The Life of John Bunyan [35]
to London, - no slight venture for a young woman not so long
raised from the sick bed on which the first news of her husband's
arrest had laid her, - and with dauntless courage made her way to
the House of Lords, where she presented her petition to one of the
peers, whom she calls Lord Barkwood, but whom unfortunately we
cannot now identify. He treated her kindly, and showed her
petition to other peers, who appear to have been acquainted with
the circumstances of Bunyan's case. They replied that the matter
was beyond their province, and that the question of her husband's
release was committed to the judges at the next assizes. These
assizes were held at Bedford in the following August. The judges
of the circuit were Twisden and Sir Matthew Hale. From the latter
- the friend of Richard Baxter, who, as Burnet records, took great
care to "cover the Nonconformists, whom he thought too hardly used,
all he could from the seventies some designed; and discouraged
those who were inclined to stretch the laws too much against them"
- Bunyan's case would be certain to meet with sympathetic
consideration. But being set to administer the law, not according
to his private wishes, but according to its letter and its spirit,
he was powerless to relieve him. Three several times did Bunyan's
noble-hearted wife present her husband's petition that he might be
heard, and his case taken impartially into consideration. But the
law forbad what Burnet calls Sir Matthew Hale's "tender and
compassionate nature" to have free exercise. He "received the
petition very mildly at her hand, telling her that he would do her
and her husband the best good he could; but he feared he could do
none." His brother judge's reception of her petition was very
different. Having thrown it into the coach, Twisden "snapt her
up," telling her, what after all was no more than the truth, that
her husband was a convicted person, and could not be released
unless he would promise to obey the law and abstain from preaching.
On this the High Sheriff, Edmund Wylde, of Houghton Conquest, spoke
kindly to the poor woman, and encouraged her to make a fresh
application to the judges before they left the town. So she made
her way, "with abashed face and trembling heart," to the large
chamber at the Old Swan Inn at the Bridge Foot, where the two
judges were receiving a large number of the justices of the peace
and other gentry of the county. Addressing Sir Matthew Hale she
said, "My lord, I make bold to come again to your lordship to know
what may be done with my husband." Hale received her with the same
gentleness as before, repeated what he had said previously, that as
her husband had been legally convicted, and his conviction was
recorded, unless there was something to undo that he could do her
no good. Twisden, on the other hand, got violently angry, charged
her brutally with making poverty her cloak, told her that her
husband was a breaker of the peace, whose doctrine was the doctrine
of the devil, and that he ran up and down and did harm, while he
was better maintained by his preaching than by following his
tinker's craft. At last he waxed so violent that "withal she
thought he would have struck her." In the midst of all his coarse
abuse, however, Twisden hit the mark when he asked: "What! you
think we can do what we list?" And when we find Hale, confessedly
the soundest lawyer of the time, whose sympathies were all with the
prisoner, after calling for the Statute Book, thus summing up the
matter: "I am sorry, woman, that I can do thee no good. Thou must
do one of these three things, viz., either apply thyself to the
king, or sue out his pardon, or get a writ of error," which last,
he told her, would be the cheapest course - we may feel sure that
Bunyan's Petition was not granted because it could not be granted
legally. The blame of his continued imprisonment lay, if anywhere,
with
raised from the sick bed on which the first news of her husband's
arrest had laid her, - and with dauntless courage made her way to
the House of Lords, where she presented her petition to one of the
peers, whom she calls Lord Barkwood, but whom unfortunately we
cannot now identify. He treated her kindly, and showed her
petition to other peers, who appear to have been acquainted with
the circumstances of Bunyan's case. They replied that the matter
was beyond their province, and that the question of her husband's
release was committed to the judges at the next assizes. These
assizes were held at Bedford in the following August. The judges
of the circuit were Twisden and Sir Matthew Hale. From the latter
- the friend of Richard Baxter, who, as Burnet records, took great
care to "cover the Nonconformists, whom he thought too hardly used,
all he could from the seventies some designed; and discouraged
those who were inclined to stretch the laws too much against them"
- Bunyan's case would be certain to meet with sympathetic
consideration. But being set to administer the law, not according
to his private wishes, but according to its letter and its spirit,
he was powerless to relieve him. Three several times did Bunyan's
noble-hearted wife present her husband's petition that he might be
heard, and his case taken impartially into consideration. But the
law forbad what Burnet calls Sir Matthew Hale's "tender and
compassionate nature" to have free exercise. He "received the
petition very mildly at her hand, telling her that he would do her
and her husband the best good he could; but he feared he could do
none." His brother judge's reception of her petition was very
different. Having thrown it into the coach, Twisden "snapt her
up," telling her, what after all was no more than the truth, that
her husband was a convicted person, and could not be released
unless he would promise to obey the law and abstain from preaching.
On this the High Sheriff, Edmund Wylde, of Houghton Conquest, spoke
kindly to the poor woman, and encouraged her to make a fresh
application to the judges before they left the town. So she made
her way, "with abashed face and trembling heart," to the large
chamber at the Old Swan Inn at the Bridge Foot, where the two
judges were receiving a large number of the justices of the peace
and other gentry of the county. Addressing Sir Matthew Hale she
said, "My lord, I make bold to come again to your lordship to know
what may be done with my husband." Hale received her with the same
gentleness as before, repeated what he had said previously, that as
her husband had been legally convicted, and his conviction was
recorded, unless there was something to undo that he could do her
no good. Twisden, on the other hand, got violently angry, charged
her brutally with making poverty her cloak, told her that her
husband was a breaker of the peace, whose doctrine was the doctrine
of the devil, and that he ran up and down and did harm, while he
was better maintained by his preaching than by following his
tinker's craft. At last he waxed so violent that "withal she
thought he would have struck her." In the midst of all his coarse
abuse, however, Twisden hit the mark when he asked: "What! you
think we can do what we list?" And when we find Hale, confessedly
the soundest lawyer of the time, whose sympathies were all with the
prisoner, after calling for the Statute Book, thus summing up the
matter: "I am sorry, woman, that I can do thee no good. Thou must
do one of these three things, viz., either apply thyself to the
king, or sue out his pardon, or get a writ of error," which last,
he told her, would be the cheapest course - we may feel sure that
Bunyan's Petition was not granted because it could not be granted
legally. The blame of his continued imprisonment lay, if anywhere,
with