There remain three books to be noticed which appear to be connected with Oswen. These are John Sawtry’s _Defence of the marriage of priests_, another book with a similar title by Philip Melanchthon, and lastly a _Treatise of baptism and the Lord’s Supper_. The colophon of the first runs: “Printed at Awryk by Jan Troost, 1541 in August,” that of the second, “Printed at Lipse by Ubryght Hoff,” while the title-page says, “Translated out of latyne into englisshe by Lewes Beuchame in the yere of the Lorde 1541 in August.” The colophon of the last runs: “At Grunning 1541 April 27.” The three books are obviously from the same press; initials, borders, type, all agree, and copies are in some cases bound together. They are no less obviously printed in England, but by whom? The only clue so far is an initial M which appears identical with one used by Oswen, while on the other hand the borders do not occur in any of Oswen’s books though he uses a large selection. Again, why should all three books be dated 1541 which, if they were the work of Oswen, must be a false date. Though admitting the clue which connects them with Oswen, it would be safer for the present until more evidence is forthcoming to class them under “printer unidentified.” At present, though a good start has been made in the Catalogue of Early English Books in the University Library, a very great deal remains to be done, and if done at all to be done very carefully, on the subject of books with fictitious imprints or with none at all. Hitherto if there was anything the least strange in the appearance of a book, or if its subject were of a controversial nature, it was promptly docketed “printed at a secret press on the Continent.” That many such books were printed at Continental presses is quite clear, but in the majority of cases any danger in connexion with such books was not to the printer, but to the person who introduced them into this country. In consequence the foreign printers rarely tried to deceive, and once their types are properly identified, it is not difficult to ascribe foreign printed books to their right printers. But on the other hand, I suspect that a considerable number of books now generally ascribed to Continental presses were really produced in this country. The wording of various enactments against seditious books makes it clear that the authorities of the period at any rate considered that numbers were printed in this country, and if that is so we must look for them outside the ordinary and known productions of our regular printers. If we take away all the unsigned books which may be clearly ascribed to foreign presses, a very large number will still remain about which we know, for the present at any rate, little or nothing.