,' and so dyed."

In June, 1622, the works of this writer were burnt at Paul's Cross by order of the Privy Council. They were also burnt at Oxford by order of the University, as seditious; and at a Senate of the University of Cambridge they were "condemned to eternal infamy," and forbidden to be read.[32] Paræus was a celebrated Calvinistic divine of the Reformed Church. He was born in Silesia in 1548, and died in 1622, having been Professor in the University of Heidelberg.

A set of this publication is in the Library of the British Museum, but the volume containing the year 1623 is unfortunately missing. One of the numbers published in October, 1623, seems to have contained objectionable matter concerning the King, for on the 18th of that month the Lord Keeper addressed the following letter to Mr. Secretary Conway:

"Mr. Secretarie,

"Reading since supper this Mercurius Gallo Bellgicus which heere with all I send unto you, I finde a passage about the 35th page thereof soe full of falsehoodes and indignities towardes his Majestie, that (although I knowe what a despicable esteeme this author hath borne for manie yeares together), yet doe I hold yt, in my poore discretion, verie unfitt that this discourse should be borne in the handes and tost in the mouthes of his Majestie's subjectes.

"I have therefore this night staied the further publishinge of this booke by my expresse warrant untill I shall receive your doome from thence, whether yt be to be contemned and past over or finallie to be suppressed; I shall desire you to write unto me two wordes heerein. And soe I bidd you hartelie farewell, and rest

On the 25th October, Secretary Conway wrote in answer to the Lord Keeper to instruct him to restrain this publication. (See Domestic State Papers of the period.)

This was a tract sheet printed by William Stansby for Nathaniel Butter, bookseller, for which the Stationers' Company, by warrant from the Council, nailed up Stansby's printing house, and broke down his presses. He petitioned Secretary Calvert for pardon and restoration to his business, but the result does not appear.[34]

These books were written by Mr. Reynolds, Viscount Fielding's tutor, and for so doing he was imprisoned. They displeased the king much.[35]

In a letter from John Locke to Carleton, dated July 11th, 1624, the writer says "A poor man is in trouble for printing a book called Votiva Angliæ; the Commission Court were about to liberate him, when the king ordered him to be remanded and to pay £1000 fine, as he was said to have gained £1000 by the book."

In or about the year 1626, Reynolds, who was then a prisoner in the Fleet, addressed a petition to the Council in which he stated that he was forced from France by order of the late king, and on his arrival in England was committed to prison for being the author of the "Votiva Angliæ," in which he deplored the loss of the Palatinate, and desired its restitution, which "every true hearted Englishman ought to wish and pray for;" and that he had been imprisoned full two years, during which time he incurred a debt of £300 for his maintenance; also that he owed sixty and odd pounds for which he was surety, and was threatened to be arrested for the same as soon as he was at liberty; and he concludes by praying for protection against arrest for one year.[36]

The title is engraved, and contains figures of a fat bishop (the Bishop of Spalatro), a black knight (Count Gondomar), and a white knight (the Duke of Buckingham). For writing this play the author was committed to prison. In a letter written by Sir Francis Nethersole on August 14th, 1624, he refers to this play thus: "A new play, the plot of which is a game of chess, in which the whole Spanish business is taken up, and Gondomar brought on to the stage, is so popular that the players gain £100 a night."[37]

This play gave great offence to the king, for the players were very speedily called before the Council and forbidden to play until they had appeared before his majesty;[38] and on August 21st the Council sent the following letter to Secretary Conway.

"After our verie heartie comendacions according to his majesty's pleasure signified to this Board by your letter of the 12th of August, touching the suppressing of a scandalous comedie acted by the king's players, wee have called before us some of the principall Actors and demaunded of them by what lycence and authoritie they have presumed to act the same, in answer whereunto they produced a booke being an orriginall and perfect coppie thereof (as they affirmed) seene and allowed by Sir Henry Herbert, Knight, Master of the Revells, under his owne hand and subscribed in the last page of the said booke. We demaunding further whether there were no other partes or passages represented on the stage, then those expressely contained in the booke, they confidentlie protested they added or varied from the same nothing at all. The Poett they tell us is one Midleton, who shifting out of the way and not attending the Board with the rest as was expected, wee have given warrant to a messinger for the apprehending of him. To those that were before us, we gave a round and sharpe reprooffe, making them sensible of his Majesty's high displeasure herein, giving them strict charge and commaund that they presume not to act the said commedie any more, nor that they suffer any other play or enterlude whatsoever to be acted by them or any of their company untill his Majesty's pleasure be further knowne. Wee have caused them likewise to enter into bond for their attendance upon the Board whensoever they shalbe called; as for our certifieing to his Majestie (as was intimated by your letter) what passages in the said comedie we should finde to be offensive and scandalous, wee have thought it our duties for his Majesty's clearer informacion to send herewithall the booke it self, subscribed as aforesaid by the Master of the Revells, that so either your self or some other whom his Majestie shall appoint to peruse the same, may see the passages themselves out of the orriginall, and call Sir Henry Herbert before you to know a reason of his lycenceing thereof, who (as we are given to understand) is now attending at court. So having done as much as we conceived agreable with our duties in conformitie to his Majestie's royall commaundementes and that which we hope shall give him full satisfaction, we shall continue our humble praiers to Almightie God for his health and safetie, and bid yow verie heartilie farewell. From Whitehall the 21st of August, 1624.

Your assured verie loving freindes,

For writing this book, Mr. Richard Mountagu, Canon of Windsor, Fellow of Eton, Rector of Stamford Rivers, and Chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty was brought to the bar of the House of Commons on July 7th, 1625, and articles were exhibited against him, but proceedings were dropped.[40] On January 17th, 1628, the book was called in and suppressed by a proclamation of which the following is a copy:—

A proclamation for the suppressing of a booke intituled Appello Cæsarem, or An Appeale to Cæsar.

"Whereas Wee out of our care to conserve and maintaine the church committed to our charge in the unity of true religion and the bond of peace, and not to suffer unnecessary disputes, which may trouble the quiet both of Church and State, have lately caused the Articles of Religion to bee reprinted, as a rule for avoyding of diversities of opinion, and for the establishing of consent in true religion; we, continuing our desire to compasse this wished effect, and considering that the booke written by Richard Montague, now Bishop of Chichester, then but Batchelor of Divinitie, intituled (Appello Cæsarem or An Appeale to Cæsar) and published in the yeere (1625), was the first cause of those disputes and differences which have sithence much troubled the quiet of the church, have thought it fitting to take away the occasion by calling in the said booke; and therfore we doe hereby will and straightly command all and singular persons whatsoever, who have or shall have any of them in their hands or custodie, that upon paine of our high displeasure and the consequence thereof, they doe deliver the same presently upon this publication to the Lord Bishop of the diocesse, or his chancellor, if it bee out of the Universities, or if it be in either of the two Universities, to the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor there, whom wee straightly command to suppresse the same; hoping thereby, that men will no more trouble themselves with these unnecessary questions, the first occasion being taken away. But if wee shall bee deceived in this our expectation, and that by reading, preaching, or making bookes, either pro or contra, concerning these differences, men begin anew to dispute, wee shall take such order with them and those bookes, that they shall wish they had never thought upon these needlesse controversies.

Given at our Court at White-Hall, the seventeenth day of January, in the fourth yeere of our reigne, of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland.

God save the King.

Imprinted at London by Bonham Norton and John Bill, printers to the King's most Excellent Majestie. MDCXXVIII."