Henry of Monmouth Volume II Part 18

[Footnote 252: Owen Feltham.]

A Christian legislature is bound by the most solemn of all obligations to supply with parental care the means which, in the honest exercise of its wisdom, it deems best fitted for converting the community into a people serving G.o.d; each obedient to his law here, each personally preparing for the awful change from time to eternity.

But with each individual member of the community, from those who make its laws or administer them to the humblest labourer for his daily bread, it must ultimately be left to accept or to reject, to cultivate or neglect, the offered blessing. The moment compulsion interferes with the free choice of the individual, the religion of the heart and the outward observance cease to coincide, and hypocrisy, not faith working by love, is the result. "Persecution[253] either punishes a man for keeping a good conscience, or forces him into a bad conscience; it either punishes sincerity, or persuades hypocrisy; it persecutes a truth, or drives into error; and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe, but never to be honest."

[Footnote 253: Bishop Taylor's "Liberty of Prophesying," 13.]

With these observations we would proceed to inquire historically into the personal character of Henry V. with regard to religious persecution; a prince who lived when all Christendom was full of (p. 333) the darkness of bigotry and superst.i.tion, and when persecution had established its "cruel habitations" in every corner of the land.

The first occasion on which Henry of Monmouth's name is in any way connected with religious intolerance and persecution, is recorded in the Rolls of Parliament, 7 and 8 Henry IV. The circ.u.mstance is thus stated by Prynne,[254] or whoever was the author of the pa.s.sage which is now found in the "Abridgment of Records in the Tower." "At this time the clergy suborned Henry, Prince, for and in the name of the clergy, and Sir John Tibetott the Speaker, for and in behalf of the Commons, to exhibit a long and _b.l.o.o.d.y_ bill against certain men called Lollards,--namely, against them that taught or preached anything against the temporal livings of the clergy. Other points touching Lollardy I read none; only this is to be marked, for the better expedition in this exploit, they joined prophecies touching the King's estate, and such as whispered and bruited that King Richard (p. 334) should be living; the which they inserted, to the end that by the same subtlety they might the better achieve against the poor Lollards aforesaid. Wherein note a most unlawful and monstrous tyranny; for the request of the same bill was, that every officer, or other minister whatever might apprehend and inquire of such Lollards without any other commission, and that no sanctuary should hold them."

[Footnote 254: This work, "published by William Prynne, Esq. a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, 1657," is ascribed by him to Cotton; but it proves not to have been written by Cotton, but by the two brothers William and Robert Bowyer. See ma.n.u.script note, by Francis Hargrave, at the commencement of his copy in the British Museum. What notes and observations came from the author, whether Cotton or one of the Bowyers, and what were added and interwoven by Prynne, it seems impossible to determine. This pa.s.sage (p. 456) apparently carries with it internal evidence that it was penned by Prynne.]

The Biographer of Henry V. needs not be very anxious as to the real intention of this pet.i.tion. The allegation that Prince Henry and the Speaker of the House of Commons were suborned by the clergy, is a pure invention; no proof, or probable confirmation of any part of the charge, is afforded by history. The Speaker is named as the chief member of the House of Commons; the Prince is named as President of the Council, and chief member of the House of Lords; each acting in his official rather than in his individual character.

The pet.i.tion was presented on Wednesday, December 22, in the parliament 7 and 8 Henry IV. which was dissolved that same day. The Roll records that "The Commons came before the King and Lords, and prayed an interview with the Lords by John Tybetot the Speaker."

Different pet.i.tions were presented; one touching the succession of the crown, and the pet.i.tion in question. The pet.i.tion is not drawn up in the name of the Commons and Lords; it purports to be addressed (p. 335) to the King by "his humble son Henry the Prince, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present parliament a.s.sembled;" and the Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prays the King that the pet.i.tion might be made the law of the land until the next parliament: and the King "graciously a.s.sents." Whatever were the real object of this law, if its aim were merciful, the Prince ought to have no additional share of the praise; if it were adding to the severity of the existing law, he deserves no additional blame, from the fact of his name appearing in the pet.i.tion. In either case it appears there just as the Speaker's does, officially. But what was the real drift of this pet.i.tion?

Suppose it to have been on the side of severity, will it deserve the character a.s.signed to it by the author of the "Abridgment?" Can it be called a "b.l.o.o.d.y" pet.i.tion? It prayed that after the feast of Epiphany next ensuing, without any other commission, "Lollards, and other speakers and contrivers of news and lies, _might be apprehended_ and _kept in safe custody till the next parliament_, and _there to answer to the charges against them_." Suppose this to have been an extension of a former persecuting law, it gave no power of life or death, or any further severity against the person, than merely safe custody, a power now given to any magistrate against persons accused of any one of a large cla.s.s of offences usually treated as light and trifling. But we may suppose that the real bearing of this pet.i.tion were altogether (p. 336) the other way,--that it was intended to mitigate the severity of the existing law,--to deprive the real persecutors of the power, which they would undoubtedly have had, "of citing the suspected heretic, punishing him by fine and imprisonment, and, in the case of a relapsed or obstinate heretic, consigning him to the civil power for death."

This power the statute[255] 2 Hen. IV. c. 15, conferred on the diocesans; and the pet.i.tion in question might have been virtually a suspension of that sanguinary law till the next session. If this be so, we have precluded ourselves from ascribing any individual merit to Henry of Monmouth above the rest of the peers who drew up the pet.i.tion; but he must share it equally with them; at all events, the charge of his having been suborned by the clergy to present "a long and b.l.o.o.d.y pet.i.tion" falls to the ground. On this question, however, it were better to cite the opinion of an author certainly able (p. 337) to take a correct view of such subjects; and who, not having Henry the Fifth's character before him at the time, but only the historical fact, must be regarded as an unprejudiced authority. Mr. Hallam,[256]

in his History of the Middle Ages, makes this comment upon the proceeding in question. "We find a remarkable pet.i.tion[257] in 8 Henry IV. professedly aimed against the Lollards, but intended, as I strongly suspect, in their favour. It condemns persons preaching against the Catholic faith or sacraments to imprisonment against the next parliament, where they were to abide such judgment as should be rendered by _the King and peers of the realm_. This seems to supersede the burning statute of 2 Henry IV, and the spiritual cognizance of heresy. Rot. Parl. p. 583; see too p. 626. The pet.i.tion was expressly granted; but the clergy, I suppose, prevented its appearing in the Roll."[258] Certain it is, that, unless the statute framed upon this pet.i.tion suspended the power of the existing law, the hierarchy had full authority, without the intervention of the civil magistrate, (p. 338) to apprehend any one suspected of heresy, to try him, to sentence him, and to deliver him over to the secular power for death, upon receipt of the King's writ.[259] Certain it also is, that, on those who might be apprehended in consequence of this pet.i.tion, none of those rigours could be visited: on the contrary, they would be placed beyond reach of the ecclesiastical arm. Surely to talk of Prince Henry being suborned by the priests to present a b.l.o.o.d.y pet.i.tion, savours rather of blind prejudice than of upright judgment.

[Footnote 255: Much doubt and many mistakes seem to have prevailed as to the real state of the law in England before the statute 2 Hen. IV. cap. 15. It is said by the annotator on Fitzherbert that, "before the time of Henry IV. no person had been put to death for opinions in religion in England;"

but the same author himself tells us that, among the crimes to be punished by burning by the common law, heresy is enumerated. "No Bishop, indeed, by the common law, could convict of heresy, as to loss of life, but only as to penance, and for the health of the soul, 'pro salute animae.' In the case of life, the conviction by the common law ought to have been before the Archbishop in convocation."

Much information is found on this subject in Fitzherbert's Book, De Natura Brevium.]

[Footnote 256: Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. iii. p.

134.]

[Footnote 257: An antiquary well versed in such matters says, that for many years previous to this pet.i.tion there are several mandates upon the Patent Rolls, ordering the apprehension of heretics, (who appeared to have been all monks,) in consequence of complaints made to the King in council by the various monasteries. He had never met with any entry affecting the parochial clergy.]

[Footnote 258: The clergy could not have prevented its appearance on the Roll, but the judges (it is said) might have done so.]

[Footnote 259: See, however, Fitzherbert, De Natura Brevium, p. 601.]

The only other occasion which places Henry of Monmouth, whilst Prince of Wales, before us in conjunction with bigotry, intolerance, and persecution, is the martyrdom of a condemned heretic, executed in Smithfield. Fox, and those who follow him, say, that the martyr was John Badby, an artificer of Worcester, condemned first in his own county, and then definitively sentenced by the Archbishop, the Duke of York, the Chancellor, and others in London; the Chronicle of London records the same transaction, but speaks of the individual as a "_clerk_, who believed nought of the sacrament of the altar!" There is no doubt, however, that the two accounts, as well as the Archbishop's record, refer to the same individual, though the Chronicle of London is mistaken as to the sphere of life in which he moved. It will be borne in mind that the question is not, whether John Badby ended his life gloriously in defence and in testimony of the truth, nor (p. 339) whether those who charged, and tried, and condemned him, were merciless persecutors; the only point of inquiry immediately before us is, Whether, at the death of John Badby, Henry of Monmouth showed himself to be a persecutor. The circ.u.mstances, however, of this martyr's charge and condemnation, independently of that question, are by no means void of interest; though our plan precludes us from detailing them further than they may throw more or less direct light upon the subject of our investigation. The following statement is taken from Archbishop Arundel's record.[260]

[Footnote 260: Wilkins' Concilia, Ex reg. Arundel, i. fol. 15.]

John Badby was an inhabitant of Evesham, in the diocese of Worcester, and by trade a tailor. He was charged before the bishop with heresy, and was condemned in the diocesan court. The point on which alone his persecutors charged him, was his denial of transubstantiation. His trial took place on the 2nd of January, 1409, and he was subsequently brought before the Archbishop and his court in London, as a heretic convict. His examination began on Sat.u.r.day, the 1st of March 1410, at the close of which the court resolved that he should be kept a close prisoner till the next Wednesday, in the house of the Preaching Friars, where the proceedings were carried on. The Archbishop, for greater caution, said that he would himself keep possession of (p. 340) the key. When the Wednesday arrived, the Archbishop took, as his advisers and a.s.sistants, so great a number of the bishops and n.o.bles of the land, that (in the words of his own record) it would be a task to enumerate them: among others, however, the names of Edmund Duke of York, John Earl of Westmoreland, Thomas Beaufort Chancellor of England, and Lord Beaumond, are recorded.[261] Prince Henry, though present in London, and actively engaged with some of the same n.o.blemen as members of the council, was not present at Badby's examination, either on the Sat.u.r.day or on the Wednesday.[262] In all his examinations Badby seems to have conducted himself throughout with great firmness and self-possession, and, at the same time, with much respect towards those who were then his judges. Looking to the circ.u.mstances in which he was placed, it is almost impossible for any one not to be struck by the weight and pointedness of his answers. He openly professed his belief in the ever blessed Trinity, "one omnipotent G.o.d in Trinity;" and when pressed as to his belief in the sacrament of the altar, he declared that, after consecration, (p. 341) the elements were signs of Christ's body, but he could not believe that they were changed into the substance of his flesh and blood.

"If," he said, "a priest can by his word make G.o.d, there will be twenty thousand G.o.ds in England at one time. Moreover, I cannot conceive how, when Christ at his last supper broke one piece of bread, and gave a portion to each of his disciples, the piece of bread could remain whole and entire as before, or that he then held his own body in his hand." At his last appearance before the large a.s.semblage of the hierarchy and the temporality, when asked as to the nature of the elements, he said, that "in the sight of G.o.d, the Duke of York, or any child of Adam, was of higher value than the sacrament of the altar."

The Archbishop declared openly to the accused that, if he would live according to the doctrine of Christ, he would pledge his soul for him at the last judgment day.

[Footnote 261: De Roos, Master of the Rolls, was at the first meeting, and a large number (mult.i.tudo copiosa) of the laity and clergy.]

[Footnote 262: The house (the Friars' Preachers) where they met, was a place in which the Prince at this time often presided at the council. On the 10th of the following June, for example, he met the Chancellor, and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester, and Bath, with others, at this house.]

The registrar, in recording these proceedings, employs expressions which too plainly indicate the frame of mind with which this poor man was viewed by his persecutors. Had the words been attributed either to the Archbishop himself, or to his remembrancer, by an enemy, they might have excited a suspicion of misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

"Whilst he was under examination the poison of asps appeared about his lips; for a very large spider, which no one saw enter, suddenly and unexpectedly, in the sight of all, ran about his face." To this (p. 342) absurd statement, however, the registrar adds a sentence abounding with painful and dreadful a.s.sociations. "The Archbishop, weighing in his mind that the Holy Spirit was not in the man at all, and seeing by his unsubdued countenance that he had a heart hardened like Pharaoh's, freeing themselves from him altogether, delivered him to the secular arm; praying the n.o.blemen who were present, not to put him to death for his offence, nor deliver him to be punished." Whatever force this prayer of the hierarchy was expected to have, the King's writ was ready. The Archbishop condemned him before their early dinner, and forthwith on the same day, after dinner, he was taken to Smithfield, and burnt in a sort of tub to ashes. The Lambeth Register[263] mentions the mode of his death, and affirms that he persevered in his obstinacy to the last, but says nothing whatever about the Prince of Wales. The further proceedings with regard to this martyr, and which connect him with the subject of these Memoirs, are thus stated by Fox, in his Book of Martyrs.

[Footnote 263: Dictoque die, immediate post prandium, ex decreto regio, apud Smythfield, praefatus Joh. Badby, in sua obstinacia perseverans usque ad mortem, catenis ferreis stipiti ligatus, ac quodam vase concavo circ.u.mplexus, injectis fasciculis et appositis ignibus, incineratus ext.i.tit et consumptus.]

"This thing[264] [the condemnation by the Archbishop, and (p. 343) the delivery of Badby to the secular power,] being done and concluded in the forenoon, in the afternoon the King's writ was not far behind; by the force whereof John Badby was brought into Smithfield, and there, being put into an empty barrel, was bound with iron chains, fastened to a stake, having dry wood put about him. And as he was thus standing in the pipe or tun, (for as yet Perilous' bull was not in use among the bishops,) it happened that the Prince, the King's eldest son, was there present; who, showing some part of the good Samaritan, _began to endeavour and a.s.say how to save the life of him_ whom the hypocritical Levites and Pharisees sought to put to death. _He admonished and counselled him that, having respect unto himself he should speedily withdraw himself out of these labyrinths of opinions_; adding oftentimes threatenings, the which would have daunted any man's stomach. Also Courtney, at that time Chancellor of Oxford, preached unto him, and informed him of the faith of holy church.

In this mean season, the Prior of St. Bartlemew's in Smithfield, brought, with all solemnity, the sacrament of G.o.d's body, with twelve torches borne before, and so shewed the sacrament to the poor man being at the stake: and then they demanded of him (p. 344) how he believed in it; he answered, that he well knew it was hallowed bread, and not G.o.d's body. And then was the tunne put over him, and fire put unto him. And when he felt the fire he cried, 'Mercy!' (calling belike upon the Lord,) and so the Prince immediately commanded to take away the tun and quench the fire.

The Prince, his commandment being done, asked him if he would forsake heresy and take him to the faith of holy church; which thing if he would do, he should have goods enough: promising also unto him a yearly stipend out of the King's treasury, so much as would suffice his contentation. But this valiant champion of Christ rejected the Prince's fair words, as also contemned all men's devices, and refused the offer of worldly promises, no doubt but being more vehemently inflamed with the spirit of G.o.d than with earthly desire. Wherefore, when as yet he continued unmoveable in his former mind, the Prince commanded him straight to be put again into the pipe or tun, and that he should not afterwards look for any grace or favour."

[Footnote 264: Fox makes a curious mistake here. He says, the examination in London began on _Sunday_, the 1st of March. But the 1st of March was not on a Sunday, but on a Sat.u.r.day, in that year, 1410. Fox derives his information chiefly from the Latin record (_v._ Wilkins' Concilia) preserved in Lambeth; and there we find that the date is Die _Sabbati_, _i.e._ Sat.u.r.day, not, as Fox mistakenly renders it, Sunday. The computation in these Memoirs is made of the historical, not the ecclesiastical year.

The King's writ is dated March 5th, and informs us that Badby was of Evesham in Worcestershire.]

Milner having told us, that "the memory of Henry is by no means free from the imputation of cruelty," gives an unfavourable turn to the whole affair, and ascribes a state of mind to the Prince, which Fox's account will scarcely justify. Milner's zeal against popery and its persecutions, often betrays him into expressions which a calm review of all the circ.u.mstances of the case would, probably, have suggested to his own mind the necessity of modifying and softening. Fox attributes to Henry "some part of the good Samaritan," and puts most prominently forward his desire and endeavour to save the poor (p. 345) man's life. Milner ascribes to him a violence of temper, altogether unbecoming the melancholy circ.u.mstances of that hour of death, and directs our thoughts chiefly to his attempt to force a conscientious man to recant.

The account of Milner is this: "After he, Badby, had been delivered to the secular power by the Bishops, he was by the King's writ condemned to be burned. The Prince of Wales, happening to be present, very earnestly exhorted him to recant, adding the most terrible menaces of the vengeance that would overtake him if he should continue in his obstinacy. Badby, however, was inflexible. As soon as he felt the fire, he cried 'Mercy!' The Prince, supposing he was entreating the mercy of his judges, ordered the fire to be quenched. 'Will you forsake heresy,' said young Henry, 'and will you conform to the faith of the holy church? If you will, you shall have a yearly stipend out of the King's treasury?' The martyr was unmoved, and Henry IN A RAGE declared that he might now look for no favour. Badby gloriously finished his course in the flames."

The Chronicle of London, from which, in all probability, Fox drew the materials for his description, makes one shudder at the reckless, cold-blooded acquiescence of its author in the excruciating tortures of a fellow-creature suffering for his faith's sake. In his eyes, heretics were detestable pests; and an abhorrence of heresy seems (p. 346) to have quenched every feeling of humanity in his heart. It must be observed, that this contemporary doc.u.ment speaks not a word of Henry having been "in a rage," nor of his having commanded the sufferer to be "straight put into the ton," nor of his having used "horrible menaces of vengeance," nor, even in the milder expression of Fox, "threatenings which would have daunted any man's stomach."

"A clerk," (says the Chronicle,) "that believed nought of the sacrament of the altar, that is to say, G.o.d's body, was condemned and brought to Smithfield to be burnt. And Henry, Prince of Wales, then the King's eldest son, counselled him to forsake his heresy and hold the right way of holy church. And the Prior of St. Bartholomew's brought the holy sacrament of G.o.d's body with twelve torches lighted before, and in this wise came to this cursed heretic; and it was asked him how he believed, and he answered that he believed well that it was hallowed bread, and nought G.o.d's body. And then was the tonne put over him, and fire kindled therein; and when the wretch felt the fire he cried mercy, and anon the Prince commanded to take away the ton and to quench the fire. And then the Prince asked him if he would forsake his heresy, and take him to the faith of holy church; which if he would have done, he should have his life, and goods enough to live by; and the cursed shrew would not, but continued forth in his heresy: wherefore he was burnt."[265]

[Footnote 265: The chronicler adds, "A versifier made of him in metre these two verses:

"Hereticus credat, ve perustus ab orbe recedat, Ne fidem laedat: Sathan hunc baratro sibi praedat."]

There probably will not be great diversity of opinion as to the (p. 347) conduct of Henry, and the spirit which influenced him on this occasion. He was present at the execution of a fellow-creature, who was condemned to an excruciating death by the blind and cruel, but still by the undoubted law of his country. Acting the "part of the good Samaritan," he earnestly endeavoured to withdraw him from those sentiments the publication of which had made him obnoxious to the law; and he employed the means which his high station afforded him of suspending the King's writ even at the very moment of its execution, promising the offender pardon on his princely word, and a full maintenance for his life. He could do no more: his humanity had carried him even then beyond his authority, and, considering all the circ.u.mstances, even beyond the line of discretion; and, when he found that all his efforts were in vain, he left the law to take its own course,--a law which had been pa.s.sed and put in execution before he had anything whatever to do with legislation and government.

CHAPTER x.x.x. (p. 348)

THE CASE OF SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE, LORD COBHAM. -- REFERENCE TO HIS FORMER LIFE AND CHARACTER. -- FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS. -- THE ARCHBISHOP'S STATEMENT. -- MILNER. -- HALL. -- LINGARD. -- COBHAM OFFERS THE WAGER OF BATTLE. -- APPEALS PEREMPTORILY TO THE POPE. -- HENRY'S ANXIETY TO SAVE HIM. -- HE IS CONDEMNED, BUT NO WRIT OF EXECUTION IS ISSUED BY THE KING. -- COBHAM ESCAPES FROM THE TOWER.

1413.

The death of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, and the circ.u.mstances which preceded it, require a more patient and a more impartial examination than they have often met with. But it must be borne in mind throughout that our inquiry has for its object, neither the condemnation of religious persecution, nor the palliation of the spirit of Romanism,--neither the canonization of the Protestant martyr, nor the indiscriminate inculpation of all concerned in the sad tragedy of his condemnation and death,--but the real estimate of Henry's character. The pursuit of this inquiry of necessity leads (p. 349) us through pa.s.sages in the history of our country, and of our church, which must be of deep and lively interest to every Englishman and every Christian. It is impossible, as we proceed, not to fix our eyes upon objects somewhat removed from the direct road along which we are pa.s.sing, and, contemplating the state of things as they were in those days, contrast them fairly and thankfully with what is our own lot now.

It were a far easier work to a.s.sume that all who were engaged in prosecuting Sir John Oldcastle were men of heartless bigotry, unrelenting enemies to true religion, devoid of every principle of Gospel charity, men of Belial, delighting in deeds of violence and blood; and that the victim of their cruelty, persecuted even to the death solely for his religious sentiments, was a pattern of every Christian excellence, the undaunted champion of Gospel truth, the sainted martyr of the Protestant faith. This were the more easy task, for little further would need to be done in its accomplishment than to select from former writers pa.s.sages of indiscriminate panegyric on the one hand, and equally indiscriminate vituperation on the other. The investigation of doubtful and disputed facts, to the generality of minds, is irksome and disagreeable; and its results, for the most part removed, as they are, from extreme opinions on either side, are received with a far less keen relish than the glowing eulogy of a partisan, and the unsparing invective of an enemy. Truth, (p. 350) nevertheless, must be our object. Truth is a treasure of intrinsic value, and will retain its worth after the advent.i.tious and forced estimate put upon party views and popular representations shall have pa.s.sed away.

Sir John Oldcastle, who derived the t.i.tle of Lord Cobham from his wife, was a man of great military talents and prowess, and at the same time a man of piety and zeal for the general good. He was one of the chief benefactors towards the new bridge at Rochester, a work then considered of great public importance; and he founded a chantry for the maintenance of three chaplains. Oldcastle was by no means free from trouble during the reign of Richard II. Indeed, so unsettled was the government, and so violent were the measures adopted against political opponents, and so cheap and vile was human life held, that few could reckon upon security of property or person for an hour. One day a man was seen in a high civil or military station; the next arrested, imprisoned, banished, or put to death. Oldcastle was very nearly made an early victim of these violent proceedings. Among the strong measures to which parliament had recourse about the year 1386, they appointed fourteen lords to conduct the administration, among whom was Lord Cobham. Just ten years afterwards he was arrested, and adjudged to death by the parliament;[266] but his punishment, at the earnest request of certain lords, was commuted for perpetual (p. 351) imprisonment,[267] a sentence from which the lords of parliament revolted,--and he was exiled.[268] From this banishment he returned with Henry of Lancaster, and was restored to all his possessions which had been forfeited. Through the whole reign of Henry IV. we find him in the King's service in Wales and on the Continent. In a summons for a general council of prelates, lords, and knights, dated July 21, 1401, occurs the name of John Lord Cobham.[269] In the Minutes of Council about the end of August 1404, John Oldcastle is appointed to keep the castles and towns of the Hay and Brecknock; and when English auxiliaries were sent to aid the Duke of Burgundy, Oldcastle was among the officers selected for that successful enterprise. Between the Prince of Wales and this gallant brother in arms an intimacy was formed, which existed till the melancholy tissue of events interrupted their friendship, and ultimately separated them for ever.

[Footnote 266: Monk of St. Alban's.]

[Footnote 267: Monk of Evesham.]

[Footnote 268: The Pell Rolls (22d May 1398) contain an item of 20_l._ paid to Thomas Duke of Surrey on account of Lord Cobham, then his prisoner.]

[Footnote 269: Records of Privy Council.]