now that the facts are better known, has led, by a very intelligible
reaction, to an undue depreciation of it. Mr. Froude thinks that his
incarceration was "intended to be little more than nominal," and was
really meant in kindness by the authorities who "respected his
character," as the best means of preventing him from getting himself into
greater trouble by "repeating an offence that would compel them to adopt
harsh measures which they were earnestly trying to avoid." If convicted
again he must be transported, and "they were unwilling to drive him out
of the country." It is, however, to be feared that it was no such kind
consideration for the tinker-preacher which kept the prison doors closed
on Bunyan. To the justices he was simply an obstinate law-breaker, who
must be kept in prison as long as he refused compliance with the Act. If
he rotted in gaol, as so many of his fellow sufferers for conscience'
sake did in those unhappy times, it was no concern of theirs. He and his
stubbornness would be alone to blame.

It is certainly true that during a portion of his captivity, Bunyan, in
Dr. Brown's words, "had an amount of liberty which in the case of a
prisoner nowadays would be simply impossible." But the mistake has been
made of extending to the whole period an indulgence which belonged only
to a part, and that a very limited part of it. When we are told that
Bunyan was treated as a prisoner at large, and like one "on parole," free
to come and go as he pleased, even as far as London, we must remember
that Bunyan's own words expressly restrict this indulgence to the six
months between the Autumn Assizes of 1661 and the Spring Assizes of 1662.
"Between these two assizes," he says, "I had by my jailer some liberty
granted me more than at the first." This liberty was certainly of the
largest kind consistent with his character of a prisoner. The church
books show that he was occasionally present at their meetings, and was
employed on the business of the congregation. Nay, even his preaching,