The History of Lynn, Vol. 1 [of 2]

by William Richards

CHAP. I.

Observations on the Conquest—account of the changes then introduced—their effects on the kingdom at large, and on Lynn and its vicinity in particular.

The conquest of England by the Normans appears to have been no less complete than those which had been before effected by the Romans, the Saxons, and the Danes. The English grandees were generally stript of their possessions, and their lands divided among the conqueror’s chief favourites and great captains, who then became the nobles of the realm, and from whom are descended most of our present great families. This conquest was obtained much easier than any of those that preceded it. A single battle now determined the fate of the whole country, partly, as was before observed, through the defection, intrigues, and influence of the clergy, most of whom were in the interest of the invader, as he was supported by their holy father the Pope, who had distinguished him by such special marks of his favour as, could not fail of attaching them to his cause.

William’s army consisted of 60,000 men; not all his own subjects, (for his duchy could not furnish and maintain such a force) but made up chiefly of adventurers, or soldiers of fortune, who had engaged in the expedition, on the promise of forfeited lands, in proportion to the numbers they brought with them. Accordingly, some are said to have afterward bestowed on them no less than 700 manors, others 5, 4, 3, 2, and 100, or less; insomuch that all the land in England, if we except the royal demesnes, the church lands, and those annexed to the cities and boroughs, were in no more than about 700 hands, whose wide possessions were again distributed among their numerous vassals, according to the principles of the feudal system, which was now completely introduced and established in England. [328]

In consequence of this change, it became a fundamental maxim, and necessary principle of our English tenures, that the king is the universal lord and original proprietor of all the lands in his kingdom, and that no man doth or can possess any part of it, but what has, mediately or immediately, been derived from him, to be held upon feudal services. This engrafting of the feudal tenure on almost all the land in the kingdom, is said to have been the most important alteration which our civil and military policy then underwent. [329a] The great lords held their lands of the king, by certain services, as all their vassals held theirs also of them. Thus the king had the whole power of the country closely connected with, and dependent upon himself. This state of things was calculated, no doubt, to secure the kingdom from external danger, and may be considered as laying the foundation of that high military character which England afterwards held among its neighbours.

A vast demesne was now set apart for the king, amounting to 1422 manors, together with many other lands which had never been erected or formed into manors. Besides these he had the profits of all his feudal tenures, his worships, marriages, and reliefs; the benefit of excheats, either upon failure of heirs, or forfeiture; the goods of felons and traitors; the profits of his courts of justice; besides many other casualties, which amounted to an immense revenue; insomuch that the Conqueror, as we are informed, had no less than 1060l. 10s. a day, the annual amount of which, allowing for the comparative value of moneys &c. was equal to several millions (perhaps twenty or more) of ours. [329b] So large a revenue might probably justify the saying of Fortescue, that originally the King of England was the richest in Europe.

We are told, that William’s military tenants were obliged, on all occasions, to furnish 60,000 knights, completely equipped, and ready to serve forty days at their own expence. Every seaport also, in proportion to its ability, was obliged to find, in time of danger, one or more ships properly furnished with men and arms; which, joined with such other ships as the king hired were generally an overmatch for the invaders. [330] Thus we see how powerful and formidable England became after the conquest, in its means of defence and resistance, under its Norman sovereigns.

Whilst we are noticing the changes now introduced into this country, it may not be improper to observe, that the feudal system was a favourite branch of the Norman policy, and which they appear carefully to have established wherever they could get a firm footing. They did so, not only in Normandy and England, but also in Sicily, which they appear to have subdued much about the time of which we are now speaking, and which has groaned under the oppression of that System ever since, even to this day. Of the commencement of that order of things in that island, and its present aspect and bearings, a very recent writer gives the following account, which may serve to cast some light on the state of our country at the period now under consideration.

“Roger the Norman, conqueror of Sicily, and contemporary with our William the First, on his accession to the throne, divided the lands of the kingdom into three portions—One third of these was called the demesnes of the Crown, which are administered by the corporation of the royal towns where they are situated; each town, according to the revenue of its demesnial lands, pays to the king a certain income, besides maintaining the police, roads, &c. &c. and the tribute which each territory pays is called the royal patrimony.—The next third part of these lands was distributed by King Roger among his nobles; some of these were fiefs contained within the territory of the demesnial towns, while others had a town of their own, of which the estate or barony formed the territory. Sometimes townships of these baronial towns have estates belonging to them, which are administered by their corporations, called giurati.—The remaining third portion was either distributed among the bishops and mitred abbots, or served to endow the several Convents, which in an age fertile in superstition were so generally established.

“This distribution of property has remained thus ever since the Norman Conquest; and all the noble fiefs, as they are held by a grant in military tenure, are supposed to belong to the crown, and given to a family and their descendants, subject to military service. This Circumstance supposes an absolutely strict entail, which prevents the sale of fiefs without the king’s sanction; (verbo regio;) it supposes also the indivisibility of the fief—hence the rights of promogeniture, which has reduced the younger branches of families to a most miserable state. Thus the lands of the nobles are entailed in their families. Those of the church are attached to it, and the demesne lands are equally so to the corporations, as above-mentioned.” [331]

Of the orders of Society in Sicily, the same writer says—

“Those princes, dukes, marquisses, and barons, who hold estates which have a town, or sufficient population, are called parliamentary barons, and have a right to sit in the assembly of the nobles: all others are called rustic fiefs, and give no right of this kind to their landlords, though they be decorated with a title.—The next order of men are the clergy, who form a distinct assembly or house of parliament, and consists of archbishops, bishops, archimandrites, mitred abbots, &c. The principal of these are younger brothers of the noble families; so that, in fact, the ecclesiastical house of parliament is tied to the lords.—The next order of men consists of a second rank of nobles, who hold fiefs without burghs, or towns, and who, though they have the same splendid titles, have no seat in the parliament. The next order are the burghers of the different towns; these apply to agriculture, to the church, and to the medical and legal professions: then come the artisans and peasants. These are the peasants of the demesne, and those who are the vassals of the parliamentary lords.”

After noticing the multiplied miseries under which the bulk of the people is involved by this wretched order of things, which forms an insuperable obstacle in the way of national happiness and prosperity, our author informs us, that, according to the original constitution of Sicily, the three houses of parliaments have the faculty of granting supplies to the Crown; but the majority of the two houses (he says) are sufficient; by which means the house of commons, or demesnial assembly becomes totally nugatory, and the lords and ecclesiastics, after generously granting the supplies, throw the whole burden of them on the commons. Whatever remonstrances are made, the matter is left to the decision of those who have done the evil, and the mischief is thus perpetuated: [333] for it seems they never think of yielding in the least to the remonstrances of the commons, or complaints of the people.

In Sicily the feudal system exists without its original energies; and it may be said to exist in its very worst state, so as to spend all its force in oppressing beyond measure the middle and lower orders of the community, or great body of the nation, without contributing to the real benefit of any. The consequence is that the people, for the most part, groan hopelessly under their burdens, and seem perfectly indifferent about the issue of the present contest with France. Yet some people seem to wonder at their supineness, and their not rising as one man in defence of their king and country. They might probably have done so, had their rulers been wise, and left them what would have been worth contending for, or defending. When rulers cease to feel for the people, it is not unnatural or unusual for the people also to cease to feel for them. This, perhaps, will apply to many of the recent changes among the European powers.

Beside the feudal system, our Norman conqueror introduced into this country divers other innovations—One of which was the separation of the Spiritual courts from the Civil; which was effected (says Blackstone) in order to ingratiate the new king with the popish clergy, who for sometime before had been endeavouring all over Europe to exempt themselves from the secular power; and whose demands the conqueror, like a politic prince, thought it prudent to comply with, by reason that their reputed sanctity had a great influence over the minds of the people; and because all the little learning of the times was engrossed into their hands, which made them necessary men, and by all means to be gained over to his interests. And this was the more easily effected, because the episcopal sees being then in the breast of the king, he had taken care to fill them with Italian and Norman prelates. This innovation produced very grievous consequences; so that by degrees the rights and privileges of the English clergy were delivered up into the hands of the Pope, who taxed them at his pleasure, and in process of time drained the kingdom of immense treasures: for besides all his other dues, arising from annates, first fruits, peter-pence, &c. he extorted large sums of money from the clergy for their preferments in the church. He advanced foreigners to the richest bishopricks, who never resided in their dioceses, nor so much as set foot upon English ground, but sent for all their profits to a foreign country; nay so covetous was his Holiness, that before livings became void, he sold them provisionally among his Italians, insomuch that neither the king nor his clergy had any thing to dispose of, but every thing was bargained before hand at Rome. [334]

Another grievous innovation, introduced at the same period, consisted in the depopulation of whole countries for the purposes of the king’s royal diversion; and subjecting both them and all the ancient forests of the kingdom to the unreasonable severities of forest laws imported from the continent, whereby the slaughter of a beast was made almost as penal as the death of a man. In the Saxon times, though no man was allowed to kill or chase the king’s deer, yet he might start any game, pursue, or kill it, upon his own estate. But the rigour of these new constitutions vested the sole property of all the game in England in the king alone; and no man was entitled to disturb any fowl of the air, or beast of the field, of such kinds as were specially reserved for the royal amusement of the sovereign, without express licence from the king, by a grant of a chase, or free warren: and those franchises were granted as much with a view to preserve the breed of animals as to indulge the subject. From a similar principle to which, though the forest laws are now mitigated, and by degrees grown entirely obsolete, yet from this root has sprung a bastard slip, known by the name of the game law, now arrived to and wantoning in its highest vigour: both founded upon the same unreasonable notions of permanent property in wild creatures; and both productive of the same tyranny to the commons; but with this difference, that the forest laws established only one mighty hunter throughout the land, the game laws have raised a little Nimrod in every manor. [335]

Another innovation produced by the conquest was, “narrowing the remedial influence of the country-courts, the great seats of Saxon justice, and extending the original jurisdiction of the king’s justiciaries to all kinds of causes arising in all parts of the kingdom. To this end the Aula-regis, with all its multifarious authority, was erected; and a capital justiciary appointed, with powers so large and boundless, that he became at length a tyrant to the people, and formidable to the crown itself. The constitution of this court, and the judges themselves who presided there, were fetched from Normandy: and the consequence naturally was, the ordaining that all proceedings in the king’s courts should be carried on in the Norman [or French] instead of the English language:—a provision the more necessary, because none of his Norman justiciaries understood English; but as evident a badge of slavery as ever was imposed upon a conquered people.” And yet the nation was obliged to submit to it and bear it, for ages. The former plainness and simplicity now gave way to the abstruseness, chicanery, and subtilty, which have ever since so unhappily characterized our legal proceedings. [338a]

Another of the hateful innovations of the same memorable period was, the introduction of the trial by combat, for the decision of all civil and criminal questions of fact in the last resort. This was the immemorial practice of all the northern nations, but first reduced to regular and stated forms among the Burgundi, about the close of the fifth century: and from them it passed to other nations, particularly the Franks and the Normans; which last had the honour to establish it here, though clearly an unchristian, as well as most uncertain method of trial. But it was a sufficient recommendation of it to the conqueror and his warlike countrymen, that it was the usage of their native duchy of Normandy. [338b] This vile remain of ancient barbarism, and foul disgrace of the legal polity of our ancestors, has long ceased to exist in our island.

As the general changes introduced by the conqueror must have affected the inhabitants of Lynn, in common with the rest of their countrymen, the above sketch of them became necessary, in order to give the reader some idea of the state of things here at and subsequent to the conquest. Before and at that period, as has been already observed, Lynn and its neighbourhood formed part of the possessions of Harold, of Stigand archbishop of Canterbury, and of Ailmar bishop of Elmham. All the possessions of the former, of course were forfeited by the conquest. Those of the two others soon followed; for being both Anglo-Saxons, (or Englishmen,) and deemed inimical to the Norman succession, they were both expelled, and their sees filled by foreigners. Ailmar’s power and possessions here were in right of his see, and of his lordship of Gaywode, which had been long attached to that see: those of Stigand were in his own right, or that of his lordship of Rising, and that of the hundred of Freebridge, which he held, (as well as the lordship of the hundred of Smithdon, and many other lordships,) as a lay fee. His possessions in these parts were bestowed by he conqueror on his half brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, in Normandy, whom he created Earl of Kent. On his rebellion afterward against William Rufus, he was deprived of them, and they were bestowed on William de Albini, that king’s butler, whose son, of the same names, was created Earl of Sussex [of this more may be seen in the account of Castle Rising.]—Ailmar’s possessions here went to his successor Arfast or Herfast, who removed the see from Elmham to Thetford, in whose successors they continued for many generations.

Most, if not all the great gentry of England, in these parts, and throughout the whole kingdom, at or within a few years after the conquest, were deprived of their power, stript of their possessions, and completely humbled. Great numbers of them lost their lives under the charge of treason, sedition, or other crimes. Those who escaped with their lives were reduced to poverty, and obliged to occupy such humble stations as they could not one day have thought of without disdain. [340] This memorable revolution, (as such revolutions mostly do,) chiefly affected the higher orders. It affected them, indeed, with a vengeance. The middle classes seem to have felt but little of it, at least compared with their superiors. The lower orders felt it still less, or, perhaps, not at all. They were slaves before, and so they continued for several ages after, seemingly without any material change. Nor does their hard condition appear to have been at all ameliorated till after the civil wars broke out between the rival houses of York and Lancaster. The fatal effects of those wars in reducing the numbers of each party, obliged the leaders (as has been before observed) to turn their attention to the lower orders, that is to the real slaves, great numbers of whom were then emancipated, to fill up the thinned and reduced ranks of their respective armies. And this seems to have been the only good that attended those bloody and destructive wars. It certainly proved of great national benefit, although, like the reformation of Henry VIII, it sprung from no virtuous or honourable motive. The proverb says, It is an ill wind that blows no good; and it may be very safely said, that seldom, if ever, have any calamitous occurrences been known, but what have been productive of some real benefit. This, doubtless, is owing to the overruling hand of providence, and ought to be acknowledged as such.

But though the manumission of great numbers of English slaves took place during those bloody and fatal wars, and also in consequence of the politic and wise measures adopted by Henry VII. Yet it does not appear to have been fully or universally effected, or that slavery was then totally eradicated in England. We find that there were here some slaves in the reign of Henry VIII. and of Edward VI. and even of Elizabeth: [341a] and it may be doubtful, if they had entirely ceased to exist here before the reign of Charles I. and the civil war. They abounded in the parts about Lynn for a very long period; but whether as late as in some other parts of the kingdom is rather uncertain. [341b]—In talking and boasting of our great charter, and of the unwearied and undaunted exertions of our ancient barons and patriots to obtain and enforce it, and how careful they were on every occasion to maintain inviolate the rights and liberties of the people of England, we are seldom aware that a great part of the nation was all the while in actual slavery, and not a soul among the whole host of contemporary patriots and redoubtable zealots for freedom, ever once thinking of pleading their cause, or commiserating their sufferings! So also in more recent times have we been congratulating ourselves on our national virtue and ardent love of liberty and justice, while we were every year dragging thousands and tens of thousands of the poor Africans into west-indian slavery!!

CHAP. II.

Further remarks on the revolutionary effects of the conquest throughout the whole kingdom as well as at Lynn—Catalogue of bishops who formerly bore rule in this Town.

The mighty change effected in this country by the conquest must have been felt at Lynn in common with all other places of a similar description. The great and opulent were doubtless the people who felt it most. [342] As to the middle classes, (if such there were that might properly be so denominated,) it must have affected them much less, and the lower orders very little, or perhaps, not at all. The latter were all slaves before, and most unfeelingly treated by their masters and proprietors; and they could but be slaves still; nor is it likely that they met with worse treatment from their new masters. What might not be hoped from the virtue or justice of the Normans, might yet be expected from their policy; for in that quality they seem not to have been deficient; and it may be reasonably supposed that it would induce them to use the numerous slaves they found here no worse than they had been used by their former proprietors. Thus a great part of the nation, and perhaps the greatest part of it, might not be so very materially affected, or injured, by the Norman conquest, as some would be apt to imagine—if indeed it did not prove, on the whole, a benefit rather than detriment to them. [343]

We must not however imagine or suppose that this revolution bore any resemblance to that which took place in this country above six hundred years afterwards, and which has been justly the fond and proud boast of our countrymen ever since. They were scarcely in any thing alike, except in the names of their respective authors. But William of Normandy must not be compared with William of Nassau; for they were two men of very different and opposite characters: the former came over to subdue and enslave the nation, the latter came as the champion and guardian of its rights and its freedom—one came to rob and destroy, the other to succour and to save—one merited the detestation and execration, the other the esteem, the gratitude, and the benediction of mankind.

Of all the English grandees, who were ruined by the conquest, none were more completely undone than the three great proprietors and lords of Lynn. One of them as has been already observed, was king Harold: of his downfall we need say no more. The other two were archbishop Stigand, and his brother, bishop Ailmar. The former seems to have been the elder brother and head of the family, and was probably of noble birth, and of Danish extraction, as the bulk of his vast possessions lay in East Anglia. Carte says, that it appears from the Domesday book, that he had the best estate of any man in England, except Harold and Edwin: there can be little doubt therefore of his being the head of one of the first families in the kingdom. He was lord of Rising, and of the Hundreds of Freebridge and Smithdon, and also, of divers other extensive districts. He is represented as a man of no great learning, but of eminent natural parts, improved by reflection, exercise, and experience, and directed by a clear head and solid judgment. He had the reputation of being endowed with uncommon capacity for business; and we also hear that he was a person of very great weight and power in the country, of which no doubt can be entertained when his immense wealth is considered, and the vast influence, arising from both his temporal and spiritual dignities. That such a man should be marked out as one of the victims of the Norman revolution, was naturally to be expected: his being an Englishman, and so very opulent and powerful, were sufficient temptations to sacrifice him. But he seems to have conducted himself so warily at that critical juncture, that the Conqueror for sometime appeared at a loss how to proceed against him. At last some frivolous or pretended ecclesiastical misdemeanor was found out, for which he was deprived of his spiritual dignity, under the sanction of the papal authority, by two popish legates, at a council held at Winchester in 1070. This appeared a hard and severe measure: but William, as a politic prince, laid the whole blame or responsibility of it on the then Pontiff, Alexander II. Yet he immediately seized on Stigand’s vast estates in East Anglia and elsewhere, and confined him in prison on a very scanty allowance, where it is said he died, of want, in the course of the same year, and so did not long survive his disgrace, or rather his downfal. His great possessions, in and about Lynn, the Conqueror bestowed on his half brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, in Normandy, whom he created Earl of Kent, and, who then became one of the new masters and lords of Lynn. [346a]

Stigand’s brother, bishop Ailmar, who had still greater power in this town, is supposed to have been deprived, at the same time, and by the same council. It is likely that he too was then immured in a prison, and never released from it to his dying day. Such has often been the fate of men who had attained the highest honours and preferments among their countrymen.—Ailmar was succeeded in the see of Elmham, and in his jurisdiction and possessions at Gaywood and Lynn, by Herfast, one of the conqueror’s chaplains, as Rapin says.—Here it may not be improper, or unacceptable to the reader, to subjoin a List of the names of all the bishops that preceded and succeeded Ailmar, as masters and lords of Lynn, from Felix the Burgundian, first bishop of the East Angles, to Richard Nykke, or Nix, 31st. bishop of Norwich, [346b] who surrendered into the hands of Henry VIII. his authority or dominion over this town, when the name of it was changed from Bishop’s Lynn to King’s Lynn, which it has retained ever since.—Those bishops were,

1. Felix the Burgundian. He was the apostle of the East Angles, among whom his ministry was attended with eminent success, and issued in the conversion of the whole nation: schools were consequently instituted, and numerous places of worship erected throughout the whole country. He was consecrated their bishop in 630, and fixed his seat first, it seems, at Soham in Cambridgeshire, and then at Silthestow, afterwards called Domnoc, and since Dunwich, in Suffolk. He has been represented as very learned and pious. The fame of his uncommon sanctity was so great, that after his death, which happened in 647, he was canonized as a saint, and his festival stands on the 8th of March, in the Romish calendar. (See more of him above at p. [242].)—His immediate successor was Thomas, who had been trained up under the famous Paulinus archbishop of York, to whom he had been appointed deacon. On the expulsion of that metropolitan from his see, Thomas served the same office under Felix, till his death. After presiding five years he died, in 653, and was succeeded by Boniface, who also sometimes goes by other names. He was a native of Kent, a priest of Canterbury, whose archbishop consecrated him, in 653; and dying in 669, he was succeeded by Bisus, or Bosa, who was consecrated by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury. In his time the diocese was divided into two sees, one of which remained at Dunwich, and the other was fixed at North Elmham, in Norfolk, among whose possessions the demesne or lordship of Lynn and Gaywood was included.—The bishops of Elmham, according to the best account we have met with, were the following,

I. Bedwinus, or Baldwinus. He has been spoken highly of as a man of profound learning and exemplary virtue, and author of numerous works (now lost) which confirmed many in the christian faith. 2. Northbertus, or Northbert, succeeded sometime after 679.—(3) Hedulacus, or Hadulac, filled this see in 731; when Bede completed his ecclesiastical History.—(4.) Edelfridus, or Ethelfrith.—(5.) Lamferthus, or Lameferd.—(6.) Athelwalfus, or Ethelwolph, occupied this see in 811.—(7.) Ulfertus, or Alberth: said to attend at the council of Cloveshoe, in Berks, where King Offa proposed erecting a new bishopric at Lichfield.—(8.) Sibba, or Sibban: he sat in 816.—(9.) Hunferth, or Hunferd: was living in 824.—(10.) Humbert, or Humbrit: it was he who crowned king Edmund, or St. Edmund, in 856, with whom he perished in 870, or 871, in opposing the Danes. He too was canonized.—(11.) Wybred, Wyred, or Wilbred: He was set over the two sees of Dunwich and Elmham, which occasioned their being then reunited: the seat was fixed at Elmham.

Bishops of Elmham after the union of the sees.—(1.) Theodred I. He is reported to have been an eye witness of St. Edmund’s corpse being found uncorrupt, 70 or 80 years after his death.—(2.) Theodred, II. surnamed the Good: He was first bishop of London, and then of Elmham; both of which he held till he died, sometime after 962.—(3.) Athulf, or Adulf: succeeded in 966; or, as some think, earlier.—(4.) Alfric or Alfrid: was one of those who signed and confirmed king Edgar’s charter to the abbey of Croyland. He died in 975, at the close of Edgar’s reign.—(5.) Athelstan, Edelstane, or Elstane: He was consecrated the latter part of 975.—(6) St. Algare, or Algarc: he had been Confessor to St. Dunstan archbishop of Canterbury, and promoted to this see in 1012. He afterwards resigned, and retired among the monks of Ely, where he died in 1021.—(7.) Alfwin, or Elfwin, succeeded the same year. He had been keeper or guardian of the body or remains of St. Edmund, and afterwards removed the same from Bury to London. He was also a violent stickler for the monks, or Regulars, in their furious squabbles with the Seculars. He resigned in 1032.—(8.) Alfric II. succeeded, and died in 1038; and was succeeded by—(9.) Alfric III. surnamed the Little, who is said to die in 1139. [349]—(10.) Stigand; (afterwards archbishop) he had been chaplain to king Harold Harefoot; but having obtained this see by simony, which his vast wealth would enable him easily to do, he was afterwards ejected by king Hardicanute, in 1040.—(11.) Grinketel: he held it in commendam with the bishopric of the South-Saxons, during the rest of Hardicanute’s reign. Under the Confessor, Stigand was restored to favour, and promoted to Winchester, and last to Canterbury.—(12.) Egelmar, Ailmar, of Almar: of whom an account has been given already, as well as of his brother Stigand.—(13.) Arfast, or Herfast, chaplain to the Conqueror. He succeeded at Easter, 1070. In compliance with an order of a council held by Lanfranc, that all episcopal sees should be removed from villages to the most eminent cities or towns in the respective dioceses, Herfast translated the see of Elmham to Thetford. He was by birth a Norman, in great favour with the Conqueror, and chancellor of England. He died in 1084; and in 1085 was succeeded by (14.) William Galsagus, de Bellafago, or Beaufo. He also was one of the Conqueror’s favourites, had been his chaplain, and became chancellor of England. He was, like most of that monarch’s great favourites, a person of immense wealth; which at his death, in 1091, was, by his will, divided between his family and see: and this must have contributed not a little to augment the large possessions that were formerly attached to this bishopric. In his time the celebrated survey, called Domesday, was made, in which, at folio 145, is contained an enumeration of the estates then belonging to the bishopric; and at folio 148, is an account of the lands of the said bishop, either in fee or inheritance. As many of the latter were bequeathed to the bishopric, the revenues of the see at that period may nearly be ascertained. All these were alienated in the exchange made by Henry VIII. [350]—After this bishop’s death the see was removed from Thetford to Norwich.

Bishops of Norwich.—1. Herbert Lozinga, who having, through the favour of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, obtained, by grant and purchase, certain lands, called Cowholm, commenced the execution of his favourite plan of building a magnificent cathedral, the first stone of which was laid by him in 1096. He erected a palace also for his residence, on the north side, and a monastery on the south side, which he furnished with 60 monks, all which doings were sanctioned by Pope Paschal II. Herbert was also abbot of Ramsey, and lord Chancellor of England; and moreover a most notorious simoniac, for which the pope imposed upon him some heavy penances, in the doing of which he very notably acquitted himself, and gave good proof how well he was cut out for that kind of business.—Besides the large edifices he erected at Norwich, he also built the two great churches at Yarmouth and Lynn; the latter he dedicated to St. Margaret the Virgin, or, as some say, to St. Mary Magdalen, St. Margaret, and all the maiden saints. A priory was also built by him on the south side of this church. These he is said to have undertaken at the request of the people of Lynn; and yet it seems as if those same people were not otherwise very forward in their encouragements to him; for he was obliged to have recourse to a very ungraceful expedient in order to induce them to hasten their contributions:—to all who would subscribe or contribute towards these erections he offered and granted an indulgence, for forty days; [351] or, in other words, a Licence to commit with impunity any species of wickedness, or all manner of sin and villany, for the space of forty days! It is supposed that this expedient fully answered the bishop’s purpose; for the buildings were soon finished, in a style of superior magnificence. It reflects no credit on the memory of our townsmen of that day, that in order to do some good, or contribute liberally towards the erection of religious edifices in the town, they must be indulged with a licence to commit all manner of crimes. It shews that they were much more attached to evil than good, and liked sin far better than holiness. How much the present population of Lynn excels them, is a question that will not here be discussed.—Bishop Herbert died in 1119 and was buried before the high altar of his new cathedral.

2. Eborard, or Everard, succeeded Herbert, after a vacancy of almost three years. In his time the Jews, as we are told, crucified a boy, named William, who being considered a martyr, and canonized, brought no small gains to the church, by the numerous pilgrimages and offerings made annually on this occasion. Though the truth of this shocking crucifixion story seems more than doubtful, yet the monks managed to procure it general belief, and to get the poor boy (real or fictitious) canonized, under the name of Saint William. Their main object no doubt was to bring grist to the mill; and as that end was amply obtained, it may be said that they received their reward, and did not labour (or rather invent the tale) in vain. This bishop was the founder of the hospital and church of St. Paul in Norwich; and a great benefactor to the monastery which had been endowed by his predecessor. He was deposed, or resigned about 1146, and died at Fountain’s Abbey in Yorkshire, in 1149, and was succeeded by

3. William Turbus, or Turbeville. He was a great stickler for Becket, whose influence, even while in disgrace and exile, drove him sometimes to unwarrantable and perilous lengths; especially when he excommunicated the bishop of London, the Earl of Norfolk and some other nobles, who were disliked by that proud prelate. He died in 1174, and was succeeded the next year, by

4. John of Oxford, who was very differently affected towards Becket, and took part with the king against him, by which he greatly ingratiated himself with his sovereign; who being desirous of having the laws more strictly executed, and a more impartial administration of justice enforced, appointed him, together with the bishops of Ely and Winchester, his three principal justices for the purpose. He built Trinity Church at Ipswich, repaired the damages his cathedral had sustained by fire, in the time of his predecessor, and was a great benefactor to the episcopal convent at Norwich. He died in June 1200, and was succeeded by

5. John de Grey, who was promoted to the see by that great and memorable patron of Lynn, King John, with whom he appears to have been in very high favour, and from whom he procured the liberties of Magna Charta for his diocese. He also obtained from that monarch a charter to make his town of Lynn a free borough, which was dated at Lutgershall, Sept. 14, 1204, the 6th year of that reign. This was the first of the Lynn charters. These concessions the king was induced to grant, as it is said, either to obtain favours, or in return for some he had received. The wealth of this prelate is reported to have been of great service to the sovereign in his troubles; and for various loans he had obtained, he pledged to the bishop his regalia, viz. his great crown, the surcoat, cloak, sandals, gloves, spurs, &c. This bishop built the palace of Gaywood, and so seems to have resided pretty much here, and may be supposed to have acquired among the inhabitants a good portion of popularity. We are also told that he confirmed to the monks of Norwich our church of St. Margaret, and the chapels of St. James and St. Nicholas, and the church of Mintling, together with the tithes of Gaywood, &c. This bishop died at Poictou, in 1214: after which the see was vacant seven years; when

6. Pandulphus, an Italian, was consecrated in 1222. He had been sent to England as legate by the pope, on account of the deposition of archbishop Langton by king John. While at Rome, to have his election to this see confirmed, on his representing that it was greatly in debt, (whether true or false, we know not,) he obtained a grant of the whole first fruits of the clergy in his diocese, for himself and successors; which thenceforth became attached to those prelates, till the time of Henry VIII, and must have considerably augmented the episcopal revenues. He died in Italy, in 1296; but his remains were brought to England for interment, and buried in his cathedral.

7. Thomas de Blandevill succeeded him, and died in 1236, when

8. Ralfo succeeded, and died the next year; of whom as well as the former, nothing remarkable is known to be recorded. His successor was

9. William de Ralleigh, who obtained the bishopric after three years contesting his right. He granted, we are told, an indulgence of twenty days pardon, to all in his diocese who would contribute towards the building of St. Paul’s in London. Hence it appears, as well as from the case of Herbert Lozinga, above noticed, that bishops, as well as popes, in those times, assumed the power of giving a licence to sin with impunity. They must have been rare teachers of morality, who could pretend to promote good works by allowing the people, for a limited time, to run into all possible excesses of riot and evil doing:—and, on the other hand, their intellects must have been in a most unenviable and degraded state, who could accede to the preposterous proposals of such instructors, or patiently listen to such shameless representations. The doctrine of indulgences was afterwards made good use of by Luther and his coadjutors, in their successful struggle against the papal tyranny.—Bishop Raleigh was translated to Winchester, where he died, soon after his induction. He was succeeded by

10. Walter de Suthfield, or Suffield, who was consecrated in 1224. He obtained for the bishopric a charter of free warren to himself and successors. So we may presume that he was himself a sportsman. By the command of Pope Innocent, he drew up a general and particular valuation of all the ecclesiastical revenues in the kingdom; which, after receiving the papal confirmation, was called the Norwich-Inquest; and subsequently became the ratio of clerical taxation. He erected and endowed the Hospital of St. Giles, in Norwich, for poor pilgrims, and died in 1257. He was succeeded the next year by

11. Simon de Waltone, who died in 1265; and was succeeded the same year by

12. Roger de Skerning, in whose time several dreadful affrays happened between the citizens of Norwich and the monks, in one of which the cathedral was burnt. This bishop died in 1278; and was succeeded the same year by

13. William Middleton. The cathedral being partially repaired, he was enthroned at Norwich; and he rededicated the church, in presence of the king and queen and principal nobility, who were assembled on the occasion. He died in 1288; whose successor was

14. Ralph de Walpole, a Marshland man, it seems, and ancestor of the present noble family of the Walpoles. He was translated to Ely, in 1299, and his successor at Norwich was

15. John Salmon, or Salomon. Enlarging or rebuilding the palace at Norwich, and founding the Charnel-house, now the free school, are among the principal works ascribed to him. He died in 1385, and his successor was

16. Robert de Baldock, who resigned shortly after, and was succeeded by

17. William de Ayrminne, who employed himself in enclosing his palace, cathedral, &c. with stone walls, and fortifying then with embattled parapets. He died in 1336; and had for his successor

18. Thomas Hemenhale, who soon resigned this see, and accepted that of Worcester in lieu of it. Then succeeded

19. Anthony de Beck, a man of the most imperious and turbulent temper, who had terrible quarrels with the monks, by whose instigation, as it was thought, he was poisoned by his own servants at his seat of Hevingham, in 1343. His successor was

20. William Bateman, dean of Lincoln. He was a great benefactor to the nunnery of Flixton in South Elmham, and gave the nuns a body of statutes for their regulation; and, in 1347 founded Trinity Hall in Cambridge, for the express purpose of supplying his diocese with persons properly qualified for the discharge of the duties of parochial cures. He died in 1354, at Avignon, while on an embassy to the pope. This prelate was a native of Norwich, but spent much of his time abroad, and chiefly at Rome, till the pope promoted him to this bishopric. So great was his interest with his holiness, that he also obtained for himself and successors, the first fruits, as we are told, of all vacant livings within his diocese, which occasioned, it seems, frequent disputes between him and his clergy. But the clergy were not likely to gain much by disputing with him, for he is represented as “a stout defender of his rights, and one who would not suffer himself to be injured or imposed upon, or his dignity insulted, by any one.” In proof of which, the following anecdote has been related of him by some of our historians:—“Lord Morley, having killed some of the bishop’s deer, infringed upon his manors, and abused his servants who opposed him, was obliged to do penance by walking through the streets of the city with a wax candle of six pounds weight in his hand, and kneel down before the bishop, in the cathedral, and ask his pardon, although the king had sent an express order to the contrary.”—From this anecdote we may safely infer, that this prelate governed his slaves and vassals, the inhabitants of Lynn, with despotic sway. It is said that there was in his time such a dreadful plague in England, and throughout Europe, as scarcely left a tenth part of the inhabitants living; and that it appears from the Chronicle of Norwich, that from the first of January to the first of July 1348–9, 57374 persons, besides ecclesiastics and beggars, died in Norfolk alone. We cannot learn how many of them were of the town of Lynn.—A circumstance that seems to corroborate this extraordinary mortality is, that this bishop instituted and collated 850 persons to benefices vacant at this time. [358] His successor was

21. Thomas Percy, youngest brother of the Earl of Northumberland, though but twenty-two years of age. After erecting the steeple of the cathedral, which had been blown down by a violent wind, and repairing the choir, which had been much damaged, he died, in 1369. The next year he was succeeded by

22. Henry Spencer, or Le Spencer, a prebendary of Salisbury. He was consecrated in March 1370, by the pope in person, which probably contributed not a little to cherish that self importance and haughtiness for which he was so remarkable. In an aid granted through the kingdom to the king’s use, this prelate certified for his diocese, that it contained, in Norfolk 806 parishes, and in Suffolk 515; and each county was accordingly rated. He took a most active part, at the commencement of what is called the grand Schism, in the memorable warfare between pope Urban and his competitor pope Clement: for there were then two popes; two infallible heads of the catholic church! and each reviling and damning the other without mercy, and most bloodily seeking his destruction!! Bishop Spencer was on the side of pope Urban, with whom he was in very high favour. In 1383 that pontiff published a bull, in which he called upon all who had any regard for religion, to exert themselves in its defence, by taking up arms for him, against his rival Clement and his adherents; promising at the same time, for the encouragement of all who would volunteer in this meritorious service, the same pardons and indulgences as had been usually granted to those who had engaged, or lost their lives, in the great eastern crusades, or holy wars. [359] This papal bull met with no small success in England, owing perhaps to France being on the side of pope Clement, and to Urban’s choosing an English ecclesiastic for his general. This was our bishop Spencer, “a young and stout prelate (says Fox) much fitter for the camping cure than for the peaceable church of Christ.”—A most dashing and bouncing high priest he certainly was; of which he gave repeated and abundant proofs, both at home and abroad. This right reverend warrior, and champion of holy church, (at least, of Urban’s portion or moiety of it) having obtained an aid or subsidy, of the English parliament, set out upon his continental expedition against the Clementines at the head of 50,000 foot and 2,000 horse: but he did not bring back quite so many. [360] Our general with his furious crusaders, after they had landed at Calais, to shew their strict regard for propriety and consistency, turned their arms against Flanders; a country that was not favourable to Clement, but had actually declared for Urban. After ravaging the country, taking divers towns, and defeating the Flemish force which had attempted to oppose them, an effectual stop was put to their career, by the French king, Charles VI. at the head of a powerful army. In short the expedition ended disgracefully, as it deserved, and not very unlike certain expeditions to Flanders and Holland in modern times. The great general, bishop Spencer, at his return, found himself somewhat in disgrace; in which he proved more ill-fated than our modern Yorks and Chathams. The king ordered the temporalities of his see to be seized, and several of his officers to be imprisoned. In a year or two, however, his temporalities were restored, and he probably regained the royal favour.—He lived in great splendor, and had divers sumptuous palaces, among which was that at Norwich, another at South Helingham, and another, supposed to be one of the chief of them, at Gaywood by Lynn, the inhabitants of which town had ample experience of his imperious and turbulent spirit. Being one time in town with his retinue, he quarrelled in the street with the mayor (who was supported by the townsmen) on some point of frivolous etiquette. From words the parties came to blows, and a very serious battle ensued, which terminated in the total defeat of the haughty prelate and his company, who were all furiously driven out of town, many of them sorely bruised and wounded. This turbulent high priest afterwards bent his rage against the poor Lollards, and appeared among the first to proceed against them upon the law De hæretico Comburendo. He prosecuted William Sawtre, minister of St. Margaret’s at Lynn, who at first recanted, and afterwards became minister of St. Osith in London, where he relapsed, and was the first that suffered under the above law. This bishop also afterwards persecuted Sir Thomas Erpingham at Norwich, and as a penance, for favouring Lollardism, enjoined him to build the gate, at the entrance of the College precinct, which still goes by his name. Bishop Spencer died in 1406, and was, it seems, the first prelate who quartered the episcopal arms with his own. His successor was

23. Alexander de Totington, who, though immediately elected, was not admitted to his spiritualities till the following year. Some of his manor-houses and palaces having fallen into decay, through the negligence of his predecessors, he is said to have spent large sums in repairing and beautifying them, which constituted, apparently, his most meritorious and memorable deeds. He died in 1413, and was succeeded by

24. Richard de Courtney, chancellor of Oxford, who died suddenly, about two years after, at the siege of Harfleur; from which it would seem that he was a prelate that delighted in war, or another of our fighting bishops, who, at the best, are but unamiable characters. He was succeeded, in 1416, by

25. John de Wakeryng, archdeacon of Canterbury, who was confirmed by the archbishop; which unusual circumstance was owing to the ecclesiastical anarchy still existing, occasioned by the continuance of the grand schism, which was then at its height. During that period there always were two popes, but they were now three, and each prefering a legal claim to the papal chair, as the lineal descendant of St Peter! Three contemporary popes exhibited an unusual and queer spectacle, and would naturally suggest the idea of three heads of the church: and a church, or any thing else, with three heads may pretty fairly be deemed a monster. Even the protestant church of England, however, has had before now two heads; one in London, and the other at St. Germans; which ought to deter its members from bearing too hard on the church of Rome in the above case. Bishop Wakeryng is said to have made considerable improvements in and about his cathedral; which seems to have been among his most praiseworthy performances. It appears that he died in 1425.

Here it may be proper to observe, that in this bishop’s time, and that of some of his predecessors, as well as of his immediate successor, the tranquillity of the town of Lynn appears to have been exceedingly disturbed by the violence of two contending factions, which kept the town in a continual state of discord and distraction, it seems, for the space of about thirty years: as may be gathered from existing documents, or copies of Letters, of that period, still preserved in a MS. History of Lynn, in the possession of Mr. Thomas King of this town. [363] From which we discover that those two contending factions were headed by two of the Aldermen of that time; one of whom was Bartholomy Petipas, who was twice mayor, and the other John de Wentworth, who served that office three times. The cause and nature of the difference that arose between these opposing parties is not easy to develop. That their animosity was bitter and violent is but too obvious, but its source or ground is involved in no small obscurity.

This however is not the place to enter minutely upon the subject, which shall be resumed in another part of the work. This dire contention seems to have begun in 1403, the 7th of Henry IV. and to have lasted till 1434, the 13th of Henry VI. The first of those years were the 3rd. of Wentworth’s mayoralty, between whom and Petipas there evidently existed some serious competition; but whether it was merely a contest for power or superiority in the management of the town, or arose from certain political questions about a reform of abuses, on which the parties disagreed, does not very plainly appear. It is however very well known that questions of a political, as well as theological nature, were then much agitated in different parts of the country, by the enlightened and patriotic disciples of Wickliff, who were anxious to promote every where political as well as ecclesiastical reformation; but that such was actually the case then at Lynn, and the ground of the said disagreement cannot perhaps be positively affirmed. There are indeed some intimations of insufficient or suspicious persons having for sometime been chosen or found among the 24 Jurats that were here annually elected, in a Letter or injunction from Henry VI, addressed, seemingly, to the mayor and burgesses, and dated November 23 in his 13th year, which may indicate that politics had no small share in the said contention, and the persons alluded to might belong to the advocates of reform, or democrats of that day. But this subject we will now drop, [365] and proceed with our episcopal catalogue. John de Wakeryng dying in 1425 was succeeded the following year by

26. William Alnwick, archdeacon of Salisbury, who, having sat ten years, was translated to Lincoln. The principal entrance of the palace is said to have been erected at his expence, and by his arms being united with those of the see, on the west end of the cathedral, he is supposed to have contributed towards the erection of that also.

27. Thomas Brown, or Breus, succeeded him, being translated hither from Rochester, by Pope Eugenius IV. by bull, dated September 19, 1436. We are told that he left a sum towards the payment of the city tax, and exhibitions for poor scholars, prosecuting their studies in the universities, who might be natives of the diocese: so that he seems one of the better sort of those of his order. He died at Hoxne, in 1445.—John Stanbery, a carmelite friar, was chosen to succeed him, but never consecrated, owing to papal interference, then at its height. The real successor therefore was

28. Walter Hart, or Lyhart, master of Oriel College Oxon, who was appointed by the pope, and consecrated February 27, 1446. Paving the cathedral; and erecting the elegant carved roof of the nave, where a hart, or deer couchant, in sculpture, alluding to his name, is seen in several places, are the works ascribed to him. He died in May 1472, and was succeeded by

29. James Goldwell, the Pope’s Prothonotary, who was made bishop by papal provision, and consecrated at Rome by pope Sixtus IV. October 4, 1472. He appears to have been a thorough-paced ecclesiastic, and legitimate son of his Holy Father. Before he left Rome, at the time of his consecration, he is said to have obtained of the Pope a perpetual indulgence, to repair and ornament the cathedral; by which he was empowered to grant, to all persons who frequented it annually, on Trinity Sunday and Lady-day, twelve years and forty days pardon, in lieu of offerings made on the occasion: and having received the sum of 2200 marks, for dilapidation, he finished beautifying the tower; made the elegant stone-fretted roof of the choir; and ornamented the chapels on each side of it; especially that dedicated to the Holy Trinity, in which he was afterwards interred.—We need not wonder that he could do so much, when he was empowered to grant such long indulgences, and such extensive and ample pardons. Wealthy people, who could believe him really possessed of such a power, might be expected to furnish him pretty readily with any sums of money he wanted for his sumptuous buildings and architectural decorations. To such pious frauds and cunning devices, many of our ecclesiastical structures, throughout the kingdom, owe much, perhaps, of their boasted beauty and magnificence. Sad however must have been the case of this country, when such vile tricks could take, or succeed, even with the most enlightened part of its population; and sadder still must be our case, if we are not yet proof against equally vile and palpable impositions.—Bishop Goldwell died in 1498, [370] and the see, on the refusal of Christopher Urswyke, was filled by

30. Thomas Jane, archdeacon of Essex, and Canon of Windsor, who was consecrated in 1499, and died the next year: whose successor was

31. Richard Nykke, or Nix, archdeacon of Exeter, who was elected in 1500. He must have been a man of an unamiable and hateful character. Writers unanimously concur to brand his name with the greatest obloquy. Of his vile persecuting spirit no further evidence need be adduced than the fact, that by his sanguinary judgments, Ayers, Bingy, Norrice, and the amiable Bilney were consigned to the flames, for only, in a peaceable manner, expressing those sentiments, which, as they were sanctioned by conscience, they had a right to suppose were the dictates of truth. He died January 14. 1535. In his time Chorepiscopi were first appointed by act of parliament; their office answering to that of suffragan, which, prior to that period, had been chosen at the discretion of the diocesan. While this bishop bore sway, as master and lord of Lynn, there was among the aldermen here a very remarkable person, whose name was Thomas Miller. He was mayor of the town six or seven years, but not six or seven times; for the first time he was in the office for four years successively, viz. 1520 and the three following years. He was mayor again in 1529, and again in 1546, the last of Henry VIII. That he was a man of spirit and intrepidity appears by his contending with his lord, the bishop, about the right of having the sword carried before him, which his lordship, it seems, objected to, and claimed as his own proper and exclusive right and prerogative. Our mayor and the corporation, not satisfied with this, went boldly to law with their lordly master, on the occasion, and carried their cause; which determined and established the point, and the sword has been carried before their worships, the mayors of Lynn, ever since, without any further demur or litigation. It appears indeed that it would have so happened, in no long time after, had the said law-suit, or legal decision not taken place; for the king, in the course of a few years, thought proper to require of this same bishop the relinquishment and surrender of his supremacy, or dominion over Lynn, for such valuable considerations as his majesty, in his princely wisdom, saw fit to grant or allow him, by way of exchange or remuneration. To this his lordship readily acceded; for he must have known the king too well to suppose that it would have been any way safe for him to have done otherwise. But he died soon after, and before the affair was fully concluded. The actual surrender, therefore, and probably under some new arrangements, was left to be executed by his immediate successor, the no less memorable

32. William Rugg, or, Reppes, fortieth abbot of St. Bennet’s in Holme, and native of North Repps, in this county, where his father, of both his names, is said to have resided. He had his education at Cambridge, and was fellow of Gonvill Hall in that university. After being abbot of St. Bennet’s about six years, he was promoted to this see, by way of recompence, as some seem to think, for the part he had acted among the Cambridge divines, in obtaining from that university the judgment his majesty wished, respecting his marriage with queen Catherine. They might also suppose, that his being a warm and stanch stickler for the king’s ecclesiastical supremacy, and influencing those of his convent to subscribe to the same, in 1534, were additional recommendations that contributed to his promotion. But when we consider the hard terms, or humiliating conditions, on which he was to obtain, or hold his episcopal dignity, (that is, by relinquishing the greatest part of the revenue and possessions attached to his see,) it will not be a very easy matter to prove that any favour was intended by this preferment, and much less a recompence or reward for former services: this was certainly very different from Henry’s wonted manner of using his favourites, and rewarding his approved servants. But this point is too uninteresting to merit any further discussion.—Abbot Rugg being promoted to the see of Norwich in 1536, he, by virtue of a private act of parliament, parted with all the lands of his bishopric, except the site of his episcopal palace in Norwich, to the king, by way of exchange for the revenues belonging to the abbey of Holme and priory of Hickling; which last being soon after alienated by him, the whole income, since his time, appertaining to the see of Norwich, has been only the estate of Holme monastery, which his successors still enjoy, according to the purport of the said act, which, continuing unrepealed, gave occasion to bishop Montague, in the time of Charles I. to subscribe himself, in his leases, “Richard, by divine permission, lord bishop of Norwich, and Head Abbot of St. Benedict’s de Hulm.” The exchange of the lands of the bishopric, for those of the Abbey of St. Benedict’s and priory of Hickling, is said to have been made by Abbot Rugg some months before his election to the see of Norwich, [372] though not before his promotion thither had been predetermined. We are further informed that this prelate alienated from his bishopric, not only the priory of Hickling, but many good manors besides, belonging to the abbey, some by absolute gift, others upon trifling exchanges, and gave long leases, so that, at last, he was unable to maintain the state of the bishopric, and forced to resign, with an annual pension of 200 marks. He seems to have been a singularly improvident and thoughtless prelate, and very different from most of that order, who seldom lose sight of their terrestrial interests, or temporal concerns, whatever they may do as to those that are of an eternal nature. After having resigned the see for the paltry pittance of 200 marks, or, as some say, 200l. per annum, he died in 1550. In allusion to the straits and difficulties to which his manifest and manifold indiscretions had reduced him, one of the members or officers of his household is said to have made the following verses on his resignation:

Poor Will, thou rugged art and ragged all:
Thy abbey cannot bless thee in such fame,
To keep a pallace fair and stately hall,
When gone from thence what should maintaine the same.

First pay thy debts, and hence return to cell,
And pray the blessed saint whom thou dost serve,
That others may maintaine the pallace well;
For if THOU stayst, we all are like to starve.

The convent, or abbey of St. Benedict’s, appears to have been his chief palace, or place of residence, during the whole time of his sustaining the episcopal character: after which it soon went into decay, and ceased to be the residence of his successors; with whom however we have no further concern, as they were no longer the temporal lords and masters of Lynn. Here therefore ends this episcopal catalogue; which exhibits a pretty long list of names, though but few among them appear to have merited the praise and benediction of their contemporaries, or the veneration and imitation of posterity.

CHAP. III.

State of Lynn previously and subsequently to its becoming a corporate-town, or free borough, with general remarks on that event, and on the progressive state of society in the towns and cities of this country, as well as at Lynn, in those times.

It is difficult to ascertain the exact state of this town, or the nature of its police, and the social condition of its inhabitants, not only before and at the Conquest, but also for a good while after, any further than that its population appears to have then consisted chiefly, if not entirely, of the bishop’s slaves or vassals, governed by such agents or officers as he thought proper to appoint, whose administration as may be reasonably presumed, would not always be of the mildest, or most equitable and unexceptionable description. Had there been now in existence regular and authentic records of the affairs of the town, in those days, we should probably discover that its police, at least the spirit of it, bore but too much resemblance to our present West Indian jurisprudence. Slaves, in those ages, seem to have constituted the bulk of our population; and were, in all probability, the offspring of the lower orders of the original inhabitants, whose lives had been spared, when the Anglo-Saxons over-run and conquered the country, on condition of submitting to perpetual servitude. Such seems to have been the origin of those slaves of different descriptions which formerly abounded in this country for many ages. These, in country places, were the cultivators of the soil, or tillers of the ground; and in the towns, they were the tradesmen, mechanics, artificers, and labourers. In short, both in the towns and in country places all useful employments were occupied by them. As to their masters, the nobility, gentry, and every description of military men, who constituted the great or main body of reputed freemen, they were all above engaging in any such employments. War and the chace were the only occupations that were deemed worthy of them; and there lay the whole stock or sum of their knowledge and acquirements. Literature of every kind they usually set at nought; scorning to learn so much as to write their own names, as an attainment that would be too degrading for an English gentleman. Under such beings, how unenviable, miserable, and deplorable must have been the condition of the enslaved or unfree part of the community.

Of the original, low, and servile state of the inhabitants of our English, and other European towns, and their progress from thraldom to freedom, no one has perhaps given a juster account than Dr. Adam Smith, in the second volume of his celebrated Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He there observes that the inhabitants of cities and towns, after the fall of the Roman Empire, were not more favoured than those of the country.

“They consisted, indeed, of a very different order of people from the first inhabitants of the ancient republicks of Greece and Italy. These last were composed chiefly of the proprietors of lands, among whom the public territory was originally divided, and who found it convenient to build their houses in the neighbourhood of one another, and to surround them with a wall, for the sake of common defence. After the fall of the Roman empire, on the contrary, the proprietors of land seem generally to have lived in fortified castles on their own estates, and in the midst of their own tenants and dependants. The towns were chiefly inhabited by tradesmen and mechanics, who seemed in those days to have been servile, or very nearly of servile condition. The privileges which we find granted by ancient charters to the inhabitants of some of the principal towns in Europe, sufficiently shew what they were before these grants. The people to whom it is granted as a privilege, that they might give away their own daughters in marriage without the consent of their lord, that upon their death, their own children, and not their lord, should succeed to their goods, and that they might dispose of their own effects by will, must, before those grants, have been either altogether, or very nearly in the same state of villanage with the occupiers of land in the country. They seem, indeed, to have been a very poor, mean set of people, who used to travel about with their goods from place to place, and from fair to fair, like the hawkers and pedlers of the present times. In all the different countries of Europe then, in the same manner as in several of the Tartar governments of Asia at present, taxes used to be levied upon the persons and goods of travellers, when they passed through certain manors, when they went over certain bridges, when they carried about their goods from place to place in a fair, when they erected in it a booth or stall to sell them in. These different taxes were known in England by the names of passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage. Sometimes the king, sometimes a great lord, would grant to particular traders, to such particularly as lived in their own demesnes, a general exemption from such taxes. Such traders, though in other respects of servile condition, were upon this account called Free-traders. They in return usually paid to their protector a sort of annual poll tax. In those days protection was seldom granted without a valuable consideration, and this tax might, perhaps, be considered as compensation for what their patrons might lose by their exemption from other taxes. At first, both those poll-taxes and those exemptions seem to have been altogether personal, and to have affected only particular individuals, during either their lives, or the pleasure of their protectors. In the very imperfect accounts which have been published from Domesday-book, of several of the towns of England, mention is frequently made, sometimes of the tax which particular burghers paid, each of them, either to the king, or to some other great lord, for this sort of protection; and sometimes of the general amount only of all these taxes.” [377]

“That part of the king’s revenue which arose from such poll-taxes in any particular town, used commonly to be lett in farm, during a term of years for a rent certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county, and sometimes to other persons. The burghers themselves frequently got credit enough, to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort which arose from their own town, they becoming jointly and severally answerable for the whole rent.”

In return, being allowed to collect it in their own way, and to pay it into the king’s exchequer by the hands of their own bailiff, they would be altogether freed from the insolence of the
king’s officers; a circumstance in those days of no small importance.

“At first, the farm of the town was lett to the burghers, in the same manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only. In process of time, however, seems to have become the general practice to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent certain, never afterwards to be augmented. The payment having thus become perpetual, the exemptions, in return for which it was made, naturally became perpetual too. Those exemptions, therefore, ceased to be personal, and could not afterwards be considered as belonging to individuals as individuals, but as burgesses of a particular burgh, which, upon this account, was called a Free-burgh, for the same reason that they had been called Free-burghers or Free-traders. Along with this grant, the important privileges above mentioned, that they might give away their own daughters in marriage, that their children should succeed them, and that they might dispose of their own effects by will, were generally bestowed upon the burghers of the town to whom it was given. The principal attributes of villanage find slavery being thus taken away from them, they now, at least, became really free in our present sense of the word Freedom.—Nor was this all. They were generally at the same time erected into a commonality, or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates and a town-council of their own, of making bye-laws for their own government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, by obliging them to watch and ward; that is, as antiently understood, to guard and defend those walls against all attacks and surprises, by night as well as by day. In England they were generally exempted from suit to the hundred and country courts; and all such pleas as should arise among them, the pleas of the crown excepted, were left to the decision of their own magistrates.” [379]

For the origin of corporate towns, in this country, we are generally referred to the times of which we are now treating, that is, the ages subsequent to the Conquest; and yet it seems to be very evident from the old book called The Mirrour, that there existed here some towns of that description even as early as the days of Alfred: [380] but they were probably few, and disregarded afterward, if not entirely disannulled; till a good while after the accession and establishment of the Norman dynasty: nor can we learn scarcely any thing of the cause and object of their formation, or the nature and principles of their constitutions. The case is otherwise as to those corporations formed since the Conquest; which seems to apply to all those that now exist in this country: it is not so difficult to find, or make out, how and why they were formed; and it is with them only that we have here any concern. Before they sprung up the feudal system was in its full and utmost vigour; and the power of the country was divided between the sovereign and the barons, or great lords; and the latter were sometimes an over match for the former. As a counter-balance or check to the formidable and enormous power of the barons, the incorporation of the great towns and cities seems chiefly to have been resorted to, or adopted. At least this appears to have been the case as far as any good policy, and not mere caprice, had any share in the business: for justice and humanity, or a desire to enlarge the liberty, and promote the welfare of the people were totally out of the question. These were motives too sublime and godlike to enter into the contemplation of the English kings and courtiers of those days.

But the said measure, whatever might be its cause and object, or the motive for its adoption, appears to have produced very salutary effects: for by forming cities and towns into corporations, and conferring on them the privileges of municipal jurisdiction, the first check was given to the overwhelming evils of the feudal system: and under their influence freedom and independence began to peep forth, from the rigours of slavery, and the miseries of oppression. To be free of any corporation, however, was not then, as at present, merely to enjoy some privilege in trade, or to exercise the right of voting on particular occasions, but it was to be exempt from the intolerable hardships of feudal service; to have the right of disposing both of person and property, and to be governed by laws intended to promote the general good, and not to gratify the ambition and avarice of individuals. These laws, however rude and imperfect, tended to afford security to property, and encourage men to habits of industry. Thus commerce, with every ornamental and useful art, began first in corporate bodies to animate society. But in those dark ages force was necessary to defend the claims of industry; and such a force the municipal societies possessed; for their towns were not only defended by walls and gates, vigilantly guarded by the citizens, but oftimes at the head of their fellow freemen in arms, the mayor, aldermen and other officers, marched forth in firm array, to assert their rights, defend their property, and teach the proudest and most powerful baron, that the humblest freeman was not to be injured with impunity. It was thus the commons learned and proved they were not objects of contempt; nay, that they were beings of the same species as the greatest lords. [381]

In this country the king is said to be the fountain of honour; and such he was to the incorporated towns and cities. From him they derived their chartered and municipal privileges, and to him they owed their emancipation from their former bondage, or manumission from feudal servitude. Though these royal acts appear to have proceeded from no generous or noble motives, such as the love of justice, or a regard for liberty, but rather from a selfish and sordid policy; yet, as they proved of vast benefit to the inhabitants of those towns and cities, they strongly attached them to the throne, and greatly added to the power and resources of the sovereign. The aversion and contempt manifested by the nobles towards this new body of freemen, tended to promote still further their attachment and subserviency to the court. The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not only as of a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves, almost of a different species from themselves.

“The wealth of the burghers never failed to provoke their envy and indignation, and they plundered them on every occasion without mercy or remorse. The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords. The king hated and feared them too; but, though perhaps he might despise, he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers. Mutual interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and the king to support them against the lords. They were the enemies of his enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure and independent of those enemies as he could. By granting them magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, he gave them all the means of security and independency of the barons, which it was in his power to bestow. Without the establishment of some regular government of this kind, without some authority to compel their inhabitants to act according to some certain plan or system, no voluntary league of mutual defence could either have afforded them, any permanent security, or have enabled them to give the king any permanent support. By granting the farm of their town in fee, he took away from those whom he wished to have for his friends, and, if one may say so, for his allies, all ground of jealousy and suspicion, that he was ever afterwards to oppress them, either by raising the farm rent of their town, or by granting it to some other farmer.” [383]

The armed force, with which the towns now furnished themselves, must have produced a very material change in the state of the kingdom. This new order of warriors, or trained bands of the towns, seem not to have been inferior to those of the country; and as they could be more readily assembled on any emergency, they are said to have frequently had the advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords. In some parts of the continent they became so powerful and successful as to subdue the nobles in their vicinity, and enable the cities to which they belonged to form themselves into independent republicks. But in England, the cities and burghs had no opportunity to become entirely independent. They became, however, so considerable, as Dr. Smith observes, that the sovereign could impose no tax upon them, beside the stated farm-rent of the town, without their own consent. They were, therefore, called upon to send deputies to the general assembly of the states of the kingdom, where they might join with the clergy and the barons in granting, upon urgent occasions, some extraordinary aid to the king. Being generally, too, more favourable to his power, their deputies seem, some times, to have been employed by him as a counterbalance, in those assemblies, to the authority of the great lords. [384] Hence, as it seems, the origin of the representation of burghs in our parliaments.

However useless or objectionable our modern burghs or corporate towns may be, it must be allowed that they were originally productive of no inconsiderable national advantages. In them, as has been observed by the writer last mentioned, order and good government together with the liberty and security of individuals, were established at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every kind of violence. That industry also, which aims at something more than necessary subsistence was found in them before it was commonly practised, or did exit among the country farmers.

“If in the hands of a poor cultivator, oppressed with the servitude of villanage, some little stock should accumulate, he would naturally conceal it, with great care, from his master, to whom it would otherwise have belonged, and take the first opportunity of running away to a town. The law was, at that time, so indulgent to the inhabitants of towns, and so desirous of diminishing the authority of the lords, over those of the country, that if he could conceal himself there, from the pursuit of the lord, for a year, he was free for ever. Whatever stock therefore accumulated in the hands of the industrious part of the inhabitants of the country, naturally took refuge in cities, as the only sanctuaries in which it could be secure to the person that acquired it.” [385]

Thus it appears the cities and towns were then replenished with inhabitants from the industrious and most valuable part of the population of the country, and not, as is too often the case in our time, from the most idle, profligate, and worthless.

From what has been already said of the motive or policy that seems to have given birth to our burgh-system, it might naturally be expected that those princes, who lived upon the worst terms with their barons, would be the most ready and active promoters of it, and the most liberal in their grants of municipal immunities. This, at least, appears to have been the case: and we find our king John, for example, and we may add, his son, and successor, Henry III. were most munificent benefactors to those towns; of which Lynn, may be mentioned as one notable instance. This town owes, to those two sovereigns, its political redemption, or elevation to the rank of a corporate town, or free borough. The era of its arriving at this high, and proud distinction, was the 13th century; whereas it was, before that period, the miserable abode of a horde of slaves, the vassals of the lord bishops of the see in which it is situated.

But though Lynn acquired then the rank and denomination of a free burgh, it does not appear, that it also became possessed of equal freedom from baronial domination, and feudal vassalage, with all the rest of our corporate towns; or, that it actually arrived at that state or degree of liberty, for a very long while after, even till the reign of Henry VIII. about 300 years after it had been first declared a free burgh by king John and his successor. The time when it acquired the name of King’s Lynn, seems, therefore, to be the true era of its actual, and entire liberation from its former feudal encumbrances. Lynn then is a place where the memory of the last Henry ought to be held dear, and where he should be commemorated as one of its best benefactors. These, however, are circumstances, not generally adverted to; but they seem to be real matters of fact, and may deserve here some elucidation.

King John, granting to Lynn its charter of incorporation at the instance of bishop Grey, who had so much interest with him, and to whom he had very great obligations, was not likely to attempt to deprive him of his baronial rights, or supreme power and jurisdiction, in this town: nor do we know that the bishop was at all disposed to relinquish the same. We accordingly find an express clause in the royal charter, saving to the said bishop and his successors, the liberties, &c. which had previously belonged to the bishops of Norwich. That this was understood as securing to the bishops their former rights and authority in this town, may be inferred from the general conduct of the succeeding prelates for many generations, who seem to have been uniformly striving to retain and perpetuate the said rights and authority, and keep the inhabitants in their original state of subjection to them. Nor did the mayor and corporation appear, at all, disposed to the point with their lordships, except in very few instances; as in the time of bishops Spencer, Wakeryng, and Nix, already noticed. There seems, also to have been some stir, of the same sort, made in the time of bishop Hart, or Lyhart, in the year 1446, and the corporation, probably, complained, or appealed to the king, (Henry VI.) who then visited this town, and seems to have favoured the cause of the corporation; for he is said to have ordered the sword to be carried before the mayor. But the bishop would not long submit to this royal order, for the very next year he had the sword carried before himself, as formerly, the mayor following, as one of his retinue or municipal officers. [387]

On the whole, therefore, it seems pretty evident that though Lynn became a corporate town, and was declared a free burgh as early as the beginning of the 13th century, yet it was not entirely freed from the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop, and the hard yoke of feudal domination, and so did not attain to equal liberty and independence with the generality of our English boroughs till a good part of the 16th century had elapsed. We accordingly find that the mayor and corporation, in the mean time, or during most part of it, seemed perfectly ready to approve as well as profess themselves the lordly prelate’s humble tenants and devout bedesmen; giving him the most explicit and solemn assurance, “that he should find in them as lowly tenants as any that longed to him within his lordships,” and that their bodies as well as goods were entirely at his service, &c. agreeably to the tenour of the above memorable letter to bishop Wakeryng. [388]—We may therefore venture to affirm that this town was, at most, but partially liberated from feudal vassalage, till the period above specified; that is, within these 300 years; before which the mayors of Lynn appeared, or might justly be considered, as the bishops’ head-men, chief bailiffs, or slave drivers; and the aldermen as so many underlings, or petty officers, implicitly executing his lordship’s paramount orders or commands.—Though the Charters might sometimes be thought to entitle his worship and his brethren to greater independence and a higher character, yet till then it does not seem that they were enabled to assume their proper dignity and consequence. The bishops being so powerful here, took care always to manage so as to thwart and baffle all their attempts. Nor did there seem to be any prospect of their succeeding in obtaining their proper station while the bishop continued to retain a paramount sway and uncontrolled power in the town. This the king, probably saw: and it might be one, if not the chief reason of his requiring the bishops, Nix and Rugg, to relinquish their oppressive jurisdiction here. However that might be, it is certain that his majesty deserved well of this corporation: and whatever their ideas or feelings may have been, or may now be, on this point, it must be said, that they ought to consider Henry among the very chief of their royal benefactors; with whom such princes as Charles and James the second, can, surely, bear no comparison; to whom, nevertheless, statues have been here erected!! [389]

CHAP. IV.

Further observations on the history of Lynn during the period under consideration—probable state of the town, as to its internal police and municipal economy previously to its being declared a free burgh and receiving its first royal charter—changes resulting from that event—statement of subsequent occurrences.

It has been already observed that Lynn was a place of considerable trade, and of growing importance and opulence, at and before the Conquest. Afterward its trade kept rapidly increasing; and in the reign of Richard I. it was become a place of distinguished eminence, insomuch that it was called by William of Newburgh, who lived at that time, “a noble city, or a city of note for its trade and commerce.” [390] Foreign merchants had then a regular established connection and intercourse with this town, and their ships and sailors frequented it in great numbers. A considerable body of Jews also had settled here, and must have been among the most active and useful part of its population; which further corroborates the report of its being in those days a place of no small commercial note and consequence, for those people were not likely to settle, in any great numbers, except in places of that description. [391] Indeed it seems pretty clear and certain that both in the reign of Richard and that of his brother and successor John, Lynn ranked very high among the trading towns of this kingdom, in point of commercial importance: and it is recorded upon undoubted authority, that in the sixth year of the last of those two reigns, (the date of our first royal charter) the tax or tallage of the king at Lynn, amounted to 651l. whereas that of London at the same time amounted only to 836l. 12s. 6d. [392] From which we may infer that the revenue which the crown then derived from the trade of this town, was more than two thirds of what it derived from that of London; and consequently that the trade itself of this town did in the mean time bear the same proportion to that of the metropolis; which may be presumed to have been the case of very few places, if any, besides in the kingdom.—Lynn being allowed to have a mint, or mints for the coining of money, belonging to the king and the bishop, [393a] has been deemed another proof of the flourishing state of the town at that period.

Of the government of Lynn, or its municipal economy in those times, very little is known, except that it appears to have been under the management of an officer who bore the name of provost, who doubtless was nominated by the bishop, and acted as his bailiff or deputy; but whether he was elected annually or held his office for a longer or shorter term, or during the pleasure of his master, seems rather uncertain. He was, however, the chief magistrate of the town, and had, of course, other officers assisting and acting under him, like our chief magistrates of more modern times. It is very provable that the order of things in this town was not so materially changed by king John as some may imagine. The chief alteration apparently was, that the town now ranked among those incorporated by royal charter, was consequently declared a free burgh, had its burgesses exempted from tolls, &c. in all parts of England, but London; and finally, had its chief magistrate denominated mayor, instead of provost, [393b] a circumstance, probably of no mighty consequence, or real benefit to the community, though highly gratifying, perhaps, to the pride and vanity of the corporation. The real difference, however, between a mayor and a provost, seems to be very little, if any thing, more than that between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The former indeed is generally taken to be the highest and most honourable appellation, and therefore our corporations naturally prefer it to the other, as the title of their head man, or chief magistrate. After all, the inferiority of the provost does not seem always perceivable; and nobody, perhaps, would deem the lord Mayor of York as superior in dignity to the lord Provost of Edinburgh.

The smiles and favours of royalty are always gratifying to most people: those of king John were so, no doubt, to his Lynn subjects, and may be supposed to have confirmed them more than ever in their attachment to him, which appears to have continued strong and steady afterwards during the remainder of his reign. Of the worth and merit of that attachment, his majesty seemed duly sensible: as a proof of which, they received from him in return, some very flattering and lasting tokens, beside the immunities and privileges specified in his charters; especially the silver cup which is still in being, and shewn to strangers and others as a great curiosity. It is an elegant double-gilt, embossed, and enamelled cup and cover, weighing 73 ounces, and of exquisite workmanship, and shews the uncommon skill and ingenuity of some our silver-smiths of that period, who were probably of the monkish order, as our best artists, as well as most renowned scholars, were then chiefly to be found within the solemn precincts of our monasteries.

The sword, which is usually carried before our mayors, has been also considered as another mark or token of king John’s favour to this town; but this appears a very questionable matter. This weapon, which has a silver mounting, the king is said to have taken from his side, and given to the corporation, to be carried before the major: but it does not appear that there was a sword at all carried before our mayors as early as the reign of king John, or even for a long time after. If such a ceremony was really observed here before the reign of Henry V. or of Henry VI. it must seemingly have been appropriated solely to the great lords of the place, the bishops of Norwich, who appear, all along to have claimed, that honour as their own peculiar, and exclusive prerogative: the mayors having no share in it, but only as they followed their masters, the bishops, and formed a part of their retinue. Bishop Gibson, in his additions to Camden, observes that the present sword, though said to have been given by king John, was really the gift of Henry VIII. after the town came into his possession, and he changed their burgesses into aldermen. John’s charter does not mention the sword, but that granted by Henry expressly says, that he granted them a sword to be carried before their mayor. As to the inscription on the blade of the present sword, purporting its being the gift of king John, it proves nothing, being apparently the unauthorized contrivance of two forward fellows of the town, a sword cutler and a school-master, as late as the reign of queen Elizabeth. [395] But, however improbable it may be that the said sword was ever the property of king John, and given by him as a present and mark of his royal and special favour to this corporation, yet there does not seem to be any just reason for entertaining similar doubts respecting the cup before-mentioned. The only circumstance relating to the cup which one would be inclined to deem doubtful, or rather incredible, is a certain sly insinuation, which has been sometimes heard, that it was a part of a parcel of stolen goods, which his majesty, while on a visit at Walsingham, contrived to pilfer from that celebrated abbey, and coming afterward to Lynn, made a present of it to the corporation.

Lynn seems to have paid very dearly for the said king’s favours. Camden, in his account of this town observes, that it enjoys very large immunities, which its inhabitants “purchased of king John with the price of their own blood, spent in the defence of his cause:” alluding, probably, to the powerful assistance they afforded him in reducing the disaffected barons of this county, whose subjugation proved an arduous undertaking, and whom he afterwards severely chastised. The assistance they rendered to this sovereign consisted not only in recruits for his army, or a strong and resolute body of landsmen, but also in sailors and ships for his naval operations: hence Lynn and Yarmouth are mentioned by Carte among the principal places that furnished his majesty with a fleet to oppose that of France on a certain occasion. [396] In short, the good people of this town appear to have assisted that memorable monarch to the utmost of their ability, or in all the ways, and by all the means that were in their power. He, on the other hand, is said to have been very partial to them, and deemed them so trustworthy, and their town so secure a place, that he deposited there, for some time his crown and regalia, and his most valuable treasures; but took them away at his last visit, and lost them all, soon after, in crossing the Wash, at an improper place, or improper time; which he laid so to heart that it hastened his death, which took place a very short time after at Newark. There is indeed no small disagreement among our historians in their accounts of king John after his last departure from Lynn. Some represent him as crossing the Wash, or rather the Ouse, then called Wellstream, at the Cross Keys; others represent him as crossing it at Wisbeach, and the latter seems to be the truth. Some, again, ascribe the illness which terminated his life, to poison, administered by a monk of Swineshead; others ascribe it to vexation for the loss of his treasures; while others assure us that it is to be ascribed to neither of these causes, but that he was ill before that disaster of losing his treasures befel him. Nay, some have alleged, or suggested, that his last illness originated at Lynn, and was occasioned by his intemperate living during his stay here. In accounts different and contradictory, it is no easy task to distinguish truth from fiction. It seems however to be pretty well established that the said king left Lynn on the 11th of October, 1216, was at Wisbeach on the 12th, at Sleaford on the 15th, and at Newark on the 18th, where he died the very next day: but the story of the poison seems very doubtful and even improbable; nor does that concerning the loss of his crown and treasures seem perfectly clear and indubitable. [398]

Even the fact that Lynn had been the depository of the king’s treasures, with his crown and regalia, during his absence from these parts, and till he removed them at his last departure, becomes very doubtful, or rather quite improbable, if we believe Rapin’s assertion, from M. Paris, that the king’s great competitor, the Dauphin, not long before, and within that same year, had actually reduced Lynn, and made the whole county, as well as those of Suffolk and Essex tributary to him. In that case, those treasures, &c. if deposited here, must inevitably have fallen into the Dauphin’s hands, and so be entirely lost to the king. We must therefore either conclude that the alleged fact of Lynn having been the depository of the said treasures, for any length of time, is unfounded, or that the said assertion, that Lynn had been that year taken by the Dauphin, is so. But as these matters are not very interesting, we will now drop them, and also our account of king John for the present.

After the death of John, and in the reign of his son and successor, Henry III. the people of Lynn, at one time, seem to have sided with the malcontents of that period, and so forfeited their chartered rights: but their defection was of no long duration; they returned to their duty with every appearance of contrition, and soon gave full proof of the ardour, as well as the unfeignedness of their loyalty. Camden says that they “purchased their lost liberties of Henry III. not without blood, when they sided with him against the outlawed barons, and unluckily engaged them in the Isle of Ely. An account whereof we have in the book of Ely, and in Matthew Paris.” [399a] The battle here alluded to was fought somewhere about Littleport, where the Lynn volunteers of that day were very roughly handled by their opponents, and lost a considerable number of their people; of which mention has been made by several of our historians. In the 8th and 9th years of that king’s reign, licence was granted to foreign merchants to come with safety to the fair of Lenn; and in the 11th year a talliage was granted to the king by the bishop. The oath of the burghers then was, “You shall faithfully pay your talliage made by the lord (bp.) at his will, of all your chattels’ of your own property, whatever they are, and of the chattels of your wife, and all that is your due to pay.” [399b] Thus payment was made upon oath; but the tax was granted to the king by the bishop, without the concurrence of the burghers; and also assessed and levied by him at his will, without check or control. In such a case, and under such circumstances, it might be reasonably supposed there would be some misdoings, and not a few causes of complaint, and that misunderstanding would arise between his lordship and his Lynn vassals, which might lead to very serious results. That it really did so happen appears from authentic documents.

Sometime after the above taxation, the people or burgesses of Lynn, dissatisfied, it seems, with the arbitrary and oppressive proceeding of their lord, the bishop, in that instance, and questioning his right to tax them at will, or without their consent, took upon them to tax themselves without consulting him, as well as to elect a mayor also without his permission. This his lordship greatly resented, as absolutely illegal and highly criminal: and he also, very sorely felt it, no doubt, as deeply affecting his own baronial claims here, or endangering his feudal dominion. He accordingly proceeded against them in the ecclesiastical court, and had them all excommunicated. In that grievous dilemma, and from so arbitrary and galling a sentence, they appealed to the king’s justices at Westminster, before whom the affair underwent a legal investigation: of which, and its result, the following account is given by Parkin.

“In the 8th. of this king (Henry III.) a fine was levied, at Westminster in Trinity term, before Robert Lexington, William de York, Ralph de Norwich, William de Lisle, Adam Fitz-William, and Ralph de Rokele, the king’s justices, between the mayor and burgesses, querents, and Thomas Blundevile, bishop of Norwich, deforcient. The Mayor &c. complained, that the bishop had impleaded them in a court christian (ecclesiastical or spiritual court) and had excommunicated them, because they had created a mayor among themselves, and had taxed and talliaged themselves, in the said burgh without his assent; and it was agreed between them in the said court, that the bishop should grant for himself and successors, and his church of Norwich, that the said burgesses, for the future, may chuse and create to themselves a mayor, whomsoever they pleased of their own body, on this condition, That immediately after his election, or creation, they should present him to the bishop and his successors, wherever they should be in the diocese of Norwich; who on the presentation should be admitted by the bishop without any contradiction: and for this fine and concord, the mayor and burgesses grant for themselves, their heirs and successors, that whosoever shall be so created and elected mayor by them, shall promise on his good faith and fealty, by which he is engaged to the bishop, and his successors, that he will observe all things that belong to his office, as long as he shall continue therein, and preserve, as much as is in his power, the liberties of the church of Norwich. This agreement and fine was made in the presence of the king, who consented to it. This king, as appears from many instances, sate frequently in the court of king’s bench at the head of his justices.” [401]

It does not appear from the above account how the taxation or assessment business was then settled; but it seems most probable that it was taken out of the hands both of the bishop and the burgesses, and committed to the management of certain officers appointed by the crown. It is likely indeed that that point had been previously settled, and that the names of the first officers, or assessors, are still preserved: for we are told that “in the 17th. of the said reign, (which was the year preceding that of the above trial) Thomas de Milton, and Warin, son of Imbert, were named by the king, to assess the talliage, and all the demeans of the see of Norwich.” [402] This point therefore might not come under discussion in the above trial at Westminster. But the case of creating, or choosing a mayor, seems to have been there very carefully investigated. The result was (as above stated) that the right of the burgesses, to elect a mayor from among themselves, was fully established; on the express condition, however, that, immediately after his election they should present him to the bishop, wherever he should be within the diocese; who on his part was to receive him without any refusal, disapproval, or, contradiction.

From the preceding statement one would be apt to conclude, that the right of the burgesses to choose a mayor, independently of the bishop’s will and pleasure, was now fully settled and that his lordship would no longer presume to interfere, either directly or indirectly, on that occasion. But it cannot be affirmed that the event warrants that conclusion. The lust of power is a strong passion, and not very soon or easily subdued. The bishops having so long borne uncontrolled sway in the direction and management of every thing in this town, it was not to be expected that they would be very ready to resign or relinquish it. The mayors here from the first, it seems, were called The bishop’s men, and their lordships appeared always desirous to perpetuate the appellation, or, at least, to do all in their power to prevent its becoming inapplicable. Though the words of charters, the opinions of judges, and even the declarations of kings, might appear against them, yet they were scarcely ever at a loss for ways and means to surmount or evade all such difficulties, and secure their own beloved power and preponderance. So the case seems to have been at Lynn for a very long period. Neither the provision of charters, the verdict of judges, nor the orders of princes, could effect any material or lasting diminution of the exorbitant power of the bishop over this town, till the 16th century. It appeared like an inveterate evil, or incurable malady, until it felt the royal touch of Henry VIII. when it gave way at once, and underwent a radical and perfect cure.

As to the above agreement between the contending parties at Westminster, it does not appear that the bishops thought proper long, if at all, to act in compliance with it, and so refrain from any further interference in the election of appointment of a chief magistrate. This must have sat uneasy on the minds of the corporation, and they would naturally, and perhaps repeatedly complain to their sovereign against so oppressive an infringement of their municipal rights. Even the king himself also would feel it as an insult offered to him, as he was personally present when the agreement was made, and had sanctioned it by his own express approbation. On this ground we may account for that clause in the charter which he granted to our burgesses in the 52nd year of his reign, in which he not only confirms their former liberties, but also allows them to choose a mayor of themselves, without presenting him to the bishop. This last exemption from a former obligation and customary observance, seems plainly to indicate that the bishop had taken some such undue advantage of his power and influence as was before suggested; of which his majesty now thought proper to signify his entire disapprobation, by discharging the burghers from every obligation to pay his lordship any further regard, in their future choice or appointment of a chief magistrate. This the bishop must have felt somewhat mortifying. But as his feudal jurisdiction here still continued unabolished, it was not likely he would be long at a loss to find means to evade the force or operation of that humiliating clause, and secure or reestablish his wonted preeminence. That it actually did so happen, appears but too evident by all that we know of the subsequent history of the town. Every attempt to reduce the bishop’s predominance here, during the period of which we are now treating, proved unsuccessful. The burgesses never could effectually shake off his yoke, or cease to be his vassals and subjects; and even their elections of mayors, in general, if not always, might be compared to the modern conge d’elire elections of bishops, by our Deans and Chapters.

During the long reign of which we have been speaking, this kingdom suffered extremely from civil discord and intestine commotions, and the inhabitants of Lynn bore their share in those sufferings. Great numbers of their people perished in a bloody and unfortunate engagement against the barons, up in the country somewhere towards Littleport, as has been before noticed; which must have proved a most distressing calamity to the whole town, and especially to the wives and children and other relatives of the vanquished and slaughtered warriors. The enemy, being so strong and formidable in and about the Isle of Ely, must also have cut off all communication between Lynn and that district, and even interrupted its intercourse with all the interior parts of the country, as he had the entire command of the rivers and channels of internal navigation. This seems to have continued a long while, and must have distressed this town in a very great degree. It appears, however, to have been quite over, and tranquillity fully restored in the 41st year of that reign, as we find the mayor and burgesses were that year commanded by the king to permit the men of Ely to come here to sell their beer, and exercise merchandise, as they had been used to do before the disturbance. [405a] In the 50th year the same reign, as we are further informed, the king’s purveyors bought at Lynn 36 tuns of wine, which the sheriff of Norfolk was ordered to have conveyed to his majesty, then at the siege of Kenilworth, or Kennelworth Castle, in Warwickshire. [405b] This also shews that there were then no very serious or dangerous commotions in the parts about the Fens, and westward of Lynn, otherwise it would have been out of the sheriff’s power to have the said wine conveyed across that country, and to his majesty’s camp before Kennelworth. It however alleged by our historians that the malecontents who seized upon the Isle of Ely were the last that held out, and that they did not surrender till after the reduction of Kennelworth Castle. However that was, it is allowed that the rebellion was now soon quelled, and that the country afterwards enjoyed peace and tranquillity, for a long period.

It was in this king’s reign, as was before observed, that the Ouse and other rivers deserted their ancient and natural course by Wisbeach, and after inundating the fen country to a very great extent, from the effect of which it has never yet recovered, forced their passage into the sea by Lynn. A neglecting of the old outfall, which occasioned the choking up of the channel and impeding the course of the waters, in the time of a great flood, has been assigned as the cause of that memorable event. But as the malcontents had for sometime occupied the fens, and made their last stand there, and as the inundation might conduce materially to their defence, it seems very natural to suspect that they also had some hand in the business. Yet as our historians are silent on this head, we cannot affirm it as a matter of fact. The event proved, no doubt, detrimental to Wisbeach; and yet not materially advantageous, at least, not immediately so, to Lynn. Nor does it appear that even our harbour was at all improved by so large an accession of fresh water: on the contrary, for aught we know, the approach from the sea to this town was quite as good before as it has been since. It may be said however to be an event that somewhat contributes to preserve the memory of the third Henry, among the people of these parts. The character of this monarch is well known, and is no way worthy of respect or imitation. He was great in nothing but the vileness of his government and the length of his reign, which extended to the 57th year: the longest of any English reign, for the last ten centuries. For the evils of which, and of all the bad and unfortunate reigns that have occurred ever since that period, many, it is supposed, will deem the blessed prosperity of the present wise and happy reign as more than a sufficient counterbalance and compensation—especially, if it should also last as long, or still longer than that of Henry III. which seems not at all improbable: and who is it, within this favoured country, but does consider this as a consummation most devoutly to be wished?

CHAP. V.

State of society at Lynn during the period under consideration—the subject may be elucidated from documents relative to our ancient Gilds—observations on the nature of those fraternities—very common in this country before the reformation—names and number of those of Lynn.

It is sad enough to think, that during so long an interval as that between the conquest and the reformation, the good people of Lynn should never be able entirely to emancipate themselves from their feudal vassalage. But as that desirable object always proved to them unattainable, they appear to have submitted to their hard fate with exemplary patience and forbearance; well knowing, it seems, to use the words of the old adage, that what cannot be cured must be endured. It is much to be doubted if their descendants, or rather their successors of the present day, would have endured what they did with equal propriety and long suffering. We are indeed but imperfectly acquainted with the social complexion, or characteristic features of the community here in those times; but from what we do know, there is reason to think favourably of the prevailing disposition of the inhabitants. Except in the shocking affair of the poor Jews, and what happened in the time of bishop Spencer and of bishop Wakeryng, and of the two aldermen Wentworth and Petipas, already noticed, we perceive no vestige here of tumultuous risings or factious combinations. Industry and harmony appear generally to have prevailed at Lynn, and the community seldom failed in the duty of submission to their superiors, or of obeying the higher powers.

On the state of society in this town, during the period now under consideration, nothing perhaps throws so much light as certain existing documents relating to out ancient Gilds, which seem to have been more numerous here than any where else in the kingdom. They were friendly associations formed for the mutual benefit of their respective members. Some of them were large trading companies, holding considerable possessions, in houses, lands, and mercantile property. Others were of a humbler sort, suited to the convenience and wants of those who moved in a lower sphere, and constructed on principles, perhaps, somewhat similar to those of our modern purse clubs, or benefit societies. All were calculated to help the individuals who composed them, to pass through life more comfortably, obtain a more easy and plentiful subsistence, cherish love and goodwill within their respective circles, and promote the peace and welfare of the town or community in general.

The Gilds, certainly, form a most prominent feature in the character of the ancient inhabitants of Lynn. They were indeed very common in this country before the reformation, and during the period we are now considering; but were more numerous in this town than anywhere else we know of, which is a very remarkable and, perhaps, unaccountable circumstance. It seems very honourable to the memory of our forefathers—more so, probably, than any thing else we can mention; and therefore we shall dwell upon the subject with the greater pleasure. It shews that there was then among the inhabitants a prevailing or general disposition to assist one another, and to give to every honest individual an opportunity to place himself in such a situation as would not fail of bettering his condition, and procuring him useful friends and reputable associates.

These useful institutions, in most other places, only amounted to one or two, or a few, by which only a small part of the population could be very materially benefited by them. But here they were formed on a large scale, and multiplied to above thirty; some of them varying pretty much from others, to suit, as we may suppose, the different conditions of the inhabitants, all, or most of whom might consequently accommodate themselves, or easily find a fraternity whose constitution exactly corresponded, with their respective capacities, wants, or wishes.—Our Gilds had all of them a strong tincture of religion, or rather of superstition, according to the prevailing fashion of the times. In that view they exhibited, no doubt, a large portion of weakness, ignorance, and absurdity. But they appear to have been very free from that jealousy, bigotry, and ill will towards each other, which too often disgrace the religious fraternities of the present day, who look upon one another with such an evil eye, that they may be too justly said to hate one another. Trusting in themselves that they are righteous, they despise others, and are ready to say to their neighbours, and all who differ from them, stand by yourselves, come not near to us, for we are holier than you. While they inveigh against Pharisees, and a pharisaical spirit, they give impartial and intelligent bystanders every reason to think, that they are themselves, in fact, the Pharisees of the present day, and are led by the very spirit against which they declaim. But we will drop this subject for the present, and resume that of the Gilds, which we shall here handle under different heads, or sections.

Section I.

Observations on the origin of our ancient Gilds. [411]

The author of a late publication, entitled Caledonia, gives it as his opinion, that the monks were the earliest Gild brethren, and had exclusive privileges of trade and of fishery when boroughs had scarcely an existence. To which the annual reviewer of that work objects, and affirms that the origin of Gilds lies hidden in obscurity inaccessible: and against the idea of their being of monkish origin, he urges, their being constructed so much on the principles of a purse club, that they can hardly not have been founded by married men. [412] The truth seems to be, that they originated among the Anglo-Saxons, long before the Conquest, if not also before their conversion to Christianity, and the commencement of English monkery. At first, they may be supposed to assume a simple and homely appearance, among the civil institutions of the Anglo-Saxon community; but afterwards to pass through different changes, and especially after the conquest, when the general state of society and the whole order of things experienced so considerable a revolution. They were then, at first, perhaps, put down or laid aside, and afterwards revived and resumed: at least, we hear little or nothing of them under the first Norman kings, or till about the 13th century.

The most common and prevailing opinion seems to be, that the gilds sprung from the Anglo-Saxons tithings: though it may, perhaps, be questioned, if the tithings themselves did not take their rise from them. Jacob, from Camden, informs us,—

“that the origin of gilds and fraternities is said to be from the Saxon law, by which neighbours entered into an association, and became bound for each other, to bring forth him who committed any crime, or make satisfaction to the party injured; for which purpose they raised a sum of money among themselves, and put it into a common stock, whereout a pecuniary compensation was made according to the quality of the offence committed. From hence came our fraternities and gilds: and they were in use in this kingdom long before any formal licences were granted for them: though at this day [that is, in Camden’s time] they are a company combined together, with orders and laws made by themselves, by the prince’s licence.” [413a]

Chambers, in his Cyclopædia, expresses himself much to the same purpose.—

“The original of Gilds, says he, is thus related: it being a law among the Saxons, that every freeman [413b] of fourteen years old should find sureties to keep the peace, or be committed to prison; certain neighbours [therefore] entered into an association, [consisting of ten families,] and became bound for each other, either to produce him who committed an offence, or to make satisfaction to the injured party. That they might the better do this, they raised a sum of money among themselves, which they put into a common stock; and when one of their pledges had committed an offence, and was fled, then the other nine made satisfaction out of this stock, by payment of money according to the offence. Because this association consisted of ten families, it was called a decennary: hence came our fraternities. In observance of the above law, or custom, as the same writer informs us, the sheriffs at every county court did from time to time take the oaths of young persons, as they arrived at the age of fourteen, and see that they belonged to one decennary or another.” [413c]

Such is the account given by these writers of the ancient decennaries or tythings, from which the gilds are supposed to have sprung; but it seems uncertain, after all, whether the gilds sprung from the decennaries, or the decennaries from them, or which of the two is the most ancient. They might be coëval, and grow up together: and the gilds having survived the decennaries might occasion their being supposed to have sprung from them.

Turner, the ingenious historian of the Anglo-Saxons, seems also to ascribe to them the origination of Gilds: and he observes, that the gilds, or social confederations, in which many of those people chose to arrange themselves, deserve very particular attention. Among other things, he says, that their gilds are sometimes alluded to in the laws. If a man without paternal relations should fight and kill another, then his maternal kinsmen were ordered to pay one third of the Were, his gild a third, and for the other part his gild was to escape. In London there appears to have been free gilds. In a charter of Canterbury, the three companies of the Citizens within the walls, and those without, are mentioned. Domesday also mentions a Gild of the Clergy in that city. In short, Gilds appear to have been very common, and in great request among the Anglo-Saxons. They seem on the whole, as our author thinks, to be friendly associations, made for mutual aid and contribution, to meet the pecuniary exigencies which were perpetually arising, from burials, legal exactions, penal mulcts, and other payments, or compensations. That much good fellowship was connected with them, cannot be doubted. The fines of their own imposition imply that the materials of conviviality were not forgotten. In short, he thinks they may be called the Anglo-Saxon clubs.—Even the more uncommon species of those confederations, called Gilda Mercatoria, or Merchant’s Gild, seems to have existed among the same people. That in mercantile and Seaports, says the same author, there were also gilds and fraternities of men constituted for the purpose of carrying on more successful enterprizes in commerce, even in the Anglo-Saxon times, appears to be a fact. Domesday, (he adds,) mentions the Gihalla, or Guildhall of the burghers of Dover. [415]

The Gilds of Lynn, however, cannot be traced to so remote a period as that of the Anglo-Saxons. There may, indeed, have been gilds here at that period, and the fact can hardly be doubted, as they were then so much in vogue, but we have no traces of them now remaining. All the Lynn Gilds, whose names and remains have reached our time, seem to have sprung up long after the conquest. Of them we shall treat in the ensuing pages.

Section II.

Names and Number of our ancient Gilds; with some additional observations.

Of the Lynn Gilds our printed books give but a very imperfect and wretched account. Their list of names is extremely defective, and the idea which they give of those institutions is equally so. For a more correct and ample information on this subject we are chiefly indebted to Mr. King’s MS. volume, before mentioned, which was compiled about a hundred years ago, by some unknown hand, or hands, from certain ancient and authentic documents, which seem no longer to exist. Both Mackerell and Parkin appear to have seen this volume, but they have not availed themselves of it to the extent they might have done. Even its most curious and interesting parts they have left unnoticed. In the latter part of this volume is inserted the following “Catalogue of the Gildes in the Towne of Lynn”—amounting in all to thirty one. They stand in the following order: 1. The Gild of St. George. 2. The Gild of St. Erasmus. 3. The Gild of St. John Baptist. 4. The Gild of St. Gyles and St. Julian. 5. The Gild of St. Ethelerede. 6. The Gild of St. Margarett. 7. The Gild of St. Anne. The Gild of the 12 Apostles. 9. The Gild of St. Christopher. 10. The Gild of our Lady. 11. The Gild of St. Micheal the Archangel. 12. The Gild of St. Nicholas. 13. The Gild of St. Awdreys. 14. The Gild of St. Michael and King Henry. 15. The Gild of St. Cyprian. 16. The Gild of St. Fabian and St. Sabestian. 17. The Gild of St. Lawrence. 18. The Gild of St. Agnes. 19. The Gild of Corpus Christi. 20. The Gild of the Trinity. 21. The gild of St. Andrew. 22. The Gild of Holy Rood. 23. The Gild of St. Lovis. 24. The Gild of St. Austin. 25. The Gild of St. Barbara. 26. The Gild of St. Antony. 27. The Gild of St. Stephen. 28. The Gild of St. Francis. 29. The Gild of the Shoemakers. 30. The Red Gild. 31. The Gild of St. William, trading to North Bern.

Such a large number of these fraternities, in such a place as Lynn, and at such a period, must appear not a little extraordinary, and what seems very difficult, if not impossible, to account for, but on the supposition, that there existed here, in the mean time, a very respectable degree of public and social virtue, or in other words a prevailing disposition among the inhabitants to promote each other’s interest and happiness. Upon that idea they must be thought very highly as nothing could well be more creditable or honourable to their memory. A tribute of respect, which seems to be so fairly and justly their due, ought not to be here withheld from them.—Nor should it here pass unnoticed, that Lynn is still distinguished for a respectable number of similar institutions; that is to say, for its purse-clubs, or benefit societies, the gilds of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their number is about twenty; and their members, altogether, may amount to 700, or more; but, as most of them have families, the benefit or advantage of these useful associations may be supposed to extend, perhaps, to more than three times that number. Of the real and important utility of these social institutions no doubt can be entertained. The fact is universally admitted. They are certainly beneficial, not only to the individuals more immediately concerned, but even to the community at large, by keeping a great many honest and industrious people from becoming burdensome to the parishes to which they belong.—It ought also to be remarked that the benefits resulting from these estimable institutions are to be attributed neither to the wisdom of government, nor yet to the fostering care of the corporation, but merely to the very commendable thoughtfulness and virtue of the individuals that compose them. But here is not the place to enlarge upon this topic: we shall therefore drop it for this time, and resume the former subject.

Of these thirty one Gilds, above named, several seem to have been of the higher order of those associations, or of the mercantile sort, consisting of trading or commercial adventurers, who enjoyed certain privileges by grants from the crown. This appears to have been the case with the 1st the 4th, the 19th the 20th, and 31st in the above catalogue; that is, the Gild of St. George, that of St. Gyles and St. Julian, that of Corpus Christi, that of the Trinity, and that of St. William, trading to north Bern. There might probably be some few more of the same description. All the rest, it is supposed, were friendly associations, formed for the benefit of the lower orders of freemen, that is, of those who were not in a state of villanage, for none of the latter appear to have been admitted into those fraternities. Poor creatures! they were debarred from all such advantages and comforts! In further considering the Lynn gilds, we shall take them in the order in which they stand in the catalogue, though it does not seem to be the most regular and natural order, that of seniority.

Section III.

A more particular account of some of the Lynn Gilds.

1. St. George’s Gild. Of this fraternity the following account is given by Parkin—

“Henry IV. by his letters patent, gave and granted licence to John Brandon, Bartholomew Sistern, and John Snailwell of Lenne Epispopi, that they might make, found, and establish to the honor of God, and the glorious martyr, St. George a certain fraternity, brotherhood, and perpetual Guild of themselves and others, who out of their devotion, were willing to be of the said fraternity: and that brothers and sisters of the fraternity and guild for the time being might chuse, make, and ordain one alderman, and four custodes of the said fraternity and guild, yearly, for the good and profit of the same, and out of the brethren of the said fraternity and guild: and that the said alderman and custodes and their successors, by the names of the alderman and custodes of the said guild, should have power, and be able to take, receive, and hold, any lands, tenements, rents, and possessions whatsoever, or should be by any ways or means granted to them, and to do in all other respects, &c. and to act as the rest of his liege subjects, or persons do, and have power, and are enabled to act.—And further the said king, out of his abundant grace, granted and gave licence, by his said, letters parent, for himself and his heirs, to the aforesaid alderman and custodes and their successors, for the time being, that they might receive and hold to themselves and their successors for ever, and purchase of J. March the right that Richard Waterden had therein of all that tenement, with a kay adjoining, with all its buildings and appertenances in Lenn aforesaid, which belonged to Robert Baylly, which tenement is in the street called Cheker, between the tenement formerly of John de Couteshale and the heirs of the late William Bytering, now of William Hundredpound, and the heirs of the late John Wyntworth, on the south part, the tenement formerly of Nicholas Swerdeston, late of John Wyghton, wherein Walter Tudenham now dwells, and extends itself in length from the common way towards the west to the tenement formerly of Dominick Baude, afterwards of Richard Denne, lately of John Grene, clerk, then of Thomas Botekesham to the east. And the aforesaid kay lies opposite to the said tenement, in breadth, between the kay formerly of the aforesaid John Couteshale, lately of the aforesaid John Wyntworth, to the south, and the common lane, (venellam) called cornlane, on the north, and extends itself from the common way to the east, to the great bank (ripam) of Lenne, to the west, as well as for the maintenance of one or two chaplains, as to pray for the good estate of the king and his most beloved consort Joan, queen of England, as long as they lived, and for their souls after their deaths, and for the souls of their most beloved father and mother, deceased, as also for the good state of all and singular the brothers and sisters of the fraternity and guild aforesaid, according to the will and ordinance of the aforesaid alderman, the custodes, and their successors.” [420]

This Gild, it is said, received many other grants of lands and tenements from Henry V. which probably might also be the case from some of the succeeding princes. But at the reformation it was dissolved, as were also the rest, at least those that were of a trading nature: [421a] all whose possessions, it is supposed, were given to the corporation by Edward VI.—The premises here described were in Checker Street, and comprehended the Gild Hall of the fraternity, called St. George’s Hall, now the Play-house. [421b]

From the above extract the reader may form some idea of our ancient gild of St. George. But in order to have a more accurate and perfect conception of it, and of the others, all the following accounts must be compared together. Of most of our gilds we have only the names. Of others some further information is still obtainable, of which the author will endeavour in these pages to make the best use he can. It may be here just observed, that the gilds of the higher order appear to have their respective altars in the different churches of the town, which shews how much religion was blended with those institutions, and what a high character for sanctity the members assumed. They had also their respective chaplains, to act as their proper religious functionaries, and pray for the souls of their members and benefactors, dead as well as living.

Of the second and third gild in the above catalogue, that is, those of St. Erasmus and of St. John Baptist, we have been able to obtain no further information. They were probably of the lower description of these fraternities, and having no large possessions attached to them, they left behind scarcely any trace or memorial of their existence. They might, for all that, be very respectable in their day, and their members be as useful and worthy members of the community as those who composed the great trading or mercantile gilds.

Of the fourth gild in the catalogue, that of St. Gyles and St. Julian, we know more than of the two last mentioned. This, in its day, must have been a notable gild. It was founded in the 14th century, and in the reign of Richard II. as appears from the following very curious document, preserved in Mr. King’s book, and which is here given in the original orthography—

“In the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Ladie Seynt Marie, and of all the holy company of heaven, and speciallith of the holy corsayntis Seynt Gyles and Seynt Julian, This Gild is ordeynd and begonnen ye year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1384.—And this Gild shall be holden at Lenn the Sunday next after ye ffeast of the apostelis Peter and Paul, that the alderman and gild bretheren and sisters of this gild shal gone togeder to ye church of Seynt James of Lenn orderly and manly two and two togedir, and offer there at ilke messes each brother and sisters ob. upon payn of a pound of wax.—Also ordeynd is that the alderman of the gild and also the gild brothers and sisters shal dyen togedir every general day and each brother and sister shall pay to ye subsidie and costages of this gild 8d on the morng. after the general day without any long abideing, as well those that are absent as those that are present, except the officers, that is to say, the alderman, 4 skyveyns, clerk, and dean, which shall no subsidie pay for the time they are in office.—And also it is ordeynd that what brother or sister of this gylde yt is in the towne of Lynne or in 40 mile and in heela and will not come to his general day and to his mornspech and does as is aforesaid and make none attone for him he shall pay for the amendment of the gild as oft sithes as may be P’nd on him 6s. 8d. without any forgiveness.—And also ordeynd it is that what man that will bene a brother of this gilde from this time aforesaid shall not be received but at the genll. day, or at the mornspech, and that he have 2 bretheren to withness with him yt he is good man and able and of good conversation before ye alderman & all ye gild bretheren, & he shall pay to the profith of this house 6d. that is to say, to ye wax 2d. to the alderman 2d. to the clerke 1d. to the dean 1d.—And also each man yt shll enter into this gild for to be a brother, he shll pay for his entry to ye increase of ye chattels of ye gild 13s. 4d. and find a sufficient [423] to pay it within ye first year after his coming in upon pain of double or his [424a] for him.—And also if any brother or sister of this gild be deed in ye towne of Lenn ye dean shall warn all ye gild bretheren & sisters yt are in towne to go to ye church with ye cors & offer each man a ffarthing, & who comandett & is in towne & in hele on this maner he shll not come nor do as is aforesaid, he shll pay to the amendment of this gild one pound of wax, and if the dean fail of comanding ilke brother and sister yt is in towne & none comand he shall payen 1d.—And what brother or sister of this gild be deed in ye contre or in any other place as soon as ye alderman may wit it he shall see the dean warn all the gild bretheren & sisters yt are in Lenn & in hele to go with him to ye church of St. James aforesaid & so sing a messe for him or hir yt is dede as if the body were there present & offer in ye maner aforesaid upon ye paine aforesaid & whoso be not in towne nor offer in ye manner aforesaid nor with the corps where it is buryed he shall pay at next mornspech after a ffarthing, & yt shall be done for the soul of him or hir yt is dede by ye ordeynance of ye alderman and ye officers.—And where yt any of ye bretheren dye in ye countre & any of his bretheren be near him be 10 miles he shll go to ye place where as he is dede & ordeyne & see yt his goods be saved & kept & done for his soul as best is after ye will of him yt is dede upon ye payn of 6s. 8d.—Also it is ordeynd yt no brother or sister of yis gild shall amerse no emplead either in courte nor in consistorie nor in non other place for no maner of cause till he have revealed his greivance to ye alderman or his deputy & have leive of him upon payn of 2l. [424b] if ye alderman nor his deputy may not accord hem he shll gife hem leive for to persue ye same yt way they hope best to spede.—And also what brother of this gild yt bete upon or mysay other in contre or in any other place and it may be proved on hym he shall pay to ye amendment of this gild a stone of wax and make amends to hym that he trespass to.—An if any brother or sister of this gilde or other in strange place or in coledge in power or in mischief through theves or other sudeyne [425a] shall releve him after yat his state is in—And whose trespass agst ye alderman or any of ye gilde bretheren in time of mornspech or of drinke or of any other time unskilfullich he shall pay to ye amendment of this gild 6d. and make his peace yt he trespasst.—And while the Gild plener drynketh ye alderman shll have every night gallon of ale, either skyvans a pottle, ye clerke a pottle, & ye dean a pottle.—And who is chosen in office of alderman & he forsake his office he shll pay to ye amendment of the gild 20s. each skyvan 10s. & ye Dean 3s. 4d. and ye clerke 6d.—And the clerke shall have for his travail by ye year 3s. [425b]—And whosoe discover the counseil of this gilde to any strange man or woman shall pay to ye amendment of this gilde 10s. without any forgiveness. [425c]—And whosoe enter in the house where the ale lithe without leve of the officers he shall pay to ye amendment of yis gild 4d.—Also ordeynd it is by ye alderman and gild bretheren that the Skyveyns yat shall have ye cattel of this Gild in hand each of ym shall find 2 sureties to bring ye cattel of ye gild every generall mornspech or their sureties for ym & lay it down with the increase thereof afore ye alderman & ye gild brotherg each of ym upon paine of the double yat he have received.—Also it is ordeynd yt ye bretheren of this gild shall be hooded in . . . [426a] every year and have ye use of his hood 2 year, & whosoe refuse his hood or give it away within 2 years shll pay to ye amendment of ye gild 3s. 4d.—Also it is ordeynd yat no brother in time of mornspech shall gone oute of ye Hall [426b] nor stand no roome time of mornspeck no of drynke withouten leve of ye alderman in lettyng of ye officers upon payne of 1lb. of wax.—And also ordeynd is that if any brother of yis gild use snarlings, false weights or measures, or any other such thing that may be reputed as vilany to ye company he shll pay to ye amendment of this gilde 20s. as often sithes as it may be proved on him without any forgiveness.—Also ordeynd it is yt this company shll have a Preist to sing for them, & each bro. & sister shll pay each year to ye costage of ye Preist aforesaid 6d. [426c]—Also it is ordeynd yt after ye bretheren and sisters have dyned togedir on ye generall day ther shall no mo meles ben holden afterwd but bread & cheese & drink.—Also it is ordeynd yat whosoe will bene a brother of this Gild he shall not be received by ye alderman & all ye company at ye generall day, & yt he have 2 sufficient sureties of ye gild as well as of his entrance as of his good beryng & honest.—Also it is ordeynd by ye alderman & all ye gild bretheren yt ye alderman shall call up 4 men, which 4 men shll call up 8 men to ym to gone on ye election to chosen ye officers of ye Gild, yt is to say, an alderman, 4 Skyveyns, 1 clerke, & 1 dean, but they shll no man chuse to none of these offices of ym yt are of ye election for yt year, & also what brother rebelleth or letteth ye alderman in ye first 4 calling he shll be fined to ye use of ye company 20s. so often as he so doth.—Also ye election have ordeynd at ye geull mornspech in ye yr of our Lord 1406 yt they yt come in as bretheren shll there take his charge and find sufficient securities for their enterance, yt is to say 13s. 4d. which shll belong to Lenn holy company abateing and also they yt bene as bretheren but be lawful for ym with yt subsidy to make ym merry there and if so think to ye company as bene more proffit to ye Gild to send home ye money of ye entres of ye bretheren yat come in—Also it is ordeind by ye election ye 1st. day of July year of ye reign of Henry 5th. they have ordeynd that this company shll none have [hoods [427]] but at every 2 yrs end.—Also ordeynd yt no man shll have hooding but be paid therefore as cometh thereto.—Also it is ordeynd by ye same election yt wht bro. dye of this company he shll have sung for him 30 messes for his soul so soon as it is known yt he is dead and yt shll be done after ye old manner of ye alderman & ye officers yt shll be for ye time.—It is ordeynd by ye alderman & all ye bretheren yt what come into ye said Gild shall pay 7s.—Also it is ordeynd by ye election of the company by ye alderman & all ye bretheren yt ye skyveynts shall find all ye costs of ye house.”

[Then added by way of conclusion, or memorandum,]—

“These be ye names of ye flounders and benefactors of ye Gild of St. Gyles and St. Julian holden in St Jame’s church in Lenn.”

“Edmd. Bellyter, Mercht. Tho. Constantyn, Esq. & Margaret his daughter, William Inot, Mercht. Founders of ye Gild of St. Gyles and St. Julian holden, &c.”

[I.e. in St. Jame’s church in Lenne, as before.—Then are added the names of the principal subsequent benefactors, as we may suppose.]

“Tho. Hulyett, Mercht. Robt. Braybroke, Mercht. Walter Coney, Mercht. William Wallis, Mercht. William Nicholson, Mercht. Robt. Scryme, & Julian his wife, John Soame, Richd. Evelyn, Mercht. Wm. Amfles, Mercht. John Taylor, Mercer, Richd. Amfles, Mercht.—Special benefactors of ye said Gild, & for all ye bretheren and sisters souls of this said Gild, & for all xn Souls.”

From some notes, in the same volume, immediately following the above long extract, it appears that there was an Almshouse connected with the said Gild, or under its patronage, from the first: Also that there was a charity company, dwelling in a Bede house adjoining to that same Almshouse; which likewise became afterwards connected with the said gild. The Bedehouse was, probably, the present women’s Hospital, still sometimes called the Bedehouse; and the Almshouse might stand where Mr. Bonnett’s dwelling and school now do. From the same notes it also seems, that the date of the foundation of the said Gild, as given above, must be wrong, owing perhaps to the carelessness of the transcriber, and that it had been founded earlier.—The notes alluded to are the following; which are here inserted, that the intelligent reader may have an opportunity to judge for himself.

“1476. This day comond [429] of ye Almeshouse by St. James’s & it is agreed that Wm. Walter, Robt. Braybroke, Tho. Constantine, John Bambage, Robt. Bastard, & John Gillom shall have the oversight of the Almeshouse between this and ye genll day to the use of the Gild.

“Also Tho. Constantine on of ye bretheren of this gild as executor to Margarett his daughter, heir to Edmd. Bellyete hath granted this same day to make a lawful estate of ye said almeshouse in ffee simple to such persons as shall be named by the gild.

“1477. As for ye rule and keeping of ye almeshouse & vestments to be left to ye alderman & 4 of the bretheren.

“1487. Given by ye gild to ye prior towards repairing ye church 6s. 8d. the rest towards repairing ye chappell of St. Julian and ye almeshouse.

“Wheras John Reed, Mercht. has been misguided agst ye alderman and officers, John Goodwin, Mayor, & John Bunton, alderman, have ordered he shd pay 6s. 8d. for his broke, which was pd accordingly, but was returned on condition he shd. give to ye Almeshouse 2 new pair of sheets, 2s. 4d. the pair.

“1473. Delivered to John Waller a Whystle wt. 12¼ oz. the gift of Robt. Gring to ye fellowship.

“The skyvants to bear ye charge of ye light before St. Julian.

“The Preist to pray every Sunday for ye bretheren & sisters of ye gild.

“The Alderman to gather in ye debts of ye gild & to have 20d. to ye £. which debt is for repairing ye chappel of ye gild & ye almeshouse.

“Ordered yt ye bretheren shall go about in ye even praying for ye old benefactors, & ye benefactors to be written in ye Gild Book, & ye Bellman to have a list of their names, & yt Thos. Toylet be remembered in ye Bederoll when ye Bellman goeth about.

“1482. Ordered yt ye sisters be received into ye gild paying their dutys without delay & ye said sisters shall go with ye bretheren on ye same daies.

“Such bretheren & sisters as be in poverty & not able to bury youselves shall have the dean & wax at the cost of the Gild so they be clear in the Gild. [430]

“The Alderman to lay out 2l. 11s. 1d. in his hands towards repairing the Almeshouse & beding.

“John Soame, Alderman gave 3l. to ye Gild.

“At one of the Generalls there was a vote in ye fellowship for hoods, 42 was for hoods, & only 8 [431a] which wd. have none, whereupon it was agreed they shd. have hooding.

“In the 28th year of the reign of K. Hen. 6th. the Generall mornspech was kept at Corpus Christa [Christi] Hall [431b] Cyprian Pouleson have taken into ye same fraternity the charity company with the ornaments pertaining to the same.

“These be ye implements pertaining to ye altar of St. Lawrence [431c] in St. James’s Church belonging to the charity company Anno 1533.

“ffirst 3 altar clothes 3 pillows a vestment of cloth of Bawdekyn with a cross of cloth of gold in ye midst, a printed Mass Book, 2 latten candlesticks, one altar cloth before ye altar stained, 2 stained curtains, 2 Bulls for pardons, 2 curtains of darnick, a Pall of black wursted, with I. H. S. of gold embroidered, and a cross of white ffustin in ye midst, a crucifix of timber with a foot, a blue say for the Herse, 2 great candlesticks of timber for ye Herse with scallops and 4 iron bars at ye feet, a Horn harnessed with silver.

“N.B. The above Charity Company dwelt in ye Bedehouse adjoining the above Almeshouse.”

“1488. The alderman to have for making his dinner on the gild even for the officers & minstrells [432a] 3s. 4d. a Botte of good Ale and 4d. in Bread.” [432b]

[A Bill, as it is called, and some memoranda are annexed to this last article in the MS. Volume. They were thought curious, and well worth preserving. The reader will find them in the note below, and will, of course, judge for himself, as to the merit or value of them.] Then follows

An Inventory of the ornaments belonging to the Altar of St. Gyles & St. Julian in St. James’s Church.

Imprimis. A Cyprus hanging before the Altar.

Two Pillows, one of portray’d work with the Holy Lamb, another of needlework with an Hart in the midst, Two curtains of stained work with angels.

Two Irons for the Curtains.

An altar-cloth stained with our Lady & her child on her knee.

A stained altar-cloth with the Salutation of our Lady.

Three low candle-sticks lattin.

Two altar clothes of plain cloth with crosses of red silk with 8 . . . a Peice & C on the corners of the same clothes & one of red silk in ye middle.

2 Chests of Cyprus wood.

Witnesses Sr. Wm. ffinne, Sr. Richd. Houghton, Sr. Tho. Knights, Priests, with many others.

An Inventory of the Jewell belonging to the above gilde.

	oz.	dwt.
Imprimis. A Chalice of Silver and gilt with gold Pottant of the same, wt.	18.	1.
A great Maser with a print of St. George.	46.	0.
A Maser with St. Julian and a Hart in the bottom with a Scepter.	18.	0.
A Maser with I. H. S. in the bottom.	13.	0.
A Maser with Rich. Collyns name.	16.	0.
A Horne harnissed with Silver and gilt with three feet the same.	43.	0.

A Scepter silver part gilt with a Christall stone.

3 Table clothes.

[Then follows an Inventory of furniture in the men’s and the women’s Almshouse.]

These be the Parcells belonging to the Almeshouse

FOR THE MEN.

Imprimis. In the first Chamber, called the Schooler’s Chamber. A Mattriss stuffed with . . . A Bolster, one pair of Blanketts, one pair of Sheets & one Coverlid white & black.

In the second Chamber, A Mattriss 2 Pillows 1 pair of Sheets 1 pair Blanketts & a Coverlett red & yellow.

In the third Chamber. A Mattriss a Bolster one pair Blanketts one pair Sheets a Coverlett blue & yellow.

In the fourth Chamber. A Mattriss a Bolster one pair Blanketts one pair Sheets & a Coverlett red & white.

In the fifth Chamber. A Mattriss a Bolster 1 pair Sheets 1 pair Blanketts a Coverlett black & yellow.

In the sixth Chamber. A Mattriss a Bolster a pair Sheets a pair Blanketts & a Coverlett red and yellow.

In the seventh Chamber. A Mattriss a pair Sheets a pair Blanketts a Coverlett red & yellow.

IN THE WOMEN’S HOUSE.

First Chamber. A Mattriss a Bolter a pair Sheets & a Coverlett.

In the second Chamber. A Mattriss a pair Sheets a Coverlett of red & yellow another Coverlet white & black.

In the third Chamber. A Mattriss a Traunsome a pair Sheets a pair Blanketts & a Coverlett red & yellow.

In the fourth Chamber. An old Mattriss a Daggeswaine & a Coverlett white & green.

In the fifth Chamber. A Mattriss a Transome a pair of Blanketts a pair of Sheets a Coverlett red and yellow another red & green.

In the sixth Chamber. A Mattriss a Bolster a Blankett Lincy wolley a Coverlett red & black lined with woodmill.

Implements. A fforme with 2 ffeet, a Rake of iron, a Joiner’s Table, a Lanthorn to hang in the middle of the house.

To the Well.—A Buckett hooped with Iron, a Boile of Iron, a Chain of Iron with 9 lincks with a swivell of Iron.

Implements belonging to the Women’s House.

	lb.	oz.
Imprimis. A Brass Pott wt.	2.	10.
An old Brass Pott wt.	9.	0.
An old Brass Pott.	1.	0.
An old Brass Pott.	1.	10.
A little Pott.	5.	10.
A Kettle without a Boile.	7.	0.
3 old Pans.	5.	0.
A Pewter dish.	1.	10.

3 old fformes, 2 old small Joiner’s stools.

An old little Stoole, an old Table with 4 ffeet, an old Joiner’s chair.

In the Kitchin. Imprimis. A gridiron, 1 pair Cobbirens, 1 hanging Brandlett, 2 Spitts, a chopping knife, A hanging Lanthorn with an Iron Chain & three ffeet.”

[To the above is immediately added the following regulation relating to the said almshouse.]

“The keeper of the Almeshouse to Ring the Bell every night from Hallowmass to Candlemas at 6 of Clock at night & lett in ye poor folks, & lock’d [lock] in ye door all night: & likewise to Ring the Bell again at 7 of Clock in ye morn, & then to let them out: & in summer from Candlemass to Hallowmass to Ring & shutt in ye doors at 8 of clock at night & open them at 5 of the morning.”

The account of St. Gyles & St. Julian’s Gild is closed with the following remarkable & curious

“Memorandum. John, bishop of Ledence, have granted to every brother & sister of the fraternity or Gild of St. Gyles & St. Julian, holden at St. James’s Church in Lynn, that at the time or season that any manner of person or persons do intend to drink in St. Julian’s Horn [436a] with good devotion, are granted by the said bishop, as often as they do, 40 days pardon, which grant was confirmed by the same bishop in the mansion place of John Baxter of Lynn, Grocer, in the presence of Cyprian Pouleson, alderman, the said John Baxter, Thomas Brampton, & other men the 5th day of August in ye yr of our Lord 1532 in the 24th yr of K. H. 8. John Powis, Mayor, & my Lord of Norwich Richd. Pykk [Nykk] then bishop did visit the same time.—The said John bishop [of Ledence] was then suffragan [436b] to my Lord West bishop of Ely.”

From these Extracts it is very evident that the above fraternity of St. Gyles and St. Julian must have stood high among our ancient Gilds. It consisted, it seems, of divers opulent members, who did honour to their feelings by the attention which they paid to the wants and sufferings of their indigent neighbours of both sexes: for we find that there were two Almeshouses, one for poor men, and another for poor women, under their patronage, and supported by them, if not also founded by them. On this account we ought to respect their memory, papists as they were; for this part of their conduct was, surely, very commendable and exemplary. Such a conduct is worthy of respect and commendation wherever it is seen: among papists as well as protestants; and even among mahometans or heathens as well as christians. There are Almeshouses still at Lynn, but we know not that they owe much, if any thing, to the bounty or liberality of any of our present opulent families, or to any of their immediate, or even remote progenitors. They were endowed by wealthy families or individuals of other times, whose descendants have long disappeared. Our modern men of wealth are otherwise disposed: and our Allens, our Bagges, our Bowkers, and our Cases, have lived and died without exhibiting any symptoms of feelings like those that appeared in the charitable fraternity of St. Gyles and St. Julian. If the latter were also in other matters weak and superstitious, that was perhaps unavoidable by people in their circumstances. We have our weaknesses and superstitions too, and those, probably, much less excusable, considering our superior advantages, than those of the brethren and sisters of the said Gild. Instead, therefore, of decrying, or pitying their failings, we ought to blush for our own.

Furthermore, it is observable of the above brotherhood, that they consisted of good men and able, and of good conversation. (see p. 423.) So careful were they on this head, that every member at his admission was obliged to find two sureties, who were to answer for the due performance of his engagement to the gild, and also to testify of his good beryng and honest, or that he was a person of irreproachable moral character. (see p. 426.) We are not certain that our modern protestant Gilds, the benefit societies, &c. are equally careful that those whom they receive among them be persons of good report, or blameless conversation. It would certainly be very creditable to them.—The said gild also appeared anxious to support a respectable religious character, and promote, what they deemed, the practice of piety among themselves: hence they had their proper chaplain or religious functionary, as was before noticed. Indeed they seemed as if desirous to be thought to excel in this department, as is pretty plainly indicated, by their assuming the name of the Lenn holy company, which may be thought to smell a little pharisaical. However that was, as they possessed so many good qualities, and deserved well of their neighbours and fellow citizens, we can do no less than dismiss or take our leave of them respectfully.

Section IV.

Account of the Gilds continued.

After St. Gyles and St. Julian’s Gild, the next, in the Catalogue, is that of St. Ethelered, or Ethelred. Of this Gild we have met with no particular account; and but little more of the next to it, that of St. Margaret: Parkin just mentions that it was founded in the 8th of Henry IV. a patent being granted by that monarch for that purpose. [439a] Of St. Anne’s Gild, the 7th in the Catalogue, Parkin only says, that there was here such a Gild, as appears by the inquisition taken in the 3rd of Elizabeth. He also queres, if there was not a chapel dedicated to St. Anne, somewhere near the Fort which still bears her name? [439b] which seems very reasonable to suppose. Of the next, the Gild of the 12 Apostles, we have met with no further account; nor yet of that which immediately succeeds it, the Gild of St. Christopher.

Of the 10th Gild, that of our Lady, the following mention is made by Parkin—

“These are the brethren and sisters of the Guild Tigulat. founded to the honour and purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ao. 3 Edward III.—Thomas de Langham, and Christian his wife; Charles de Secheford, and Alice his wife; Robert de Derby, and Margery his wife; William, son of the said Robert, &c. [The names of the rest are not given.] Robert seems to be alderman of the Guild.—These are the four Morwespeches of the said Guild: the first morwespeche is on the Sunday [le Dymeynge prochein] after the purification of the Blessed Virgin, the second on the day of the annunication of our Lady, the third on the day of the assumption of our Lady, the fourth on the conception of our Lady.—It is ordained that if any of the brethren be summoned on any of the four morwespeches, and are in the said town, and make default, they shall pay 1d. to the honour of our Lady.” [440a]

This Gild, as the above writer hints, had its Alderman, [440b] and likewise, probably, all the other kind of officers mentioned in the account of St. Gyles and St. Julian’s Gild; with laws also somewhat alike those of that fraternity; but its records relating to those matters having all perished, nothing more can be said on those heads.—The chapel of our Lady, which belonged to this Gild, or to which the gild belonged, was not that by the bridge, to which it gave name, but that on the mount, which was formerly a very noted place in this town, both for its curious architecture and its reputed sanctity—the offerings there sometimes exceeding those of all our other holy places. But more of these matters when we come to treat of the religious houses.

Of the five Gilds, mentioned in the Catalogue next after that of our Lady, namely those of St. Michael the Archangel, St. Nicholas, St. Audrey, St. Michael and King Henry, and St. Cyprian, no particular information has been obtained. We therefore know not how they were constituted, or what were the particular objects of their respective confederations. That the members of all or of any of them were as useful and respectable in their generation as those of St. Gyles and Julian can neither be affirmed nor denied. They might be all very good sort of people, in their way, for aught we know. But we may without any breach of charity suppose they had their full share of childish credulity and stupid superstition. These were the predominant failings of their time, of which, however, even our own time, and with all its boasted advantages and improvements, is not yet quite clear. We must therefore suppose, that they readily and implicity believed all the marvellous monkish tales which were then propagated; especially those that particularly related to their respective tutelar or patron saints. The members of St. Audrey’s Gild, for instance, would all readily believe the extraordinary and miraculous virtues ascribed to her wonderful Smock at Thetford: and those of our Lady’s Gild would no less readily believe the wonderful accounts of her appearances to divers persons in the very same town. Thetford being so nigh to Lynn, and in the same county, the miracles pretended to have been worked there would soon be reported and credited here; and those, especially, that were ascribed to St. Audrey and Our Lady, would be so among the members of those Lynn Gilds which bore their names. [441]

The sixteenth Gild in the above Catalogue is that of St. Fabian and St. Sabestian, or Sebastian, of which the following account is given by Parkin—

“At a colloquium, or general meeting (in the reign of Henry VII.) of this Guild, held in St. George’s Hall, on Sunday next after the feast of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, September 2, John Nicholl was chosen alderman; John Johnson, William Manning, Robert Bachelor, William Whithed, scabins; clerk of the guild, Thomas Haw,—dean, John Gyles. The chattels of the guild in the scabins keeping—It was then ordained, That the skevinths shal bere all as they have done before tyme;—Also that the said skevens shall have of every brother, on the general day, as many as dine there 2d. and the morspect ld.—Also ordained, that Thomas Rudwell and John Lowyn shall bere the ded money: and Thomas Rudwell received 9s. the said John Lowyn received 9s. Also that the said Thomas and John, shall give for occupying of the ded money, by yere, 11s. 8d.—Also ordained the electioners [444] shall find to the encresse or the company and in the worchep of God and the seynt, the furst morspech; the alderman shall find the second with the help of the feloshep, that he may have to the profits of the seynt.—Also, that the skevens shall bere the 3 morspechs, beside the general day, accordyng to the beforeseid.”

The above seems to be taken from some old record relating to this gild; Parkin then adds—

“I find at this time several men and women admitted brethren and sisters, the men paying 2s. admission, and the woman 1s. Among them Domps. Robs. Metford, monachus, and paid 2s. and prior William Lobbis, or Cobbis, 2s. It was a mean Guild. At one Colloquium I find expended in lervis. 9d. in pane 3d. in casu & carn. 3d. Colloq. tent. in aula Hen. Bretenham, Die Dominic. prox. post fest. see. Cather. Ao. Hen. VII. 3º.—Colloq. Gen. on the feast of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, Ao. 3, Hen. VII. John Nichol chose alderman, &c. when it was ordered that there should be kept 2 morspech in the yere, besides the general, and that the skevens shall have of every brother and sister of the general day, as many as dine and sup, 2d. and the morspech-pence.—Colloq. Gen. in St. George’s Hall on Sunday next after the feast of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian Henry. VII. 4º. Robert Johnson chose alderman: ordered that there be bert one morspech in the year, besides the general day, this morspech to be kept the Sunday before St. Margaret’s day—ordered that the brethren and sisters dyne and sup together, and pay every brother and sister that dine and sup 1d. and the morspech 1d. when it appeared that they had goods and chattels belonging to them.—Ordered that the clerk’s wages shall be 12d. and the dean 10d. per annum. [445a] and we will that John Sturmyn shall bere the perk money for to find the perk lights.—Dna. Alice Belle, a recluse, entered and paid 1s.—1492. Adam Mylke then alderman—Henry Bretenham chose alderman, 1492, after Mylke, when I find children entered brothers and sisters, under age.—Dompn. Geor. . . . prior of Lyn entered brother 1495.—Mem. that the alderman gave a drinking the first Sunday in May, and 3s. 4d. was gathered and delivered to the alderman, to be delivered the next general day to the brethren again, with his good devotion to God, and to the good holy seynt, and in encressin of the Gyld.—At a drinking, on Sunday next after Allhallowsmass, at John Bevies smith, gathered 2s. 4d. for the perk money.—Dnus. Nicholas Berdeney, intrat. Ao. 4 Henry. VII. The Morspech held on Relick Sunday 1490. Robert Johnson, alderman;—In the 7th of Henry VII. Ad. Mylke alderman; ordered that every brother, on the next morrow after the general, shall wait on the alderrnan for the time being, at our Lady of the mount, [445b] at nine of the clock, and there every brother to offer then, and what brother come not, without a lawful excuse, shall pay at the next morspech following after the general, half a pound of wax, without any grace, and he that come not, to send his offering, and every brother having a wife, or sister, they to offer betwixt them a halfpenny.—This general held Sunday 22d of January.—In 1492, Adam Mylke occurs alderman, chose on Sunday after St. Fab. and the feast in St. George’s Hall.—Adam Mylke, alderman, 1493.—In 1493, there seems to be 38 of this guild, the morspech pence being 8s. 2d.—In 1493 the second paid at their dinner and supper, by every brother 1d. to the Gild and 1d. to the scevyns, a brother and his wife 3d.—1d. to the gyld and 2d. to the schevens.—In the 10th of Henry VI [VII.] Henry Bretenham chose alderman, on Sunday next after St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, and occurs 1495. Ordered that the skyvens on the day of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, or one of them, come to the church, and do ring none, and see that the candles about and afore the awter be light, at evening and at service, on the day, on pain of dim. lib. of wax, each of them to the lightward; and I find 4 minstrells belong to them and brethren.—In the 13 of Henry VII. Bretenham occurs alderman.—The altar light, perk, &c. kept by the guild, and that of the bason, and the dead.—In 1500 H. Bretenham, Mayor; and 1501, H. Bretenham, alderman; and 1502, and 1503.—In the 2d of Henry VIII. Thomas French, late alderman, died.—In the 4th of Henry VIII. Robert Baker, chose alderman.”

Such is the account we have of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian’s Gild. As it had goods and chattels belonging to it, it was probably dissolved at the reformation, like all others so circumstanced. Parkin calls it mean gild: it might perhaps be so, compared with some of the wealthier ones; but there is reason to believe that it was superior to some of the others. It had its company of minstrels, which may be thought to answer to a modern band of music, and seems to indicate that this society was not among our meanest or lowest gilds. The number of its members in the reign of Henry VIII. Parkin reckons to consist of 38, by the amount of the morspech pence; but if the officers were exempted, from that payment, they might be no less than 45.—However that was, this gild in its days might answer some very useful purposes.

Of the two Gilds named, in the catalogue, next after that of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, namely, those of St. Lawrence and St. Agnes, nothing is known but the names: all the rest seems to have gone long ago into irrecoverable oblivion.—Of the next, the 19th Gild, that of Corpus Christi, something more is known. Both Parkin and Mackerell have made some mention of this ancient fraternity. The former speaks of it as follows—

“Licence was granted that John de Brunham, and John Waryn, of Lenn, might give one messuage, 75s. 7d. ob. rent. with the appurtenances in Lenn, and that Richard Dun might give the rent of 12d. and the profit of one passage-boat beyond the port of the village of Lenn, with the appurtenances, to Thomas de Couteshale, master of the said guild, [as I take it] and the aforesaid John and Richard might give to Thomas de Couteshale, one Shop and solar, with the appurtenances in the said Village, which Thomas de Couteshale holds.—John de Brunham, John de Perteneye, and Adam Skert, burgess of Lynn, grant, &c. to Jeffrey Talboth, Thomas Botekysham, John de Dockyn, &c. 2s. which they used to receive of the heirs of John de Syssewell of West Lenne, for the liberty of a ferry, of a passage-boat over the water.—Dated at Lenn Bishop on Sunday after the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin, in the 3d. of Richard II.—Jeffrey Talboth then mayor:—Witnesses John de Tyteleshale, Roger Paxam, &c.” [448]

Hence it appears that this Gild had goods and chattels, was in possession of a ferry boat, &c. And must have been a fraternity of some consequence. From Mackerell’s account it seems to be one of the commercial, or mercantile gilds; what he says of it is contained in the following passage—

“Of the Company of Merchants of Corpus Christi, their agreement, and for what.—This Indenture made witnesseth, that John Pygot, burgels, merchant of Lynne Byshope, Master of the company of Corpus Christi in Lynne aforesaid, hath delivered to William Marche, Wex-Chandeler of Lynne C and vi lb (i.e. 106 lb.) in clene wex v^xx and xii lb. (i.e. 112lb. for the hundred) and in torches half an c and xxi lb. of wex and in x grete chapterell xvii lb. and half a lb. of wex and Rosyn, and in smale chapterell xi lb. Wex and Rosyn: To have the kepyng of the same weight of Wex duryng the terme of x yeers. The seid William to fynde every yeer duryng hys seid Terme, as welle all the lyghtes about the Tabernacle of Corpus Christi, in the Chirche of Seynt Margaret in Lynne, the lyghtes of all the torches which the seid Company spendeth or shal spende every yeer durylnge the seid Terme. And the seid William to sette up every year the Heerse of the said Company in the chirch before-said, and take it downe upon his owne costs and expens, as it has ben doon and used aforne this tyme; and in the ende of the seid Terme the seid William to deliver ageyn the seid Weyght of Wex Torches and Chapterell to the Mayster of the said Company for the tyme beeng, for the which Lyght-making, and fyndyng every yeer, the seid William shall have of the Maister and Company V Marks and X shillings of good money of Inglond to be paid to the seid William every yeer in the utasse of the feste of Corpus Christi. Into Witnesse hereof, the partyes aforesaid to these Indentures alternatly have sette their seales. Written at Lynn foreseid on Wednysday the feste of Seynt Gregory the Pope, the yeer of the reigne of King Henry the sixth after the Conquest xxvii.” [449a]

From this last extract it is very evident that the Society of Corpus Christi made no mean figure among the Lynn gilds. The Tabernacle of Corpus Chisti, [449b] in the church of St. Margaret, belonged to this Gild, and must have been attended with considerable expense, both in its formation, and the subsequent charges which it occasioned, for the lights that were there kept, &c. Indeed we are expressly told that they were a company of merchants, and therefore we need not wonder that they were, and could afford to be at more expense than most of the others. In short, we may pretty safely conclude that this must have been one of our most opulent Gilds. Had we known more of its history we might be able to record some of its good deeds, and prove that it deserved an honourable remembrance; but as that is not the case, our account of it must be here concluded.

Section V.

Account of the holy Trinity Company, of great merchants’ Gild.

Of all the Lynn gilds, that which assumed the name of Trinity, and is the 20th in the Catalogue, appears to have been by far the most eminent and opulent. It had very considerable possessions, in houses, lands, and other sorts of property; and there is still preserved a more particular and full account of this gild than of most, or indeed of any of the rest: of which its large landed property may be one principal reason, as that could not well be conveyed into other hands without some mention of its original or former possessors, and such mention too as would be likely to be long remembered. Most, if not all the property of this mercantile company, and particularly what consisted in houses and lands, was, at the reformation, when the company was dissolved, vested in the corporation, and still constitutes a great part, or most, of their property of that description. The best account of this gild, that we know of, is contained in a MS. volume which once belonged to the late Henry Partridge Esq. but is now the possession of our venerable townsman Thomas Day Esq. who has very obligingly favoured the present writer with the use of it. This account extends much further than that given in Parkin’s printed History of Lynn, though it seems to have been originally drawn up by the same hand, and transcribed from the papers of that eminent antiquary, with his consent, by the procurement of the late Mr. Partridge, in 1749.—We learn from the printed account, as well as from that in manuscript, that though this gild is said to have been founded by king John, at the request of his great favourite, bishop De Grey, yet that, in fact, it existed long before that time, as appears by an answer to a certain writ of enquiry, in the reign of Richard II. so that what is called founding it then, seems to mean no more than that monarch’s giving it his royal sanction, or taking it under his kingly patronage: and we know not how far that proved of material benefit to the institution. The interference and patronage of statesmen have not always proved favourable to commercial prosperity. But we will now proceed to lay before the reader the account which we have obtained of this gild.

“John de Grey bishop of Norwich persuaded [451] king John to found the guild of the holy Trinity at Lynn: the brethren of which were bound, under the penalty of a gallon of wine, to have Mass celebrated every Trinity Sunday, in St. Margaret’s Church, for the souls of the said king and bishop.—It was called the great Guild of the holy Trinity in Lynn, in respect to other less guilds in the same town; the head or chief person of this guild, or fraternity, was stiled, the Alderman, or Custos, and was chose by the commonalty of the said town, and continued so on that choice for life, unless upon account of any great infirmity or inability, or some other reasonable cause, he was set aside and removed.

“This Guild was said to have its rise and begining before the reign of king John, as appears from the answer of Thomas Botesham, alderman of it, and his brethren, in the time of Richard II. to a writ of enquiry of that king relating to its foundation, authority, &c. that its origin was not known, that king John, considering the great concourse of merchants to this town, granted the alderman that then was, and the commonalty and their successors, by Letters patents, bearing date in his sixth year, that they might have a guild of merchants in the said town: and Henry III. son to the said king John, by his Letters patents, granted one of their own body and community to be mayor of the said town, which said mayor and alderman for the time being, should always have the rule and government of it; and which said alderman, in the vacancy of a mayor, or in the absence of the mayor from the said town, should have the rule and government of the said community, as the alderman and his predecessors, the aldermen of the said town, had and enjoyed.

“As to their possessions, &c. they are thus returned to the aforesaid enquiry, That they had a place called the Common Staith with its appurtenances, valued at 42l. 6s. 8d. per annum clear, besides all reprises, That the goods and chattels of the aforesaid Guild amount in the whole to 260l. 13s. viz. in ready money 60l. 13s. In divers merchandize 200l. and that in many books, vestments, chalices, and other ornaments for the chaplains of the said Guild performing Divine service as well in the parish church as in the chapels [453] annexed to the said church, and that in wax for lights in the said church and chapels, in the honour and laud of the holy Trinity, yearly found, and for torches at the funerals of poor brethren, &c. of the said Guild, and that out of the profits of the common Stathe, and out of the goods and chattels aforesaid, together with diverse goods and chattels bequeathed and left to the said Guild; the alderman, &c. sustain and find thirteen chaplains, daily and yearly to pray, as well for the king, his ancestors, and for the peace and welfare of his kingdom, as for the souls of all the aldermen, brethren, and benefactors of the said Guild, also for the souls of all the faithful deceased: six of which officiated in the church of St. Margaret aforesaid, four in the chapel of St. Nicholas, and three in the chapel of St. James in Lenne, who all day, as they are stated and appointed in the church and chapels aforesaid, celebrate high mass, by note, and on Sundays and other festival days, celebrate mass at Mattins, and at Vespers, by note; and if any of the aforesaid chaplains neglects his duty and office, or is not of an honest life and conversation, when he has been admonished by the alderman, and does not amend, he is removed from the service, and the said alderman appoints another able and honest one in his place. And further, that out of the profits of the said Common-Stath, goods and chattels aforesaid, many almsdeeds and works of charity were yearly given, which, one year with another, are computed at 30l. viz. towards the support of the poor brethren of the said guild, to the blind, lame, and other distressed persons, to poor clerks keeping school, and poor religious houses, as well of men as women, to the lepers in and about Lenne, and in repairs &c. of the parish church and chapels aforesaid, and in the ornaments of the same, together with the alms given to the four orders of friers in Lenne, and to the maintaining of several aqueducts for the use of the said town: all the goods and chattels aforesaid are in the hands of the said alderman, and of four men of the said guild, called skivins, [454a] who yearly distribute the said goods as aforesaid: and further, that the brethren of the said guild never had nor used any one suit of livery, either in their vestments or hoods.” [454b]

The following were the Rules and Ordinances of this Gild.

1. If any stranger is willing to enter into the fraternity, he ought to pledge into the hands of the alderman 100s. et jus p’ dict. domus; scil. to the alderman 4d. to the clerk 2d. to the dean 2d. and afterwards out of the 100s. pledged with the alderman and his brethren, ad melins. . . . poterit, and shall immediately give one sextary [455a] of wine, viz. 10d. [455b]

2. If any brother has a son, or sons, legitimate, who are willing to enter into the said fraternity, each one ought to pay for his entrance 4s. the aforesaid right being excepted.

3. Whoever will enter into the said fraternity, ought on the first day of his admission to wait and serve before the alderman and the brethren, honourably, in neat clothes, and [455c] . . . of gold or silver.

4. The alderman to have, on the day of Pentecost, one sextary of wine, and the dean half a sextary, the clerk half, and each of the skivens [455d] the same day half a sextary, and every day after as long as the drinking shall continue, the alderman shall have half a sextary, the dean, clerk, and each of the Skivins one gallon, and each of the attendants half a gallon, at evening.

5. If any of the brethren shall disclose to any stranger the counsels of the said guild, to their detriment, without the assent of the alderman and his brethren, he shall forfeit the sum of 32 pence.

6. If any of the brethren shall fall into poverty, or misery, all the brethren are to assist him by common consent out of the chattels of the house, or fraternity, or of their proper own.

7. If any brother should be impleaded, either within Lenne or without, the brethren there present ought to assist him in their council, if they are called, to stand with him and counsel him without any costs; and if they do not, they are to forfeit 32 pence.

8. None of the brethren is to come into the guild before the alderman and his brethren with his cap or hood on, or barefoot, or in any rustick manner, if he does he is to be amerced 4 pence.

9. If any one should sleep at the guild, either at the general meeting or at their feasts and drinking, he is to forfeit 4 pence.

10. If any one turns him rudely to his brother, or calls him by any rude name, [he is] to be amerced 4 pence.

11. If any one is called and cited at a prime (or general meeting) and does not come before the issue of the first consult, he is to pay 1d. by order of the dean; and if he refuses and sits down, he is to be amerced 4 pence.

12. If any one should be cited to the prime, and shall be found in the town, or shall come late to the drinking, and the dean shall say to him to be there at the next prime, and he does not come before they begin to take judgments of defaults, he shall either make some reasonable excuse, or pay 12d. and if he comes before the defaults are adjudged, and shall depart without leave, shall pay 12d.

13. If any one of this house shall buy any thing, and a brother shall come in unexpectedly before the agreement, [457] or at it, he ought to be a partner with him that buy, and if the buyer refuses it, he is to be amerced half a mark.

14. If any servant of the brethren comes at the drinking, or the prime, he is to lay down the cap and cloak, and give it to the janitor to keep, whilst he enters and speaks to his master, and then he is to depart forthwith: if it is at the drinking, let him drink once or twice, provided he does not sit, and then he is to depart, and if he does not, his master is to be amerced.

15. If any one refuse to obey the precept of the alderman, or dean, for the honour and profit of the house, he is to be amerced 12s.

16. If any poor brother shall dye, the alderman and brethren shall see that his body be honourably buried, of the goods, or chattels of the house, or out of alms, if he has not wherewith to bury himself.

17. If the alderman shall dye, none belonging to him, neither son, or any other can act in any thing as alderman but the brethren may choose a new alderman whom they please.

18. If any brother shall dye, the dean is to summons all the brethren to make their offerings for the soul of the deceased; and if any one is absent, he is to give one halfpenny at the next prime following, for the soul of the defunct, and the dean is to have 4d. of the alms collected for citing the brethren.

19. If any brother, or alderman shall act contrary to the ordinances of this house, he is either to forfeit his brotherhood, or pay half a mark for the good of the house.

20. No one shall intrude himself while the drinking continues.

21. If any brother shall offend another brother, in word or deed, he shall make no complaint but to the alderman first, and the mayor; if he does not, he is to be amerced half a mark.

22. If the skivins shall merchanize with the chattels of the house, no brother shall have any part therein, but the whole profit to go to the use of the guild.

23. The skivins are to swear, when they receive the chattels of the house, that they will employ the same faithfully to the good of the guild, and will fully account and answer for the profit.

The following additional articles are given, in the said MS. volume, as Usages and Customs of the gild.

[1.] There are four meetings of the alderman and his brethren (viz.) The first on Friday in the first week of Lent, to settle and order their alms and other works of charity. The second on Friday next before the feast of the holy Trinity, to choose the officers of the said Guild, (viz.) the skivins, and to settle and take the accounts of them that are then removed. The third on the vigil and day of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the laud and honor thereof at the vespers of the said feast, to have placebo [459a] and dirige [459b] decently and honourably performed, for the souls of all the ancestors of our lord the king, all the aldermen and brethren of the said guild, all their benefactors and faithful deceased: and on the feast of the said festival to have the solemn masses, as well of the said festival, as the masses of requiem for the souls aforesaid, and to make their offerings for the same. The fourth on the Friday next after the feast of the exaltation of the holy cross, [459c] to look into the state of the said guild, and to receive the arrears, if any were left in the hands of the skivins of the foregoing years, and to dispose and order the goods and chattels of the said guild.

[2.] If any brother of the said guild shall dye in the said town, another brother of the same, deputed by the alderman shall appoint 12 torches to be at the funeral of the said deceased; and further every brother of the guild in town, shall be warned to make his offering for the deceased, at the mass that is celebrated on the day of the burial.

[3.] It any of the aforesaid brethren shall dye in the said town or elsewhere, as soon as knowledge thereof shall come to the alderman, the said alderman shall order solemn Mass to be celebrated for him, at which every brother of the said guild, that is in town, shall make their offering; and further, the alderman shall make every chaplain of the said guild, immediately on the death of any brother, to say 30 Masses for the deceased.

[4.] The alderman and skivins of the said guild are by duty obliged to visit, four times a year, all the infirm, all that are in want, need, or poverty, and to minister to, and relieve all such, out of the alms of the said guild.

[5.] If any brother shall become poor and needy, he shall be supported in food and cloathing, according to his exigency, out of the profits of the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of the said guild.

[6.] If any one has a desire and is willing, for the honour of the holy Trinity, to be received into the said guild, that he may be partaker of the alms and benefactions thereof, he shall give to the said guild a certain sum of money to the maintenance of the said alms and benefactions according to what shall be agreed up on by the alderman and brethren thereof.

[7.] If any brother has a son, or sons, after his entrance into the guild, lawfully born and begotten, especially if such be of good and honest fame and conversation, they are to be received every one of them into the said guild, if he so thinks well, four shillings each.

[8.] No born slave, [461] or one of such like condition, nor any apprentice can be received, and if any one of such like condition should be received into the said guild, the alderman and his brethren not knowing it, when it is truly and lawfully proved, such a one shall lose the benefit of the said guild.

[9.] No one until he arrive at the age of 21 years, and is of honest fame and condition, can be received into the said guild.

[10.] If any alderman shall happen to dye, or shall be removed from his office on [for] any just and reasonable cause, the community of the said town shall immediately choose another into the said office, which alderman so elected, in the presence of the said community, shall promise, that he will faithfully perform and observe all and singular those things which belong to his office.

[11.] When any one shall be received into the said guild, he shall promise in the hands of the said alderman on his faith, that he will be obedient unto the said alderman and his officers of the guild for the time being, in all lawful and honest things touching their office, and that he will faithfully observe, as far as he is able, all the lawful ordinances which, for the good rule and government of the said guild, and honourable support of the said chaplains, and the alms and good works of the said guild, are already made, or shall be made hereafter.

[12.] It was ordained on Wednesday in the week of Pentecost in the 7. of Edward [462a] that the brethren should keep a general Morwespech [462b] three times a year; to wit, on Friday in Whitsun week, on Friday after the exaltation of the Holy Cross, and on Friday on the first week of Lent.

[13.] Likewise it was ordained, by common consent, that the alderman and his brethren should take care that a solemn mass should be celebrated for the soul of John de Grey, formerly bishop of Norwich, who first obtained the liberty of the said guild; viz. on the feast of the holy Trinity, where every one of the brethren was to make an offering of an halfpenny, and if any one made default, he was to give one sextary of wine to the alms of the said house and gild.

[14.] And on Friday on the week of Pentecost in the 44. Edward III. [1370] Thomas de Bockisham then alderman of, &c. it was agreed unanimously that all the brethren who were well in town should meet at Vespers at St. Margaret’s church, and should hear together Vespers and Placebo for the soul of the aforesaid king John and John [de] Grey bishop of Norwich, and on the day following, on the feast of the holy Trinity, they should all be there present, and hear the mass said of the holy Trinity, and, immediately after that, the mass for the dead, by note, for the souls aforesaid.

[15.] On Friday on the week of Pentecost, in the 23 Edward 3. it was provided by common assent, for ever, that no brother ought to buy or sell any millstones, or marble stones, brought to Lynn to be sold, as long as the scabini of this house would buy them for the profit of the guild and pay for them to the full, and if any one brother should act contrary hereto, he should for ever be deprived of the society.

[16.] On Friday the week of Pentecost the 24. Edward 3. it was provided and agreed that every one of the skivins shall faithfully and separately give in his account before the alderman and his brethren to shew to them how many millstones he has bought or sold, to whom he has sold, and for what price; and what size every millstone was which he either bought or sold: and all the ready money (silver) he has he shall bring with him; and if he does not, as is here provided, he shall give six pound of silver to the use and profit of the said house, or be discharged the society.

[17.] If any brother shall be elected to the office of a skivin and he shall refuse it, he shall pay 40s. to the good of the house, or be expelled.

[18.] On Friday in Pentecost week, 16. Edward III. it was provided and ordained unanimously by the alderman and the fraternity that the skivins for the time being may at any time of the year distrain and bring their distresses for rents and farms belonging to the guild, according to the customs, &c. of the Burgh of Lynn, and that for the time to come the skivins should be responsible for the full payments of the said rents and firmis till the time of their accounting shall come, and that the skivins for the time being, whether they are elected this present year or have been elected the foregoing year shall every year at the feast of St. John Baptist account with their tenants, and the said tenants shall hire again of the said skivins the houses which they shall hold beyond the term of the said St. John as the said skivins shall see to be most for the profit of the said guild: and whatever accident shall happen, either by the occupation of the said houses, the king’s ministers, or any other persons whatever, or by any other accident whatever, the said tenants of the farms aforesaid shall answer for the whole time to the said skivins in full without any deductions at the terms aforesaid. [464]

[ 19.] On Friday on the week of Pentecost in the 27. of Edward III. Jeffrey Drew then alderman, it is provided that if any brother was found guilty and convicted of any notorious and scandalous falsehood to the loss or disgrace of the guild, he should be deprived, and never be reconciled, but looked upon as a convict and perjured person.

[20.] On Friday next after the feast of the exaltation of the holy Cross, in the 31. of Edward 3. Jeffrey Drew then alderman, it was unanimously agreed by the alderman and his brethren, that as by the grant of the king in his charter the Burgh of Lynn Epi. had this Liberty, that the burgesses of the same in all fairs through the kingdom of England were free and enjoyed that freedom; when therefore any one of the said burgesses or brethren should go to the fair at Stirbridge, or where any such like fair is held, and has taken his place by the consent of any of the bailiffs of those places, and marked it out by stakes or pins, by wood or stone, if any other burgess of Lynn, or brother, either by presents or favour should deprive of or expel the aforesaid burgess, or brother, from his place so taken as aforesaid, he is to be looked upon and esteemed as a transgressor of the aforesaid Liberty, and to be fined 40s. so that the person so deprived and expelled may have 20s. of it; and if the transgressor shall happen to be a brother of the said gild, he shall be obliged by the alderman to pay 20s. for the benefit of the said guild; and if the transgressor shall be a burgess, and not a brother of the guild, he shall be obliged to pay 20s. by the mayor of the town, for the benefit of the commonalty of the said town.

[21.] It is provided that none of our brethren shall come into the guild before the alderman and his brethren capped, or hooded, or barefooted, or in any other rude or rustick manner, and if he does he shall pay 4d. for alms. [466a]

[22.] 16. Richard 2. 1393. Licence was granted that John de Brunham and Thomas de Couteshale, of Lynn, might give to Henry de Betely, alderman, the rents and profits of five messuages, one Kay, 11l. 6s. 8d. rent, and the profit of one passage boat beyond the port of Lynn Epi. with the appurtenances in Lynn, P. C. P. &c. N. 54. pt. 2. [466b]

It is very evident from the above extracts that the fraternity of the holy Trinity stood very high among the Lynn Gilds; and there is reason to believe that it far surpassed any of the rest in power and opulence: of which the number of its chaplains and the extent of its possessions may be considered as very good and competent proofs. Of those possessions we can form but a very imperfect idea from what has been above said upon that subject. A much more correct and adequate idea may be obtained from the charter of Edward VI. after the dissolution of the gilds, in which the said possessions are by him transferred or granted to the mayor and burgesses.—This Charter bears date 21. May 1548, the 2nd year of that reign. The substance of it, as it relates to this gild, and serves to elucidate the present subject, is as follows—

“Edward VI. by the grace of God, &c:—Whereas certain lands and tenements, and other hereditaments lying in our burgh of Lynn Regis, South Lynn, Hardwick, Gaywood, Sechehithe, Middleton, Westwinch, Snetsham, Shernborn, Eaton, Ingoldesthorpe, in the County of Norfolk, and certain lands and tenements lying in Brandon Ferry in Suffolk, which amount to the yearly value of 32l. 12s. 11d. besides all reprises, were formerly given and granted to the alderman, custodes, or scabins, and the brethren of the Merchants’ guild of the Holy Trinity, in Lynn Regis aforesaid, and their successors.—and all and singular whereof come to us, and are in our keeping, by virtue of an act of parliament made at Westminster 4. Nov. in the 1st year of our reign; and whereas the rents and profits of the same were formerly laid out in defending the breaches of the sea, repairing of banks, walls, fleets, and water courses, in Lynn aforesaid, without which the said village could not be kept and preserved against the violence of the sea. We therefore considering and having regard to the good state and defence of the said village, out of our good will, and by the advice, &c. . . . have given and granted to the Mayor and Burgesses of Lynn aforesaid, out of the aforesaid lands and tenements, &c. two messuages, one water-mill, 241 acres and 2 roods of arable land, 6 acres and 1 rood of meadow inclosed, and 46 acres of pasture inclosed, lying and being in the village and fields of Snetsham, Ingoldesthorpe, Eaton, and Shernborn, now or late in the tenure of William Overend; one messuage called the Chequer with 2 acres of land thereto belonging, and another messuage called Pepers, with 2 acres thereunto adjoining; 120 acres of arable land, 3 acres of pasture, and the liberty of a fold for 340 sheep, and the rent of 24d. per annum, in Brandon Ferry aforesaid, in the tenure of John Atmere. Also one tenement now or late in the tenure of William Bolton, two tenements in the tenure of John Salter, one tenement now or lately in the tenure of Thomas Wyer; one tenement now or lately in the tenure of Thomas Wild, one tenement now or lately in the tenure of John Standfast, one tenement, &c. in the tenure of John Shoemaker, one tenement in the tenure of Jas. Mayner, one pasture in the tenure of John Waters, one messuage, or inn, called the White Hart, &c. in the tenure of Thomas Mese, one tenement in the tenure of Edward Baker, one tenement in the tenure of Richard Norman, one tenement in the tenure of Richard Newgate, one tenement in the tenure of Beatrice Isloppe, one tenement in the tenure of Joan Wilson, diverse tenements in the tenure of George Felton, two tenements in the tenure of James . . . one tenement in the tenure of Robert Bleisby, one tenement in the tenure of Edw. Newton, one tenement in the tenure of Edw. Irishman, one tenement in the tenure of the Mayor and Burgesses, two tenements in the tenure of Wm. Manderson, one tenement in the tenure of . . . Jareth, one tenement in the tenure of Alan Newton, one tenement in the tenure of . . . Coke, one tenement in the tenure of John Hart, one tenement in the tenure of Nich. Feries, one tenement in the tenure of Francis Balden, one tenement in the tenure of John Cragge, one garden in the tenure of John Wrenche, one tenement in the tenure of Cornelius Adrianson, one messuage, called Le Guild Hall, in the tenure of the Mayor and Burgesses, one tenement in the tenure of . . . Wilson; seven houses, called warehouses, and six chambers over them on the north side of the port called Common Stath; nine houses, called warehouses, with chambers over them, on the south side of the Common Stath; one tenement in the tenure of Thomas Courte, one tenement in the tenure of Robt. Smith, one tenement in the tenure of Cuthbert Atkinson, one tenement in the tenure of Rt. Rowes, two tenements in the tenure of Wm. Clayborne, one Curtilage in the tenure of John Wilson, one Cartilage in the tenure of Tho. Lockwood, one Curtilage in the tenure of Rt. Parke, one Curtilage in the tenure of Sim. Newell, one tenement in the tenure of John Curson, one tenement in the tenure of John Eldred, one tenement in the tenure of John Sharpe, one tenement in the tenure of Thomas Furnes, one tenement in the tenure of Tho. Archers, one tenement in the tenure of Andrew Skite, one in the tenure of Tho. Maltward, one in the tenure of Reginald Taylor, one in the tenure of Robt. Weyman, one capital messuage, late Brasum, now or lately in the tenure of the guild of the holy Trinity, one Messuage, called New-hall, in the tenure of the mayor and burgesses, one garden in the tenure of Thomas Miller, and one passage over the port of Lynn, late in the tenure of Oliver Braikett; all and every part of which are and lie in the Village of Lynn aforesaid. And also 15 acres of land in Islington, in the tenure of Robert Balding, 15 acres of land in Sechehithe in the tenure of John Barvell, 3 acres of land in Westwinch, in the tenure of Malachy Cogley, 3 acres of land in Seche, in the tenure of Thomas Baker, one pasture in Gaywood, in the tenure of Barnard Water, and one messuage, 46 acres of land, an 100 acres of pasture, 45 acres of meadow and 50 acres of marsh with the appurtenances lying in South Lynn in the tenure of Henry Bleisby. Also certain yearly rents issuing out of the tenements called Baretts, and out of the tenements late Richard Humphreys, and out of the tenements of William Pipers, and out of the tenements late Wilsons, and out of the tenements of Thomas Dawson; and out of the tenements late John Alexander, and out of the tenements of John Parmyter, and out of the tenements late Robert Amflet, lately belonging to the mayor and burgessess, and out of a curtilage late John Baxter’s and William Hall, and out of the tenement of Robert Gervys, and out of the tenements belonging to the Warden of the chapel of St James in Lynn, and out of a Pasture called Paradise in Lynn, and out of the tenements late John Powers, and out of the tenements of Henry Duplack, called the White Horse, in Lynn, which were lately parcell of the lands, possessions and revenues belonging to the Merchants’ Guild of the Holy Trinity in Lynn aforesaid; together with all the wood, timber, trees, underwood, &c. liberties of foldage, and all other lands, tenements, &c. lying in Lynn Regis, Snetsham, Ingoldesthorpc, Eaton, Sherborne, South Lynn, Hardwick, Gaywood, Sechehythe, Middleton, Seche, [471] and Westwinch in Norfolk, and Brandon Ferry in Suffolk, belonging to the guild of the Holy Trinity, to be held of the king and his heirs, paying 13l. 16s. yearly, at the feast of St. Michael and the annunciation, by equal portions, the court augmentations. And we further grant to the said mayor and burgesses all the stock of millstones, amounting to the value 40l. late parcell of the goods and chattels of the Guild of the Holy Trinity. And we further grant to the said mayor and burgesses and their successors, that they may purchase and acquire to themselves and successors lands and tenements to the value of 100l. per annum, or any other sum than 100l. per annum, without any fine to us or to our use, and that these Letters patents should be granted them without any fee to be paid or given. Dated at Wansted, 21 May Aº 2º.” [472]

This document makes it very clear, that our Trinity Gild had acquired large possessions: nor is it to be concluded that the above items, or specifications, constituted the whole of them; their mercantile property and revenue, at least, are still to be added, which cannot be supposed inconsiderable; and there might be lands and tenements beside, that belonged to them, which the king might not choose to include in the above grant. However that was, it may be reasonably and safely presumed that the possessions of this fraternity were much larger than those of any of the rest, and that its weight and influence in the town were also very considerable, not only exceeding those of any of the others, but even, perhaps, of the corporation itself.—Its 13 chaplains may be considered as a proof of its great opulence, as well as of its assuming a very high religious character, which was looked upon, it seems, in those times, as essential to the reputation and prosperity of all social institutions, those of a civil and commercial, as well as of an ecclesiastic nature. The case is not exactly so in the present day. Between our present protestant corporation, with only two chaplains, and this same gild with thirteen, one may presume there must be what may be called a pretty strong and striking contrast. We would fain hope, however, that the advantage to the community lies very materially on the protestant side.—Be that as it may, very different from what it is at present must have been the state of things at the period of which we are now treating, when the members of a fraternity which comprehended the first families in the town, were prohibited, as has been already remarked, to appear before the alderman, or at the gild meetings, barefooted; which clearly indicates that it was then customary, for even the principal families, to go about, ordinarily, without shoes and stockings. It was the case, no doubt, with those of both sexes—shoes and stockings constituting then only a part of the Sunday and holyday dress, or the full dress, of even the people of the first fashion in the place, such as the Bagges, the Everards, and the Hoggs of those days: Nor are we warranted to conclude, that they were, therefore, less respectable or less happy than their successors of the present generation. It was the fashion in those times, and it could affect neither their respectability nor their happiness.

Section VI.

Account of the remaining Gilds, and particularly those of St. Francis and St. William.

Next, in the Catalogue, after the gild of the Trinity, are those of St. Andrew, Holy Rood, St. Lovis, St. Austin, St. Barbara, St. Antony, and St. Stephen; of none of which have we been able to obtain any further information.—They were, probably, fraternities of the lower sort; and having no large or permanent possessions attached to them, such necessary records as might exist among them would not be likely to remain to any distant period. Whatever they were, they seem to have long ago perished; and so, in all likelihood, had also their very names, but for the laudable care and industry of the unknown compiler of Mr. King’s valuable MS. Volume, who, finding them in some old record which fell in his way, thought proper to transcribe and insert them among his curious collections and memoranda.

Of the next gild, the 28th, in the catalogue, that of St. Francis, the said MS. volume contains a very particular, and what may also be called a very curious account. It has preserved a copy, as it seems, of the incorporating instrument, original agreement, or foundation deed of this gild. This document is certainly uncouth enough, both as to style and orthography: but as it may on that account be no less valuable or interesting, it shall be here inserted, for the entertainment and information of the curious and intelligent reader.—We find that the Gild to which it relates was founded by a priest, or friar, of the name of John Wells, who is called Sir John Wells, it being customary in those days to prefix the term, or title of Sir, mostly, if not always, to the name of an ecclesiastic. He seems to have been also its alderman in 1467, if he was not so from the time of its foundation, 13 years earlier.—The said Deed, or Instrument, reads as follows.

“Be yt knowen to all chrysten evydently be yis present wryghthyng, yat in ye yeer of our Lord M, CCCC, LIIII. a certen compan [company] of ye towne of Lenn begonne a gilde in the honour and reverence of all myghty God, & of his blessyd confessour seynt Ffransseis, for to be holde and kept perpetually in the convent of the ffryers mynors of Lynn before seyde. Wherefore the brethryn be comown assent of hem all ordeynd hir statuys [statutys] wretyn in a forme to be pronownsyd & redde two tymys in ye yeer among all ye brethryn of ye gilde, & if it be not so yat be ye negligens of ye aldyrman yeis statutys be not redde in all ye yeer ye aldyrman shall pay to ye mendyng of ye company 1lb. wax. Be yt ordeynd yt every yeer shall be schosyn an aldyrman in yis foorme, first & foremost ye aldyrman shll chose iiij men, and ye iiij men shll calle to hem other iiij men, and ye viii sall chose an aldyrman, to whose precepts & commandments ye hole ffraternyte sall abeygn, and be hym yei sall be governd in all thynggs yat be loful & proffytabyl to ye gylde, & also yei chose iiij skevents in whos handys sall be ye catel of ye gylde, & yerof to geeve a trewe a counth at dew tyme asynd by ye aldyrman & yt be ye oths made beforne all ye brethryn, of ye which iiij ij sall be ffrers of ye same place: Also yei shall chese a clarke & a dene to whose offyce yt lougyth to somawne and warne ye brethryn to cwm toged yr whan ye aldyrman send for yem for to have her mornspicheoz or any other thyng ye which sulld be to ye hononr & worshyp of ye gylde in peyne of a lb. of wax, & when ye fforseyd viii men have gevyn ye verdyt of her electyon and ye aldyrman which is chosyn at ye tyme refuse to execute ye office he shall paye to ye encres of ye gylde iiijs. iiijd. & on the same wysse every skeventh 2s. & ye clarke 12d. & ye dean 12d. It is ordeynd ye clerke for his labour in ye yeer sall have 10d. and ye dene 12d.

“Also yt [is] ordeynd yt every yere ye new officerys, yt is to say, ye alderman skyventys clarke and dene, sulld make an othe or a promesse to ye olde aldyrman aforne all ye brethyrn at yt time present to make a promise yat yei sall honestly governe ye fraternyte in her yer folowyng up her power with all her myght & her understandyng & manfully ye aldyrman sall defendyn all maner of hevynes & prejudicys fallyng to ye gylde.

“Also yts ordeynd yt ye generall day sall be holden honestly on ye Sonday after ye feast of sent Francesse in ye monyth of October, les yan sent Francesse day fall on Sonday, yan sall yt be holden ye same day, lesse yan any reasonabyl cawes why yt may be holdyn yan, & yan yt sall befall to ye aldyrman to sett a day as hym thynkkyth behovely to be sett on in the honowr & reverens of yat blyssyd conffessour yat he may be good mediator betwix God & us, [476] for ye which solempnite non of ye brethyrn sull absent yem in peyne of a lb. wax, but he have a resonabyl excusacyon: also yt ys ordeynd yt every yer upon ye day beforne ye generall sall be seyd a placebo for all our gyld brethyrn & systers, & on ye next day followyng a messe of requiem be noate at ye awter of Sent Frawnces for ye sowlys of all ye brethyrn & sisters yat be paseyd outh of yis ward, at ye which messe every one sall offer an ob. [477a]

“Also yt ys ordende yat yis gyld sall have iij or iiij morspytch ys ye yer, ye fyrst to be holdyn on ye general day, ye othyr morspytchys to be holdyn most behovely at dyverse tymes in ye yer to ye most proffitt of ye gyld be ye avyse & assent of ye aldyrman & his officerys convenyently accordyng.

“Also yt ys ordeynd yt every brodyr shall kepe pes love & charyte with othyr in as myche as he can or may; harm nor hevynes wyllfully he sall not do but what with worde strenkyth & mygth as weel with owthyn ye towne as with inne, he sall socowr & keep hym yt need. [477b]

“Also yt ys ordeynd yt yf any dyscorde or heavynesse ffall betwix ye brethyrn, thorow ye informatyon of any othyr wickyd man, yat neydyr of hem sall vexen nor sewyn othyr in temporal cowrthe nor spyrytual in to ye tyme yt ye aldyrman and brethyrn competently & wysly make thereof a ffynial ende in ye payne of 40d. so yat ye cawce be swyche yt lawfully it may be determynd betwix ye brethyrn.

“Also yt ys ordeynd yat yf any of ye brethyrn or systyrs be somownd of ye dene in lefull [477c] & lawful tyme & will not obeygn nor aperyn in honest place as wyr a synyd be ye alderman & ye skeventys at yer morspychys or for othyr thyngs whych sulld profyth to ye gylde, or yer cum not at ye warnyng of ye dene, yei sall pay 1lb. wax, but yf he have a reasonabyl excusacyon ye whych excuse sall be examynd wysly a mong ye brethyrn whedyr yt be leful or nowth, & yf ye dene faile in yer somewnys of any brodyr or systyr yat yan ben not warnyd thorowhys defawthe ye dene sall pay for every brodyr & sistyr not warnd thorow hys defawte 1d.

“Also yt ys ordend yt yf any of ye brethyrn or systyrs dey yt all ye breyeryn [bretheryn] sull cum to ye place of ye dede berying ye body to chyrche & yer to offyr for ye sowle & for to have messe of requiem & sythe to be tendannce in yat holy place tyl ye body be beryde & browth to erde, lesse yay have leve of the aldyrman for to go hoome, to ye which statute ye ffryerys ben exempte save a cowpul or too [two] & ye dene for his labour & lyghtys sall have of ye dede iiijd.

“Also what brodyr or systyr sall be receyvyd into yis gylde he sall paye fyrste hys ffees yt ys vd. to ye wax 1d. to ye aldyman ijd. to ye clerke 1d. to ye dene 1d. & moreover to ye encres of ye gylde aft yt he sall pay xiid.

“Wher yt was ordeynd syne be ye eleccyon of viii men so yt yt sulld be consent of ye aldyrman and ye gylde breyeryn, every brodyr & systyr yt sall be reseyves all pay iis. & thereto they sall make a promesse upon yer feyth to be trew brodyr & systyr & to kepyn ye cowncellys of ye gylde & not to bewray yem & to kepe ye statutys of ye gylde & yt ye clerke geff hem her charge fforthwyth on ye sam day whych yf any go undyschargyd thorow ye negligens of ye clerke he sail for yche of yem 1lb. wax,—Also ye aldyrman sall have to hys costys on ye general day brede & ale & of sylvyr xid.”

[To the above in the said MS. volume are subjoined the following particulars.]

“MEMORANDUM. Sr John Wells has gyffen to this ffraternite a Maser with a prynte of seynt John’s hede in ye bothome, with a cover to ye same, wryten with, soft words swageth ye suffyr and have thi desyre, which maser shall remayne with the Wardeyn for the time beyng & alway to be present at every mornspech & general [479]—Also a towelle with a dubbyl w of dyapyr & a dozen sponys.

“N.B. The above Sr John Wells was ffounder of this gild.”

“Memorandum. There be xii sponys sylvyr gevyn be Willm. Lyster ye which weyyth xiii vn. [oz] a quartr. less.

“Item, A maser with the bond & a prente of sylvyr gilte yt weyyth xiii vn:	s.	d.
The Charge of a General Day.—In brede	iii.	iiij.
In Ale iij dosey iiij Galons	v.
In xii Gees [3d. ¾ apiece]	iij.	ix
In Moton [Mutton; but we know not how much]	iiij	ij.
In Conynys [Rabbits; we know not how many]	ij	iiij
In Onyonys [Onions.]		ob [480a]
In Mylk		iiij.
In Colys iiij b. [cabbages probably.]		vi.
In Garlek [Garlick]		ob [480c]
In ye Cok [quere, Cooking]		xii.
For ye tornors [quere, turnspits]		ij.
For ye lyth be forn seynt Ffrawseys		xii.
For Swyllers		i.
For half an hondryd woode of belet		vi.
For ye holdyrs of ye torchys		ij.
For Rich. Wylgele		i.
For sponys		ij.
Sum.	xxiis.	viid.

“Memr. The price of 3 sheep 8s. & 3 calves 8s. 10d. [480b]

“At a generall day holden at ye ffryers mynors, als. Grey ffryers, on St. Lucas day, in ye yere of our Lord God M VC XII [1512] it was ordaynd yt ye morespech shal be kept on Sonday after St. ffraunces, & ye ffryers of ye order of St. ffraunces to have vd. for ever dede broder & systyr yt ys dede this yer followyng.

“Ordeynd yt John Judd shall finde contenuelly ye wax lyght before St. ffraunces, & to have for his wax & labour iis. viiid. & all overplus money to go towards repairing the north yle of ye Grey ffryers chirch.

“The good wills of those yt have gyven toward ye said Grey ffryers chirch as follows—

	s.	d.
Ffryer Thomas Peke warden	iii.	iiij.
Ffryer Water Martyn Lycster		xx.
Willm. Gerves thelder	iii.	iiij.
John Dowghty smyth	iii.	iiij.
Willm. Barker painter iiij treys lyme
John Judd—iiij treys lyme
Willm. Hall tailor		xx.
Willm. Wiggon iij ml. [3000] lath nayles
Willm. Hall draper iii bunches lath
Robt. Smyth, a smyth ii ml. [2000] lath nayles

“1524 Ordeynd yt ther shall be kept every sonday next before All Seynts yearly a solemn masse with dirge for ye sowles ye byfore tyme departyd & ye dene to warne every broder to offer for ye dede upon ijd. loss to St. Ffraunces.

“The monastry of ye ffryars minorites als. white ffryars [it should be alias Greyfriars] of the order of st. Ffraunces, in which was ye warden & 9 ffryars.

“1508. Ffrater Rich. Flete, Prior of ye ffryars Augustus.

Ffrater John Wells, Prior of ye ffryars Carmelites.

Ffrater John Lobby, Prior of ye ffryars Preachers.

Ffrater Thomas Peke Gaurdian [Warden] of ye ffryars minos.

It does not appear that the above Gild had a separate hall, like some of the others, but met, as we have seen, in the abbey, or monastery, of the Grey friars. It seems a very remarkable fraternity, being a mixture of friars, or ecclesiastics, and laics. Its very founder, and, seemingly, its first alderman, and perhaps all its succeeding aldermen, were of the monkish order, and therefore it may be supposed that that description of members bore in it the principal sway, and had the chief management in the direction of its affairs. However that was, it might be in its time a very useful institution, and productive of many valuable and important benefits to its respective constituents. Like the other gilds it appeared particularly attentive to what was then deemed sound doctrine in regard to morality and religion; and, from the character of its leading members, it may be supposed to have exceeded the others, rather than fallen short of them, in the strictness of its attention to those matters, as well as in the rigidness, or severity of its general discipline.

The above extract, with all its uncouthness of style and orthography, will yet, it is presumed and hoped, add to the value of this work, at least, in the estimation of its most curious and enlightened readers, who will be able to draw from it many useful inferences, which are here necessarily omitted, in order to avoid being too tiresome to others whom the author would wish to gratify, and who probably constitute by far, the most numerous part of the encouragers of this undertaking.—Dry and insipid, as many, perhaps, will deem these old documents relating to our gilds, they seem nevertheless to cast a greater light on the state of society in this town, during the period now under consideration, than any other materials that have fallen in the way of the present writer, or whose existence lie within the compass of his knowledge.

What now remains, before we dismiss this tedious subject, is to say a few words respecting the three remaining gilds mentioned in the catalogue. The next, or 29th in that list, is the gild of the Shoemakers, which consisted, probably, of persons of that occupation, or the brethren of the gentle craft, as it has been sometimes called. They might be pretty numerous then at Lynn; and yet it would seem rather odd if they were so, when most of the inhabitants, those of the better sort as well as others, seem to have been pretty much in the habit of going about barefooted; unless it might be supposed that shoes were then made here for exportation, as is now the case in many places, where a great many more hands are employed, of course, than is necessary for furnishing the population of those places with that article. This point, however, must be left undetermined: all we know is, that, among the numerous Lynn Gilds, one was called the gild of the Shoemakers, who, whether very numerous or otherwise, seem to have been then a thoughtful, provident, and brotherly set of people.

The 30th Gild was called the Red Gild. The reason for giving it that name we are utterly unable to discover, or even to conjecture. Nor do we know whether it was rich or poor—consisted of many, or of but few members—managed its affairs wisely or unwisely:—We just learn, that it was called the red gild; and there our knowledge of it begins and ends.—Some may, perhaps, be apt to suspect, that both this and the preceding gild were no better than they ought to be, in point of piety, or what in those days was so denominated, as they did not assume the name of any saint, or angel, or sacred object, like the other gilds, but went each of them, by a plain, simple name, that had nothing in it sanctimonious, venerable, or prepossessing. As the times went, it cannot be thought that these two gilds could be in favour with the friars and the other orders of religious functionaries: nor are we sure that they were at all solicitous about it, or thought proper to employ a single chaplain in their service. They might, however, not be the worse for that, if they were duly attentive to those moral obligations which they owed to one another, and to the rest of their fellow-citizens.

The 31st Gild, and the last in the catalogue, had also, like most of the others, a saint in its belly; and that saint was the poor lad whom the Jews were said to have crucified at Norwich in the 12th century, (as was before noted, at page [352],) and whom the pope sometime after canonized, under the name of saint William. [485] His patronage, no doubt, was as effectual a guard to those good folks who chose to put themselves under his protection as that of any other dead saint would have been. This gild, as we are told, traded to North Bern, which plainly implies, that it was another mercantile fraternity, or gild of merchants. By North Bern is probably meant North Bergen, or Bergen in Norway, with which country Lynn appears to have carried on a considerable trade from a very remote period. The connection between this town and those parts was then so great that Lynn merchants usually resided there: and there is to be seen in Mr. Day’s MS. volume, p. 55, the copy of a Latin letter, of the date of 1305, from Bartholomew, the king of Norway’s chancellor, to the mayor of Lynn, in behalf of Thurkill and other merchants resident there. It was also customary for our merchants to have a consul of their own, or alderman, as they called him, appointed for Norway: for which purpose or appointment it was necessary, it seems, to obtain a royal warrant. There is in Mackerell the copy of such a warrant from Henry V. which runs thus—

“Henry, by the grace of God, king of England and of France, and lord of Ireland; to our trusty and well beloved the mayor, aldermen, and other merchants inhabiting within our town of Lynn, shewed unto us, that by the old privilege among you, used in exercising the sale of your merchandizes in the lands and countries of Denmark and Norway, ye have an ancient custom to have an alderman chosen by election among you to be ruler and governor of your company in the said countries, and to see good rule and order kept among you there, which we woll be content to help and see to be holden for the increasing and augmentation of the common weal and prosperity of you and all other our true subjects; we having the same in our good remembrance, be content and woll, that ye gadre and assemble toguider, and among you chuse such oon to be your said alderman, as ye shall think convenient, good, honest, and sufficient for the premisses; and to use, have, enjoy, and occupy the liberties and franchises in this cause heretofore accustomed. Yeven under our Signet at our Manor of Greenwich, the 18th. day of July, the fifth year of our reign.”

As to our Gild of St. William, that seems to have consisted of mercantile adventurers who traded only to Bergen, which was probably at that time the capital of Norway. It was perhaps an opulent gild, but as none of its records are known now to remain, we must here close our account of it, and so dismiss the subject. [486]

CHAP. VI.

Account of the Monasteries and Religious Houses that were formerly at Lynn.

From the fraternities called gilds the transition is pretty short and natural to the monasteries and religious houses. Of these there were here formerly a great many, the account of some of which is so imperfect and confused, that it is difficult to fix their exact number, or point out the places where they all stood. The following were probably the chief of them—1. A Nunnery, or Convent of Nuns: the site unknown. 2. A Priory of Benedictins; situated in Priory Lane. 3. A monastery or Convent of the Carmelites, or White Friars; situated in South Lynn. 4. Another of the Grey-friars, Friars minors, or Franciscans; situated in Fuller’s Row, now St. James’s Street. 5. Another of the Black Friars, preaching friars, or Dominicans; situated in Clough Lane, or rather between that and Spinner Lane. 6. Another of Austin Friars, or Hermits of the order of St Augustin; situated in Hogman’s Lane, alias Hopman’s Way, now St. Austin’s Street. 7. Another of Friars de Penitentia Jesu; its site now unknown. 8. A College; situated near the Town Hall; now inhabited by Mr. Toosey. 9. St. John’s Hospital; the site not known. 10. St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospital; its site where the Gaywood Almshouse now stands. 11. Four Lazar Houses; sites, it seems, at West Lynn, Cowgate, Hardwick, and Gaywood.—To these may be added divers other religious houses and chapels, such as those of St. James’s, our Lady’s on the Mount, our Lady’s on the Bridge, St. Anne’s, St. Catherine’s, &c. the sites of some of which appear not very easy now to mark out. They seem, all of them, to have been laid by at the reformation, when the dissolution of the monasteries and gilds took place: except the Nunnery first above-mentioned; which had long before been removed hence to Thetford. Concerning which removal we are informed, that a certain priory of monks at Thetford being, in 1176, reduced to two, the Abbot of Bury persuaded them to resign; upon which he placed in their stead a convent of nuns who had previously resided at Lynn. [488] But it is not said how long their residence here had been, or for what reason they were removed hence. Of the other convents, &c. we propose giving a further account, under the several following subdivisions or sections.

Section I.

Account of the House of the Benedictins in Priory lane, with a sketch of that religious order.

This House, or Priory, was founded by Herbert Lozinga, first bishop of Norwich, in the reign of William Rufus. [489a] We are told that this house and the church of St. Margaret were both built by bishop Herbert at the request of the men of the town of Lenn; and that he, in order to facilitate the undertaking, granted an indulgence of 40 days pardon to all who should contribute towards it: also that he settled the tithes and ecclesiastical dues of the whole town upon this church and priory, and had the same confirmed by the pope. He is also said to have given or settled upon them all he had or possessed, as far as the church of William the son of Stanquin, [489b] on the other side of Scwaldsfeld, in rents, lands, and men, [489c] except Seman and his land, and the saltwork which the mother of Seman held. He likewise granted the Saturday mercate, and the Fair on St. Margaret’s day to this house, or rather to his great house the priory of the Holy Trinity at Norwich, to which this priory of Lynn was a cell. The said bishop also gave them the new mill in Gaywode marsh, with that marsh, the churches of Gaywode and Mintling, the priest at Mintling, the tithes of his demeans at Gaywode, with a villain called Edward, and all his land; also his saltworks in the said town, except two, and that which Leofric, son of Limburgh held, and the mother of Seman: also the church of Sedgford with the tithes, and all that Walter the archdeacon had, as he held it; the church of Thornham, with the tithes and all belonging to it; his land at Fringes, with 70 acres of land in Sedgeford, free and quit of all service, with the land of Owen of Lakesle. [490] Thus were the donations or endowments specified.

This Lynn Priory being accounted only a cell to the Priory of Norwich, that house appointed a monk of their body to be prior here at Lynn, who was responsible to the priory of Norwich for the rents and profits he received, and seems to have been removable at pleasure. Many other grants were afterwards by succeeding bishops made to this priory, as may be seen at large in Blomefield and Parkin.

This house stood on the north side of Priory Lane, which took its name from it; but it took up a considerable part of the ground between that lane and the church, and seems to have been a pretty extensive building. Its prior, though subordinate to him of Norwich, and removable by him and his monks at their pleasure, was yet a person of no small consequence among the monks of Lynn, as well as in the estimation of the inhabitants. He was, no doubt, looked up to, for many ages, and esteemed among the principal personages of the place: but he is no longer remembered; and in a few years the present heads of the town will be as little thought of. After the dissolution, the Lynn Priory was partly pulled down, to enlarge the church yard. What was then left was in time removed, and scarcely any remains of it now exist, except what may be discovered in some of the walls of the old dwellings on the north side of the lane. The monks of this house, at one time, according to Parkin, were grown so rich, beyond the design of the founder, as to endanger the bishop’s preponderance in the place; which occasioned bishop De Grey, who then filled the see, to take measures for reducing their power and securing his own, by making an exchange with the priory of Norwich, of lands or possessions belonging to them here, for other lands belonging to his see elsewhere. A copy of the bishop’s deed for this purpose has been preserved by Parkin, [491a] as have been also many particulars relating to this priory, which, though not altogether uninteresting, must be here omitted.

The Benedictine order, to which the monks of this house belonged, is of considerable antiquity. It was instituted, according to Mosheim [491b] A.D. 529, by Benedict of Nursia, a man of piety and reputation for the age he lived in. From his rule of discipline, which is yet extant, we learn that it was not his intention to impose it upon all the monastic societies, but to form an order whose discipline should be milder, their establishment more solid, and their manners more regular, than those of the other monastic bodies; and whose members during the course of a holy and peaceful life, were to divide their time between prayer, reading, the education of youth, and other pious and learned labours. But in process of time the followers of this celebrated ecclesiastic degenerated sadly from the piety of their founder, and lost sight of the duties of their station and the great end of their establishment.

Having acquired immense riches from the devout liberality of the opulent, they sunk into luxury, intemporance, and sloth, abandoned themselves to all sorts of vices, extended their peal and attention to worldly affairs, insinuated themselves into the cabinets of princes, took part in political cabals and court factions, made a vast augmentation of superstitious rites and ceremonies in their order, to blind the multitude and supply the place of their expiring virtue; and, among other meritorious enterprizes, laboured most ardently to swell the arrogance, by enlarging the power and authority, of the Roman pontif. The good Benedict never dreamt that the great purposes of his institution were to be thus perverted, much less did he give any encouragement or permission to such flagrant abuses. His rule of discipline was neither favourable to luxury nor ambition; and it is still celebrated on account of its excellence, though it has not been observed for many years.

The same writer observes, that this order made a most rapid progress in these western parts, and in a short time arrived at the most flourishing state. “In Gaul its interests were promoted by Maurus; in Sicily and Sardinia by Placidus; in Italy, &c. by Gregory the Great; in England, by Augustin and Mellitus.” Its sudden and amazing progress as ascribed by the Benedictins to the wisdom and sanctity of their discipline, and to the miracles which were worked by their founder and his followers. But a more attentive view of things will convince the impartial observer, that the protection of the Roman pontifs, to the advancement of whose grandeur and authority the Benedictins were most servilely devoted, contributed much more to the lustre and influence of their order, than any other circumstance, nay, than all other considerations united together. In the ninth century the credit and power of those of this order became so great and predominant as actually to absorb all the other religious societies, and hold unrivalled the reins of monastic empire. But by that time, and therefore long before their settlement at Lynn, they had departed from their original simplicity and were become a degenerate and corrupt order. Consequently it is not very likely that its establishment here could be of any very substantial or important advantage to our ancestors.

Section II.

Account of the convent of the Carmes, Carmelites, or White Friars, in South Lynn, with a sketch of that religious order.

This House stood close to the river Lenn or Nar, in the field now called the friars. All the remains of it have long disappeared, except the Gateway or Gate-house, which is supposed to have been the principal entrance into the place. It is said to be founded about 1269, by the lord Bardolph of that time; though others say that the founder was Thomas de Feltsham, but that the lord Bardolph, the lord Scales, and Sir John Wigenhale were also considerable benefactors to it. William le Breton was also among its benefactors in the reign of Henry III. having endowed it with lands in South Lynn, Burgh Green, Dillingham and other places, in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. William lord Randolph, who died in the 9th of Richard II. was buried here. In the 12th of the same reign these monks had a patent for the rent of ten quarters of frumenti, and ten quarters of barley, to receive them annually of the manor of Stow Bardolph, granted by John lord Bardolph.—April 13th, 1379, Sir Hamon Felton, of Litcham willed his body to be buried in the church of the Carmes, at Lynn. The noble family of Hastings also appear to have been great benefactors to this house.—From all these circumstances it may be very plainly seen, that this convent was a place of considerable note and reputation, and that, probably, for many ages. But nothing could save it from that dissolution which all such places experienced in the memorable reign of Henry VIII.—The site of it was then purchased by John Eyre Esq. who was one of that king’s auditors or receivers; and he conveyed it to a priest, from whom the corporation purchased it, who have been in possession of it ever since. How long after that it was suffered to stand does not appear. The Steeple was probably that part of it which stood the longest, except the Gatehouse above-mentioned. The said Steeple appears to have stood near a 100 years after the dissolution: it fell, as we are told, for want of due repair, on the 9th of April 1631, after having stood upwards of 360 years. Where this lofty steeple and the great church and convent of the Carmelites stood for so many ages, not a stone is now left upon another. A plain field or pasture is all that is now to be seen; just as if such an extensive edifice had never existed or stood there. The case is much the same with the other Lynn monasteries, except that of the Grey Friars, whose steeple still remains, owing to more attention being paid to the keeping of it in repair.

The Carmelites, together with the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians, constituted the four famous orders of Mendicants: and it is somewhat remarkable that they all established themselves at Lynn, and had the whole town, in a manner, divided among themselves, which seems not to have been unusual with them. [495]—Of the present order, that of the Carmes, or Carmelites, the following account will give the reader, it is presumed a sufficiently correct idea.

“About the middle of this century (the 12th) a certain Calabrian, whose name was Berthold, set out with a few companions for mount Carmel, and there, upon the very spot where the prophet Elias is said to have disappeared, built an humble cottage with an adjoining chapel, in which he led a life of solitude, austerity, and labour. This little colony subsisted, and the places of those that died were more than filled by new comers; so that it was at length erected into a monastic community by Albert, patriarch of Jerusalem. This austere prelate drew up a rule of discipline for the new monks, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Roman pontiffs, who modified and altered it in several respects, and among other corrections mitigated its excessive rigour and severity. Such was the origin of the famous Order of Carmelites, or, as they are commonly called, of the Order of our Lady of mount Carmel, which was afterwards transplanted from Syria into Europe, and obtained the principal rank among the mendicant or begging orders. It is true the Carmelites reject, with the highest indignation, an origin so recent and obscure, and affirm to this very day, that the prophet Elias was the founder of their ancient community. Very few, however, have been engaged to adopt this fabulous and chimerical account of their establishment, except the members of the order, and many Roman Catholic writers have treated their pretensions to such a remote antiquity with the utmost contempt.”

“Scarcely, indeed, (says Maclaine) can any thing be more ridiculous than the circumstantial narrations of the occasion, origin, founder, and revolutions of this famous order, which we find in several ecclesiastical authors. They tell us, that Elias was introduced into the state of monachism by the ministry of angels; that his first disciples were Jonah, Micah, and also Obadiah, whose wife, in order to get rid of an importunate crowd of lovers, who fluttered about her at the court of Achab after the departure of heir husband, bound herself by a vow of chastity, received the veil by the hand of father Elias, and thus became the first abbess of the Carmelite order. They enter into a vast detail of all the circumstances that relate to the rules of discipline, which were drawn up for this community, the habit which distinguished its members, and the various alterations which were introduced into their rule of discipline in process of time. They observe, that among other marks which were used to distinguish the Carmelites from the seculars, the tonsure was one; that this mark of distinction exposed them, indeed to the mockeries of a profane multitude; and that this furnishes the true explication of the term bald-head, which the children addressed, by way of reproach, to Elishah, as he was on his way to Carmel. (2 Kings ii. 23) They tell us, moreover, that even Pythagoras was a member of this ancient order; that be drew all his wisdom from mount Carmel, and had several conversations with the prophet Daniel at Babylon, upon the subject of the Trinity. Nay they go still further into the region of fable, and assert, that the Virgin Mary and Jesus himself assumed the habit and profession of Carmelites; and they load this fiction with a heap of absurd circumstances, which it is impossible to read without the highest astonishment.” [498]

The Carmelites came into England in 1240, and appear to have obtained an establishment at Lynn not a very long while after. What sort of men they were, the reader can now form some idea.

Section III.

Account of the convent of the Grey Friars, Friars Minors, or Franciscans, in Fuller’s Row, now St. James’s Street, with a sketch of that religious order.

This Convent is said to have been founded about 1264; [499a] and the founder’s name, according to Parkin, was Thomas Feltham, or de Folsham, [499b] the very same person, probably, he mentions as one of the reputed founders of the Carmelite Convent, though the name is somewhat differently spelt. Parkin says, that the Grey Friars settled here about the 52d. of Henry III, (a date, by the bye, somewhat later than that given above,) “and built this convent near Synolf’s fleet, on which the mill formerly called Swagg’s mill, afterwards the common mill, or town mill, stands.” That mill, however, has long ago ceased to stand there, though the memory of it is still preserved in the name of the adjoining lane, which is yet called mill lane. “In 1287, (as the same writer informs us) on Monday August 7, in the court at Lenn, Adam de St. Omer being then mayor, and Richard de Walsingham, steward, Richard Sefull gave by deed 12d. rent per ann. which his ancestors used to receive out of a certain area by the church-yard of Saint James’s to the west, which the said Adam de St. Omer purchased of Adam Silvester, for the enlarging of the area, where the Friars Minors now inhabit.” He also says, that Bernard le Estree, within the same year, purchased of William de Lindesey, in St. James’s Street, a certain area, and gave it to enlarge the friars minors’ area. In the 7th of Edward II, as we are further told, these friars had a patent for bringing the water to their house from a spring in North Runcton, called Bukenwell. In the 38th of Edward III, they had a patent for two messuages to enlarge their manse. From the same writer we also learn, that Richard Peverel, Esq. of Tilney, by will, dated March 15, 1423, bequeath his body to be buried in the church of the friars minors of Lynn Bishop, appoints Mr. John Spencer, vicar of Tilney, his executor—proved May 15, 1424.—The said testator also left a house of 10l. value to the duke of Exeter, to be supervisor of his will, of whom he held lands. This is the chief of what Parkin relates of the Lynn Grey Friars and their convent; except that the house was surrendered by the Warden and nine brethren Oct. 1, the 1539, the 30th of Henry VIII.—It is some what remarkable that the steeple or tower of this edifice, or of the church of the Grey Friars, though apparently but of slight construction, has survived all the rest, and is still standing: and it may, possibly, with proper attention, stand yet many years. The Dominicans, and Augustinians had probably their towers also, as well as the Carmelites, but they have all long ago disappeared.

Of this famous order of mendicants it will not be easy, perhaps, to give the reader a better idea that by laying before him the following outline of the history and character of its founder, commonly called saint Francis. This distinguished personage appeared a short time before his equally distinguished contemporary St. Dominic. He was born in 1182, at Assisi, in Umbria. In his youth he is said to have been of a debauched and dissolute character, but at 25, after his recovery from a severe fit of illness, occasioned by his licentious course of life, he became so wholly religious, and so unfit for any other business, that his father threatened to disinherit him; to which he was so far from having any objection that, in presence of the bishop of Assisi, he solemnly disclaimed all expectation from him, and declared that from that time he would acknowledge only his father in heaven. He is said to have then devoted himself to works of charity of the most humiliating kind: and being one day at church, hearing mass, he was so forcibly struck with those words, Matt. x. 9. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat; that he cried out “This is what I seek!” and immediately threw away his shoes, staff, wallet, and all his money, and kept only one coat. He also laid aside his girdle, which was of leather, and made use of a piece of rope in its stead. From this time, in imitation of the apostles, he began to exhort other persons to repent; and he did it in a very forcible manner, and with wonderful success, always beginning his discourse with saying “God give you peace.”—When he had got three disciples, they dispersed, to preach in different places. Some received them with great humanity, looking with astonishment on their extraordinary dress and great austerities, while others made a mock of them and abused them: this however they bore very patiently.

When he had seven disciples, he exhorted them to go to different countries, preaching repentance, without regarding any treatment they might meet with; assuring them that in a short time many learned and noble would join them, and they would preach to kings and princes, as well as to the common people. When he had eleven disciples, one of whom was a priest, he wrote out a rule for them, taken wholly out of the Gospels, and presented it to pope Innocent III, who, after making some objection, approved of it, in 1210.—Having obtained this confirmation of his institute, Francis went with 12 disciples and established himself in a church which he had repaired at Pontremoli, and this was the first house of his order, which, by way of humility, he called that of the minor brethren, frates minores, in French feres, in English by corruption friars, as the Dominicans had at the same time assumed the name of preaching brothers, or friars.—From this place they went forth preaching in the neighbouring towns and villages, not with studied harangues, (but like the methodists of our time) in a manner that made uncommon impression upon the hearers, as they had the appearance of men of another world, having their faces always turned towards those regions whither they were continually directing their audience.—In 1211 they founded several convents, the most considerable of which were those of Cottona, Pisa, and Bologna; and Francis himself, having preached through all Tuscany, returned to Assisi, in Lent, 1212.

In such veneration was he held at this time, that when he went into any city, they rung the bells, and the clergy and people went to meet him, bearing branches of trees, and singing, thinking themselves happy, who could kiss his hands or feet. That Lent he preached at his native place, where he had many converts, and among them St. Claire, a young woman of a noble family, who by his direction, though only at the age of eighteen, abandoned the world, and notwithstanding the remonstrances of her relations, fixed herself in a monastery, first at St. Ange de Pansa, where she was joined by her sister Agnes, and then at St. Damien of the order of the Benedictines, which was the first church St. Francis had repaired. Here she continued 42 years, many disciples joining her; and thus was formed the order of poor women, or that of St. Claire, being the second order of Franciscans.

About 1216, he gave instructions for his disciples to go in pairs, as the Apostles had done. Thus they went into Spain, Provence, and Germany, into which country he sent no less than 60 brothers.—So rapidly did the order now increase, that at a chapter general held in 1219, when Dominic was present, there appeared to be not less than 5000 in it; though they had not been established more than 9 or 10 years.—In June, 1219, pope Honorious III issued a bull, addressed to all bishops, recommending the Franciscans as apostolical men.—Many women, now converted by his preachers, formed themselves into monasteries, but he refused to take charge of any of them, except that of St. Claire.

After this he sent his chief disciples into distant countries with a number of companions, taking for himself and 12 others the mission of Syria and Egypt. They went forth in the spirit of confessors and martyrs; for when men expose themselves to almost certain death, there cannot be a doubt of their being in earnest. Two going to Africa endeavoured to go into a mosque; and preaching in the streets, and putting themselves in the way of the king, he first ordered them to be confined; but as they continued their importunity, he was so enraged, that he struck off their heads with his own hands, while they suffered with great resignation. Francis himself went to Egypt, during the siege of Damieta, and getting access to the Sultan, he offered to go into the fire in proof of the truth of his religion. But the Sultan, who heard him with great patience, did not choose to put him to the test, but admiring his courage, dismissed him with much good humour, desiring him to pray to God, that he would shew him what religion was most agreeable to him. In 1221, seven went to Ceuta to preach to the Moors; but they were soon apprehended, and not yielding to the command of the king to turn Mahometans, they were all beheaded. [504]

In the Rule of the Franciscans, which was fully confirmed in 1213, by Pope Nicholas III, besides engaging to live in obedience to their superior, in chastity, and without property, they also vowed obedience to the pope and his successors. These orders of mendicants, particularly this and that of St. Dominic, were of much greater use in support of the papal hierarchy, and combating heretics than all the orders of monks had ever been. Such was the number of persons in this period disaffected to the see of Rome, that it is very doubtful whether without this seasonable assistance it could have been supported at all. In this view we cannot contemplate their labours without regret: but even here they may not have been more blameable than some of our present religious orders, who, though seemingly well meaning people, are ever ready to defend, or at least to make excuses for almost every species of corruption.

St. Francis pretended, or, at least, his adherents did so, that the particulars of his rule had been dictated to him by God himself. It is also said of him that retiring to Mount Alverne on the borders of Tuscany, in 1224, to pass the Easter, he saw in a vision the appearance of Christ on the cross, descending from heaven; and when he awoke he found all the marks of crucifixion on his own body. Such tales were doubtless invented to magnify his name and promote the credit of the order. They might answer then, and still in some places; but they are not here introduced as worthy of belief. The Franciscans came into England in the reign of Henry III, and in that same reign established themselves in this town: but their first establishment in England is said to have been at Canterbury. Of the probable effects of their making Lynn one of their head quarters, or places of residence, the reader must now form his own opinion. [505]

Section IV.

Account of the convent of the Black Friars, Preaching Friars, or Dominicans, in Clough Lane, with a Sketch of that famous order.

Of this convent, (once perhaps inferior to none of the rest, if indeed it did not exceed them all, both in size and magnificence,) nothing is now to be seen but some old walls, whose thickness and massy appearance seem to indicate that they once sustained a large and sumptuous fabric. It was founded, as Parkin says, by Thomas Gedney, who was then, no doubt, a great and leading character in these parts. The above author does not seem to know the exact time when this convent was built, but it must have been sometime previous to 1272, for he assures us that these friars were then here. Indeed he says also, that they settled here about the time the Grey Friars did, as appears from a writ, Ad quod damnum, for a fountain or spring granted them in Middleton, by William, lord Bardolph, called Brokewell, and a certain aqueduct coming from that spring to their convent at Lynn; (for which he refers to Esch. in Turri Lond. Aº. 21, Edw. I. Nº. 71.) We may therefore fairly conclude, that this convent was built almost, if not altogether as early as that of the Grey Friars.

The following is the chief of what that writer has further said, relating to this convent.—

“Thomas Thorndon aliened to these friars preachers a piece of land 18 feet long and 21 broad, in Lenn Episcopi, in the 3d. of Edw. III. In the same year these friars had a patent to enlarge their house here.—Simon Parche, alias Tyler, of Watlyngton, Norfolk, wills, in 1442, to be buried in the chancel of the friars preachers, or black friars, of Lyn, and gives to the fabrick, de la stalles in the said chancel, to be new made, 16l. Reg. Doke, Norw.—The chapel of St. Catherine, in the church of the friars preachers, mentioned in 1497. Reg. Sayve. Norw.—The image of our Lady in the body of the church.” [507]

Of this convent, as well as that of the Carmelites, we are also told that an anchorage belonged to it: by which we are probably to understand, a place in the harbour for mooring ships, or a certain duty, payable by the ships there moored to the said convents. The ground in all ports and harbours being considered as the king’s, this anchorage may be supposed to have been a grant from the crown to those two orders of friars at Lynn.

The same writer further informs us that this convent of Dominicans was surrendered by the prior and eleven brethren on the 30th of Sept. 1539, 30th of Henry VIII. Its site, as we further learn, was granted, about six years after, to John Eyre Esq. with land there in the tenure of John Kempe. This John Ayre, (our author adds) on the dissolution had 37 messuages, 9 gardens, in the tenure of divers persons, given him by the said king in his 36th year, and messuages and tenements called Bishops Stath, and an house called the Steward’s Hall, with other messuages and lands here, belonging to the see of Norwich. The site of this convent the said John Eyre conveyed to a priest, from whom it came to Thomas Waters, of —, who had Edward Waters, and a daughter married to George Baker. The said Edward’s son in law, Sir John Bolls, of Scampton, in Lincolnshire, Bt. sold it to one Killingtree, since which time it seems to have passed through a great many hands. The said site at present is thought to be partly the property of the corporation, and partly that of the Carey family. About the garden of the chief mansion of that family are several scattered remains of this ancient edifice. We shall next endeavour to acquaint the reader with the character of that religious order, or fraternity for whose use this convent was originally erected, and in whose occupation it ever after continued.

The Dominicans, although their settlement at Lynn was not anterior to that of the Franciscans, yet they appear to have found their way to England a good many years before them: for we are told, that Dominic, just before his death, sent Gilbert de Fresney, with twelve of the brethren into England, where they founded their first monastery at Oxford in 1221, and soon after another at London. In the latter place they became in time so popular, and so much in favour with the corporation, that, in 1276, the mayor and aldermen, as we are told, gave them two whole streets by the river Thames, where they erected a very commodious convent, whence that place is still called Black-Friars, for so they were called in this country, [508] perhaps from the colour of the habit. They were also called Friars preachers, or preaching friars, from preaching being their chief object, employment, or profession; and Dominicans, from the name of their memorable founder; an epitome, or outline of whose history and character we shall here subjoin. It will enable the reader, it is hoped, or, at least, help him in some measure, to form a pretty correct estimate of the merits and demerits of these predicant friars; as it may be very confidently and safely expected that they resembled their leader, according to the old adage “Like master like man.”

Dominic, commonly called Saint Dominic, the father of the Dominicans, was a Spaniard. He was surnamed de Guzman, being descended from an ancient and noble family of that name. Having finished his studies at Palencia, he was made canon, and afterwards archdeacon of Osma in Castille, and then professor of Theology at Placentia. But this he quitted to go to preach after the manner of Francis, which he did in several parts of Spain, giving proof in the meantime of great charity towards the poor and afflicted. Coming into France with the bishop of Osma, he greatly distinguished himself by preaching against the Albigenses, and there he formed the design of instituting an order of preachers. Fulk bishop of Thoulouse brought him to the council of Lateran, in 1215, that he might be examined by the pope. His holiness approving of the scheme of Dominic, the latter consulted with his followers, when they agreed to adopt the rules of St. Austin, but with several additions. They resolved to have no estate in lands, but only revenues. They were then sixteen in number, and the bishop of Thoulouse gave them their first church, that of St. Romanus in that city; and near it he built cloisters, with cells over them, where they might study and sleep. Pope Honorious III. confirmed the order in 1216, exempting them from paying tithes of their possessions, and ordering that they should depend upon the diocesan for episcopal functions; and the prior to be chosen by the free votes of the brethren: so that the Dominicans, at their first institution, were not beggars, nor exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, but canons regular.

Next year Dominic sent out his followers in pairs, after choosing a superior, to whom he gave the tide of abbot; but all the succeeding ones were called masters, and the superiors of particular houses priors. He sent four to Spain, four to France, and two more to study there. Hearing of the death of that ferocious and bloody crusader, Simon de Montfort, at the siege of Thoulouse, Dominic went thither to comfort the brethren. Thence, in 1218, he went into Spain, and founded two monasteries, one at Madrid, and the other at Segovia. Thence he went to Paris, where he found thirty brethren: thence he proceeded to Bologna, where Arnauld, who joined him at Rome, had been very successful, and had formed a large society. Going to Parma, he there met St. Francis, of whom he seemed to entertain a very high opinion, when, after conferring together, they agreed not to accept of church livings: which might suggest to Dominic the idea of that profession of poverty which he afterwards imposed upon those of his order. [511]

In 1220 he made some new and more rigorous regulations respecting the nuns. In the same year he held the first chapter general of his order at Bologna, when it was resolved that the preaching friars should profess perfect poverty, and make that the fundamental principle of their order. It was now agreed that these chapters should be held every year, at Paris and Bologna alternately. At the second chapter general at Bologna eight provincials were chosen to superintend the preachers in the eight provinces of Spain, France Lombardy, Romagna, Provence, Germany, Hungary and England. Presently after this, August 26, 1221, Dominic died in the 51st year of his age. [512] Lest his order should be hurt by the maxims of worldly prudence, he forbad, under the curse of God and his own, the introduction of temporal possessions into the order. The second year after his death he was canonized, and so reached the very summit of ecclesiastical dignity and fame.

These preaching friars, as we are told, were so zealous at the first, and considered preaching as so essential to their institution, that they were not satisfied if they did not exhort some, at least one person, every day.

Each of them carried with him a copy of the gospel of Matthew, and of the seven canonical epistles, according to the express order of Dominic: but that could redound to the credit of neither him nor them, while they lived in open violation of the most important precepts and the very spirit of those sacred writings. Had they made them, indeed, the ground of their religion, and the rule or guide of their lives, they would have been a blessing to the world in their day, and their memory would have been revered by all good men, to the latest posterity. But they preferred their own rule to that of the New Testament, and the persecuting and murderous ferocity of Dominic to the forbearance and meekness of Christ, and so became the oppressors instead of the benefactors of their species. In short we know not of any material benefit which the former inhabitants of this town derived from the Clough Lane convent, [513] or the incessant labours of its preaching friars. The reader however, on this point, as well as all others, must judge for himself.

Section V.

Account of the Convent of the Austin Friars, or Hermits of the order of St. Augustin, in Hogman’s Lane, or Hopman’s Way, now St. Austin’s Street, with a sketch of that religious order.

This house must have been once a large, respectable, and stately edifice, inferior to none, and in some respects superior to most, and probably to all others in this town; especially in point of fitness for the accommodation of illustrious personages, or those of princely dignity, who might happen to come this way. It accordingly became the abode, or place of residence of the king and queen, the prince of Wales, the king’s mother, and the royal retinue, during their visit or stay here in 1498. Had there been any other house then in the town better adapted for their reception, it would, no doubt, have been chosen in preference, or instead of this, on so unusual and important an occasion. But however commodious, respectable, or stately a structure, this Augustinian convent then was, it has long ago disappeared, and not a stone of it has been left upon another. A gateway, or the arch of a gateway, filled up with brick, but once, perhaps, the principal entrance into the hallowed premises, is all that now remains, or is recognised as having ever belonged to it. Thus our firmest fabrics, though they may endure for ages, are doomed to perish like the very mortals by whose hands they were constructed.

Parkin says that the Augustin friars settled herein the beginning of Edward the First’s reign, as appears by a writ Ad quod damnum, for a messuage in Lynn, granted by Margaret de Southmere to them.—Inquis. 22. Ed. I. in turri Lond. N°. 112. He also adds, that they had a patent granted them by Edward II. in his 4th year, for purchasing, of Thomas Lexham, one messuage contiguous and adjoining, for the enlargement of their manse or house.—Pat. 4th. Ed. II. pt. 2. m. 14.—He further says, that Licence was granted by Ed. III. to Thomas Drew, William Bitering, John de Couteshale, and John Drew of Lenn Bishop, that they might give and assign five messuages in Lenne, adjoining to the manse of the prior and brethren of hermits of the order of St. Augustin of Lenn, to the said prior, &c. for the enlargement of their manse, on condition that the reverend father, Thomas, bishop of Norwich, of whom the said messuages are held, will grant his licence to the said prior, &c. And the said king gave licence to Robert de Cokesford, Agnes his wife, and to Richard de Houton and Alice his wife, that they may give one messuage in Lynn, (not held of us, as appears by the inquisition of Roger de Wolfreton, escheator of Norfolk) to the bishop and his successors, on the same condition of granting licence to the prior, &c. of receiving the said five messuages of Thomas Drew, &c.—Teste Rege, dated at Westminster, 6 May, 38. Edw. III.—The bishop’s licence was soon after obtained, dated 1 July following.

In the 6th of Richard II. these friars had a patent for a certain aqueduct, to be made by them from Gaywode.—In the 7th Henry IV. they had a patent to enlarge their manses and in the 1st Henry V. a patent for certain messuages granted to them. For each of these particulars Parkin refers to his authorities; the insertion of which here seems needless.—He also asserts on the authorities of Bale and Holinshed, that in the last mentioned reign, William Wellys, or Wallys, was a monk here, a learned man, and general of the order, who wrote many books, (which he does not name,) and died in 1421.—It seems therefore that learning was not entirely neglected here among our Austin friars, and that they had at least one learned man in their fraternity.

Our author further informs us, “that this house was surrendered 30th Sept. 1539, 30th of Henry VIII. by the prior and 4 brethren:” if so they must have been then reduced below their wonted number. But 4 brethren is probably a mistake for 14, which is the number given by Burnet in his history of the reformation, and other authorities.—About 6 years after the above date, this house was granted to John Ayre, who conveyed it to a priest, who sold it to Shavington, a bastard, who by will gave it to — Waters, who dying without issue it reverted to Shavington’s heir; John Ditefield afterwards had it, and his son John gave it in marriage to Thomasine his sister, married to Christopher Puchering, brother to the lord keeper of that name, and they sold it to John Lease, who pulled it down, and sold the stones and the ground to divers persons: so that it seems to have stood a good while after the dissolution, and passed through a great many hands.—Its site is at present partly the property of Martin Folkes Rishton, Esq. Joseph Lawrence Esq. and Mr. Thomas Marshall. For the most part it is now garden ground.

It was to this very order of mendicants, the Austin friars, or monks, or Augustinian Eremites, as they are sometimes called, that the famous Martin Luther belonged before he quitted the church of Rome, and when he began to oppose the papal corruptions: and it is supposed not to have been then quite so bad or depraved, as some of the other mendicant orders, particularly the Dominicans and Franciscans. However that was, it was, no doubt, bad enough, even in the opinion of Luther himself, for he soon withdrew from it, as well as from all manner of connection with the Romish church. It is to be wished it could also be said, that he and all other descriptions of protestants took special care when they renounced popery, to retain none of its enslaving and persecuting spirit. Most of them, however, quite forgot to do that, and so retained and cherished in their bosoms the very worst part of the religion they had renounced.

As to the religious order now under consideration, the Austin friars, or Hermits of St. Augustin, we are told that they had for their founder, pope Alexander IV. who, observing that the Hermits were divided into several societies, some of which followed the maxims of the famous William, others the rule of St. Augustin, while others again were distinguished by different denominations, formed the project of uniting them all into one religious order, and subjecting them to the same rule of discipline, even that which bears the name of St. Augustin. This project, we are told, was put in execution in 1256: [517] so that this order is somewhat younger, or of later origin than any of the other orders of mendicants; though not much later than the two preceding ones, for all the three sprung up within the same century.—What good or benefit the former inhabitants of Lynn might derive from the erection of this convent in their town, or from the exertions of the Austin Friars among them, is a question which the present writer is not fully prepared to answer. The reader, as in the former cases, is left to think and judge for himself, as he has an undoubted right to do. But whatever good or ill, advantage or disadvantage, benefit or detriment might accrue to the inhabitants from the residence of the said four orders of friars among them, their convents, unquestionably, must have contributed not a little to give additional grandeur and respectability to the appearance of the town. Four large and stately monasteries, with their lofty towers, ranged along the whole town from south to north, must have given Lynn an appearance, especially from the country, very different, and far superior to what it can boast of at present. In short, we may safely say, that it must have appeared before the reformation, from the circumstances just alluded to, as a place of at least double the size and double the consequence that it has done since that period. After all, it is not meant here to disparage the reformation, or to suggest that it did not prove beneficial to Lynn, as well as to the kingdom at large.—It is only meant to assert, that this town, from the great size and number of its monasteries and other religious houses, must have made a very different, and far more splendid appearance before the reformation, than it has done since. But we will here drop the subject, and conclude the present section.

Section VI.

Of the Friars de Penitentia, or brothers of repentance, and their Convent—also the College of Priests—with the Hospital and Church of St. John in this town.

It seems remarkable that out of 1148 monasteries and religious houses, seized upon by the sovereign and suppressed at the general dissolution, no less than 79 were in Norfolk, and 10 of them in this town alone; which must be a large proportion of those of the county, and still larger of those of the whole kingdom. Norfolk was also distinguished, and is so still, for its number of parishes, exceeding that of any other county, even of Yorkshire, though four times its size. This superabundance of parishes and convents, &c. seems to indicate that its inhabitants were formerly of an uncommonly devout and religious, or at least superstitious and sanctimonious cast: which character may be supposed to have belonged to the people of Lynn as much as to any of the rest. At present a very large proportion of the inhabitants of Norfolk, especially in country places, are exceedingly ignorant, boorish and heathenish. Nor do the generality of the established clergy appear to give themselves the least concern about this, or express any serious desire to promote the conversion and civilization of their poor neighbours. The dissenters, and particularly those of them called Methodists, have done already far more in this way than the whole body of the national or parochial priesthood: and they are continually enlarging their scale of operation, and extending their labours, with great effect, to the most retired and obscure places, where the divine power of the Gospel and the happy influence of its moral precepts were hardly ever before felt or experienced.

Of the ten houses suppressed in this town at the general dissolution, one is said to belong to the friars de Penitentia. This religious order appears to have sprang up in the same century with the proceeding ones; for we are told that it was instituted in 1221, by the famous St. Anthony of Padua, who was born at Lisbon, in 1195, and whose original name was Ferrand. After going through his studies with reputation, he entered into a monastery of canons regular, of the order of St. Austin, where he continued two years; when, for the sake of greater solitude, he retired with the leave of his superior to Coimbra, where he distinguished himself by his exposition of the scriptures. At this time St. Francis was living, and some of his order having suffered martyrdom, in consequence of undertaking to preach to the Mahometans in Africa, they were so much celebrated on that account, that it excited in Ferrand, as well as many others, an ardent desire to follow their example, though they should share the same fate. With the leave of his superior, he therefore joined this new society; and entering one of their monasteries, called that of St. Anthony, he took their habit and assumed their name.

Presently after this, his zeal actually carried him to Africa; but he was obliged to return, in consequence of a disease with which he was seized upon the coast; but was driven by a tempest to Sicily, where hearing of a general chapter of his order being to be held at Assisi in Italy, he repaired to it. Tho’ he was then little known, the provincial of his order was so much pleased with his appearance, that he took him with him, and placed him in a convent called the mount of St. Paul. After some months, his superiors procured him holy orders, and sent him, together with some other priests, to Forli, where he distinguished himself by his preaching. Being greatly concerned at the progress of heresy then in the northern parts of Italy, in order the better to prepare himself for encountering the heretics, he went through a course of theology at Vercelli, under a famous doctor there; but he soon surpassed him in knowledge, and was thought equal to any undertaking.

Being sent by his superiors to undertake the office of guardian to Limiges in France, in order to the conversion of the heretics in that place, it happened at one time, that his business as a preacher required him to be in one place, and his office of guardian in another: and this was the occasion of the first of the many miracles that his historian ascribes to him, and it was of a very singular kind: for it is asserted that he was actually in both places at the same time. After an earnest prayer for this purpose, he without leaving the pulpit in which he was preaching on a Good Friday, appeared in the choir, and sung the lesson which was his part of the service there. At Montpellier also, he once preached in the dome at the same time that he was singing hallelujah in the choir of the church. After this his whole life seems to have consisted of little more than a series of miracles, and many of them of quite an original and extraordinary kind; so that it must have required much ingenuity to devise them. [522]—Some of them may be here inserted by way of sample, and to enable the reader to judge of the probable effect or consequence of the settlement of Anthony’s disciples, the friars de Penitentia, in this town.

When Anthony was at one time preaching in a temporary building, constructed of wood, he apprised his audience that the devil was about to terrify and hurt them, but that no harm would eventually happen to any of them. Accordingly while he was preaching, the devil untied the ropes by which the boards were held together, so that the whole erection came down. But when it might have been expected that many of the persons assembled would have been crushed to death, or at least maimed, not one of them was found to have received the smallest hurt!—Another time a pious woman, much attached to Anthony, who had a son of a reprobate character, when she was attending one of his sermons the devil came in the form of a courier, and delivering a letter informed her that her son was dead. This news threw her, and the audience in general, into such disorder, that the congregation was breaking up; when Anthony cried out that the news was not true, that it was the devil that had brought it, and that the young man was alive, as they would soon be convinced; accordingly, while he was speaking he entered the place, and the devil absconded.

Something more extraordinary than any of the preceding miracles, was exhibited at Rome. For being required by the pope to preach to a congregation, consisting of people of very different countries, assembled for a crusade, they all heard him speak in their different languages, though he spoke in Italian only.—But the astonishing miracle exhibited at Rimini, contributed more to the fame of Anthony than all his other miracles. Preaching in that city, which abounded with heretics, and the people refusing to hear him, he went to the sea side, followed by a great crowd; when, the sea being remarkably calm, he addressed himself to the fishes; saying, “Since men will not hear me, come you and hearken to what God will tell you by me.” Immediately on this the sea was covered with the heads of fishes, which with open mouths fixed their eyes on him; and notwithstanding their hostility to each other, they mildly and humbly (as it is said) without moving their fins, or making the least motion in the water, attended to him. After a discourse of some length, he exhorted them to praise God; and since they could not do it in words shew some visible signs of reverence. On this they all bowed their heads, moving them very gently, and with gestures expressive of humility and devotion, acknowledged their obligation to God, and signified their apt probation of what had been addressed to them. The spectators greatly amazed (and well they might: for who could avoid it?) looked sometimes on the fishes, and sometimes on the preacher; and being reproved by him for their infidelity, thus upbraided by the mute fishes, they fell on their knees, asking his pardon, and promising to live and die in the catholic faith. He then pronounced a blessing, both on the men and the fishes, and they departed with great joy. [524]

Such were some of the numerous miracles which Anthony is said to have worked in his lifetime, exclusive of others said to have been wrought afterwards at his grave, and which were perhaps no fewer. Of those who have heard of these mighty and wonderful works of Anthony, the far greater part in all ages, even to the present day, have believed the report, and admitted the reality of the miracles: which, however, will not establish the fact, that they were actually performed, any more than the faith of the mahometans in the alleged miracles of their pretended prophet will establish that fact, or prove that the miracles ascribed to him did really take place. In each case we have a sad specimen of that easy and miserable credulity by which poor human nature has often most wretchedly disgraced herself, and unintentionally aided the cause and triumphs of imposture. Nor will it follow from the abundance of false miracles that have been heard of, or because the world has been so often imposed upon by them, that there never have been any real ones; on the contrary, all counterfeits seem invariably to imply the existence of what is real and genuine; and that, it is presumed, may be proved to be the case here. But this is not a place to enter largely upon this subject.

Anthony had been some years among the Franciscans before he instituted the order de Penitantia, which was in 1221, when he also fixed at Padua, where he sometimes preached in the open air to 30,000 persons, who came to hear him from all the neighbouring towns. His discourses, it is said, had a wonderful effect in converting prostitutes, delivering prisoners, reconciling enemies, procuring restitution of usury, remission of debts, &c. He was indefatigable, and preached every day. Many persons expressing a desire to embrace the order, he was unwilling to dissolve so many regular marriages, and dispeople the country: he therefore gave them a rule, according to which they might serve God in a similar manner in their houses, living in some measure like monks, but without austerity.—This is the substance of what we have learnt about this order. He died in the year above mentioned at the age of 36, and was canonized the next year. We are told that he was ten years among the Franciscans, if indeed it can be said that he afterwards properly quitted them for the friars de Penitentia are accounted a 3rd order of Franciscans. [525a] We are told that they settled at Lynn before the 5th of Edward I. and that their house here was dissolved by Henry VIII. [525b] but where it stood cannot now be ascertained. Parkin seemed inclined to indentify it with the well known convent of the Grey Friars, but that idea or supposition seems not at all admissible, as our apparently most accurate accounts of the religious houses dissolved here represent that of the friars of this order as quite distinct from the said convent, and this seems corroborated by Parkin’s own assertion, that “in 1307, Roger Flegg was vicar general of the order of friars de Penitentia in England at Lenne.” [526a] From the peculiar constitution of this order it seems rather probable that its houses or convents might be neither so large nor yet so numerous as those of most of the other orders. As that at Lynn might be but small, there may not be much reason to wonder that its site is not now discoverable; that being also the case with some others of our smaller religious houses.—With all its profound and extravagant reverence for its founder, St. Anthony, and its unlimited credulity, or faith in his pretended miracles, this does not appear to be the worst of the popish orders, but rather one of the better sort of them, as it seemed earnestly to set its face against many of the prevailing vices of the times, which must have somewhat checked the progress of immorality and licentiousness.—These friars might therefore be of some use here: but if they were so, and did some good, in partially checking the progress of vice and immorality, is it not also to be feared, on the other hand, that they did no less, or rather much more harm, in checking likewise the progress of virtue and true religion, and promoting to the utmost of their power an intolerant, persecuting, and antichristian spirit? [526b] That such was really the fact seems unquestionable; so that these friars had little room to boast of their good doings. But we will now quit them, and proceed to

The College. This edifice stands near the Town Hall, and is now inhabited by Mr. Toosey, a respectable merchant. It is by far the most entire, and best preserved of all the religious houses that were here dissolved; and were popery again to become predominant among us, this fabrick might be very easily converted or restored to its original use.—Parkin gives of it a very odd and confused account, as if it had been a part of the Priory, though somewhat detached from it—“The cell, or college of priests (says he) was near the Guildhall, and the prior’s house was somewhat remote from it, by St. Margaret’s Church.” It does not seem, however, that it had in fact any connection with the said priory: and it is certainly a place of much later erection; probably by no less than 3 or 400 years.—Mackerell also takes some slight notice of it, and says, “Not far from the church was a certain college, founded by Mr. Thomas Thorisby, as by the inscription carved upon the door still remain . . . Magistri Thome Thorisby, Fundatoris hujus loci.” This Thomas Thorisby, the munificent founder of this college, was one of the great men of Lynn in the latter part of the 15th century, and for sometime after, as appears from our lists of Mayors, among whom his name occurs three different times; 1st in 1477, again in 1482, and lastly in 1502. That he was a magistrate of a serious and religious character, seems to admit of no doubt; but how many of his successors, including those of the present day, have thought the better of him for that, is a question that appears involved in no small uncertainty. The College is said to have been founded about the year 1500, and it was dissolved about 30 years after, so that it was not long appropriated to the use for which it was designed by the founder. It does not appear to whom it went at the dissolution, nor do we know through how many hands, or how many different families it has passed, from that to the present time. Latterly, and for many years, it has been the residence successively of some of our principal mercantile families, without any material change in its external appearance. Of its original constitution we have not obtained any particular information, and the above being the substance of what we have learnt concerning it, our account of it must be here closed.

Another House, suppressed here at the general dissolution, was St. John’s Hospital: of which the information we have been able to obtain is very imperfect and scanty. Its very site, like that of the friars de Penitentia, seems no longer discoverable; and yet it was evidently, in its day, a place of some note and consequence here, and had a chapel, or church, as it is usually called, attached to it. Fox, the martyrologist, mentions St. John’s church, or the church of the Hospital of St. John, in this town, as one of the places where the memorable Sir William Sautre, parish priest of St. Margaret’s, when taken up for heresy in the reign of Henry IV. was obliged to read his recantation. Parkin takes very little notice of it, except quoting what Fox had said: and the same is the case with Mackerell, with this slight difference, that he in one place hazards a conjecture, that the site of this church was the same with that of the old grammar school, which was taken down some years ago. But if the church stood there, the hospital itself must also, in all probability, have stood close by, if not contiguous; and that seems not very likely, in so confined a situation. We know of no existing record that any way corroborates this conjecture, unless it be a hint in our tables of memorable events, “That in the year 1506, St. Margaret’s church was suspended, and the christenings were performed in the charnel belonging to St. John’s chapel:” but it seems too vague and obscure to establish the point. It is indeed very clear and certain that there did exist here formerly the Hospital and church of St. John, and that they were suppressed at the general dissolution, but as we know no more about them, we must here dismiss the subject.

Section VII.

Account of St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospital, the Lazar Houses, St. Lawrence’s Hospital, &c.

The Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen was one of the most ancient of those religious houses that were suppressed here by Henry VIII. It is said to have been founded by Petrus Capellanus, in the reign of King Stephen, in honour of St. Mary Magdalen. It consisted of a prior and twelve brethren and sisters; of whom ten, including the prior were sound, and three unsound, or leprous; some ecclesiastical, and some secular; who were bound to perform rites and prayers for the souls of certain men who had departed this life, viz. for the soul of Petrus Capellanus their founder, the souls of popes, bishops, abbots, priors, kings, queens, and others, their benefactors; as appears by their ancient book of obiits and Orisons, and by the ancient instrument of articles, which the brethren and sisters were bound to observe: and all, or most of the lands given to the said hospital were for the maintaining of prayers for the dead, as appears by divers deeds and charters, without date, of the first donations of those lands. [531]

In Mr. Kings MS. Volume there is a larger account of this ancient hospital than has been given by Mackerell and Parkin. We have there the ancient instrument of articles, or the fundamental rules of the fraternity, in Latin, under XVIII heads: annexed to which is the following account—

“This Instrument of Articles was made in the year that Petrus Capellanus died [A.D. 1174.] and himself consented, with the two archbishops, for ordaining the same.”—Then follows what has been given by Mackerell, that “this ancient hospital continued in a prosperous state from its first foundation about 400 years. But after the statute of 1st Edward VI. was made, for dissolving all colleges, chauntries fraternities, &c. this, with the lands &c. came to, and were invested in the crown, by the said statute. The fraternity, however, was not then broke up or dispersed, and might, perhaps, have been still continued, but for the breaking out of what is called Kett’s rebellion. A party of the rebels were encamped at Rising: and they attacked Lynn, in hopes of surprising it, but being repulsed and disappointed, they, on their return, fell upon this hospital, which they violently entered, and not only robbed the poor people there, and expelled them out of the house, but took away all their common stock, and rased their chapel and most part of the buildings there down to the ground: by means of which barbarous usage, the said hospital was so impoverished, wasted, and spoiled, that from thence forward it was quite destitute of brethren and sisters, and utterly relinquished, saving that the mayor and burgesses of Lynn maintained some poor people there, and endeavoured to uphold the said ancient hospital, out of their charitable disposition, for the purposes aforesaid.” [532]

“Nevertheless (says the author of the MS. account) some covetous persons, taking advantage of the depressed state of the said hospital, procured divers letters patents of concealment, from the crown; some of the site of the same, and some of other parcels of the lands and possessions belonging to the said hospital, intending to convert them to their own private lucre. But the said mayor and burgesses, (still having a great care that the said lands and possessions should be preserved for charitable uses) did purchase of some of the concealers the site of the said hospital, and a great part of the lands thereunto belonging, and at their great costs and charges supported and defended the same against all other concealers and their agents, purposing always to erect anew the said hospital, and employ the revenues thereof for the sustentation of poor people.

“But finding both by the advice of the king’s councill [counsel] and their own, that all the said patents of concealment were defective and utterly void in law, through many imperfections therein, and that (notwithstanding the said patents) the scite of the said hospital and the lands and possessions thereof still remained in the crown—therefore they made humble suit to the king’s majesty [James I.] for a grant thereof, and, of his Highness’ gracious favour and pious inclination to works of charity, they obtained Letters Patents of grant unto the mayor and aldermen, as well of the scite of the said hospital, as also of the lands, &c. thereunto belonging, who by the same are created governors thereof, and made a body corporate for the defence and maintenance of the said hospital new founded by his majestie.”

[An abridgement of those Letters Patents, transcribed from the Latin copy, is here subjoined, and is as follows.

“JAMES by the grace of God king of England, &c. to all to whom these Letters shall come, greeting, &c.—Whereas a certain ancient Hospital or Almshouse was founded and erected in Gaywood, called the House or Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen—And whereas divers lands, tenements, and hereditaments, were given and granted for the maintenance and relief of divers poor and needy men and women therein for ever—And we being informed, that certain evil minded men, covetously pursuing their own private lucre, have endeavoured utterly to demolish the state of the said Hospital, pretending some defect in the foundation thereof, or that the same have been dissolved—We favouring the sustentation of the poor, and such like charitable deeds, do of our special grace, for us, our heirs and successors, grant all that right, title, &c. which we have or might have in the premises, fully and graciously to be conferred and extended towards the establishment of the said Hospital, for poor and infirm men and women to dwell therein: and for the causes aforesaid the same shall for ever hereafter be called by the name of The Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen, of the foundation of king James, consisting of a Master and Warden and 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 poor needy men and women, who shall likewise be called, The Brethren and Sisters of the said Hospital, from henceforth for ever.—And for the more effectual performance of this our grant on our part, We have chosen nominated and appointed our well beloved Peter Tudman to be the first and present warden, or master of the said hospital, and to continue in the said office for and during his natural life, unless for some default, trespass, misdemeanor, &c. omitted or committed by him, contrary to the constitutions or ordinances hereafter to be made and ordained, he shall be from thence removed.—And moreover out of our own especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, We have also chosen, nominated, &c. our well beloved John Tilney and Avis his wife, Isabel wife of the said Peter Tudman, John Pillow, Alice Briggs, and William Mason, to be the first and present brethren and sisters of the said hospital, there to be relieved and maintained during their natural lives, unless for some fault or misdemeanor they shall from thence be removed.

“And that this our pious and charitable intention may take the better effect, and that the lands, tenements, goods and chattels, and hereditaments, towards the maintenance of the said hospital and the warden or master, and the poor brethren and sisters &c. may the more effectually be given, granted, enjoyed, possessed and disposed, We will, and by these Letters Patents for us our heirs and successors of our like special grace &c. do grant ordain and constitute that the Mayor of our Burgh of King’s Lynn that now is, or hereafter shall be, and all the aldermen that now are or hereafter shall be, shall, from henceforth forever be our Body corporate and politique, in deed, fact, and name, by the title of The Governors of the lands, tenements, revenues, possessions, and hereditaments of the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen upon the Cawsey between Lynn regis and Gaywood, of the foundation of James king of England, &c.—And by the said name of Governors, &c. to be always hereafter so called, termed, and nominated, for ever: and by the same to have perpetual succession, and to be both able and capable in law to obtain, receive, have, and possess the manors, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, feedings, rents, reversions, remainders, and all other hereditaments whatsoever, to them and their successors for ever, as well from us our heirs, &c. as from any person or persons whatsoever; as also all goods and chattels for the maintenance and relief of the said hospital, the warden or master, and the poor brethren and sisters which shall, from time to time, live and be sustained therein.—And we do likewise by these presents for us and our heirs &c. grant unto them and their successors to have a common seal for all matters and businesses concerning the said hospital &c.—And that they by the name aforesaid may answer and be answered in any of his majesty’s courts or elsewhere within this kingdom of England.

“And we will that whensoever it shall happen, that the said master or any of the said 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 of the brethren shall die or be removed, it shall and may be lawful for the said governors (whereof the mayor to be always one) within 20 days after, to choose another in their room—And we will and grant that the said Warden or Master and his successors shall take his corporal oath on the evangelists for the due performance of his office, before the mayor for the time being, in the Guildhall of the said Burgh—And we will and grant that the said governors, or the greatest part of them (whereof the mayor to be always one) and their successors with the assent and consent of the bishop of Norwich for the time being, may make and constitute such and so many good and wholesome statutes, laws, &c. in writing, as well concerning the celebration of divine service every day in the said hospital to the honour of God, as for the government, election, expulsion, punishment and direction of the said master and poor there, and also concerning their stipends, salaries, liveries, habits, and all other necessaries whatsoever, as also concerning the ordinary, preservation, and disposing of all the lands, tenements &c.—And also may give and grant to the master and poor there, such useful things as they shall think fit: and may revoke, change, determine, augment, alter, and make new the same as they think most convenient; which said statutes, laws, and ordinances, to be made and constituted as aforesaid we straitly charge and command to be kept inviolable, from time to time for ever, yet so as the same be not contrary to the laws and statutes of this kingdom of England.

“And further for the continual relief and sustentation of the said hospital we have given and granted, and by these presents do give and grant to the said governors all the lordships, manors, messuages, lands, meadows, pastures, feeding-grounds, liberties, franchises and hereditaments whatsoever, lying in Gaywood, East Lexham, Dunham, Narford, West Lexham, Westwinch, and Holkham, in our said county of Norfolk, or any where elsewhere, which formerly were any part of the possessions of the said hospital, however before this time called or reputed, and which had not indeed though not by the law alienated, bargained and sold by the prior, brethren and sisters of the said hospital, and of which his Highness from the beginning of his reign had not taken any yearly profits, revenues, or rents.—And further we do give and grant unto the said governors, &c. To have, hold, and enjoy all the aforesaid premisses, together with court-leet, frank-pledge, liberties, franchises, goods and chattels waved of felons as well as felo de se, as of all other felons, fugitives, out-lawries, and taken in exigent, or in any other lawful way, right or title, they shall be convicted, condemned, extrahur deodands and all rights, jurisdiction, franchises, liberties, privileges, commodities, advantages, possessions, emoluments and hereditaments whatsoever, as fully, freely, and absolutely as any prior, brethren and sisters, as well sound as sick, ever had, held, or enjoyed heretofore, &c.—To have, hold, and enjoy all the privileges aforesaid to the only use and behoof of them the said governors, &c., in free, pure, and perpetual alms, for all rents, services, claims, and demands whatsoever, to be rendered, paid, or done to us our heirs &c. And we do likewise give and grant unto them all and singular, issues, fines, rents, revenues, annual profits whatsoever, of all and singular the premises aforesaid, whatsoever due before the grant of these Letters Patent, or within 60 years last past without giving any account of the same. And further we, our heirs, &c. will for ever acquit, exonerate, and keep indemnified to the said governors, &c. all and singular the premises aforesaid, against us our heirs &c. of and from coridies, rents, fees, annual pensions, portions and sums of money whatsoever, &c.

“And we will and straitly charge our Treasurer, Chancellor, and Barons of our Exchequer, their heirs and successors, and all other our Receivers, Auditors, Officers and Ministers whatsoever, upon producing these our Letters Patents, or the enrollment thereof without any other Breve or Warrant from us, that they make or cause to be made to the said governors &c. a full and plenary discharge of all the corodies, fees &c. whatever, for which these our Letters Patents shall be to them a sufficient warrant and discharge.—And we will and grant that these our Letters Patents and the enrollment thereof shall be in all things as firm, strong and good, sufficient and effectual in law against us, our heirs &c. in all our courts and elsewhere within out kingdom of England, without any further confirmation, licence, or toleration from us or our successors to be procured or obtained.—Notwithstanding the misnaming, misreciting, or not reciting the aforesaid premisses by these Letters Patents, Or the not finding only the office or inquisition of the premisses or any parcel thereof whereby our title ought to be found before the making of these our Letters Patents, Or the misreciting or misnaming, or not reciting or not naming any demise or grant of the premisses or any part thereof, on record or not on record, or any way whatsoever before this grant:—Or the misnaming or not naming any village, hamlet, parish, race, or county, in which the premisses or any part thereof be:—Or the full, true, and certain mention of the names of the tenements, farmers, occupiers of the premisses or any part thereof:—Or any defect in the certainty, account, or declaration of the true yearly value of the same as aforesaid:—or any other defects in not naming aright any one tenement, farmer, or occupier &c. or the statute made in parliament in the first year of the late king Edward VI. our predecessor, or the statute made in parliament in the 18th year of the late king Henry VIII. our progenitor.

“And further we will, straitly charge and command the aforesaid governors &c. that they expend, convert, and apply all and every the premisses aforesaid towards the relief and maintenance of the master and poor of the said hospital, and for the repairition and defence of all and singular the premisses aforesaid, and to no other use and purpose whatsoever.—Yet so that express mention be made of the true yearly value, or certainly of the premisses or any part of them, or any gifts or grants made before this time by us or any of our predecessors to the governors aforesaid and their successors, or any statutes, acts, ordinance, provision or restriction to the contrary before this had made published or ordained in any thing cause or matter whatsoever notwithstanding.—In Testimony whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patents. Witness ourself at Westminster this 22d. day of April in the year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland the 9th and of Scotland the 44th.

Per Breve de privato sigillo.

“After the grant aforesaid, the mayor and aldermen endeavoured by all fair means, to prevail with the concealers and usurpers of the many lands, &c. to yield and deliver up the quiet possession thereof to them, the said governors, without suit in law; but not able to succeed therein, they thereupon exhibited a bill of complaints into [in] the High Court of Chancery, against those who withheld the same, and had likewise gotten into their hands sundry Deeds, Evidences, Writings, Charters, Copies of Court Rolls, and Muniments, concerning the said Hospital, for about thirty years before the king’s majesty’s Letters Patents: whose names are as follow, viz. Sir Philip Woodhouse; Thomas Thoresbie Esq.; Henry Bastard, Gent.; Henry Baker, Gent.; Thomas Baxter; Robert Anderson; Richard Cross; Jefferie Pell; Robert Large; Robert Trollop; William Simpson, clerk; Robert Say, junr; Robert Spence, Gent.; Robert Webster; William Collis, als Glover:—Who having given in their several answers to the said bill, an order was made by the court, that the complainants should set down in writing, the particular lands and fold courses by them claimed, together with the evidences for proof thereof, that the same belonged to the said hospital, and how much the defendants have of those lands in their several possessions, &c. which they did as followeth”—

[The lands, &c. in question, are then particularly specified and described, being chiefly in East and West Lexham, and Dunham and Gaywood. They are denominated “Lands of the Lepers, or Spittle lands, pertaining to the brethren and sisters of the House, called The Spittle, upon the cawsey between Lynn and Gaywood”—the whole amounting to 305 acres—The complainants having thus specified their claims, the suit went on.]

“After divers hearings on both sides, in the high court of Chancery, for about four years together, the plaintiffs being prepared to move the lord chancellor with all speed for a decree, and for their costs and damages, Sir Philip Woodhouse defendant, (who had most of the lands, &c. in his hands,) solicited and intreated Sir H. Hobart, knt. and bart. Lord chief justice of the Common Pleas, to hear and determine the cause between them, which being consented to by the plaintiffs, his lordship gave his opinion, that the plaintiffs had right to all the lands and foldcourses, in the boundary before mentioned, in such manner as they have been claimed by them, excepting the messuage Warm, and 5 acres thereunto adjoining. And therefore to prevent further suit and expences on both sides, his lordship advised Sir Ph. Woodhouse to suffer that which he could not contradict, viz. that a decree should pass of all the lands and foldcourses (except as before excepted) for the plaintiffs, as in law and equity it ought to be: but withal mediated and intreated the counsel of the plaintiffs, in behalf of the said Sir Ph. that in regard so much of the lands and fold courses as were in the possession of Sir Philip, did lye so intermixed with his lands, it would be a great annoyance to him, and little profit to the plaintiffs, if the same were severed, that therefore it would please the plaintiff’s counsel to consent that the plaintiffs, after the decree passed, should make a lease to him of the premises aforesaid for 99 years, at the yearly rent of 16l. viz. their foldcourses at East Lexham, being in his possession for 10l. per annum, and all their grounds in West Lexham and great Dunham, also in his possession at 2s. 6d. for every acre per annum, and that the said Sir Philip Woodhouse should be discharged of all the rents, issues, and profits of the said lands and fold courses, for the time past; whereof the plaintiff’s counsel agreed, and promised to procure the same, which conclusion on both sides being made known the next day to the lord Chancellor, by the plaintiff’s counsel, his lordship upon their motion, ordered and decreed their possession of the said lands and foldcourses, unto the plaintiff’s, not having any relation to the said agreement made before the Lord chief justice, as aforesaid, saving in the exception before excepted, and in the omitting of damages and costs, which was promised in the last order.

“Afterwards, that it, upon the feast day of the decollation of St. John Baptist, next following, Sir Philip Woodhouse came to Lynn, and in the presence of John Spence, then Mayor, Thomas Oxburgh Esq. recorder, the aldermen and the rest of the Society then assembled in the common council house, the said Sir Philip did bring the draught of a Lease, (perused by the Lord Chief Justice Hobart), of the Spittle fold course of East Lexham, and of the lands which, by the mediation of the said lord chief justice, were to be demised by the mayor and aldermen to the said Sir Philip, a copy of which being formally delivered to the said mayor, &c. they caused the same to be engrossed on a pair of Indentures to that purpose, bearing date 17 May, 1615, then last past, (upon which day the last order for the decree was made) which Indentures were openly read, sealed, and delivered interchangeably in the said council house the said day of the decollation, being the election day for the succeeding mayor. The said Sir Ph. sent a fat buck, and gave his honourable promise, that he and his heirs should every year after, during the time of his Lease, give a like fat buck to every mayor for the time being towards their festival upon the said day; which was, for sometime, faithfully performed.—About a year after a Lease was granted by the mayor, &c. of all those their fold courses, foldage, and sheep pasture in the town of great Dunham for 250 sheep, to be goeing, fed, and depastured in and upon all the common, and common pasture fields and amble grounds there, as well demesnes as otherwise, anciently accustomed, to Sir Thomas Hogan, Henry Bastard, Henry Barker, Thomas Baxter, Thomas Burton, for 21 years, from Lady day 1616, for 10l. per annum, free and clear from all manner of quit rents and charges whatsoever. Both which sheep walks, with the lands thus demised, were anciently in Lease to the lords of the manor of East Lexham, from the old hospital, under the yearly rent of 20s. 4d. as appears by two ancient rentals, [copies of which are preserved in Mr. King’s MS. and are here given in the note below. [544]]—The flocks of the lords of Dunham went and were depastured in and upon the common of Dunham—as more appeareth by an ancient survey upon oath, both of the freehold and copyhold tenants, made in the 4th Edward 2. which is in the hands of Henry Bastard, Gent. now [i.e. about 1724] Lord of the manor of Great Dunham.”

[A true copy of which subjoined: it is in Latin, and too long to be inserted here, as it fills near four folio pages.]

After some recapitulation, by way of summary, of the above account, the writer proceeds to treat of the then present state of the hospital (i.e. now near a 100 years ago) and he observes again,

“that the house was first granted by the founder for the society of a prior and 12 men and women, called brethren and sisters, by which last style and title it was again newfounded by the aforesaid Letters Patents of K. James I. as appears by the 6th paragraph thereof. But this mixture or medley of sexes being not afterwards well and rightly approved of, it have been since thought necessary to alter and change the same [546a] and instead thereof to establish a sisterhood only, consisting of a master and eleven poor widows, [546b] who have formerly lived well and creditably in the world; but are not usually admitted under the age of sixty.” [546c]

The above account was probably taken from the MS. vellum book, which Parkin mentions, [546d] and is supposed still to exist among the town archives. It appears to have been written in 1617, under the sanction of the then mayor, recorder, and aldermen, and bears date on St. John’s day that year, when John Wallis was mayor, Richard Stonham, mayor elect, Thomas Oxburgh, recorder, and the following made up the remainder of the then magistrates, or aldermen, viz. Thomas Baker, Thomas Gibson, John Spence, Matthew Clerk, John Atkyn, Thomas Soame, John Wormell, Thomas Leighton, William Doughty, William Atkyn, and Thomas Gurlyn.—As these seem to be the persons who had been so active, a few years before, in recovering the lands belonging to our Magdalen Hospital, and in promoting the reestablishment and perpetuation of that charity, their names are worthy of being kept in remembrance; for they certainly deserved well of their country, and especially of the town of Lynn. The above law-suit, which they so successfully carried on, appears to have been one of the most justifiable and commendable of any that this corporation has ever been engaged or concerned in. Some of our corporation law-suits in more modern times were, it seems, of a different character.

For more than thirty years after the date of king James’ Letters Patents, and till sometime after the commencement of the civil wars, things went on well with our Magdalen Hospital, or Gaywood Almshouse. Its subsequent history, down to some part of the last century, is given by Mackerell, as follows—[547]

In the year 1643 this hospital suffered another dissolution, being purposely burnt down, when the Earl of Manchester came with the parliament forces to besiege the town of Lynn, at that time fortified, and standing out for the king, whereby it was then become utterly dissolved for some time.—But in the year 1649 the corporation being obliged to build it anew, which is very commodiously done, as it now appears, with two courts, [548] a chapel, and convenient apartments for the master, brethren, and sisters to dwell in, it was thought fit to put up the two following Inscriptions in proper places, to denote the occasion of this last disaster. The first is over the arch, upon a square free stone, as you enter into the second court, [and reads thus.]

THIS HOSPITAL WAS BURNT DOWN
AT LYNN SIEGE, AND REBUILT
1649, NATH. MAXEY MAYOR, AND
EDW. ROBINSON Alderman and Treasurer.

[The other] inscription, with the arms of the corporation in a shield over it, is engraven on a marble stone, which is affixed over the portal next the road, [and is as follows.]

THOMAS RIVET, MAYOR,
ANNO 1650. E. R.

Thus after divers revolutions we now see it again erected, established, and committed to the care and management of two of the elder aldermen of the corporation, chosen and appointed annually from among the rest of their brethren, the governors, for that purpose, who with their joint advice and consent, ordain rules and orders for the better guidance and direction of the society; as may be seen fairly written in a Table hanging constantly up in the chapel, whereby every one of the members is obliged to be present to hear divine service daily read by the Master, after the tolling of the bell, and not to neglect their duty in attending, (unless upon just cause to be given to the master) under the penalty, or mulct prescribed in the said order.—The improvement of the lands and revenues of the hospital have been so far advanced of late [1724] by the provident and prudent management of the two last worthy gentlemen, the two deputed governors thereof, that the poor have now an addition to their former salaries, of twelve pence per week to the master, and sixpence to each of the women, or sisters; and it is to be hoped they may in a little time be yet further advanced. [549]—The parish church which they are appointed to resort to on Sundays, is that of Gaywood, in which [parish] this hospital is situated, where they have a convenient pew, purposely provided for them to sit in: but they may go to any other church or chapel at Lynn, or elsewhere, when and as often as they please.—So much shall suffice to have been spoken of this ancient hospital, being without the walls and limits of the borough of king’s Lynn, though wholly depending on the corporation there. [550]

From the date of the above account (which seems to be brought down to 1737, when Mackerell’s work was published) to the present time, our information concerning the said hospital is not so correct, particular, or ample as we could wish.—It appears however, that divers changes have taken place from time to time since king James’s grant was obtained: first from a mixed society of brethren and sisters to that of sisters only: at first, it seems, these sisters were to be all widows, but latterly there is said to have been a departure from that plan, and old maids have been admitted, in some instances, as well as widows; which seems not at all objectionable. Changes also, of course, there have been in the weekly allowances of the respective pensioners; but not (at least during the present reign) in proportion to the changes in the price of the necessaries of life. Half a Crown a week, which was the allowance a hundred years ago, was to the full as good as ten or twelve shillings a week now: and yet the poor women during any part of this long jubilee reign (when the shilling has sunk in value to three-pence, or a groat, at most) never had above five shillings a week, till the commencement of the present year: Nor had they been long in the receipt of even so much as five shillings, or more than four and sixpence a week, which was their stated allowance for sometime till within these very few years. They must have been, therefore, till this present year, and during most part of this long reign of boasted prosperity and glory, in a very unenviable, miserable, ragged, and half starving condition, although the acting governor was generally a man of fortune: and a late one immensely so; but they never fared worse than under his inspection, for his humanity or charity did not appear to be commensurate with his wealth. In short it is well for these poor pensioners that the acting government of their house is at present in the hands of a gentleman that seems determined to do them justice, and promote their comfort and happiness to the utmost of his power.

As to the four Lazar Houses, or Lepers Hospitals, paid to have been suppressed here at the general dissolution, it is likely that one of them was attached to, or connected with our Magdalen Hospital, for it appears to have been partly founded for unsound or leprous persons. This therefore may be supposed to have been one of those four suppressed houses. Of the other three, one was probably at West Lynn, one at Cowgate, and the other at Hardwick. The disease, for the relief of those afflicted with which these houses were founded, is said to have been introduced, or brought from the East into this country, and to Europe, by the madbrained crusaders, who became many ways a terrible grievance and pest to their respective countries and nations. It was a proof, certainly, of the humanity of our countrymen, in those times, that houses were erected and endowed for the reception and relief of persons afflicted with so grievous and incurable a disorder. So little do we know about the order, or economy, or laws of these Lazar Houses, that we must here necessarily dismiss the subject.

Of the Hospital of St. Lawrence very little is known, except that it was one of the four Lazar houses and stood at Hardwick, or Herdwyk Dam, as Parkin calls it. He says

“that in the 11th of Edward III. Matthew Herlewine conveyed by fine and trust to Thomas Duraunt, parson of Clenchwarton; William Duraunt of South Lynn, and John Kervyle of Wygenhale (along with other possessions) the advowson of the hospital of St. Lawrence at Herdwyk Dam, together with the rents, homages, services, &c. of the master of the said hospital, of the prior of Wirmegey, the prior of Westacre, and of John de Lenn.”

He also says, that—

“John Duraunt Esq. granted to Robert Synkclere and Agnes his wife the hospital, or house of lepars, with the chapel of St. Lawrence situate on the cawsey of Hardwyke, by Lenne, with the appertenances for their lives, from the feast of St. Michael in 27 Henry VI. paying to him, his heirs and assigns, for every brother and sister entering into the said hospital, and made by the said Robert and Agnes, 20d. and it shall not be lawful for the said John, his heirs &c. to put in or out, any brother or sister during the lives of the aforesaid Robert and Agnes.”

He further informs us, that—

“in 17 Edward, IV. Edmund Bedingfeld, lord of the manor of Hall Place, (in the hamlet of Seche Parva, in South Lynn) and in a court held of the said manor, grants to John Norris, [553a] vicar of South Lynn, the scite of the Hospital of St. Lawrence (which was then burnt) till it was rebuilt.” [553b]

Section VIII.

Of the Red Mount, and our Lady’s Chapel there—also her Chapel by the Bridge which still bears her name—St. Ann’s Chapel, with those of St. Catherine, St. Laurence, &c.

From the particular situation of the Red Mount, (on the out-side of the town-walls, and within the wet foss which flanked those walls,) there can be little doubt of its being once a small fortress, or fortified and castellated place; so that it might without much impropriety be denominated a castle. What will further corroborate this opinion is a fact noticed among our remarkable or memorable occurrences, that in 1469 king Edward IV. came to Lynn with a great retinue, and was lodged in this place; from which it may be very naturally inferred and concluded, that it was then well fortified; for the king in his then situation, (retreating before Warwick,) would hardly have been lodged without the walls in an unfortified place. From the same premises it may be likewise fairly inferred, that it was also a large and sumptuous structure—Edward’s numerous retinue requiring it to be of the former description, and his royal dignity of the latter: had it been small it could not have accommodated so large a company, and had it been mean, the king would not have been lodged there—[554] But however strong, large, or sumptuous the edifice on the Red Mount then was, most of it has long ago disappeared, and the little that now remains is chiefly the chapel, which was once of considerable celebrity, but is now in a dilapidated state. Of this curious piece of antiquity, one of the most remarkable that Lynn can boast of, the following description has lately appeared in a popular and respectable work, which we have often before referred to—

“At the eastern extremity of the town is a curious ancient building, called The Lady’s Chapel, or The Red Mount. It has been erroneously named a castle, but is evidently an ecclesiastical structure. [555a] It consists of an octagonal wall of red brick and is constructed on a very singular plan, of which, perhaps, not a similar example is to be found in the kingdom. Within the exterior wall is a handsome cruciform chapel, measuring from east to west seventeen feet seven inches, by fourteen from north to south, and thirteen in height. The roof is formed of stone, with numerous groins, &c. and exactly resembles the much admired ceiling of King’s College Chapel, Cambridge. This curious building is in a dilapidated state, and it is much feared will soon fall a victim to neglect and wantonness. Such a singular edifice should be carefully preserved, and as the expence to effect this would be trivial, it is hoped the corporation, to whom it belongs, will not neglect it, and thereby entail on themselves the perpetual reproaches of history, and the lasting censures of antiquarian record.” [555b]

At what time this notable fabrick was erected, does not appear; but we may pretty safely conclude that it was at a period subsequent to the conquest, and perhaps not before the 12th or 13th century. It appears to have been dissolved, or laid by, at the reformation, and it was defaced, as Parkin says, before the 3rd of Elizabeth. As there has been little or no attention bestowed upon it ever since that time, it is no wonder that it should be now in so ruinous a state. It has been often said that this place was, in its day, the receptable of the pilgrims, in their way to, and from Walsingham. If so, it amounts to a pretty good proof, that it was very capacious, and well endowed, or furnished with ample revenues; for the pilgrims to Walsingham, like those to Loretto, swarmed on all the roads that led thither; but on no road more, or perhaps so much as that through Lynn, as all the devout people from the northern and north western parts of the kingdom must have passed this way, perhaps by hundreds at a time. That house must have been both large and wealthy, that could lodge and entertain such hosts of travellers.—Another reason for pilgrims frequenting our chapel on the Mount might be, because there was there also an image of the Virgin, which had attained to some celebrity; not indeed like that at Walsingham, [556] but evidently beyond any thing of the kind at Lynn. We may therefore be very sure that the holy travellers to Walsingham would pay a greater regard to the chapel of our Lady on the Mount than to any other religions place in this town. It has been observed before, that the offerings to this image of the Virgin on the Mount exceeded sometimes the offerings to all our other images and in all our other religious houses here, numerous as they were. In short, we may venture to affirm, that in former days no one place in Lynn was of greater note or celebrity than the Red Mount, and especially our Lady’s Chapel and Image there.

Of the Chapel of our Lady on the Bridge, we know much less than of that on the Mount, though our knowledge of the latter also is but very imperfect. When the former was erected, whether before or after the other, or why there should be two chapels in this town dedicated to the Virgin, are questions which we are unable to resolve. They were both probably more ancient than some of our other religious houses: but they were dissolved, or laid by at the same time with most of the rest. They were probably demolished not long after, and this on the bridge much more entirely than the other. Parkin says, that this chapel was defaced before the reign of Elizabeth, as appears by an inquisition taken in her third year. Our Lady’s Gild in Lynn had seemingly some connection with this chapel, as well as with that on the Mount; but we know too little of the constitution and circumstances of that ancient fraternity to pronounce any thing positively on this head. [558] Some small remains of this chapel, converted into a little dwelling, stood, till very lately, on the eastern side of the bridge; but when the said bridge was widened, by order of the paving-act commissioners, those remains were entirely removed, and there is no longer one stone upon another of that consecrated and venerated fabrick, or the least sign or indication, except in the name of the bridge, that such an edifice ever stood there.—The modern substitutes for this and the other ancient chapels, here suppressed and demolished, are four very decent and commodious dissenting meeting houses; one in New Conduit Street, one in Clough Lane, and two in Broad Street; all, or most of them, at present pretty well attended. Of each of which a particular account shall be given in the course of this work.

Of St. Ann’s Chapel very little is at present known. That it stood somewhere near St. Ann’s Fort, and that the latter took its name from it, can scarcely be doubted. The stones that are still to be seen in some of the adjacent walls did once, in all probability, belong to this ancient consecrated structure. [559] We have, however, no reason to suppose that it was a very large edifice, but rather one of our smaller size chapels, like that of our Lady on the Bridge, and some others. It probably stood contiguous to other houses, without any yard, or burying-ground adjoining; which may be one, and, perhaps, the chief reason, why its site has so entirely disappeared, so as to baffle, or render fruitless every attempt to discover the exact spot on which it stood. All that can now be fairly concluded is, that it must have been somewhere near the Fort.

The site of St. Catherine’s Chapel seems to be involved in still greater uncertainty than even that of St. Ann. By something that the present writer has somewhere met with, he has been led to think, that this chapel stood without the East Gates, and at no great distance; but as he cannot now recollect upon what he founded that opinion, he will not take upon him here to defend it, or assert that the chapel actually stood there. Parkin owns that he did not know where it stood, but says that it was defaced before the 3rd of Elizabeth, as appears by an inquisition then taken. He also says that it is “mentioned in 1497, and the charity Gyld of the town of Lenn,” which, as he supposes, may allude to our houses of lepers. But those houses were probably not under the direction of any one of the gilds, but rather of a particular religious order, called the order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem; of which, however, we know not enough to give here a particular account of it. But as to the chapel in question, Parkin further informs us that “in 5 Richard II. Henry le Despencer, bishop of Norwich, wrote a letter to Roger Paxman, mayor, and to the burgesses of Lynn, wherein he desires that they would, for the love they bore for the bishop, grant part of the house of St. Catherine to one John Consolif, late servant to his brother, the lord le Despencer, there to live a solitary life, upon the alms of the good people; the other part of the house belonging to the archdeacon of Norwich, being before granted to the said John Consolyf.” [560] This shews that there was here formerly a House or Hospital, as well as a Chapel, dedicated to St. Catherine; to which house or hospital, in all probability, the said chapel belonged: but whether they pertained to our Lazarettos, or were founded for some other purposes, it is very difficult now to determine. Beside this chapel of St. Catherine, there was here another chapel dedicated to her, in the church of the friars preachers, or Dominicans: [561a] but this was nothing very remarkable, as we had here also more than one chapel dedicated to the Trinity, as well as to the blessed virgin, if not likewise to some others.

The Chapel of St. Lawrence, (like those of St. Catherine and St. John) appears to have belonged to the Hospital of the same name, and therefore must have stood at Hardwick, contiguous, probably, or very near to the said hospital. That house being one of our Lazarettos, its use, or designation is sufficiently obvious. We learn from Parkin,

“that John Duraunt Esq. in the 27 Henry VI. granted to Robert Synkclere and Agnes his wife the hospital, or house of lepars, with the chapel of St. Lawrence situate on the cawsey of Hardwyke, by Lynn—Also that William Walton, Esq. and Catherine, his wife, daughter and heiress of the said John Duraunt Esq. conveyed by fine, in Hillary term, 36th year of the same reign, to Sir Thomas Tudenham, knight, the advouson of the chapel of St. Lawrence, with the manor of Hall Place, and divers other possessions. [561b] This chapel seems therefore to have been an endowed place, whose advouson was deemed an object of no trivial consideration. The hospital to which it belonged, as well as the rest of our Lazar houses, may be supposed to have been in some sort of subjection to the master of the order of St. Lazarus, whose chief residence, or station, appears to have been at Burton Lazars, in Leicestershire. Parkin mentions a remarkable deed which he had seen, whereby brother Richard de Sulegrave, knight, master of the whole order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem, and all the brethren of the said order, dwelling at Burton, by common assent and council of the whole chapter, grant to Alan de Kele, burgess of Lenn, his heirs and assigns, a certain piece of land, called Lazar Hill, lying by the common wall of the said village, containing 7 perches and 7 feet in breadth, on the north side; and 10 perches and 14 feet, on the south side; 5 perches and half broad, on the east side; 6 perches broad in the middle, and 7 on the west side, &c. [562] This seems, by the names of the witnesses, to have been as early as the reign of king John. “This piece of land,” (our author adds) “I find afterwards in the hands of Rd. Spany and John de Teryngton, in the reign of Richard II.”

But the present writer is not able to point out this remarkable spot, or yet to describe the nature and extent of that jurisdiction which the master and chapter of the order of St. Lazarus had over the Lynn Lazarettos.

Most if not all the rest of the smaller chapels were attached to, or connected with our different churches and convents, of which several belonged to St. Margaret’s church: we will therefore give here no separate account of them. Such little chapels and chauntries were pretty numerous here, and mark the character of the inhabitants, and particularly the most devout part of them, in those times. There was here also in former ages, at least one [563a] hermitage, or retreat of an anchoret, and that was at the Crouch, or Crutch, as it is now commonly called. Of this remarkable place, and its adjacent cross, Parkin gives the following account—

“The mayor and commonalty petition William (Bateman) bishop of Norwich, begging his favour towards John Puttock, to admit him as a hermit, who had, in the bishop’s marsh by Lenn, on the sea shore, in a certain place, called Lenn Crouch, made a cave there, till he could build himself a proper mansion; purposing, as he declares, to spend all his time, by your permission and license, in the service of God there: and the said John Puttock has there erected a certain remarkable cross, of great service for all shipping coming that way, of the height of 110 feet, at his own great cost and charge.” [563b]

This occurred as long ago as 1349. To our thinking the Crutch must be a most improper and strange place for a hermitage, where people are continually passing and repassing, and those, at least many of them, some of the rudest and most lawless of the whole population. How the hermits did there in popish times we know not, but we are apt to think that they would not fare very comfortably there in this protestant age.

Section IX.

Account of St. James’s Chapel (now the Workhouse) from its first erection, in the twelfth century, to the present time.

The founder of this chapel, as well as that of St. Nicholas, according to our best accounts, was William Turb, or Turbus, alias De Turba Villa, or Turbeville, the third bishop of Norwich, who was promoted to that see in 1146, [564a] in the reign of king Stephen. It was probably built before the end of that reign, as Parkin refers to a certain charter of that bishop, which proves that it was in being at the commencement of the next reign. [564b] Both this of St. James and that of St. Nicholas were chapels of ease to the church of St. Margaret. These three churches had in those times abundance of officiating priests, or chaplains. The great fraternity, called Trinity Gild, alone, maintained no less than thirteen; six for St. Margaret’s, four for St. Nicholas’s, and three for St. James’s. [564c] How many they had besides, does not appear; but they had, no doubt, several more. This chapel is said to contain in length five score feet, and in breadth 24 feet; exclusive of the cross aisle, and a chapel attached to it, dedicated to the Trinity. The altar of St. Lawrence stood somewhere in this chapel, and, at the east end of it, an image of our Saviour, to which devout folks were wont to bring their offerings. A particular division of the town appears to have been at one time consigned or appropriated to the officiating services of the chaplains or clergy of this chapel, comprehending, probably, all on the sides next to it of Damgate, Broadstreet, Blackboystreet and Codlin lane. St Nicholas’s clergy appear also to have had appropriated to them another division of the town: hence we find, that—

“on Friday before the feast of St. Tiburtius and Valerian, in the 35th of Edward III. it was ordered by the commonalty, assembled in the Guild hall, that the clerks of St. James’s in Lynn, for the future, shall carry the holy water from the East Gate of Lynn, through all the south part of Damgate, and through the whole street called Webster’s row; and that the clergy or clerks of St. Nicholas’ shall likewise carry from the aforesaid gate through all the north part of the aforesaid street of Damgate.” [565a]

At the general dissolution this chapel was, it seems, laid by, and shut up, which appears an odd and unaccountable circumstance, as it had not any connection with the convents, being merely a parochial place of worship. We are told that it was pulled down, all but the cross aisle, in 1549, (by order of the mayor and corporation, it is supposed,) when it had four bells, which were worth, with the bell of the charnel-house, CCl. We are further told, “that there did also, in the mean time, belong to the said chapel and charnel-house, stone, iron, and glass, to the value of one hundred marks: also timber and lead to the value of 300l. also plate, jewels, and stock, to the value of 200l. also certain lands and tenements in Lynn, to the yearly value of 5l.” [565b] All this property appears to have come into the hands of the mayor and corporation; not very fairly and honourably, it seems; for we find that it rather belonged to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich, who, about seventeen years after, on what occasion does not appear, relinquished their right and claim to it, by a formal deed to that purpose, a copy of which is given below. [566a] This was about the year 1566. [566b] From that period it lay, probably, in ruins till 1581, when it was, at the expense of the corporation, prepared and made a place for the manufacture of bays, &c.—How long it was occupied for that purpose is not said; but we learn that the undertaking did not succeed.—About a century after, in the year 1682, it was repaired and fitted up, by the liberal benefactions of the corporation and principal inhabitants, and converted into a hospital, or workhouse for fitly decayed old men, women, and poor children; a good endowment and provision being made for their work, instructions, and maintenance, and for putting the children out to trades.—On that occasion were made and adopted the following

“Rules, Ordinances and Statutes made and established by the mayor and burgesses of the burgh of King’s Lynn in the county of Norfolk, for the good government of the Hospital or Workhouse of St. James, there erected and founded, and of the children’s being, and to be placed therein.—Imprimis, That the children be instructed in their duty towards God, and in good manners.—That the master for the time being shall cause the children every Lord’s day, both in the forenoon and afternoon, constantly to repair to the parish church of St. Margaret, diligently to attend divine service and sermons there.—That some fit person, to be elected by the mayor and burgesses, shall daily read the prayers and collects appointed for that purpose in the chapel of the said house, every morning by eight of the clock, and every evening by four of the clock precisely, all the children there attending with becoming reverence.—That such person, after prayers so read at the times aforesaid, shall teach the children to read for the space of one hour and an half, twice in the day, by calling together four at a time, and no more, whilst the rest are at work.—That such person every Sunday, after divine service in the afternoon, calling all the said children into the chapel, shall instruct them in the church Catechism appointed for children, for the space of one hour, concluding with the prayers and collects.

“Item, For their Recreation and Correction. That the children be kept at work between our Lady and Michaelmas from Six of the clock in the morning till Twelve at noon; and between Michaelmas and our Lady from Eight till twelve, and in all afternoons from One to Seven: the time for prayers, reading, and refreshment, excepted. That on festivals and holy-days observed by the church, and every Thursday after three in the afternoon, they be allowed reasonable recreation. That for offences committed, gentle and moderate chastisement be given; and such as will not thereby be reformed, be sent to the house of correction, to be there punished.

“Item, For their Diet, Cloaths, Firing, and necessary Provisions. That three days in the week they have once in the day competent allowance of flesh meat hot, and three other days like allowance of other hot provision, to be ready at twelve at noon; and on the other day fit provision; as also a reasonable breakfast and supper every day of the week. That all sorts of provision, bread, beer, and meat, and all other victuals, be good, fresh, and wholesome. That once every year, a month before Christmas, they be allowed new suits of cloaths of the usual colours, and new shifting, shoes, and stockings, so often as it shall be necessary and convenient, and washing allowed them. That out of six chaldron of coals to be allowed to the master, a convenient fire be kept in the working-room all the cold season of the year. That such children as shall appear to be sick, be removed into a room for that purpose; and if any be infirm, or taken with contagious distempers (such as are catching) that special care be taken to lodge them apart from the others.

“Item, For the Visitation, Overseeing, Defraying necessary charges, and Regulation of Abuses. That on the usual day of electing the corporation officers in every year, the mayor, aldermen, and common-council, or the major part of them, shall elect and choose three discreet and fitting persons to be governors of the same Hospital, or Workhouse, for the year from Michaelmas thence next ensuing, whose care shall be to inspect and oversee the same, and the children therein, from time to time; and to order and direct all expences, charges, payments, and disbursements concerning the same; and to see and cause all the rules, ordinances, and statutes thereof to be put in due execution.—That all gifts, benevolences, contributions, payments, and sums of money whatsoever, now or hereafter to be made and given to the same Hospital or Workhouse, or the poor children therein, shall from time to time be paid into the hands of such governors; and a true account thereof, and of all expences, charges, payments and disbursements concerning the same, shall yearly be made and audited on the usual day appointed for auditing the accompts of the mayor and burgesses.—That a book be kept, wherein all gifts and benevolences, that have been or shall hereafter be given to, or bestowed on the said Hospital or Workhouse, or the poor children therein, shall be fairly registered, to be kept in the said chapel.—That one other book be kept, wherein the names or times of placing or removing of all masters and poor children of the same Hospital or Workhouse shall be entered and recorded.—That a sufficient chest or box be provided, with two locks, for the reposing and safe keeping therein the Deeds of Foundation, Endowment, and other writings, that do or shall belong thereunto, as also the common seal of the said Hospital, or Workhouse; one key whereof to remain with the mayor of this burgh for the time being, the other with the senior governor thereof.—That the mayor, aldermen, and common-councilmen, or so many as shall think fit, by appointment of the mayor for the time being, shall four times in every year, or oftener if need require, visit the said hospital or workhouse, for the better encouragement thereof, and discovering abuses that may be committed contrary to these rules and ordinances.” [570]

“The first Collection among the inhabitants towards this charitable design, and preparing this chapel, amounted to the sum of 406l. 1s. 6d.—The Corporation also made an order among themselves, That every Alderman new elected should pay at his admittance 10l. and every common-council-man 20 nobles, which, to the year ending at Lady day 1724, amounted to 726l. 13s. 4d. The legacies of persons deceased (besides other benefactions) given to the same” [up to the above specified time] “amounted to 90l. 0s. 0d.—In all 1222l. 14s. 10d.—They also endowed it with 20l. per annum.” [571a]

For some reason, to us unknown, the above order of things did not long continue. In the course of a few years another revolution took place: most, if not all the above regulations were repealed, or laid aside, and the house, by an act of parliament, was consigned to the superintendence and management of the Guardians of the Poor. [571b] That act passed in 1701, the 12th of William III. For erecting Hospitals and Workhouses in King’s Lynn. It contains, as Mackerell observes, the following clause—

“The Workhouse, founded by the mayor and burgesses, called St. James’s Workhouse, and all lands, tenements, rents, revenues, goods, and chattels, belonging to the same, are by this act vested and settled in the guardians of the poor, and their successors.” [571c]

We are further told, that by another clause in this act, it was to continue in force only so long as the rates did not exceed what had been paid towards the maintenance of the poor, for any one of the then three last years. [572] That excess, no doubt, took place pretty soon, though we have not learnt the exact year when it so happened: and yet the guardians, it seems, long after, and even till very lately, acted under that same obsolete law; a conduct which may be thought not altogether justifiable or defensible. But as the proverb says, that “half a loaf is better than no bread,” so they might judge that an obsolete law was better than no law. However that was, one would think that they must cease to be guardians, when the law that constituted them such lost its authority, or ceased to be in force.

From the period when the superintendence and management of St. James’s Hospital were committed to the guardians, it appears to have become the proper poor house of St. Margaret’s parish, and general workhouse of the town.—Of the exact state and regular variations of the poor rates in Lynn during the first sixty years, and more, after the above act had passed, we have but little knowledge; but for the last forty years our information is much more extensive and authentic. During this period our poor-rates, or what we have raised for the support of the poor, have increased tenfold, and the number of paupers four or five fold.—In 1770 these rates amounted to only 976l.—In 1796 they amounted to 7713l.—and in 1809 to about, or near 9000l. and the whole expenditure, up to the end of January in the present year, (1810) to the enormous sum of 10,243l. 10s. 3d.—for, after the manner of our superiors, who sit above at the helm, we manage and contrive that our outgoings should exceed our income.—The following statements of our out-door expenditure in two different years, (the first and the last of the above period,) extracted from Mr. Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, p. 19 and 20, may throw some further light upon this subject.

Abstract of Out-door Expenditure in 1770, as published by order of the Court of Guardians.

No. of families in each ward.		Wards.	No. of persons.	Cash paid toeach ward weekly.
				l.	s.	d.
30.	1.	North End Ward	78	2.	14.	0.
6.	2.	Kettlewell ditto	9	0.	7.	6.
5.	3.	Trinity Hall ditto	16	0.	9.	6.
5.	4.	Jews’ Lane ditto	10	0.	11.	6.
13.	5.	Paradise ditto	34	l.	6.	0.
26.	6.	Sedgeford Lane ditto	41	1.	18.	6.
19.	7.	Stonegate ditto	34	1.	13.	0.
20.	8.	Chequer ditto	41	1.	6.	6.
8.	9.	New Conduit ditto	17	0.	11.	6.
	In St. James’s Workhouse			0.	2.	6.
131.	Total asestablishment account.		280.	10.	19.	6. [573]

Abstract of Out-door Expenditure in 1809, as published by order of the Court (or corporation) of Guardians.

No. of families in each ward	Wards.	No. of persons.	Cash paid toeach ward weekly.
			l.	s.	d.
85.	North End Ward	172.	9.	19.	9.
44.	Kettlewell ditto	78.	5.	16.	0.
58.	Paradise ditto	141.	8.	18.	6.
36.	Jews’ Lane ditto	99.	5.	10.	6.
44.	New Conduit ditto	91.	6.	12.	0.
58.	Chequer ditto	120.	9.	2.	6.
33.	Trinity Hall ditto	64.	5.	2.	6.
76.	Sedgeford Lane ditto	158.	10.	9.	6.
80.	Stonegate ditto	150.	12.	0.	0.
514.	Weekly Allowance	1050.	75.	11.	3.
	Sick poor	60.	8.	17.	0.
	Illegitimate	39.	3.	13.	9.
	Total.	1149.	88.	1.	9. [574]

The difference between the latter and the former of the above Statements, in so short a period, comprehending only a part of the present prosperous reign, and what some seem to deem the most blessed and glorious part of if, must be exceedingly remarkable and wonderful. In 1770 the rates of the town were only 4s. in the pound on the rent, raising an annual revenue of 976l; of which 579l. were appropriated for the use of the out door poor, leaving only 397l. for the maintenance of the Workhouse and all other contingent expences. Thus the total expenditure of the House was then only 397l; now it is 3496l. 3s. 5d.—Then the total annual expenditure for both the in-door and out-door poor was only 976l; now it is above 10,000l. [575a] Of course, the charge for the maintenance of the poor is now become a very serious matter, and even a heavy and grievous burden to many of the inhabitants.

Our poor rates have arrived at their present unexampled height under the new heaven-born poor-law, which was to be the prolific parent of so many inestimable blessings to the town; not one of which, alas! has yet been, or is ever likely to be realized. This memorable law, and its worthy twin-sister, the paving law, have been already productive of incalculable mischief. The vast additional burden which they have brought upon the inhabitants has lessened the value of houses 15 or 20 per cent, and multiplied the number of untenanted dwellings to five or six score, at least. [575b] Nor is it possible at present to calculate how far the evil will or may extend. For such a town as this to contain a large and increasing number of empty houses must certainly have a very dark and unpropitious appearance, and is utterly repugnant to every idea of our being at present in a flourishing or prosperous condition. [576a]

When it was made to appear that the poor rates of Lynn amounted to nearly, if not quite, as much as those of Hull and Exeter, places three times its population, it was impossible to avoid suspecting the existence of some sad mismanagement, if not also of most foul and criminal misdoings. The same suspicion was not likely to be lessened, but rather to issue in full conviction, when it was discovered, that the maintenance of each pauper in this workhouse, or hospital, costs even more than that of each pensioner in Greenwich Hospital, [576b] and twice or thrice as much as that of each pauper in some, if not all, of the most noted and respectable workhouses, or poorhouses in the kingdom. That the report of these circumstances, with the increasing pressure of the rates, should excite a spirit of mistrust, inquiry, and investigation in the town, was no more than what might naturally be expected. It accordingly did so happen: and the result proved that the previous suspicious were not groundless.

In the course of the investigation, Butcher’s Meat appeared to be here consumed in such unusual quantities [577a] as are utterly irreconcilable with any and every idea of economy and good management: and in the article of Cheese the consumption appeared to be still more palpably disproportionate, unexampled, and excessive; so as to set the wisdom and competency of our managers in a very unfavourable and unseemly point of view.—This the reader will easily perceive, when he is told, that it costs in this house, for cheese alone, between 4 and 5l. a week, or that there is consumed here weekly no less than 1 Cwt. of that article. That this is out of all proportion to what is usual in other Poor-houses, will appear from the following statement, extracted from Mr. Grisenthwaite late publication. [577b]

At the Norwich Poor-houses, among 1343 persons, during one of the late years of scarcity, the annual expence for cheese was 135l. 2s. 5d.—At Shrewsbury, among 274 persons, (in 1801, if we are not mistaken,) the annual expence for the same article was 56l. 2s. 4d.—At Hull, in 1808, (number of persons not mentioned, but doubtless, not fewer than those in our Poor-house,) the annual expence for the said article was 29l. 16s.—At Lynn, the same year, among 200 persons, for that article, 226l. 8s.—At the same town, among about the same number of persons, for the last year, (1809,) the annual expence for that very article amounted to the still more enormous sum of 259l. 15s. 11d. [578a]—If we go on at this rate, we shall soon have 3 or 400l. a year to pay for cheese only, for the use of our Workhouse; a sum equal to what the whole of that establishment cost forty years ago. [578b]

The statement here following will shew the respective and total amount of the expence of the other articles consumed in this house within the last year, with the proportion they bore to the single article above specified.—The Butter used in this house for the whole year cost 30l. 11s. ld.—The Milk 33l. 14s. 2d.—Potatoes 37l. 2s.—Oatmeal and Peas 56l. 6s. [Total 157l. 13s. 3d.] That the sum total of the expence for the above four, or rather five articles, should fall short above 100l. of what it cost for cheese only, must surely be very strange: and yet it appears not to be more strange than true. The whole year’s expence for Grocery was 158l. 1s. 7d.—And for Beer, 157l. 7s.—Here also it may be thought not a little remarkable, that the Grocery and even the Beverage used here should so much fall short of the Cheese as each of them not to amount to very much above half the expence of that article. Of the two most important articles, Flour and Meat, (the only two which exceeded the expence of cheese!) the former, including Bread, cost 1001l. 10s. 9d. [579a]—and the latter, (Meat,) cost 1110l.—Coals cost 134l. 5s. 10d.—Turf 9l. 3s.—Oil 8l. 4s.—The total expenditure of the house for the whole year, including sundry other articles, with repairs, &c. 3496l. 3s. 5d. [579b]—and with the disbursements to the out-door pensioners, the entire expenditure, up to the end of last January, as was before observed, appeared to amount to 10,243l. 10s. 3d.: [579c] an enormous sum, surely, for a town that does not contain 11,000 inhabitants, or any manufacture, or even any trade now, of much consequence, except the coal trade. Under these circumstances, such a rapid and vast increase of poor, and of the poor rates, must amount to an irrefragable proof, that we are now in a state of actual and fast declension, whatever some people may insinuate, or pretend to the contrary. But the more evident this declension is, the more incumbent it must be on those who have the management of our affairs to observe the utmost economy, and spare as much as possible the industrious and lower orders of the community, who can so ill bear the burden of additional charges. Whether they have hitherto ever thought of this, or not, it seems to be now high time that it should occupy its full share of their attention. [580a]

It has also been thought, or rather suspected, that our distributers of parochial relief do not always distribute or administer that relief with judgment and discrimination, or even with a scrupulous or due regard to justice and impartiality: and such statements as the following might be supposed to afford some colour or countenance to such suspicions—

“Weekly allowances—To a man and wife and 5 children, 2s. 6d. To a young woman, aged 24, and one child 2s.—To a man and wife near 70 years of age, 1s. To a single woman, aged 19, 2s. 6d.—To a widow, aged 76, 2s. To a single woman, aged 31, 2s. 6d.—To a widow, aged 78, 2s. To a single woman, aged 22, 1s. 6d.—To an aged woman, 102 years old, 2s. 6d. To a widow, aged 48, 3s. 6d.—To a widow, aged 38, with 3 children, 3s. To a single woman, aged 36, 2s. 6d.” [580b]

Such a Statement, which may be taken as a sample, or specimen of our out-door distributions, has something like partiality, or inconsiderateness, marked on its very forehead.—“Kisses,” according to the old adage, “go by favour;” and so, it is to be feared, do our out-door parochial allowances, in too many instances. But upon this topic we will not now enlarge, as we may have occasion hereafter to resume the subject, in the latter part of the work. [581a]

At this time (July 1810) a revolution, or new arrangement is said to be actually taking place among our indoor-pensioners, or in the management of St. James’s Hospital, from which very important benefits are expected soon to result: and it is much to be wished that the event may correspond with the present expectations. The household expences have been already, it seems much reduced, [581b] without the least detriment to the poor inmates; and we hear, that the plan is to be followed up with the strictest attention to sound and rigid economy. The present state of the town certainly requires it, and those who have come forward on this occasion seem to be very much in earnest; but it remains to be seen how far our present hopes and expectations will be realized, or whether, after all, we are not destined to be, in this case, as we have been in many others, the miserable victims of delusion and disappointment. [581c]

With very little propriety, especially of late years, has our St. James’s Hospital been called a Work-house: it might full as well, and even better, have been called a play-house; for it is certain that there is more play than work going on there. Among its 200 pensioners, one half, at least, may be supposed capable of doing some, and even a great deal of work: and yet all their earnings during all the last year amounted to no more than 170l. 1s. 5d. which was at the rate of little more than a penny a day. The work, therefore, done by the numerous residents in this house is scarcely worth mentioning, except for the purpose of exhibiting the palpable neglect and mismanagement of the conductors, and their utter incompetency for the charge which they have undertaken. As things have stood hitherto, this house has been little better than a nest of sloth, or an asylum for idleness; where young and strong paupers are so treated as if it were actually wished and intended to unfit them, as much as possible, for any future use or employment in society, or as if their admission here had been meant for their ruin, and not for their relief and benefit—Care, certainly, ought to be taken, that the children, and youth, and hale people, in our poor-houses, be inured to habits of industry, as well as provided with food and raiment; otherwise, the succour afforded will be most materially defective.

The foregoing narration, it is presumed, will enable the reader to form a pretty accurate and adequate idea, of the history of this notable house, from its first erection, or foundation, in the reign of king Stephen, or that of his successor, to the present time. At first, as has been shewn, it was a chapel, or place of worship, of no small consideration in the town, being little inferior to St. Nicholas’ chapel, or even St. Margaret’s church, and continued to be so till the reformation, when it was unaccountably desecrated, and most of it pulled down. After which, it was appropriated successively to different uses, till it became the poor-house of St. Margaret’s parish, and the general work-house of the town, with the annexation, of late years, of extensive new buildings. This is its state at present: but how long it may so continue, it is impossible to say, as we can see but little into futurity. How far the recent change and expected reform will realize or disappoint our hopes, must be left at present among the mysteries. Time is the only revealer of such secrets. We will now take our leave of St. James’s Chapel and Hospital, and proceed to other matters, somewhat less connected with the affairs of the present generation.

CHAP. VII.

Brief biographical notices of the most remarkable or distinguished personages that appeared among the inhabitants of Lynn, in the intervening period between the Conquest and the Reformation.

During the period now under consideration, it is not known that many eminently distinguished, or very memorable characters appeared among the inhabitants of this town, full as it was, in the mean time, of ecclesiastics or priests, and monks or friars of different orders, among whom was usually confined all the little knowledge and learning that did then exist in the nation. But though the population of Lynn, during the said period, did not abound in characters of the above description, yet it does not appear to have been altogether destitute of them. The names of several have been preserved, who seem to have made in their day no mean figure among their most enlightened contemporaries; of whom the following were, perhaps, the most estimable and worthy of remembrance.

1. Nicholas de Lenna, or Nicholas of Lynn. He was a native of this town, and flourished in the reign of Edward III. He was educated at Oxford, where his literary proficiency may be supposed to have been very considerable, as he afterwards appeared to exceed most of his fellows, especially in some rare studies and distinguishing departments. To him is supposed chiefly to apply that observation of Voltaire, in his Essay on Universal History, (vol. 3. pp. 182, 183.) “That the first [in Europe] who certainly made use of the compass were the English, in the reign of Edward III.” [586a] Hackluyt, in his Voyages, makes particular and honourable mention of him, observing, that Nicholas de Lenna, an excellent musician, mathematician, and astrologer, bred at Oxford, after having applied his studies chiefly to astronomy, by the help of his Astrolabe, [586b] made six voyages to the North seas, of which he published an account, in a book entitled “Inventio Fortunata (aliter Fortunæ,) qui liber incipit a gradu 54 usq; ad polum.” In the first (which seems to have taken place as early as 1330) he sailed from Lynn to Iceland, with Company, whom he left on the sea-coast, while he himself travelled up into the island in search of discoveries. He presented his charts of the northern seas, at his return, (from his last voyage, we may suppose) to Edward III, in 1360; and they were afterwards made use of in the reign of Henry VI, and probably much later. He died in 1369, and was buried at Lynn. We are told that he was much esteemed by his celebrated contemporary Chaucer, who styled him ‘Frere Nicholas Linn, a reverend clerke.’

Like the great Roger Bacon, who lived about half a century before him, Nicholas belonged to the religious order of Grey Friars, or Franciscans, otherwise called Cordeliers, and minor brethren. [587] One is apt to forget or overlook, in some measure, the extravagances of the order, in the contemplation of its being capable of producing, and that it actually did produce such men as these. As Nicholas is supposed to have spent the most part of his time at Lynn, among the brethren of his order, it may very naturally and reasonably be concluded, or supposed, that the Grey Friars’ tower, which is still standing, was often used by him, as an observatory, in the course of his astronomical studies here; which may suggest no despicable reason for preserving that ancient ruin from the ravages of time, and keeping it up as long as possible. The repair which it lately underwent must be creditable to the feelings of those by whom it was promoted. It may seem somewhat odd and remarkable that it has stood so long, and still exists, the last and only remain of our numerous monasteries and conventual towers; (though, perhaps, from the slightness of its structure, the most unlikely of any of them to survive;) as if time, or providence had favoured its preservation, by way of approval of the useful purposes to which it had been once appropriated, or in honour of the memory of him who so laudably occupied it, and was so eminent a benefactor to his country. Much stress, however, is not meant to be laid on these ideas: yet we cannot help thinking that this supposed, or presumed and probable observatory of our ancient astronomer and navigator is entitled to some real and lasting respect from the enlightened part of our population.

It has been already observed that our worthy and respectable townsman, the subject of this brief memoir, died in 1369, and was buried here, [in the church, or dormitory of the Grey Friars, in all probability;] but at what age, does not appear: yet if his first voyage took place in 1330, as it is said, he must have lived to be pretty far advanced in years; it being not probable that he was less than thirty when he set out on that voyage. Between the first and sixth, or last of his voyages there seem to have been nearly if not quite thirty years. They were all apparently voyages of discovery and experiment, and for improvement in the art and knowledge of navigation, and proved, no doubt, of no small advantage and benefit to his countrymen. It is much to be wished that a particular account of them had been preserved, which could not fail of being very interesting; but as such an account is not known to exist, our wishing for it must be all vain and useless. Any records which our worthy voyager might leave behind him have probably perished long ago; but we have from other sources sufficient proofs that he must have been in his day an extraordinary man, greatly distinguished as a mathematician and astronomer, and especially as a navigator. He and the person whose name next follows may pretty safely be deemed the two most eminent characters that appeared among our townsmen, during the long period of which we are now treating, or, perhaps, during any other period.

2. William Sawtre, or Salter, otherwise Sawtry, Chawtrey and Chatris, and commonly called Sir William Sawtre, &c. it being usual in those days, and long after, to prefix that title to the names of a certain description of ecclesiastics. He is rendered peculiarly memorable as the English proto-martyr; it being generally agreed that he was the first Englishman that was burnt for his religion. We have no authority to say of Sautre, as we did of Nicholas, that he was born here. The place of his birth, as far as we know, has been no where mentioned. It appears that he took up his residence and settled here, as parish priest of St. Margaret’s, in the time of bishop Spencer, of fighting, crusading, and persecuting memory; and that he was afterwards suspected and found to be a Lollard or Wickliffite, [590] which meant pretty much the same with what we call being a protestant, but was then deemed, by the rulers, in church and state, a very grievous offence, and even a most shocking, pestilent, damnable, and insufferable heresy. The defection of Sawtre, from the established or national faith, roused his ecclesiastical superiors, and he was cited to appear before his haughty and furious diocesan, at his palace of south Helingham; which accordingly he did, on the last day of April, and the first of May 1399. In the mean time he appears to have undergone a long and strict examination, in the chapel belonging to the said episcopal palace, before the bishop, the archdeacon of Norwich, and divers others, consisting of doctors, divines, and notaries. It also appears that he was then so far from being ashamed of the opinions he had espoused, or intimidated by the danger to which they might expose him, that he did not at all scruple or hesitate to avow and defend them. This we may be sure, did not please and conciliate his examiners, or promote and facilitate his acquittal and liberation.

We are not particularly informed how he was disposed of immediately after this examination: but it seems pretty certain, that he then became a close prisoner in some place of confinement within the precincts of the said episcopal palace. A prison, for reputed heretics and other delinquents, was formerly considered among the necessary appendages to a prelatical mansion or residence: and it cannot be supposed, considering the character of bishop Spencer, but that a very complete one was then to be found at South Helingham. In a complete episcopal prison there was usually, it seems, a cell, called Little-Ease; which was a small hole, so constructed, that the person there immured could neither stand upright, lie straight, sit comfortably, or enjoy any degree of ease: in short, it was designed as a place of torment, where the sufferer was to be continually tortured, and deprived, as much as possible, of every thing that could render his situation in any degree tolerable or supportable. This diabolically ingenious contrivance could scarcely fail of answering the purpose of its inventors, as it seems to have been most admirably adapted for taming, subduing, and breaking the spirits of reputed heretics and religious free thinkers: few of whom, it is presumed, could stand such an ordeal, or terrible test, for any length of time. The romish hierarchy must have been tremendously formidable, when its prelates had such prisons in their own houses, and were empowered to confine there any that dissented from the church, or objected to its tenets and observances. [592]

That there was such a place of incarceration and torture then attached to the episcopal palace of South Helingham, seems highly probable; and if there were, there can be no doubt but that Sawtre was there confined from the first to the nineteenth day of the month last mentioned.—That he underwent some very severe treatment, in the meantime, seems morally certain, as the remarkable change in his conduct, at the close of that interval, cannot be reasonably or well accounted for on any other ground or supposition. [593] On the first of May he resolutely avowed and defended the obnoxious opinions imputed to him, but on the nineteenth of the same month, the next time he was brought before his judges, he appeared ready to relinquish them all, and pronounce his recantation. There is no reason to think that his opinions had now undergone any change, or that he had become really convinced of their falsity or untenableness; for he appeared, almost immediately after, to be as fully persuaded as ever of their truth and importance. It was evidently the state of his mind that had experienced a change: his fears had got the better of his firmness, and he no longer possessed that fortitude and boldness which he had at first displayed. Torturing severities have often made people deny their principles, and deny, or confess, any thing that their tormentors required. On this ground (and on no other that we know of) can we account for Sawtre’s change and subsequent recantation.

It was determined, by the bishop and his coadjutors, that Sawtre should publicly pronounce his recantation at different places—in order, perhaps, the more effectually to expose and humble him, and so prevent his ever daring again to broach his recanted tenets in these parts. They probably suspected his sincerity, and were resolved to render their triumph over him as complete as possible.—The obnoxious things, or enormities laid to his charge were chiefly and substantially comprised under the following heads—That the Cross on which Christ suffered was not a fit object of worship—That it was more reasonable to worship a temporal prince than that wooden cross—That the worship of angels is unlawful, even more so than the worship of holy or truly good men—That going on pilgrimage is useless, and that vows for that purpose are not binding, and that the money so expended had better be bestowed in alms to the poor—That priests are more bound to preach the word of God than to say their mattins, or observe the canonical hours—and that, after the sacramental words are pronounced, the bread remaineth the same as before, and so does not cease to be bread, or undergo a transubstantiation.—It was a sad time when people held these opinions at the risk of their lives!

On the first two days, as has been already observed, Sawtre openly avowed the said articles, and boldly defended them; but at his next appearance, after eighteen days of close confinement and severe sufferings, as we may reasonably presume, he seemed quite an altered man, ready to retract all he had before affirmed and maintained: which may be easily accounted for on the ground before suggested. How many times, or at how many places the bishop now required and obliged him to publish, or pronounce his recantation, it is not very easy to discover. We find it to have been done at South Helingham, and we are assured that it was also done in the parish churches of Lynn and Tilney, and in other places.—Fox has preserved a curious document relating to this affair, being the bishop’s account of the whole process, drawn up by order of archbishop Arundel, and transmitted to him, when Sawtre was taken up the last time, and tried before him and his clergy, assembled in convocation, at the Chapter House of St. Paul’s, in February, 1400, as they reckoned, but 1401, according to our reckoning.—That account, or document is as follows—

“Memorandum, That upon the last day of Aprill, in the yeere of our Lord 1399, in the 7. indiction, and 10 yeere of the papacie of pope Boniface the 2. in a certain chamber within the manor-house of the said bishop of Norwich at South Helingham (where the register of the said bishop is kept) before the 9. houre, in a certain chapell within the said manor situate, and the first day of May then next and immediately insuing, in the foresaid chamber Sir W. Chawtris, parish priest of the church of S. Margaret in the towne of Lin, appeared before the bishop of Norwich, in the presence of John de Derlington, archdeacon of Norwich, doctor of the decrees, frier Walter Disse, and John Rickinghall, professors in divinity, William Carlton, doctor of both lawes, and William Friseby, with Hugh Bridham, publike notaries, and there publikely affirmed and held the conclusions, as before is specified.—All and singular the premisses the forsaid William affirmeth upon mature deliberation. And afterwards, to wit, the 19. day of May in the yeere, indiction, and papacie aforesaid, in the chappell within the manor-house of the said Henry bishop of Norwich, situate at South Helingham, the foresaid Sir William revoked and renounced all and singular the foresaid his conclusions; abjuring and correcting all such heresies and errors, taking his oath upon a book before the said Henry, the bishop of Norwich, that from that time forward he would never preach, affirm, nor hold privily nor apertly, the foresaid conclusions; and that he would pronounce, according to the appointment of the said bishop, the foresaid conclusions to be erroneous and heresies, in the parish churches of Lin and Tilney, and in other places at the assignment of the said bishop; and further sware, that he would stand to the ordinance of the said bishop touching the premisses, in the presence of the discreet and worshipfull men afore-recited, with divers other moe.—As concerning the first conclusion, that he said he would not worship the cross &c. he confessed himself to have erred, and that the article was erroneous, and submitted himselfe. And as touching the second article, that he said, he would rather worship a king, &c. he confessed himself to have erred, and the article to be erroneous, and submitted himselfe, and soforth of all the rest.—Then next after this, upon the 25. day of May, in the yeere of our Lord aforesaid, in the Church yard of the Chappell of St. James, within the towne of Lin, the foresaid William, in the presence of the foresaid bishop and clergy, and the people of the said towne of Lin standing round about, publikely declared in the English tongue, the foresaid conclusions to be erroneous and heresies, as was contained in a certain scrole. [597] And after this, the 26. day of May, in the yeere above said in the Church of the Hospital of S. John’s, in the towne of Lin, the said Sir William, before the said bishop sitting as judge, sware and took his oath upon the holy Evangelists, that he would never after that time preach openly and publikely the foresaid conclusions, nor would heare the confessions of any of his subjects of his diocesse of Norwich without the speciall license of the said bishop, &c. In the presence of frier John Smermen, M. John Rickinghall doctor of divinity, W. Carlton doctor of both lawes, and Thomas Bulton officer of the liberty of Lin aforesaid, with divers others.” [598]

Such was the account, or statement of his former process against Sawtre, which bishop Spencer delivered to his metropolitan, Arundel. Not the least hint is here given, how the reputed heretic had been treated, or was disposed of, during the interval between his first and last examination. Had his renunciation of his obnoxious tenets been brought about by mere argument, or rational persuasion, it would, doubtless, have been mentioned by way of triumph, or boasting: but having been the effect of extreme severity or cruel treatment (as was above suggested) it was very natural to pass it over in silence, for it was not capable of yielding any manner of credit to the parties concerned, or give them a plausible pretence to make a merit of it. This silence therefore evidently and strongly corroborates, if it do not also satisfactorily establish, what was before advanced or suggested on this head.

After Sawtre had gone quite through this irksome and humiliating process of recantation, it might be expected that he would not think of tarrying much longer in these parts: he, accordingly, appears to have quitted Lynn shortly after, and obtained the situation of parish-priest, or minister of St. Osith, in London. [599] This would seem to indicate, that his character was still deemed respectable, and had not suffered so much by the late event as some might expect. He had also, probably, some good and powerful friends, who now interested themselves very warmly and effectually in his behalf. However that was, he really did, as far as we can discover, obtain the said situation without opposition or difficulty. But he soon appeared to be so far from having abandoned his former principles, that he was still, in fact, as much a Lollard and heretic as ever: and his late miscarriage seems to have operated so as both to confirm him in those principles and also to arm him with boldness and courage to maintain them against all gainsayers, and in the face of every future danger or opposition.

Like that of the rest of his party, (the Lollards,) Sawtre’s heresy seems to have been of a twofold nature; partly religious, and partly political; which must have rendered him doubly odious to the ruling powers: and as he proved a relapsed, confirmed, and irreclaimable heretic, we need not wonder that he should be made to feel the whole and overwhelming weight of their indignation and vengeance. The affairs of this country were then, as at some subsequent periods, most wretchedly situated. Every thing, both in church and state, might be said to be lamentably in the wrong: and Sawtre appears to have been earnestly desirous of having them thoroughly reformed and rectified. He may therefore be considered, if not as the Sir William Jones, [600] the Sir Francis Burdett, or the Major Cartwright, yet, at least, or rather, as the Christopher Wyvill of that time. Men of that sort, though ever so honest, virtuous, enlightened, or respectable, are always viewed with an evil eye, and deemed to be dangerous characters by the interested and unprincipled agents and abettors of ecclesiastical and political corruption. It is no wonder, therefore, that a most horrible outcry was raised against this man throughout the whole camp and borders of those philistines.

Sawtre had formed an important plan for the benefit of his oppressed country, and intended to lay it immediately before parliament. The design got wind, and the high priests, in particular, with archbishop Arundel at their head, were instantly alarmed, as the project, had it succeeded, would have deeply affected them: and in order effectually to frustrate the reformer’s object, they so managed, that the affair should not go before parliament, but be referred to the convocation, which was then sitting. From that assembly no good could be expected to result. Patriots and reformers were there objects of utter aversion; and any one might see that poor Sawtre had no longer any chance of bringing his project to a successful issue, or even of escaping with his life. He was accordingly brought before that ecclesiastical tribunal, and the result will be seen by the sequel. This was about the middle of February 1401, or 1400, according to their reckoning; for they placed that month near the close of the year, which, with them, ended on the 25th of March.

The story of Sawtre is thus introduced by Fox—

“The next yeere after followed a parliament holden at Westminster:” [i.e. in 1400; for he has also, like his predecessors, assigned February to the preceding year:] “in which parliament one William Sautre, a good man and a faithfull priest, inflamed with zeale of true religion, required he might be heard for the commodity of the whole realme. But the matter being smelt before by the bishops, they obtained that the matter should be referred to the convocation; where the said William Sautre being brought before the bishops and notaries thereunto appointed, the convocation was deferred to the Saturday next ensuing. When Saturday was come, that is to say, the twelfth day of February, Thomas Arundell archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of his councell provinciall, being assembled in the said chapter-house [i.e. that of St. Paul’s] against one Sir William Sautre, otherwise called Chatris chaplaine, personally then and there appearing by the commandment of the aforesaid archbishop of Canterbury, objected; that the said William before the bishop of Norwich had once renounced and abjured divers and sundry conclusions hereticall and erroneous; and that after such abjuration made, he publicly and privily held, taught, and preached th same conclusions, or else such like, disagreeing to the catholic faith, and to the great perill and pernicious example of others. And after this he caused such like conclusions holden and preached, as is said, by the said Sir William without renunciation, then and thereto be read unto the said archbishop, by master Robert Hall, chancellor unto the said bishop, in a certain scrole written, in tenor of words as followeth—“Sir William Chatris, otherwise called Sautre, parish priest of the church of Saint Scithe [Osith] the virgin in London, publikely and privily doth hold these conclusions under written—Imprimis, he saith, that he will not worship the crosse on which Christ suffered, but only Christ that suffered upon the crosse—2. Item, That he would sooner worship a temporall king, than the foresaid woodden crosse—3. Item, That he would rather worship the bodies of the saints than the very crosse of Christ on which he hung, if it were before him.—4. Item, That he would rather worship a man truly contrite, than the crosse of Christ.—5. Item, That he is bound rather to worship a man that is predestinate, than an angell of God.—6. Item, That if any man would visit the monuments of Peter and Paul, or go on pilgrimage to the Tombe of Saint Thomas, or else any whither else, for the obtaining of any temporall benefit; he a not bound to keep his vow, but he may distribute the expences of his vow upon the almes of the poore.—7. Item, That every priest and deacon is more bound preach the word of God, than to say the canonicall houres—8. Item, That alter the pronouncing of the sacramentall words of the body of Christ, the bread remaineth of the same nature that it was before, neither doth it cease to be bread.” [603]

These articles or charges being publicly read and exhibited, the archbishop then called upon Sawtre to answer to them; but he desired that he might first have a copy of them, and that sufficient time might be allowed him to prepare his answer and defence. A Copy was accordingly delivered to him, and the next Thursday was then fixed upon for him again to appear before his judges. But on that day, owing, it seems, to the archbishop’s being then necessarily engaged in the parliament-house, the business was adjourned till the next morning at eight o’clock. The convocation, or rather its upper house, being then assembled, Sawtre appeared again before them, and produced a written defence, and answer to those articles, which were then publicly read by Robert Hall, before mentioned. He no longer thought of retracting, as he had done near two years before, at Lynn and other places. On the contrary, he now openly avowed his principles, and appeared neither afraid nor ashamed to defend them. It is therefore, not to be wondered that the writing, or answer, which he laid before them, and which was now publicly read in their hearing, proved no way satisfactory or conciliating.

After the said Robert Hall had read that paper, or answer, aloud, in the audience of the Convocation, the archbishop, being dissatisfied with the contents, proceeded to question Sawtre on what he deemed the most material points, which chiefly related to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Among his questions were the following—[604]

“Whether in the Sacrament of the altar, after the pronouncing of the Sacramentall words, remaineth very materiall bread, or not?—Whether in the sacrament after the sacramentall words, rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread remaineth, which did before the words pronounced, or not?—Whether the same materiall bread before consecration, by the sacramentall words of the priest rightly pronounced, be transubstantiated from the nature of bread into the very body of Christ, or not?”

To none of these interrogatories did the prisoner return an orthodox or satisfactory answer. His answers being therefore deemed insufficient, and the day, probably, too far gone to finish the examination at that time, it was thought proper to adjourn the business till the next day. Of what then occurred Fox gives the following account.

“Then the said archbishop assigned unto the said Sir William time to deliberate, and more fully to make his answer till the next day; and continued this convocation then and there till the morrow. Which morrow, to wit, the 19th day of February, being come, the foresaid archbishop of Canterbury, in the said chapter house of St. Paul in London, before his councell provinciall then and there assembled, specially asked and examined the same Sir W. Sautre, there personally present, upon the sacrament of the altar, as before. And the same Sir William again, in like manner as before, answered. After this amongst other things the said bishop demanded of the same William, if the same materiall bread being upon the altar, after the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, is transubstantiated into the very body of Christ, or not? And the said Sir William said, he understood not what he meant. Then the said archbishop demanded, whether that materiall bread being round and white, prepared and disposed for the sacrament of the body of Christ upon the altar, wanting nothing that is meet and requisite thereunto, by the virtue of the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, be altered and changed into the very body of Christ, and ceaseth any more to be materiall and very bread, or not? Then the said Sir William, deridingly [605] answering, said he could not tell.”

“Then consequently the said archbishop demanded, whether he would stand to the determination of the holy church, or not, which affirmeth that in the sacrament of the altar, after the words of consecration being rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread, which before in nature was bread, ceaseth any more to be bread? To this interrogation the said Sir William said, that he would stand to the determination of the church, where such determination was not contrary to the will of God. This done, he demanded of him againe, what his judgement was concerning the sacrament of the altar: who said and affirmed, that after the words of consecration, by the priest duly pronounced, there remained very bread, and the same bread which was before the words spoken.”—This examination commenced at eight o’clock in the morning, and lasted about three hours: and as the prisoner would not now retract, or recede from his Lollardism, and receive what was called Catholic information, but chose to persist, at all events, in his own way of thinking, the archbishop, as we are told, “by the counsell and assent of his whole covent then and there present, did promulgate and give sentence by the mouth of Robert Hall, against the same Sir William, being personally present, and refusing to revoke his heresies, but constantly defended the same.” [606]

After passing the said sentence, an adjournment took place, till the week after, when the prisoner was again brought before them, two or three different times. On the Wednesday they read to him bishop Spencer’s statement of his process against him, near two years before. The archbishop and divers others now reproached him for holding opinions which he had before abjured; as if it were a mighty crime for a man, after having been once so weak as to renounce or abjure the truth, afterwards to repent and embrace it—or, after having once been so overseen as to resign the right of private judgment, ever any more to think of resuming it! As all the stratagems and means they could use proved now too feeble to shake him from his integrity, or induce him to sacrifice his conscience to their unrighteous and infernal pleasure, they resolved he should be forthwith degraded: and a sentence of degradation [607] was accordingly passed upon him that same day. The execution of this sentence was deferred till the Friday following; and as the archbishop could not then attend, owing to his detention in parliament, it was further deferred till the morrow after. They then proceeded to business in good earnest, and a most curious process it certainly was—They first deprived him of his priest’s order, next of his deacon’s order, next of his subdeacon’s order, then of his acolyte’s order, then of his exorcist, or holy-water-clerk’s order, then of his reader’s order, then of his sexton’s order, and finally, of his privilege of clergy: in token of which his tonsure was erased, a layman’s cap put on his head, and himself so entirely secularized, or reduced to the state of a lay person, as if he had never been in orders.

All this was certainly absurd enough; [608] but as it was also very curious, we shall here give it more circumstantially, in the words of the historian so often referred to in these pages—

Upon Saturday, being the 26th. of February, the said archbishop of Canterbury sate in the bishop’s seat of the foresaid church of St. Paul, in London, and solemnly apparelled in his pontificall attire, sitting with him as his assistants these reverend fathers and bishops, of London, Lincolne, Hereford, Exeter, Menevensis & Roffensis episcopi, [i.e. the bishops of St. Davids and Rochester] above mentioned, commanded and caused the said Sir William Sautre, apparelled in priestly vestments, to be brought and appeare before him. That done, he declared and expounded in English to all the clergy and people, there in a great multitude assembled; that all processe way finished and ended against the said Sir W. Sautre. Which thing finished, before the pronouncing of the said sentence of the relapse against the said Sir William, as is premised, he often then and there recited and read. And for that he saw the said William in that behalf nothing abashed; he proceeded to his degradation and actual deposition in forme as followeth.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [610] We Thomas by God’s permission archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and Legate of the apostolike Sea, do denounce thee William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris, chaplaine fained, in the habite and apparell of a priest, as an heretike, and one refallen into heresie, by this our sentence definitive by councell, assent, and authority to be condemned, and by conclusion of all our fellow brethren, fellow bishops, prelates councell provinciall, and of the whole clergy, do degrade and deprive thee of thy priestly order. And in sign of degradation and actual deposition from thy priestly dignity, for thine incorrigibility and want of amendment, we take from thee the patent and chalice, and doe deprive thee of all power and authority of celebrating the masse, and also we pull from thy backe the casule, and take from thee the vestment, and deprive thee of all manner of priestly honour.

Also, We Thomas, the aforesaid archbishop, by authority, counsell, and assent, which upon the foresaid William we have, being deacon pretensed, in the habit and apparell of a deacon, having the New Testament in thy hands, being an heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence as is aforesaid, do degrade and put thee from the order of a deacon. And in token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the book of the New Testament, and the stole, and do deprive thee of all authority in reading of the gospel, and of all and all manner of dignity of a deacon.

Also, we Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority counsell, and assent, which over thee the foresaid William we have, being a subdeacon pretensed, in the habit and vestment of a subdeacon, an heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence, as is aforesaid, do degrade and put thee from the order of subdeacon; and in token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the albe and maniple, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of subdiaconicall dignity.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by counsell, assent and authority which we have over thee the foresaid William, an Acolyte pretensed, wearing the habit of an acolyte, and heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, doe degrade and put from thee all order of an acolyte; and in signe and token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the candlestick and taper, and also the urceolum, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of dignity of an Acolyte.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, council, and authority, which upon thee the foresaid William we have, an Exorcist pretensed, in the habite of an exorcist or holy water clerke, being an heretike, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, do degrade and depose thee from the order of an Exorcist; and in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of conjurations, and do deprive thee of all and singular dignity of an exorcist.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, counsell, and authority, as is abovesaid, do degrade and depose thee the foresaid William, reader pretensed, clothed in the habit of a reader, an herctick, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as aforesaid, condemned, from the order of a reader: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of the divine lections (that is, the book of the church legend) and do deprive thee of all and singular manner of dignity of such a reader.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority, counsell, and assent, the which we have, as is aforesaid, doe degrade, and put thee the foresaid William Sawtre, Sexton pretensed, in the habit of a sexton, and wearing a surplice, being an heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence definitive condemned, as aforesaid, from the order of a sexton: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, for the causes aforesaid, we take from thee the keyes of the church doore, and thy surplice, and do deprive thee of all and singular manner of commodities of a doore-keeper.

Also, by the authority of omnipotent God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by our authority, counsell, and assent of our whole councel provinciall above written, we do degrade thee, and depose thee, being here personally present before us, from orders, benefices, priviledges, and habit in the church; and for thy pertinacy incorrigible we doe degrade thee before the secular court of the high constable and marshall of England, being personally present; and do depose thee from all and singular clerkely honours and dignities whatsoever, by these writings. Also in token of thy degradation and deposition, here actually we have caused thy crowne and ecclesiasticall tonsure in our presence to be rased away, and utterly to be abolished, like unto the form of a secular layman; and here we do put upon the head of thee, the aforesaid William, the cap of a lay secular person; beseeching the court aforesaid that they will receive favourably [613] the said William unto them thus recommitted.

Having thus performed their part of this diabolical work, and delivered the prisoner into the hands of the civil magistrate, “the bishops, not yet contented, cease not, (says our historian) to call upon the king to cause him to be brought forth to speedy execution. Whereupon the king, ready enough, and too much, to gratifie the clergy, and to retaine their favours, directeth out a terrible decree against the said William Sawtre, and sent it to the maior and sheriffes of London to be put in execution.” This terrible decree, or royal warrant for the prisoner’s execution, was obtained, it seems, on the very day of his degradation, when the convocation passed their final sentence and gave him up to the civil power: so that there was here no time lost; and the closing scene, no doubt, soon ensued. The royal decree, or warrant was as follows:

“The decree of our sovereigne Lord the King and his Councell in parliament, against a certain new sprung up heretick. To the maior and sherifs of London, &c. Whereas the reverend father, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and legat of the apostolike sea, by the assent, consent, and councill of other bishops, and his brethren suffragans, and also of all the whole clergy within his province or dioces, gathered together in his provinciall councell, the due order of the law being observed in all points in this behalfe, has pronounced and declared, by his definitive sentence, William Sawtre sometime chaplaine, fallen again into his most damnable heresie, the which before time the said William had abjured, thereupon to be a most manifest heretick, and therefore hath decreed that he should be degraded, and hath for the same cause really degraded him from all prerogative and privilege of the clergy, decreeing to leave him unto the secular power; and hath really so left him, according to the laws and canonicall sanctions set forth in his behalfe, and also that our holy mother the church hath no further to do in the premisses: We therefore being zealous in religion, [615a] and reverent lovers of the catholike faith, willing and minding to maintaine and defend the holy church, and the lawes and liberties of the same, to root all such errors and heresies out of our kingdome of England, and with condigne punishment to correct and punish all heretikes, or such as be convict; provided always that both according to the law of God and man, and the canonicall institutions in this behalfe accustomed, such heretikes convict and condemned in forme aforesaid ought to be burned with fire: We command you as straitly as we may, or can, firmely enjoyning you that you cause the said William, being in your custody, in some publike or open place within the liberties of your city aforesaid (the cause aforesaid being published unto the people) to be put into the fire, and there in the same fire really to be burned, to the great horrour of his offence, and the manifest example of other christians. Fail not in the execution hereof upon the perill that will fall thereupon.” [615b]

This memorable warrant (dated 26th. of February) was, no doubt, speedily executed: perhaps the very day on which it was issued. The death which it orders or appoints for the alleged crime of heresy, or to which it devotes the reputed offender, is supposed to distinguish it from all other warrants that had ever been issued before by our English monarchs: at least, there is not known to have been here, previously to this reign, any law dooming adjudged heretics to the flames. Henry IV. therefore, stands preeminent among our sovereigns as a promoter of the burning of those whom the priests pronounced or denominated heretics. It is remarkable enough that the poor lollards found such an enemy in him, who, as well as his father, had long affected to be their great patron. But it was all, probably, nothing but policy: neither father nor son can be supposed ever to have been real lovers of either liberty or justice. Henry’s accession to the throne (to which he had no right) disclosed his true character; and he has been known ever since, as one of the worst of our princes. Arundel and his brethren helped him to obtain and usurp the crown, in hopes that he, in return, would help them in such affairs as this of Sawtre: nor were they disappointed. They favoured his baseness on that, and he favoured theirs, to the utmost extent of their wishes, on this and on all similar occasions.

The execution of Sawtre was the first fruit of the new law for burning heretics; and it was soon followed by an abundant harvest. The number of those who were burnt for their religion in England whilst this execrable law was in force, which was near 300 years, was enormously great. As Sawtre stands at the head of those memorable confessors, it was thought requisite to be somewhat particular and circumstantial in our account of him. The sons of freedom will venerate his memory, while they detest and execrate that of his crowned and mitred persecutors. Of our crowned demons none could well exceed Henry IV. and of our mitred ones scarce any ever did or could go beyond Arundel and Spencer. For Sawtre to fall into such hands must truly have been a most sad and pitiable case. It was like falling among thieves, or into a den of hungry lions.

It is pretty remarkable that the prisoner’s plan of reform, or intended application to parliament was not allowed to come at all under the discussion of the convocation; although they had pretended to take it under their serious consideration, instead of its going before parliament. But they knew better than to have done so, and took a much shorter and surer course to gain their point and effect the reformer’s ruin, by proceeding simply on a religious ground, and having him tried as a relapsed heretic. So well did they know their business, and how to avail themselves of all the advantages belonging to their exalted situation.—We shall now take our leave of them, and also of William Sawtre, whose memory we have here endeavoured to rescue from oblivion. His being so distinguished a character among the then inhabitants of Lynn, and, especially, his being the English porto-martyr, will, it is presumed, sufficiently justify and apologize for the unusual length of this article—and as it exhibits religious bigotry and intolerance in their native deformity and hatefulness, it may be of use to those individuals among us, of every denomination, who have not yet made any, or much progress in the christian virtues of forbearance, candour, and liberality.

3. Alan, Aleyne, or Allen of Lynn, was, it seems a native of this town, and contemporary with Sawtre, but a younger man, and long his survivor, and so represented as flourishing about twenty years later. He was evidently of a very different cast from him, and never gave himself the least concern, as far as we know, about the politics of the time, or the reform of civil or ecclesiastical abuses. Perfectly regardless of the oppressions of the rulers and the grievances of the people, he employed his time in poring over the huge volumes of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and writing indexes to them. We are told he made indexes to no less than 33 of those authors, among which were Augustin, Anselm, and Aquinas. Such an employment, though of no real use or benefit to the community, procured him the honour of being classed among the eminent men, or literati of that age; and his name has been handed to posterity as one of the distinguished characters which Lynn has produced. His skill and industry in making those indexes might, no doubt, deserve commendation, but can hardly be said to entitle him to any degree of literary celebrity. He may be said therefore to have acquired more fame than was fairly his due. But so it has often happened: while the merits of some have been greatly underrated, those of others, on the contrary, have been magnified beyond all reason and justice. Alan received his education at Cambridge, where he obtained the degree of Doctor in Divinity. He was of the order of Carmelites, or White Friars, and therefore his residence here must have been at their great house, or convent in South Lynn. How long he resided there cannot now be said. We are told that he died about the year 1428, and was buried at Lynn. The place of his burial, no doubt, was the dormitory of his own convent, situated on that spot in South Lynn now called the Friars.

4. William Wallys. He was cotemporary with the last, and like him one of our Lynn friars, but of the augustinian order. He was not, like the former a mere reader, and maker of indexes, but a real author, and is said to have written many books; but their titles and contents are no longer remembered or known. They might be on interesting subjects, and those subjects might there be handled in a judicious and masterly manner; or they might not. However that was, and whatever they were, it seems they have long ago perished, like innumerable other works, no less valuable and worthy of preservation; and, perhaps, much more so. But his name, has been preserved, as one of the eminent Lynn men of former times. How long he resided here, we are not informed; but we are told that he died in 1421; and we may presume that he was buried in the convent or dormitory of the Austin friars, which stood behind the house now inhabited by Mr. Rishton. He must have been eminent in his day, especially among those of his fraternity, for we are told that he became general of that order.

5. John Baret, of Barret. He too was a friar, of the same order with Alan; that of the Carmelites. He was a native of this town, and educated at Cambridge, “when learning (as Fuller says) ran low and degrees high in that University; so that a Scholar could scarcely be seen for Doctors; till the university, sensible of the mischief thereof, appointed Dr. Cranmer (afterwards abp. of Canterbury) to be the examiner of all candidates in Divinity. Amongst others, he stopt Baret, for his insufficiency, who then went back to Lynn, and applied himself to learning with such success, that in a short time he became an admirable scholar; and commencing doctor, with due applause, lived many years a painful preacher at Norwich; always making mention of Cranmer as the means of his happiness.” But we find that he had something of the Vicar of Bray about him; for it seems he was at first a papist; afterwards, in the latter part of Henry the eighth’s reign, and that of Edward, a protestant; again, in that of Mary, a zealous papist; and lastly, in that of Elizabeth, a staunch protestant. It seems, however, that he died soon after the commencement of the latter reign: and one would hope that he died in the true faith.—As to his veering or changing with the times, where is the impropriety of that? Ought not the ministers of a national or state religion to be submissive to, or directed by the state, from which they derive their creed, their revenue, their power, and their every thing?

The subjects of the foregoing biographical articles being all ecclesiastics, and all the ecclesiastics of any note that distinguished Lynn, as far as we know, during the long period of which we have been treating, it might be expected that we should in the next place give a list of the eminent laymen that sprung up here in the course of the same period. But, alas! we look and search for them in vain: hardly can one be found whose name deserves to be recorded, or remembered by posterity. William de Bittering, John de Wentworth, Bartholomy Petipas, and Thomas Miller, four of our ancient aldermen, were perhaps the most memorable, or notable that can now be discovered. Of two of them somewhat has been said already, and a sort of promise was made to bring them again under review; but, upon second thought, they did not appear to deserve so much further notice as was then intended.—As to

6. William de Bittering, we learn that he flourished in the reign of Edward III. and was chosen mayor of the town four or five different times; so that he must have been here, in his day, a person of no small note and influence. The first year of his mayoralty, it seems, was 1351. He was again chosen, and served the office the ensuing year; so that he was then mayor two years successively. He is said to have been again chosen in 1355, but begged to be excused, on the plea that it was wearisome to be so often in office, and, especially, that he was then under a vow, to go on pilgrimage to a certain saint: from which it would seem that he was, in his way, a very religious character. His resignation was accepted, and John de Coultshall, who had served the year before, was chosen again, and had 20l, given him by the commonalty to take upon him the office for that year. Bittering was again chosen and served the office in 1358, and again in 1365. The time of his death does not appear. He was buried in St. Nicholas’ chapel, where his grave is known by a flat stone of uncommon dimensions, being above ten feet long and above six broad, and is supposed to be the oldest sepulchral monument now existing in this town. (Mackerell, 134.)

7. 8. John de Wentworth and Bartholomy Petipas. They are not here coupled or joined together because they were friends for no two men could well be further from that, but rather because they were foes, and the heads of two hostile factions, by which the town was kept in a state of constant distraction for a great length of time. It seems impossible now to ascertain the ground, or cause of that deadly animosity which those two factions, or these two men entertained against each other. Lollardism, we know, did then much agitate the kingdom, but we cannot say that it was the occasion of this discord at Lynn. Nor can we say that it was a mere political broil, or, contest between the partizans of the episcopal feudal prerogatives and their opponents, though this may seem more probable, as it appears from pages [365] and [559] of this volume, that Petipas was on good, and Wentworth on bad terms with the bishop. However this was, it is pretty evident that these two were mighty men and men of renown here in those days.

9. Thomas Miller, or Milner. He was the leading man among our ancestors in the reign of Henry VIII. being governor of the town, and mayor also one time for four successive years; and he served that office afterwards twice, if not more; so that he was mayor of Lynn six or seven times, which is not known to have been the case with any other. But what made him the most memorable was his successful contest, or law-suit with the bishop, during the former part of his mayoralty, about their respective claims to have the Sword carried before them. This legal decision established the mayor’s independence upon the bishop.

Having now paid our tribute of respect to the memory of our eminent men of those times, we shall here close this chapter, which brings us down to the era of the reformation.

End of Part III.

SUPPLEMENT
TO THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL TOUCH.

See page [326].

Since the section on the royal touch has been printed off, a paper has appeared in the Monthly Magazine, under the signature of I. Bannantine, which casts some further light upon that subject. As it is presumed it will not be unacceptable to the reader, we take the liberty of inserting here the substance of it.—

“It does not appear (says that writer) that any of the House of Brunswick have asserted this royal function; at least, it has not been publicly announced, as was formerly the practice: but were his present majesty to resume it, such faith is yet put in the assertion of a king, that all the courtiers and the great body of the ignorant multitude would not hesitate to believe its infallibility. The last sovereign who appears to have exercised this miraculous gift was queen Anne. In the royal gazette of Mar. 12. 1712. appears the following public notice: “It being her Majesiy’s royal intention to touch publicly for the Evil the 17th. of this instant March, and so to continue for sometime, it is her Majesty’s Command, that tickets be delivered the day before at Whitehall, and that all persons bring a certificate, signed by the minister and church-wardens of their respective parishes, that they never received the royal touch.”

He further adds, that Wiseman, Sergeant Surgeon to Chas. 2nd, in a treatise on the Evil, speaks of the royal touch in the following terms:

“I have myself been frequent eye witness of many hundreds of cures performed by his majesty’s touch alone, without the assistance of chirurgery, and those many of them such as had tired out the endeavours of able chirurgeons before they came thither. It were endless to relate what I myself have seen, and what I have received acknowledgement of by Letters, not only from the several parts of the nation, but also from Ireland, Scotland, Jersey, and Germany.”

It was the office of Wiseman, as Sergeant Surgeon, to select such afflicted objects as were proper to be presented for the royal touch.—Is it possible (I. Bunnantine here exclaims) to desire a more satisfactory testimony of these miraculous cures, than that of a man of science and respectability, under whose immediate inspection they were performed, and who had “himself been a frequent eye-witness of many hundreds of cures performed by his majesty’s touch alone!”—The late judge Barrington (he further observes) relates what he heard from an old man, a witness in a cause, with regard to this miraculous power of healing.

“He had by his evidence fixed the time of a fact, by queen Anne’s having been at Oxford, and touched him, whilst a child, for the Evil. When he had finished his evidence, I had an opportunity of asking him, whether he really was cured? Upon which he observed, with a significant smile, that he believed himself never to have had a complaint that deserved to be considered as the Evil; but that his parents were poor, and had no objection to the bit of Gold.”

It seems to me (adds the judge) this piece of Gold, that was given to those who were touched, accounts for the great resort on this occasion, and the supposed afterwards miraculous cures.—Gimelli, the famous traveller, gives an account of 1600 persons offering themselves to be cured of the Evil by Lewis xiv. on Easter Sunday, 1686. Gimelli himself was present at the ceremony: every Frenchman received 15 Souce, and every foreigner 30. This power of healing assumed by the kings of France occasioned great resort to Francis I. while prisoner at Madrid, by the Spaniards, who had not such faith in their own king’s touch. It appears by a proclamation of Jas. I. Mar. 25, 1617, that the kings of England would not permit any resort to them for these miraculous cures in the summer-time. By another proclamation of June 18, 1626 it is ordered that no one shall apply for this purpose, who does not bring a proper certificate, that he has never been touched before: the same, it has been already seen, were the terms on which queen Anne granted her royal touch.—In a prayer-book printed in 1703, is a form of the Church-service for the occasion of the royal touch. After the Lord’s Prayer it is stated, “Then shall the infirm persons, one by one, be presented to the queen; while the queen is laying her hands upon them and is putting the Gold about their necks, the chaplain that officiates turning himself to her majesty shall say these words following: “God give a blessing to this work and grant that these sick persons on whom the queen lays her bands may recover through Jesus Christ our Lord!”—After some other prayers, the chaplain, standing with his face towards those come to be healed, shall say: “The Almighty God, who is a most strong tower to all them that put their trust in him, to whom all things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, do bow and obey, be evermore your defence; and make you know and feel that there is no other name under heaven given to man, and through whom you may receives health and salvation, but only in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Amen!”—Mo. Mag. Mar. 1810.

END OF VOLUME 1.

ERRATA. [626]

Page 2, line 3, for mumerous read numerous.—p. 9, l. 19, for its r. their.—p 19. last line but two, dele comma after least.—p. 31, l. 3. for drgree r. degree—p. 32, for Section II, r. Section I.—p. 79, l. 13, for seperated r. separated—p. 83, l. 9, for decerned r. discerned—p. 85, l. 1, for sagacions r. sagacious—p. 106, l. 5, for cansideration r. consideration—p. 107. l. 28, and 29, for acdingly r. accordingly—p. 134, Note, 1. 3, before side r. east—p. 148, l. 14, for numbers r. members—p. 192, l. 3, for compositions r. composition—p. 96, last line for heterdoxy r. heterodoxy—p. 200, l. 17, for vareigata r. variegata—p. 210. l. 9, after Britain a period instead of a comma—p. 222, l. 4, delete s in collections—p. 237, l. 10, for supremary r. supremacy—p. 312, last line but one, for way r. may—p. 317, l. 14, for loose r. lose—Same p. l. 18, for miricles r. miracles—p. 325, l. 7, for Susanna r. Joanna—p. 347 l. 11, after Silthestow a comma—and the next line, for sincc r. since—p. 353, l. 3, for Fountian r. Fountain—p. 374. l. 3, for pregressive r. progressive—p. 395, l. 6, from the bottom, after some r. of—p. 400, l. 2, and 14, for arbitary r. arbitrary—p. 402, l. 26, for directiom r. direction—p. 403, l. 2, for appelation r. appellation—p. 507. l. 3, for now r. new—p. 511, note, dele them in l. 16—same page l. 35 of the note, for they were r. it was—p. 515, l. 12. for da r. de—p. 517, l. 3, from bottom, for 1526, r. 1256—p. 592, note l. 3., member of. r. members and.

Whittingham, Printer, Lynn.