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 circumstances
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 passages 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
passing, 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 assume 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 passages 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 adventitious and forced
estimate put upon party views and popular representations shall have
passed away.
Sir John Oldcastle, who derived the title 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.]
We have already seen that Lord Cobham had given proof of a pious as
well as a liberal mind; and his piety showed itself in acts which the
Roman church sanctioned and fostered. He built and endowed a (p. 352)
chantry for the maintenance of three chaplains. But he had imbibed a
portion of that spirit which Wickliffe's doctrines had diffused far
and wide through the land; and he not only boldly professed his
principles, but actively engaged in disseminating them. It is very
difficult to ascertain the exact truth as to the tenour and extent of
the religious opinions of the rising sect, and the degree in which
they were political dissenters, aiming at the overthrow of the
existing order of things in the state as well as in the church. Their
enemies, doubtless, have exaggerated their intentions, and have
endeavoured to rob them of all claim to the character of sincere
religious reformers; probably misrepresenting their objects, and
confounding their designs with the plots of those turbulent
spirits[270] who then agitated several countries in Europe; whilst
their friends have denied, perhaps injudiciously, any participation on
their part in seditious and treasonable practices. By the one they
have been condemned as reckless enemies to truth, and order, and
peace; by the other they are exalted into self-devoted confessors and
martyrs; in soundness of faith, integrity of life, and constancy unto
death for the truth's sake, equalling those servants and soldiers of
Christ who in the first ages sealed their belief with their blood. The
truth lies between these extremes: their enemies were bigoted (p. 353)
or self-interested persecutors; but many among themselves, as a body,
in their language, their actions, and their professed principles, were
very far removed from that quiet, patient, peaceable demeanour which
becomes the disciples of the Cross. Doubtless there were numbers at
that time in England possessing their souls in patience, bewailing the
gloom and superstition and tyranny which through that long night of
error overspread their country, and anxiously but resignedly expecting
the dawn of a holier and brighter day. It is, however, impossible to
read the documents of the time without being convinced, not only that
the temporal establishment of the Church was threatened, but that the
civil government had good grounds for watching with a jealous eye, and
repressing with a strong hand, the violent though ill-digested schemes
of change then prevailing in England. Undoubtedly the hierarchy set
all the engines in motion for the extirpation of Lollardism, as the
principles of the rising sect were called. They felt that their
dominion over the minds of men must cease as soon as the right of
private judgment was generally acknowledged; and they resolved, at
whatever cost of charity and of blood, to maintain the hold over the
consciences, the minds, and the property of their fellow-creatures,
which the Church had devoted so many years of steady, unwearied,
undeviating policy to secure. The real question, the point on (p. 354)
which every other question between the Protestant communions and the
Church of Rome must depend, is this: "Have individual Christians a
right to test the doctrines of the Church by the written word of God;
or must they receive with implicit credence whatever the church in
communion with the See of Rome, the only authorized and infallible
guardian and propagator of Gospel truth, decrees and propounds?" All
the other differences, however important in themselves, and
practically essential, must follow the fate of this question. The
Romanists are still aware of this, and are as much alive to it as ever
were the most uncompromising vindicators of their church in the days
of Lollardism. They took their resolution, and it was this: "Come what
will come, this heresy must be put down; the very existence of the
Church is incompatible with this rivalry: either Lollardism must be
extinguished, or it will shake the very foundations of Rome." And,
having taken this resolution, they lost no favourable opportunity of
carrying it into full effect.
[Footnote 270: The states of Europe were much
convulsed about this time by an apprehension of
political revolutions.]
Some writers seem to have fixed their thoughts so much on the bold and
ruthless measures adopted, or compassed, by the Church under the house
of Lancaster, as to have left unnoticed their proceedings previously
to Henry IV.'s accession. In 1394, when Richard II. made his first
expedition to Ireland, though he had been absent a very short time, so
alarmed were the heads of the Church at the progress of the new (p. 355)
opinions, that the Archbishop of York[271] and the Bishop of London
went over in person to implore him to return forthwith and put down
the Lollards,[272] his own and the Church's formidable enemies. Many
strong measures were resorted to on that King's return, but all short
of those deeds of guilt and blood which disgraced our country through
the next reigns. The Pope, the King, and the hierarchy put forth their
united exertions, and for a season the growing danger seemed to be
repressed; but it was still silently and widely spreading. In the year
1400, before Henry IV. was settled in his throne, and whilst he was
naturally alive to every report of danger, the several estates of the
realm "pray the King to pass such a law as may effectually rid the
kingdom of those plotters against all rule and right and liberty, (for
so are the Lollards described,) whose aim is to dispossess the clergy
of their benefices, the King of his throne, and the whole realm of
tranquillity and order, exciting to the utmost of their power sedition
and insurrection." And in that year was passed the statute De (p. 356)
hæretico comburendo, which enacted that a suspected heretic should be
cited by his diocesan, be fined, and imprisoned; and, if pronounced a
relapsed or obstinate heretic, be given over by the Church to the
secular power, to be burnt, in an elevated spot, before the people, to
strike terror the more. It was under this statute that Sir John
Oldcastle was summoned, tried, adjudged, and delivered to the secular
power.
[Footnote 271: King Richard seems to have employed
the Irish prelates on many occasions in his
intercourse with Rome. Thomas Crawley, Archbishop
of Dublin, was sent to Pope Urban (1398, May 22nd,)
"for the safe estate and prosperity of the most
holy English church;" and John Cotton, Archbishop
of Armagh, was sent to Rome, (31st of August,) in
the same year, "on the King's secret
affairs."--Pell Rolls.]
[Footnote 272: Otterbourne.]
How long he had entertained the new opinions, or, by openly
encouraging their propagators, had incurred the anger, and drawn down
upon himself the concentrated violence of the hierarchy, does not
appear. From one circumstance we may fairly infer, that, whilst he was
aiding the Prince in the war against Owyn Glyndowr, he had not been
silent or idle in the dissemination of these principles. In the synod
held in St. Paul's, his offence of sending emissaries and preachers is
said to have been especially committed (beside the dioceses of London
and Rochester) in the diocese of Hereford; and, as we have seen, in
1404 he was especially charged with the safeguard of the town and
castle of Hay, in Herefordshire: he was also sheriff of that county in
1407. Whether he had ever communicated his sentiments to the Prince,
or not, must remain a matter only of conjecture: be this as it may, no
sooner was the first parliament of Henry V. assembled,--and they met
soon after Easter,--than Arundel convened a full assembly[273] (p. 357)
of prelates and clergy in St. Paul's Cathedral.[274] It was there
speedily determined that the breaches in the Church could not be
repaired, nor peace and security restored, unless certain noblemen and
gentry, favourers of Lollardism, were removed, or effectually
silenced, and brought back to their allegiance. Especially, and by
name, was this decree passed against Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham;
and a resolution was taken to proceed against him forthwith. But he
was then in high favour with the King; and the Archbishop thought it
discreet to endeavour first to withdraw from him the royal favour,
before proceeding openly to put the law in force against him. And at
this point our interest in the transactions, and our desire to
ascertain the accuracy of the accounts in every particular begin to
increase; for our estimate of the tone and temper of Henry's mind, and
the real nature of his conduct, will be affected by a very slight
change of expression and turn of thought. Was Henry V. a persecutor
for religious opinions?
[Footnote 273: The Chronicle of London states that
the convocation assembled on the day of St. Edmund
the King, and continued until December; and "that
the archbishop and bishops, at St. Paul's Cross,
accursed Sir John Oldcastle on the Sunday, after
the dirge was performed royally at Westminster for
Richard II., on the removal of his remains."]
[Footnote 274: Archbishop Arundel (says Anthony à
Wood), who never proceeded beyond the degree of
bachelor of arts in this University [Oxford] or any
other, decreed by a provincial council, 1404, that
none should preach except privileged or licensed.]
Perhaps the more satisfactory course will be, first to give the (p. 358)
statements of Fox, and one or two others, who have taken the view
of the case least favourable to Henry, and then to add the account of
the transaction as it is recorded by the Archbishop, on whose record
Fox informs us that the ground and certainty of his own history of
Lord Cobham depended. Almost all subsequent writers copy the
martyrologist exclusively and implicitly, though often with much
additional colouring.
Fox, who certainly follows the original statement in Archbishop
Arundel's register much more faithfully, than those who have taken
their facts from him, and heightened them by their own exaggerated
colouring, gives an unfavourable and an unfair turn to the whole
proceeding by one or two strokes of his pencil. His version of the
affair is this: "The King _gently_ heard those bloodthirsty prelates,
and _far otherwise than became his princely dignity_; notwithstanding
requiring, and instantly desiring them, that in respect of his noble
stock and knighthood, they would deal favourably with him, and that
they would, if possible, without all rigour or extreme handling,
reduce him to the Church's unity. He promised them also, that, in case
they were content to take some deliberation, himself would seriously
commune the matter with him. Anon after, the King sent for Lord
Cobham, and, as he was come, he called him, secretly admonishing him,
betwixt him and him, to submit himself to his mother the holy (p. 359)
Church, and as an obedient child to acknowledge himself culpable. Unto
whom the Christian knight made this answer: 'You, most worthy prince,
I am always most ready to obey. Unto you, next my eternal God, I owe
whole obedience, and submit thereto, as I have ever done. But as
touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe them neither suit nor
service; forasmuch as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great
Antichrist, the son of perdition, the open adversary of God, and the
abomination standing in the holy place!' When the King had heard this,
and such like sentences more, he would talk no longer with him, but
left him so utterly. And as the Archbishop resorted again unto him for
an answer, he gave him his full authority to cite him, examine him,
and punish him according to their devilish decrees, which they called
the laws of holy church."
In his comment on the answer said to have been made by Lord Cobham to
the King, Milner's zeal in favour of the accused, betrays him into
expressions against Henry which cannot be justified: "The _extreme
ignorance of Henry_ in matters of religion by no means disposed him to
relish such an answer as this; _he immediately turned away from him in
visible displeasure_, and gave up the disciple of Wickliff to the
malice of his enemies."
Hall's version is this: "The King, first having compassion on the (p. 360)
nobleman, required the prelates, if he were a strayed sheep,[275]
rather by gentleness than by rigour to bring him back again to his old
flock: after that, he, sending for him, godly exhorted and lovingly
admonished him to reconcile himself to God and his laws. The Lord
Cobham thanked the King for his most favourable clemency, affirming
his grace to be his supreme head and competent judge, and no other."
[Footnote 275: Carte suggests that Lord Cobham
might have been one of Henry's [supposed] rakish
companions. But such a supposition as would stain
his memory with debauchery, is altogether at
variance with his character. Carte has no doubt of
the reality of Cobham's conspiracy in St. Giles'
Field.]
The record, as it is found in the Archbishop's Memoirs, is as follows.
Having stated that, of the tracts which had been condemned to the
flames for their heretical contents, one consisting of many smaller
tracts full of more dangerous doctrine, tending to the subversion of
the faith and the church, was found at an illuminator's in Paternoster
Row, who confessed that it was Lord Cobham's, and another was brought
from Coventry, full of poison against the Church of God, the
Archbishop's record thus proceeds: "The day on which the said tracts
were condemned and burnt, certain tracts, containing more important
and more dangerous errors of the said Lord John Oldcastle, were read
before the King, and almost all the prelates and nobles of England, in
the closet of the King at Kennington; the said Lord John Oldcastle (p. 361)
being present and hearing it, having been especially summoned for this
purpose. Then our King himself expressed his abhorrence of those
conclusions, as the worst against the faith and the church he had ever
heard. And the said Lord John Oldcastle, being asked by the King
whether he thought the said tract was justly and deservedly condemned,
said that it was so. On being asked how he could use or possess a
tract of this sort, he said that he had never read more than two
leaves.
"And be it remembered that in the said convocation the said Lord John
Oldcastle was convicted by the whole clergy of the province of
Canterbury, upon his ill-fame for errors and heretical wickedness, and
how in various dioceses he had held, assumed, and defended erroneous
and heretical conclusions; and that he had received to his house,
favoured, refreshed, and defended, chaplains suspected and even
convicted of such errors and heresies, and had sent them off to
different parts of the province to preach and sow this evil seed, to
the subversion of the faith and the state of the church.[276] And
supplication was made on the part of the same clergy to the Lord
Archbishop and the prelates, that the said John Oldcastle should (p. 362)
be summoned to answer in person to these points. And because it seemed
right to the Lord Archbishop and the prelates, that the King ought
first to be consulted on this point, because he had been his intimate
friend, they waited upon the King at Kennington, and with all due
reverence consulted with him upon the matter. And the King returned
thanks for their obliging kindness, and prayed them, [regratiabatur
benevolentiis eorundem, et eis supplicabat,] for respect to the King
himself, because he had been his intimate friend, and also from
respect to the military order, they would defer process and execution
of every kind against him; promising them that he would labour, with
regard to him, to bring him back with all mildness and lenity from the
error of his way to the right path of truth. And if he could not
succeed in this endeavour, he would deliver him to them according to
the canonical obligations to be punished, and would assist them in
this with all his aid and with the secular arm. And the said
Archbishop and prelates acquiesced in the King's desire, but not
without the dissatisfaction and murmurs of the clergy. Then, after the
lapse of some time, when our said Lord the King had laboured long and
in various ways in the endeavour to bring back the said knight to the
sheepfold of Christ, and had reaped no fruit of his toil, but the
knight continually relapsed into a worse state than before, at length
the King, in the following month of August, being at Windsor, (p. 363)
without further lenity sharply chided the said Lord John for his
obstinacy. And the said Lord, full of the Devil, not enduring such
chiding, withdrew without leave to his castle of Cowling in Kent; and
there fortified himself in the castle, as was publicly reported. After
that, the King sent for the Lord Archbishop, who was then at
Chichester, celebrating the Assumption of the blessed Virgin; and, on
his coming to the King at his house in Windsor Park, the King, after
rehearsing the pains he had taken, enjoined on the Archbishop, and
required him on the part of God and the Church, to proceed with all
expedition against the said Lord John Oldcastle according to the
canonical rules; and then the Archbishop proceeded against him as the
law required."[277]
[Footnote 276: Henry V.'s own chaplain declares,
"that Oldcastle attempted to infect the King's
highness himself with his deadly poison by his
crafty wiles of argument." If the King argued the
points with Oldcastle, how could that confessor
have done otherwise than strenuously endeavour to
bring his liege Lord to the same views of doctrine
which he entertained himself?]
[Footnote 277: Lingard speaks of "a mandate to the
Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed against the
fugitive according to law. The spiritual powers of
that prelate were soon exhausted. Oldcastle
disobeyed the summons, and laughed at his
excommunication; but was compelled to surrender to
a military force sent by the King, and was
conducted a prisoner to the Tower." The same author
(but on what authority it does not appear) tells us
that Oldcastle was at St. Alban's, and prophesied
that he should rise on the third day; which is in
itself most improbable.]
* * * * *
After attentively perusing this authentic statement, comparing it with
subsequent representations, and recollecting that the utmost which
Henry did was to direct the ecclesiastical authorities to proceed
according to the laws of the land, where he had interrupted their (p. 364)
proceedings with a view of averting the extremities on which those
authorities seemed bent--and when we learn that even that temporary
delay had called forth the decided disapprobation and remonstrance of
the clergy,--few probably among unprejudiced minds will be disposed to
view this incident in any other light than as a proof that Henry, who
was a sincere believer, was yet anxious to bring all to unity in faith
and discipline by reason and gentle means, by the force of argument
and persuasion only; and that he earnestly endeavoured to blunt the
edge of the sword with which the law had supplied the hierarchy, and
to avert the horrors of persecution. Undoubtedly, when he failed, he
directed the authorities to proceed according to law, and assisted
them in securing Cobham's person when he set them at defiance. But it
is necessary to take a comprehensive view of all the circumstances
before we pronounce judgment as to his principles or motives.
The account of Henry's own chaplain, who was prejudiced in the extreme
against the rising sect, seems undoubtedly to imply that in one stage
of the melancholy transaction Henry was more than passive, and
encouraged rather than checked the ecclesiastical authorities to
proceed; but he at the same time adds, what is of course of equal
credit, that the piety of the King deferred the extremity of
punishment and his death. He adds, "that Henry had Oldcastle
committed to the Tower, influenced by the hope that he might bring (p. 365)
him back to the true faith; and that when, towards the end of October,
the straitness of his confinement was softened, and he was, under
promise of renouncing his errors, released from his bond, he broke
prison and escaped." This was written between Oldcastle's escape and
his subsequent capture and death. If we take one part of such
evidence, we must in fairness take the other; and certainly, in that
contemporary's view, Henry was fully determined to do all he could to
save Cobham from the extreme penalty of the law.
He solicited the hierarchy, as a favour to himself, to suspend their
operations for a while; they consented to grant the suspension as a
favour to the King, upon his royal word being pledged that, should he
fail in his endeavours, he would interfere with their proceedings no
further, but on the contrary would assist them. Consistently with his
promise, and with his duty as the chief magistrate of the realm, he
could scarcely have done otherwise than he appears to have done.
After he had put forth his very utmost endeavours to rescue his
subject and friend from the ruin to which the hierarchy had destined
him, he made up his mind that the law should take its course, and that
the accused should be tried as the statute directed. Lord Cobham wrote
a confession of his faith, and, carrying it with him to the court,
presented it to the King; who, having resolved to interpose no (p. 366)
further between the accused and the process of the law, directed him
to present it to his judges: and probably few will be disposed to
think that Henry could act otherwise, consistently with his high
station. The case was now most materially altered; Lord Cobham was in
a very different position, and so was the King. As long as his kind
offices could prevent a public prosecution, Henry spared no personal
labour or time, but zealously devoted himself to this object, though
unsuccessfully. But now the proceedings had advanced almost to their
consummation, and interference at this point could scarcely have been
consistent with the royal duty; especially when we consider what those
proceedings were. Lord Cobham had been summoned to appear before the
spiritual court, had disobeyed the citation, had been pronounced
"guilty of most deep contumacy," and had been excommunicated. Henry
could not interfere in this stage of the business with any show of
regard to the laws, agreeably to which (blind, and cruel, and
bloodthirsty, and wicked, as we may deem them,) the proceedings
undoubtedly had been conducted; he therefore, as it should seem, could
not do otherwise than direct the schedule, then presented to him by
Lord Cobham, to be referred to the tribunal which the law had
appointed to hear and determine the charges. On this turn of his
affairs, the valiant knight and sincere Christian had recourse to
various pleas and measures, for which were we to condemn him, as (p. 367)
he has been condemned, we should act most unjustly. We must not judge
him by the standard of our own times, nor with reference to principles
on which we might justly be arraigned ourselves. But let the same
measure of justice be dealt to all alike; and whilst the eulogist of
Lord Cobham pleads in excuse the "wretched state of society" then
existing,[278] let all the circumstances of time and society and law
be taken into calm consideration before we condemn Henry, or rather
before we withhold from him the praise of moderation, liberality, and
true Christian kindness. The result of this visit to the King (to
which the Archbishop's record does not allude) is thus stated by Fox.
"Then desired Lord Cobham in the King's presence that a hundred
knights and esquires might be suffered to come in upon his purgation,
which he knew would clear him of all heresies. Moreover, he offered
himself after the law of arms to fight for life or death with any man
living, Christian or heathen, in the quarrel of his faith; the King
and the Lords of his council excepted. Finally, with all gentleness he
protested before all that were present, that he would refuse no manner
of correction that should, after the laws of God, be ministered unto
him; but that he would at all times with all meekness obey it.
Notwithstanding all this, the King suffered him to be summoned
personally in his own privy chamber." There is one circumstance of
very great importance, omitted by Milner, Turner, and others; (p. 368)
but which cannot be neglected if we would deal fairly by Henry. Fox
gives a circumstantial statement of it; and it is of itself sufficient
to account for whatever of "strait handling" may have been shown by
the King to his unhappy friend at that hour. Lord Cobham, though he
had repeatedly professed that the King was his supreme head, and liege
Lord, and competent judge, and no other; and that he owed neither suit
nor service to the Pope, whom he denounced as Antichrist; yet now
appealed in the presence of the King peremptorily to the Pope, not on
the heat of the moment, but by a written document which he showed to
the King. The King overruled this appeal;[279] at least, he informed
the accused that he should remain in custody until it was allowed by
the Pope, and that at all events the Archbishop should be his judge.
He was then arrested again at the King's command, and taken to the
Tower of London, "to keep his day," the time appointed for his trial.
But the reader will judge more satisfactorily of the proceeding after
reading the statement of Fox himself. "Then said the Lord Cobham to
the King that he had appealed from the Archbishop to the Pope of (p. 369)
Rome, and therefore he ought, he said, in no cause to be his judge;
and, having his appeal there at hand ready written, he showed it with
all reverence to the King. Wherewith the King was then much more
displeased than afore, and said angerly unto him that he should not
pursue his appeal; but rather he should tarry in hold till such time
as it were of the Pope allowed, and then, would he or nild he, the
Archbishop should be his judge."[280]
[Footnote 278: Milner.]
[Footnote 279: Mr. Southey builds upon this
circumstance a very unfavourable and unmerited
reflection on Henry in comparison with other
monarchs of England. "The Edwards' would have
rejoiced in so high-minded a subject as Lord
Cobham. But Henry V. had given his heart and
understanding into the keeping of the prelates, and
he refused to receive the paper, ordering it to be
delivered to them who should be his judges."]
[Footnote 280: It is painful to read the marginal
notes of Fox here. "Lord Cobham would not obey the
beast." Thomas Arundell, "Caiaphas sitteth in
consistory. The wolf was hungry; he must needs be
fed with blood. Bloody murderers." With many
others, yet more ungentle. The justice of the
judgment cannot but be questioned when the feelings
of the historian give themselves vent in such
language as this. Still we must make great
allowances for the times.
There are many other points in which Fox, who, be
it remembered, refers us to the Archbishop's Memoir
for evidence of the truth of his narrative, gives a
turn and colour to minor circumstances calculated
to prejudice the reader, but by no means sanctioned
by that Memoir. Thus Fox says, the Archbishop swore
all on the _Mass Book_: the Archbishop says, he
caused them all to be sworn on the Holy
Evangelists.]
How far at this juncture the King was competent to take upon himself
the responsibility of forbidding any further proceedings against the
individual on whose head the church had resolved to pour the full vial
of its wrath and vengeance; and, if he had by law the power, how far
he could consistently with the safety of his throne and the peace of
his kingdom have done so, are questions not hastily to be (p. 370)
determined. Certain it is, that, not two years after Lord Cobham's
first citation, Henry seems to have been thought by the council[281]
to be so far from forward in the work of persecution, as to need from
them a memorial to be more vigilant and energetic in his measures
"against the malice of the Lollards;" and to require the Archbishops
and Bishops to do their duty in that respect. Henry, though sincerely
attached to the religion of Rome, yet, whether at the stake in
Smithfield, or in his own palace at Kennington, appears to have
endeavoured "to do the work of the good Samaritan," and to the very
verge of prudence to interpose between the execution of a cruel law,
and the sufferings of a fellow-creature for conscience sake; not by
setting himself up against the law of the kingdom over which he
reigned, but by gentleness and persuasion, and promises and threats,
to induce his subjects not to defy the law. Our inquiry does not
require or allow us to follow the steps of the devoted Lord Cobham
through his examinations before the ecclesiastical judges, nor to
pronounce upon the conduct and language either of Arundel[282] or his
prisoner. Henry seems to have taken no part in the proceedings
whatever. But after the definitive sentence had been passed, and (p. 371)
he had been left to the secular power, and remanded in custody of (p. 372)
Sir Robert Morley to the Tower, we must observe that though according
to Fox himself, the Archbishop had compelled the lay power by most
terrible menacings of cursings and interdictions to assist him against
that seditious apostate, schismatic, and heretic, and troubler of the
public peace, that enemy of the realm and great adversary of holy
church, (for all these hateful names did he give him,") yet the King's
writ for his execution was not forthcoming, and, as far as we have any
means of knowing, never was it issued. In the case of Sautre, the
sentence of his degradation and delivery to the secular power was
passed, and the King's writ for execution is tested on the very same
day, February 26th, 1401.[283] In the case of Badby, the sentence, the
King's writ, and the execution of the persecuted victim, followed in
one and the same day hard upon each other.[284] But though Lord Cobham
was sentenced on Monday, September 25, 1413, yet he remained in the
Tower some time,--Fox says, "a certain space;" Milner says, "some
weeks,"--and no warrant of execution was forthcoming. Indeed, as far
as the record speaks, no such writ was ever issued by the King. The
Tower was no ordinary prison, and yet Lord Cobham escaped[285] by (p. 373)
night, no one knew how. Whether by connivance or not, and, if by
connivance, whether from any intimation of the King's wishes or not,
was never stated.[286] Many conjectures and surmises were afloat, but
no satisfactory account of his escape was ever made known to the
public. Certain it is that, had the King been a "cruel persecutor,"
had he been as ready to meet the desires of the hierarchy as his
father was in the case of Sautre or Badby, a few hours only after the
ecclesiastical sentence was passed would have borne Lord Cobham from
the power of his persecutors to the place where the wicked cease from
troubling, and where the weary are at rest. Walsingham says that both
Henry and the Archbishop were desirous of saving Oldcastle's life, and
that the Archbishop requested the King to give him a respite of forty
days.[287] But, adds Walsingham, he escaped, and spent the time in
preparing soldiers for revenge.
[Footnote 281: Minutes of Council, 27th May 1415.
Item, touching Commission "to the Archbishops and
Bishops to take measures each in his own diocese to
resist the malice of the Lollards." "The King has
given it in charge to his Chancellor."]
[Footnote 282: It is impossible not to observe upon
the great inaccuracy of Fox's translation of the
Archbishop's words, for he professes it to be a
translation, and the unfair turn and tone given to
his sentiments, together with the unjustifiable
addition which he has made to his definitive
sentence.
FOX'S TRANSLATION.
"We sententially and definitively,
by this present writing,
judge, declare, and condemn
him for a most pernicious
and detestable heretic,
convicted upon the same, and
refusing utterly to obey the
church: again committing him
here from henceforth to the
secular jurisdiction, power, and
judgment, to _do him thereupon
to_ DEATH."
ARUNDEL'S WORDS.
"Him, convicted of and
upon such a detestable offence,
and unwilling to return penitently
to the unity of the
church, we sententially and
definitively have judged, declared,
and condemned for a
heretic, and to be in error in
those things which the holy
church of Rome and the universal
church teaches, hath determined,
and preacheth, and
especially in the Articles above
written; leaving the same as
a heretic henceforth to the
secular power."
"To do him unto death," may be the horrible
implication; but it is not, as Fox unwarrantably
represents it to be, part of the sentence.
Another instance occurs in the translation of the
passage in which the Archbishop gives his reasons
for making this public and authoritative statement
of the transaction.
FOX.
"That, _upon the fear of this
declaration_, also the people
may fall from _their evil_ opinions
conceived _now of late_ by
_seditious preachers_."
ARUNDEL.
"That the erroneous opinions
of the people, who perhaps
have conceived on this
subject otherwise than as the
truth of the fact stands, may
by this public declaration be
reversed."
The Archbishop declares his object to be the
substitution of the true statement of the affair of
Lord Cobham's condemnation, in place of the false
opinions which were abroad; not a word about
"fear," or "evil opinions from seditious
preachers."]
[Footnote 283: In the Lambeth account Sautre's
condemnation is dated, according to the
ecclesiastical reckoning, February 1400; but that,
according to our reckoning, is 1401.]
[Footnote 284: The writ is dated March 5,
1410.--Rymer.]
[Footnote 285: His escape must have been, at the
furthest, within fifteen days of his sentence; for,
on the 10th October, messengers were sent about,
forbidding any one to harbour "John Oldcastle, a
proved and convicted heretic."--Pell Rolls.]
[Footnote 286: If Cobham's escape was winked at by
the King, and _he knew_ of the King's kindness, it
is very improbable that he would immediately after
have been so basely ungrateful as to imagine the
death of his sovereign and benefactor. It is,
however, most probable that, had the King favoured
his escape, the royal interference would have been
kept a profound secret, as well from the prisoner,
as from the people at large.]
[Footnote 287: Walsingham (as quoted by Milner)
says that the Archbishop applied to the King for a
respite for fifty days for Lord Cobham. "If this be
so," Milner says, "the motives of Arundel can be no
great mystery. It was thought expedient to employ a
few weeks in lessening his credit among the people
by a variety of scandalous aspersions;" Milner then
quotes the forged recantation, of which we speak in
a subsequent note. It did not occur to that writer,
that the space of fifty days might be required to
forward his appeal to Rome, and receive the Pope's
judgment upon it.]
Had Henry been merely indifferent on this point, the writ would (p. 374)
have issued as a matter of course. We have seen that, before any
proceedings were instituted against him, Henry used his utmost
endeavours and personal exertions to prevent the gallant knight from
falling into the dangers which threatened; and now, when nothing but
his own writ to the sheriff was wanted to bring the last scene of the
sad tragedy to a close, the King withheld it. The Archbishop, we are
told by Fox, compelled the lay power, by most terrible menacings of
cursing and interdictions, to assist him against Lord Cobham; and we
may be satisfied, the clergy, after denouncing him in convocation, and
after such vast pains had been undergone to subject him to the penalty
of death, would not have failed to press their sovereign to
extremities against this ringleader of their enemies: and yet the writ
of execution is withheld, and the condemned prisoner escapes. Whatever
inference may be drawn from these proceedings, at all events they give
no colour to the charge of persecution; on the contrary, the conduct
of Henry of Monmouth shews throughout indications of a (p. 375)
kind-hearted good man, averse from violence, anxious to avoid
extremities, withholding his hand from shedding of blood; and that not
from a carelessness or ignorance in the matter, for he was sincerely
attached to the Roman communion, believing it to be the true religion
of Christ, and had also made proficiency in the learning of the time.
Compared with the knowledge of those who have lived in more favoured
times, and whilst the true light has shone from the sanctuary of the
Gospel on the inhabitants of our land, Henry's acquaintance with
divine things may appear scanty. But he certainly had possessed
himself of a large share of Christian verity, and he was earnestly
bent on maintaining the faith which he had espoused. The system,
however, of the law of terror found no willing supporter in him. His
forbearance from persecution sprang from a genuine feeling of
humanity, the spirit of philanthropy and kindness.