CHANGE IN HENRY'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE LOLLARDS AFTER THE AFFAIR OF
ST. GILES' FIELD. -- EXAMINATION OF THAT AFFAIR OFTEN CONDUCTED WITH
GREAT PARTIALITY AND PREJUDICE. -- HUME AND THE OLD CHRONICLERS. --
FOX, MILNER, LE BAS. -- PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. -- LORD COBHAM, TAKEN IN
WALES, IS BROUGHT TO LONDON IN A WHIRLICOLE, CONDEMNED TO BE HANGED AS
A TRAITOR, AND BURNT AS A HERETIC. -- HENRY, THEN IN FRANCE, IGNORANT,
PROBABLY, OF COBHAM'S CAPTURE TILL AFTER HIS EXECUTION. -- CONCLUDING
REFLECTIONS.
From the escape of Lord Cobham, or perhaps from the extraordinary
affair of St. Giles' Field, which must now engage our attention, we
perceive a most evident change in the sentiments and conduct of King
Henry towards the Lollards, and especially towards Lord Cobham. Up to
that time he seems to have considered their only crime to have been
heresy, and he anxiously employed his good offices to rescue and save
them: after that time he appears to have regarded them as his own
personal enemies, subverters of order, traitors to the throne and the
kingdom; and their heresy and schism were identified in his mind (p. 377)
with the crimes of sedition and treason.[288] How far this view of
their principles and designs was just, has been disputed. Both sides
of the question have been strongly maintained. The inquiry is by no
means devoid of interest in itself; and, as far as Henry's conduct and
character are involved in the transactions of that time, is
indispensable; and throughout the inquiry it must be remembered that
the elucidation of his character, not the acquittal or conviction (p. 378)
of Oldcastle and the Lollards, is the object we have in view.
[Footnote 288: Soon after the affair of St. Giles'
Field much pains seem to have been taken to
discover the retreat of Cobham. The Pell Rolls,
February 19, 1414, record payments to constables
and others for their careful watch and endeavours
to take him; and "chiefly for having found and
seized certain books of the Lollards in the house
of a parchment-maker;" and one hundred shillings as
an especial reward "for the great pains and
diligence exercised by Thomas Burton, (the King's
spy,) for his attentive watchfulness to the
operations of the Lollards now _lately rebellious_;
also because he fully certified _their intentions_
to the King for his advantage." This document (for
ignorance of which no former historian may deserve
blame, though its existence should caution every
one against drawing hasty conclusions from negative
evidence,) proves that at the Exchequer the
Lollards were considered as having been lately
rebellious, and as having had designs against the
King. In a deed too, signed and sealed by the
tenants of Lord Powis, who themselves took Lord
Cobham, both heresy and treason are specified as
the crimes of which he had been convicted "that was
miscreant and unbuxom to the law of God, and
_traitor convict_ to our most gracious sovereign
and his." The Patent Rolls record grants of ten
pounds per annum to John de Burgh, carpenter,
because he had discovered and delivered up certain
Lollards. There are other similar grants. Pat. p.
5. 1 Hen. V.]
Hume, depending implicitly on the old chroniclers, pronounces Cobham
as the ringleader, and his followers guilty of treason. Fox, in his
Book of Martyrs, has supplied Milner and many others with a very
different view. Even Le Bas, in his "Life of Wiclif," though he is
compelled to acknowledge that, "with every allowance for the
exaggerations of malice, of bigotry, and of terror, it is scarcely
possible to believe that imputations so dark could have been _wholly_
fictitious and unfounded," yet is unfortunately contented with the
statements and arguments of later compilers, instead of satisfying
himself from the original documents. He could scarcely have read the
terms which Henry V. used in the different documents of his pardon to
the offenders, or even in his proclamation of a reward for the capture
of Sir John Oldcastle, when he tells us, "it should never be forgotten
that the records of their persecution are wholly silent on the subject
of sedition or conspiracy."
It is curious to read the opposite accounts given of the affair of St.
Giles' Field by two modern historians, both having access to precisely
the same documents. Hume thus summarily disposes of the
case:--"Cobham, who was confined in the Tower, made his escape before
the day appointed for his execution.[289] The bold spirit of the man,
provoked by persecution and stimulated by zeal, was urged to (p. 379)
attempt the most criminal enterprises; and his unlimited authority
over the new sect proved that he well merited the attention of the
civil magistrate. He formed, in his retreat, very violent designs
against his enemies; and, despatching his emissaries to all quarters,
appointed a general rendezvous of the party in order to seize the
person of the King at Eltham, and put their persecutors to the sword.
Henry, apprised of their intention, removed to Westminster: Cobham was
not discouraged by this disappointment, but changed the place of
rendezvous to the field near St. Giles's. The King, having shut the
gates of the city to prevent any reinforcement to the Lollards from
that quarter, came into the field in the night-time, seized such of
the conspirators as appeared, and afterwards laid hold of the several
parties who were hastening to the place appointed. It appeared that a
few only were in the secret of the conspiracy; the rest implicitly
followed their leaders: but, upon the trial of the prisoners, the
treasonable designs of the sect were rendered certain, both from
evidence and from the confession of the criminals themselves. Some
were executed, the greater number pardoned. Cobham himself, who made
his escape by flight, was not brought to justice till four years
after; when he was hanged as a traitor, and his body was burnt on the
gibbet, in execution of the sentence pronounced against him as (p. 380)
a heretic. This criminal design, which was perhaps aggravated by the
clergy, brought discredit upon the party, and checked the progress
of that sect, which had embraced the speculative doctrines of
Wickliffe, and at the same time aspired to a reformation of
ecclesiastical abuses."
[Footnote 289: No day ever was appointed.]
Of the same affair Milner's version is this:--"The royal proclamation
did not put an end to the assemblies of the Lollards. Like the
primitive Christians, they met in smaller companies and more
privately, and often in the dead of the night. St. Giles' Fields, then
a thicket, was a place of frequent resort on these occasions; and here
a number of them assembled on the evening of January the 6th,
1414,[290] with the intention, as was usual, of continuing together to
a very late hour. The King was then at Eltham, a few miles from
London. He received intelligence that Lord Cobham, at the head of
twenty thousand of his party, was stationed in St. Giles' Fields for
the purpose of seizing the person of the King, putting their
persecutors to the sword, and making himself the regent of the realm.
Henry suddenly armed the few soldiers he could muster, put himself at
their head, and marched to the place. He attacked the Lollards, and
soon put them into confusion. About twenty were killed, and sixty (p. 381)
taken: among these was one Beverley, their preacher; who, with two
others, Sir Roger Acton and John Brown, was afterwards put to death.
The King marched on, but found no more bodies of men. He thought he
had surprised only the advanced guard, whereas he had routed the whole
army. This extraordinary affair is represented by the popish writers
as a real conspiracy; and it has given them occasion to talk loudly
against the tenets of the reformers, which could encourage such
crimes. Mr. Hume also has enlisted himself on the same side of the
question, and in the most peremptory and decisive manner pronounced
Lord Cobham guilty of high treason."
[Footnote 290: The day was not January 6th, but
Wednesday the 10th.--"Die mercurii proximo post
Festum Epiphaniæ."--Pat. 2 Hen. V. p. 3. m. 23.]
Milner[291] depends upon "the able and satisfactory vindication of
Lord Cobham by Fox, the martyrologist," whom he affirms to have
examined with great diligence and judgment _all_ the authentic
documents. It is very dangerous to place implicit reliance on any one,
however impartial he may be; especially ought we to seek evidence for
ourselves, when an author professes, as Fox does, his object to be the
vindication of one party and the conviction of another. On this point
there are two or three unquestionably original documents, neither of
which does Fox examine, and on which probably the large majority (p. 382)
of readers will be disposed to rest, as the safest ground for their
opinion on Henry's conduct. In the course of the very day, on the
early morning of which, and during the night preceding, the affair in
St. Giles' Field took place, the King offers a reward of five hundred
marks to any by whose counsel Lord Cobham should be taken, one
thousand marks to any who should take him, and immunities and
privileges to any city or town whose burgesses should bring him before
the King. This proclamation, dated Westminster, 11th of January 1414,
assigns these reasons for the offer of such rewards for his capture:
"Since, by his abetting, very many of our subjects called Lollards
have maintained diverse opinions against the Catholic faith; and
contrary to their duty of allegiance, and falsely and traitorously,
have imagined our death, because we have taken part against them and
their opinions as a true Christian prince, and as we are bound by the
obligation of an oath; and because they have plotted very many
designs, as well for the destruction of the Catholic faith, as of the
state of the lords and great men of our realm, as well spiritual as
temporal; and, to fulfil their wicked purpose, have designed to make
diverse unlawful assemblies, to the probable destruction of our own
person, and of the states of the lords and nobles aforesaid."
[Footnote 291: Milner's statement, "that it is
extremely probable that popish emissaries mixed
themselves among the Lollards for the express
purpose of being brought to confession," is mere
surmise.]
In the same proclamation we find these words, which most persons (p. 383)
will probably interpret as a proof of Henry's desire to mingle mercy
with justice: "We, observing how some of these Lollards and others,
who have designed our death and other crimes and evils, have been
taken on the past occasion, and are condemned to death; and wishing
hereafter, in a better and more gentle manner, as far as we can, to
avoid the shedding of the blood of Christians, especially of our
subjects, whom, for the tender and especial regard we have towards
them, we desire with all anxiety of mind to preserve from
blood-shedding and personal punishment," &c.
Another offer of pardon was made in a proclamation dated March 28,
1414. It seems that many vexatious prosecutions had taken place, and
great disquietude and alarm had in consequence prevailed, and there
was danger lest the good and sound members of the community might be
condemned with the wicked and reckless disturbers of the public peace.
The King therefore offers a free pardon[292] to all who will apply for
letters of pardon before the Feast of St. John the Baptist: there are,
however, ten or twelve exceptions; among others, Sir John Oldcastle,
Thomas Talbot, Thomas Drayton, rector of Drayton Beauchamp. In the
body of this act of grace we read this pious sentiment of Henry: (p. 384)
"We, from reverence to HIM who hath suddenly granted to us protection
and victory against many of our said enemies, and in his own holy and
good time desires to give pardon and peace to all who offend against
himself, lest he destroy them in their iniquities and sins,--we, for
the tranquillity, security, and peace of our lieges and subjects,
decree this pardon."
[Footnote 292: The Patent Rolls of this year shew
that the King's offer was gladly and gratefully
accepted by numbers who applied for his pardon.]
In the December of the same year was the following pardon proclaimed,
which, among other things, fixes the precise date of the affair in St.
Giles' Field, and supplies, what has been triumphantly demanded by
those who will pronounce the whole to have been a mere invention, _the
conviction of an accused party_. "Whereas John Longacre of Wykeham,
formerly of London, mercer, was indicted before William Roos of
Hamelak, and others our justices, assigned to try treasons, felonies,
&c. in our county of Middlesex, for plotting to put us and our
brothers to death, and to make Sir John Oldcastle regent of this
kingdom; and had resolved, with twenty thousand men, to execute their
wicked purpose; and on the Wednesday after the Epiphany, in the first
year of our reign, there Sir John Oldcastle and others, traitorously
persevering in such purpose, traitorously met together in St. Giles'
Great Field, and compassed our death; and the said Longacre pleaded
'not guilty,' and put himself on his country; and he was by the
inquiry [inquest] found guilty, and condemned to be drawn from (p. 385)
the Tower of London to St. Giles' Field, and there to be hanged; we,
of our special grace, have pardoned the said John Longacre."
It is impossible for any candid mind to read these documents without
being convinced that Henry was fully and reasonably assured of the
treasonable practices of Oldcastle and his adherents, and that he was
anxious to deal as mercifully with his enemies as would be consistent
with a due regard to the peace and safety of the realm; and his
biographer considers this as all which legitimately falls within his
province. Whether Oldcastle himself were on that night in St. Giles'
Field, is now a question probably beyond the reach of certain
conclusion. The King's pardon to Longacre declares that he was
present, and there is no evidence on record against it. These are the
documents on which we must form our opinion. They are not traditionary
stories, written many years after the event; they are not manifestos
published in a foreign land; they are State-documents published on the
very spot, all in the same year, one on the very day after the
transaction, one in the March, and the last in the December following.
With reference to Fox's arguments,--whilst every one would, on many
accounts, do well to read them,--it will be immediately obvious, that
"though twenty thousand were said to be expected, and a few hundreds
only were found," yet that the large body of adherents who were to
rendezvous in St. Giles' Field were to come from the city, and (p. 386)
that on the first news of the meeting of the Lollards Henry sent to
order the city gates to be shut.[293] Fox also says that any
conspiracy is incredible in which only three names could be fixed
upon; but this only argues in him an ignorance of the documents above
referred to, in which many persons are by name excepted from the
pardon, and reference is made to many others accused in different
parts of the country. It can no longer be doubted that Lord Cobham was
believed by Henry to have entered into a treasonable conspiracy
against the government and the person of the King; though, after he
escaped from the Tower, there is no evidence yet discovered (p. 387)
(except the King's own declaration) to prove that he was in Fickett's
Field, as the place of meeting near St. Giles' church was called.
[Footnote 293: Any reference to the opinions of
past writers would be imperfect which should omit
Fuller's; he had access, it should seem, to little
if any other data than Fox supplied him with, and
yet the conclusion to which he came is this: "For
mine own part, I must confess myself so lost in the
intricacies of these relations, that I know not
what to assent to. On the one side, I am loath to
load the Lord Cobham's memory with causeless
crimes, knowing the perfect hatred the clergy in
that age bare unto him, and all that looked towards
the reformation in religion. Besides, that twenty
thousand men should be brought into the field, and
no place assigned whence they should have been
raised,[293-a] or where mustered, is clogged with
much improbability, the rather because only the
three persons as is aforesaid are mentioned by name
of so vast a number.
"On the other side (continues Fuller), I am much
startled with the evidence which appeareth against
him. Indeed I am little moved with what T.
Walsingham writes, (whom all later authors follow,
as a flock the bell-wether,) knowing him a
Benedictine monk of St. Alban's, bowed by interest
to partiality; but the records in the Tower, and
acts of parliament therein, wherein he was solemnly
condemned for a traitor as well as a heretic,
challenge belief. For with what confidence can any
private person promise credit from posterity to his
own writings if such public documents be not
entertained by him for authentical? Let Mr. Fox
therefore be Lord Cobham's compurgator; I dare not.
And, if my hand were put on the Bible, I should
take it back again; yet so that, as I will not
acquit, I will not condemn him, but leave all to
the last day of the revelation of the righteous
judgment of God."--Fuller's Church History, An.
1414.]
[Footnote 293-a: Fuller either had not read, or had
forgotten, that the twenty thousand men were to be
raised in the city, and to be mustered in St.
Giles' Field; but that the timely closing of the
city gates is said to have prevented their junction
with the party beyond the walls: and he was not
aware of the many persons mentioned by name in
indictments, proclamations, and pardons.]
Of the seditious and treasonable conduct of Oldcastle, no one seems to
have entertained any doubt before the time of Fox, who wrote more than
a century and a half after the event. The Chronicle of London, written
about 1442, not thirty years after the transaction, after stating the
capture and execution of "diverse men," "much folk," among the rest "a
squire of Sir John Oldcastle," adds these words: "And certainly the
said Sir John, with great multitude of Lollards and heretics, were
purposed with full will and might to have destroyed the King and his
brethren, which be protectors of holy church, and them also that (p. 388)
be in degree of holy order in the service of God and his church; the
which will and purpose, as God would, was let, and Sir John fled and
escaped."[294] Fox quotes the Monk of St. Alban's, whose testimony in
the book entitled "Chronicles of England, and the Fruit of Time,"
speaks in this strong language: "And in the same year (1 Henry V.)
were certain of Lolleis taken, and false heretics, that had purpose of
false treason for to have slain our King, and for to have destroyed
all the clergy of the realm, and they might have had their false
purpose. But our Lord God would not suffer it, for in haste our King
had warning thereof, and of all their false ordinance and working; and
came suddenly with his power to St. John without Smithfield: and anon
they took a captain of the Lolleis and false heretics, and brought
them unto the King's presence, and they told all their false purpose
and ordinance; and then the King commanded them to the Tower, and then
took more of them both within the city and without, and sent them to
Newgate and both Counters; and then they were brought for examination
before the clergy and the King's justices, and there they were
convicted before the clergy for their false heresy, and condemned (p. 389)
before the justices for their false treason."
[Footnote 294: The "Ecclesiastical Annals"
attributing the respite of fifty days to the
interposition of the Archbishop, add, "And in the
course of that period Oldcastle escaped from
prison, and excited all the followers of Wickliffe
to arms, for the purpose of destroying the King and
the clergy."--Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. viii. p.
362.]
Walsingham says, referring to the time of Henry's first expedition,
that the Lollards, probably hearing of the treason of Grey, Scroop,
and Cambridge, at Southampton, came out of their lurking-places, and
spoke and wrote on the church-doors treason. And Oldcastle, who was in
concealment near Malvern, having heard, though by a mistake, that the
King had sailed, sent threats to Lord Burgoyne, who forthwith
collected at his castle of Haneley, near Worcester, five thousand men.
Cobham returned to his concealment; but a chaplain of his, and other
partisans, being taken, were so closely questioned that they
discovered the place in which he kept his arms concealed between two
walls.
The author published under the name of Otterbourne, refers to a
document which, if authentic, would establish Oldcastle's treasonable
practices beyond further question. "The Lollards," he says, "meanwhile
were sadly grieved by the discovery of certain schedules and
indentures between John Oldcastle and the Duke of Albany, in which the
Scots are invited to besiege Roxburgh and Berwise [Berwick]. And on
this the Duke laid siege to Berwise by sea and land." Whether all
these testimonies and original documents establish Lord Cobham's guilt
or not, it is impossible to read them without inferring that, at all
events, there was abundant reason for Henry's own conduct with (p. 390)
regard to him.[295]
[Footnote 295: How far these accounts of Walsingham
and Otterbourne are confirmed by the authority of
the Pell Rolls, the reader will weigh carefully. In
the October and November of this year, payment is
made "to the serjeant of the sheriff of Southampton
for taking Wyche and W^m. Browne, chaplains, and
bringing them to make disclosures about certain
sums belonging to Sir John Oldcastle. Also to the
escheator of the county of Kent, riding sometimes
with twenty, sometimes with thirty horsemen, for
fear of the soldiers and other malefactors
obstinately favouring Sir John Oldcastle."]
After his escape to Wales, however, and the exception of his name from
the bill of pardon, and the offer of a reward for his capture, Henry
does not appear to have had anything whatever to do with Lord Cobham
in life or in death. There is something strange and affecting in the
circumstances of his capture and execution. It was towards the close
of the year 1417, whilst parliament was sitting, that news arrived of
the Lord Cobham having been discovered and taken in Wales. After
voting a subsidy to Henry, who was then pursuing his victories with
all his energy in France, "as soon as they heard that the public enemy
was taken, they all agreed not to dissolve parliament until he were
examined and heard." The Lord Powis was sent to bring him to London,
his men having taken him after a desperate struggle.[296] "He stood,"
says the Monk of Croyland, "at great defence long time, and was (p. 391)
sore wounded or he would be taken. And so the Lord Powis' men brought
him out of Wales to London in a whirlicole." He was forthwith carried
before the parliament as an outlaw, on the charge of treason, and, as
an excommunicated heretic, given over to the secular power. He heard
the several convictions, and made no answer to the charges; and was
then instantly condemned to be taken to the Tower, and thence to the
new gallows in St. Giles' Field, and there to be hanged for his
treason, and to be burnt hanging for his heresy. There was,
undoubtedly, great irregularity and hurry in this proceeding. But
probably the statement of the Monk of St. Alban's is not far from the
truth. "So he was brought to Westminster, and there was examined on
certain points, and he said not nay; and so he was convicted of the
clergy for his heresy, and dampned before the justices to the death
for treason: and he was led to the Tower again, and there he was laid
on a hurdle, and drawn through the city to St. Giles' Field. And (p. 392)
there was made a new pair of gallows, and a strong chain, and a
collar of iron for him; and there he was hanged, and burnt on the
gallows, and all for his lewdness and false opinions."
[Footnote 296: The warrant by the council, dated
December 1, 1417, authorized Edward Charleton to
bring the body of John Oldcastle, then in Pole
Castle. On February 3, 1422, the wife and executor
of the said Edward Charleton received part payment
of one thousand marks for the capture of Sir John
Oldcastle. There is also payment for the capture of
certain of his clerks and servants. He was taken
near Broniarth in Montgomeryshire, on a property
now belonging to Mr. Ormsby Gore, among whose
muniments there is said to be traditionary evidence
that the manor of Broniarth was granted to one of
its former possessors as a reward for securing Sir
John Oldcastle. The place in which he is said to
have been taken, is called "Lord Cobham's Field" to
this day.
There are, we are told, in the Welsh language
original verses referring unquestionably to Lord
Cobham's residence in Wales, among persons who
entertained the same religious views with himself,
and also to his return to England. The religion of
Rome is called in these verses "the Faith of the
Pharaohs."]
And here we must close this sad tragedy, in the last scene of which
King Henry took no part. He was spared the pain of either sanctioning
or witnessing these transactions. The first information he received of
his unhappy friend's capture, probably certified him also of his
death; and whatever we may suppose to have been his sentiments on the
removal from this world of one whom he certainly believed guilty of
treason, and the enemy of his throne; his kindness of heart, and
sympathy with the brave and the good, must have made him, even in the
midst of the din of war and the flush of victory, lament the fate of
one whom for so many years he had held in affection and esteem. Henry
probably felt a melancholy satisfaction that he was spared the sad
duty, for so he must have deemed it, of sanctioning the last sentence
on his friend. They are now both in the hands of Him to whom all
hearts are open, and from whom no secret is hid; and there we leave
them to his just but merciful disposal.