372
Constitutional History.
[chap.
intended as a temporary expedient, whether the Lollard knights
procured its suppression, or the archbishop had seen the im-
policy of confusing the spiritual and temporal jurisdictions, or
whether it was not a premature attempt of the prince to legis-
late on the principle which he adopted after the death of
Arundel and when he was king himself, it is not possible to
Different decide. Opinions have been divided as to the purport of the
proposed petition, and it lias even been maintained that it was intended
to substitute for the ecclesiastical persecution a milder form of
repression over which the parliament could exert more direct
authority1. But the language of the petition carefully con-
sidered seems to preclude any such conclusion ; and it seems
best to refer the disappearance of the statute either to a
jealousy between the prince and the archbishop, of which there
are other traces at a later time, or to a feeling of distrust
existing between the spiritual and secular courts. The patent
rolls of the ninth year of the reign contain several commissions
issued by the king’s authority for the suppression of heresy and
the arrest of LoIlard preachers after royal inhibition2; it is
possible that these measures may have been taken under this
statute.
AmndePs The next parliament was that of Gloucester, in October 1407 :
Constitn- r . ’ . '
tions. nothing however was done respecting the Lollards in that
session. Arundel found time to issue a series of constitutions
against them in 1409, in which he declared heresy to be a
crime which should be treated as summarily as high treason.
But the condition of the papacy itself occupied the minds of the
bishops too much during the following years to allow time for
elaborate measures of repression. In 1410 a parliamentary
struggle took place, of which some account has been already
Petitioii given3. The knights of the shire petitioned, according to Wal-
ɪ4"0' singham, that convicted clerks might not be handed over to the
bishops’ prisons, and that the recent statute, according to which
the Lollards whenever and wherever arrested might without
1 Hallam (Middle Ages, iii. 90) supposes that the clergy prevented it
from appearing on the Statute Roll.
2 Rot. Pat. Calend. pp. 254, 256. 3 Above, p. 65.
XlX.]
Persecutiou of the Lollards.
3/3
royal writ be imprisoned in the nearest royal prison, might be
modified1. A petition of similar character appears on the rolls ;
the purport of which is that persons arrested under the pro-
visions of the act of 1401 may be admitted to bail and make
their purgation in the county in which they are arrested, such
arrests to be henceforward made by the king’s officers without
violent affray2. To this prayer the king returned an unfavour-
able answer, and it is probable that this was the petition which
the commons asked to have back, so that nothing might be
enacted thereupon3. In this parliament also was first broached Proposal of
ɪ ɪ . , COimscation.
the elaborate scheme of confiscation which became a part of the
political programme of the Lollards4. During this session a
frightful execution took place under the act of 1401, and on
this occasion the victim was a layman : John Badby, a tailor of Execution
,. ofBadby.
the diocese of Worcester, had been excommunicated for heresy
by the bishop and had refused to abjure ; he was brought before
the archbishop and clergy in convocation and, persisting in his
refusal, was handed over to the secular arm with a petition,
addressed by archbishop Arundel to the lords, that he might
■ not be put to death5. Whether the petition were a piece of
mockery or not, the unfortunate man was burned, the prince of
Wales being present at the execution and making a vain attempt
to procure a recantation. This event took place on the ɪoth of
March ; it seems to have been the first execution under the act,
and accordingly in the record of the convocation the whole
statute is rehearsed, apparently in justificationδ. In the follow- Beginning of
ing month Sir John Oldcastle’s church at Cowling was placed troubles,
under interdict in consequence of the contumacy of his chaplain,
but the sentence was remitted within a few days7, and Old-
castle as well as his followers had peace until the death of the
king.
On the accession of Henry V, Arundel, as we have seen, Legislation
renewed his attack on the Lollards : Oldcastle was tried, con- ¾.i⅛st'y V
demned, and allowed to escape from prison. The abortive herβsy'
1 Wals. ii. 283. 2 Rot. Parl. in. 626.
3 Rot. Parl. jii. 623 ; above, p. 65. 4 Above, pp. 65, ɪ 15.
5 Wilk. Cone. iiɪ. 324-329; Foxe, iii. 235-238; Wals. ii. 282.
b Wilk. Cone. iii. 328. 7 lb. iii, 330, 331