seized certain books of the Lollards in the house
of a parchment-maker;" and one hundred shillings as
an especial reward "for the great pains and
diligence exercised by Thomas Burton, (the King's
spy,) for his attentive watchfulness to the
operations of the Lollards now _lately rebellious_;
also because he fully certified _their intentions_
to the King for his advantage." This document (for
ignorance of which no former historian may deserve
blame, though its existence should caution every
one against drawing hasty conclusions from negative
evidence,) proves that at the Exchequer the
Lollards were considered as having been lately
rebellious, and as having had designs against the
King. In a deed too, signed and sealed by the
tenants of Lord Powis, who themselves took Lord
Cobham, both heresy and treason are specified as
the crimes of which he had been convicted "that was
miscreant and unbuxom to the law of God, and
_traitor convict_ to our most gracious sovereign
and his." The Patent Rolls record grants of ten
pounds per annum to John de Burgh, carpenter,
because he had discovered and delivered up certain
Lollards. There are other similar grants. Pat. p.
5. 1 Hen. V.]

Hume, depending implicitly on the old chroniclers, pronounces Cobham
as the ringleader, and his followers guilty of treason. Fox, in his
Book of Martyrs, has supplied Milner and many others with a very
different view. Even Le Bas, in his "Life of Wiclif," though he is
compelled to acknowledge that, "with every allowance for the
exaggerations of malice, of bigotry, and of terror, it is scarcely
possible to believe that imputations so dark could have been _wholly_
fictitious and unfounded," yet is unfortunately contented with the
statements and arguments of later compilers, instead of satisfying
himself from the original documents. He could scarcely have read the
terms which Henry V. used in the different documents of his pardon to
the offenders, or even in his proclamation of a reward for the capture
of