of the Peace it was provided that no public enemy of the Commonwealth should have residence, shelter, living, or commerce, within the bounds of the United Provinces; and who more a public enemy of the Commonwealth than the author of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_?
No wonder that, after that Peace, Morus had trembled for the consequences of his handiwork.

The loss of his Amsterdam Professorship, instant ejection from Holland, and prohibition of return under pain of death, were what he had to fear.

Were not these powerful enough motives for denial to a man like Morus?
Had not Milton, when he learnt by letters from Durie in May 1654 that Morus was disowning--the book, been entitled to remember these motives?
For what other evidence had been produced besides Morus's own word?
His friend Hotton's only; and that was no independent testimony, but only Morus's at second hand.

And even now, after Morus's repeated and studiously-worded denials in his _Fides Publica_, how did the case stand?
"That book [the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_] consists of various prooemia and epilogues [i.e.addition to the central text]--to wit, _An Epistle to Charles_, another _To the Reader_, and two sets of verses at the close, one eulogistic of Salmasius, the other in defamation of me.

Now, if I find that you wrote or contributed any page of this whole book, even a single verse, or that you published it, or procured it, or advised it, or superintended the publishing, or even lent the smallest particle of aid therein, you alone, since no one else is to the fore, shall be to me responsible for the whole, the author, the 'Crier'.