Case of
bishop
Pecock.
Local in-
Iluence of
LolIardy.
Possible
connexion
with dynas-
tic faction.
37δ Constitiitimal Histori/. [chap.
Lollard discontent was mingled with the popular complaints in
1450. But the influences which had supported the early
Wycliffites were extinct. The knights of the shire noi longer
urged the spoliation of the clergy; the class from which they
were drawn found plunder enough elsewhere ; the universities
produced no new schoolmen ; the friars experienced no revival
or reform; and, although learning was liberally nurtured by
the court, freedom of opinion found little latitude. Bishop
Pecock of Chichester, who had endeavoured to use against the
erroneous teaching of the Lollards some controversial weapons
which implied more independent thought than his brethren
could tolerate, was driven out of the royal council with one
accord by the lords, was tried for heretical opinions before the
archbishop and bishops of his province, and condemned ɪ. Like
so many of the earlier Lollards he chose submission rather than
martyrdom, abjured and recanted ; in spite of papal mediation
he was not restored to his see, but kept in confinement, and
remained a pensioned prisoner as long as he lived. He is
almost a solitary instance of anything like spiritual or intel-
lectual enlightenment combining with heretical leanings to
provoke the enmity or jealousy of the clergy.
The political views of the Lollards too were a very sub-
ordinate element in the dynastic struggle of the century. It is
certainly curious that the early Lollard knights came chiefly
from those districts which were regarded as favourable to
Richard II, to the Mortimers, and afterwards to the house of
York. Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Bristol, and now and
then Kent, are the favourite refuge of the persecuted or the
seed-plots of sedition; Jack Sharp of Wigmoreland led the
rising of 1431, as the so-called John Mortimer led that of 1450.
But the common idea of resistance to the house of Lancaster
was probably the only link which bound the Lollards to the
Mortimers, at least after the old court influences of Richard’s
reign were extinguished. There were Lollards in Kent and
London as well as Yorkists, but the house of York when it came
* Wilkins, Cone. iii. 576 ; Babington, Pocock’s Itepressor, vol. ɪ. pref.
I>p. xxxvi-lvii.
Xix.] Executions.
to the throne showed no more favour to the heretics than the
house of Lancaster had done.
It is difficult to form any distinct notion of the way in which Qiiestion of
the statutes against the Lollards operated on the general mass θfθ^ecu'
of the, people : they were irregularly enforced, and the number
of executions which took place under them has been very
variously estimated1. Although the party had declined politi- Somoiiberty
cally, so far as not to be really dangerous at any time after allowed.
Oldcastle’s death, considerable liberty of teaching must have
been allowed, or otherwise bishop Pecock’s historical position is
absolutely unintelligible. If he were, as he thought, a defender
of the faith, the enemies against whom he used his controversial
weapons must have existed by toleration ; if he were himself
heretical, the avenues to high promotion must have been but
negligently guarded. But the whole of the age in which the
Lollard movement was working was in England as elsewhere a
period of much trouble and misgovernance ; men, parties, and r∏∞nsis-
ɪ . _ TiTT tencιes of
classes were jealous and cruel, and, although there was an the age.
amount of intellectual enlightenment and culture which is in
contrast with the preceding century, it had not yet the effect
of making men tolerant, merciful, or just. Tiptoft’s literary
accomplishments left him the most cruel man of his cruel time.
1 Adam of Usk (p. 3), in drawing a parallel between the Israelites who
worshipped the golden calf, and the Lollards, has some words which
might lead to misapprehension ; they must be read as follows, t Unde
in pluribus regni partibus et praecipue Londonia et Bristolia, velut
Judaei ad montem Oreb propter vitulum conflatilem, mutuo in se rever-
tentes, xxiii milium de suis miserabilem patientes casum merito doluerunt,
Anglici inter se de fide antiqua et nova altercantes omni die sunt in
puncto quasi mutuo ruinam et Seditionem inferendi.’ There is no state-
ment of 23,000 executions, but of the danger of internal schism. The
London chroniclers furnish a considerable number of executions under
Henry V and Henry VI ; thirty-eight persons were hanged and burned
after Oldcastle’s rising in 1414; in 1415 were burned John Claydon and
Bichard Turmyn ; Gregory, p. 108; in 1417 Oldcastle; in 1422 William
Taylor, priest, p. 149 ; in 1430 Richard Hunden1 p. 171 ; in 1431 Thomas
Bagley, p. 171 ; Jack Sharp and five others were hanged, p. 172 ; in 1438
John Gardiner was burned, p. ι8ι ; in 1440 Richard Wych and his
Servant, p. 183; in 1466 William BaIowe was burned, p. 233; in 1467
four persons were hanged for sacrilege, p. 235. Foxe adds a few more
names ; Abraham, White, and Waddon, 1428-1431 (vol. iii. p. 587) ; John
Goose in 1473, p. 755» There were many prosecutions, as may be seen
in the Concilia as well as in Foxe, but in the va«t majority of cases they
ended in penance and recantation.