nd what were added and
interwoven by Prynne, it seems impossible to
determine. This passage (p. 456) apparently carries
with it internal evidence that it was penned by
Prynne.]

The Biographer of Henry V. needs not be very anxious as to the real
intention of this petition. The allegation that Prince Henry and the
Speaker of the House of Commons were suborned by the clergy, is a pure
invention; no proof, or probable confirmation of any part of the
charge, is afforded by history. The Speaker is named as the chief
member of the House of Commons; the Prince is named as President of
the Council, and chief member of the House of Lords; each acting in
his official rather than in his individual character.

The petition was presented on Wednesday, December 22, in the
parliament 7 and 8 Henry IV. which was dissolved that same day. The
Roll records that "The Commons came before the King and Lords, and
prayed an interview with the Lords by John Tybetot the Speaker."
Different petitions were presented; one touching the succession of the
crown, and the petition in question. The petition is not drawn up in
the name of the Commons and Lords; it purports to be addressed (p. 335)
to the King by "his humble son Henry the Prince, and the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal in this present parliament assembled;" and the
Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prays the King that the petition
might be made the law of the land until the next parliament: and the
King "graciously assents." Whatever were the real object of this law,
if its aim were merciful, the Prince ought to have no additional share
of the praise; if it were adding to the severity of the existing law,
he deserves no additional blame, from the fact of his name appearing
in the petition. In either case it appears there just as the Speaker's
does, officially. But what was the real drift of this petition?
Suppose it to have been on the side of severity, will it deserve the
character assigned to it by the author of the "Abridgment?" Can it be
called a "bloody" petition? It prayed that after the feast of Epiphany
next ensuing, without any other commission, "Lollards, and other
speakers and contrivers of news and lies, _might be apprehended_ and
_kept in safe custody till the next parliament_, and _there to answer
to the charges against them_." Suppose this to have been an extension
of a former persecuting law,