Meanwhile Sir Henry Martin, hearing that the board of council had taken notice of the articles, sent for them from the office of the registrar (as has been already stated), and, after the bishop and four of his servants had been examined by him on oath, notwithstanding his scruples in admitting them without special order from the court (though this was necessarily implied therein) yet, of his own accord, without any authority from the court, he varied or vacated some one or more of them.
In his petition to the lords of his Majesty's most honourable privy council, the bishop complains of the libels of three notorious malefactors, whom, by virtue of his office, he had been obliged to censure, and whose characters he fully exposes, requesting that they may be sent for and not allowed to escape, and since, on their false informations, he had been questioned in the high commission and forced to make answer, on his own oath and that of four of his servants, to 110 articles laid against him, begs that the case may be proceeded with at once or that he and his servants may be discharged and allowed to return home. The council accordingly convented some of the said parties and, after examination had, found that they were notorious delinquents, and that by their malicious practises against the bishop, as well by printed and written libels as by false and scandalous reports and especially by their wicked and groundless suggestions, had caused such articles to be drawn up and exhibited against him in the court of high commission as they felt sure were never intended by the King.
They also sent for Sir Henry Martin and Dr. Rives to appear before them on 22nd May that they might be better informed of the proceedings taken against the bishop; and at their coming, the business being further agitated and the articles produced before them, they conceived that both the matter against him and the manner of the prosecution were contrary to his Majesty's pleasure as signified in his reference and further expressed before several members of the privy council; they could neither excuse the conduct of the King's advocate nor fail to blame Sir Henry
