Of the population of Lynn, at any time during that long period, from the

establishment of the Saxons to that of the Normans, no estimate can now

be formed; but it is pretty certain that the major part of its

inhabitants, as well as those of the adjacent country, and of all the

rest of England, were _Slaves_, during the whole of that time, and long

after. Those unfortunate people, for the most part at least, appear to

have been the descendants of the original inhabitants, who were reduced

to that condition, at the subjugation, of conquest of the country, and

whose lives had been then spared, on condition of their becoming the

property, or goods and chattels of the conquerors. So did the Saxons

treat those of the natives whose lives they condescended to spare; all

the rest they butchered without mercy, except such of them as were

fortunate enough to escape to the unsubdued parts of the island. Of

these cruel and horrid deeds, they never appear to have repented, even

after they assumed the name of christians, for the bondage still

continued; but, in time, a severe retaliation took place, and the Saxons,

in their turn, were treated much after the same manner as they had

formerly treated the Britons. Long peace had destroyed their martial

spirit: from a very warlike people, they became gradually a most

dastardly race, and so fell an easy prey to the ferocious Danes. The

difference at that time between these two nations in point of military

prowess, is said to be so great that the Saxons, alias the English,

frequently fled before inferior numbers of the Danes, and could hardly be

prevailed upon to meet them in the field of battle on any terms. “Oh the

misery and worldly shame in which England is involved through the wrath

of God! (said an English bishop in the reign of Ethelred the unready)

How often doth two or three troops of Danes drive the whole English army

before them from sea to sea, to our eternal infamy, if we were capable of

feeling shame! But, alas! so abject are we become, that we worship those

who trample upon us, and load us with indignities.” Such was then the

abject submission of the English to the insolence of the Danes, “that

when an Englishman met a Dane on a bridge, or in a narrow path, where he

could not avoid him, he was obliged to stand still, with his head

uncovered, and in a bowing posture, till he was out of sight.” Nay, we

are assured that English submission and Danish insolence and brutality

were sometimes carried still further, and even to degrees that are almost

incredible, as well as too indelicate to relate. {278} These Danes, who

now became the instruments of retaliation and vengeance upon the

Anglo-Saxons, were remarkable for their extraordinary military skill and

intrepidity; and they were as unfeeling and ferocious as the latter

appear to have been at the time when they invaded and conquered this

country: they were therefore probably the fitter for the execution of the

work in which they were employed. Much has been said of the cruelties

committed by the Danes in this country: they were certainly very enormous

and shocking; but there is no reason to conclude that they exceeded, or,

perhaps, even equalled those which the Saxons had before exercised upon

the former inhabitants. Of all the perpetrators of Danish enormities, in

this island, _Guthrum_ seems to be the foremost, or most conspicuous, in

the pages of our ancient historians. Of him one of them speaks thus—“The

cruel Guthrum arrived in England A.D. 878, at the head of an army of

Pagan Danes, no less cruel than himself; who, like inhuman savages,

destroyed all before them with fire and sword, involving cities, towns,

and villages, with their inhabitants, in devouring flames; and cutting

those in pieces with their battle-axes who attempted to escape from their

burning houses. The tears, cries, and lamentations of men, women, and

children, made no impressions upon their unrelenting hearts; even the

most tempting bribes, and the humblest offers of becoming their slaves,

had no effect. All the towns through which they passed exhibited the

most deplorable scenes of misery and desolation; as, venerable old men

lying with their throats cut before their own doors; the streets covered

with the bodies of young men and children, without heads, legs, or arms;

and of matrons and virgins, who had been first publicly dishonoured, and

then put to death.” {279} This is very shocking, and looks like

providential retaliation. The annals of history exhibit many instances

of the same kind. The Danish warriors were always prodigal of life, and

not only did not fear, but even courted a violent death. A natural death

they dreaded, as a most ignoble and disgraceful end, and which they

always appeared very anxious to avoid. No wonder that they became the

terror of every nation against which they happened to wage war. No

greater evil could well befall any people than to have them for their

enemies and invaders.

To no part of this island did the Danes prove a greater, or more terrible

scourge than to the province of the East Angles, which became one of

their principal settlements, and where they committed the most shocking

barbarities. Hence we may very safely conclude that the sufferings which

the inhabitants of Lynn experienced from them must have been exceedingly

grievous and deplorable. But as those sufferings have not been recorded

they cannot now be described or particularized.

The Danes, as well as the Anglo-Saxons, when they invaded this country

were pagans. Both of them afterward took up the profession of

christianity; but it was only its profession, or bare name that they did

take up. Their former ferocity still remained. They continued grossly

ignorant, superstitious, and heathenish, and exhibited scarcely a spark

of the real spirit of the religion of Christ, except perhaps in the

latter part of the reign of Alfred. Their ghostly, or religious

instructors were miserable and blind guides, or knavish and artful

impostors, who taught them that the most meritorious actions consisted in

erecting and endowing monasteries, performing pilgrimages, and

reverencing the priesthood. From such pretended or pseudo-christianity,

what good effect could be expected? Grapes cannot be gathered of thorns,

or figs of thistles.—When Earl Alwine, who was the greatest and richest

man in England, in the reign of Edgar the peaceable, consulted St.

Oswald, bishop of York, what he should do to obtain the pardon of his

sins, the _sainted_ prelate made him the following eloquent harangue: “I

beseech your excellency to believe that those holy men who have retired

from the world, and spend their days in poverty and prayer, are the

greatest favourites of heaven, and the greatest blessings to the world.

It is by their merits that the divine judgements are averted and changed;

that plagues and famines are removed; that healthful seasons and

plentiful harvests are procured; that states and kingdoms are governed;

that prisons are opened, captives delivered, shipwrecks prevented, the

weak strengthened, and the sick healed: that I may say all in one word,

it is by their merits that this world, so full of wickedness, is

preserved from immediate ruin and destruction. I intreat you therefore,

my dear son, if you have any place in your estate fit for that purpose,

that you immediately build a monastery, and fill it with holy monks,

whose prayers will supply all your defects, and expiate all your crimes.”

The Apostles, no doubt, would have answered such an inquiry very

differently. The building of Ramsey abbey, however, as Dr. Henry

observes, was the consequence of this fine speech. {282} Such acts were

represented by the monks as contributing greatly to the future repose of

those who did them, and of their friends; whence it was usual for all

those who had any sense of religion, or concern, for their salvation, to

bequeath some part of their estates _to their own souls_, as they called

those bequests which they made to a church or a monastery.

To promote and establish an unbounded veneration for the priesthood,

miraculous tales were industriously propagated, and as readily believed;

for the credulity of the people perfectly suited the knavery of the

priests. The following talc, or rather miracle, is related by William of

Malmsbury, in the very words, as he says, of one of the persons on whom

it was wrought:

“I Ethelbert, a sinner, will give a true relation of what happened to

me on the day before Christmas, A.D. 1012, in a certain village,

where there was a church dedicated to St Magnus the martyr, that all

men may know the _danger of disobeying the commands of a priest_.

Fifteen young women and eighteen young men, of which I was one, were

dancing and singing in the church-yard, when one Robert, a priest,

was performing mass in the church; who sent us a civil message,

intreating us to desist from our diversion, because we disturbed his

devotion by our noise. But we impiously disregarded his request;

upon which the holy man, inflamed with anger, prayed to God and St.

Magnus, that we might continue dancing and singing a whole year,

without intermission. His prayers were heard. A young man, the son

of a priest, named John, took his sister, (who was singing with us)

by the hand, and her arm dropped from her body without one drop of

blood following. But notwithstanding this disaster she continued to

dance and sing with us a whole year. During all that time we felt no

inconvenience from rain, cold, heat, hunger, thirst, or weariness;

and neither our shoes, nor our clothes wore out. Whenever it began

to rain, a magnificent house was erected over us, by the power of the

Almighty. By our continual dancing we wore the earth so much, that

by degrees we sunk into it up to the knees, and at length up to the

middle. When the year was ended, bishop Hubert came to the place,

dissolved the invisible ties by which our hands had been so long

united, absolved us, and reconciled us to St. Magnus. The priest’s

daughter, who had lost her arm, and other two of the young women,

died away immediately; but all the rest fell into a profound sleep,

in which they continued three days and three nights; after which they

arose and went up and down the world, publishing this true and

glorious miracle, and carrying the evidence of its truth along with

them, in the continual shaking of their limbs.”

A formal deed, attesting the truth of this ridiculous story, was drawn up

and subscribed by bishop Peregrine, the successor of Hubert, A.D. 1013.

{283} William of Malmsbury also, the most sensible of our old

historians, appears to have given it full credit. In short, it seems

very certain that it was long, in common with abundance of other similar

tales, universally believed; which shews how well established the

authority of the priesthood, and the popular reverence for that order,

must then have been in this country, and here at Lynn, as well as in

other places.

Next to the priests and monks, the magicians and fortunetellers appear to

have then possessed the largest share of the public confidence and

veneration; and very probably with equal worthiness. Strange tales have

been related by historians of the ascendancy which these sorts of people

long had over the infatuated inhabitants, and even over those of the

highest orders among them. These things give but an unfavourable idea of

our national character in those times. It would but ill become us,

however, to think very contemptuously of those foibles in our poor

ancestors, while we ourselves with all our boasted advantages and wisdom,

have not yet entirely left off consulting fortunetellers and conjurers:

to say nothing of the multitude of other impostors, of different sorts,

that are daily countenanced and caressed among us.

SECTION VII.

_Of the Heptarchy and its history—remarks on Egbert_, _Alfred_, _and

their most renowned successors—character of Canute_, _and of Edward the

Confessor_: _the latter the first of our monarchs that touched for the

Evil—remarks on that circumstance_, _and on the prevalence of that

complaint in the parts about Lynn_.

During a good part of the period from the Saxon invasion to the conquest,

England was divided into seven petty states, or kingdoms, usually

denominated, the Heptarchy, {285} the history of which is exceedingly

uninteresting; being, as Granger observes, a series of violence, wars,

and massacres, among petty tyrants, most of whom were a disgrace to the

human species.—Under the famous Egbert those states were consolidated,

and formed into one kingdom, under the name of England, which it has

borne ever since. The kings who have ruled it, from Egbert to the Norman

conqueror, were, for the most part, like their predecessors in the days

of the Heptarchy, very disreputable and worthless characters. There were

however, some exceptions, among which Alfred was far the most

conspicuous, and outshone the rest, as the sun does all the other

luminaries.

Among the most renowned and respectable of the other English sovereigns

of that period, beside Egbert, already mentioned, were Edward the elder,

Athelstan, Edgar the peaceable, Edmund ironside, Canute the great, and

Harold the second. Of Edgar we are told, that he styled himself _King of

Great Britain_, as Edred, it seems, had done before him; but that title

was afterward discontinued, and not used by any succeeding monarch, till

the reign of James the first. The most potent among these crowned heads

was Canute, being the sovereign of Denmark and Norway as well as of

England. That he possessed great talents is allowed on all hands; and

though he was cruel here at first, he gradually became mild, devout, and

popular. Though an usurper and a foreigner, he was, perhaps, next to

Alfred, the wisest of our ancient kings, if not also the most virtuous

and enlightened, especially towards the close of his reign: of which his

memorable adventure, or experiment with the tide, and with the miserable

sycophants of his court, on the seashore, seems a pretty strong

indication. That he was also superstitious, and an admirer of relics,

must not be denied: but it was likewise the case with all the most

eminent of the princes of those days, the great Alfred himself not

excepted. There is a remarkable air of honest simplicity in the reason

given by Canute for undertaking a voyage, or journey to Rome, which he

did a few years before he died:—“I had been told (said he) that the

apostle Peter had received great authority from the Lord, and carried the

keys of heaven: therefore I thought it absolutely necessary to secure his

favour by a pilgrimage to Rome.”—How many of our modern visionaries and

devotees would appear more respectable than Canute, were they as honestly

to avow their motives, or give the reason of their proceedings?

In adverting to the princes, or sovereigns of this period, to whom the

town of Lynn was in subjection, Edward, called the Confessor, must not be

left unnoticed: not so much for any shining qualities, or great

respectability of character which he possessed, for there he appears to

have been very deficient, as for certain incidents or events which

distinguished his reign, independent of any personal worth or merit of

his own. With the monks and ecclesiastics he was certainly a great

favourite, but what made him so redounded not at all to his honour, but

may be said to be a disgrace, rather than any credit to his memory.

The most important and laudable occurrence of his reign was the

reformation of the law of the land. Before his time different parts of

the kingdom were governed by different laws: Wessex, by the West Saxon;

Mercia, by the Mercian; and Northumberland, by the Danish laws. In his

reign they were reduced into one body, by the name of the laws of Edward

the confessor, which then became common to all England. This together

with the abolition of that odious tax called _Danegelt_, seem to have

been his best and most commendable deeds, though probably to be ascribed

to his counsellors, such as Goodwin, Leofric, and Siward, rather than to

himself. It is said, however, that he was humane, temperate, and

charitable, and gave much alms: and, moreover, that he had visions and

revelations, the gift of prophecy, and even that of working miracles, his

extensive fame for which continued long, and procured him, about two

hundred years after his death, from pope Alexander III. the high honour

of canonization, under the name of _Saint Edward the Confessor_, an

appellation that must have been very oddly and unaccountably applied.

But of all his memorable achievements, or traits of character, his

_touching_ for the Evil, or Scrofula, and pretending to the gift or power

of miraculously healing that complaint, are the most remarkable. As this

pretended gift or power is supposed to have originated with him, {288a}

and to have descended from him to all his legitimate successors on the

English throne, a sketch of the history of the practice, from first to

last, it is presumed, would not prove unacceptable or unentertaining to

the reader. And as the disorder, for whose cure this practice was

introduced, is said to be nowhere more common, or prevalent, than at and

about Lynn, {288b} which is supposed to have been also the case for many

generations, it may naturally and safely be concluded that frequent

applications to the throne for a cure would be made, time after time,

from these parts, while every body believed that the sovereign’s _touch_

would infallibly remove the malady. Myriads and myriads, labouring under

scrofulous complaints, have certainly applied to the throne for relief

during the long interval between the time of the Confessor, when the said

practice commenced, and the accession of George I. when it was finally

laid aside. Even in the single reign of that _most religious_ prince (as

he has been called) Charles II. the number, it is said, amounted to

_above ninety thousand_; and it is morally certain that not a few of that

multitude, and of the rest, who resorted, before and since, to our

different sovereigns, for relief in the same case, were Norfolk and Lynn

patients. The insertion therefore, in this volume, of the proposed

Sketch of this notable affair, or practice of the royal touch, cannot, it

is presumed, be deemed any material deviation from propriety:—so it shall

appear in the last section of this chapter, at the conclusion of this

second part of the work.

SECTION VIII.

_State of Lynn in the Confessor’s time—Stigand_, _Ailmer_, _and Harold_,

_bore then the chief sway—great power of the latter—sketch of his

character—obtains the crown at the confessor’s death—is soon disturbed by

two formidable invasions—the one from the Danish_, _or Norwegian shores_,

_under Halfagar_, _whom he vanquishes and slays in battle—the other from

France_, _under his rival or competitor_, _William of Normandy_, _in

opposing whom he is himself vanquished and slain in the decisive battle

of Hastings_, _which places the conqueror on the throne_, _without

further struggle_, _through the defection and machinations of the bishops

and clergy_.

In the time of the Confessor, as he has been already suggested, Lynn was

a place of considerable and growing consequence. The town then, and the

adjacent country belonged to three of the principal men of the realm.

Harold, who afterwards ascended the throne, was then Earl, or Duke of the

East Angles, {289} which must have placed Lynn under his jurisdiction.

He had besides, great possessions here, being chief proprietor and lord

of South Lynn and other places. Great Massingham, Westacre &c. did also

belong to him. Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, likewise bore then no

small sway in this town and neighbourhood, as lord of Rising, &c. So

also did his brother Ailmer, bishop of Elmham, to which see, even at that

early period, the government of the borough of Lynn seems to have been a

kind of appendage. These two prelates were Anglo-Saxons, which was the

case, it seems, with but three more of the order in the kingdom; {290}

the rest being all foreigners, and mostly French, or Normans. These

being his countrymen, and in a manner his subjects, we need not wonder at

the facility with which the Conqueror obtained the English Crown;

especially as the Pope also patronized the undertaking. Though those

bishops could not prevent the accession of Harold, owing to his great

popularity and power, yet they kept themselves ready to promote the cause

and interest of his rival whenever a fair opportunity should offer, and

it was not long before they had their wishes completely gratified.

Harold during the latter part of the Confessor’s reign was the most

powerful subject in the kingdom. He possessed also great talents and

courage, with no small share of ambition, and had acquired vast and

unrivalled popularity. It was therefore no great wonder that he should

pretty easily make his way to the throne at the very first vacancy. He

had had for sometime the chief management of public affairs, and his

conduct in the mean while appears to have given general satisfaction. No

one in the kingdom was better qualified, or perhaps more deserving than

he to wear the crown; and whatever the Norman, or monkish historians may

have said to the contrary, it seems pretty certain that he ascended the

throne with the general assent and approbation of the people.

His reign however, was soon disturbed, first by a Danish, or Norwegian

invasion in the north, beaded by Harfager, or Helfager king of Norway,

aided by Harold’s own worthless brother Tosti; and shortly after by a

French invasion in the south, under William the bastard, Duke of

Normandy. The former Harold opposed with success; the invaders were

defeated with great slaughter, and the two chiefs, Harfager and Tosti,

fell in the action. Great and rich booty is said to have fallen into the

hands of the victors, including a considerable quantity of gold. Here

Harold appears to have committed a great error, and to have departed most

unwisely and unaccountably from his usual policy, by retaining all the

spoil for himself, instead of sharing it with his soldiers, which excited

great discontents among them, and proved afterwards, in no small measure,

detrimental to his cause.

No sooner had the English monarch triumphed over the first invaders than

he learnt that the Duke of Normandy with a great army had made good his

landing in Sussex. He immediately commenced his march against that

fierce and formidable adversary, with an army greatly reduced by the late

bloody, though successful conflict, and rendered discontented by his own

impolitic and unwise conduct, already mentioned. Yet notwithstanding

those disadvantages, so rapid was his progress from Yorkshire to Sussex,

that he actually arrived within sight of his enemies before they had

proceeded but a little way from the place of debarkation. It had been

better, no doubt, had he taken more time, to refresh and recruit his

army, or acted on the defensive, for sometime at least, which could

hardly have failed of being very materially to his advantage, as he was

then circumstanced. But so impetuous was he, and resolute to bring the

contest to a speedy termination, that he absolutely rejected the

wholesome counsel given him by one of his brothers, to adopt a different

course. To his opponent this must have been perfectly agreeable, and the

very thing he wanted, as nothing could have been less his interest than a

defensive war on the part of the English, or to find in Harold another

_Fabius_. Both parties accordingly prepared for a speedy and decisive

engagement. The two armies are said to have spent the preceding night

very differently: the English impiously passed it in riot and revelry;

but the Normans, good creatures! were all the time occupied in the duties

of religion; for which, to be sure, from the nature of their errand, and

the object of their visit, they must have been preeminently qualified!

This story, we may presume, was fabricated afterwards by the monks and

priests and Norman historians, who were in the interest of the Conqueror,

and wished to pay their court to the reigning family. Be that as it

might, the battle of Hastings forms a memorable era in the history of

this country. Both armies fought with desperate valour, as if determined

to conquer or die; but the invaders proved victorious. Harold and his

two brothers, with the flower of the English army, fell in that bloody

and fatal field; and that single victory may be said to have placed the

conqueror on the throne of England, and advanced him to the first rank

among the European potentates of that age. In promptness, decision,

military and political talents, as well as good fortune, he may be said

strongly to resemble the present sovereign of Normandy and the French

Empire. But it is to be hoped that the resemblance will not hold, in

case the latter should ever attempt to accomplish his long threatened

invasion of this kingdom.

From the disastrous and fatal field of Hastings, Edwin and Morcar, the

principal surviving English commanders, with the shattered remains of

Harold’s army, retreated in the night to London, where they convened the

people, and such of the grandees of the realm as were there to be found,

to consult upon the best mode of proceeding, at so critical and desperate

a conjuncture. They themselves were for placing Edgar Atheling, the next

heir, on the throne, and adopting vigorous measures for the discomfiture

and expulsion of the invaders; but their advice was not taken, their

reasons were set at nought, and every idea of any further resistance was

abandoned; so that William obtained the crown without fighting another

battle, or encountering any further difficulty. Nothing could exceed the

pusillanimity, or dastardly conduct of the English on that memorable

occasion, instead of the present prevailing and flattering idea, that one

Englishman can beat two or three Frenchmen, they seemed to believe, on

the contrary, that one Frenchman could beat, at least, two or three

Englishmen. In short, they appear to have erred as much on the one hand

as we do on the other. But it was not the only time when our dear

countrymen discovered a diffidence of their own superiority.

The blame of rejecting the counsel of the two chieftains above-mentioned

has been imputed to the defection and machinations of the bishops and

clergy, who, as has been already suggested, were decidedly in the

interest of the Norman, and, of course, inimical to the Anglo-Saxon or

English, government, constitution, and succession. The chief reasons for

which, were probably the following—1. Many of them, and most of the

bishops were foreigners, and William’s countrymen and subjects; so that

it was natural for them to favour his enterprize and pretensions.—2.

Ecclesiastical power and priestly domination were more likely to be

promoted, and the popular, or opposite spirit depressed and crushed under

a Norman, than an Anglo-Saxon, or English government.—3. Even under the

Confessor, monk-ridden and priest-ridden as he was, the civil power was

so formidable, and superior to the ecclesiastical, that the parliament

actually procured the deprivation and banishment of _Robert_, archbishop

of Canterbury, as an incendiary and fomenter of disputes between the king

and his subjects, and had _Stigand_ appointed in his room: a change

therefore, or such a revolution in the constitution and government as

William was likely to effect or promote, must have been a desirable

object with the whole clerical body.—4. The Pope had openly appeared in

favour of the invasion, the success of which he was understood to have

much at heart: and so careful had he been to let all see that William was

his man, and the church’s favourite and champion, that he first made him

a present of a consecrated standard, a golden Agnus Dei, and a ring, in

which was pretended to be one of St. Peter’s hairs; (of course a most

precious relic;) and then he solemnly excommunicated all that should

oppose him. This conduct or example of the pope would alone have been

sufficient lo influence and determine the bishops, clergy, and monks, or

the whole body of the ecclesiastics, to betray and sacrifice the cause of

the people, or of the nation, and promote to the utmost that of the

invader. They would have done so without any other reason or inducement;

but being further stimulated by those before mentioned, we may safely

conclude that their zeal in the disgraceful cause which they had so

basely espoused, must have been of no ordinary fervour.

This memorable co-operation of the clergy with the conqueror, so hostile

to the liberty and independence of the country, has been pronounced, in a

recent publication, to be “the true origin of the _alliance between

church and state_, so much contended for by some of our ecclesiastics;

who have renounced the penances of popery, but would fain retain both its

pride and its power.” {296} But if it was really its origin here, yet it

seems to have begun elsewhere at a much earlier period: for the world

does not appear to have existed a very long while before statesmen and

priests found it to be their interest to play into each others hands, and

enter into partnership, for the better management of their respective

concerns; or, in other words, for the sake of keeping the multitude more

easily and effectually in subjection.

The papal presents and interference in favour of the Norman expedition,

despicable as they appear, must have largely contributed to recruit

William’s forces, inspire them with confidence and enthusiasm, and

eventually promote and ensure his success. Nor was he himself wanting on

his part. Nothing that an intrepid adventurer, and able leader could do

to give effect to his undertaking was by him omitted. He even went so

far as to make very liberal promises to divide the lands of the English

among his followers, in case he proved victorious; which promises he

afterwards very punctually and amply performed, so that the English

grandees were deprived of their possessions, or if they were permitted to

retain any part of them, they held the same under the Normans, who then

became every where the great lords and proprietors of the country.

The whole English nation, in the meantime, was so completely subdued and

degraded, as to become, like the ancient Gibeonites, mere hewers of wood

and drawers of water for their haughty conquerors, whom providence seemed

to employ, like the Danes before, as instruments of retaliation and

vengeance, for the atrocities formerly committed on the original

inhabitants. The English language itself was now in a manner prohibited

and proscribed, and the _French_ substituted for it, or introduced in its

room, especially in the courts of law, and all legal transactions, which

continued to be the case for a long time. {297} French also became now

the sole language of gentlemen, or of all who moved in the high and

polite circles. None could be admitted into such circles, or allowed the

name of gentlemen, without that language, which bore very hard, no doubt,

upon many an English buck of those days; hence that well known old

proverb, “Jack would be a gentleman, but that he can talk no French.”

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.

Least of all is it to be supposed that this practice should be dropt or

neglected afterwards, on the restoration of the York line, in the person

of _Edward IV_, who would naturally take care to exercise every

prerogative or power supposed to have belonged to his ancestors, and

which had any way contributed to their popularity, consequence, or

celebrity. This monarch, though of a far less religious or devout cast

than his immediate predecessor Henry VI. might not on that account be the

less qualified to work these miracles, any more than _Charles II._

afterwards; who, though by his clerical subjects denominated _most

religious_, was yet certainly, in fact, one of the _most irreligious_ and

profligate wretches that ever wore a crown: nevertheless he

unquestionably practiced the _royal touch_, as extensively, effectually,

and successfully as any one whatever in the whole list of our crowned, or

kingly practitioners. And why not?—as the extraordinary gift,

supernatural virtue, or miraculous power, belonged entirely, it seems, to

his regal quality or dignity; {303} and had nothing at all, apparently,

to do with his personal or moral character.

_Richard_ III. also, after he ascended the throne, may be supposed to

possess as much of this supernatural and sanative virtue (whatever may be

said of the other virtues) as any one of his predecessors or successors;

and as it was evidently his interest to omit no popular observance, and

to avail himself of whatever had a tendency to excite or gain the

admiration of the people, and reconcile them to his government, we may be

sure he would not fail to follow, with spirit, the practice in question;

and so, by a copious display of its sanative virtue, compensate, in some

sort, or degree, for the absence of virtues of another description.

There is therefore abundant reason for setting him down among our royal

miracle-workers.

None of all these princes appear to have made a greater figure, or to

have proceeded with more parade, solemnity, and success, in this royal

business or occupation, than Henry VII.—This politic prince, whatever

right he might have to the crown, had probably as good a right as any one

to try his hand at this notable and wonder working operation, the effect

or fame of which he knew full well how to manage profitably and turn to

the best account. He accordingly set about it in good earnest; and in

order, as may be supposed, to give the process the most striking, sacred,

and solemn appearance, and increase its effect, he had a new form, or

office, composed and introduced for the purpose. {304} The project

answered; and his success in this practice is said to have been very

considerable. This prince would also sometimes take upon him to _convert

heretics_; and he would even give them money to facilitate their

conversion; {306} which was certainly no illadapted device, or

unpromising expedient; and it is the more remarkable, as his majesty was

himself so great a lover of money, and appears to have been so

exceedingly close-fisted on other occasions. We may therefore be very

sure that the conversion of heretics was of the highest importance in

Henry’s estimation, and what lay very near to his royal heart. This

monarch also, with his queen and eldest son, visited the town of Lynn,

where he very probably exercised the _royal touch_, as scrofulous

patients may be supposed to have been then, as they are now, very

numerous here, all of whom, as well as the rest of the inhabitants, would

not fail to give full credit to his majesty’s ability to remove the

malady and restore the patients to perfect health; and, of course, would

be anxious to apply to him, which he would not be likely to discourage.

As to _heretics_, there might be then none of them here for him to try

his royal hand at their conversion.

His son and high spirited successor, _Henry VIII_, would doubtless be

careful to continue the practice of all the rites and ceremonies

appertaining to the royal function, which had been handed down to him

from his father: and there is every reason to believe that the operation

in question would not be forgotten or omitted, were it only to be even

with his neighbour and rival, _Francis I_, who certainly performed it,

and would not be likely to be suffered or allowed to go beyond him on

such an occasion. Henry therefore may be safely set down among our said

royal practitioners, and even among the most able and powerful of them

all. But the _King’s Evil_ was not the only Evil in whose cure or

removal he was particularly concerned: He was no less concerned in the

cure or removal of the _Pope’s Evil_, another dreadful malady, which had

long and grievously afflicted most of the good people of this country,

and which was generally deemed incurable, till he took it in hand. All

the world know how powerfully and effectually _his royal touch operated_

on that occasion.—It seems he had also the reputation of being endowed

with extraordinary gifts for the cure or prevention of the _cramp_; and

we find that he distinguished himself by the consecration of _cramp

rings_, which Stephen Gardiner says were much esteemed every where, and

often sought for. {308} So very eminent was Henry among our royal

doctors, and miracle mongers.

_Edward VI_, Henry’s amiable son and successor, is not known to have been

at all an adept at this princely practice, or even to have been in the

least partial to it. He probably thought so very lightly of it as

entirely to omit and discard it, as he is also said to have done with

respect to the _consecration of cramp rings_, by which his royal father

so much distinguished himself. It is likely that Edward, young as he

was, had imbibed some sectarian notions which might unfit him for the

performance of these sublime operations. Even the royal and episcopal

work of _burning heretics_, so much approved of and delighted in by his

predecessors, and afterwards by his immediate successor, and so much

called for and applauded by ecclesiastics, was to him an object of utter

aversion; and if he once suffered it to be done, it was involuntary and

against his own better judgement, through the importunate intreaties and

urgent expostulations of his bishops, and particularly Cranmer, to whom

therefore the guilt and infamy of the deed must properly or chiefly

belong. {309} There is reason to believe that no such doings would have

sullied or disgraced his reign had he been left to judge and act for

himself. It is probable he was left so to judge and act with respect to

the _royal touch_; so that we need not be surprised at his declining the

practice.

From _Mary_, his bloody sister and successor a different conduct might be

expected: and her conduct certainly was, almost in every thing, very

different from his. Superstitious as she was, and bigoted to the last

degree, it is not to be supposed that she should shrink from the

performance of any rite or ceremony, however absurd, that had been in

request with her popish predecessors, or devoutly practiced by them.

This of the _royal touch_ could never escape her attention: nay it is

expressly said that the office was indeed fairly written out for her use;

[that very office probably, which has been above inserted;] so that there

can be no question of her touching for the Evil, as devoutly, and as

successfully perhaps, as any of the rest. {310a}

As to _Elizabeth_, heretic as she was, her legitimacy questioned, and her

title litigated, she _touched_ for the Evil with a success acknowledged

even by the papists themselves, who are said to ascribe it to the _sign

of the cross_. {310b} A case is mentioned by _Carte_ of a Roman

Catholic, who, being put into prison, perhaps for recusancy, and terribly

afflicted with the Evil, was, after he had been there a tedious time, at

a vast expence to physicians without the least relief, _touched_ by this

queen, and perfectly cured: which gave him occasion to say, he was now

convinced by undoubted experience, that the pope’s excommunication of her

signified nothing, since she still continued blessed with so miraculous a

quality. {310c}—It was well for the poor fellow that he was not a

_puritan_, or he might have gone long enough without his cure, as her

majesty is known to have been inexorably pitiless and spiteful against

that class of her subjects.

Of _James_ I, with his strong faith in ghosts and witches, and lofty

notions of indefeasible right, royal prerogative and king-craft, it was

not to be supposed that he, of all men, would think meanly or lightly of

this royal and religious operation. It accordingly appears that he very

readily and warmly engaged in it, and actually became a most dexterous

and eminent practitioner—to the no small satisfaction and comfort, as we

may suppose, of his liege subjects, as well as advancement of his own

fame, or at least, the gratification of his vanity, of which it is well

known he possessed no common or scanty portion. Nothing could delight

him more than the idea that he could work miracles: his courtiers called

him _Solomon_; but that idea was calculated to make him think himself as

still greater than even Solomon. We are not informed how many patients

underwent or felt his royal touch; but there is every reason to suppose

and believe that the number must have been very considerable.

His unfortunate son and successor _Charles_ I. was no less distinguished

in this same way than his royal father had been. Great numbers are said

to have been by him both touched and cured; of whom not a few were little

children, which has been urged as a proof that it could not be ascribed

to the effect or strength of imagination. Carte observes, that Dr.

Heylyn, an eye witness of such cures, says, “I have seen some children

brought before the King by the hanging sleeves, some hanging at their

mother’s breasts, and others in the arms of their nurses, all cured,

without the help of a serviceable imagination.” {312a} Both Heylyn and

Carte were full of faith in these miracles. If they were right, the

decapitation of Charles must have been a great loss to the nation, and

especially to those who were afflicted with the Evil. For twelve years

or more, after that event, not one of these miracles appears to have been

wrought in this country.

As to _Oliver Cromwell_, it does not appear that he ever tried his hand

at this wonder-working operation; conscious, it may be supposed, that it

did not belong to his province, or to the protectoral office and dignity,

with which he was invested. What he would have done, had he accepted or

assumed the regal title, cannot be said or known with absolute certainty:

though the probability seems to bear against his even then becoming a

practitioner, as it would hardly have met the approbation of his best

friends, or accorded with the ideas of his most trusty and powerful

coadjutors, or even with his own.

After a total cessation or suspension of this ancient princely practice,

during the whole time of the Common wealth and Protectorate, it revived

again at the memorable _restoration_; and _Charles II._ took it up

vigorously and solemnly, and on a very extensive scale. The Register of

the Royal Chapel is said to exhibit a list of 92,107 persons touched by

him for the Evil in a certain number of years; {312b} not including, it

seems, the whole of his reign; so that double that number, or more for

aught we know, may have passed under his hand during the whole course of

his government. Yet we find he practised only at some particular seasons

of the year; at least after the summer of 1662, when a royal proclamation

was issued to inform the public that such would be the case from

thenceforth. His majesty had been then a practitioner full two years,

during which time there is reason to believe that he had touched some

thousands. He began the work almost immediately after his restoration,

so that it may be considered among the first acts of his reign. Of the

state of the practice in his royal hands, or under his wise management, a

pretty accurate idea may be formed from the following extracts—out of

some of the principal Public Papers of that era.

The following passage appeared in the weekly Paper called _Mercurius

Politicus_, of June 28, 1660—

“Saturday being appointed by his majesty to touch such as are

troubled by the Evil, a great number of poor afflicted creatures were

met together, many brought in chairs and flaskets; and being

appointed by his majesty to repair to the Banqueting House, his

majesty sat in a chair of state, and stroked all that were brought to

him, and then put about each of their necks a white ribbon with an

angel of gold on it. In this manner his majesty stroked above 600;

and such was his princely patience and tenderness to the poor

afflicted creatures, that though it took up a very long time, his

majesty, never weary of well doing, was pleased to make enquiry,

whether there were any more who had not been touched. After prayers

were ended the duke of Buckingham brought a towel, and the earl

Pembroke a bason and ewer; who, after they, had made obeysance to his

majesty, kneeled down, till his majesty had washed.”

This was within a month after his majesty’s arrival.

The next is from the _Parliamentary Journal_, of July 9, 1660; a

fortnight after the other; and is thus curiously worded—

“The kingdom having for a long time been troubled with the Evil, by

reason of his majesty’s absence, great numbers have flocked for cure.

His sacred majesty on Monday last touched 250 in the

Banqueting-House; among whom, when his majesty was delivering the

gold, one shuffled himself in, out of a hope of profit, which had not

been stroked; but his majesty presently discovered him, saying, this

man has not yet been touched. His majesty hath for the future

appointed every Friday for the cure, at which time 200 and no more

are to be presented to him, who are first to repair to _Mr. Knight_,

the King’s surgeon, living at the Cross Guns, in Russell Street,

Covent Garden, over against the Rose Tavern, for their tickets.—That

none might lose their labour he thought fit to make it known that he

will be at his house every Wednesday and Thursday, from two till six

of the Clock, to attend that service.—And if any _person of quality_

shall send to him he will wait upon them at their lodgings, upon

notice given to him.”

In the same paper of July 30 and August 6, notice was given, that no more

would be touched till about Michaelmas: and in the _Mercurius Politicus_,

of February 28, 1661, it is said, that _many came twice or thrice for the

sake of the gold_.

Another weekly paper, called _Mercurius Publicus_, February 21, 1661, had

the following passage—

“We cannot but give notice that certain persons (too many one would

think) who having the _King’s Evill_, and have been _touched_ by his

SACRED MAJESTY, have got the forehead to come twice or thrice,

alleging they were never there before, till divers witnesses proved

the contrary; which hath forced his MAJESTY to give order that

whosoever hereafter comes to be touched, shall first bring to his

MAJESTY’S Chirurgeons a certificate from the _Minister_ and

Church-Wardens (where they live) that they never were touched by his

MAJESTY before: the next healing will begin six weeks hence.”

In the same paper of May 9, 1661, appeared the following notice or

advertisement:

“WHITEHALL. We are commanded to give notice, that his MAJESTY finds

the Season already so hot, that it will be neither safe nor fit to

continue his healing such as have the king’s Evil; and therefore that

his MAJESTIES good subjects therein concerned, would at present

forbear to come to court; Friday next (may 10,) and Wednesday (May

15.) being the last days that his MAJESTY intends to heal, till the

heat of the weather be allayed, and his MAJESTY’S further pleasure

known, whereof his good subjects shall have timely notice.”

The same paper of August 15, 1661, contained the passage following:—

“We are commanded to give notice That his _Majesty_ finds the season

such, that it will neither be safe nor fit to continue his Healing

those that have the King’s Evil; and therefore that His _Majesties_

good subjects therein concerned do forbear to come to Court till

All-Saints Day next, till which time His _Majesty_ doth not intend to

Heal.”

In the very same Paper, of July 17, 1662, appeared the following curious

courtly advertisement:

“_Hampton Court_.—His Majesty lately set forth a _Proclamation for

the better ordering of those who repair to the Court for cure of the

disease called the King’s Evil_, wherein his Majesty being as ready

and willing to relieve the necessities and diseases of his good

Subjects by his Sacred Touch, which shall come for cure, as any of

his Royal Predecessors, in which, by the Grace and Blessing of God,

he hath in an extraordinary measure had good success, and yet in his

princely wisdom, foreseeing that fit times are necessary to be

appointed for the performing of that great work of Charity, doth

declare his Royal pleasure to be, that from henceforth the usual

times for presenting such persons, shall be from the Feast of

_All-saints_, commonly called _Alhallowtide_, to a week before

_Christmas_, and in the month before Easter, being more convenient

for the temperature of the season, and in respect of any contagion

that may happen in this near access to his Majesties Sacred Person.

His Majesty doth further command that none presume to repair to Court

for cure of the said disease, but within the limits appointed, and

that such persons who come for that purpose, bring certificates under

the hands of the Parson, Vicar, or Minister and Church-Wardens of the

Parishes where they dwell, testifying that they have not at any time

before been touched by the King; further charging all Justices of

Peace, Constables, &c. that they suffer not any to pass but such as

have such Certificates, under pain of his Majestys displeasure: And

that his Majesties Subjects may have the better knowledge of it, his

Majesties will is, that this Proclamation be published and affixed in

some open place in every Market Town of this Realm.” {317a}

To the above Extracts, only one more shall be here added, from another

Public Paper, called _The Newes_, of May 18, 1664.—

“His Sacred Majesty having declared it to be his royal will and

purpose to continue the healing of his people for the Evil during the

month of May, and then give over till Michaelmas next, I am commanded

to give Notice thereof, that the people may not come up to the town

in the interim and lose their labour.” {317b}

From these premises it plainly appears that the king really pretended to

be endowed with the power or gift of working miracles, and of healing or

curing one of the most obstinate and incurable diseases incident to the

human frame, even by his _touch_. Most curious and ludicrous it surely

must be to see such a man as Charles making such a pretension, and

affecting to be hand and glove with Heaven; and no less so to see the

whole nation, or at least the whole body of the church folks, or national

religionists, (clergy and laity) which constituted the great bulk of the

people, giving him full credit for every thing, and deeming the least

doubt or hesitation about his miraculous claims as a sure indication of

disloyalty, and scarcely short of high treason. Allowing or supposing

his majesty to have really possessed this miraculous power, or

supernatural healing gift, still it must appear rather a queer case that

it should be affected by the _temperature of the seasons_, and actually

controlled, overpowered, and crippled, as it were, by the _hot weather_;

and that the royal operator, in the meantime, in case he persisted in his

benevolent practice, or labour of love, during the dog-days, and for some

time before and after, should be exposed to the imminent danger of some

alarming _contagion_: at least he and his courtiers seemed evidently to

have had such apprehension. In all this, however, his loyal and admiring

subjects could discover nothing, either marvellous or suspicious, or yet

any way inconsistent. Their sovereign’s miraculous claims found in them

the most ready acquiescence. With some, indeed, especially among the

poor persecuted nonconformists, the case was otherwise. They disbelieved

those royal pretentions. But it only served to strengthen the public

prejudice against them; being generally looked upon as an additional and

sure proof of their disaffection, or their moral and political

depravity.—So much for Charles’s supernatural powers and miraculous

deeds.

His brother and successor, _James_ II. another of our _religious_

monarchs, continued this practice with unabated zeal, solemnity, and

devotion. He appears to have made some improvement in the process;

particularly by restoring the sign of the cross, which had been

unaccountably omitted by his father, and grandfather. It is probable

that none of its ancient appendages were by him forgotten, or left

unrestored, if he did not also, in his princely wisdom, devise some

others, equally suitable and edifying: and had the crown continued in his

family, the good subjects of these realms would hardly have failed of

having the institution or practice still preserved amongst them, and

observed in all things according to the pattern exhibited by him. But

his unexpected abdication forced things into another channel, and

deprived us of so fair and important a chance. James is supposed to have

practised at Whitehall as frequently, in proportion to the length of his

reign, as his brother had done. But as his reign, compared with that of

Charles, was very short, (though, in some respects, much too long) it is

not to be supposed that he, like the other, could boast of his myriads of

patients and cures. It appears, however, that he was very assiduous in

this business, as well when his occasions called him abroad, as when

detained within the precincts of his own court or palace: hence when he

went to Oxford in 1687, about the affair of Magdalen-College and other

matters, part of his time there is known to have been employed in

_touching_; which shews how very partial he was to the practice, and how

very ready he was to attend to it on every occasion that might offer.

{319} _Dr. Sykes_ in a letter to _Dr. Charlett_, of September 4, 1787,

expresses himself thus, “This morning the king _touches_ in Christ Church

Quire; hears one Father Hall this morning at the new Popish Chapel there;

but whether he will be there in the afternoon, or at University College,

I know not.” And _Creech_ in a letter to _Dr. Charlett_, of September 6,

the same year, says, “On sunday morning the king _touched_. _Warner_ and

_White_ officiating: all that waited on his majesty kneeled at the

prayers, beside the Duke of Beaufort, who stood all the time.” {320} All

this shews how partial and devoted James was to this practice, as well as

how obsequiously the learned Oxonians observed and contemplated this part

of their Sovereign’s conduct. Had he not gone beyond this royal _touch_,

neither the Magdalenians nor any other Oxonian fraternity had ever

resisted his mandates: his popularity, in that case, might have been as

unbounded as that of our present sovereign, and his descendants might

have reigned here gloriously to this day.

At the Revolution this practice or operation was again suspended.

_William_ III. was a Presbyterian, and _Oliver Cromwell_ an Independent:

the spirit and principles of these sects seem not to be congenial with,

or favourable to the practice; nor does this gift or privilege appear to

extend to sectarian or heterodox princes, but only to those of the

Romish, or Church of England faith.

At the accession of _Anne_, of course, this sanative virtue and practice

again revived, and numbers were _touched_ by the royal hand of that

illustrious princess, among whom was the late celebrated _Dr. Samuel

Johnson_, then in his childhood. At the death of Anne, the said virtue

forsook the British throne: at least none of our succeeding monarchs have

yet ventured to revive the practice. The two first princes of the

present dynasty had, doubtless, their reasons for refraining from it; but

as it is not known what they were, it is impossible to say whether their

majesties were governed therein by wise or unwise, proper or improper

motives. We know that actions very right in themselves may yet be

performed upon very wrong and unjustifiable principles. There is,

however, no room to suppose that these two potentates were in any measure

influenced in this instance by what their enemies, the Jacobites, would

be ready to insinuate: an apprehension of their own title to the Crown

being defective. The voice of the Nation (than which, there can be no

better title) had placed them on the throne of these realms.

His present majesty has hitherto followed the example of his two

immediate predecessors, in not restoring or resuming this dormant or

neglected branch of the royal prerogative. If he ever should hereafter,

at any time, think proper to restore or resume it, there can be no manner

of doubt of his meeting with ample success, as well as abundant

employment. In that case it may be presumed that multitudes of patients

would soon be flocking in from all quarters, not excepting the County of

Norfolk and the parts about Lynn Regis. His resolving to resume the

practice would instantly occasion the revival of the national faith in

the efficacy of the operation; and so far would such a resumption or

experiment be from endangering his majesty’s fair fame and popularity,

that it would, in all probability, augment the same, and so render him

for the residue of his reign, within the British Isles at least, more

popular and more celebrated than ever. But as we are not warranted to

expect that his majesty will ever try the experiment, or put to the test

the faith of his subjects in the miraculous efficacy of his _touch_, we

shall here drop the subject as far as it may concern him.

It appears that after the death of queen _Anne_ it was firmly believed by

a great part of the nation, that the sanative virtue, or miraculous power

which she was allowed to possess, still existed in the person of a

certain exiled prince of her family. In proof of which a story was

industriously propagated of one _Christopher Lovel_, of Bristol, who

being most sadly and grievously afflicted with the Evil, after having

recourse to the most eminent of the faculty, and availed himself of the

best medical help in vain, went at last to the Continent, in quest of the

said prince. Having found his royal highness, and being kindly received,

he underwent the operation of the _touch_, got perfectly cured, and

returned home safe and sound, in full health and high spirits, after an

absence of four months and some few days. Carte, the historian, and many

more, gentlemen of the faculty as well as others, visited him, examined

the case thoroughly, and pronounced the cure complete. Some of them, of

whom one was _Dr. Lane_, an eminent physician, considered it as one of

the most extraordinary and wonderful events that had ever happened.—After

this, who can doubt the reality of the fact, that such a sanative virtue,

gift, or power, was actually possessed by the said prince?—It seems,

however, that the miracle did not effect a radical cure: poor Lovel

relapsed again, sometime after, and died of the Evil at last. Such, in

all probability, were all the other great cures performed by the rest of

our royal doctors, although many of them, like this, were attested as

_perfect cures_, by very respectable, but too credulous witnesses.

It is somewhat remarkable that _Whiston_, as well as _Carte_, believed in

the efficacy of the royal touch: the former derives it from the _prayer_

used at the time, while the latter seems to consider it as a divine or

miraculous gift bestowed upon, or inherent to all the rightful heirs to

the English throne. Both of them were men of considerable

respectability, and very confident, it seems, of the soundness of their

respective opinions in this case. Their opinions however appear equally

untenable, and may pretty safely be pronounced utterly unfounded. The

favourable effects, or apparent benefit which some of those patients

might experience after having undergone the operation of the _touch_,

must doubtless be ascribed to their own operative faith and strength of

imagination, rather than to any supernatural virtue proceeding from that

princely performance, or any miraculous gift possessed by the royal

practitioners. To the same cause must also be attributed the salutary

effects said to have sometimes resulted from the pretended animal

magnetism, as well as such empirical charms and nostrums as have acquired

an uncommon share of popular fame, or have stood very high in the good

opinion of the public. A patient’s favourable opinion of a remedy

administered to him, and his very confident expectation of deriving from

it very essential benefit, are allowed to have had a happy effect, and to

have done great things sometimes in very serious and dangerous cases.

Now we may rest assured that on no other ground but this can we

reasonably account for benefits experienced by many who underwent the

royal touch; admitting that to have been really the case; for it is too

absurd to suppose that those royal personages were actually endowed with

power to work miracles, or that the ceremony performed, or yet the gold

given to the patients to wear about their necks, had in them any

supernatural or healing virtue to render them capable of producing such

effects.

It must be rather mortifying to our national vanity and pride, to think

that our dear ancestors, for seven hundred years, firmly believed in the

miraculous efficacy of the royal touch, in scrofulous complaints. {324}

But while we reprobate, or pity their stupid and miserable credulity, in

this and other instances, let us not forget that we ourselves are not

without our errors and failings, and those no less inexcusable and

degrading: witness our general belief in witchcraft, conjuration,

prodigies, and newspapers, together with the unshaken faith of multitudes

in _Richard Brothers_, _Joanna Southcote_, and many other notorious

impostors of different descriptions: and it may be justly questioned, if

there ever was a period when the inhabitants of this country have been

more inexcusably credulous, more easily and egregiously imposed upon, or

more generally and universally duped, than in this very age.—But we will

here close this long section; hoping that its contents will not fail to

contribute, at least in some measure, to the amusement and satisfaction

of the inquisitive and candid reader; especially if he ever wished to

learn the history of the royal touch, of which he will find here,

perhaps, a more particular and circumstantial account than in any other

publication.

* * * * *

_End of Part_ II.

HISTORY OF LYNN. PART III.

HISTORY OF LYNN FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NORMANS IN ENGLAND TO THE

REFORMATION.

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 1060_l._ 10_s._ 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