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—