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 affirmi 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 hands, 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 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! be 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. Henry 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 marble 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.] THE last thing which we shall mention in the proceedings of this parliament is some farther enquiry made there in relation to the murder of Thomas duke of Gloucester. Sir John Baggot, then a prisoner in the Tower, was brought to the bar of the house of commons, and examined on the affair of that Murder who there declared, in a bill, then delivered in, "That it was by the advice and instigation of the duke of Albemarle, that the lords were apprehended by the king, and that the duke of Gloucester was inhumanely murdered at CaJais. 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 VOL. 1. ration was openly read, the duke of Albemarle rose up and said, "That he utterly denied the charge to be true against him, and offered to justify his innocence by combat, in such manner as should be thought requisite." But Baggot, not being at liberty to accept the challenge, the lord Fitz-Walter, and twenty other lords, offered to make it good by their bodies, that he was the cause of the duke of Gloucester's death. The duke of Surrey stood up against the lord Fitz-Walter, and having affirined that what the duke of Albemarle had done against 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 M modate, in a way more politic and more con. the said Searl and Francis, in an inner parsistent with the exigency of the times, than lour, and said, 'There is Searl and Francis ;' suffering them to go on to a martial trial. Bag- whereupon the duke of Gloucester said, 'Now got, in one of his Examinations before the I see I shall do well,' and so asked Searl how house, mentioned one John Hall, then a pri- the king did? who said, 'well;' and sent to soner in Newgate, who could say much more him commendations, and so the said John than he, relating to the death of the duke of Lovetofte departed. Whereupon the said Gloucester. Which Hall, being sent for and Searl and Francis took the said duke of Glouexamined, confessed the whole matter; whose cester into an upper chamber, saying, 'That Examination, Confession, and Sentence passed they would speak with him ;' unto whom when against him, being on the Rolls, we shall give they were come there, they said 'That the from sir Robert Cotton's own account of it. king's will was, that he should be slain;' the "John Hall, a servant of the duke of Nor- duke answered thereto, If it be so it is welfolk, being examined by sir Walter Clopton, come;' that Searl and Francis willed the duke chief justice, in full parliament, confessed upon to take a chaplain, whom the duke there took, his oath, that in the month of September, 21st and was confessed. After which confession Richard 2, the duke of Norfolk charged the they caused the duke to lye upon a bed, upon said John among others, to murder the duke whom so lying, the said Searl and Francis of Gloucester, there being present one John threw a feather-bed, the sides whereof the Colfox, an esquire of the said duke of Norfolk; said William Rogers, Dennice, and Cockle of and that they two then being at Calais, went the chamber held; and Searl and Francis lay together to Our Ladies church, where they on the mouth of the said duke until he was found William Hempsley, esquire, as afore- dead; Colfox, Hempsley, and Bradshaw, sat said, Bradshaw, esquire, as aforesaid, that night by the duke on their knees, weepWilliam Servadlet, of the chamber of the late ing, and praying for the soul of the said duke; king Richard, Francis Vadlett, of the chamber and Hall, this examinant, kept the door until of the duke of Albemarle; William Rogers, the duke was slain. After the death of which William Dennice, and Cockle, servants duke, the duke of Norfolk came in, and seeing to the said duke of Norfolk; all whom were him dead, said, It were a great matter to sworn upon the body of Christ, before one sir have the said duke living again.' By whose William Chaplain, of saint George's, in the confession it seemed to the lords, that be the church of Our Lady, that they should not dis- said John Hall, had deserved a grievous death; close the said fact or murder. That after this whereupon they adjudged, by the assent of the oath made, they altogether went with the duke king, that the same Hall should be drawn from of Norfolk, towards the house called the Tower-Hill to Tyburn, his bowels to be burned Princes Inn, and when they were come, the before him, his body to be hanged, headed, and said duke of Norfolk caused the persons afore-quartered, and his head to be sent and set upon said to enter into a lodging within the same Calais, and his quarters at the king's pleasure; house, and so departed. After which John and the marshal the same day did execution Lovetofte, with sundry other esquires, brought accordingly." the duke of Gloucester, and delivered him to 17. Proceedings against WILLIAM SAUTRE, for Heresy, 2 Hen. IV. A. D. 1400. [1 Fox's Acts and Monum. 671.] THE next ycerc after, 1400, followed a parliament 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 mandement of the foresaid archbishop of Canturbury, obiected; that the said sir William before the bishop of Norwich had once renounced and abiured diuers and sundry Conclusions hereticall and erroneous; and that aftcr 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 : "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.-Imprimis, 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. Itein, that he is bound rather to worship a man that is predestinate, than an angell of God. 6. Item, that if any man would visite the monuments of Peter 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 distribute the expences of his vow vpon the almes 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 before, 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 Willian asked a copie of such articles or conclusions, and a competent space to answere vnto the same. Whereupon the said archbishop commanded a copie of such articles or conclusions to bee deliuered then and there vnto the said sir William, assigning the Thursday 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 Westiniuster, otherwise let) continued the said conuocation with all matters rising, depending, and appertinent thereunto, by commandement of the said bishop, vntill the next morrow at eight of the clocke. When the morrow came, being Friday, 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 deliuered the same as his answere in that behalfe, vnder the tenor of such words as follow. "I William Sautre, priest vnworthy, say and answere, that I will not, nor intend not to worship 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 matter: 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 addition, that if the very same crosse 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 hung 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 simplie 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, holy, 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 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 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. 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 "In the name of God, Amen. Wee Thosaid sir William time to deliberate, and more mas by the grace of God archbishop of Canfully to make his answere till the next day; turbury, primate of England and legate of the and continued this conuocation then and there sea apostolicall, by the authoritie of God till the morrow, which morrow, to wit, the 19 almightie and blessed saint Peter and Paul, day of Februarie being come, the foresaid arch- and of holy church, and by our owne autho bishop of Canturbury, in the said Chapter-house ritie sitting for tribunall or chief iudge, hauing of Saint Paul in London, before his councell God alone before our eyes, by the counsell and prouinciall then and there assembled, specially consent of the whole clergie our fellow brethren, asked and examined the same sir William Sau- and suffragans assistants vnto vs in this present tre there personally present vpon the Sacra- councell prouinciall, by this our sentence defiment of the altar, as before. And the same sir nitiue do pronounce, decree, and declare by William againe, in like maner as before, an- these presents thee William Sautre, otherwise swered. After this, amongst other things the called Chawtrey, parish priest pretensed, persaid bishop demanded of the same William, if sonally appearing before vs, in and vpon the the same materiall bread being vpon the altar, crime of heresie iudicially and lawfully conafter the sacramentall words being of the priest uict, as an heretike, and as an heretike to rightly pronounced, is transubstantiated into be punished."-Which Sentence definitiue the very bodie of Christ, or not? And the said being thus read, the foresaid archbishop sir William said he vnderstood not what he of Canturbury continued in the same promeant. Then the said archbishop demanded, uincial councell till Wednesday next and whether that materiall bread being round and immediatly ensuing, to wit, the 24 day of the white, prepared and disposed for the Sacrament same moneth of Februarie: which being exof the bodie of Christ vpon the altar, want-pired, the bishop of Norwich, according to the ing nothing that is meete and requisite thereunto, by the vertue of the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, bee altered and changed into the very body of Christ, and ceaseth any more to bee materiall and very bread, or not? Then the said sir William, deridingly answering, said, he could not tell.— Then consequently the said archbishop demanded, 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, commandement of the said archbishop of Canturburie, presented vnto the foresaid William Sautre by a certain friend of his, being present at the same councell, a certaine processe inclosed and sealed with his seale, gining the names of credible witnesses sealed with their seales; the tenor where of followeth in this | wise: "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 Rikingball, 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 chapell 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 materiall, but that it is turned into very Christs hodie; 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 he said he would not worship the crosse, &c. hee confessed himselfe to haue erred, and that the article was erroneous, and submitted himselfe. And as touching the second article, that he said he would rather worship 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 Linne 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 This being done, the 22 of February aforesaid in the yeere of our Lord 1400 in the Chapter-house of Saint Paul in London aforesaid; 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 iudicially 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 hee 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 especially by the counsell and assent of the reuerend 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 |
