Other laws add 'Even should he publish in the name of another, or without name;' and all decree that the person is to be taken for the author and punished as such.
I ask you now, not whether you wrote the text of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_, but whether you made, wrote, published, or caused to be published, the Epistle Dedicatory to Charles prefixed to the _Clamor_, or any particle thereof; I ask whether you composed or caused to be published the other Epistle to the Reader, or finally that Defamatory Poem, You have replied nothing yet to these precise questions.

By merely disowning the _Clamor_ itself and strenuously swearing that you wrote no portion of it, you thought to escape with safe credit, and make game of us, inasmuch as the Epistle to Charles the Son, or that to the Reader, or the set of Iambic verses, is not the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_.

Take now this in brief, therefore, that you may not be able so to wheel about or prevaricate in future, or hope for any escape or concealment, and that all may know how far from mendacious, how veritable on the contrary, or at least not unfounded, was that report which arose about you: take, I say, this in brief,--that I have ascertained, not by report alone, but by testimony than which none can be surer, that you managed the bringing out of the whole book entitled _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_, and corrected the printer's proofs, and composed, either alone, or in association with one or two others, the Epistle to Charles II.

which bears Ulac's name.

Of this your own name 'ALEXANDER MORUS,' subscribed to some copies of that Epistle, has been too clear and ocular proof to many witnesses of the fact for you to be able to deny the charge or to get rid of it....