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

THE CASE OF JOHN CLAYTON, OF GEORGE GURMYN, AND OF WILLIAM TAYLOR,
EXAMINED. -- RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. -- HENRY'S KINDNESS AND
LIBERALITY TO THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF CONVICTED HERETICS. --
REFLECTIONS.

Henry of Monmouth's name seems never to have been associated by our
historians with the death of any one condemned to the flames as a
heretic, except in the case of those two persons the circumstances of
whose last hours have been examined at length in this inquiry,--Badby,
whom he endeavoured to save even at the stake, and Oldcastle, whose
execution he respited, and for whose death he never issued the
warrant. There are, however, three prosecutions for heresy, which,
though hitherto unconnected with the question discussed in these
chapters, seem to claim a patient consideration before this inquiry is
closed, and the final answer be returned to the question, Was Henry a
persecutor for religious opinions? The names of the three persecuted
for maintaining opinions different from the dogmas of the church (p. 394)
of Rome, to whose convictions and deaths our attention is here drawn,
are John Clayton, or Claydon, George Gurmyn,[297] and William Taylor.

[Footnote 297: There can be no doubt that George
Gurmyn, a baker, was burnt for heresy this year,
1415, and probably in the same fire with John
Claydon. Fox mentions the name as Turming; but, not
having been able to ascertain the truth of the
tradition, he leaves the whole matter in
uncertainty. In the Pipe Rolls, 3 Henry V, the
sheriffs state they had expended twenty shillings
about the burning of John Claydon, skinner, and
George Gurmyn, baker, Lollards convicted of heresy.
The Author has searched the records in St. Paul's
Cathedral, but without success, for any account of
the proceedings against Gurmyn. He is said to have
been convicted before the Bishop of London.]

The case of John Clayton, whether we look to it merely as a
well-authenticated fact of history, or seek from it ancillary evidence
as to the principles and conduct of Henry in the matter of religious
persecution, involves subjects of deep interest. The satisfaction with
which it is believed many may view it, as one of the incidents which
seem to imply that Henry was an unwilling, reluctant executor of the
penal laws of his kingdom, and took the lead of his people in
liberality and toleration, must be mingled with pain sincerely felt on
witnessing the stewards of the word of life becoming the zealous and
relentless exactors of a cruel and iniquitous law, straining to the
very utmost its enactments to cover their deeds of blood, and
sacrificing their fellow-creatures to the image they had set up. The
case of Clayton puts the excessive enormities of the hierarchy (p. 395)
of that day in a more striking point of view than many others of the
more generally cited instances of persecution. Clayton's was not the
case of a powerful man like Cobham, whose very character and station,
and rank and influence, made him formidable: Clayton's was not the
case of a learned man, or an eloquent preacher, or an active, zealous
propagator of those new doctrines from which the see of Rome
anticipated so much evil to her cause. His was the case of a
tradesman, unable to read himself, and engaging another to read to him
out of a book which seemed to give him pleasure; the place of reading
being a private room in a private house, the time of reading being the
Lord's day, and other festivals of the church; and the witnesses
against him being his own servant and his own apprentice. Had the
record of this sad persecution been written by an enemy to the
priesthood, we should have suspected that the whole case was
misrepresented, that a colouring had been unfairly given to the
proceedings, to make them more odious in our sight; and though, at the
best, such proceedings must be detestable, we should have deemed that
in this case the facts had been distorted to meet the prejudiced views
of the writer. But the proceedings are registered in the authentic
records of the Archbishop of Canterbury,[298] and are minutely (p. 396)
detailed in all the circumstances of time, and place, and person.

[Footnote 298: Printed in "Wilkins' Concilia."]

John Clayton was a currier, or skinner, living in the parish of St.
Anne's, "Aldrychgate." In those days few tradesmen could read, and he
was not an exception. But he had at an early period formed a very
favourable opinion of the new doctrines; the preaching of Wickliffe's
followers, or, it may be, of Wickliffe himself, had made so deep an
impression on his mind, that nothing could shake the firmness and
constancy of his belief to the day of his death. His predilection for
"Lollardy," as the profession of the new doctrines was called, became
known to the ecclesiastical rulers long before the statute for burning
heretics was passed in England; and his religious opinions exposed him
to great troubles and hardships, even in the reign of Richard II. He
was arrested on suspicion of heresy, and carried before Braybrook,
Bishop of London. The consequence of his conviction was imprisonment,
first in Conway Castle for two years, and subsequently in the Fleet
for the term of three years more. He then renounced the errors alleged
against him, and abjured them at the time when "Lord John Searle" was
chancellor of England, about the year 1400. Through the reign of Henry
IV, and the two first years of Henry V, Clayton seems to have remained
unmolested. No sooner, however, had Henry left England on his first
expedition to France, than Clayton was seized, tried, and (p. 397)
condemned. There seems to have been unusual despatch evinced in every
stage of the proceedings. Clayton was not cited by regular process.
The Mayor of London arrested him, and brought him before the
Archbishop's consistory, on Saturday, August 17th, when he was
examined, and remanded till the next Monday, August 19th. On which day
he was brought up again, and finally condemned as a wilful relapsed
heretic.

At that very time, Henry, having dismissed his ships, was first
commencing the siege of Harfleur; he had left England only the
preceding Sunday. Whether the time selected for Clayton's arrest and
trial was merely accidental, or whether the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities (for both were equally eager for the blood of their
victim) seized upon the opportunity of Henry's first absence from
England, is a question which ought not to be decided before all the
circumstances attending both Clayton's execution and the proceedings
against Taylor (which will be next examined) shall have been carefully
weighed. One of the witnesses, who testified to overt acts of heresy
(such as those on which he was condemned) having been seen in
Clayton's conduct a year before the time of trial, was living in the
house of the Mayor of London; and that functionary seems to have
hurried on the prosecution with more zeal than considerateness, and to
have kept the young man in readiness to give his testimony whenever a
favourable opportunity offered. Such circumstances cannot be (p. 398)
contemplated without suspicion. At all events, the plain fact is,
that, on the very Saturday after Henry sailed from England, Clayton
was brought under arrest, not under process of citation, before the
ecclesiastical judges by the Mayor of London, who was ready with his
witnesses.

The charges brought against Clayton were, that, having renounced
heresy, he had again been guilty of the same crime, by associating
with persons suspected of heresy, and by having heretical books in his
possession. To establish these facts, in addition to his own
confession that he "had been imprisoned in the time of Bishop
Braybrooke on a charge of heresy, and had subsequently renounced in
the time of Chancellor Searle, and had heard read about one quarter of
the book then produced," they proceeded to examine two witnesses who
had been inmates in Clayton's family.

The first witness swore that he had been, some time past, a servant
and apprentice of John Clayton; that he had seen one John Fuller, a
fellow-servant of his, reading the book, which he then identified, to
his master, in St. Martin's Lane, on certain festival days since
Easter; that in the book were the ten commandments in English, but
what else it contained he knew not; that John Clayton seemed to be
delighted with the book, and to regard it as sound and Catholic.

Another witness, Saunder Philip, a lad fifteen years old, a (p. 399)
servant of Clayton's, but living at the time of the trial in the house
of the Mayor of London, testified that he saw the book brought into
Clayton's house about the middle of the preceding Lent; that he heard
Clayton, his master, say that he would rather pay three times the
price of the book than be without it; and that, on several occasions,
through the year before, he saw and heard persons suspected of heresy
conversing with Clayton.

To what miserable, degrading expedients were these persecutors obliged
to condescend in compassing their designs! compelling those who ate of
the bread of the accused, and drank of his cup, and were his own
domestic servants, and confidential inmates of his home, to bear the
testimony of death against him: verifying among Christians what the
Lord of Christians prophesied as the result of pagan opposition to the
Gospel itself, "A man's foes shall be those of his own household."

The poor man himself confessed that he believed he had heard about
one-fourth part of the book read. The book produced, and identified by
the witnesses, was called "The Lantern of Light;" in which the
ecclesiastical judges pronounced many gross and wicked heresies to be
contained. Among other articles objected to, some of which were
doubtless in a more palpable manner adverse to the favourite doctrines
of Romanism, we find the following criterion of the lawfulness and
virtue of alms-giving. The author maintained that alms were (p. 400)
neither lawful nor virtuous, unless four conditions were observed in
the distribution of them.

1.--Unless they be given to the honour of God.

2.--Unless they be given from goods justly gotten.

3.--Unless they be given to one whom the donor believed to be in a
state of Christian charity.

4.--Unless they be given to such as in very deed, without dissembling
or pretence, are in need.

That the parts of the book which contained the heretical doctrines
were ever read to Clayton, does not seem to have been elicited at the
examination. The witnesses could only depose to having heard the
Decalogue read in English, but nothing more; and the poor man's own
confession acknowledged only that he had heard about one quarter of
the work read. Still, on this confession and this evidence, and for
this offence, John Clayton was convicted of heresy, was condemned as a
relapsed heretic, and left without mercy to the secular power. Fox,
who quotes no authority, adds only, that he "was by the temporal
magistrates not long after had to Smithfield and burnt."

The ecclesiastical record contains no information after the sentence
passed on Monday the 19th of August, and our historians seem not to
have made any inquiries as to the fate of this man. Recent researches,
however, into original documents have been made by the Author, (p. 401)
with the view of facilitating the present inquiry, and rendering it
more satisfactory; and the successful result of those researches
enables him to throw some additional light on the subject under
investigation. The following facts deserve especial attention. Shortly
after the above sentence was passed by the ecclesiastical authorities,
the Mayor and citizens of London wrote a letter to King Henry,
rehearsing the judgment of the ecclesiastical court on John Clayton,
and expressing their intention to make an example of the convict by
carrying the sentence into execution. But they desired the King to
send them his especial directions on the subject, as they were
desirous to avoid giving offence in this as well as in all other
affairs. The answer of Henry to this request, if it was ever made, is
certainly not recorded. The strong probability is that the execution
took place before there had been time for the King's answer, if he
ever sent one, to reach London. The sheriffs of London state in this
same year that "they had expended 20_s._ about the burning of John
Claydon, skinner, and George Gurmyn, baker, Lollards convicted of
heresy," though the day of the execution is not recorded.

It must here be remembered, that the Mayor himself arrested Clayton,
and produced the witnesses against him; that the King's writ[299] was
not necessary to authorize execution after judgment passed by (p. 402)
the ecclesiastical authority in convocation; and that, even if it had
been necessary to procure the royal sanction, the Duke of Clarence was
left in England with full powers, as Henry's representative. Yet, in
order to avoid giving offence, though they were determined to make an
example of Clayton, they were afraid to proceed to the extreme penalty
of the law without first taking the instructions of the King. This
would scarcely have been necessary, nor would any hesitation, or (p. 403)
scruple, or misgiving have arisen in their minds, had they not been
under a strong practical persuasion that the execution of this man
would have given their King displeasure. And when we know what
employment awaited Henry from the very day of Clayton's conviction
till his return home,--the siege of Harfleur, the harassing march
through France, the battle of Agincourt,--we cannot wonder at no
answer being recorded. Perhaps he made no answer; perhaps the (p. 404)
letter never reached him in the midst of his struggles and dangers;
probably he did not interfere, but allowed the law to take its course.
Whatever took place between the condemnation and the death of Clayton,
every stage of the transaction, from the first arrest of the accused
on the very Saturday after Henry sailed for France, makes it quite
clear that, in the opinion of the magistrates of London, Henry would
be no willing abettor of persecution.

[Footnote 299: "The person who shall be burnt for
heresy ought to be first convict thereof by the
Bishop who is his diocesan, and abjured thereof;
and afterwards, if he relapse into that heresy, or
any other, then he shall be sent from the clergy to
the secular power, to do with him as it shall
please the King. And then it seemeth, the King, if
he will, may pardon him the same; and the form of
the writ is such.

"The King to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London,
greeting. Whereas the venerable father, Thomas,
Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England,
and Legate of the Apostolic See, with the consent
and assent of the Bishop and his brothers, the
suffragans, and also of the whole clergy of his
province in his provincial council assembled, the
orders of law in this behalf requisite being in all
things observed, by his definitive sentence
pronounced and declared W. Sautre (some time
chaplain, condemned for heresy, by him the said W.
heretofore in form of law abjured, and him the said
W. relapsed again into the said heresy) a manifest
heretic, and decreed him to be degraded; and hath
for that cause really degraded him from all
clerical prerogative and privilege; and hath
decreed him the said W. to be left, and hath really
left him, to the secular court, according to the
laws and canonical sanctions set forth in this
behalf; and holy mother, the church, hath nothing
further to do in the premises. We, therefore, being
zealous for justice, and a lover of the Catholic
faith, willing to maintain and defend holy church,
and the rights and liberties thereof; and, as much
as in us lies, to extirpate by the roots such
heresies and errors out of our kingdom of England,
and to punish heretics so convicted with condign
punishment; and being mindful that such heretics,
convicted in form aforesaid, and condemned
according to law, divine and human, by canonical
institutes on and in this behalf accustomed, ought
to be burnt with a burning flame of fire; we
command you most strictly as we can, firmly
enjoining, that you commit to the fire the
aforesaid W. being in your custody, in some public
and open place within the liberties of the city
aforesaid, before the people publicly, by reason of
the premises, and cause him really to be burnt in
the same fire in detestation of this crime, and to
the manifest example of other Christians. And this
you are by no means to omit under the peril falling
thereon. Witness," &c.

But by the statute of Henry IV. c. 15, it is
enacted that every Bishop in his diocese may
convict a man of heresy, and abjure him, and
afterwards convict him anew thereof, and condemn
him, and warn the sheriff or other officer to
apprehend him and burn him; and that the sheriff or
other officer ought to do the same by the precept
of the Bishop, and _without any writ from the King
to do the same_.

And note by 29 Car. II., c. 9, this writ de
heretico comburendo is abolished. "LAUS DEO!"--This
last note is by an Editor. Fitzherbert, de Natura
Brevium, p. 601.]

* * * * *

A case, however, of no ordinary character as a matter of historical
record, and doubly important to those who take an interest in the
result of the present investigation, requires to be examined in all
its bearings (especially with reference to the dates of its several
stages) with greater care than has hitherto been bestowed upon it.

In the July of 1416, whilst the Emperor Sigismund and Henry were both
in England, Archbishop Chicheley gave evidence of his zeal by issuing
most stringent mandates, directing his suffragan bishops to make
diligent search for heretics, to report the names and circumstances of
all who were suspected of heresy under seal to the metropolitan, and
to institute process against them according to law. On the publication
of these injunctions, a most strict and searching inquisition took
place through the country. Still no one suffered the extreme penalty
of the law as a heretic convict. In the next year, no sooner (p. 405)
was Pope Martin V. elected at Constance, than, complaining bitterly of
the neglect and apathy of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities,
the new Pontiff addressed every argument, both of encouragement and of
intimidation, to the laity and the clergy alike, urging them to unite
as one man in the work of extirpating heresy. He even applied to the
English church, that, in their overflowing zeal for the Apostolic See,
they would raise a subsidy in aid of the war then being carried on
against the heretics in Bohemia. Among those who had fallen under
suspicion of heresy, and who were watched with jealous vigilance by
the ecclesiastical authorities, was one William Taylor, who had
proceeded to his degree of Master of Arts in one of the Universities,
and had been admitted into the order of priest in the church. Taylor
was cited to appear before the consistory; and on Monday, February 12,
1420, he confessed before Archbishop Chicheley that in the time of his
predecessor (Arundel) he had been suspected of heresy; and for not
appearing, or for not answering to the charge brought against him, he
had been excommunicated, and had remained under that sentence for
fourteen years.[300] Upon his expression of sorrow and repentance, he
was commanded to appear on the following Wednesday at Lambeth, where,
in the great chapel, he received the pardon of the church on (p. 406)
certain stipulated conditions. He was bound by solemn promises, and by
an oath on the Gospels (thrice repeated), not to offend again; and he
promised to appear in person or by his proctor at the next
convocation, there to confess his penitence. He was then set at
liberty.

[Footnote 300: William Taylor had been cited March
9th, 1409, when he treated the citation with
contempt.--Archbishop's Register.]

Taylor, however, was not long allowed to remain unmolested. Agreeably
to the call of the sovereign Pontiff at Rome, and the peremptory
injunctions of his metropolitan, agreeably also (as it too evidently
appears by the sequel) to his own views of duty, Philip Morgan, Bishop
of Worcester, denounced the same William Taylor in full convocation,
May 5, 1421, as a person vehemently suspected of heresy. The King was
then in London, but was on the eve of leaving the kingdom; and fully
occupied in preparing to proceed forthwith to wipe off the disgrace
which had fallen on the English arms, and to restore confidence to his
troops, then much depressed by the unexpected discomfiture of their
countrymen, and the death of the Duke of Clarence in battle. On
Saturday, May 24, Taylor was put upon his trial, being produced before
the court as the Bishop of Worcester's prisoner, who had caused him to
be arrested. Of the three opinions savouring of heresy, (errorem et
haeresin sapientes,) he pleaded guilty to having entertained the two
last, but of the first he seems to have had no knowledge; indeed, (p. 407)
it is very difficult to say what meaning could have been attached
to it.

He was charged with having maintained at Bristol.

First, That whosoever suspends on his neck any writing, by that act
takes away the honour due to God only, and renders it to the
Devil.[301]

[Footnote 301: Quisquis suspenderit ad collum suum
aliquod scriptum, ipso facto tollit honorem soli
Deo debitum, et praebet Diabolo.]

Secondly, That Christ was not to be prayed to in his character of man,
but only as God.

Thirdly, That the saints of heaven were not to be addressed in prayer.

On the next Monday, May 26th, he was pronounced guilty of heresy, and
condemned to perpetual imprisonment for the term of his life. So
dreadful a punishment (to which, whatever it might be, he had on his
previous release sworn to submit,) suddenly struck him to the very
heart, and caused him to show some signs of a subdued mind. On which
the Archbishop mitigated that sentence by adding to it an alternative,
"Unless he shall be able to give bail, to the satisfaction of the
Chancellor of England."

We have already intimated that Henry's thoughts were at this time
fully and anxiously occupied in preparing for an immediate expedition
to France; and it is to be observed that, on the very day after
Taylor's condemnation, the King issued his writ to the sheriffs,
commanding them to publish his proclamation for all persons to hasten
with the greatest speed to join the King in his voyage. Taylor (p. 408)
left the court in custody, as the prisoner of the Bishop of Worcester,
to end his days in a dungeon, unless he should be able to produce the
required bail; in which case the Bishop was authorized by the court to
release him.

When Henry left London, on the Monday after Taylor's condemnation, he
left it never to return. His death, as we have seen, took place on the
last day of August 1422. That Henry knew anything of the prosecution
of this person, does not appear; and, if he had been made acquainted
with the intended proceedings, whether he expressed any opinion upon
them in favour of maintaining the faith by the secular arm, or in
favour of the gentle and mild means of persuasion,--is a matter lost
to history, and all inquiry into any of those points must be
fruitless. Nor are we informed whether the poor man could produce the
required bail, or whether he remained a prisoner till his death. Some
expressions in the record of the subsequent transactions would induce
us to infer that he had, after his condemnation, been at large and was
again taken into custody (sub custodia carcerali iterum arrestatus).
The striking fact, however, is this,--that Henry had not been dead six
months before this same priest was brought up a prisoner in the
custody of a jailor, and tried before the same court for a repetition
of the very same offence; or rather, perhaps, for the very same (p. 409)
individual act for which, a year and three quarters before, he had
been condemned to perpetual imprisonment. The same accuser, the Bishop
of Worcester, charged him with having, _since his abjuration
aforesaid_, written, maintained, and communicated with a certain
priest, named Thomas Smyth, living at Bristol, on paper in his own
hand-writing, the alleged heretical opinions. Here it must be
observed, that the charge was made by the same accuser, the Bishop of
Worcester, before the same Judge Chicheley; that the place in which he
was said to have held these doctrines was in each case the same,
Bristol; that in each case the doctrines were said to have been
conveyed by writing; and that, as to the time of the offence, the
Bishop did not say it was after his previous condemnation, but only
after his recantation, which took place in February 1420, just a year
and a quarter before his sentence of imprisonment. And if we examine
the four heretical opinions which were extracted, in 1423, by the
Canonists out of his written communication to Thomas Smyth, we shall
find them in substance nothing more or less than two of the opinions
on which he was before condemned to imprisonment in 1421.

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