Page:VCH London 1.djvu/319

 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY of tithes, and to demand illegally certain other offerings, among them mortuaries for persons who had died possessed of no property.^" In 15 14 Richard Hun, a well-to-do merchant tailor, unsuccessfully brought a suit oi praemunire against the rector of St. Mary's Whitechapel, who had sum- moned him before a spiritual court for refusing to give a mortuary for his infant child. Before this he had been charged with heresy ; the bishop stopped the proceedings against him while the lawsuit was pending,''^'^ but when it had been decided the heresy case was resumed. Hun was accused of having ' read, taught, preached, published, and obstinately defended . . . that . . . paying of tithes was never ordained to be due, save only by the covetousness of priests ; ' that bishops and priests were the Scribes and Pharisees that crucified Christ ; that they preached, but did not fulfil, the law of God, ' all things taking, and nothing ministering, neither giving.' These three articles of accusation merely indicate that Hun was one of the leaders of the anti-clerical party in the contest then raging with regard to offerings ; but the remaining two connect that contest with the old Lollardry : he had defended the heretic Joan Baker, and possessed forbidden books, including the New Testament in English and the works of WyclifFe. He admitted the substantial truth of these accusations and submitted to the bishop's charitable correction,*"* and was then sent back to the Lollards' Tower at St. Paul's, where, on the morning of 4 December, he was found dead, hanging by his silken girdle to a hook in the wall.^** There was great excitement in the City,^*^ and a coroner's jury returned a verdict of murder against Dr. Horsey, the bishop's chancellor, and two of his subordinate officials,^" all of whom would be associated with the unpopular proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts in enforcing the payment of the disputed offerings. The verdict seems to have been based on very insufficient evidence ; a thorough inquiry was made into the matter by the Lords of the Council,"" and Horsey was released after some time, without a trial, by the king's order. ^^** But he lived henceforth far from London, ' for very shame ' it was said.''^^ Meanwhile Fitzjames publicly condemned Hun as a heretic, and his body was burnt in Smithfield."" It is difficult, in the absence of contemporary evidence, to estimate the importance of this case, which soon after became the subject of party misrepresentation ; "' but it is clear that the officials of the episcopal courts, if not the City clergy as a body, were extremely un- popular at the time. Another interesting point is that of Hun's Bible, with its objectionable preface and its heretical annotations in his own hand, for some years later an Essex carpenter casually mentioned Hun as one of a '" Vide infra. '" More, Supplication of Souls (1529) in IForks (ed. 1557), 297. Compare his Dialogue, Bk. iii, cap. 15. '" Foxe, op. cit. iv, 183—4, ' Ex Reg. Fitzjames.' Not in the existing Register. '" Pamphlet (? 1539 ; for the date see note below) reprinted by Hall and Foxe. ^" Arnold, Customs of Land. (ed. Douce), p. xlix. '°' Arnold, More, and the pamphlet, ut sup. "' More, Dialogue, ut sup. '" Ibid. Cf. Supplication of Souls, 299 ; Tyndale, Answer to I/lore's Dialogue (Parker Soc), 166 ; and L. and P. Hen. nil, ii, I 313. "' Hall, Chron. 6 Hen. VIII. "" Arnold ; More, Dialogue, ut sup. ; Foxe, op. cit. iv, 185-90. Hun must be the heretic alluded to in L. and P. Hen. Fill, ii, 215. '" Cf. Fish, Supplication of Beggars (Early Engl. Text Soc), and the works of More already quoted. For a detailed discussion of the case, which, however, omits the important fact that it was an incident in the dispute about offerings, see Gairdner, The Engl. Ch. in the i6tl> Cent. cap. iii. 237