811 [787]
K. Henry. 8. Defence of R. Hunne against Cope. Elizabeth Stamford. Ioan. Sampson.
recant or no. MarginaliaHunne had duble wrōg.And yet admyt that he was condemned and burned for an heretique, yet to be kylled and burned of thē, an heretique, that taketh not from hym the name of a martyr, but rather geueth hym to be a double martyr. But Cope yet proceeding in his hote coler against Rich. Hunne, after he hath made hym first no martyr, and then an heretique, thirdly he nowe maketh hym also a murtherer of him self, and saith, that no other man was any part of his death, but onely his owne handesMarginaliaCopes reasons why Hunne should hang hym selfe. and that eyther for indignation and anger, or for desperation or for some cause, he knoweth not what. And in his Epilogus to make it probable, he allegeth the example of one, but namelesse, who in Queene Maryes tyme, in like sort went about to hang hym selfe, had he not bene taken in the maner, and rescued.
Commentary
Furthermore, as touchyng the Chauncelour, he argueth that there was no canse why he should attempt any suche violence against hym, both for his age, for his dignitie, for his learnyng, and for the greatnes of his owne peryl, which myght ensue thereof. Who if he had maligned the man, and had bene so disposed to worke his destruction, had meanes otherwise without daunger, to bring that about, hauyng hym within his daunger conuict and fast tyed for heresie.
MarginaliaCopes reasons aunswered. Whereunto I answeare, that to all this matter, sufficient hath bene answeared by the storie it selfe of his death, aboue specified.
MarginaliaProufes that Hunne dyd not hange hym selfe. Whereby the maner of his death, by circumstances of his handlyng, and hangyng, by his necke broke, by his bodye loose, by his skynne fretted, by his wristes wroōg, by his gyrdle in such shortnes double cast about the staple, by his cap right vpō his head, by his heare kemmed, by his eyes closed, by the cake of bloud found in the floore, by his shyrt coller, Doublet, Iacket, and other outwarde partes of his garmentes without drop of bloud vnspotted, by the stoole so stāding vpon the bolster, by the Chancelors Murrey gowne founde the day after vpon the stockes
Commentary
The coroner's jury declared in their verdict that there was a murrey (i.e., a mulberry coloured) gown lying on the stocks in Hunne's cell, although they also declared that the gown was whisked away from the cell before the jury visited it. The jury clearly suspected that the gown belonged to Horsey but they explicited stated that there was no proof of this. Foxe is accepting as absolute fact that the gown was present in Hunne's cell and that it belonged to Horsey.
[Back to Top], the waxe candle fayre put out: furthermore by the verdict of the inquest, by the attestation of the witnesses sworne, by the Crowners iudgement, by the assent of the Parliament, by the kynges letters assigned, and broade seale for restitution of his goodes: and finally by the confession of the parties them selues whiche murdered hym. &c. and yet thinketh Cope to make men such fooles, hauing their fiue wits to weene yet that Hunne dyd hang hym selfe, after so many demonstrations and euidences to the contrarye, as in euery part of this storie may appeare. And though it were, as it was vnlike, and hard for a man to beleue, that D. Horsey a man of suche age, dignitie, and learnyng, woulde so muche forget hym selfe, to attempt suche a villanie
Commentary
Harpsfield makes this argument in Dialogi sex, p. 848.
, yet so great is the deuyl sometymes with man (where God permitteth) that he worketh greater thinges then this, and more vncredible. For who would haue thought it like, that Cain woulde euer haue kylled Abel his owne naturall brother? whiche was more then a Bishops Chauncelour to kyll a Citizen: yet so he did. And where Cope pretendeth the causes of anger, and desperation whereby Hunne did hang hym selfe:
MarginaliaManyfest vntruth in Cope. howe is it like, or who dyd euer heare, a man being in such extremitie of desperation, to stand first trimming hym selfe, and kemmyng his head, before he go to hang him selfe? No lesse credite is also to be geuen to that whiche foloweth in the same Cope, where he saith,
MarginaliaAn other vntruth noted in Cope. that Richarde Hunne beyng in prison, was conuict of heresie
Commentary
Harpsfield, at one point, speaks erroneously of Hunne as having been 'held in prison and convicted of heresy' [haereseosque convictum et constrictum teneret] (Dialogi sex, p. 848). Foxe is correct to point out that Hunne was only convicted of heresy posthumously.
. By the which worde conuict, if he meane that Hunne was proued an heretique, that is false, for that he beyng at Fulham examined vpon certaine Articles, both denyed the articles to be true, as they were obiected, and also if they were true, yet he submitted him selfe to their fauorable correction, and therefore not standing obstinately in the same, could not be proued an heretique.
MarginaliaAn other vntruth noted in Cope. And if by his terme conuict, he meane that he was by sentence cast, so was Hunne neuer cast by any sentence for an heretique, so long as he lyued, but after his death, when he coulde nothing answeare for hym selfe.
Marginalia Cope hudleth out vntruthes. And because this vntruth shoulde not go without his felowe, see howe he hudleth vp one false narration in the necke of an other: affirmyng moreouer, that Hunne was cast in prison, before he entred his suite of Premunire against the priest. Whiche is vtterly false and vntrue, both disgreeing to other stories, and also refuted by the wordes of Sir Thomas Moore his owne author, who reporteth that Hunne (in suing his
Premunire agaynst the priest) being set vpon a glorye of victorie, made his boasting among his frendes, that he trusted to haue the matter long spoken of, and to be called Hunnes case.
Commentary
See Dialogi sex, pp. 848-9. Harpsfield is, as Foxe declares, is repeating More (see CWTM, 6, I, pp. 326-7).
. Whereby it appeareth, that Hunne was not then in prison clapt vp for heresie: but was abrode seking counsel among the Lawyers, and boasting among his freendes,
Marginalia Tho. Morus. Dial. lib. 3. as writeth
More. Lib. 3. Dial.[Back to Top]MarginaliaAn other vntruth in Cope noted. After this heape of vntruthes aboue passed, adde yet further an other copie of Copes false dealing: who seking al corners, and euery where how to picke matter against my former historie,
Commentary
chargeth me with arrogancie, as though I tooke so highly vpon me to vndoe and derogate the kinges actes and iudgements in the acquital of D. Horsey. If it so pleased the king to acquite D. Horsey, by his gratious pardon,
Commentary
Technically, Horsey was never pardoned. He was acquitted by means of a directed verdict.
I am not against it neither do I deny but the king so dyd, neither do I say, nor euer dyd, but the king of his supereminent prerogatiue may so do: and wherein then do I vnrippe or loose the kinges actes here done and concluded?
MarginaliaAnswere to Copes cauillatyon. But if the question be this, whether D. Horsey with his coniurates dyd kyll Richard Hunne or no: then do I say, that the pardon of the kyng doth not take away the veritie of the crime committed, but remoueth away the penaltie of the lawe deserued: and so if the life of them was saued by way of pardon (as M. Moore hym selfe semeth not to denye)
Commentary
See CWTM, 6, I, p. 325, for More explaining that Hunne's accepting what was, in effect, a royal pardon did not necessarily mean that Horsey was guilty.
then was it not through their innocencie claymyng iustice, that they escaped, but through petition standyng neede of mercye. For what needeth pardon, where iustice absolueth? yea, who sueth pardon, but in so doing must yeelde hym selfe gyltie? for pardon neuer commeth lightly eyther with God or man, except the crime first be confessed.
MarginaliaThe escaping of Horsey came rather of fauour then of his demerites. Wherfore, if they escaped by iustice, as Cope pretendeth, how then doth M. Moore say, they were saued by pardon? And if they escaped by pardon,howe then doth Cope say, they were not gyltie? And be it admitted, that the sentence of the kynges Attorney, in the kynges name did absolue them as vngyltie, according as the king was then infourmed by the Cardinal and suite of frendes: yet afterwarde the kyng beyng better informed by the Parliament, and the truth better knowen, detested and abhorred their fact, and yet continued his pardon vnto them, as by the kynges owne actes and his broad seale appeared, yet remaynyng in recordes to be seene.
[Back to Top]And as touchyng my former histories set foorth in Latine and in English, which speake first of þe foreman of the quest, then of the kinges Attorney to be laboured with some gyftes or money: as Cope hath yet proued no vntruth in my saying, so lesse can he finde any repugnaunce or disagreeing in the same.
Commentary
In the Rerum (p. 121), Foxe stated that the foreman of the coroner's jury had been bribed to find Horsey not guilty. In the 1563 edition (p. 391), he claimed that the King's Attorney had been bribed to find Horsey innocent. Harpsfield pointed out the contradiction and demanded what proof Foxe had of either charge? (Dialogi sex, p. 848). Foxe avoids the issue of bribery (by 1570, he knows that Henry VIII ordered Horsey to found innocent) by stating, after some bluster, that he had repeated what Edward Hall had said in his chronicle.
[Back to Top] For he that speaketh of bribyng, first of one person, and then afterwarde of an other, where both might be bribed together, is not contrarye (I thinke) to hym selfe, but rather doth comprehende that in the one booke, whiche he before leaueth out in the other, and yet no great repugnaunce either in the one or in the other, seeyng that which is said, may be verified in both, as it is no other like but in this matter it was. For howe is it otherwise like or possible, but that there must needes be founde some priuie packyng in this matter, seing after such euidēce foūd and brought in by the Crowners inquest & Iurie of xxiiij. chosen persons, after so many markes & tokens of þ
e murder so cleare and demonstrable, and laid forth so plaine to the eyes of all the world, that no man could deny, or not see the same: yet through the handling of the foresaid Attorney, & of the foreman of the quest, the murderers were borne out, and confessed to be no murderers? If such bolstering out of matters, and partialitie were then suche a rare case in the realme of Englande in the tyme of Cardinall Wolsey, who then vnder the kyng and in in the kinges name dyd what he list, thē let it seme vntrue in my former stories, that I haue written. And yet the wordes of my storie which Cope carpeth at so muche, be not myne, but the wordes of Ed. Hall his owne authour.
Commentary
Edward Hall, The unyon of the twoo noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York (London, 1550), fo. Lv.
Wherfore if his disposition be so set, that he must needes be a censor of other mens writinges, let him expostulate with Hal, and not with me.
[Back to Top]But I trouble the reader too muche in this matter of Richard Hunne, being of it selfe so cleare, that no indifferēt iudge can doubt thereof. As for wranglers and quarrellers they wyl neuer be satisfied. Wherefore to returne againe to the purpose of our storie intermitted, in the table aboue, conteynyng the names
Commentary
Lollard martyrs
Foxe's account of these victims of a crackdown against heresy initiated by Bishop Fitzjames of London in the years 1517-20, comes largely from a now lost courtbook of London diocese. Some of the material in this courtbook, however, was summarized in notes taken by Archbishop James Ussher (Trinity College, Dublin, MS 775, fos. 122r-125r). For the case of Thomas Man he appears to have also drawn on a courtbook from Lincoln diocese, which is now missing. He also used the Lincoln court book to correct and amplify cases that he had already discussed. Perhaps Foxe acquired the L courtbook whilst the 1570 edition was being printed. Or alternatively it may be the case that he collated the information he received from individual informants with other material which he found in the diocesan records. Once again, Foxe was concerned use these Lollards to show that there was a 'True Church' before Luther.
[Back to Top]Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield
of them whiche about this tyme of Richard Hunne, were forced to denye and abiure their professed opinions, pag. 777.
MarginaliaAn. 1517.
Elizabeth Stamford. mention was made of Elizabeth Stamford, Iohn Houshold, and other moe, abiuryng about the yeare of our Lorde. 1617.
Commentary
I.e., members of the Court of Arches, the central ecclesiastical court in medieval England.
Whose vexation and weaknes, although it be pitiful to beholde, yet to consider the confession of their doctrine in those auncient dayes, it is not vnprofitable.
MarginaliaThe teaching of the former times to be considered. Wherein we haue to see the same fourme of knowledge and doctrine then taught and planted in the hartes of our foreelders. Whiche is nowe publiquely receyued, as wel touchyng the Lordes Sacrament of his body, as also other specialties of sinceritie. And although they lacked then publique authoritie to mainteyne the open preachyng and teachyng of the Gospell, whiche the Lordes mercifull grace hath geuen vs nowe, yet in secrete knowledge and vnderstandyng they seemed then litle or nothing inferiour to these our tymes of publike reformation
Commentary
Foxe's warm endorsement of these Lollards for their spiritual knowledge, is a consequence of his desire to show that there was a 'True Church' before Luther. But it also has an interesting, if implicit, anti-authoritarian message, that ordinary people might have spiritual insights denied to their superiors in status and education.
[Back to Top]: as may appeare by this confessiō of Elizabeth Stamford here vnder written, whiche onely may suffice for example to vnderstande what ripe knowledge of Gods worde was then abrode, although
[Back to Top] not
BBb.ij.
1576 Edition | Book 7 | Page 811 