Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

J >> J. Endell Tyler >> Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

[Footnote 251: For Christians of the present age,
and in our country, to pass through life without
partaking in any persecution, such as once
disgraced our legislature and the executive
government, does not necessarily imply a freedom of
the conscience from a persecuting spirit. The
Christian can now evince the real tone and temper
of his mind only in his behaviour towards his
fellow-creatures, and by the sentiments to which he
gives utterance. The Author hopes he may be
pardoned, if he ventures, in further illustration
of his principles on this subject, to make an
extract from his sermon lately preached at the
consecration of the Bishop of Salisbury. "In his
intercourse with those Christians whose sentiments
do not coincide with our own, the Christian
minister will never by laxity of expression or
conduct encourage in any an indifference to truth
and error, nor countenance the insidious workings
of latitudinarian principles. He will ever maintain
the truth, but never with acrimony; and, whilst his
duty compels him to banish and drive away all false
doctrine, he will feel and show towards the persons
of such as are in error compassionate indulgence
and forbearing tenderness. He knows that truth can
be only on one side, but he acknowledges that
sincerity may be on both; and he will set his mind
on winning back again by mild argument and
conciliatory conduct those who have gone astray,
rather than by severity in exposing their faults,
and a cold, forbidding, and hostile bearing,
indispose them to examine their mistaken views, and
confirm them in their spirit of alienation."]

[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 God; 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 superstition, 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 circumstance is thus
stated by Prynne,[254] or whoever was the author of the passage 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 _bloody_ 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 manuscript
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 passage (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 petition. 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 petition 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 petitions were presented; one touching the succession of the
crown, and the petition in question. The petition 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 assembled;" and the
Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prays the King that the petition
might be made the law of the land until the next parliament: and the
King "graciously assents." 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 petition. In either case it appears there just as the Speaker's
does, officially. But what was the real drift of this petition?
Suppose it to have been on the side of severity, will it deserve the
character assigned to it by the author of the "Abridgment?" Can it be
called a "bloody" petition? 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 class of offences usually treated as light and trifling. But we
may suppose that the real bearing of this petition 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 petition 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
petition; 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 bloody petition" 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 petition[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 petition 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
petition 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 petition, 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 bloody petition, 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
petition 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 circumstances, 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 Saturday, 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 assistants, so great a number of the bishops and nobles
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 noblemen
as members of the council, was not present at Badby's examination,
either on the Saturday 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
circumstances 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 God 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 God, there will be
twenty thousand Gods 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 assemblage of
the hierarchy and the temporality, when asked as to the nature of the
elements, he said, that "in the sight of God, 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 (multitudo
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 associations. "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 noblemen 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 circumplexus, injectis
fasciculis et appositis ignibus, incineratus
extitit 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
assay 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 God'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 God'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 God
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 Saturday, 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._ Saturday, 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 circumstances 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 circumstances 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."

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30