NOTES AND QUERIES, [ii B. XL MAR. 27,
being the author of a pamphlet called ' A Demonstration of Discipline,' a strong attack upon the episcopacy of the day, pub- lished in 1588. This has since been included in the late Prof. Arber's series of the " English Scholar's Library," and was reprinted by him in 1880.
Some time previous to his. trial Udall appears to have been implicated in pro- ceedings concerning the publication of some of the " Marprelate Tracts," from which, however, he succeeded in exonerating him- self. Moreover, in January, 1589, before it had reached the Assize Courts at Croydon, the charge against him had been the subject of an investigation before a commission of the Privy Council under the presidency of Lord Cobham at his house. In the account of this most of the longer names of its members appear abbreviated and in italics, e.g., " Buck. " for Buckhurst, "Ander. for Anderson. " Roch." for Rochester. On this occasion, in addressing Anderson, Udall used the expression," If it please your Lord- ship," and later he styled him " Your Lord- ship " ; and at the subsequent trial at the Croydon Assizes he addressed his judges, Lord Keeper Puckering and Baron Clarke, as "Your Lordships" and "My Lords," and, singly, as " My Lord."
This mode of address was surely respectful enough, but MB. WATSON would seem to infer that L'dall was guilty of some degree of looseness of expression, if not of dis- respect, in alluding to his judges as " Judge," and Lord Keeper Puckering as " Puck." In the published account " wrote by himself " these expressions are given thus briefly, as it seems to me, to indicate when one of his judges was speaking ; in the same way as his own remarks were prefixed by the letter "U." or "Udall." Further, we know not how much this may have been due to the publisher or printer in order to economize space or material. I do not think they can fairly be said to imply any disrespect upon the defendant's part. They were his own notes, which must have been compiled after his trial ; in all probability during his long and cruel incarceration in the Marshalsea prison.
It is interesting to contrast the procedure of a criminal court in Elizabethan times with our own practice at the present day. It must be remembered that Udall was not an ordinary " prisoner," nor apparently was he treated as such. He evidently was possessed of considerable legal ability, if at times too verbose and rhetorical in his argu- ments. Indeed, in his examination before the
Commissioners, he was told by one of them that he was " very cunning in the law." He conducted his own defence, counsel for the defence not being then allowed. He strongly objected to the admission of evidence in the shape of depositions that had been taken in other proceedings without the pro- duction of the deponents, so that they could be cross-examined. Again, until the recent change in our law allowing the accused to give evidence on his own behalf, no counsel or judge would have ventured to interrogate a man in that position, much less practically demand an admission of his guilt. Yet during this trial the judge asked Udall t " Did you make the book, Udall, yea or no I What say you to it ? " And again :
" Will you take your oath that you made it not* We will offer you that favour which never any indicted for felony had before ; take your oath and sware you did it not, and it shall suffice."
L T dall offering an explanation why he had declined to take the oath, the judge asked him, " Will you but say upon your honesty that you made it not ? " Udall, however,, declined even to do this, declaring that he " made as much conscience of his word as of his oath." We see here, and in his final outburst and denial of the justice of his trial at the end of his address to his judges,, something of the true martyr spirit of those Protestant or Puritan divines, as we call them, who had already met their deaths for conscience' sake.
Udall, subsequently denying that he intended any disrespect to his sovereign, was asked if he would make his submission to the Queen, which he said he would willingly do. He was thereupon returned to the prison of the White Lion, where he wrote a sup- plication or submission to the Queen. Appa- rently, however, this was not considered sufficient, for he next appears to answer further proceedings against him at the Assizes at South wark in February, 1590/91.
It would appear that his submission was still not considered satisfactory, in that it did not condemn the book in question and 1 justify the hierarchy to effect which his judges now exhorted him and examined him in private, but apparently without result* Eventually, at the end of the Assizes, and amidst other prisoners who were called to- receive sentence of death, Udall was called and asked what he had to say that he should not have judgment to die, a verdict of guilty having been given against him at the last Assizes for felony. Against this he now advanced several reasons, and the whole thing strongly reminds one of a modern