ased and presented to the corporation the
advowson of the Church of St. Peter upon Cornhill. But this is probably a
mistake arising from the fact of a license in mortmain having been granted
by Henry IV to Richard Whitington, John Hende, and others, to convey the
manor of Leadenhall, together with the advowsons of the several churches
of Saint Peter upon Cornhill and Saint Margaret Patyns, held of the king
in free burgage, to the mayor and commonalty of the City of London and
their successors.(749)
(M397)
On the accession of Henry V, Archbishop Arundel, whom Walsingham describes
as the most eminent bulwark and indomitable supporter of the church,(750)
renewed his attack on the Lollards, and endeavoured to serve Oldcastle
with a citation. Failing to accomplish this he caused him to be arrested.
The bold defence made by the so-called heretic, when before his judges,
gained additional weight from the reputation he enjoyed for high moral
character. Nevertheless he was adjudged guilty of the charges brought
against him. A formal sentence of excommunication was passed, and he was
remitted to the Tower for forty days in the hope that at the expiration of
that time he might be found willing to retract. This, however, was not to
be.
(M398)
He contrived to make his escape from prison,(751) and shortly afterwards
appeared at the head of a number of followers in St. Giles's Fields. Great
disappointment was felt at not receiving the assistance that had been
expected from city servants and apprentices. According to Walsingham, no
less than 5,000 men, comprising masters as well as servants, from the
city, were prepared to join the insurgents, had not the king taken
precautions to secure the gates. As soon as it was discovered that the
young king had made ample preparations to meet attack, the Lollards took
to flight. Many, however, failed to make good their escape, and nearly
forty paid the penalty of their rashness with their lives.(752) Walsingham
was probably misinformed as to the number of the persons who were prepared
to assist the Lollards. The fact is that, to the respectable City burgess,
Lollardism was a matter of less moment than was the scandalous life led by
the chantry priest and other ministers of religion, and this the civic
authorities were determined to rectify as far as in them lay. Between the
years 1400 and 1440, some sixty clerks in holy orders were taken in
adultery and clapt into prison by ward beadles.(
|