Examen historicum, or, A discovery and examination of the mistakes, falsities and defects in some modern histories occasioned by the partiality and inadvertencies of their severall authours / by Peter Heylin ...

The Fourth Book. (Book 4)

From the first Preaching of Wickliffe, to the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the Eighth. (Book 4)

OUR Author begins this Book with the Story of Wickliffe, and continueth it in relating the suc∣cesses of him and his followers, to which he seems so much addicted, as to Christen their Opinions by the name of the Gospel. For speaking of such in∣couragements and helps as were given to Wickliffe by the Duke of Lancaster, with other advantages, which the conditions of those times did afford unto him, he addeth that

Fol. 129. We must attribute the main to Divine Pro∣vid••••ce [ 79] blessing the Gospel.] A name too high to be be∣stowed upon the Fancies of a private Man, many of whose Opinions were so far from truth, so contrary to peace and civil Order, so inconsistent with the Government of the Church of Christ, as make them utterly unworthy to be look'd on as a part of the Gospel. Or if the Do∣ctrines of Wickliffe must be call'd the Gospel, what shall become of the Religion then establisht in the Re••l•• of England, and in most other parts of the Western wo••ld? Were all but Wickliffes Followers relaps'd to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, were they turn'd Jews, or had embrac'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Mahomet? If none of these, and that they 〈…〉〈…〉 in the faith of Christ, delive ed to them

in the Gospels of the four Evangelists, and other Apo∣stolical Writers, Wickliffes new Doctrines could not challenge the name of Gospel, nor ought it to be given to him by the pen of any. But such is the humor of some men, as to call every separation from the Church of Rome, by the name of Gospel, the greater the separa∣tion is, the more pure the Gospel. No name but that of Evangelici would content the Germans when they first separated from that Church, and reformed their own; and Harry Nichols, when he separated from the German Churches, and became the Father of the Familists, be∣stows the name of Evangelium Regni on his Dreams and Dotages. Gospels of this kinde we have had, and may have too many, quot Capita tot fides, as many Gospels, in a manner, as Sects and Sectaries, if this world go on.

Now as Wickliffes Doctrines are advanc'd to the name of Gospel, so his Followers (whatsoever they were) must be called Gods servants, the Bishops being said [ 80] fol. 151. to be busie in persecuting Gods servants; and for what crime soever they were brought to punishment, it must be thought they suffered only for the Gospel and the service of God. A pregnant evidence whereof we have in the story of Sir Iohn Oldcastle, accused in the time of King Harry the fifth for a Design to kill the King and his Brethren, actually in Arms against that King in the he•••• of 20000 men, attainted for the same in open Parliament, and condemn'd to die, and execu∣ted in St. Giles his Fields accordingly, as both Sir Roger Acton his principal Counsellor,* 1.1 and 37 of his Accomplices had been before. For this we have not only the Authority of our common Chronicles, Walsingham, Stow, and many others; but the Records of the Tower, and Acts of Parliament, as is confessed by our Author, fol. 168. Yet coming out of Wickliffes Schools, and the chief Scholar questi∣onless

which was train'd up in them, he must be Re∣gistred for a Martyr in Fox his Calender. And though our Author dares not quit him, (as he says himself) yet such is his tenderness and respect to Wickliffes Gospel, that he is loath to load his Memory with causless Crimes, fol. 167. [ 81] taxeth the Clergie of that time for their hatred to him, discrediteth the relation of T. Walsingham, and all later Authors, who are affirm'd to follow him as the Flock their Belweather; and finally leaves it as a special verdict to the last day of the Revelation of the righteous Iudgements of God.

From the Scholar pass we to the Master, of whom it is reported in a late Popish Pamphlet, that he made a recantation of his Errors, and liv'd and dyed confo••mable to the Church of Rome. This I behold as a notorious falshood, an imposture of the Romish party, though the argument used by our Autho••, be not of strength suffici∣ent to inforce me to it. If, saith he, Wickliffe was suf∣ficiently [ 82] reconcil'd to the Roman faith, why was not Rome sufficiently reconciled to him? Vsing such cruelty to him ma∣ny years after his death, fol. 171. But this, say I, is no reason, of no force at all. Wickliffe might possibly be reconcil'd to the Church of Rome, and yet the Min••sters of that Church, to strike a terror into others, might▪ exe∣cute that vengeance on him after his decease, which they had neither power nor opportunity to do when he was alive. Quam vivo iracundiam debuerant, in corpus mort••i contulerunt. And hereof we have a fair example in Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato, who coming into England, 1616. did manifestly oppose the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, in some learned Vo∣lumes. But being cunningly wrought on by some Em••s∣saries of the Romish party in the year 1622. he went ba••k to Rome, was reconcil'd to that Church, and writ the e most reproachfully of the Church of England; which notwithstanding, he was kept prisoner all the rest of his

life, and his body burnt to ashes after his decease. So then it is no such new matter for a dissenting Christian, such as Wickliffe and de Dominis were, though branded by the n••me of Hereticks, to be admitted to a reconci∣liation with the Church of Rome, and yet that Church to carry a revengeful minde towards them when occa∣sion serves.

And all this while we have expected that our Author [ 83] would have given us a brief summary of Wickliffes Do∣ctrines, that by seeing the Piety and Orthodoxie of his Opinions, we might have thought more reverently both of him and his Followers. But therein our expectation must remain unsatisfied, our Author thinking it more a∣greeable to his Design to hold the Reader in suspense, and conceal this from him: dealing herein as the old Germans did with those of other Nations, who came to wait upon Valeda a great Queen amongst them; not suffering any to have a sight of her, to keep them in a greater admiration of her parts and Per∣son. Arcebantur aspectu quò plus venerationis inesset,* 1.2 as it is in Tacitus. The wheat of Wickliffe was so soul, so full of chaffe, and intermin∣gled with so many and such dangerous Tares, that to ex∣pose it to the view, were to mar the market. And therefore our Author having formerly honored his Opi∣nions by the name of Gospel, and his followers with the Title of Gods servants, as before was noted; had reason not to shew them all at once, in a lump toge∣ther, that we might think them better and more Or∣thodox then indeed they were. But the best is (to save us the trouble of consulting Harpsfield, and others who have written of them) our Author hath given them us at last on another occasion, Lib. 5. fol. 208. many of which the Reader may peruse in these Ammadversions, Numb. 113. Thus having laid together so much of this present Book as relates to Wickliffe and his fol∣lowers,

I must behold the rest in fragments as they lye before me.

Fol. 152. He lies buried in the South Isle of St. Peters [ 84] Westminster, and since hath got the company of Spencer and Drayton.] Not Draytons company I am sure, whose body was not buryed in the South-Isle of that Church, but under the North wall thereof in the main body of it, not far from a little dore which openeth into one of the Prebends houses. This I can say on certain know∣ledge, being casually invited to his Funeral, when I thought not of it; though since his Statua hath been set up in the other place which our Author speaks of.

Fol. 153. The Right to the Crown lay not in this Henry, [ 85] but in Edmund Mortimer Earl of March, descended by his Mother Philippa, from Lionel Duke of Clarence, elder son to Edward the third.] I shall not now dispute the Title of the House of Lancaster, though I think it no hard matter to defend it; and much less shall I venture on the other controversie, viz. whether a King may Legally be depos'd, as is insinuated by our Author in the words foregoing. But I dare grapple with him in a point of Heraldry, though I finde him better studied in it, then in matter of History. And certainly our Author is here out, in his own dear Element. Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son,* 1.3 but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Mother of Roger Mortimer Earl of March, whom Ri∣chard the second (to despite the House of Lancaster) declared Heir apparent to the Kingdom of England. 'Tis true, this Edmond was the son of another Philippa, that is to say, of Philip Montacute, wife of a former Roger Earl of March, one of the founders of the Garter. So that in whomsoever the best Title lay, if lay not in this Edmond Mortimer as our Author makes it.

[ 86] 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 154. This is one of the clearest distinguishing 〈…〉〈…〉 the Tempora•••• and Spiritual Lords•• that 〈…〉〈…〉 be tryed per pares, by their Peers, being 〈…〉〈…〉.] No•• shall I here dispute the point, 〈…〉〈…〉 may not challenge to be tryed by his 〈…〉〈…〉 whe••••er the Bishops were not Barons and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Realm. Our Author intimates that they were not, but I think they were, and this I think on the authority of the learned Selden,* 1.4 in whom we finde, that at a Parliament at Northampton 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Henry the 2. the Bishops thus challenge their own ••ee age, viz. Non sedemus hi•• Episcopi, sed Ba∣rones, Nos ••••••••nes, v••s Barones; Pares hi•• sumus: that is to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 We 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as Bishops only but as Barons; We are Ba∣rons, and you are Barons; here we sit as Peers. Which last is al∣so 〈…〉〈…〉 in terminis, by the words of a Statu••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Act of Parliament,* 1.5 wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to ••e Peers of the Land. And for further proof he•• eo••, Ihon ••tratford Arch∣bishop of Canterbury (if I remember it aright) being fallen into the disple••sure of King Ed∣ward the third, and denyed entrance into the House of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 made his Protest, that he was Primus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Regni, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Peer of the Realm, and therefo••e not to be 〈…〉〈…〉 from his place and Suffrage. But of this Argu∣ment enough, i•• not too much as the case now stands▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 thing, to consider what they have 〈…〉〈…〉 what they are at this pre••ent.

〈…〉〈…〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

Reign the••e pa•••• an Act of Pa••liament, by which it was enacted,

That the Countrey of Wales should be, stand and continue for ever from thenceforth incor∣po••a••ed, united, and annexed to and with this Realm of England. And that all and singular person and per∣sons born and to be born in the said principality, countrey or dominion of Wales▪ shall have, in••oy, and inhe ••it all and singular Freedoms, Liberties, Rights,* 1.6 Priviledges, and Lawes within this Realm, and other the Kings Dominions, as other the Kings Subjects naturally bo••n with∣in the same, have, and injoy, and inhe•• ••it.

And third∣ly, [ 89] between the time which our Author speaks of, being the 14 year of King Henry the fourth, and the making of this Act by King Henry the eighth, there passed bo••e an hund••ed and twenty years, which inti∣mates a longer time then some years after, as out Author words it.

[ 90] Fol. 168. I will not complain of the dearness of this Unive••sity, where seventeen weeks cost me more then seventeen years in Cambridge▪ even all that I had.] The o••dinary and unwary Re••der might collect from hence, that Oxford is a chargeable place, and that all commodities there are exceeding dear, but that our Author lets him know, that it was on some occasion of dist••••bance. By which it seems our Author doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the time of the War, when men from all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did repair to Oxford, not as a University, but a place of safety, and the fear Royall of the King; at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time notwithstanding all provisions were so plen∣••••ull and at such cheap rates, as no man had reason to complain of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of them. No better argu∣ment of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the soil and richness of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in which Oxford standeth, then that the 〈…〉〈…〉 on the accession of such 〈…〉〈…〉 at that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and on

that occasion. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Author therefo••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be thought to relate unto somewhat else then is here exp••essed, and possibly may be, that his being at Oxford at that time, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him within the compass of Delinquency, and consequently of Sequestration. And 〈…〉〈…〉 hath 〈…〉〈…〉 son to complain of the Vniversity, or the dearness of it; but rather of himself, for coming to a place so chargeable and destructive to him. He might have tarryed where he was (for I never heard that he was sent fo••) and then this great complaint against the dearness of that Vniversity would have found no place.

Fol. 175. Surely what Charles the fifth is said to have [ 91] said of the City of Florence, that it is pity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be seen save only on holy-dayes, &c.] Our Author is somewhat out in this, in fachering that saying on Charles the fifth, Emperor and King of Spain, which Boterus and all other Authors ascribe to Charles Archduke of Austria; that is to say, to Charles of Inspruch, one of the younger sons of the Emperor Ferdinand the first, and consequently Nephew to Charles the fifth. Not is o••r Author very right in taking Aquensis for Aix in Provence;

Fol. 178. Especially (••aith he) if, as I take it, by [ 92] Aquensis Aix be meant•• scited in the f••rthermost parts of Provence, though even now the English power in France was a waning.] For first, the English never had any power in Provence, no interest at all therein, nor pre∣tentions to it: as neither had the French Kings in the times our Author speaks of. Provence in tho••e dayes was independent of that Crown, an absolute Estate and held immediately of the Empire, as being a part and member of the Realm of Burgundy, and in the actual possession of the Dukes of ••njou: on the expiring of which House, by the last will and Testament of Duke Rene the second, it was bequeathed to Lewis the eleventh

of France, by him and his successors, to be enjoyed upon the death of Charles Earl of Maine, as it was ac∣cordingly. And secondly, that Bernard, whom the Latine cals Episcopus Aquensis is very ill taken by our Author to be Bishop of Aix. He was indeed Bishop of Acqus or Aux in Guienne called antiently Aquae Au∣gustae from whence those parts of France had the name of Aquitaine; and not of Aix (which the antient wri∣ters called Aquae Sextiae) in the Countrey of Provence. Now Guienne was at that time in the power of the Kings of England, which was the reason why this Bernard was sent with the rest of the Commissioners to the Councell of Basil; and being there amongst the rest maintained the rights and preheminences of the English Kings.

In agitating of which controversie as it stands in our Author, I finde mention of one Iohannes de Voragine a worthless Author, fol. 181. Mistook both in the name of the man, and his quality also. For first, the Author of the Book called Legenda aurea related to in the former passage, was not Iohannes, but Iacobus de Vora∣gi••e. In which Book, though there are many idle and unwarrantable fictions; yet secondly was the man of [ 93] more esteem, then to passe under the Character of a Worthless Author, as being learned for the times in which he lived, Archbishop of Gen••a a chief City of Italy, & moribus & dignitate magno precio, as Philippus Bergomensis telleth us of him, Anno 1290. at what time he liv'd; most eminent for his translation of the Bible into the Italian tongue (as we read in Vossius) a work of great both difficulty and danger as the times then were,* 1.7 sufficient (were there nothing else) to free him from the ignominious name of a worthlesse Author. A greater mistake then this, as to the person of the Man, is that which followes, viz.

Fol. 185. ••umph••y Duke of G••oue•• son to King [ 94] Henry the fifth.] This though I cannot look on as a fault of the Presle, yet I can easily consider it as a slip of the pen; it being impossible that our Author should be so far mistaken in Duke Humphry of Gloster, who was not son but b••othe•• to King Henry the fifth. But I cannot think so charitably of some other errors of this kinde which I finde in his History of Cambridge, fol. 67. Where amongst the English Dukes which carryed the title of Earl of Cambridge, he reckoneth Edmund of Langly fifth son to Edward the third, Edward his son, Richard Duke of York his brother, father to King Edward the fourth. But first this Richard whom he speaks of, though he were Earl of Cambridge by the consent of Edward his elder brother, yet was he never Duke of York; Richard being executed at South-Hampton for treason against King Harry the fifth, before that Kings going into France, and Edward his elder bro∣ther slain not long after in the Battail of Agincourt. And secondly, this Richard was not the Father, but Grandfather of King Edward the fourth. For being marryed unto Anne, sister and heir unto Edmund Mor∣timer Ea••l of March, he had by her a son called Richard, improvidently ••estored in bloud, and advanced unto the Title of Duke of York by King Henry the sixth, Anno 1426. Who by the L••dy Cecely his wife one of the many Daughters of Ralph E••rl of Westmerland, was father of King Edward the fourth, George Duke of Clarence, and King Richard the third. Thirdly, as Richard Earl of Cambridge was not Duke of York, so Richard Duke of York was not Earl of Cambridge; though by our Author made the last Earl thereof (Hist. of Cam. 162.) before the restoring of that title on the House of the Hamiltons. If our Author be no better at a pedegree in private Families, then he is in those of Kings and Princes, I shall not give him m••••h

for his Art of Memory, for his History less, and for his Heraldry just nothing. But I see our Author is as good at the succession of Bishops, as in that of Princes. For saith he, speaking of Cardinal Beaufort,

Fol. 185. He built the fair Hospital of St. Cross neer Winchester, and although Chancellor of the University of Oxford, was no grand Benefactor thereunto, as were his Predecesso••s Wickam and Wainfleet.] Wickam and Wain∣fleet are here made the Predecessors of Cardinal Beaufort [ 95] in the See of Winchester, whereas in very deed, though he succeeded Wickam in that Bishop••ick, he preceded Wainfleet. For in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Win∣chester they are marshalled thus, viz. 1365. 50. William of Wickham, 1405. 51. Henry Beaufort, 1447. 52. Wil∣liam de Wainfleet, which last continued Bishop till the year 1486. the See being kept by these three Bishops above 120. years, and thereby giving them g••eat Advan∣tages of doing those excellent works, and founding those famous Colledges, which our Author rightly hath ascribed to the first and last. But whereas our Author telleth us also of this Cardinal Beaufort, that he built the Hospital of St. Crosse, he is as much out in that as he was in the other;* 1.8 that Hospital being first built by Henry of Blais, Brothe•• of King Stephen and Bishop of Winchester, Anno 1129. augmented only, and perhaps more liberally endowed by this Po∣tent C••••dinal. From these Foundations made and en∣larged by these three great Bishops of Winchester succes∣sively, p••o••eed we to two others raised by King Henry the sixth, of which our Author telleth us

[ 96] Fol. 183. This good precedent of the Archbishops bounty (that is to say, the foundation of All-Souls Colledge by Archbishop Ch••cheley) may be presumed a Spur to the speed of the Kings liberality; who soon after founded Eaton Colledge, &c. to be a Nursery to Kings Colledge in Cambridge, fol. 184.] Of ••aton Colledge, and the condition of the same,

our Author hath spoken here at large, but we must look fo•• the foundation of Kings Colledge, in the History of Cambridge, fol 77. where I finde some thing which re∣quireth an Animadversion. Our Author there chargeth Dr. Heylyn for avowing something which he cannot justi∣fie, that is to say, for saying,

That when William of Wainfleet Bishop of Winchester (afterwards founder of Magdalen Colledge) perswaded King Henry the Sixth to erect some Monument for Learning in Oxford, the King returned, Imo potius Cantabrigiae, ut duas (si fieri possit) in Anglia Academias habeam. Yea rather (said he) at Cambridge, that (if it be possible) I may have two Universities in England.

As if Cambridge were not re∣puted one before the founding of Kings Colledge there∣in. But here the premises only are the Doctors, the infe∣rence or conclusion is our Authors own. The Doctor in∣fers not thereupon, that Cambridge was not reputed an Vni∣versity till the founding of Kings Colledge by King Henry the sixth; and indeed he could not: for he acknowledged before out of Robert de Reningt••n that it was made an Vniversity in the time of King Edward the second. All that the Doctor says, is this, that as the Vniversity of Cambridge was of a later foundation then Oxford was, so it was long before it grew into esteem, that is to say, to such a measure of esteem at home or abroad (before the building of Kings Colledge, and the rest that followed) but that the King might use those words in his Discourse with the Bishop of Winchester. And for the Narrative, the Doctor (whom I have talked with in this business) doth not shame to say, that he borrowed it, from that great Treasury of Academical Antiquities Mr. Brian Twine, whose learned Works stan•• good against all Opponents; and that he found the passage justified by Sir Isaack Wake in his Rex Platonicus. Two Persons of too great wit and judgement, to relate a matter of this nature on no bet∣ter g••ound then common 〈◊〉〈◊〉-talk, and that too spoke

in merriment by Sir Henry Savil. Assuredly Sir Henry Savil was too great a Zealot for that University, and too much a friend to Mr. Wake, who was Fellow of the same Colledge with him, to have his Table-talk and discourses of merriment to be put upon Record as grounds and arguments for such men to build on in that weighty Controversie. And therefore when our Au∣thor tells us, what he was told by Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard by Mr. Barlow, Mr. Barlow by Mr. Bust, and Mr. Bust by Sir Henry Savil; it brings into my minde the like Pedegree of as true a Story, even that of Mo∣ther Miso in Sir Philip Sidney, telling the young Ladies an old Tale, which a good old woman told her, which an old wise man told her, which a great learned Clerk told him, and gave it him in writing; and there she had it in her Prayer-book; as here our Author hath found this on the end of his Creed. Not much unlike to which, is that which I finde in the Poet;

Quae Phoebo Pater omnipotens, mihi Phoebus Apollo Praedixit, vobis Furiarum ego maxima pand••.

That is to say;

What Iove told Phoebus, Phoebus told to me, And I the chief of Furies tell to thee.

But to proceed,

[ 97] Fol. 190. This was that Nevil, who for Extraction, Estate, Alliance, Dependents, Wisdom, Valour, Success, and popularity, was superior to any English Subject since the Conquest.] Our Author speaks this of that Richard Nevil, who was first Earl of Warwick, in right of Anne his Wife, Sister and Heir of Henry Beauchamp, the last of that Family, and after Earl of Salisbury by descent from his Father; a potent and popular man indeed, but yet not in all or in any of those respects

to be match'd with Henry of Bullenbrook son to Iohn of Gaunt, whom our Author must needs grant to have lived since the time of the Conquest. Which Henry after the death of his Father was Duke of Lancaster and Hereford, Earl of Leicester, Lincoln, and Darby, &c. and Lord High Steward of England. Possessed by the donation of King Henry the third of the County Pa∣latin of Lancaster, the forfeited Estates of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester, Robert de Ferrars Earl of Darby, and Iohn Lord of Monmouth; by the compact made between Thomas Earl of Lancaster, and Alice his Wife, of the Honor of Pomfret, the whole Estate of the Earl of Lincoln, and a great part of the Estates of the Earl of Salisbury; of the goodly Tertitories of Ogmore and Kidwelly in Wales, in right of his descent from the Chaworths; of the Honor and Castle of Hart∣ford by the grant of King Edward the third, and of the Honor of Tickhill in Yorkshire by the donation of King Richard the second; and finally of a Moity of the vast Estate of Humphry de Bohun Earl of Hereford, Essex and Northampton in right of his Wife. So royal in his Extraction, that he was Grandchilde unto one King, Cousin german to another, Father and Grand∣father to two more. So popular when a private per∣son, and that too in the life of his Father, that he was able to raise and head an Army against Richard the Second, with which he discomfited the Kings Forces, under the command of the Duke of Ireland; so fortunate in his successes, that he not only had the better in the battail mentioned, but came off with Honor and Renown in the War of Africk▪ and finally obtained the Crown of England. And this I trow, renders him much Superior to our Authors Nevil, whom he exceeded also in this particular, that he dyed in his bed, and left his Estates unto his Son. But having got the Crown by the murther of his Predecessor,

it stay'd but two descents in his Line, being unfortunately lost by King Henry the sixth, of whom being taken and imprisoned by those of the Yorkish Faction, our Author telleth us,

[ 98] Fol. 190. That States-men do admire how blind the Po∣licy of that Age was in keeping King Henry alive, there being no such sure Prison as a Grave for a Captive King, whose life (though in restraint) is a fair mark for the full Aim of mal-contents to practise his enlargement.] Our Author might have sp••r'd this Doctrine so frequently in practise amongst the wordly Politicians of all times and ages,* 1.9 that there is more need of a Bridle to hold them in, then a Sput to quicken them. Parce precor stimulis, & fortiùs utere loris, had been a wholesom Caveat there, had any friend of his been by to have advis'd him of it. The mu••thering of depos'd and Captive Princes, though too often practised, never found Advocates to plead for it, and m••••h less Preachers to preach for it, until these latter times. First made a Maxim of State in the School of Ma∣chiavel,* 1.10 who lays it down for an Aphorism in point of policy, viz. that great Persons must not at all be touched, or if they be, must be made sure from taking Revenge; inculcated afterwards by the Lord Gray, who be∣ing sent by King Iames to intercede for the life of his Mother, did unde••-hand solicit her death, and whispered nothing so much in Queen Elizabeths ears,* 1.11 as Mortua non mordet, if the Scots Queen were once dead, she would never bite. But never prest so home, never so punctually apply'd to the case of Kings, as here I finde it by our Author; of whom it cannot be ••ffirm'd, that he speaks in this case the sen••e of others, but positively and plainly doth declare his own. No such Divinity p••each'd in the Schools of Igna∣tius, though fitter for the Pen of a Mariana, then of a Divine or Minister of the Church of England. Which

whether it passed from him before o•• since the last sad ac∣cident of this nature, it comes all to one; this being like a two-hand-sword made to strike on both ••••des, and if it come too late for instruction, will serve abundantly howsoever for the justification. Another note we have within two leaves after as derogatory to the Honor of the late Archbishop, as this is dangerous to the Estate of all Soveraign Princes, if once they chance to happen into the hands of their Enemies. But of this our Author will give me an occasion to speak more in another place, and then he shall hear further from me. Now to go on.

Fol. 197. The Duke requested of King Richard the Earl∣dom of Hereford and Hereditary Constableship of England.] Not so, it was not the Earldom, that is to say, the Title [ 99] of Earl of Hereford, which the Duke requested, but so much of the Lands of those Earls as had been forme••ly enjoy'd by the House of Lancaster. Concerning which we are to know, that Humphry de Bohun the last Earl of Hereford, left behinde him two Daughters only, of which the eldest called Eleanor was married to Thomas of Wood∣stock Duke of Gloster, Mary the other married unto Henry of Bullenbrook Earl of Darby. Betwixt these two the E∣state was parted, the one Moiety which drew after it the Title of Hereford falling to Henry Earl of Darby, the other which drew after it the Office of Constable to the Duke of Glocester. But the Duke of Glocester being dead, and his estate coming in fire unto his Daughter who was not able to contend, Henry the fifth forced her unto a sub-division, laying one half of her just partage to the other Moiety. But the issue of Henry of Bullenbrook being quite exti••ct in the Person of Edward Prince of Wales Son of Henry the sixth, these three parts of the Lands of the Earls of Here∣ford, having been formerly incorporated into the Duchy of Lancaster, remained in possession of the Crown, but were conceiv'd by this Duke to belong to him as being the direct Heir of Anne Daughter of Thomas Duke of

Glocester, and consequently the direct Heir also of the House of Hereford. This was the sum of his demand. Nor do I finde that he made any suit for the Office of Consta∣ble, or that he needed so to do, he being then Constable of England, as his Son Edward the last Duke of Buckingham of that Family, was after him.

[ 100] Fol. 199. At last the coming in of the Lord Stanley with three thousand fresh men decided the controversie on the Earls side.] Our Author is out in this also. It was not the Lord Stanley, but his Brother Sir William Stanley, who came in so seasonably, and thereby turn'd the Scale, and chang'd the fortune of the day. For which service he was afterward made Lord Chamberlain of the new Kings Houshold, and advanc'd to great Riches and Estates, but finally beheaded by that very King, for whom, and to whom, he had done the same. But the King look'd upon this action with another eye. And therefore when the merit of this service was interposed to mitigate the Kings displeasure, and preserve the man, the King remembred very shrewdly, that as he came soon enough to win the Victory, so he staid long enough to have lost it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Stow in Hen. 5.
• * 1.2

  Hist. Lib. 4.
• * 1.3

  Camd••n in R••d∣nor. 624,
• * 1.4

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.5

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.6

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 H. 8. c. 26.
• * 1.7

  Vossig de Lat. Hist.
• * 1.8

  Camd. in Hun. fol. 267.
• * 1.9

  Ovid. Met. Lib. 2.
• * 1.10

  History of Flo••ence.
• * 1.11

  Camdens Annals An. 1586.