This he did cheerfully, and died in bonds, after above four years imprisonment, as may be related in its due time. He was a man of learning, and a great writer among his fellow believers; insomuch, that during his confinement he wrote not only several edifying epistles to exhort them to constancy and steadfastness, in the doctrine of Truth, but also some books to refute the opposers of it.

We have here seen how the judge said, there is a new statute which will make you fewer. This statute bore the title of an act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles. And though the act made two years before did extend to banishment, yet that punishment was renewed, and expressed more at large in this, which was as followeth:

A learned man at London, of what persuasion I know not, published a little book in relation to this act, wherein he showed from the laws of England, the absurdity of it: since all religious acts, exercised by six persons, not according to the formality of the church of England, were forbidden; and that at this rate it might be reckoned a transgression, if a woman being in travail, and in danger of life, one of the company said a prayer; or if any one spoke something to comfort the near relations of a deceased person; or prayed for the health or happiness of a young married couple, &c. by which it might happen, that some by the malice of their enemies, might not only incur imprisonment for three months, but also by virtue of the act of banishment, might be condemned to transportation. That this was not without danger, did appear sufficiently by what judge Orlando Bridgman said at Hertford to the jury, viz. ‘You are not to expect a plain punctual evidence against them for any thing they said or did at their meeting; for they may speak to one another, though not with or by articular sound, but by a cast of the eye, or a motion of the head or foot, or gesture of the body. So that if you find or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only and looked upon each other, it was an unlawful meeting.’ At this rate the jurymen, who ought to be impartial judges, or mediators, were swayed, so that without fear they might find the Quakers that were met together guilty of transgressing the law.

Now, since at that time they were resolved to banish the Quakers, so called, George Whitehead published a little book, in which he showed the unreasonableness of the persecutors, and also strengthened his friends with solid arguments against the charge of stiffneckedness, answering some specious objections; amongst the rest, that the Quakers might keep small meetings, and so not fall under the lash of the law; for if they did not meet above five in number, they kept without the reach of the law; and by keeping private meetings they might also acquit their consciences before God. But to this G. Whitehead answered, that it might have been objected to the prophet Daniel, that he might have prayed secretly, and not with open windows and thrice a day, after king Darius had signed the decree, that whosoever should ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king, he should be cast into the den of lions; but that Daniel, notwithstanding this decree, had continued to pray to God as before. ‘Since then,’ said G. Whitehead, ‘our meetings are kept in obedience to the Lord God, and according to the freedom he hath given us, we may not leave off our testimony for God in that case; but we must be faithful to him, whatever we suffer on that account. For neither the threatenings of men, nor their severity or cruelty acted against us, how far soever it may be extended, can make us to forsake the Lord in not keeping our assemblies, or to be ashamed of Christ before men, lest hereafter he be ashamed of us before his Father which is in heaven.’ Besides, he showed how unreasonable it was to incite the jury on an ill-grounded suspicion, without leaving them the liberty of their own judgment: and the judges he showed their duty from the law, and Magna Charta. He also showed how unequal it was, that soldiers, who abused his friends in their meetings, should be called as witnesses against them; and that they should be locked up with thieves and felons, since this was contrary to the right of a free-born Englishman. But this representation of G. Whitehead was slighted, since they were resolved to go on with banishing of the Quakers, and to transport them to the West Indies; which however, according to the ancient laws, might not be done to a free-born Englishman against his mind. Josiah Coale about this time gave forth also a paper, being a warning to the king and both houses of parliament, to dissuade them from persecution. But this did not avail, for persecution went on.

In the month called August, eight of those called Quakers, viz. Francis Prior, Nicholas Lucas, Henry Feast, Henry Marshal, Jeremiah Hern, Thomas Wood, John Blendale, and Samuel Trahern, were tried at Hertford before judge Orlando Bridgman, already mentioned. The indictment contained, that they had been at an unlawful meeting under colour and pretence of religion; and the witnesses declared, that they had met together above the number of five, and were taken at such times, and such places; for they must have transgressed thrice before they could be condemned to banishment: but the witnesses declared also, that they neither heard them speak any words, nor saw them do any thing at their meeting, but sit still. The indictment having been delivered to the grand jury, they could not agree in their verdict; for there were some amongst them whose consciences would not give them leave to be accessary to this work of persecution; and therefore they brought in their verdict ignoramus. Now, though such a verdict as this ought not to be rejected, yet judge Bridgman standing up, and seeming to be angry, spoke to the jury after this manner: ‘My masters, what do you mean to do? Will you make a nose-of-wax of the law, and suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them. Why do not ye find the bill?’ To which one of the jury said, that it concerned them to be wary, and well satisfied in what they did, for they were upon men’s lives for ought they knew. ‘No,’ said the judge, ‘I desire not their lives, but their reformation:’ and then he gave the jury some directions, and he so coloured the matter, that they going out again soon returned, and found the bill.

Then four of the prisoners were called to the bar, their indictment read, and they asked, guilty, or not guilty; to which they answered, ‘Not guilty,’ and that they had transgressed no just law. ‘But,’ said the judge, ‘ye have transgressed this law, (having the act in his hand,) and ye have been twice convicted already upon record, and if ye are found guilty by the jury this time, I must pass the sentence of transportation upon you. Now, therefore ye shall see that we do not desire to strain the law to the highest severity; neither do I believe that it was the aim of the law-makers to be severe, but for conforming. If ye will promise that ye will not go, or be at any more such meetings, I will show you this favour, as to acquit you for what is past: this favour ye may receive before the jury is charged with you; but afterwards I cannot do it. And know also, if the jury for want of punctual evidence, should not find you guilty, yet if ye are taken again, ye will be in the same case ye now are in. What say you? Will ye promise to meet no more?’ To this the prisoners answered, they could promise no such thing. Then a jury was called, and the indictment read a second time, containing, that the prisoners had been at an unlawful meeting at such a time and place, the first, second, and third time. The witnesses being called, gave the same evidence as before; and then the judge said thus to the jury: ‘My masters, the jury, ye hear what evidence the witnesses give; how they took them at such times, at such places, which are places they use to meet in; and that they were above the number of five, besides the persons of the family where they met; and that they are twice convicted already upon record: and this is the third offence, which incurs the sentence of transportation, if ye find them guilty.’ Then he spoke these words which have been mentioned already, viz. ‘Ye are not to expect a plain punctual evidence against them for any thing they said or did at their meeting, &c. for dumb men may speak to one another, so as they may understand each other by signs: and they themselves say, that the worship of God is inward, in the spirit, and that they can discern spirits, and know one another in spirit. So that if ye find or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, it was an unlawful meeting; and their use and practice not according to the liturgy of the church of England; for it allows and commands when people meet together in the church, that divine service shall be read, &c. And ye must find the bill; for ye must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law, which the king and parliament have in wisdom and policy made, not only against conventicles, but the words assembly and meeting were added; for we have had late experience of the danger of such meetings under colour of religion: and it is an easy matter at such meetings to conspire and consult mischief. Therefore the wisdom and policy of the king and parliament, lest they should be undermined, have made this law, which is not a law against conscience, for it doth not touch conscience at all, as I confess some other laws do, which enjoin coming to church, and some other things.’ This and more judge Bridgman spoke to the jury, to persuade them to bring the prisoners in guilty. And the jury being gone out, within the space of an hour returned, and their foreman said, that Nicholas Lucas, and the other three, were guilty.

What the judge had said, that they had had late experience of the danger of such meetings under colour of religion, was of no force at all; for it never had appeared that the Quakers in religious meetings did any thing else than the performing of their worship, though there were other evidences concerning the Fifth monarchy-men; but it was universally known that the Quakers had no part therein, nor joined with them in the least degree. It was also a very absurd saying of the judge, that this law did not touch conscience: for it was merely for conscience-sake that the Quakers frequented not the public service and liturgy of the church of England, and kept religious meetings by themselves. But the jury seemed well satisfied with what the judge had told them; and he having thus obtained his aim, read the prisoners’ names, and said to them, ‘What can ye say for yourselves, that judgment of transportation should not pass, or be given against you?’ To which they said, ‘We are innocent, and have transgressed no just law; if we must have that sentence, we give up our bodies freely into the hands of the Lord; the will of the Lord be done.’ ‘Have ye nothing more to say?’ said the judge. ‘Nothing, but that we are innocent,’ replied the prisoners, ‘we have wronged no man.’ ‘Then hearken to your sentence,’ said the judge. ‘Ye shall be transported beyond the seas, to the island of Barbadoes, there to remain seven years.’

Then Jeremiah Hern and Thomas Wood were called to the bar, and their indictment read, to which they pleaded, ‘Not guilty, but innocent;’ and Jeremiah said, he was no such person as the act mentioned, for plotting and contriving insurrections. Then the judge interrupting him, said, ‘You are a forward man, you have an estate;’ and so he caused him to be set by: and to Thomas Wood he said, ‘I hear a good report of you; consider what you do; I am sorry, seeing you have a good report among your neighbours, that you should be found guilty, which I fear you will if you put yourself upon trial: I am willing to show you favour; and it may be one man may fare the better for another.’ This reflected on Jeremiah, who, by the malice of one John King, had been falsely represented to the judge. Yet Jeremiah having shown how he had been wronged, the judge said, they should both partake of his favour, if they would but desire it, and this favour consisted in this, as he himself said, that he would wave the proceedings of the court, and give them till the next assizes, to consider better with themselves. ‘What say you, (thus he continued,) will ye have it deferred till the next assizes? for if the jury find the bill, you will be sent to Jamaica; ye must not all go to one place.’ To this the prisoners returned, ‘We have transgressed no law of God, nor wronged any man: we leave it to the court; we desire it not.’ ‘If you will not desire it,’ replied the judge, ‘I cannot, nor will do it.’

Then three other prisoners were brought to the bar, among whom was one John Reynolds, who, according to the deposition of the witnesses, had been within a yard of the door of the meeting-place, with his face from it. The judge then said, ‘God forbid that I should do any thing that is not right and just against my conscience; there is that which is written upon the wall before me, which puts me in mind, that I should not judge for man, but for God.’ Then turning to the jury, he spoke to them almost after the same manner, as he did concerning the other four prisoners: and to induce them to declare Reynolds, (who was taken but not in the meeting,) guilty, he spoke thus: ‘Suppose a man be killed in a house, and nobody saw him killed, but a man is met coming out of the house with a bloody knife in his hand, it is a very probable evidence that he is guilty of the murder. So though the witnesses do not say that they saw and took him in the meeting, yet they swore he was within a yard of the door with his face from the place where they usually met; and he hath been taken twice already, and convicted upon record. My masters, I leave it to you, go forth.’ Then a bailiff was called, and charged to provide the jury a room, and to let none speak with them, nor to let them have either bread, drink, or candle, till they brought in their verdict. The jury being gone out, soon agreed, and after they were returned said, that four of the five prisoners were guilty, and that the other who stood without the door was not guilty. So he was acquitted; but the other four being brought to the bar, the judge asked them, what they could say why judgment of transportation should not be given against them. Their answer was, ‘We are innocent, and have not offended any just law of God or man, to deserve that sentence; we leave it to the witness of God in thy or your consciences.’ Then the judge said, ‘Ye have offended against this law, (having the act before him,) which is made by the king and parliament, and executed by us their subordinate ministers: if it be not righteous and just, we must answer for that.’ One of the prisoners had said before, ‘If I have transgressed any just law, let me suffer; and if not, he that judgeth for God will not condemn me.’ To which the judge returned, ‘You do well to put me in mind of my duty; pray think of your own.’ And now he asked the prisoners, ‘Have you any more to say?’ To which they answered, ‘Nothing, but that we are innocent.’ Then he said, ‘Hear your sentence: you shall be transported beyond the seas, to the island of Jamaica, being one of his majesty’s foreign plantations, there to remain seven years. Now I have this one thing to acquaint you with, that if you, and either of you, will pay down here into the court, an hundred pounds before the court riseth, you and every one of you shall be discharged, and clearly acquitted for what is past. And I will show you this favour, not to discharge the court at this present, but shall adjourn it till afternoon.’ This was done; and the court being met again, the judge sent to the condemned prisoners to know if they would pay down the hundred pounds; but they answering, ‘No,’ the court was then soon discharged.

Seven of these prisoners not long after were carried on ship-board to be transported to the West Indies; but (which was remarkable,) the ship by contrary winds and stormy weather was hindered going to sea. Not only the master, whose name was Thomas May, but also his men, grew very uneasy at this: for they believed that Heaven was against them: nay, the sailors threatened to leave the ship, if the master would not set those prisoners ashore. And he himself, considering how after having lain long in the Downs, and more than once set sail, they were hindered to go on by contrary winds, resolved at length, after having lingered about two months, to set the banished ashore; and so he did, giving them a certificate, of which I have a copy in my custody, that they were not run away, but freely put ashore by him, for which, among others, he gave these reasons, that seeing the great adversities they had met with, he concluded from thence, that the hand of God was against him, and that therefore he durst not go off with these prisoners, because he found them to be honest men, who had not deserved banishment. And also that there was a law extant, that no Englishman might be transported against his mind. And that his men refused to proceed on the voyage if he would carry away these people. This certificate he gave under his hand, and so let them go away free; and not long after the ship set sail with a fair wind. I do not find that the banished, who returned home again, were prosecuted on this account: for the sentence against them was executed as far as it could at that time, and they had made no opposition, but had been sufferers.

Persecution in the meanwhile did not cease: but this did not discourage those called Quakers; they continued valiant, as I have seen in many letters sent about that time to some of my acquaintance. One said in the court of justice, ‘We are in the service of the Lord, and may not leave it;’ another who was offered to be freed of banishment, if he would pay down an hundred pounds, said, ‘Though I had an hundred lives to lose, and could redeem them all for an hundred pence, yet I would not do it.’ But this could not stop the violence of the persecutors; till an heavier hand reached them, as may be related hereafter.

In the months of October and December many were condemned to transportation, and among these several women, whose trials I shall but cursorily speak of: for if I should relate all particulars, the description would far exceed my limits; and therefore I will but touch upon some few things.

On the 13th of October, sixteen of those called Quakers were tried at Hicks’s Hall, in Middlesex, for the third offence, as they called it.—The grand jury consulting together about finding the bill of indictment, could not well agree. And the justices giving them a check, one of the jurymen desired to know, by what law they ought to find a bill against any persons, without witnesses to testify the fact committed. To which answer was made by the court, that their records testified the crime or fact, and that such their record was a sufficient witness without the testimony of any man. And for a proof of this it was further said, ‘The records in Chancery serve as a sufficient testimony; and if it be so in Chancery, why not here?’ The jury having been twice upon this business, was sent up a third time; and Edward Shelton, the clerk, said he would go up also to help them, and so he did; it having been threatened, that if the jurymen did not find a bill, they should be fined. Nevertheless, at their return they answered, ‘No verdict.’ Whereupon the justices finding the jurymen not to answer their ends, took them apart, and examined them one by one, telling them that the only thing they were to look upon was, that they did assemble together above the number of five in company; which, according to what they said, their records showed. This made some of the jury comply; but others stood it out, and signified that in conscience they could not consent to what was required of them. But the major part complying with the justices, upon their threatening them, and the others being strongly pressed, the bill was, by a kind of force, accepted at length. But how hard a case this was to some, appeared by the mournful confession of one of the jury, who to ease his conscience published in print a small book, with the title of ‘The Wounded Heart, or The Juryman’s Offences,’ &c. in which he openly disapproved the fact, to which he had been induced by human fear. The pains had been so great to persuade the jury to bring in a verdict according to the mind of the court, that the clerk, as was reported, said, he had rather have given twenty pounds, than have been so troubled.

The next day the prisoners were brought to the bar, and William Proctor, of Gray’s Inn, sat as judge in the court. The questions and answers I pass by for brevity sake. One Hannah Trigg pleading she was innocent, was asked how old she was; to which she saying she was not sixteen years old; one of the justices did not stick to say, she told a lie; and that he thought the Quakers would not lie. In the meanwhile it appeared, that he only said so by guess to baffle her; for by a certificate of some that were present at her birth, (which was divulged in print,) it was proved that she, being the daughter of Timothy Trigg, was born at London on the 20th of the month called August, 1649; and so was but fifteen years of age, and dealt with against the law; which was the harder, because this maid falling sick, died in prison, after the sentence of banishment had been past upon her: which sentence was now pronounced against twelve persons, among whom were four maids; and four married women were condemned to a confinement of eleven months in Bridewell. The judge in the pronouncing the sentences was so disturbed in his mind, that ordering some to be transported to Virginia, and others to Barbadoes, he condemned some also to be sent to Hispaniola; at which the people were not a little surprised, for he made it plainly appear, that he did not consider what he said; since Hispaniola was no place in the dominions of the king of England: but he was so confounded, that he also accused the prisoners of having transgressed the laws of the commonwealth, forgetting that England was no more a commonwealth, as it was before the restoration of king Charles II.

On the 15th of October above forty of the prisoners called Quakers, were tried before the judges Hide and Keeling. To mention all the exhorbitances of this trial, which were not few, I count needless; for as to the questions and answers, and the passing of sentence, the reader may form to himself an idea of it from what hath been said already of the trial at Hertford, &c. A maid being asked, guilty, or not guilty, answered, ‘I never was taken at any seditious meeting or conventicle in my life.’ To which the judge said, ‘But, woman, were not you taken at the Bull and Mouth the 21st of August?’ She answered, ‘I am innocent in the sight of God and all good people.’ That this was true the judge did not deny, but said, ‘I believe that, woman, but you have transgressed a law.’ She replied, ‘As for the Bull and Mouth. I believe I have been there an hundred times, and if the Lord permit me life and liberty, I do not know but I may go there an hundred times more.’ The judge then saying, ‘Woman, will you plead or no, guilty or not guilty, or else I must pass sentence upon you.’ She answered, ‘The will of the Lord be done, I am innocent.’ Yet this could not avail her, though judge Hide had said a little before concerning the prisoners, ‘If they are innocent, then they are not guilty.’ But she was set by as mute, or pro confesso, as to the fact charged against her in the indictment. Others who complained of the unreasonableness of the proceedings, were hectored as impudent: and the jury showing themselves dissatisfied concerning the witnesses, judge Hide said to them, it was no untruth if a man did mistake in the time, and that his evidence was good, though he did not see one in the house: ‘For,’ said he, ‘if forty men be in a room, and one is brought out of the room to me, standing at the door, cannot I swear that he was in that room, if I see him come out? You must not make such scruples.’

In the meanwhile there were some among the witnesses who did not know the prisoners by face; so that there was reason enough to disprove their testimony. But whatever was objected, the business must go on: for though one of the witnesses declared that the meeting, from which the prisoners had been taken was peaceable; and though one of the prisoners said, that the law was made against seditious meetings, and that nothing of sedition had been proved against them: yet judge Keeling said, the act was made to prevent such meetings, because under colour and pretence of religion, plots and conspiracies might be carried on. And when a prisoner said, that he was at a peaceable godly meeting, and received much comfort there; the judge returned, ‘That is as much as we desire. You confess you were there; and though it was a peaceable meeting, yet it was an unlawful one.’ Another of the prisoners who pleaded that the law the court acted by was contrary to Magna Charta, and the ancient fundamental laws of the land, was answered by judge Hide, ‘If the king and parliament should make a law that two justices without a jury should adjudge a man to death for the third offence as a felon, without benefit of clergy, it would be a good law, and according to Magna Charta, and the law of the land; and we should be bound to execute it.’ It seems this judge, (who not long after was suddenly summoned hence to appear before the divine assizes,) was of opinion, that since the legislative power resided in the king and parliament, all that they resolved and enacted, must pass for good law. But if I should mention all the absurdities I meet with in these proceedings, when should I come to an end? True it is, that sometimes a show was made of pity: for judge Keeling said to two maids, ‘We are sorry that such young maids should be thus deluded.’ But because they would not promise to go to the public church, though they declared themselves ready to assist at divine service, they were deemed as guilty. Another prisoner being asked by judge Hide, whether he would go to church, answered, ‘If I have my liberty, I shall go to church.’ But when it appeared that he did not mean the established or public church, this promise could not save him. One Richard Poulton, a lad of fifteen years of age, who by a certificate showed, that he was not yet sixteen years old, and therefore no transgressor of the law, was asked, if he would swear he was not sixteen, just as if he could have remembered the time of his birth; to which he answered, that he was not brought up to swearing: and being asked, whether he would promise to go to church, he answered, he should promise no such thing. Then he was returned to the rest that were to be sentenced.

This was on the 17th of the aforesaid month; when nineteen persons, among which were some women, were condemned to banishment, and four married women to twelve months imprisonment in Bridewell. None of the judges it seems had a mind to pronounce sentence, and therefore they left this business to the city recorder. He then bidding the prisoners to hearken to the judgment of the court, spoke so softly, that he could not well be heard, which made one of the prisoners say, that he ought to speak louder, for they could not hear him. But he continuing to speak softly as before, two or three others of the prisoners told him, they could not tell what he said. To which he answered, he cared not whether they did or no; and then said, ‘Hearken to your sentence, You and every of you, shall be transported beyond the seas, the men to Barbadoes, and the women to Jamaica, being two of his majesty’s plantations, there to remain seven years.’ Thus the persecutors endeavoured to be rid of the Quakers: but though persecution now was very hot, yet they fainted not, neither were they in want of such vigilant assistants, as both by example and words continually encouraged them to faithfulness: who yet, (which was remarkable,) were not condemned to banishment, as many others.

Among these was Josiah Coale also, who about this time, as I have been told, was in prison at London; and both by writing, and by word of mouth, did exhort his fellow-believers to constancy: for, (when under confinement,) he betook himself to his pen, and recommended to his friends, that they would not forsake their meetings, though they were to undergo great sufferings, since it was God’s good pleasure to let their patience be tried. ‘And,’ said he, ‘that these afflictions come upon us is by God’s permission: who then shall gainsay him, or endeavour to reason with him about matters of so great a concern, since his way is hid from man.’ He also signified to them that this was done to try their faith, and that therefore they ought to continue bold, and persevere valiantly. ‘And though,’ said he, ‘great sufferings and afflictions attend us, yet my heart, praised be the Lord, is not troubled, neither hath fear seized me, because I see the intent of the Lord in it.’ And in one letter he spoke thus: ‘Friends, this know: that for the sake of the residue of the seed which is yet ungathered, is my life freely sacrificed up into the hand of the Lord; and ready and willing am I to lay it down for the testimony of God’s blessed truth, which he hath given me to hear, if thereunto I am called: for bonds and afflictions attend me daily, and I may say, we are in jeopardy of our lives daily: so let your prayer to God be for me, that I may be kept unto the end, to finish my testimony with joy, and in all things to bring glory and honour to the name of the Lord, who is over all, blessed for ever.’ This his Christian desire he obtained, as will be said in due place. It was a time of suffering; and those to whose share it fell, continued valiant: whilst others did not neglect to exhort the king and parliament to leave off persecution. Among these was William Bayly, who gave forth a very serious exhortation and warning against the persecution to the king and parliament, &c. beginning thus: