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.)