vo, &c. ita quod haberent corpus ejus coram Domino Rege in octavas sancti Johannis Baptistæ ex tunc proximum sequentem, ubicunque, &c. ad respondendum Domino Regi de proditionibus & feloniis superius sibi impositis. Ad quas octavas sancti Johannis Baptistæ, an' regni R. Henrici quinti post conquestum secundo, Johannes Sutton & Jo' Michell' Vic' Mid', coram Domino Rege returnaverunt, quod ad com' Midd' centum apud Braynford die Jovis proximo ante festum S. Barnabæ Apostoli, an' reg' R. Hen' quint' post conquestum secundo; & ad quatuor com' ex tunc ex proximo præcedentes, prædictus Johannes Oldcastle exactus fuit, & non comparuit; & quia ad nullum eorundem com'comparuit, ideo præsentibus Coronatoribus com' prædicti utlagat' fuit, per quod inquiratur de terra & catallis suis. 21. Proceedings, upon an ex post facto Act, against Sir JOHN MORTIMER, for making his Escape from Prison. 3 Hen. VI. A. D. 1424. [1 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 350.] SIR John Mortimer, of Bishop's Hatfield, Hertford, having been indicted on the oath of one King, servant to sir Robert Scot, keeper of the Tower of London, upon the Statute of Escapes; an act was made this parliament on purpose to destroy him, alledging several other Articles against him. As, first, "That the said sir John had contrived with him to break out of his imprisonment, and had promised him immediately a reward of 40l. a year, to be aiding and assisting to him in his escape; and afterwards an earldom. Second, that the said sir John told him, that after his escape he would go into Wales to the earl of March; and, having raised 40,000 men, would enter the kingdom again, and cut off the heads of the protector and the bishop of Winchester. Third, he had told this informant, that the earl of March was rightful heir to the crown of England, and that after him he was the next heir; wherefore, if the earl of March refused to recover his right, he himself would take upon him the regal power as his due. Lastly, that when he came into Wales, if the earl of March would not accept his service, nor engage in the cause, he would then fly into France, and assist the French king against Henry, and did not doubt but in the end he should gain his design."-It appears by the Record, that this sir John Mortimer had been committed prisoner to the Tower, for suspicion of Treason done against the late king, from whence he had made his Escape the first year of this reign. For which escape alone, we suppose, he was indicted, and this indictment, by the authority of parliament, was allowed to be good. And the said sir John being again apprehended and brought before this parliament, Judgment was given against him, to be carried back to the Tower, and drawn from thence to Tyburn, there to be hanged, drawn, and quartered; his head set on London bridge, and his four quarters on the four gates of the city. [Cotton. Hall. 22. Proceedings against HENRY BEAUMONT, Bishop of Winchester, for High Treason: 4. Henry VI. A.D. 1426. Holling. 1 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 354.] ABOUT this time it was, that a dangerous quarrel was set on foot between two very great men, both chief supporters to the house of Lancaster; Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, lord protector, and Henry Beaufort, the rich bishop of Winchester, great uncle to the king. The latter of these, by his magnificence and grandeur, seemed so much to out-shine the Protector himself, though almost on the throne, that he drew on him the odium and jealousy of the other. The haughty spirit of the bishop, being legate to the pope in England, was so great, that the Protector could not endure his pride; and such an implacable enmity grew between them, that great parties were raised, on both sides, for each other's defence. In short, a civil war, it was much dreaded, would be the consequence; and, all their mutual friends could do, was not sufficient to pacify the mind of the Protector, or to make the Prelate yield any further, than, as he thought, was becoming his high place and state. In this situation the bishop, however, thought proper to write a letter to the duke of Bedford, regent of France, to come over and endeavour to heal matters between them. The duke came accordingly, and calling a council of the chief nobility at Saint Albans, many hot contests arose; and, nothing being concluded at that time, it was adjourned to Northampton, but to as little purpose; till, at last,it was determined,that these differences should be referred to parliament. Accordingly, writs of summons were issued out, dated Westminster, Jan. 7, 1426, for one to meet, at Leicester, on the 18th of Feb. At which time and place being assembled, in the great hall of the Castle of Leicester, much care had been taken to prevent any tumults between the great trains of the protector and the bishop, by strictly prohibiting any person whatsoever, to come thither with swords or any other warlike weapon. Which order, though it was literally observed, yet the lords and their attendants came armed with batts, or great clubs, on their shoulders; from whence this meeting got the name of "The Parliament | of Bats;" but this, also, as soon as it was taken notice of, was prohibited. Being all, at length, sat in a peaceable manner, as aforesaid, the young king being there, also, present, the bishop of Winchester, as lord chancellor of England, declared the cause of the summons, in a very short manner; for, after telling them that the king's will was, that all estates should enjoy their liberties, he took his subject from these words of Saint Paul: Sic facite ut salvi sitis. These the learned prelate divided into three parts, and referred them: First to God, for protecting the faith of the church, against all invasions from Lollards and Heretics: 2dly, by imparting sound counsel; and, lastly, by granting the several needful subsidies. By which, he affirmed, three virtues and conveniences would follow, viz. glory to God, by protecting his faith; honour to the king, by receiving good advice; and peace to the subject, by their liberal grants. In all which he desired, that every estate of this parliament would labour; and that the commons would chuse, and the next day present, their Speaker.' -The same day the commons presented, before the king, sir Richard Vernon, knight, to be their Speaker; who, with the common protestation, was allowed. Then the commons expressed their great dislike to the Dissentions between duke Humphrey and the bishop of Winchester, and moved for their reconcilement. On which, the duke of Bedford, some bishops, and other lords, made a solemn decree amongst themselves, to hear and determine the said difference, without favour or affection. Which order, after every one of the lords had sworn to observe, they sent a copy of it to the commons. They then proceeded in the matter, and, at length, caused the said duke and bishop, by their formal instruments, to have their disputes compromised, and referred to the decision of a select committee of certain bishops and lords; who, after some time, came to this resolution: first, that the said bishop of Winchester should submit himself to the king's mercy; which he did accordingly. And, then the duke of Bedford, in open parliament, pronounced the said bishop innocent of what was alledged against him, in that he procured a person to murder the late king, when he was prince, as the murderer himself confessed who was drowned by the earl of Arundel. And, also, in that he should counsel and advise the said prince to have deposed Henry IV. his father. Likewise, it was awarded by the said committee, that the bishop should acknowledge his offence to the duke of Gloucester, and, in a submissive manner, ask his pardon; that the said duke should freely forgive him; and, in token of a thorough reconciliation, each should take the other by the hand; which was accordingly done before the whole assembly. This is all the account which sir Robert Cotton has thought fit to extract, relating to this strong contention between these two noblemen; who, though so nearly related as uncle and nephew, yet still carried on that implacable malice against each other, which ended not but in the death of one or both of them. However, the Chronicles of Hall and Hollingshead are not so silent in this matter; they tell us, that when the affair of the quarrel was brought before the parliament, and each party allowed to plead his cause freely, the Protector, who looked upon himself as the person aggrieved, exhibited five Articles against the bishop, to all which he was urged to give in his Answer. Which Arti cles and Answers are as follow: Articles of Accusation presented to the Parlia ment by the Duke of Gloucester, against Henry, bishop of Winchester, with his Answers to them severally. 1. "That Richard Woodvile, esq. keeper of the Tower of London, did by the instigation and encouragement of the said bishop of Winchester, deny admittance to him the said duke of Gloucester, then being Protector of the kingdom, into the Tower, contrary to reason and duty, and in derogation to the kings authority. To this Article the bishop answered, "That while the duke of Gloucester was gone into Hainault, it happened that many pamphlets and reports being dispersed up and down the city of London tending to rebellion, it was ordered by the lords of his majesty's council, that Richard Woodvile, esq. should with a sufficient number of armed men have the keeping of the Tower, and should not permit any man to come into the Tower stronger than himself, without the special eommandment of the king, by the advice of his council. After this strict charge the duke of Gloucester returning out of Hainault, and not approving the fortifying the Tower, told the citizens, who were dissatisfied at it, 'That had he been in England it should not have been so;' and immediately going to the. Tower demanded admittance, but Woodvile, not daring to give him entrance, came to the bishop of Winchester for advice, who told him, that the duke of Gloucester took more upon him than he ought, and that before he admitted him into the Tower, he ought to provide himself a sufficient warrant of the king and council for his so doing contrary to the former order."-2. That the bishop of Winchester, without the advice or consent of the duke of Gloucester, or of his majesty's privy council, contrived and purposed to lay hands on his majesty's person, and to have removed him from Eltham, the place that he was then in, to Windsor, there to put him under the government of such persons as he pleased. The bishop's answer to this article was, "That he never could propound to himself any advantage by removing, the king, or taking him into his custody or charge, nor did ever intend to meddle with any thing about the king's person without the advice of the privy council, as in time and place he could prove." | 3. That the bishop of Winchester knowing that appoint them judges, that he might vindicate his the duke of Gloucester had resolved to prevent bonour, or else leave him to sue out his right his design of seizing the king's person at El- before suitable judges."-6. That the bishop of tham, laid wait for him, by placing armed men Winchester had, in his letter to the duke of at the end of London-bridge, and in the win- Bedford, plainly declared his malicious purpose dows of the chambers and cellars in South- of assembling the people, and stirring up a rewark, to have killed him, if he had passed that bellion in the nation, contrary to the king's way; all which is against the king's peace, and peace. The bishop's answer was, "That he duty of a true subject. The bishop's defence never had any intention to disturb the peace was, “That true indeed it is, that he did pro- of the nation, or raise any rebellion, but sent vide a certain number of armed men, and set to the duke of Bedford to come over in haste them at the foot of London-bridge, and other to settle all things that were prejudicial to the places, without any intention to do any bodily peace; and though he had indeed written in harm to the duke of Glocester, but merely the letter, That if he tarried, we shall put for his own safety and defence, being informed the land in adventure by a field, such a brother by several credible persons, that the duke of you have here: he did not mean it of any deGloucester had purposed bodily harm to him, sign of his own, but concerning the seditious and gathered together a company of citizens for assemblies of masons, carpenters, tilers and that end."-4. That the late king Henry 5, plaisterers, who being distasted by the late act told him, that when he was prince, a man was of parliament against excessive wages of those seized in his chamber, who was hid behind the trades, had given out many seditious speeches hangings, and confessed after his apprehension, and menaces against the great men, which tend that he was set at work by the bishop of Win-ed much to rebellion; and yet the duke of Glouchester, to kill the prince in his bed. He was delivered to the earl of Arundel, who drowned him in a sack in the Thames To this accusation the bishop replied, "That he was ever a true and faithful subject to his sovereigns, and never purposed or contrived any treason against any of their persons, and especially against his Sovereign lord Henry 5. And this he thought was sufficiently evident to any, that considered the great wisdom and courage of the said king, and the great trust he reposed in him so long as he remained king, which he would not have done had he found him guilty of such unfaithfulness to him while he was prince."5. That the bishop of Winchester in the sickness of king Henry 4, advised his son prince Henry, to assume the government of the nation before his father's death, as the said prince himself told him. The bishop replied "That this was mere calumny, which could not be proved; and he hoped the parliament would cester did not use his endeavour, as he ought to have done in his place, to suppress such unlawful assemblies, so that he feared the king and his good subjects must have made a field to withstand them: to prevent which, he chiefly desired the duke of Bedford to come over." This Charge, and the Answers to it, being thus delivered into the parliament, the further examination of it was by the houses devolved upon a select number of lords, who having thoroughly examined all matters, acquitted the bishop, and by a formal award enjoined them to be firm friends for the future; and by such inducements wrought upon them, that they shook hands, and parted with all outward signs of perfect love and agreement, which gave a mighty satisfaction to all people, both of the clergy and laity. And the king, by the advice of his council, made a magnificent feast at Whitsun tide, to rejoice for this happy reconciliation. 23. Proceedings against WILLIAM DE LA POLE, duke of Suffolk, for High Treason: 28 Hen. VI. a. D. 1451. [1 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 386.] IN the parliament which met at Westminster, being but a knight, and taken prisoner, had paid for his ransom 2000l. That he had been of the Order of the Garter thirty years, and a counsellor to the king fifteen years, and had been seventeen years in the wars, without returning home. And, asking God's mercy, as he had been true to the king and realm, he required his purgation," January 26, the Commons came before the Lords, and required that the duke, on his confession, might be committed to safe custody; but the lords and judges, upon consultation, "thought there was no good cause for it, unless some especial matter was objected against him."January 28, the Speaker came again, and de clared, "That the duke of Suffolk, as it was said, had sold this realm to the French, who had prepared to come hither; and that the said duke, for his own defence, had furnished the castle of Wallingford with all warlike munition;" whereupon, at the Speaker's request, the said duke was committed to the Tower of London.-February 7, the Speaker of the commons, the chancellor, and the lords, sent to the king a Bill of Articles, by which they accused William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, late of Ewelm in the county of Oxford, of sundry Treasons, viz. "1. That the said duke having the ward ship of Margaret the daughter and heir of John duke of Somerset, he meant to marry his son John to her; and thereby for want of issue of the king, to claim the crown, and to procure the French king, by means of certain French lords, there named, to depose the king.-2. That he procured the delivery of the duke of Orleans, and practised with him to cause the French to recover the English conquests in that kingdom.-3. Related to the duke's promise of delivery of Anjou and Main, to requite the king of Sicily the king's enemy, without the assent of the other ambassadors.-4. For disclosing the king's counsel to the earl of Dumoys bastard of Orleans, and to others of the French nation.-5. For betraying to the French the strength of the king's piles, ordnance, and munition, beyond sea.-6. That the said duke, by disclosing the king's secrets, caused the peace to be broken.-7. That the said duke supported the king's enemies, by staying sundry arms which should have passed against them.-8. That the said duke had strengthened the king's enemies against him, by not compromising in the last peace the king of Arragon, who is almost lost; and the duke of Britany, who is wholly so." All which Articles, the commons require to be enrolled, and that prosecution may be awarded thereon. On the 9th of March the commons made a new Complaint against the duke, in effect following: "First, for procuring the king, in his eighteenth year, to give away the inheritance and lands of the crown. For procuring many liberties in derogation of the common law, and hindrance of justice. For causing the king to give away the castle of Manlion de Searl, and other territories in Guienne. For that the earl of Armanac and other nobles of Guienne, were drawn from their obedience to the king, by the said duke's discovering of secrets, to the utter impoverishment of this realm. For procuring the king to bestow the keeping of divers towns and offices in Normandy and Guienne, on unworthy persons. For procuring the king to grant the earldoms of Enreney and Longuevile, and other Lordships in Normandy, to the bastard of Orleans, and other Frenchinen, the king's chiefest enemies, without the assent of the council. For that the duke procured the king, in his own presence, to promise the French ambassador to attend in person at the convention in France, to the king's subversion VOL. I. if it had taken effect. For causing the subsidies granted to be contrarily employed. For causing the king's treasure to be spent on the French queen, and other French people. For consuming the sum of 60,000l. left by the lord Dudley the late treasurer. For conveying out of the king's treasury the obligations of the finance for the duke of Orleans. For procuring himself to be made earl of Pembroke, and obtaining the lordships of Haverford-west, after the death of sir Rowland Lenthal. For staying the process of outlawry against William Talbois, esquire of Lincoln, upon several appeals of murder. For procuring a pardon to the said William for not appearing upon suretyship of peace. For procuring persons of his confederacy to be made sheriffs. For procuring a garrison of Englishmen to fight against the Germans, the king's allies, on the part of the French, the king's enemics." All which Articles the commons required to be enrolled, and that the said duke might answer to them. On the same day, the duke of Suffolk was brought from the Tower, by the king's writ, into the Parliament Chamber, at Westminster, before the king and lords; to whom the Articles aforesaid were rehearsed, who desired a copy of them, which was granted. And, for the more ready answer to them, he was committed to the custody of certain esquires, in the Tower within the king's palace. On the 14th of March the said duke appeared again before the lords, and on his knees denied the truth of the first eight Articles of Treason against him; and offered to prove them false in any manner the king should appoint. The first of them he denied as impossible, inferring, that some of the lords knew he meant to have married his son to the earl of Warwick's daughter, if she had lived. To many of the rest, he referred himself to the king's letters patents, and to some acts of the council. To the yielding up of Anjou and Main, he referred also to the acts of the coun- ' cil; which shew, that other lords were privy thereto, as well as himself, and said that the same was delivered up by the bishop of Chichester, then keeper of the privy seal.-On the 17th, the said duke was brought again before the lords, to whom the chancellor repeated the Answer he had made, and told him, that therein he had not put himself upon his peerage, and asked the duke which way he would be tried? Who, kneeling, said that he hoped he had answered all things to the full, and so protesting his innocency, referred himself entirely to the king's mercy and award.-Thereupon the Chancellor, by the king's command, pronounced this Sentence, "That since the duke did not put himself upon his peerage, the king, in relation to the Articles of Treason contained in the first Bill, would be doubtful, And as to the Articles of Misprision, the king, not as judge by the advice of the lords, but as one to whose order the duke had committed himself, doth banish him the realm, and other his dominions, for five years; from the 1st of T May next ensuing."-After which Sentence | nister, is taken from the Records themselves. being given, lord Beaumont, lord high consta- Undoubtedly, the mildness of his Sentence ble, stood up, on the behalf of the bishops and proceeded from the queen's great indulgence lords, and required, "That it might be en- to him; who was in hopes, that his short rolled, that the said Judgment was by the king's banishinent might last longer than the malice own rule, and not by their assent; and also of his enemies against him. But, unhappily required, that neither they nor their heirs for both, the duke was taken prisoner at sea, should, by this example, be barred of their by a private English captain, who had waypeerage and privileges." laid him, had his head struck off on the side of a long-boat, and his body thrown into the The foregoing account of this parliamentary inquiry into the misconduct of a prime mi sea. 24. Proceedings against GEORGE duke of CLARENCE, brother to King Edward the Fourth, for Treason: 18 Edw. IV. a. D. 1478. [1 Kenn. 475. 1 Rapin, 623. 1 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 436.] WHILE the duke of Clarence was in Ireland, not suspecting any design against himself, the queen and his brother the duke of Gloster were plotting his destruction. Upon his return to the court he understood that Thomas Burdet of Arrow in the county of Warwick, esq. who ever was dependant upon him, had been in his absence apprehended, indited, arraigned and executed all in the compass of two days. The crime upon which his Accusation was principally grounded, were inconsiderate words, by which, upon a report that the white buck in which he much delighted was killed as the king was hunting in his park, he wished the head and horns and all in the king's belly, whereas indeed he wished it only in his belly, who counselled the king to kill it. With this Accusation were mingled many other of poisoning, sorceries, and inchantments: crimes which every judicious man easily perceived, were only put in the scale like grains, to make lis rash language full weight, which otherwise would have been too light to deserve the sentence of death. These proceedings Clarence resented, as they were intended, and expostulated with the king about the injustice done to his servant, and injury to himself. And according to the custom of expostulations, his words were bold and disorderly, and having received an apparent injury, built too much on the right of his cause, and provoked the king too far into indignation; so that soon after he was committed close prisoner to the Tower, where being by act of parliament attainted, he was secretly put to death. The manner, as it is generally received, was by thrusting his head into a butt of Malmesey, by which he was stifled. In his Attainder, according to the form, are Crimes enough to make his death have appearance of justice, the execution of which the king seemed rather constrained to, than to have sought. For there are reckoned, "how the duke of Clarence, to bring the present government into hatred with the people, and thereby the present state into trouble; had not only in his speeches frequently laid injustice to the king's charge in attainting Thomas Burdet falsly, convict of many notorious Treasons, but suborned many of his servants and divers others, corrupted with money, to divulge the like seditious dis courses: That he had spread abroad impious rumours that the king dealt by necromancy, and upon offence against such of his subjects, whom by order of law he could not destroy, he was accustomed to take them away by poison : That he had not rested there, but thereby to advance himself to the kingdom, and for ever to disable the king and his posterity from the crown, he had, contrary to truth, nature and religion, viper-like destroying her who gave him life, published that the king was a bastard, and no way capable to reign that to make this his so monstrous ambition more successful, and already to begin his usurpation, he had caused many of the king's subjects to be sworn upon the most blessed sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any exception of their allegiance; after which so solemn oaths, he discovered to them his resolution to right himself and his followers, who had both suffered by the king's violent wresting away their estates: and in particular to revenge himself upon the king, who (as he most impiously and falsely suggested) had by art-magic contrived to consume him as a candle consumeth in burning. what most expressed the treason of his designs, that he had got out an exemplification under the great seal of Henry 6, late king; wherein was shewed how by the parliament it was enacted, that if the said Henry and Edward his sou should die without issue male, the kingdom should descend upon the duke of Clarence and his heirs; whereby clearly appeared his intention, immediately to possess himself of the crown, with destruction of king Edward and his children, by pretence of a general election of the commonwealth." And This was the sum of his Attainder, which we may well believe had not so easily past but by the king's public declaring himself: the secret working of the duke of Gloucester; and the passionate urging of the queen's kindred. But this Attainder hath in it one thing most remarkable, that Clarence here was accused of falsely laying bastardy to the king, to endeavour possession of the crown; which afterwards was alledged indeed by Richard duke of Gloucester, to the absolute disinherit of the king's sons. |