Abbildungen der Seite

during life, with a princely allowance: but in case any person should attempt his deliverance, Richard should be the first that should suffer death. If this be true, it cannot be denied that he was really condemned to die, since his life was only granted him on a condition not in his power. Besides, such a condition cannot be annexed to the sentence of a criminal, but on supposition that he is already condemned. There is some diversity among the historians concerning the manner of Richard's death, though all agree it was unnatural. Some affirm he was starved to death. Others, pretending to be better informed, relate his death with these circumstances. After the troubles were appeased, by the death of the principal conspirators, sir Pyers Exton (d) came to Pontefract, with eight attendants. On the day of his arrival, Richard perceived at dinner, that the victuals were not tasted as usual. He asked the reason of the taster, and upon his telling him that Exton had brought an order forth from the king, took up a carved knife, and struck him on the face, Exton coming in, with his eight attendants, at the noise, Richard found he was a lost man, and resolving to sell his life dearly, wrung a pole axe out of one of their bands, and defended himself so bravely, that he slew four of them. But at length, standing accidentally near Exton, who was got upon a chair, the villain discharged such a blow on his head, as laid him dead at his feet. (e)

(d) Called by Rapin, sir Thomas Pyers, but he is not so named, as far as can be found, by any other writer,

(e) This is Fabian's account. Walsingham says, he fasted himself to death for grief, at the miscarriage of the plot, and died on Feb. 14. p. 363. Stow says, he was kept fifteen days together in hunger, thirst, and cold, till he

[ocr errors]

Thus died this unfortunate prince, thirty three years old, of which he had reigned twentytwo.(f) A melancholy reward for the many signal services his father had done England! he was carried to London in a coffin, with his face uncovered, to be seen of all persons. His funeral was solemnized at Saint Paul's, the king himself being present. After that, he was carried to Langley abbey, and buried (g) without any ceremony. Heury 5 ordered his body to be removed to Westminster abbey, and laid among his ancestors (h). Though it was reported all over the kingdom, that he was murdered, no inquiry was made. This neglect confirmed the people in their belief, that the king was not innocent. Indeed, if Richard had died a natural death, it would have been necessary to undeceive the public. But if his life was taken away by violence, it was difficult to do it without the king's knowledge (i).

died, p. 325. Polydore Virgil says, he was not suffered to touch or taste the victuals which lay before him. Hector Boethius will have it, that Richard fled in disguise into Scotland, where giving himself up wholly to contemplation, he lived and died, and was buried at Sterling. Perhaps this was true of some counterfeit Richard.

(f) The beautiful picture of a king sighing, crowned in a chair of state, at the upper end of the choir in Saint Peter's, Westminster, is said to be his. Speed, p. 615.

(g) In the church of the Friars preachers at King's Langley, in Hertfordshire. Walsing. (h) Henry 5 erected for him and his first queen, Anne, a glorious tomb of grey marblể on the south side of the chapel of the kings, at the head of Edward 3, upon which lie their portraitures of gilt copper, with a preposterous epitaph in Latin. (i) Rapin, 123.

16. Proceedings against JOHN HALL for the Murder of Thomas Duke of Gloucester, 1 Hen. IV. A. D. 1399. [Hollingshed. Cotton. 1 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 283.]

[ocr errors]

THE last thing which we shall mention in the ration was openly read, the duke of Albemarle proceedings of this parliament is some farther rose up and said, "That he utterly denied the enquiry made there in relation to the murder charge to be true against him, and offered to of Thomas duke of Gloucester. Sir John justify his innocence by combat, in such manBaggot, then a prisoner in the Tower, was ner as should be thought requisite." But Bagbrought to the bar of the house of commons, got, not being at liberty to accept the challenge, and examined on the affair of that Murder; the lord Fitz-Walter, and twenty other lords, who there declared, in a bill, then delivered offered to make it good by their bodies, that in, “That it was by the advice and instigation he was the cause of the duke of Gloucester's of the duke of Albemarle, that the lords were death. The duke of Surrey stood up against apprehended by the king, and that the duke of the lord Fitz-Walter, and having affirmed that Gloucester was inhumanely murdered at Ca-what the duke of Albemarle had done against lais. That the duke of Norfolk did keep the duke of Gloucester alive three weeks against the king's will; but for fear of the king's displeasure, the said duke and himself, with several of the king's servants, went over to Calais, and saw him put to death." After this Decla


the duke of Gloucester, was by constraint, he offered to vindicate him by fight; and all their hoods, which they flung down as pledges of their intentions, were delivered to the constable and marshal to be kept. But all these differences the king thought proper to accom


modate, in a way more politic and more con. sistent with the exigency of the times, than suffering them to go on to a martial trial. Baggot, in one of his Examinations before the house, mentioned one John Hall, then a priSouer in Newgate, who could say much more than he, relating to the death of the duke of Gloucester. Which Hall, being sent for and examined, confessed the whole matter; whose Examination, Confession, and Sentence passed against him, being on the Rolls, we shall give from sir Robert Cotton's own account of it.

[ocr errors]

the said Searl and Francis, in an inner parlour, and said, "There is Searl and Francis ;' whereupon the duke of Gloucester said, 'Now I see I shall do well,' and so asked Searl how the king did? who said, well;' and sent to him commendations, and so the said John Lovetofte departed. - Whereupon the said Searl and Francis took the said duke of Gloucester into an upper chamber, saying, That they would speak with him;' unto whom when they were come there, they said That the king's will was, that he should be slain;' the duke answered thereto, If it be so it is welcome;' that Searl and Francis willed the duke to take a chaplain, whom the duke there took, and was confessed. After which confession they caused the duke to lye upon a bed, upon whom so lying, the said Searl and Francis threw a feather-bed, the sides whereof the said William Rogers, Dennice, and Cockle of the chamber held; and Searl and Francis lay on the mouth of the said duke until he was dead; Colfox, Hempsley, and Bradshaw, sat that night by the duke on their knees, weeping, and praying for the soul of the said duke; and Hall, this examinant, kept the door until the duke was slain. After the death of which duke, the duke of Norfolk came in, and seeing him dead, said, 'It were a great matter to have the said duke living again.' By whose confession it seemed to the lords, that he the said John Hall, had deserved a grievous death; whereupon they adjudged, by the assent of the king, that the same Hall should be drawn from Tower-Hill to Tyburn, his bowels to be burned before him, his body to be hanged, headed, and afore-quartered, and his head to be sent and set upon Calais, and his quarters at the king's pleasure; and the marshal the same day did execution accordingly.”

"John Hall, a servant of the duke of Norfolk, being examined by sir Walter Clopton, chief justice, in full parliament, confessed upon his oath, that in the month of September, 21st Richard 2, the duke of Norfolk charged the said John among others, to murder the duke of Gloucester, there being present one John Colfox, an esquire of the said duke of Norfolk; and that they two then being at Calais, went together to Our Ladies church, where they found William Hempsley, esquire, as aforesaid, Bradshaw, esquire, as aforesaid, William Servadlet, of the chamber of the late king Richard, Francis Vadlett, of the chamber of the duke of Albemarle; William Rogers, William Dennice, and Cockle, servants

to the said duke of Norfolk; all whom were
sworn upon the body of Christ, before one sir
William Chaplain, of saint George's, in the
church of Our Lady, that they should not dis-
close the said fact or murder. That after this
oath made, they altogether went with the duke
of Norfolk, towards the house called the
Princes Inn, and when they were come, the
said duke of Norfolk caused the persons
said to enter into a lodging within the same
house, and so departed. After which John
Lovetofte, with sundry other esquires, brought
the duke of Gloucester, and delivered him to

17. Proccedings against WILLIAM SAUTRE, for Heresy, 2 Hen. IV. A. D. 1400. [1 Fox's Acts and Monum. 671.]

turbury, obiected; that the said sir William before the bishop of Norwich had once renounced and abiured diuers and sundry Con clusions hereticall and erroneous; and that after such abiuration made, he publikely and priuily held, taught, and preached the same conclusions, or else such like, disagreeing to the catholike faith, and to the great perill and pernicious example of others. And after this he caused such like conclusions holden and preached, as is said, by the said sir William without renunciation, then and there to be read vnto the said archbishop, by master Robert Hall, chancellor vnto the said bishop, in a certaine scrole written, in tenor of words as followeth:

THE next yeere after, 1400, followed a par-mandement of the foresaid archbishop of Can liament holden at Westminster: in which parliament one William Sautre, a good man and a faithfull priest, inflamed with zeale of true religion, required hee might bee heard for the commodity of the whole realme. But the matter being smelt before by the bishops, they obtained that the matter should bee referred to the conuocation; where the said William Sautre being brought before the bishops and notaries thereunto appointed, the conuocation was deferred to the Saturday next ensuing. When Saturday was come, that is to say, the twelfth day of Februarie, Thomas Arundell archbishop of Canturburie, in the presence of his councell prouinciall, being assembled in the said Chapter-House, against one sir William Sautre, otherwise called Chatris chaplaine, personally then and there appearing by the com

"Sir William Chatris, otherwise called Sautre, parish priest of the church saint Scithe the

virgin in London, publikly and priuily doth
hold these Conclusions vnder written.-Impri-
mis, he saith, that he will not worship the crosse
on which Christ suffered, but onely Christ that
suffered vpon the crosse. 2. Item, that he
would sooner worship a temporall king, than
the foresaid wooden crosse. 3. Item, that he
would rather worship the bodies of the saints,
than the very crosse of Christ on which he
hung, if it were before him. 4. Item, that he
would rather worship a man truly contrite, than
the crosse of Christ. 5. Item, that he is
bound rather to worship a man that is predes-
tinate, than an angell of God. 6. Item, that
if any man would visite the monuments of Pe-
ter and Paul, or goe on pilgrimage to the tombe
of saint Thomas, or else any whither else, for
the obtaining of any temporall benefit; hee is
not bound to keepe his vow, but hee may dis-
tribute the expences of his vow vpon the almnes
of the poore.
7. Item, that euery priest and
deacon is more bound to preach the word of
God, than to say the canonicall houres. 8.
Item, that after the pronouncing of the sacra-
mentall words of the bodie of Christ, the bread
remaineth of the same nature that it was be-
fore, neither doth it cease to be bread."-To
which Conclusions or Articles being thus read,
the archbishop of Canturbury required the
same sir William to answere. And then the
said William asked a copie of such articles or
conclusions, and a competent space to answere
vnto the same. Whereupon the said arch-
bishop commanded a copie of such articles or
conclusions to bee deliuered then and there
vnto the said sir William, assigning the Thurs-
day then next ensuing to him to deliberate and
make answere in. When Thursday the said
day of appearance was come, master Nicolas
Rishton, auditor of the causes and businesse
belonging to the said archbishop (then being
in the parliament house at Westminster, other
wise let) continued the said conuocation with
all matters rising, depending, and appertinent
thereunto, by commandement of the said bi-
shop, vntill the next morrow at eight of the
clocke. When the morrow came, being Fri-
day, the foresaid sir William Sautre, in the
chapter house before the said bishop and his
councell prouinciall then and there assembled,
making his personall appearance, exhibited a
certain scrole, containing the Answeres vnto
certaine articles or conclusions giuen vnto
him, as is aforesaid, by the said bishop; and
said, that vnto the foresaid archbishop he deli-
nered the same as his answere in that behalfe,
Inder the tenor of such words as follow. "I
William Sautre, priest vnworthy, say and
swere, that I will not, nor intend not to wor-
ship the crosse whereon Christ was crucified,
but onely Christ that suffered vpon the crosse;
so vnderstanding me, that I will not worship
the materiall crosse or the grosse corporall mat-
ter: : yet notwithstanding I will worship the
same as a signe, token, and memoriall of the
passion of Christ, adoratione vicaria. And
that I will rather worship a temporall king,

than the foresaid wooden crosse, and the materiall substance of the same. And that I will rather worship the bodies of saints, than the very crosse of Christ whereon he hung: with this add tion, that if the very same crossc were afore mee as touching the materiall substance. And also, that I will rather worship a man truely confessed and penitent, than the crosse on which Christ bung as touching the materiall substance.-And that also I am bound, and will rather worship him whom I know to be predestinate, truely confessed and contrite, than an angell of God: for that the one is a man of the same nature with the humanity of Christ, and so is not a blessed angell. Notwithstanding I will worship both of them, according as the will of God is I should.-Also, that if any man hath made a vow to visit the shrines of the apostles Peter and Paul, or to goe on pilgrimage vnto saint Thomas tombe, or any whither else to obtaine any temporall benefit or commoditie; hee is not bound simple to keepe his vow upon the necessitie of saluation; but hee may giue the expences of his vow in almes amongst the poore, by the prudent counsell of his superiour, as I suppose.-And also I say, that euery deacon and priest is more bound to preach the word of God, than to say the canonicall houres, according to the primitiue order of the church.-Also, touching the interrogation of the sacrament of the altar, I say, that, after the pronouncing of the sacramentall words of the body of Christ, there ceaseth not to be very bread simply, but remaines bread, boly, true, and the bread of life; and I beleeue the said sacrament to bee the very body of Christ, after the pronouncing of the sacramentall words."

When all these Answeres were throughly by master Robert Hall directly and publikely there read, the foresaid archbishop of Canturbury inquired of the said sir William, whether hee had abiured the foresaid heresies and errors obiected against him, as before is said, before the bishop of Norwich, or not; or else had reuoked and renounced the said or such like conclusions or articles, or not? To which he answered and affirmed that he had not. And then consequently (all other articles, conclusions, and answers aboue written immediatly omitted) the said archbishop examined the same sir William Sautre, especially vpon the sacrament of the altar.-First, whether in the sacrament of the altar after the pronouncing of the sacramentall words, remaineth very materiall bread, or not. Vnto which interrogation, the same sir William somewhat waueringly said, and answered, that an-hee knew not that. Notwithstanding, hee said, that there was very bread, because it was the bread of life which came downe from Heauen.-After that the said archbishop demanded of him, whether in the Sacrament after the sacramentall words, rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread remaineth, which did before the words pronounced, or not. And to this question the foresaid William answered in like manner as before, saying, that there was

bread, holy, true, and the bread of life, &c.— After that, the foresaid archbishop asked him, whether the same materiall bread before consecration, by the sacramentall words of the priest rightly pronounced, be transubstantiated from the nature of bread into the very body of Christ, or not? Whereunto sir William said, that he knew not what that matter meant.And then the said archbishop assigned vnto the said sir William time to deliberate, and more fully to make his answere till the next day; and continued this conuocation then and there till the morrow, which morrow, to wit, the 19 day of Februarie being come, the foresaid archbishop of Canterbury, in the said Chapter-house of Saint Paul in London, before his councell prouinciall then and there assembled, specially asked and examined the same sir William Sautre there personally present vpon the Sacrament of the altar, as before. And the same sir William againe, in like maner as before, answered.After this, amongst other things the said bishop demanded of the same William, if the same materiall bread being vpon the altar, after the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, is transubstantiated into the very bodie of Christ, or not? And the said sir William said he vnderstood not what he meant. Then the said archbishop demanded, whether that materiall bread being round and white, prepared and disposed for the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ vpon the altar, want-pired, the bishop of Norwich, according to the ing nothing that is meete and requisite there- commandement of the said archbishop of Canunto, by the vertue of the sacramentall words turburie, presented vnto the foresaid William being of the priest rightly pronounced, bee al-Sautre by a certain friend of his, being present tered and changed into the very body of Christ, at the same councell, a certaine processe inand ceaseth any more to bee materiall and very closed and sealed with his seale, giuing the bread, or not? Then the said sir William, de- names of credible witnesses sealed with their ridingly answering, said, he could not tell.-seales; the tenor where of followeth in this Then consequently the said archbishop demand-wise: ed, whether he would stand to the determination of the Holy Church or not, which affirmeth, that in the Sacrament of the altar, after the words of consecration being rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread, which before in nature was bread, ceaseth any more to be bread. To this interrogation the said sir William said, that hee would stand to the determination of the Church, where such determination was not contrary to the will of God.This done, he demanded of him againe, what his judgement was concerning the Sacrament of the altar: Who said and affirmed, that after the words of consecration, by the priest duly pronounced, remained very bread, and the same bread which was before the words spoken. And this examination about the Sacrament lasted from eight of the clocke of the same day vntil eleuen of the clocke, or thereabouts: insomuch that during all this time the foresaid William would no otherwise answere, neither yet touching the same Sacrament receiue Catholike information, according to the institution of the popes church and his Christian faith. Wherefore the said Canturburie, by the counsell and assent of his whole couent then and there present, did promulgate and giue sentence,

by the mouth of Robert Hall, against the same sir William Sautre (being personally present, and refusing to reuoke his heresies, that is to say, his true doctrine, but constantly defended the same) vnder the tenour of words as followeth.

The Sentence against W. Sautre.

"In the name of God, Amen. Wee Thomas by the grace of God archbishop of Canturbury, primate of England and legate of the sea apostolicall, by the authoritie of God almightie and blessed saint Peter and Paul, and of holy church, and by our owne authoritie sitting for tribunall or chief iudge, hauing God alone before our eyes, by the counsell and consent of the whole clergie our fellow brethren, and suffragans assistants vnto vs in this present councell prouinciall, by this our sentence definitiue do pronounce, decree, and declare by these presents thee William Sautre, otherwise called Chawtrey, parish priest pretensed, personally appearing before vs, in and vpon the crime of heresie iudicially and lawfully conuict, as an heretike, and as an heretike to be punished."-Which Sentence definitiue being thus read, the foresaid archbishop of Canturbury continued in the same prouincial councell till Wednesday next and immediatly ensuing, to wit, the 24 day of the same moneth of Februarie: which being ex

"Memorandum, that vpon the last day of April, in the yeere of our Lord, 1399, in the 7 indiction, and 10 yeere of the papacie of pope Boniface the 2, in a certaine chamber within the manor house of the said bishop of Norwich, at South Helingham (where the register of the said bishop is kept) before the 9 houre, in a certain chapell within the said manor situate, and the first day of May then next and immediatly ensuing, in the foresaid chamber sir W. Chawtris parish priest of the church of S. Margaret in the towne of Linne, appeared before the bishop of Norwich, in the presence of John de Derlington, archdeacon of Norwich, doctor of the decrees, frier Walter Disse, and John Rikinghall, professors in diuinitie, William Carlton, doctor of both lawes, and William Friseby, with Hugh Bridham, publike notaries, and there publikely affirmed and held the conclusions, as before is specified.-All and singular the premises the foresaid William affirmeth vpon mature deliberation. And afterwards, to wit, the 19 day of May in the yeere, indiction, and papacie aforesaid, in the cha pell within the manour house of the said Henrie bishop of Norwich situate at South Helingham, the foresaid sir William reuoked and renounced

the sacrament is said, is no longer bread mate-
riall, but that it is turned into very Christs
bodie; and that I sweare here.
9. I say,
that this is false and erroneous, &c.
10. I say
as I said, &c."

all and singular the foresaid his conclusions; erred by false information. Wherefore I aske abiuring and correcting all such heresies and forgiuenesse.-6. As concerning vowes, I say errours, taking his oth vpon a booke before the that opinion is false and erroneous, and by false foresaid Henrie the bishop of Norwich, that information I held it; for a man is holden to from that time forward hee would neuer preach, hold his vow, &c.-7. To the 7 article I say, affirme, nor hold, priuily nor apertly, the fore that I did it by authoritie of priesthood, where said conclusions; and that he would pronounce, through I knowledge well that I haue guilt according to the appointment of the said bishop, and trespassed: wherefore I submit me to God the foresaid conclusions to be erroneous and he- and to holy church, and to you father, swearing resies in the parish churches of Linne, and Til- | that I shall neuer hold it more.-8. To the ney, and in other places at the assignement of the 8, I say, that I held it by false and wrong said bishop and farther sware, that hee would information. But now I know well that it is stand to the ordinance of the said bishop touch-heresie, and that bread, anon as the word of ing the premisses, in the presence of the discreet and worshipfull men afore-recited with diuers other moe.-As concerning the first conclusion, that be said he would not worship the crosse, &c. hee confessed himselfe to haue erred, and that the article was erroneous, and This being done, the 22 of February aforesubmitted himselfe. And as touching the se- said in the yecre of our Lord 1400 in the cond article, that he said he would rather wor-Chapter-house of Saint Paul in London aforeship a king, &c. he confessed himselfe to haue erred, and the article to be erroneous, and submitted himselfe, and so forth of all the rest. Then next after this, vpon the 25 day of May in the yeere of our Lord aforesaid, in the churchyard of the chappell of saint James within the towne of Linne, the foresaid William, in presence of the foresaid bishop and clergie, and the people of the said towne of Linge standing round about, publikely declared in the English tongue the foresaid conclusions to be erroneous and heresies, as was contained in a certaine scrole. After this, the 26 day of May in the yeere abouesaid, in the church of the hospitall of saint Johns in the towne of Linne, the said sir William, before the said bishop sitting as judge, swore and tooke his oth vpon the holy Euangelists, that hee would neuer after that time preach openly and publikely the foresaid conclusions, nor would heare the confessions of any of the subiects of his diocesse of Norwich, without the speciall licence of the said bishop, &c. In the presence of frier John Smermen, M. John Rikinghall doctor of diuinitie, W. Carlton doctor of both lawes, and Thomas Bulton officer of the liberty of Linne aforesaid, with diuers others."

The tenor of the Scrole and Recantation. "1. 2, Imprimis, touching the first and second, where I said that I would adore rather a temporall prince, and the liuely bodies of the saints, than the woodden crosse whereupon the Lord did hang, I doe reuoke and recant the same as being therein deceiued.--3. To this I say, that the article is false and erroneous, and by false information I held it; the which I renounce and aske forgiueness thereof, and say, that it is a precious relique, and that I shall hold it while I liue, and that I sweare here. 4. I know well that I erred wrongfully by false information: for I wot well, that a deacon or a priest is more bound to say his mattens and houres than to preach; for thereto he is bounden by right: wherefore I submit me, &c.-5. Touching that article, I know right well that I

said; the foresaid archbishop of Canturbury, in the conuocation of his prelates and clergie and such like men there being present, caused the forerecited processe of the bishop of Norwich to bee read openly and publikely to sir William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris. And afterward he asked the said sir William, whether he plainely vnderstood and knew such processe and the contents within the same; and he said, Yea.. And further he demanded of him, if hee would or could say or obiect any thing against the processe; and he said, No. And after that incontinent, the foresaid archbishop of Canturburie demanded and obiected against the said sir William, as diuers others more did; that after hee had before the bishop of Norwich reuoked and abiured judicially diuers errors and heresies, among other errors and heresies by him taught, holden and preached, he affirmed; that in the same Sacrament of the altar after the consecration made by the priest, as he taught, there remained materiall bread: which heresie amongst others as errors also bee abiured before the foresaid bishop of Norwich. Hereunto the foresaid William answered smiling or in mocking wise, saying, and denying that hee knew of the premises. Notwithstanding hee publikely affirmed, that he held and taught the foresaid things after the date of the said processe made by the said bishop of Norwich, and that in the same councell also hee held the same. Then finally it was demanded of the said sir William, why he ought not to bee pronounced as a man fallen into heresie, and why they should not further proceede vnto his degradation according to the canonicall sanctions: whereunto he answered nothing, neither could he alledge any cause to the contrary.-Whereupon the foresaid archbishop of Canturbury by the counsell and consent of the whole councell, and espe cially by the counsell and assent of the reue rend fathers and bishops, as also priors, deanes, archdeacons, and other worshipfull doctors and clerkes then and there present in the councell, fully determined to proceed to the degrada

« ZurückWeiter »