The changes which the Norman Conquest produced in this country shall be further noticed in the next part or division of this work, where it will be seen how Lynn in particular, and its vicinity were affected by that memorable and humiliating revolution.
During the period of which we have been treating, Lynn exhibited no appearance of a borough, or corporate town: that state, or order of things belonged to the policy of a subsequent period, and resulted from the revolution effected by the conquest, and the odious feudal system, for their attachment to which the Normans were so very remarkable. Of the population of Lynn before the conquest, a great part probably consisted of slaves of different descriptions, the vassals and property of the bishop and other great men. The artificers, tradesmen, and merchants of Lynn were then all, perhaps, in that condition, and following their respective employments or professions, by the permission, and under the protection or patronage of their lordly superiors and proprietors, and also for their, as well as their own behoof or emolument. It is not very clear or probable that the condition of these people and of the rest of their unfree or enslaved countrymen, did or could, by the conquest, suffer any very material deterioration. But with their superiors, the high and mighty, or great men of the land, their lordly and unfeeling oppressors, the case is known to have been far otherwise: that event, like some modern conquests and revolutions, degraded and humbled them with a vengeance.
Section IX.
Sketch of the practice of the royal touch in England, or a historical Essay on the memorable empiricism of our English sovereigns, from Edward the Confessor to George the First.
It is generally agreed that this notable practice, which appears to have been long deemed as a branch of the royal prerogative, began in this kingdom with, or in the person of Edward the Confessor. [299a] Some however seem to think it to have existed in France at an earlier period: if so, Edward, who had long lived in that country, and appeared very partial to it, and fond of French fashions, might take the hint from thence, and introduce it here upon his accession to the throne, which he might easily manage by the help of the monks, with whom he was so great a favourite.
Clovis, and Robert of sainted memory, are named among the early French sovereigns who successfully practised the royal touch, and were greatly admired and venerated by their subjects on that account. In the reign of Philip the first, the virtue is supposed to have been somehow lost, but happily revived again with undiminished splendor in that of Lewis the fat, after which it seems to have long and regularly continued. Francis I. [299b] and Henry IV. are represented as eminent practitioners; how it was with the succeeding monarchs, descended from the latter, we are not informed. No particular attention appears to have been paid to it yet by the emperor Napoleon. What he may think proper to do hereafter, no tongue can tell. Whether he possesses this power or not, it is certain that he possesses some other powers in as great a degree, at least, as any of his royal or imperial predecessors.
But this miraculous gift of healing did not, it seems, belong exclusively to the kings of France and England. [300a] The Earls, or princes of the house of Hapsburg also, are reported to have had it in no scanty measure. They cured the strumous, or scrofulous, it is said, by giving them drink, and the stammerers, by kissing them. But the Kings of Hungary seem to have exceeded all; for we are told that they could cure, not only the king’s evil, but all disorders occasioned by poison, the bite of a viper, or any other venomous animal.
“Mr. Bel, who tells us this, observes (what is as remarkable as the account itself) that he cannot find in history, that these Hungarian kings ever exercised this wonderful power. [300b] More shame for them, the unfeeling wretches! if they possessed it.
“The case was otherwise with the royal doctors of France and England, who have not been so shy of exerting this power, or rather, of practising this quackery. Some French writers (says Carte) ascribe this gift of healing to the king’s devotion towards the relics of St. Marculf, in the Church of Corbigny, in Champagne, to which the kings of France, immediately after their coronation at Rheims, used to go in solemn procession: and it must be owned there was formerly a great veneration paid to this saint in England. It was in memory of him that a room in the palace of Westminster frequently mentioned in the rolls of parliament, was called the chamber of St. Marculf; being probably the place where our kings touched for the Evil. It is now (our historian adds) called the painted chamber: and though the name of that saint hath been long forgot in this nation, yet the sanative virtue of our kings still continues.” [301a]
Of the most noted among our sovereigns, as practitioners in this healing art, the following is thought a pretty complete list. Nothing seems to be known in this way of Harold II. or yet of the four succeeding princes; but that Henry II. practised very successfully is said to be attested by Petrus Blesensis, who had been his chaplain. [301b] It seems highly probable that Henry III. likewise was often applied to, and successfully practised in the same way, as John of Geddesden, a physician, who is said to live about that time, advises a scorfulous patient, after his remedies had proved ineffectual, to apply to the king for a cure: for which he has been much blamed, and seemingly not without reason, as, in case he deemed the royal touch a certain care or remedy, he ought to have sent the patient to the king at first, without troubling him with operation and medicine. [302a]
Henry’s great son, Edward I, also appears to have been no mean master of this same art; and so, probably, might be his son, Edward II, though otherwise no great conjuror; but as to his son, Edward III, few, if any, seem to have gone beyond him in this sanative employment. Bradwardine, who attended him in his wars, and whose counsel is said to have contributed to his success, gives a pompous advertisement, in his book De Causa Dei, of the wonderful cures wrought by that prince. F. le Brun, however, pays no regard to this. He looks upon it as a crafty stratagem, and says, he does not doubt but that Edward’s pretensions to the crown of France excited his zeal to touch those who were diseased; which is not unlikely; princes often, when nothing but politics lie at the bottom, chusing to make religion to swim on the top. [302b] Edward’s grandson, Richard II, cannot be supposed to drop or lay aside a practice for which his grandfather and immediate predecessor on the throne had been so celebrated. Nor is it at all likely that his successors, of the rival house of Lancaster, should discontinue this practice, as that might have been construed to imply a consciousness of inferiority to the princes of the other house, or something like a defect in their own title to the crown.