The intention of this book was to support the title of the Infanta against that of King James, after the death of Queen Elizabeth. The real authors were Robert Parsons the Jesuit, Cardinal Allen, and Sir Francis Englefield; and the printer is said to have been hung, drawn, and quartered.

It was rigorously suppressed, and by the Parliament of 35 Elizabeth it was enacted that "whosoever should be found to have it in his house should be guilty of high treason." It was also condemned by the University of Oxford on account of its dangerous positions, particularly that which says "Birthright and proximity of blood do give no title to rule or government;" and was burnt in the School Quadrangle there in July, 1683.

According to Camden, in his Life and Reign of Queen Elizabeth, (p. 576) the purport of this book, which quite laid aside the business of birthright, was: That the ancient laws of the land relating to hereditary succession ought to be altered. That new laws ought to be made about the choice of a King, and that none but a Roma Catholick, how near akin soever to the Crown, ought to succeed to it. Most of the Kings of England they traduced as mere usurpers, and all of the blood-royal in England as illegitimate, and so uncapable of succession. The King of Scots' title to the crown, though most certain and indisputable, they attempted to invalidate; and by sham tricks and devices endeavoured to set up the Infanta Isabella, the King of Spain's daughter, purely for being a Roman Catholic; a thing I am ashamed to mention, because the Priest's lips ought to preserve knowledge, and they should stand having their loins girt about with truth. Their first plea was, because, as this book pretends, she fetches her pedigree from Constance, the daughter of William the Conqueror, King of England, and wife to Alan Fergant, Earl of Bretagne; whereas notwithstanding Gulielmus Gemeticensis, who lived about that time, declares in his last book, that she died without issue, and he is followed by the consent of all the writers of the affairs of Bretagne. The next pretence was, because she had her descent from Eleanor, the eldest daughter of King Henry II, who was married to Alphonsus IX, King of Castile, whereas Pope Innocent III makes it out in Matthew Paris, (p. 381), that Maud, the wife of Henry Leo, Duke of Saxony, and mother of the Emperor Otho IV was his eldest daughter; and Robert, abbot of St. Michael's Mount, who christened her affirms that she was born 1162. A third argument was, because she was a descendant from Blanch, the eldest daughter of the said Eleanor, which was proved to be false both by Roderigo, Archbishop of Toledo, in his ninth book, and Pope Innocent, a writer of better credit, and both of them living in the same age. Another reason alleged was because she came originally from Beatrice, the daughter of Henry III, King of England, though 'twas forgot, in the mean time, that she had two brethren, Edward I, King of England, and Edward, Earl of Lancaster, from whom a great part of the nobility of England were lineally descended, besides the Royal Family. Again they asserted the Infanta's claim by the House of Portugal, and maintained on the same bottom the title of the Dukes of Parma and Braganza, from Philippa, the daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, whom they make to be his eldest daughter by his wife Blanch; whereas Frosard, who was a courtier at that time, proves (fol. 169 of the second part of his history) that his eldest daughter was Elizabeth, wife to John Holland, afterwards Duke of Exeter, from whose loins proceeded a large race of nobility, all the kingdom over.

Among the Domestic State Papers of the reign of Queen Elizabeth there is extant a copy of a letter from Robert Parsons to an unknown recipient, dated June 15th, 1599, concerning the book now under description. It is as follows:—

"For that you are desirous my lovinge Frennd to understande of certayntie whether C. A. before his death had reade the late publyshed booke aboute the Successyon, and what his opinyon, judgment, and censure was of the same, and of all that affaires; and for that you shewe in your lettere, that greate difference and varyetie in judgmentes, discourses, reasons, and affectyons doe beginne to discover themselves ther, where you are about this matter, I shall answere your whole demaunde as truly and perticulerly as the compasse of a lettere will give me leave; havinge had (as you knowe) noe small meanes (by reason of my intrinsicall familliarrytie with C. A. and in his most secrette affaires) to knowe his meaninge fully in the cause. First, when I did assure you that C. A. reade over the booke more then once, and that with much attention, and liked the same excedinge well for the whole subjecte and argumente therof, esteminge yt very necessary for all sortes of English people that such a booke should be written, to give them lighte in a matter importinge them soe highlye as doth the successyon of the Crowne, wherof all dependeth, that is to say, (as he was wonte to saye), both life, honor, goodes, and a greate peace of the soule; and he woulde often affirme that noe lawe in the worlde could be more unjuste or more contrary to all reason or conscience then to forbide men to speake or treate of that which above all thinges concerneth them moste. Secondly, I can tell you also that C. A. had studyed much this matter of successyon before his death, and had gathered divers notes and observatyons together with intention as yt seemeth to have written a discourse therof himselfe, if he had not bynne prevente by this other booke, which did soe much contente and satisfye him, as presently he lefte of that cogitation, and sente all his papers, or the most parte therof, unto Mr. Fra. Peter, with whome he had conferred largly not longe before his deathe, by letteres of this affayre, doubtinge somwhat whether the time for some circumstances were fitte or noe to let the booke goe abroade, thoughe on the other side he were full of opinion that if it founde free passage it coulde not chose but doe infinite good. And as for the firste parte therof, which treateth of matter more in generall, and sheweth that propinquity and ancetry of bloude alone, althoughe it weare certaynely knowne, is not suffycyente to challenge admissyon to a crowne, excepte other conditions and circumstances requisite be founde alsoe in the person that doth pretende; as namely, witte, reason, and above all other thinges true religion; and that many nexte in bloude Royall have bynne justly barred and putt backe, and some alsoe deprived which were in posessyon, for these and lesser defectes, in all Christyan countryes throughout the worlde, and that this was allowed and ratifyed by God himselfe, and that all Christyan commonwealthes had authoritye, yea obligation, to doe and followe the same when just occasyon shoulde be offred.

"All these pointes, I say, which are largly handled in the firste parte of this booke, C. A. did greately like and allowe of, and sayde that they were pointes both true and evidente in themselves, and substancyally proved by the auther of the booke; and for the sayde author not to exasperate any parte, houldeth himselfe in these generall tearmes and propositions onely, without descendinge to perticulers. C. A. was wonte to aply them to perticuler state and case of Englishe Catholiques in these our dayes, affirminge not onely they mighte use this libertye of admittinge or rejectinge the next pretender, whatsoever his tytle were by meanes of bloud, in respecte of his false religion. But moreover, that they were bounde in conscynce soe to doe, and that none mighte without committynge grevous synne, favour, further, ayde, or give consente to the admissyon of any Prince when the place should be voyde, that was knowne or justly suspected to be enimye to the Catholique Romayne faythe, or undoubtedly affected towards the same; and whosoever for worldly or humayne respectes, as countryshippes, kindred, freindshippe, proper intereste, or the like, should beare a contrary minde to this, did greatly offende God therin, and oughte not to be accompted a true and zealous Catholique; moreover, that all such as in our dayes or former tymes have followed the contrary courses in chosinge or admittinge ther princes, not respectinge God and his cause in the firste place, accordinge to goode conscyence, but followinge those humayne respectes above mentioned, have alwayes lightly receaved theire distructyon by those selfe same Princes whome soe corruptly they preferred; wherof C. A. would recounte often tymes more perticuler examples, and notable storyes both of our Country and of others round aboute us, and alwayes woulde conclude that whatsoever Englishman after soe longe a storme of heresye woulde not sticke onely and wholy to a knowne Catholique Prince for the next successyon, woulde adventure to followe other blinde, and broken hopes and respectes agayne was not worthy to have the name of opinion of a sounde Catholique, but either of a fonde or mallityous polliticke, and thus much for the firste parte of the booke.

"Touchinge the seconde parte, wherin the severall and perticuller titles of five royall houses or lyneages are discussed,—to witte, of the house of Scotland, Suffolke, Clarence, Britaigne, and Portugall; and they by the pretencions of all such perticuler persons as in our dayes doe or may pretende to the nexte successyon of Englande, by reason of the sayde houses; as namely the Kinge of Scottes, the lady Arbella in the house of Scotland, the Earle of Hertford's children, and the Earle of Darby in the house of Suffolke, and the Earle of Huntingdon and the Pooles in the house of Clarence, the lady Isabella, the Infanta of Spaine in the house of Bretaigne, and the Kinge of Spaine with the Dd of Parma and Braganza in the house of Portugall; of all these pointes, after dilligente readinge over and wayinge the booke, C. A., his opinyon was as followeth.—First, that ther was soe much sayde in this booke for and agaynst everye one of these five houses and the different pretenders that are in eache one therof, as in a very wise and learned man's judgment and conscyence was sufficyente to brede greate doubte which house hath the best tytle by neerenes and lawfulnes of bloud onely, all and every parte havinge probable reasons for itselfe and againste his adversarye, wherof he did inferre, that if the adversitye of religion where not in all these competitors such and soe greate as it is, yet might a good man for other lesser respectes and considerations of the whole publicke, make choise of any one of these house, or at the leastewise of the principalleste, with sufficyente reason to secure his conscyence for not doinge againste the right of successyon, the sayde righte beinge soe doubtfull and ambiguous as this auther doth prove it to be. Secondly, his judgmente was, that in respecte of restoringe or establishinge of the Catholique religion in our countrye, with other pointes therunto belonginge, much lesse doubte or scruple may there be, to choose, admitte, or refuse any one of these competitors which may be presumed woulde best performe the sayde establishmente of religion, and with lesse danger, trouble, warre, bloudshed, or dangers of our Countrye and common wealthe, wherunto princypally and onely, he would alwayes say, that good and wise oughte to have theire eye more then to other lesser respectes of fleshe and bloude. And whether the partie was borne at home or abroade, weare of kindred or the like, for that the former points of religion, equitye, wisdome, couradge, and vertue in a Christian prince, maketh his people and common wealthe happye, and not whether he was borne amongst them or noe, and consequently are more to be respected in admissyon or conclusyon of any competytors. And as for the severall tytles of these five houses, C. A. was wonte to saye that he would have wished with all his harte the like I have heard Mr. J. P. say alsoe, that seinge K. H. 7th was once placed in the Crowne, and had shewed himselffe a good Catholicke kinge, his yssue might have enjoyed the same for ever without any change or further examination of theire righte; but now forasmuch as through the haynous synnes as may be supposed of K. H. the 8, his ofspringe are fallen from the sayde Catholique religion, yt semeth God's most just judgmentes that ther tytles are called in questyon; and forasmuch as the tytle of Kinge H. 7th, of whome descended the twoe houses of Scotland and Suffolke, cometh but from John, Duke of Somersette, bastard sonne to John of Gaunte, Duke of Lancaster, by his thirde wife; and then the tytle of the house of Portugall cometh from Ladye Phillippe, eldest and lawfull daughter of the sayde John of Gaunte. And that moreover C. A. had perticuler intelligence which the author of the booke seemeth not to have knowne when he wrotte yt, that yt apeareth to this daye by the recordes of England that when the aforesayde John, Duke of Somersett, (of whome Kinge Henry the Seventh and his line descendeth) was legittymate by parliamente, expresse exceptyon was made that noe pretention therby should be given to him or his posterytie for the Crowne of England; for these reasons and many others which the author aleadgeth in his booke, it semeth to C. A. that if the cause of Portugall should be put before equall judges, it woulde be very doubtfull which party woulde gette the better. And for the house of Clarence C. A. never made any accompte of the tytle in comparison of the yssue of Kinge Henry the Seventh, seinge that they of Clarence onely doe pretende by the daughter of George, Duke of Clarence, of the house of Yorke, yonger brother to King Edward the Fourth, and the house of Scotlande and other yssue of King Henry the Seventh, descended of Elyzabeth, eldest daughter of the same Kinge Edward the Fourth, whoe was eldeste brother to Duke George; soe as in the very house of Yorke the lynes of Scotland and Suffolke doe goe evydently before that of Clarence; and thus for the tytles of those foure houses. Touchinge the fifte house of Britagnye and Fraunce, whose heire is the lady Infanta of Spaine, C. A., his opinyon was that much was sayde and pithely in the booke, and that the quallitie and circumstance of the personne pretendente doe greatly comend the pretence, for that all thinges considered, he did see noe other person in the worlde soe fitte to ende all controversies, to breake all difficultyes, and to avoyde all dangers on every syde, as if this lady should be agreed on of all handes to have her title established. This C. A. would prove by manie arguments, utillityes, and commodyties which he sayde woulde ensue by this meanes more then by any other, as alsoe by the difficultyes and damages of all other wayes, whatsoever should be devised. For firste, he was wonte to saye, that if the house of Portugall should be preferred, many difficultyes would be aboute the admittinge of the Kinge of Spaine, both for that the English, of what stocke soever, would not willingly yelde to have ther Crowne subjected to any other, nor would other Christyan princes rounde aboute like of that increase of soe greate a monarchye, and consequently there woulde followe much warre and bloudshed; for the Dukes of Parma and Braganza, which alsoe are of this house of Portugall, though they be worthie Princes, yet greate difficultyes doe seeme woulde followe, both for that they wante forces sufficyently to gette and defende soe greate a Crowne; as alsoe for that theire tytles to the successyon of Englande may seeme in parte to be decyded against them alreadye in the controversye that is paste of the Crowne of Portugall, though some men will saye that there is a difference in the state of these twoe successyons. In the house of Suffolke, that conteyneth the Earles of Hertforde and Darbye there are partely alsoe the same, and partly farre greater difficultyes; the same for that the powers are not like to be sufficyente for soe difficulte an enterprise, and farre greater, for that the tytles doe seeme evidently behinde that of Scotlande, which cometh of the eldeste daughter of King Henry the Seventh, and ther is onely of the yonger syde the impedimente of the religion, wherof I shall speake presentlye. There remayneth then onely the house of Scotland, and namely the Kinge's tytle, for of Arbellae's pretention C. A. never made any accompte at all, she beinge as is knowne of a seconde marryadge, and that intangled with many difficultyes and doubtes as the booke declareth; about which tytle of the Kinge of Scottes, C. A. was wonte to saye that albeyt for the causes above mentyoned of the quiet posessyon of Henry the Seventh, he was longe desirous that noe mutation should be made in this yssue, espetyally as longe as the Queene of Scottes lived, which was a knowne Catholique, and soe longe after her death as there was any hope of the reduction and conformitye of her sonne (nowe Kinge) to the Catholique faithe; upon which hope both C. A. and Mr. Fr. P. and other the freindes labored earnestly for his prefermente divers yeares together, yet afterwardes seinge the perseverance of the Kinge in his professyon of herysie, and consyderinge that havinge bin broughte up and nourished in the same from his tender yeares, though otherwise as it is thoughte of noe evill nature, it would be hard to expecte any sure or firme reduction in a prince of his yeares and libertye, and that of this one pointe notwithstandinge depended the whole good or distruction of our whole country and realme, C. A. beganne seriously to thinke better of the matter, and findinge by searche that the small obligation that he or other of the English nation have to this Kinge in respecte of his neernes of bloud above the reste as abondantly is shewed in this booke; and that on the other syde, conscyence did forbyd him to faver a pretendor of his religyon, what tytle or nerenes in bloud soever he had. For these causes and considerations C. A. changed his whole opinion in that behalfe; espetyally after divers learned and grave men of the Kinge's owne natyon which for many yeares had labored to doe him good every way, gave testymonye upon theire conscyences, they had noe hope or probabillitye lefte of his conversyon. And matters standinge thus, and beinge once brought within differency into this ballance of due consideration, ther offred themselves alsoe above and beyonde this, divers other pointes alsoe not unworthye to be wayed,—as for example, the hard and bricke combination or joyninge together of English and Scottes natures, customes, enclinations, and wills, under one Kinge, the dislike and repugnance that all other princes rounde aboute us would have that these kingdomes should be joyned in one, from which twoe fountaynes onely (if noe other difficultye were there) woulde never wante in matter both of endlesse strife from the firste of the twoe, neither helpe to encourage, continue, and maintayne the same from the second fountayne, which twoe ga.. inconveniences beinge joyned with the former, which is the greateste and chefeste of all others, that may be to witte, the King beinge soe hartely affected to heresye and drowned in the same, and soe allyed and entrapped every waye with heritiques that if he should for a shewe or for any temporall respecte, upon the perswasyons of some pollitique or Athiste, make countenance to be a Catholicke, ther could never be any true assurance had therof, nor hope of any sincere reformation by his meanes. All these considerations layde together in the brest of C. A., (that desired nothinge but the true honor and service of God, assurance of religion, and good of his Countrye), made him very pensive before his deathe, and to write many longe letteres of his owne hand to Mr. F. P. whoe then lay sicke, and finally after much musinge, and espetyally after he had much vewed and waighed well the reasons and discourses of this booke, he wholy thoughte to have changed his minde and to thinke of another surer course for the remedy of Englande. And it seemed that this cogitation was that if all other pretenders mighte be broughte to yelde to the tytle of the lady and Infanta of Spaine, noe waye nor meanes in the worlde coulde bee thoughte of, more sweete, agreable, and convenyente for all partyes and for all effects, for these reasons following. First, that she beinge the daughter and sister of whome she is, and of soe rare worthynes in her owne person as all the worlde talketh of, she could not be but indifferente and amyable unto all, neither coulde she wante sufficyente forces for her establishment and defence afterwardes, and beinge maryed with some noble Catholique prince such as the Kinge her father should like before of, and England not mislike, albeit in theire owne personnes they woulde be strangers unto us for a tyme, yet would that quickly passe awaye, and then children would be Inglishe borne, and themselves entringe not by force, but by love and composition, would hould peace with all, and be in feare and jelosie of none, which in other pretendors cannot be soe effected; they would attende alsoe principally to the assurance of Catholique religion as the grounde of theire estate, wheras others must needes doe the contrarye for houldinge ther freindes and partyes contented, and finally by this meanes all subjectyon to forrayne countryes or natyons should be avoyded, and England should gayne the power, ritches, and freindship of Spaine to asiste it in all needes, without perill of subjectyon to the same. And if any would objecte that the lady Infanta or her ofspringe may come to live to inherite the kingdome of Spaine if the prince should have noe yssue, and consequently bringe England under that crowne, as alsoe the princypall, C. A. would saye that provisoe might be made alsoe thus,—to witte, that in such case the seconde childe or nexte of bloud might remayne with the Crowne of England, and soe avoyde that conjunctyon or subordination; moreover he sayde that noe composition could be soe profitable or sure as this, for our domesticall competitors, who otherwise of all liklyhood must needs extirpate and destroy the one the other, and all would joyne together to vex and weary the Scotts if they should come in, to which ende and effecte they should never want partyes, neither at home nor from abroade, as by reason is evidente, and soe our country therby would become a continuall feilde of warre and bloudshedde. And wheras of all other pretenders the Kinge of Spaine is knowne to be most powerable, and hath noe small title by the house of Lancaster as by this booke apeareth, noe way can be thought of, soe fytte and forceable to apease and ende that tytle, as if nowe by way of composytion he should be perswaded (as perhaps he might) to passe the same over to his daughter the lady Infanta, as by all likelyhood he might be induced to doe with good likinge alsoe of the Prince his sonne, for the affectyon that both of these must nedes beare to this lady, and for endinge of strife amonge our nation, and benefitinge our countrye, yf his Majestie by conveniente meanes were delte with herin, as C. A. greatly wisheth he mighte.

"These were the prudente and godly cogitations of C. A. in his latter dayes, wherof much he conferred with divers of his confidente freindes, and namely with Mr. F. P. by letteres as before I have sayde, and was privie to the same, and doubt not but many of those letteres and discourses are forthcominge when tyme shall serve, and for that he understoode that some of our nation that live out of Ingland did take other courses and made a devision from the reste, either upon passyon or other perticuler respectes or humaine infirmityes, not entringe soe deply and sincearly into the true consideration what is beste for God's service, and assurance of Catholique religion, and for the perfecte reductyon of our countrye to peace, justice, and pietye, he was much greved therwith, and toke it for a dangerous and evidente deceipte of the divell to bring all therby to devisyon and dissolation, as alreadye we prove by the divisyon that was broughte in Queen Marie's tyme to certayne pernityous heades amonge the principall concerninge the successyon which some good people desired and labored to have established then. But yet his hope was that upon the sighte of this booke, such of our nation as are wise and truly Catholique, seinge by the libertye and disunion all wilbe destroyed, would joyne together and with him and his freindes, if he had layde in some good meanes for savinge themselves and ther countrye, which was his owne; but a finall ende with often and most earnest protestations to such as dealte with him in these affayres that he was led by noe jotte at all of affectyon or disaffectyon towardes any prince or pretender livinge, about this matter of the Crowne, but that absolutely and onely he desired that pretender to be preferred without all respectes of country, kindred, bloud, freindshippe, or other such circumstances, whoe mighte be presumed to be most fitte forr us, and by whome most assurance, hope, and probabillitye may be had of the former desired effectes of religion, justice, peace, good govermente, avoydinge of warre and bloudshed, sufficyente forces to defende us, union, love towards the people of our nation, meanes to help them, contentmente of princes rounde about us, and the like.

"And this is all in effecte that I can write to you, ... mente and censure aboute the booke of successyon, and ... pious and prudente desires concerninge all that affayre. Our sinne permitted not to have such a man continue amongste us, for puttinge soe importante designments in execution. And soe I cannot tell whether ever any of them were broken by him to the Pope, Kinge of Spaine, or other Prince to whome they mighte apertayne. And with this I make an ende, biddinge you most hartely farewell, and besechinge our Saviour to preserve you, and directe all this greate affayre of our next successyon to his greatest glorye, and most good of our afflicted countrye.

"Yours to commaunde,
"R. P."[5]

This curious book was written by Sir John Harington, and for so doing he was forbidden the court by Queen Elizabeth, and a license was refused for printing the work. Watt, Lowndes, and all Bibliographers bear testimony to its great rarity. Dr. Johnson in his Lives of the Poets, devotes a page to a consideration and description of this curious work. He says, These tracts are perhaps the first specimens of the Rabelaisian satire our language has to boast. They are replete with that kind of humour which distinguishes the writings of the French Lucian, and partake of their grossness. The extreme rarity of these once popular trifles renders it doubtful whether Swift or Sterne were acquainted with them; yet there are passages in the works of both these eccentric writers so strongly resembling some of Harington's as almost to induce a suspicion that they had seen them; this resemblance however, may have arisen from the circumstance of their being, like our author, imitations of Rabelais and the other French writers of facetiÆ.

Of the Metamorphosis of Ajax, the avowed purport is the description of a species of watercloset which Sir John Harington had invented and erected at Kelston, his seat near Bath; but he has contrived to make it the vehicle of much diverting matter, evincing his extensive reading; he has also interspersed numerous satiric touches and allusions to contemporary persons and events, many of which are now necessarily obscure, and which were no doubt one of the causes of its great popularity at the time of publication.

Elizabeth, however she might be diverted with the humour of this whimsical performance, is said to have conceived much disquiet on being told the author had aimed a shaft at Leicester. Its satiric tendency procured the writer many enemies; and it is supposed that he owed his good fortune in escaping a Star Chamber suit to the favour of the Queen, who yet affected to be much displeased, and forbade him the Court in consequence.

It was reprinted at the Chiswick press in 1814, from which edition some of the previous remarks are derived.

These are among the earliest Satires written in the English language, and were much admired, but the publication was ordered to be stayed at the press by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, and such copies as could be found were to "bee presentlye broughte to the Bishop of London to be burnte." They were reprinted in 1824, with the illustrations of Rev. Thomas Warton and additional notes by Samuel Weller Singer.

Dolman's (i.e., Father Parsons) objections to the succession of James I were ably refuted in this volume, and the claims of the Scottish King set forth with sound argument; yet for daring to advise his sovereign the author was committed to the Tower, where he shortly after died, and his book was ordered to be burnt by the hangman.

This volume was condemned and burnt at Stationer's Hall by an order of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, dated June 1st, 1599.

This book was written by John Marston. It is dedicated "To the World's mightie Monarch Good Opinion;" and the principal purpose of the author was to ridicule and to show the immorality and evil tendency of a class of poems then fashionable, and to which Shakespeare's "Venus and Adonis" belongs.

The main production consists of thirty nine six-line stanzas. The "certain Satires," four in number, and all written in couplets, follow, but the versification is sometimes harsh, and the rhyme frequently careless and defective.

Preceding the Satires is a Poem headed Reactio, wholly occupied by a vindication of the writers whom Hall had previously attacked in his "Virgidemiarum;" addressing that author, Marston exclaims:

and he subsequently adds four of the smoothest lines in his volume:

The dedication to Good Opinion is subscribed W. K., the initials of William Kinsayder, the name under which Marston published his earlier productions.[6]

From the licentious character of this book the prelates Whitgift and Bancroft ordered its suppression and destruction soon after its appearance.

This book was written by Sir John Haywarde, L.L.D. It was dedicated in very encomiastic terms to the Earl of Essex, but it so highly irritated Queen Elizabeth, that proceedings were taken against the author as appears from the following documents.

Among the Domestic State Papers of the year 1600 are interrogatories by Lord Chief Justice Popham, to be administered to Dr. Hayward in these terms;

"To examyn hym who made the preface to the Reader.

"Wherein he conceaveth or ment that booke might be not onely patterns for pryvat dyreccion and for matters of state, to instruct young men more shortly and old men more fully?

"Where he hadd any warrant to sett down that Kyng H. the 2. never taxed the subject, or left 900000 li. in his coffers?

"In what poynt were the othes unlawful taken by R. the 2. of his subjects?

"When were any skattering forces sent in hys tyme into Ireland, and under whom, and what warrant hadd he to wryte so?

"What moved hym to sett down that any were in dysgrace for their servys there?

"What moved hym to sett down that the nobylyte were then hadd in contempt, or that they were but base that were culted about that Kyng?

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.

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.

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."