Given forth the 14th of the Sixth
Month, 1655, when I was a prisoner
at the prison-house, in the city
of Exeter, in Devonshire, for the
testimony of Jesus, and the word of
God.
A chief cause why he was imprisoned there, was, that Thomas Salthouse,
with whom he travelled, (having heard that one George Brooks, a priest
belonging to the Nightingale frigate, said, after the declarations of
M. Halhead, and T. Salthouse, at Plymouth, that it was the eternal
truth which they had spoken, with many other words in vindication of
what they said,) told Brooks, that he had spoken many good words, and
fair speeches; but asked him, whether he lived the life of what he
spoke? Further, ‘He that entereth not by the door, but climbeth up some
other way, is, as Christ said, a thief and a robber.’ For T. Salthouse
thought, and that not without reason, as will be shown by and by, that
he did not want the praises of this priest, that were not better than
those of the damsel possessed with a spirit of divination, which she
spoke concerning Paul and Silas, viz. ‘These men are the servants of
the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.’ Now what
T. Salthouse had spoken to the priest, was called provoking language;
the rather, because when the priest was speaking of the trinity,
T. Salthouse had asked him, where that word was to be found in the
Scriptures: saying further, ‘I know no such Scripture that speaks of
the three persons in the trinity; but the three that the Scripture
speaks of, are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these
three are one.’ From hence T. Salthouse, and M. Halhead, were accused
as such as denied the Holy Three that are One. But because about this
accusation, they were at a loss in the court, something else was
thought of to ensnare them, viz. they were required to take the oath
of abjuration of the Pope. This oath the mayor of Plymouth had already
tendered them, when they were first apprehended; and they refusing to
swear, were sent to Exeter prison: and now being brought to trial, and
the said oath required of them, they answered thus:
‘In the presence of the Eternal God, and before all this people, we
do deny, with as much detestation as any of you do, the Pope and his
supremacy, and the purgatory, and all that is in the form of the oath
mentioned, we declare freely against: and we do not deny to swear
because of any guilt that is upon us, but in obedience to the command
of Christ, who saith, “Swear not at all:” and we will not come under
the condemnation of an oath, for the liberty of the outward man.’
Thus refusing to swear, merely that they might not offend against the
command of our Saviour, they were sent back to prison again, as such
that clandestinely adhered to the Pope: and use hath been made of this
snare during the space of many years, to vex the Quakers, so called.
The next day the prisoners were brought again before the bench, and
were asked:
‘Will ye confess, that you wronged G. Brooks, in calling him thief, and
be sorry for it, and make him satisfaction?’
To this M. Halhead answered:
‘One of us did not speak one word to him, and therefore I deny to make
him satisfaction, or to be sorry for it; and what was spoken was no
such thing; therefore we will not lie for our liberty, nor confess that
we are sorry for that which we never spoke.’
Then the court fined them five pounds a piece; and they were to go to
the house of correction till payment, and to find sureties for their
good behaviour: and for refusing to take the oath, the court threatened
to send into the North to seize on their estates. So they were returned
to prison; and what follows, was entered as the record of their
proceedings.
‘July 10, 1655. Thomas Salthouse, and Miles Halhead, for provoking
words against G. Brooks, clerk, who refused to be tried by the country,
fined 5_l._ a piece, committed to Bridewell till payment, and finding
sureties for their good behaviour.’
What is said here of refusing to be tried by the country, was a
notorious untruth: and as to finding sureties, that seemed of little
moment; for though the giving of security had been offered before,
when they were taken prisoners, yet that was not accepted of; and the
mayor, John Page, had the boldness to assert, that they refused to give
security, as will appear by the warrant by which he sent them to the
common jail in Exeter, whereof the following is a true copy.
‘_Devon_,
‘John Page, merchant, mayor of the borough of Plymouth, in the
county aforesaid, and one of his highness’s justices of the peace
within the said borough, to the keeper of his highness’s jail at
Exon[8] castle, or to his lawful deputy in that behalf, greeting.
I send you herewithal by the bearer hereof, the bodies of Thomas
Salthouse, late of Dragglibeck, in the county of Lancaster,
husbandman; and Miles Halhead, late of Kendal, in the county
of Westmoreland, lately apprehended here, as disturbers of the
public peace, and for divers other high misdemeanors against
a late proclamation, prohibiting the disturbing of ministers
and other Christians in their assemblies and meetings, and
against an ordinance of his said highness the lord protector,
and his council, lately made against duels, challenges, and
all provocations thereto, who have refused to give sufficient
security for their personal appearance at the next general
sessions of the peace, to be held for the county of Devon; and in
the mean time to be of good behaviour towards his highness the
lord protector, and all his liege people. These are therefore in
his said highness’s name, to will and command you, that when the
bodies of the said Thomas Salthouse and Miles Halhead, shall be
unto you brought, you them safely detain, and keep them, until
by due course of law they shall be thence delivered: hereof fail
not at your peril. Given under my hand, and seal of Plymouth
aforesaid, the 28th day of May, in the year of our Lord God, 1655.
JOHN PAGE, _Mayor_.’
[8] _Exon is an abbreviation for Exeter.--Transcriber._
By this may be seen under what frivolous pretences those called Quakers
were imprisoned, viz. because of an ordinance made against duels, &c.
and as for their having refused to give security, how untrue this was,
as well as other accusations, may appear from the following certificate.
‘We whose names are hereunto subscribed, do testify, that the
several particulars in an answer made by our friends, are true,
to wit. That they did not at all disturb the public peace, nor
were they at any other meeting, (but that which was appointed
by us,) to disturb any ministers, or other Christians in their
assemblies and meetings; nor were they guilty of any challenges,
duels, and provocations thereunto, in the least measure, whilst
they were amongst us. And as for their refusal to give security,
two of us, whose names are Robert Cary, and Arthur Cotton, had
given security to the mayor, by entering into recognizance for
their appearance at the next sessions, the day before their
sending to prison, but that the town-clerk made it void the next
day, pretending it could not be according to law.
_Ralph Fogg_,
_Arthur Cotton_,
_Robert Cary_,
_Richard Smith_,
_Anthony Todde_,
_John Harris, jun._
_Thomas Faulkener_,
_Nicholas Cole_,
_John Martindale_,
_Richard Lepincote_,
_John Harris, sen._’
Now to what a height of confidence the aforesaid mayor, Page, was
come, in saying, that Thomas Salthouse and Miles Halhead had refused
to give bail, nay, that this was the cause of their confinement, may
also appear from the following letter he writ to general Desborough, to
excuse his proceedings against him.
‘_Plymouth, June 1, 1655._
‘Right Honourable,
‘Captain Hatsell hath communicated to me what you wrote him in
reference to those two men, Thomas Salthouse and Miles Halhead,
of whom, and of their imprisonment, your honour had heard
something from some persons of this place, and received a copy
of a letter which they sent me. By the enclosed copies of their
examinations, your honour will see some part of the cause of
their confinement, which was on their refusal to give bail for
their appearance the next general sessions, to be held for the
county of Devon; they being, as I conceive, offenders within the
late ordinance of his highness the lord protector and council,
made against duels, challenges, and all provocations thereunto,
and also his highness’s late proclamation against Quakers;
and they still refusing to give bail for their appearance as
aforesaid, went from hence to the jail at Exon on Tuesday last.
Indeed, sir, their carriage here was not becoming men, much less
Christians; and besides their contempt of authority, all the
while they were in prison, they never sought God by prayer at any
time, nor desired a blessing on any creature they received, or
gave thanks for them. And these very men were about two months
past taken up by colonel Cupplestone, high sheriff of our county,
and after fourteen days restraint, were sent away by him for
Taunton, from tithing to tithing, as by their own examination;
and they show no occasion they have to come to these parts. They
are by profession Quakers, but husbandmen by their calling: one
of them is a Lancashire man, the other of Westmoreland; and they
left their families, relations, and callings, about three months
since, as they say, and do not work, nor employ themselves in
their calling, to procure themselves a livelihood, but wander
up and down in all parts, to vent their wicked opinions, and
discover their irregular practices in the breach of peace,
and disturbance of good people. Indeed, sir, they hold many
sad opinions, destructive to the true religion, and the power
of godliness. I have hereby according to my duty, given your
honour an account of what passed here in reference to these
men. I could say much more in reference to their examination
and discourse with them; but I fear I have already trespassed
upon your honour’s patience in the perusal of these lines, and
humbly desiring your excuse for giving you this trouble, do most
thankfully acknowledge your honour’s continued favours to this
place, for which we stand very much obliged, desiring your honour
still to retain such an opinion of us, as those that desire to
do nothing unbecoming Christians, and persons that desire the
welfare and peace of this commonwealth and government, and shall
ever labour to appear
Your honour’s very humble servant,
(For myself and my brethren,)
JOHN PAGE, _Mayor_.’
That General Desborough was but little satisfied with this letter,
seems not improbable, because, inquiring into the matter, he let others
have a copy of it, so that Thomas and Miles wrote an answer to it; and
it was also, some time after, given out in public print at London,
by Giles Calvert, with other writings relating thereunto. Now as to
what is said in this letter of his highness’s proclamation against
Quakers, it was a gross untruth; for in the proclamation the Quakers
were not named; but it was against the disturbing of Christians in
their assemblies; and besides, the Quakers, so called, judged that
their public worship was permitted them by the 37th article of the
instrument of government, which said, ‘That all that profess faith in
God by Jesus Christ, shall not be restrained from, but be protected
in, the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion,’ &c.
As concerning their contempt of authority the mayor charged them with,
it was nothing else, but that for conscience sake they could not take
off their hats to the magistrates; neither did they give that honour to
any other but God alone. And as to what was said, that all the while
they were in prison, they never sought God by prayer, &c. this was no
other matter, than that they did not follow the formal way of prayers;
for they were indeed religious men, who often prayed to God, and gave
him thanks; though they were represented in the letter as very wicked
men, and vagabonds that had left their calling, and wandered up and
down the country; although it was well known that they were honest men,
and travelled on horseback, lying at the best inns on the road, and
paying for what they received there. And, therefore, after they had
got a copy of the said letter, they writ a large letter to the mayor,
Page, and showed him his abominable untruths, and told him, that they
had been moved several times in prison, as well as out of prison, to
go to prayers, and to give thanks for the blessings of God which they
received. And in the conclusion of their letter, they signified, that
they would not render railing for railing; but, (said they,) in the
spirit of love and meekness we exhort you all to repent, and fear to
offend the Lord, &c.
Now as concerning the provoking words against George Brooks, for which
they had been fined, it hath been said already what they were; but
this Brooks was of a dissolute life, and a debauched fellow, having
for his drunkenness not only been turned out of the frigates in which
he had served, but also once in the ship Nightingale, ignominiously
exposed with a quarter can about his neck, as appears by the following
testimonies.
‘I having been formerly desired to relate upon what account it
was that Mr. George Brooks, chaplain of the frigate under my
command, was put on shore. First, because he was a busy body, and
disturbed the whole ship’s company. Secondly, being on shore, it
was his common practice to abuse the creature in such sort, that
he was drunken, void of good reason, that he would abuse any one
that came in his company, by ill language, besides the abuse of
himself and the good creature, daily complaints coming unto me
both aboard and on shore. Therefore, knowing him to be a deboist
fellow, and not fit for that employment, I put him on shore, and
I dare own it, whoever shall call me to question. Witness my hand,