blies of the Lollards. Like the
primitive Christians, they met in smaller companies and more
privately, and often in the dead of the night. St. Giles' Fields, then
a thicket, was a place of frequent resort on these occasions; and here
a number of them assembled on the evening of January the 6th,
1414,[290] with the intention, as was usual, of continuing together to
a very late hour. The King was then at Eltham, a few miles from
London. He received intelligence that Lord Cobham, at the head of
twenty thousand of his party, was stationed in St. Giles' Fields for
the purpose of seizing the person of the King, putting their
persecutors to the sword, and making himself the regent of the realm.
Henry suddenly armed the few soldiers he could muster, put himself at
their head, and marched to the place. He attacked the Lollards, and
soon put them into confusion. About twenty were killed, and sixty (p. 381)
taken: among these was one Beverley, their preacher; who, with two
others, Sir Roger Acton and John Brown, was afterwards put to death.
The King marched on, but found no more bodies of men. He thought he
had surprised only the advanced guard, whereas he had routed the whole
army. This extraordinary affair is represented by the popish writers
as a real conspiracy; and it has given them occasion to talk loudly
against the tenets of the reformers, which could encourage such
crimes. Mr. Hume also has enlisted himself on the same side of the
question, and in the most peremptory and decisive manner pronounced
Lord Cobham guilty of high treason."

[Footnote 290: The day was not January 6th, but
Wednesday the 10th.--"Die mercurii proximo post
Festum Epiphaniae."--Pat. 2 Hen. V. p. 3. m. 23.]

Milner[291] depends upon "the able and satisfactory vindication of
Lord Cobham by Fox, the martyrologist," whom he affirms to have
examined with great diligence and judgment _all_ the authentic
documents. It is very dangerous to place implicit reliance on any one,
however impartial he may be; especially ought we to seek evidence for
ourselves, when an author professes, as Fox does, his object to be the
vindication of one party and the conviction of another. On this point
there are two or three unquestionably original documents, neither of
which does Fox examine, and on which probably the large majority (p. 382)
of readers will be disposed to rest, as the safest ground for their
opinion