1409.

had ventured to do early in the King's reign; and many priests, as well in Oxford as in other places, avowed, without disguise, their adoption of Wycliffe's opinions, as, indeed, the whole body of the University had, some time before, borne testimony to the Reformer's life and doctrines.' The fears of the clergy were not unnaturally renewed; and a sentence was pronounced by the convocation, condemning his five principal works of theology and his Treatise of Logic as heretical, a judgment which, notwithstanding its inconsistency with their former testimony, the University of Oxford solemnly adopted, adding the prohibition to teach the condemned doctrines, upon pain both of excommunication and loss of all degrees. These proceedings, however, clearly prove how imperfectly the severe law made against Lollardy had been executed. If the Oxford scholars could openly preach its doctrines, and the threats of the University only extended to spiritual censures and deprivations, we may be pretty sure that the refractory ran little risk of martyrdom.

While the learned were thus becoming converts to the new system, we may easily suppose that the popular preachers of the sect still less kept any terms with the abuses and errors of the establishment. Their invectives against the clergy they contrived to pour out in all parts of the country, braving every peril to which such a course might expose them. Their familiar topic of attacking the church's right

1 Note II.

to possess any property at length drew the attention of the Lords, who, feeling that such assaults, if successful in despoiling the clergy, might be ere long directed against themselves, prepared a petition against the Lollards, to which they asked and obtained the consent of the Commons. The petition sets forth the dangers to the church, which has as good a right to its possessions as any of the temporal lords; it states the possible danger to their own property from the like attacks being levelled at them; and it prays for an enactment authorizing the seizure and imprisonment of all who preach the reformed doctrines, or pretend to impeach the church's title, to the end that they may be judged by the King and the Peers in the next parliament. No entry of the royal assent being made on this bill, I have great doubts if it ever became a statute; it was, at any rate, only a temporary provision, and never acted upon. But the proceeding is important, as showing the temper of the parliament, and also as proving that the severe act passed seven years before had not been found sufficient to silence the Lollards, because those who were cited in the spiritual courts screened themselves by evasions, and sometimes by consenting to abjure, or because the sanguinary

2

Rot. Parl., iii. 584. The petition adds, as a substantive offence, the spreading reports of Richard's being still alive, or of "the fool passing under his name in Scotland" being Richard himself.

2 We find that many did so in the preceding reign, when interrogated and threatened by Courtney, during his visitation of Lincoln diocese.-Hol., ii. 828.

nature of the enactment interposed obstacles to its execution.

Towards the latter period of his reign, Henry found that considerations of a very different nature from any relating to doctrinal points had begun to weigh with the Commons. He had some time before found the greatest difficulty in obtaining supplies; and one parliament had, in consequence, been kept sitting nearly a year, a thing unknown in any times, but especially unheard of in those days, when the session rarely lasted above six weeks, and the parliament generally ended with the session. He now bethought him of an expedient to remove these difficulties: he asked for the grant of a tenth from the clergy yearly, and a fifteenth from the laity, to last during his life, without any other parliament being holden. This was refused, and he was under the necessity of continuing the session for five months, when he at length obtained the ordinary subsidy, for the usual term of a year, but not before the Commons had made him a proposal to seize upon the temporalities of the dignified clergy, as well as the monasteries; and thus, they said, to obtain a revenue more than sufficient to maintain 15 counts, 1500 knights, and above 6000 esquires. This proposition manifestly arose from the prevalence of Lollard principles; and the King sharply reproved those who brought it forward. They then begged to have convicted priests delivered over to the secular arm, and not to their bishops. This too was refused.

Finally, they desired to have the statutes against Lollardy mitigated, but were told that, on the contrary, the law would rather be made more stringent and rigorous.1

A poor man named John Bradbie, a blacksmith, or, as some say, a tailor, apparently of the new sect, was about this time burnt in Smithfield for maintaining Wycliffe's doctrines touching the real presence. He had persisted in his refusal to recant when cited before the bishop's court, and he was thereupon delivered over to the secular power. The officers brought him to the stake; and a barrel was prepared in which to place him, surrounded with combustible materials. But Henry, the young Prince of Wales, happening to be present, humanely accosted him, and strongly urged a recantation. It was all in vain the wretched man was placed in the barrel; burning fuel was heaped around it. His miserable cries again moved the Prince, and, ordering the combustibles to be withdrawn, he once more besought the unhappy victim, now half dead, to retract, promised to obtain his pardon, and even held out hopes of a pension for his support. But the poor creature remained constant to his principles, "instigated, no doubt," says the chronicler, "by the evil spirit." 2 Whereupon Henry, with some anger, peremptorily

1 Note XIX.

“Non dubium quin maligno spiritû induratus," says the Oxford professor and monk of St. Alban's, "neglexit (perditus nebulo) tanti principis monita et elegit potius se comburendum quam sacramento vivifico deferre reverentiam."-T. Wals., 421.

ordered the execution to proceed, regarding the sufferer's case as hopeless; and he was burnt to ashes.'

And here we cannot easily avoid pausing to consider the lamentable effects of evil usages and wicked laws, more especially when founded on superstitious enthusiasm, in hardening the heart, perverting the judgment as well as the feelings, and substituting for both rational views and natural impressions the most absurd notions and the most inhuman sentiments. The Prince's conduct at the beginning of the cruel scene which we have been contemplating did him great credit; it showed that his feelings were kindly and well directed. But the idea never once entered his mind that the victim could be saved from a cruel death by any act of grace, unless he recanted. A pardon was to be asked for him; but only in case he abjured his opinions. Nor did the sagacity of Henry help him to perceive that the act of abjuration, far from being meritorious, is a mockery and a lie, inasmuch as, holding any belief and renouncing it or altering it, is not and cannot be a voluntary act; and the professing to have changed any opinion having no necessary connexion with the fact of a change, never can entitle a person to a more favourable consideration, or justify us in sparing him, provided the penalty was rightfully inflicted upon the act of holding that opinion. It is further to be observed that all the Prince's pity for the sufferer was extinguished when

"Ad fauillas arsit ardalio miserabiliter mortuus in peccato suo." -T. Wals., 421.