34 
with him before he joined hini in Herefordshire. Walter Brut’s zeal against the 
Pope is said to have been aroused chiefly by the impudent pardons and indul- 
gencies of Pope Urban VI1., granted to Henry Spencer, Bishop of Normond, to 
fight against the rival Pope Clement VII. He fully adopted the views of the 
Wycliffites, attached himself to Swynderby, and was so indignant at his condem- 
nation, that he did not hesitate to express his opinion about it with the utmost 
freedom in the city of Hereford to the Canons themselves. This course soon drew 
forth an attack upon himself. 
Two instruments were drawn up against Walter Brut, and carried to the 
Bishop at Whitborn, by Master Walter Pride, the Penitentiary of the Cathedral 
Church of Hereford. The first instrument stated that ‘‘at supper time on Oct. 15, 
*°1391, in the dwelling house of the worshipful man Master John Godemoston, 
‘canon of the Cathedral Church of Hereford, in the presence of Master Walter 
““Ramesbury, precentor ; Roger Hoare, canon; Walter Walle, chaplain (being a 
“‘vicar of the choral), and certain other witnesses of credit, and in presence 
“of me, Richard le Whylare, clerk of Worcester, being a public notary by 
“the authority apostolic,” Walter Brut ‘‘ stiffly maintained” that Swynderby’s 
condemnation was ‘‘ naughty, wicked, perverse, and unjust ;” that his conclusions 
were “‘true and catholic,” and furthermore, ‘‘that the Pope was the very anti- 
Christ.” —(Reg. Trefnant.) 
The second instrument stated that Walter Brut, on Jan. 19, 1391-2, ‘‘ person- 
‘ally appeared before the Lord Bishop at Whitborn, and in his presence, and in 
‘the presence of Master Reginald of Wolston, canon of Hereford : Master Philip 
“*Dilesk, parson of Llannwryn (Montgomeryshire) ; Thomas Guldeffeld, parson of 
‘*English Bykenore; John Cressit, parson of Whitborn; and Thomas Walle- 
‘*wayne, household servant; especially called and desired as witnesses ; and in 
“the presence of me Benedict Come, a public notary of the division of St. Asaph; 
“‘he did maintain that Christians were not bound to pay tithes, nor might law- 
‘fully swear by the Creator, nor the Creature; and that Swynderby’s conclusions 
‘*were just ; and that he did eat, drink, and communicate with Swynderby, the 
‘* Bishop’s sentence against him notwithstanding.”—(Reg. Trefnant.) 
Walter Brut was served with a series of seven charges against him, which are 
given at length in the Register, he was summoned to appear before the Bishop 
and answer them. Mr. Brut “partly appearing” says the account in the Register, 
‘*by his own self before us sitting in our judgment seat, and partly by his wit- 
“nesses specially appointed for that purpose,” presented his answers to the arti- 
cles and conclusions drawn up against him, “on divers scrolls of paper” written 
with his own proper hand, ‘‘in the form of ‘two suppositions.’” This failed to 
satisfy the Bishop, who pronounced ‘‘ his writing too short and obscure, and beg- 
‘*sed him to write more plainly and more at large.” Whereupon Master Walter 
Brut, nothing loth, draws up a ‘‘declaration ” covering a dozen skins with small 
writings, and which may be said to consist of a general argument drawn from 
Scripture against the Pope and the Romish Church. 
The Bishop of Hereford then appointed Friday, Oct. 3, 1393, for the said 
Walter Brut to appear before him, sitting in commission in the Cathedral Church 
