with all his statements, the members of the Council were favourably impressed by Rokycan’s speech and the moderation which he showed. After Rokycan’s speech Prokop the Great briefly addressed the assembly. His tone was somewhat menacing, and he begged his hearers to accept God’s truth while it was yet time. His speech was received by the Council with marked displeasure. Finally Cardinal Cesarini suggested that, before the members of the Council replied to the speeches of the Bohemians, the latter should be allowed to expound their views on the other three articles. The representatives of the Church of Rome could then reply consecutively to all the arguments of the Bohemians. This very fair proposal was accepted by all parties.
Before leaving their country the Bohemians had already, at the diet of Kutna Hora, deliberated on the choice of their spokesmen at the Council. It had been agreed that the four Utraquist parties, the Praguers, the nobles sub utraque, the Táborites, and the Orphans, should each appoint one orator. The choice both of the Praguers and the Utraquist nobles having fallen on Rokycan, it was agreed that he should act as defender both of the first and the third articles, though the attitude of the advanced parties afterwards prevented this plan from being carried out. On January 20 the Táborite bishop, Nicholas of Pelhřimov, defended the second article. His speech was not as conciliatory as that of Rokycan had been; he not only spoke very strongly on the treacherous execution of Hus, but he also laid great stress on the simony and depravation which, as he said, were then prevalent among the Roman Catholic clergy. Some of the prelates who were present loudly expressed their displeasure. Nicholas, referring to the stipulations made at Cheb, which promised the Bohemians full liberty of speech, protested against what he considered an attempt to intimidate him. It was here again due to the wisdom and conciliatory attitude of Cardinal Cesarini that this somewhat stormy sitting ended without a rupture.
