The Judicial History of Individual Liberty.
185
Middlesex. The prosecution therefore be gan with proof of the writing. Witnesses were called to prove the signatures of the bishops, but these witnesses were so unwill ing; that when all had been examined there was no evidence to go to the jury. There upon the crown counsel were forced to put
been written, as laid, in the county of Mid dlesex. 'I his they could not do, for it hap pened that at least one of the bishops had remained at Lambeth palace throughout the controversy. To avoid the collapse of their case the prosecution thereupon changed their ground and sought to prove that the bishops
the clerk of the Privy Council on the stand ami prove by him that the bishops had ad mitted their signatures. This brought out the proceedings which had taken place at the interview with the king, showing a plain breach of faith on the part of the king. Hav ing proved the handwriting, however, it next became necessary to prove that the bishops had written the alleged libel, and that it had
had published the libel in Middlesex. The delivery of the petition to the king was un doubtedly a technical publication, but as there were no witnesses to the royal audi ence, reliance was had again to the ad mission of the defendants. The clerk of the Privy Council was recalled, but he could not remember that the bishops had even been asked whether the paper which lay on the
