The Life of John Bunyan [36]
the law, not with its administrators. This is not always
borne in mind as it ought to be. As Mr. Froude remarks, "Persons
often choose to forget that judges are sworn to administer the law
which they find, and rail at them as if the sentences which they
are obliged by their oath to pass were their own personal acts."
It is not surprising that Elizabeth Bunyan was unable to draw this
distinction, and that she left the Swan chamber in tears, not,
however, so much at what she thought the judges' "hardheartedness
to her and her husband," as at the thought of "the sad account such
poor creatures would have to give" hereafter, for what she deemed
their "opposition to Christ and His gospel."
No steps seem to have been taken by Bunyan's wife, or any of his
influential friends, to carry out either of the expedients named by
Hale. It may have been that the money needed was not forthcoming,
or, what Southey remarks is "quite probable," - "because it is
certain that Bunyan, thinking himself in conscience bound to preach
in defiance of the law, would soon have made his case worse than it
then was."
At the next assizes, which were held in January, 1662, Bunyan again
made strenuous efforts to get his name put on the calendar of
felons, that he might have a regular trial before the king's judges
and be able to plead his cause in person. This, however, was
effectually thwarted by the unfriendly influence of the county
magistrates by whom he had been committed, and the Clerk of the
Peace, Mr. Cobb, who having failed in his kindly meant attempt to
induce "Neighbour Bunyan" to conform, had turned bitterly against
him and become one of his chief enemies. "Thus," writes Bunyan,
"was I hindered and prevented at that time also from appearing
before the judge, and left in prison." Of this prison, the county
gaol of Bedford, he remained an inmate, with one, short interval in
1666, for the next twelve years, till his release by order of the
Privy Council, May 17, 1672.
CHAPTER VI.
The exaggeration of the severity of Bunyan's imprisonment long
current, now that the facts are better known, has led, by a very
intelligible reaction, to an undue depreciation of it. Mr. Froude
thinks that his incarceration was "intended to be little more than
nominal," and was really meant in kindness by the authorities who
"respected his character," as the best means of preventing him from
getting himself into greater trouble by "repeating an offence that
would compel them to adopt harsh measures which they were earnestly
trying to avoid." If convicted again he must be transported, and
"they were unwilling to drive him out of the country." It is,
however, to be feared that it was no such kind consideration for
the tinker-preacher which kept the prison doors closed on Bunyan.
To the justices he was simply an obstinate law-breaker, who must be
kept in prison as long as he refused compliance with the Act. If
he rotted in gaol, as so many of his fellow sufferers for
conscience' sake did in those unhappy times, it was no concern of
theirs. He and his stubbornness would be alone to blame.
It is certainly true that during a portion of his captivity,
Bunyan, in Dr. Brown's words, "had an amount of liberty which in
the case of a prisoner nowadays would be simply impossible." But
the mistake has been made of extending to the whole period an
indulgence which belonged only to a part, and that a very limited
part of it. When we are told that Bunyan was treated as a prisoner
at large, and like one "on parole," free to come and go as he
pleased, even as far as London, we must remember that Bunyan's own
words expressly restrict this indulgence to the six months between
the Autumn Assizes of 1661 and the Spring Assizes of 1662.
"Between these two assizes," he says, "I had by my jailer some
liberty granted me more than at the first." This liberty was
certainly
borne in mind as it ought to be. As Mr. Froude remarks, "Persons
often choose to forget that judges are sworn to administer the law
which they find, and rail at them as if the sentences which they
are obliged by their oath to pass were their own personal acts."
It is not surprising that Elizabeth Bunyan was unable to draw this
distinction, and that she left the Swan chamber in tears, not,
however, so much at what she thought the judges' "hardheartedness
to her and her husband," as at the thought of "the sad account such
poor creatures would have to give" hereafter, for what she deemed
their "opposition to Christ and His gospel."
No steps seem to have been taken by Bunyan's wife, or any of his
influential friends, to carry out either of the expedients named by
Hale. It may have been that the money needed was not forthcoming,
or, what Southey remarks is "quite probable," - "because it is
certain that Bunyan, thinking himself in conscience bound to preach
in defiance of the law, would soon have made his case worse than it
then was."
At the next assizes, which were held in January, 1662, Bunyan again
made strenuous efforts to get his name put on the calendar of
felons, that he might have a regular trial before the king's judges
and be able to plead his cause in person. This, however, was
effectually thwarted by the unfriendly influence of the county
magistrates by whom he had been committed, and the Clerk of the
Peace, Mr. Cobb, who having failed in his kindly meant attempt to
induce "Neighbour Bunyan" to conform, had turned bitterly against
him and become one of his chief enemies. "Thus," writes Bunyan,
"was I hindered and prevented at that time also from appearing
before the judge, and left in prison." Of this prison, the county
gaol of Bedford, he remained an inmate, with one, short interval in
1666, for the next twelve years, till his release by order of the
Privy Council, May 17, 1672.
CHAPTER VI.
The exaggeration of the severity of Bunyan's imprisonment long
current, now that the facts are better known, has led, by a very
intelligible reaction, to an undue depreciation of it. Mr. Froude
thinks that his incarceration was "intended to be little more than
nominal," and was really meant in kindness by the authorities who
"respected his character," as the best means of preventing him from
getting himself into greater trouble by "repeating an offence that
would compel them to adopt harsh measures which they were earnestly
trying to avoid." If convicted again he must be transported, and
"they were unwilling to drive him out of the country." It is,
however, to be feared that it was no such kind consideration for
the tinker-preacher which kept the prison doors closed on Bunyan.
To the justices he was simply an obstinate law-breaker, who must be
kept in prison as long as he refused compliance with the Act. If
he rotted in gaol, as so many of his fellow sufferers for
conscience' sake did in those unhappy times, it was no concern of
theirs. He and his stubbornness would be alone to blame.
It is certainly true that during a portion of his captivity,
Bunyan, in Dr. Brown's words, "had an amount of liberty which in
the case of a prisoner nowadays would be simply impossible." But
the mistake has been made of extending to the whole period an
indulgence which belonged only to a part, and that a very limited
part of it. When we are told that Bunyan was treated as a prisoner
at large, and like one "on parole," free to come and go as he
pleased, even as far as London, we must remember that Bunyan's own
words expressly restrict this indulgence to the six months between
the Autumn Assizes of 1661 and the Spring Assizes of 1662.
"Between these two assizes," he says, "I had by my jailer some
liberty granted me more than at the first." This liberty was
certainly