Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
On the morning of 4 December 1514, a certain London merchant-tailor, Richard Hunne by name, was found hanging in his cell in the Lollards' Tower at St. Paul's. On the surface this event might seem to be of little concern to anyone except Hunne. However, the death of this moderately well-to-do London businessman became caught up in the agitation against the clergy which presaged the Reformation in England. Indeed, Richard Hunne's case has become, as well, the focal point of a major and long-lasting historical controversy over the responsibility for Hunne's death. This controversy arises out of contradictory and confusing reports of the circumstances surrounding the event and the peculiar actions of the authorities, both royal and clerical, over an attempt to fix the responsibility for the death. One major body of source material, particularly the writings of Sir Thomas More, holds that Hunne had committed suicide and is supported by the decision of a royal court which found those accused of Hunne's death to be innocent. The other, which includes several Protestant chroniclers and writers, holds that Hunne was murdered by the ecclesiastical authorities of London and is supported by depositions from a coroner's inquest into the matter.
The alleged facts of Hunne's death, minor event though it may have been, served to fan a wave of excitement in London, particularly since the event fell upon thoroughly receptive ears. The current anticlericalism received a major stimulus from Hunne's death.
It is difficult to document the extent to which anticlericalism was present in London, let alone England at large, in the early years of the sixteenth century, but there was a dispute between the parishioners of London and their rectors over such matters as tithes, offerings and mortuary fees.3 In addition there had been some action, in an official sense, against the greatly abused benefit of clergy.
1 Ogle, Arthur, The Tragedy of the Lollards' Tower (Oxford, 1949), 14.Google Scholar
2 Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation (New York, 1964), 90Google Scholar. Not all, however, are willing to accept this view. Cardinal Francis Aiden Gasquet in his The Eve of the Reformation (2nd ed.; London, 1927), 105Google ScholarPubMed, holds that anticlerical attitudes in England were dated at the beginning of the Reformation and were due to the actions of reforming teachers.
3 Davis, E. Jeffries, “Ecclesiastical History,” in The Victoria History of the County of London, ed. Page, William (London, 1909), I, 236–7.Google Scholar
4 Dickens, , English Reformation, 90.Google Scholar
5 Ibid.
6 Pollard, A. F., Wolsey (New York, 1929), 46n.Google Scholar
7 Dickens, , English Reformation, 93–4.Google Scholar
8 Ibid.
9 Wriothesley, Charles, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors from A. D. 1485 to 1559 (London: Camden Society, 1875), I, 9Google Scholar, and Fish, Simon, A Supplication for the Beggars (about 1529), ed. Furnivall, Frederick J. (London: Early English Text Society, 1869), IX, 12.Google Scholar
10 Smith, H. Maynard, Pre-Reformation England (London, 1938), 84.Google Scholar
11 Mortuaries were burial fees considered owed to the parson of a parish upon the death of a parishioner--a constant source of irritation to the survivors. Normally, mortuaries were paid in kind and usually consisted of some article of property which had belonged to the deceased. Ogle, , Tragedy of the Lollards' Tower, 52.Google Scholar
12 Foxe, John, Acts and Monuments, ed. Cattley, Rev. Stephen Reed (London, 1837), IV, 183Google Scholar. Ogle, , (Tragedy of the Lollards' Tower, 56)Google Scholar, points out that minors and women could not own property; therefore Hunne was probably justified in refusing to give up the bearing sheet, even though it was normal practice for a priest to demand such mortuary fees.
13 Dryffeld seems to have had more than this one income, a common practice at the time.
14 Milsom, S. F. C., “Richard Hunne's Premunire,” English Historical Review, LXXVI (1961), 80–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Ibid. King's Bench Roll for Hilary term 4 Henry VIII (1513).
16 Ibid.
17 Comes from the Statute of Provisors, 16 Richard II, c. 5 (1393). The praemunire is concerned with a prohibition against any “foreign tribunal,” e.g. the papal court, or foreign influence on English law courts, ecclesiastical or secular. It was particularly directed against any type of papal influence or interference within the realm. It was under this act--modified into the “Statute of Provision and Praemunire” in 1533--that Henry VIII found Wolsey and the entire English clergy guilty.
18 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, 183Google Scholar. Thomas Gotson, proctor; Walter Stone, doctor-advocate; Henry Marshall; and the witnesses: Thomas Lamb, Thomas Esgore, Robert Kylton and William Audley. Also included was Charles Joseph, the summoner who was later accused of Hunne's death.
19 Gairdner, James, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, Vol. IV in A History of the Church of England, 8 vols., ed. Stephens, W. R. W. (New York, 1904), 42–3.Google Scholar
20 Ogle, , Tragedy of the Lollards' Tower, 57.Google Scholar
21 Milsom, , “Richard Hunne's Premunire,” 80.Google Scholar
22 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, 183Google Scholar. SirMore, Thomas in his The Supplication of Souls, ed. Thecla, Sister Mary (Westminster, Md., 1950), 35Google Scholar, insists that Hunne began the praemunire to stop the action of heresy which had already begun against him. However, the charges of heresy were not brought against him until 2 December 1514 but the praemunire began during the first part of the year 1513. Besides, a man accused of heresy would not sue a praemunire; he must have known that in cases of heresy the spiritual court was supreme and therefore must have begun his suit with a feeling of personal assurance.
23 Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, ed. Brewer, J. S. (London, 1920), I, ii, no. 3507, 1468Google Scholar. Ogle, (Tragedy of the Lollards' Tower, 129–31)Google Scholar takes issue with the matter of the English Bible and claims to have discovered the original now located in the Corpus Cristi College library. It was recovered and saved by Archbishop Parker in the reign of Elizabeth. Parker was concerned about the loss of medieval manuscripts, and upon his death it was willed to the college along with other like manuscripts. Ogle holds that the Bible was “planted on Hunne after his death.” Hunne was reported as having made incriminating notations in the margins of the text; yet Ogle says they were neither Hunne's notations, nor were they heretical. They were in fact the notations of a certain Bishop Blythe who was a hater of heresy. He concludes that Hunne was burned owing to falsified evidence procured by his “murderers.” Foxe does not mention Blythe's name in the post-mortem trial records, but Ogle contends that Blythe had loaned the Lollard Bible to Bishop Fitzjames with full knowledge of the use they planned to make of it. This, it seems, was all the more reason for the Bishop's absence from the proceedings.
24 Ogle, , Tragedy of the Lollards' Tower, 65.Google Scholar
25 Milsom, , “Richard Hunne's Premunire,” 81–82.Google Scholar
26 Hall, Edward, Chronicle (London, 1809), 573–74.Google Scholar
27 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, 191.Google Scholar
28 Ibid., 197.
29 Ibid., 192.
30 Ibid., 197.
31 Ibid., 196. Davis has pointed out that this is a mistranscription of Hall's from an anonymous tract and, in turn, copied incorrectly by Foxe. It should read my clerk, instead of any clerk.
32 Ibid., 197. It was the practice to confiscate the property of all accused heretics.
33 Tyndale, William, Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue (1531), ed. Walter, Henry (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), 167.Google Scholar
34 More, , Dialogue, ed. Campbell, W. E. (London, 1927), 236.Google Scholar
35 Ibid., 238.
36 Hall, , Chronicle, 573.Google Scholar
37 More, , Diaglogue, 239.Google Scholar
38 Milsom, , “Richard Hunne's Premunire,” 81.Google Scholar
39 See above n. 18.
40 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, 192–3.Google Scholar
41 According to Ogle, the ecclesiastical authorities who “framed” Hunne as a heretic after his death--if in reality that is what they did—were also responsible for his death: Something of a backroom “master plan.” But, this is not necessarily the case. Bishop Fitzjames could have had every reason, what with the feeling in London over the case, to prove Hunne a heretic and show— at least to his way of thinking—that he received just what he had coming, even if it was not by his own hand. The entire case, as Ogle aptly notes, was a threat to ecclesiastical authority. But this does not make the Bishop of London a party to murder. A man of his stature must certainly have recognized how the London citizenry would react to something that even looked like murder in a church jail and involving clerics.
42 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, 195Google Scholar. From the deposition of Richard Horsenail, bailiff of the sanctuary town of Good Esture in Essex.
43 Milsom, , “Richard Hunne's Premunire,” 80Google Scholar. For praemunire, see Public Record Office, London KB 27/1006 m. 37; for slander suit, ibid., KB 27/1006 m. 36.
44 Fines, J., “The Post-Mortem condemnation for Heresy of Richard Hunne,” English Historical Review, LXXVIII (1963), 528–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fines describes his discovery as portions of a book compiled by Archbishop Ussher containing records of heresy trials. He has printed some depositions in the case.
45 Foxe, , Acts and Monuments, 192Google Scholar. This is also from his housekeeper's deposition.
