Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/511

 474

Holt called upon Prynn in the Tower and received his instructions, Prynn at the same time giving him his fee. The answer being "agreed on and settled" by Holt and also by Tomlins (the other counsel), it was en grossed. Holt, however, then refused to sign it, saying, " he had express orders to the contrary and would not do it for £ 100." In the meantime Tomlins went away from London. Upon this state of facts Prynn asked the Lord Keeper, the chief judge, to command Holt to sign the answer. Finch said he had no power to do so. And finally, on May 19 (two weeks hav ing intervened), the court ordered that for their contempt in not putting in their an swers the matters charged against Prynn and Bastwick should be taken pro confesso. Burton's answer, a bulky document con sisting of about forty sheets of paper, was signed by Holt, but after it had been in court nearly three weeks, upon the AttorneyGeneral's motion, it was declared scandal ous, and the court referred it to Finch and Bramston. Finch administered a violent rebuke to Holt and told him " he deserved to have his gown pulled over his ears for drawing it." Holt replied that it was only a confession or explanation of the charge in the inform ation and a recital of Acts of Parliament, and how that could be scandalous or im pertinent he could not conceive. Nevertheless the two judges struck out everything it contained except the formal words in the beginning of it: "The said defendants by protestation not confessing," etc., and the concluding portion containing

his plea of not guilty, the averment that he was ready to prove the matters of answer, his prayer of a favorable interpretation, and to be dismissed. "So all the body of his answer was expunged, and nothing but the head and feet remained; and by his plea of not guilty to all, he was made to deny what he had confessed and justified in his an swer." The examiner afterwards came to him in the Fleet, where he was confined, to examine him upon interrogatories based upon his answer. He refused to be examined unless the court admitted his answer already sub mitted or permitted him to put in another. The court ordered the examiner to go to him the second time, and again he refused to answer. Thereupon the court ordered that the matter of the information be taken against him pro confesso. On the 13th of June, 1637, the court ordered the cause against all three defend ants to be heard the next day, and in the meantime it directed that that they might have permission to attend their counsel in the custody of their keepers. " This was looked upon as a short warning by some, who affirmed that by the course of the court, a subpoena ad audiendum judicium should have been served upon them fifteen days at least before the day of hearing, which was not done. Prynn availed himself of this liberty and called upon Tomlins, who had returned to London, and got him to sign his answer, but Holt said he did not dare to do so. Prynn then tendered the answer, thus signed at the office of the court, but the clerk again re fused to receive it.