redresse’ (without place or printer's name). The running title is ‘A Supplication unto the High Court of Parliament.’ At Coventry Penry also printed a fortnight later ‘Hay any worke for Cooper,’ a slashing reply to the ‘Admonition’ of Thomas Cooper [q. v.], bishop of Winchester. In June he stayed with his friend Throckmorton at Haseley, whence he passed in July to Wolston Priory, the residence of Robert Wigston. A London compositor, John Hodgkins, with two assistants, printed under his superintendence, partly at Haseley and partly at Wolston, the Mar-Prelate tract ‘Theses Martinianæ or Martin Junior’ (22 July), and ‘Iust censure and reproofe of Martin Senior’ (29 July). ‘More work for Cooper,’ a further attack on the bishop of Winchester, was in part set up in type at a press which Penry had sent to Newton Lane, Manchester. In August 1589 this press was seized by the authorities at the instigation of the Earl of Derby. Nothing daunted, Penry procured the publication of ‘More Work’ from Wolston immediately afterwards. In September the ‘Protestatyon of Martin Marprelate’ was issued from either Haseley or Wolston. About the same time Penry vehemently attacked the bishop of London in ‘A briefe discovery of the untruthes and slanders (against the true government of the church of Christ), contained in a sermon preached the 8 of Februarie 1588 by Dr. Bancroft, and since that time set forth in Print, with addicions by the said Authour. This short answer may serve for the clearing of the truth untill a larger confutation of the sermon be published,’ 4to, n.d. Finally, Robert Waldegrave, who had migrated to Rochelle, printed under Penry's auspices ‘A Dialogue. Wherein is plainly laide open the tyrannicall dealing of the Lords Bishopps against Gods children; with certain points of doctrine, wherein they approove themselves (according to D. Bridges his judgement) to be truley the Bishops of the Divell,’ 12mo.
From the moment that the ‘Epistle’ had appeared in the winter of 1588, every effort had been made by the officers of the high commission court and the privy council to unravel the mystery of Martin Mar-Prelate and his tracts, and throughout 1589 witnesses were constantly under examination by the archbishop, the bishops, and the council. The capture of the Manchester press was the first reward of their exertions. Suspicion naturally fell on Penry, who had openly attacked the bishops in his ‘Treatise.’ In 1590 the author of ‘The Almond for a Parratt,’ a reply to Martin Mar-Prelate (attributed to Thomas Nash), denounced him by name as the protagonist of the controversial drama. On 29 Jan. 1589–90 an officer of the archbishop searched his house at Northampton, ransacked his study, and took away with him some printed books and written papers. Penry stated that all that was seized were a printed copy of ‘The Demonstration of Discipline,’ attributed to John Udall, and one of his own replies to Dr. Some in manuscript (Appellation, pp. 6–46). The mayor was directed to apprehend Penry as a traitor, but he successfully kept in hiding, and, with money supplied by Throckmorton, ultimately managed to escape to Edinburgh. His colleague Udall was less fortunate. He was arrested at the time of Penry's escape. When he and witnesses against him were examined, much information respecting the method of publishing the Mar-Prelate tracts came to light, and Penry was directly incriminated. Before leaving England he succeeded in issuing his defiant ‘Th' Appellation of John Penri unto the Highe court of Parliament from the bad and injurious dealing of th' Archb of Canterb. and other of his colleagues of the high commission: wherein the complainant, humbly submitting himselfe and his cause unto the determination of this honourable assembly; craveth nothing els, but either release from trouble and persecution, or just tryall,’ 12mo.
In Scotland Penry was well received, and he preached from church pulpits. Queen Elizabeth applied to James VI for his banishment from the kingdom, and James issued an edict ordering him to quit the realm. But the Scottish presbyterian clergy ignored the proclamation, and Penry continued in Scotland under their protection. In December 1590 James told the English ambassador that Penry had left Scotland. As a matter of fact he did not re-enter England till September 1592. Some part of the interval he spent in pursuing his attack on episcopacy. After he had settled in Edinburgh there appeared in London ‘A treatise wherein is manifestlie proved that reformation and those that sincerely favour the same are unjustly charged to be enemies unto his majestie and the state. Written both for the clearing of those that stande in that cause, and the stopping of the sclaunderous mouthes of all the enemies thereof’ (Edinburgh?), 4to, 1590. A second part was promised. An answer ascribed to Thomas Nash appeared the same year, under the title of ‘The First Parte of Pasquils Apologie,’ in which Penry was once again denounced by name as Martin Mar-Prelate. ‘Who had the ouersight of the libell at Fawslie? John of Wales: who was corrector to the press at Coventrie?
