Upon  his  first  following  examination  Hodgkins  appealed
to  her  Majesty's  mercy.  But  when  the  Court  urged  against
him  the  indictment,  containing  ten  points,  their  substance
being  a  '  matter  of  sediccon  and  slaunder  to  her  matie  and
the  state,'  then  he  stood  very  boldly  to  his  defence.  He
justified  the  '  said  booke ' — THESES  MARTINIANAE — so  far  as
to  affirm  that  '  nothinge  therein  contained]  was  reprochefull
or  slaunderous  to  her  matie  or  the  state.'  This  he  urged
'  untill  at  the  length  beinge  therein  notable  convinced ' ;
that  is,  of  course,  till  he  saw  he  could  not  convince  his
judges.  Then  he  moved  to  his  next  line  of  defence  and
'  p[ro]teeted  that  he  knewe  not  the  authors  meaninge
therein ' ;  denying,  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  that  he
had  'anie  such  malicious  intent  against  her  matie  or  the
state.'  But  he  was  told  that  it  was  not  his  intent  but
the  fact  which  declared  his  mind.  '  The  matters  in  the
booke '  were  '  sedicious,  turbulent  and  rebellious,'  and
therefore  '  wthin  compase  of  fellonie ' ;  by  the  express
words  of  the  law  the  printer  was  guilty  'in  the  same
degree  of  fellonie  as  the  deviser.'  Hodgkins  in  vain
'  uppon  his  innocencie  herein  much  insested.'

Finding  his  pleas  all  in  vain,  Hodgkins  now  '  vehemently
urged  and  claimed  the  benefit  of  a  certaine  p[ro]mise  in
the  said  statut.'  The  accused  '  must  be  manifestly  con-
vinced [convicted]  by  twoe  witnesses,  p[ro]duced  viua
voce,  and  that  wthin  one  moneth  after  the  fact  before  on
Justice  of  peace ' ;  or  failing  that,  he  '  must  be  indicted
thereof  wthin  one  yeare  next  after  the  offence/  The  wit-
nesses were  not  produced,  and  it  was  more  than  one  year
'  since  the  first  impression.' 1  The  ingenious  lawyers  met

1  This  alludes  to  the  publication  of  the  first  tract,  THE  EPISTLE,  printed
not  by  Hodgkins  but  by  Waldegrave.  As  to  the  exactness  of  Hodgkins'
computation,  he  was  probably  supplied  with  his  legal  pleas  by  Throk-
morton.  To  make  up  his  year,  he  must  have  come  to  a  very  close  reckon-


EPISCOPAL  ANTI-MARTINIST  POLICY      199

his  shrewd  argument  by  pointing  out  that  the  relief  was
only  offered  to  '  those  offend  [ing]  by  speaking  and  report-
inge ' ;  but  did  not  include  printers  and  writers.
