in charge to watch over the safety of Huss, was responsible for that charge and bound to see that nothing was done against the emperor's word. He could not permit this, and must protest against such a proceeding. The cardinals would do well to consider what they were about, and not suppose that they could be allowed to trifle with the honour of the emperor and of the empire. The bishop of Trent here interposed: They had no bad intentions whatever. Everything should be done in peace; they wished only to avoid making a stir. Huss now took up the word, and declared that he had not come there to appear before the pope and Roman court, but to appear before the whole assembled council, to give in their presence an account of his faith; yet he was ready to appear and testify of his faith also before the cardinals. Though they used force against him, still he had a firm hope in God's grace that they never would succeed in inducing him to fall from the truth. Saying this, Huss followed the embassy. On the lower floor, he was met by the mistress of the house, who took leave of him in tears. Struck with a presentiment of death, and deeply moved, he bestowed on her his blessing. Mounting on horseback he proceeded, with the embassy and the knight of Chlum, to the court. The prelates, fearing a movement on the part of the people, had taken care that the city magistrates, who were completely subservient to the council, should place soldiers in the neighbouring streets, so that, if necessary, the step might be carried through by force. When Huss appeared before the chancery, the president of the college of cardinals said: It was reported of him that he publicly taught many and grievous heresies, and disseminated them in all Bohemia. The thing could not be allowed to go on so any longer; hence he had been sent for, with a view to learn from himself how the matter stood. To this Huss replied, that such was his mind, he would prefer to die rather than to teach one heresy, not to say many; and the very reason for which he had come there was to make himself answerable to the council, and to recant if he could be convicted before it of holding any error. The cardinals expressed their satisfaction at the temper of mind here manifested by Huss. They then adjourned, leaving Huss and Chlum

under the surveillance of the men at arms. About four o'clock in the afternoon they again assembled in chancery, and several Bohemians were also in attendance, both enemies and friends of Huss: among the former, Paletz and Michael de Causis; among the latter, the already named John Cardinalis. The former did their utmost to prevent Huss from being set at liberty; and having gained their object, burst into a loud murmur of applause, crying out insultingly to Huss: "Now we have you, nor shall you escape till you have paid the uttermost farthing." That John of Reinstein was already well known as a skilful diplomatist, who had frequently been employed by king Wenzel in transacting business with the Roman chancery. Hence he is said to have derived his appellation Cardinalis, which was first a nickname, but afterwards retained by him. Paletz now reminded him of the injury done to his reputation by his connection with the Hussite heresy: he who once enjoyed so much influence with the cardinals had now become a mere cipher. The master replied: "Keep your pity for yourself; if you knew any evil of me, you might have cause to pity me." And thus they separated. Towards evening, it was intimated to Chlum that he might retire to his lodgings; Huss must remain there. Filled with indignation, Chlum hastened away to the pope, who happened to be still present in the assembly. He overwhelmed him with reproaches that he had dared thus to trifle with the word of the emperor, that he had thus deceived him. He held up to him the inconsistency between his conduct and his promises; for he had assured him and another Bohemian, his uncle Henry of Latzembock, that Huss should be safe, even though he had killed the pope's brother. The pope, however, exculpated himself by saying that he had nothing to do with the imprisonment of Huss. He referred to the cardinals as responsible for the whole transaction. "You know very well," said he, 66 the terms on which I stand with them." And true enough it was, indeed, as may be gathered from the preceding narrative, that the pope stood entirely at the mercy of the cardinals, and in his present dubious position was compelled to comply with all their wishes. He certainly had much more to do in looking after his own personal interests than

CHLUM'S PROTEST AGAINST THE IMPRISONMENT OF HUSS. 475

after the conformity of others to the orthodox faith. The same night Huss was conducted to the house of a canonical priest, in Constance, where he remained eight days under the surveillance of an armed guard. On the 6th of December he was conveyed to a Dominican cloister on the Rhine, and thrown into a narrow dungeon filled with pestiferous effluvia from a neighbouring sink.

*

The knight of Chlum did not cease to complain of the violation done to the emperor's safe-conduct. He immediately reported the whole proceeding to the emperor. The latter expressed his indignation at it, demanded that Huss should be set free, and threatened to break into the prison by force, if the doors were not voluntarily thrown open. On the 24th of December, Chlum, in the name of the emperor, publicly posted up a certificate, declaring, in the most emphatic language, that the pope had been false to his promise, that he had presumed to insult the authority of the emperor and of the empire, by paying no regard whatever to the emperor's demands. When the emperor himself should come to Constance-and it was announced that he might be expected the next day-it would be seen what his indignation was at learning of such violation of his majesty. After such declarations it may well be asked, What did the emperor really mean by all this? How far was he in earnest; and how far merely acting a part and pretending anger from motives of policy? That he had an interest in representing himself to be more annoyed and angry than he really was, and in uttering threats which he never meant to fulfil, is evident. For it behoved him to do all he could to remove from himself the reproach of a want of good faith,‡ and to soothe the highly-irritated * V. d. Hardt, IV. p. 26.

+ Chlum says in this declaration: Quapropter ego regio nomine manifesto, quod detentio et captio dicti Hus est facta contra regis omnimodam voluntatem, cum sit in contemptum suorum salvi conductus et protectionis imperii facta, eo quod pro tunc dictus dominus meus a Constantia longe distabat, et si interfuisset, nunquam hoc permisisset. Cum autem venerit, quilibet sentire debebit, ipsum de vilipensione sibi et suæ et imperii protectionis ac salvo illata conductui, dolorosius molestari. V. d. Hardt, IV. p. 28.

If the imperial salvus conductus had been nothing but a pass made out by the emperor, as modern historical sophists assert, there would, indeed, have been no need of all this.

temper of the important party of Huss in Bohemia, and of the knights who espoused his cause most decidedly. But still there is no evidence from facts to justify any such supposition. For, if the emperor took no further steps to procure the release of Huss, still this would not amount to a proof of his insincerity. If he did not do this, he did something else. He had an honest intention to abide by his imperial word; he was at first really annoyed, that it had been presumed so grievously to violate it; and he was supposed to have sufficient freedom of mind and firmness of character to defy the spirit of the times, so far as to carry through what he had considered to be just and right, in spite of the authority which was held to be the most sacred in the church. Indeed, pope John afterwards particularly brought it forward, as we have mentioned on a former page, in complaint of the emperor, and in exculpation of his own flight from Constance, that the emperor restrained the liberty of the council in transacting business relative to the faith, and would not let justice have its course. But, leaving the emperor's declarations entirely out of view, we should certainly take into account the great influence which the power of the church exercised over him. When, on the 1st of January, a deputation of the council appeared before the emperor, and declared to him that he ought not to interfere in transactions relative to matters of faith, that the council must have its full liberty in the investigation of heresies, and in its proceedings against heretics, Sigismund no longer ventured to resist, and promised the council that he would allow them all liberty and never interpose his authority in these matters.* In truth, had the emperor .been disposed to insist farther on the liberation of Huss, it might easily have led to consequences most perilous to the future proceedings of the council. The pope might have taken advantage of this to gain over a large party to his interests, and the seeds of schism, which, as we have before seen, were already present in the council, would doubtless have gone on to multiply, till they brought on an open breach, and, perhaps, a breaking up of the council. There is

* V. d. Hardt, IV. p. 32.

certainly much that is true in the vindication of himself by the emperor Sigismund against the Bohemian estates, who espoused the cause of Huss, when, in the year 1417, he writes: "If Huss had, in the first instance, come to him, and had gone with him to Constance, his affair would perhaps have had a quite different turn. And, God knows, that we experienced on his account and at his fall, a sorrow and pain too great to be expressed by words. And all the Bohemians that were then with us certainly knew how we interceded for him, and that several times, seized with indignation, we left the council. Nay, on his account, we went away from Constance, till they declared to us, If we would not allow justice to be executed at the council, they knew not what business they had to be there. Thus we verily thought that we could do nothing further in this affair. Nor could we even speak about it, for had we done so, the council would have entirely broken up.'

The preliminary examinations of the process against Huss were now to begin, in the order in which the complaints had been brought against him by Paletz, Michael de Causis, and others; and for this purpose, on the 1st December, a committee was nominated, which consisted of the patriarch John, of Constantinople, the bishop John, of Lubeck,† and Bernhard, of Citta di Castello. To these men the pope committed the affair by a constitution in which he already names Huss as a dangerous heretic, who was spreading abroad mischievous errors, and had seduced many; and charged them to report the result of their examination to the council, that the latter might pass a definitive sentence on Huss, in conformity thereto. The agreement of these two testimonies is decisive against the statement of Hermann v. d. Hardt, who, following the report of Corretanus, describes the commission differently. Huss demanded of the committee a solicitor; but to a heretic no such privilege could be granted; and it was refused him. Huss thereupon said to his judges: “Well, then, let the Lord Jesus be my advocate, who also will soon be your judge."§ A severe taunt on the council, was an *Cochlæus, p. 157.

† Palacky, p. 330, has, after Mladenowic, bishop of Lebus. Raynaldi Annales, vol. 1, 1414, s. 10 ff.

§ We take this from the words of Huss himself: Cogitationem de