24. RICHARD DE COURTNEY, chancellor of Oxford, who died suddenly, about

two years after, at the siege of Harfleur; from which it would seem that

he was a prelate that delighted in war, or another of our fighting

bishops, who, at the best, are but unamiable characters. He was

succeeded, in 1416, by

25. JOHN DE WAKERYNG, archdeacon of Canterbury, who was confirmed by the

_archbishop_; which unusual circumstance was owing to the ecclesiastical

anarchy still existing, occasioned by the continuance of the grand

schism, which was then at its height. During that period there always

were _two_ popes, but they were now _three_, and each prefering a legal

claim to the papal chair, as the lineal descendant of St Peter! Three

contemporary popes exhibited an unusual and queer spectacle, and would

naturally suggest the idea of three heads of the church: and a church, or

any thing else, with _three heads_ may pretty fairly be deemed a

_monster_. Even the protestant church of England, however, has had

before now _two_ heads; one in London, and the other at St. Germans;

which ought to deter its members from bearing too hard on the church of

Rome in the above case. Bishop Wakeryng is said to have made

considerable improvements in and about his cathedral; which seems to have

been among his most praiseworthy performances. It appears that he died

in 1425.

Here it may be proper to observe, that in this bishop’s time, and that of

some of his predecessors, as well as of his immediate successor, the

tranquillity of the town of Lynn appears to have been exceedingly

disturbed by the violence of two contending factions, which kept the town

in a continual state of discord and distraction, it seems, for the space

of about thirty years: as may be gathered from existing documents, or

copies of Letters, of that period, still preserved in a MS. History of

Lynn, in the possession of _Mr. Thomas King_ of this town. {363} From

which we discover that those two contending factions were headed by two

of the Aldermen of that time; one of whom was _Bartholomy Petipas_, who

was _twice_ mayor, and the other _John de Wentworth_, who served that

office _three times_. The cause and nature of the difference that arose

between these opposing parties is not easy to develop. That their

animosity was bitter and violent is but too obvious, but its source or

ground is involved in no small obscurity.

This however is not the place to enter minutely upon the subject, which

shall be resumed in another part of the work. This dire contention seems

to have begun in 1403, the 7th of Henry IV. and to have lasted till 1434,

the 13th of Henry VI. The first of those years were the 3rd. of

Wentworth’s mayoralty, between whom and Petipas there evidently existed

some serious competition; but whether it was merely a contest for power

or superiority in the management of the town, or arose from certain

political questions about a reform of abuses, on which the parties

disagreed, does not very plainly appear. It is however very well known

that questions of a political, as well as theological nature, were then

much agitated in different parts of the country, by the enlightened and

patriotic disciples of Wickliff, who were anxious to promote every where

political as well as ecclesiastical reformation; but that such was

actually the case then at Lynn, and the ground of the said disagreement

cannot perhaps be positively affirmed. There are indeed some intimations

of _insufficient_ or _suspicious_ persons having for sometime been chosen

or found among the 24 Jurats that were here annually elected, in a Letter

or injunction from Henry VI, addressed, seemingly, to the mayor and

burgesses, and dated November 23 in his 13th year, which may indicate

that politics had no small share in the said contention, and the persons

alluded to might belong to the advocates of reform, or democrats of that

day. But this subject we will now drop, {365} and proceed with our

episcopal catalogue. John de Wakeryng dying in 1425 was succeeded the

following year by

26. WILLIAM ALNWICK, archdeacon of Salisbury, who, having sat ten years,

was translated to Lincoln. The principal entrance of the palace is said

to have been erected at his expence, and by his arms being united with

those of the see, on the west end of the cathedral, he is supposed to

have contributed towards the erection of that also.

27. THOMAS BROWN, or _Breus_, succeeded him, being translated hither

from Rochester, by Pope Eugenius IV. by bull, dated September 19, 1436.

We are told that he left a sum towards the payment of the city tax, and

exhibitions for poor scholars, prosecuting their studies in the

universities, who might be natives of the diocese: so that he seems one

of the better sort of those of his order. He died at Hoxne, in

1445.—JOHN STANBERY, a carmelite friar, was chosen to succeed him, but

never consecrated, owing to papal interference, then at its height. The

real successor therefore was

28. WALTER HART, or _Lyhart_, master of Oriel College Oxon, who was

appointed by the pope, and consecrated February 27, 1446. Paving the

cathedral; and erecting the elegant carved roof of the nave, where a

_hart_, or deer couchant, in sculpture, alluding to his name, is seen in

several places, are the works ascribed to him. He died in May 1472, and

was succeeded by

29. JAMES GOLDWELL, the Pope’s Prothonotary, who was made bishop by

papal provision, and consecrated at Rome by pope Sixtus IV. October 4,

1472. He appears to have been a thorough-paced ecclesiastic, and

legitimate son of his Holy Father. Before he left Rome, at the time of

his consecration, he is said to have obtained of the Pope a _perpetual

indulgence_, to repair and ornament the cathedral; by which he was

empowered to grant, to all persons who frequented it annually, on Trinity

Sunday and Lady-day, _twelve years_ and _forty days_ pardon, in lieu of

offerings made on the occasion: and having received the sum of 2200

marks, for dilapidation, he finished beautifying the tower; made the

elegant stone-fretted roof of the choir; and ornamented the chapels on

each side of it; especially that dedicated to the Holy Trinity, in which

he was afterwards interred.—We need not wonder that he could do so much,

when he was empowered to grant such long indulgences, and such extensive

and ample pardons. Wealthy people, who could believe him really

possessed of such a power, might be expected to furnish him pretty

readily with any sums of money he wanted for his sumptuous buildings and

architectural decorations. To such pious frauds and cunning devices,

many of our ecclesiastical structures, throughout the kingdom, owe much,

perhaps, of their boasted beauty and magnificence. Sad however must have

been the case of this country, when such vile tricks could take, or

succeed, even with the most enlightened part of its population; and

sadder still must be our case, if we are not yet proof against equally

vile and palpable impositions.—Bishop Goldwell died in 1498, {370} and

the see, on the refusal of _Christopher Urswyke_, was filled by

30. THOMAS JANE, archdeacon of Essex, and Canon of Windsor, who was

consecrated in 1499, and died the next year: whose successor was

31. RICHARD NYKKE, or _Nix_, archdeacon of Exeter, who was elected in

1500. He must have been a man of an unamiable and hateful character.

Writers unanimously concur to brand his name with the greatest obloquy.

Of his vile persecuting spirit no further evidence need be adduced than

the fact, that by his sanguinary judgments, _Ayers_, _Bingy_, _Norrice_,

and the amiable _Bilney_ were consigned to the flames, for only, in a

peaceable manner, expressing those sentiments, which, as they were

sanctioned by conscience, they had a right to suppose were the dictates

of truth. He died January 14. 1535. In his time _Chorepiscopi_ were

first appointed by act of parliament; their office answering to that of

suffragan, which, prior to that period, had been chosen at the discretion

of the diocesan. While this bishop bore sway, as master and lord of

Lynn, there was among the aldermen here a very remarkable person, whose

name was _Thomas Miller_. He was mayor of the town six or seven years,

but not six or seven times; for the first time he was in the office for

four years successively, viz. 1520 and the three following years. He was

mayor again in 1529, and again in 1546, the last of Henry VIII. That he

was a man of spirit and intrepidity appears by his contending with his

lord, the bishop, about the right of having the sword carried before him,

which his lordship, it seems, objected to, and claimed as his own proper

and exclusive right and prerogative. Our mayor and the corporation, not

satisfied with this, went boldly to law with their lordly master, on the

occasion, and carried their cause; which determined and established the

point, and the sword has been carried before their worships, the mayors

of Lynn, ever since, without any further demur or litigation. It appears

indeed that it would have so happened, in no long time after, had the

said law-suit, or legal decision not taken place; for the king, in the

course of a few years, thought proper to require of this same bishop the

relinquishment and surrender of his supremacy, or dominion over Lynn, for

such valuable considerations as his majesty, in his princely wisdom, saw

fit to grant or allow him, by way of exchange or remuneration. To this

his lordship readily acceded; for he must have known the king too well to

suppose that it would have been any way safe for him to have done

otherwise. But he died soon after, and before the affair was fully

concluded. The actual surrender, therefore, and probably under some new

arrangements, was left to be executed by his immediate successor, the no

less memorable

32. WILLIAM RUGG, or, _Reppes_, fortieth abbot of St. Bennet’s in Holme,

and native of North Repps, in this county, where his father, of both his

names, is said to have resided. He had his education at Cambridge, and

was fellow of Gonvill Hall in that university. After being abbot of St.

Bennet’s about six years, he was promoted to this see, by way of

recompence, as some seem to think, for the part he had acted among the

Cambridge divines, in obtaining from that university the judgment his

majesty wished, respecting his marriage with queen Catherine. They might

also suppose, that his being a warm and stanch stickler for the king’s

ecclesiastical supremacy, and influencing those of his convent to

subscribe to the same, in 1534, were additional recommendations that

contributed to his promotion. But when we consider the hard terms, or

humiliating conditions, on which he was to obtain, or hold his episcopal

dignity, (that is, by relinquishing the greatest part of the revenue and

possessions attached to his see,) it will not be a very easy matter to

prove that any favour was intended by this preferment, and much less a

recompence or reward for former services: this was certainly very

different from Henry’s wonted manner of using his favourites, and

rewarding his approved servants. But this point is too uninteresting to

merit any further discussion.—Abbot Rugg being promoted to the see of

Norwich in 1536, he, by virtue of a private act of parliament, parted

with all the lands of his bishopric, except the site of his episcopal

palace in Norwich, to the king, by way of exchange for the revenues

belonging to the abbey of Holme and priory of Hickling; which last being

soon after alienated by him, the whole income, since his time,

appertaining to the see of Norwich, has been only the estate of Holme

monastery, which his successors still enjoy, according to the purport of

the said act, which, continuing unrepealed, gave occasion to bishop

Montague, in the time of Charles I. to subscribe himself, in his leases,

“_Richard_, _by divine permission_, _lord bishop of Norwich_, _and Head

Abbot of St. Benedict’s de Hulm_.” The exchange of the lands of the

bishopric, for those of the Abbey of St. Benedict’s and priory of

Hickling, is said to have been made by Abbot Rugg some months before his

election to the see of Norwich, {372} though not before his promotion

thither had been predetermined. We are further informed that this

prelate alienated from his bishopric, not only the priory of Hickling,

but many good manors besides, belonging to the abbey, some by absolute

gift, others upon trifling exchanges, and gave long leases, so that, at

last, he was unable to maintain the state of the bishopric, and forced to

resign, with an annual pension of 200 marks. He seems to have been a

singularly improvident and thoughtless prelate, and very different from

most of that order, who seldom lose sight of their terrestrial interests,

or temporal concerns, whatever they may do as to those that are of an

eternal nature. After having resigned the see for the paltry pittance of

200 marks, or, as some say, 200_l._ per annum, he died in 1550. In

allusion to the straits and difficulties to which his manifest and

manifold indiscretions had reduced him, one of the members or officers of

his household is said to have made the following verses on his

resignation:

Poor Will, thou _rugged_ art and _ragged_ all:

Thy _abbey_ cannot bless thee in such fame,

To keep a pallace fair and stately hall,

When gone from thence what should maintaine the same.

First pay thy debts, and hence return to _cell_,

And pray the blessed _saint_ whom thou dost serve,

That others may maintaine the _pallace_ well;

For if THOU stayst, we all are like to starve.

The convent, or abbey of St. Benedict’s, appears to have been his chief

palace, or place of residence, during the whole time of his sustaining

the episcopal character: after which it soon went into decay, and ceased

to be the residence of his successors; with whom however we have no

further concern, as they were no longer the temporal lords and masters of

Lynn. Here therefore ends this episcopal catalogue; which exhibits a

pretty long list of names, though but few among them appear to have

merited the praise and benediction of their contemporaries, or the

veneration and imitation of posterity.

CHAP. III.

State of Lynn previously and subsequently to its becoming a

corporate-town, or free borough, with general remarks on that event, and

on the progressive state of society in the towns and cities of this

country, as well as at Lynn, in those times.

It is difficult to ascertain the exact state of this town, or the nature

of its police, and the social condition of its inhabitants, not only

before and at the Conquest, but also for a good while after, any further

than that its population appears to have then consisted chiefly, if not

entirely, of the bishop’s slaves or vassals, governed by such agents or

officers as he thought proper to appoint, whose administration as may be

reasonably presumed, would not always be of the mildest, or most

equitable and unexceptionable description. Had there been now in

existence regular and authentic records of the affairs of the town, in

those days, we should probably discover that its police, at least the

spirit of it, bore but too much resemblance to our present West Indian

jurisprudence. Slaves, in those ages, seem to have constituted the bulk

of our population; and were, in all probability, the offspring of the

lower orders of the original inhabitants, whose lives had been spared,

when the Anglo-Saxons over-run and conquered the country, on condition of

submitting to perpetual servitude. Such seems to have been the origin of

those slaves of different descriptions which formerly abounded in this

country for many ages. These, in country places, were the cultivators of

the soil, or tillers of the ground; and in the towns, they were the

tradesmen, mechanics, artificers, and labourers. In short, both in the

towns and in country places all useful employments were occupied by them.

As to their masters, the nobility, gentry, and every description of

military men, who constituted the great or main body of reputed freemen,

they were all above engaging in any such employments. War and the chace

were the only occupations that were deemed worthy of them; and there lay

the whole stock or sum of their knowledge and acquirements. Literature

of every kind they usually set at nought; scorning to learn so much as to

write their own names, as an attainment that would be too degrading for

an English gentleman. Under such beings, how unenviable, miserable, and

deplorable must have been the condition of the enslaved or unfree part of

the community.

Of the original, low, and servile state of the inhabitants of our

English, and other European towns, and their progress from thraldom to

freedom, no one has perhaps given a juster account than _Dr. Adam Smith_,

in the second volume of his celebrated Inquiry into the Nature and Causes

of the Wealth of Nations. He there observes that the inhabitants of

cities and towns, after the fall of the Roman Empire, were not more

favoured than those of the country.

“They consisted, indeed, of a very different order of people from the

first inhabitants of the ancient republicks of Greece and Italy.

These last were composed chiefly of the proprietors of lands, among

whom the public territory was originally divided, and who found it

convenient to build their houses in the neighbourhood of one another,

and to surround them with a wall, for the sake of common defence.

After the fall of the Roman empire, on the contrary, the proprietors

of land seem generally to have lived in fortified castles on their

own estates, and in the midst of their own tenants and dependants.

The towns were chiefly inhabited by tradesmen and mechanics, who

seemed in those days to have been servile, or very nearly of servile

condition. The privileges which we find granted by ancient charters

to the inhabitants of some of the principal towns in Europe,

sufficiently shew what they were before these grants. The people to

whom it is granted as a privilege, that they might give away their

own daughters in marriage without the consent of their lord, that

upon their death, their own children, and not their lord, should

succeed to their goods, and that they might dispose of their own

effects by will, must, before those grants, have been either

altogether, or very nearly in the same state of villanage with the

occupiers of land in the country. They seem, indeed, to have been a

very poor, mean set of people, who used to travel about with their

goods from place to place, and from fair to fair, like the hawkers

and pedlers of the present times. In all the different countries of

Europe then, in the same manner as in several of the Tartar

governments of Asia at present, taxes used to be levied upon the

persons and goods of travellers, when they passed through certain

manors, when they went over certain bridges, when they carried about

their goods from place to place in a fair, when they erected in it a

booth or stall to sell them in. These different taxes were known in

England by the names of passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage.

Sometimes the king, sometimes a great lord, would grant to particular

traders, to such particularly as lived in their own demesnes, a

general exemption from such taxes. Such traders, though in other

respects of servile condition, were upon this account called

Free-traders. They in return usually paid to their protector a sort

of annual poll tax. In those days protection was seldom granted

without a valuable consideration, and this tax might, perhaps, be

considered as compensation for what their patrons might lose by their

exemption from other taxes. At first, both those poll-taxes and

those exemptions seem to have been altogether personal, and to have

affected only particular individuals, during either their lives, or

the pleasure of their protectors. In the very imperfect accounts

which have been published from Domesday-book, of several of the towns

of England, mention is frequently made, sometimes of the tax which

particular burghers paid, each of them, either to the king, or to

some other great lord, for this sort of protection; and sometimes of

the general amount only of all these taxes.” {377}

“That part of the king’s revenue which arose from such poll-taxes in

any particular town, used commonly to be lett in farm, during a term

of years for a rent certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county,

and sometimes to other persons. The burghers themselves frequently

got credit enough, to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort

which arose from their own town, they becoming jointly and severally

answerable for the whole rent.”

In return, being allowed to collect it in their own way, and to pay it

into the king’s exchequer by the hands of their own bailiff, they would

be altogether freed from the insolence of the

king’s officers; a circumstance in those days of no small importance.

“At first, the farm of the town was lett to the burghers, in the same

manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only. In

process of time, however, seems to have become the general practice

to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent

certain, never afterwards to be augmented. The payment having thus

become perpetual, the exemptions, in return for which it was made,

naturally became perpetual too. Those exemptions, therefore, ceased

to be personal, and could not afterwards be considered as belonging

to individuals as individuals, but as burgesses of a particular

burgh, which, upon this account, was called a Free-burgh, for the

same reason that they had been called Free-burghers or Free-traders.

Along with this grant, the important privileges above mentioned, that

they might give away their own daughters in marriage, that their

children should succeed them, and that they might dispose of their

own effects by will, were generally bestowed upon the burghers of the

town to whom it was given. The principal attributes of villanage

find slavery being thus taken away from them, they now, at least,

became really free in our present sense of the word Freedom.—Nor was

this all. They were generally at the same time erected into a

commonality, or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates

and a town-council of their own, of making bye-laws for their own

government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing

all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, by

obliging them to watch and ward; that is, as antiently understood, to

guard and defend those walls against all attacks and surprises, by

night as well as by day. In England they were generally exempted

from suit to the hundred and country courts; and all such pleas as

should arise among them, the pleas of the crown excepted, were left

to the decision of their own magistrates.” {379}

For the origin of corporate towns, in this country, we are generally

referred to the times of which we are now treating, that is, the ages

subsequent to the Conquest; and yet it seems to be very evident from the

old book called _The Mirrour_, that there existed here some towns of that

description even as early as the days of Alfred: {380} but they were

probably few, and disregarded afterward, if not entirely disannulled;

till a good while after the accession and establishment of the Norman

dynasty: nor can we learn scarcely any thing of the cause and object of

their formation, or the nature and principles of their constitutions.

The case is otherwise as to those corporations formed since the Conquest;

which seems to apply to all those that now exist in this country: it is

not so difficult to find, or make out, how and why they were formed; and

it is with them only that we have here any concern. Before they sprung

up the feudal system was in its full and utmost vigour; and the power of

the country was divided between the sovereign and the barons, or great

lords; and the latter were sometimes an over match for the former. As a

counter-balance or check to the formidable and enormous power of the

barons, the incorporation of the great towns and cities seems chiefly to

have been resorted to, or adopted. At least this appears to have been

the case as far as any good policy, and not mere caprice, had any share

in the business: for justice and humanity, or a desire to enlarge the

liberty, and promote the welfare of the people were totally out of the

question. These were motives too sublime and godlike to enter into the

contemplation of the English kings and courtiers of those days.

But the said measure, whatever might be its cause and object, or the

motive for its adoption, appears to have produced very salutary effects:

for by forming cities and towns into corporations, and conferring on them

the privileges of municipal jurisdiction, the first check was given to

the overwhelming evils of the feudal system: and under their influence

freedom and independence began to peep forth, from the rigours of

slavery, and the miseries of oppression. To be free of any corporation,

however, was not then, as at present, merely to enjoy some privilege in

trade, or to exercise the right of voting on particular occasions, but it

was to be exempt from the intolerable hardships of feudal service; to

have the right of disposing both of person and property, and to be

governed by laws intended to promote the general good, and not to gratify

the ambition and avarice of individuals. These laws, however rude and

imperfect, tended to afford security to property, and encourage men to

habits of industry. Thus commerce, with every ornamental and useful art,

began first in corporate bodies to animate society. But in those dark

ages force was necessary to defend the claims of industry; and such a

force the municipal societies possessed; for their towns were not only

defended by walls and gates, vigilantly guarded by the citizens, but

oftimes at the head of their fellow freemen in arms, the mayor, aldermen

and other officers, marched forth in firm array, to assert their rights,

defend their property, and teach the proudest and most powerful baron,

that the humblest freeman was not to be injured with impunity. It was

thus the commons learned and proved they were not objects of contempt;

nay, that they were beings of the same species as the greatest lords.

{381}

In this country the king is said to be the fountain of honour; and such

he was to the incorporated towns and cities. From him they derived their

chartered and municipal privileges, and to him they owed their

emancipation from their former bondage, or manumission from feudal

servitude. Though these royal acts appear to have proceeded from no

generous or noble motives, such as the love of justice, or a regard for

liberty, but rather from a selfish and sordid policy; yet, as they proved

of vast benefit to the inhabitants of those towns and cities, they

strongly attached them to the throne, and greatly added to the power and

resources of the sovereign. The aversion and contempt manifested by the

nobles towards this new body of freemen, tended to promote still further

their attachment and subserviency to the court. The lords despised the

burghers, whom they considered not only as of a different order, but as a

parcel of emancipated slaves, almost of a different species from

themselves.

“The wealth of the burghers never failed to provoke their envy and

indignation, and they plundered them on every occasion without mercy

or remorse. The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords. The

king hated and feared them too; but, though perhaps he might despise,

he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers. Mutual

interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and the king

to support them against the lords. They were the enemies of his

enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure and

independent of those enemies as he could. By granting them

magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their

own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and

that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military

discipline, he gave them all the means of security and independency

of the barons, which it was in his power to bestow. Without the

establishment of some regular government of this kind, without some

authority to compel their inhabitants to act according to some

certain plan or system, no voluntary league of mutual defence could

either have afforded them, any permanent security, or have enabled

them to give the king any permanent support. By granting the farm of

their town in fee, he took away from those whom he wished to have for

his friends, and, if one may say so, for his allies, all ground of

jealousy and suspicion, that he was ever afterwards to oppress them,

either by raising the farm rent of their town, or by granting it to

some other farmer.” {383}

The armed force, with which the towns now furnished themselves, must have

produced a very material change in the state of the kingdom. This new

order of warriors, or trained bands of the towns, seem not to have been

inferior to those of the country; and as they could be more readily

assembled on any emergency, they are said to have frequently had the

advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords. In some parts

of the continent they became so powerful and successful as to subdue the

nobles in their vicinity, and enable the cities to which they belonged to

form themselves into independent republicks. But in England, the cities

and burghs had no opportunity to become entirely independent. They

became, however, so considerable, as Dr. Smith observes, that the

sovereign could impose no tax upon them, beside the stated farm-rent of

the town, without their own consent. They were, therefore, called upon

to send deputies to the general assembly of the states of the kingdom,

where they might join with the clergy and the barons in granting, upon

urgent occasions, some extraordinary aid to the king. Being generally,

too, more favourable to his power, their deputies seem, some times, to

have been employed by him as a counterbalance, in those assemblies, to

the authority of the great lords. {384} Hence, as it seems, the origin

of the representation of burghs in our parliaments.

However useless or objectionable our modern burghs or corporate towns may

be, it must be allowed that they were originally productive of no

inconsiderable national advantages. In them, as has been observed by the

writer last mentioned, order and good government together with the

liberty and security of individuals, were established at a time when the

occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every kind of violence.

That industry also, which aims at something more than necessary

subsistence was found in them before it was commonly practised, or did

exit among the country farmers.

“If in the hands of a poor cultivator, oppressed with the servitude

of villanage, some little stock should accumulate, he would naturally

conceal it, with great care, from his master, to whom it would

otherwise have belonged, and take the first opportunity of running

away to a town. The law was, at that time, so indulgent to the

inhabitants of towns, and so desirous of diminishing the authority of

the lords, over those of the country, that if he could conceal

himself there, from the pursuit of the lord, for a year, he was free

for ever. Whatever stock therefore accumulated in the hands of the

industrious part of the inhabitants of the country, naturally took

refuge in cities, as the only sanctuaries in which it could be secure

to the person that acquired it.” {385}

Thus it appears the cities and towns were then replenished with

inhabitants from the industrious and most valuable part of the population

of the country, and not, as is too often the case in our time, from the

most idle, profligate, and worthless.

From what has been already said of the motive or policy that seems to

have given birth to our burgh-system, it might naturally be expected that

those princes, who lived upon the worst terms with their barons, would be

the most ready and active promoters of it, and the most liberal in their

grants of municipal immunities. This, at least, appears to have been the

case: and we find our _king_ JOHN, for example, and we may add, his son,

and successor, HENRY III. were most munificent benefactors to those

towns; of which Lynn, may be mentioned as one notable instance. This

town owes, to those two sovereigns, its political redemption, or

elevation to the rank of a corporate town, or free borough. The era of

its arriving at this high, and proud distinction, was the 13th century;

whereas it was, before that period, the miserable abode of a horde of

slaves, the vassals of the lord bishops of the see in which it is

situated.

But though Lynn acquired then the rank and denomination of a free burgh,

it does not appear, that it also became possessed of equal freedom from

baronial domination, and feudal vassalage, with all the rest of our

corporate towns; or, that it actually arrived at that state or degree of

liberty, for a very long while after, even till the reign of _Henry_

VIII. about 300 years after it had been first declared a free burgh by

king _John_ and his successor. The time when it acquired the name of

_King’s Lynn_, seems, therefore, to be the true era of its actual, and

entire liberation from its former feudal encumbrances. Lynn then is a

place where the memory of the last Henry ought to be held dear, and where

he should be commemorated as one of its best benefactors. These,

however, are circumstances, not generally adverted to; but they seem to

be real matters of fact, and may deserve here some elucidation.

King _John_, granting to Lynn its charter of incorporation at the

instance of bishop _Grey_, who had so much interest with him, and to whom

he had very great obligations, was not likely to attempt to deprive him

of his baronial rights, or supreme power and jurisdiction, in this town:

nor do we know that the bishop was at all disposed to relinquish the

same. We accordingly find an express clause in the royal charter,

_saving to the said bishop and his successors_, _the liberties_, _&c.

which had previously belonged to the bishops of Norwich_. That this was

understood as securing to the bishops their former rights and authority

in this town, may be inferred from the general conduct of the succeeding

prelates for many generations, who seem to have been uniformly striving

to retain and perpetuate the said rights and authority, and keep the

inhabitants in their original state of subjection to them. Nor did the

mayor and corporation appear, at all, disposed to the point with their

lordships, except in very few instances; as in the time of bishops

_Spencer_, _Wakeryng_, and _Nix_, already noticed. There seems, also to

have been some stir, of the same sort, made in the time of bishop _Hart_,

or _Lyhart_, in the year 1446, and the corporation, probably, complained,

or appealed to the king, (Henry VI.) who then visited this town, and

seems to have favoured the cause of the corporation; for he is said to

have ordered the sword to be carried before the mayor. But the bishop

would not long submit to this royal order, for the very next year he had

the sword carried before himself, as formerly, the mayor following, as

one of his retinue or municipal officers. {387}

On the whole, therefore, it seems pretty evident that though Lynn became

a corporate town, and was declared a free burgh as early as the beginning

of the 13th century, yet it was not entirely freed from the temporal

jurisdiction of the bishop, and the hard yoke of feudal domination, and

so did not attain to equal liberty and independence with the generality

of our English boroughs till a good part of the 16th century had elapsed.

We accordingly find that the mayor and corporation, in the mean time, or

during most part of it, seemed perfectly ready to approve as well as

profess themselves the lordly prelate’s _humble tenants and devout

bedesmen_; giving him the most explicit and solemn assurance, “that he

should find in them _as lowly tenants as any that longed to him within

his lordships_,” and that their _bodies_ as well as _goods_ were entirely

at his service, &c. agreeably to the tenour of the above memorable letter

to bishop Wakeryng. {388}—We may therefore venture to affirm that this

town was, at most, but partially liberated from feudal vassalage, till

the period above specified; that is, within these 300 years; before which

the _mayors_ of Lynn appeared, or might justly be considered, as the

bishops’ head-men, chief bailiffs, or slave drivers; and the _aldermen_

as so many underlings, or petty officers, implicitly executing his

lordship’s paramount orders or commands.—Though the Charters might

sometimes be thought to entitle his worship and his brethren to greater

independence and a higher character, yet till then it does not seem that

they were enabled to assume their proper dignity and consequence. The

bishops being so powerful here, took care always to manage so as to

thwart and baffle all their attempts. Nor did there seem to be any

prospect of their succeeding in obtaining their proper station while the

bishop continued to retain a paramount sway and uncontrolled power in the

town. This the king, probably saw: and it might be one, if not the chief

reason of his requiring the bishops, _Nix_ and _Rugg_, to relinquish

their oppressive jurisdiction here. However that might be, it is certain

that his majesty deserved well of this corporation: and whatever their

ideas or feelings may have been, or may now be, on this point, it must be

said, that they ought to consider _Henry_ among the very chief of their

royal benefactors; with whom such princes as _Charles_ and _James_ the

second, can, surely, bear no comparison; to whom, nevertheless, _statues_

have been here erected!! {389}

CHAP. IV.

Further observations on the history of Lynn during the period under

consideration—probable state of the town, as to its internal police and

municipal economy previously to its being declared a free burgh and

receiving its first royal charter—changes resulting from that

event—statement of subsequent occurrences.

It has been already observed that Lynn was a place of considerable trade,

and of growing importance and opulence, at and before the Conquest.

Afterward its trade kept rapidly increasing; and in the reign of

_Richard_ I. it was become a place of distinguished eminence, insomuch

that it was called by William of Newburgh, who lived at that time, “a

noble city, or a city of note for its trade and commerce.” {390} Foreign

merchants had then a regular established connection and intercourse with

this town, and their ships and sailors frequented it in great numbers. A

considerable body of Jews also had settled here, and must have been among

the most active and useful part of its population; which further

corroborates the report of its being in those days a place of no small

commercial note and consequence, for those people were not likely to

settle, in any great numbers, except in places of that description. {391}

Indeed it seems pretty clear and certain that both in the reign of

Richard and that of his brother and successor John, Lynn ranked very high

among the trading towns of this kingdom, in point of commercial

importance: and it is recorded upon undoubted authority, that in the

sixth year of the last of those two reigns, (the date of our first royal

charter) the tax or tallage of the king at Lynn, amounted to 651_l._

whereas that of London at the same time amounted only to 836_l._ 12_s._

6_d._ {392} From which we may infer that the revenue which the crown

then derived from the trade of this town, was more than two thirds of

what it derived from that of London; and consequently that the trade

itself of this town did in the mean time bear the same proportion to that

of the metropolis; which may be presumed to have been the case of very

few places, if any, besides in the kingdom.—Lynn being allowed to have a

mint, or mints for the coining of money, belonging to the king and the

bishop, {393a} has been deemed another proof of the flourishing state of

the town at that period.

Of the government of Lynn, or its municipal economy in those times, very

little is known, except that it appears to have been under the management

of an officer who bore the name of _provost_, who doubtless was nominated

by the bishop, and acted as his bailiff or deputy; but whether he was

elected annually or held his office for a longer or shorter term, or

during the pleasure of his master, seems rather uncertain. He was,

however, the chief magistrate of the town, and had, of course, other

officers assisting and acting under him, like our chief magistrates of

more modern times. It is very provable that the order of things in this

town was not so materially changed by _king_ JOHN as some may imagine.

The chief alteration apparently was, that the town now ranked among those

incorporated by royal charter, was consequently declared a free burgh,

had its burgesses exempted from tolls, &c. in all parts of England, but

London; and finally, had its chief magistrate denominated _mayor_,

instead of _provost_, {393b} a circumstance, probably of no mighty

consequence, or real benefit to the community, though highly gratifying,

perhaps, to the pride and vanity of the corporation. The real

difference, however, between a _mayor_ and a _provost_, seems to be very

little, if any thing, more than that between _Tweedledum_ and

_Tweedledee_. The former indeed is generally taken to be the highest and

most honourable appellation, and therefore our corporations naturally

prefer it to the other, as the title of their head man, or chief

magistrate. After all, the inferiority of the _provost_ does not seem

always perceivable; and nobody, perhaps, would deem the _lord_ MAYOR _of

York_ as superior in dignity to the _lord PROVOST of Edinburgh_.

The smiles and favours of royalty are always gratifying to most people:

those of _king JOHN_ were so, no doubt, to his Lynn subjects, and may be

supposed to have confirmed them more than ever in their attachment to

him, which appears to have continued strong and steady afterwards during

the remainder of his reign. Of the worth and merit of that attachment,

his majesty seemed duly sensible: as a proof of which, they received from

him in return, some very flattering and lasting tokens, beside the

immunities and privileges specified in his charters; especially the

silver _cup_ which is still in being, and shewn to strangers and others

as a great curiosity. It is an elegant double-gilt, embossed, and

enamelled cup and cover, weighing 73 ounces, and of exquisite

workmanship, and shews the uncommon skill and ingenuity of some our

silver-smiths of that period, who were probably of the monkish order, as

our best artists, as well as most renowned scholars, were then chiefly to

be found within the solemn precincts of our monasteries.

The _sword_, which is usually carried before our mayors, has been also

considered as another mark or token of king _JOHN’S_ favour to this town;

but this appears a very questionable matter. This weapon, which has a

silver mounting, the king is said to have taken from his side, and given

to the corporation, to be carried before the major: but it does not

appear that there was a sword at all carried before our mayors as early

as the reign of king John, or even for a long time after. If such a

ceremony was really observed here before the reign of Henry V. or of

Henry VI. it must seemingly have been appropriated solely to the great

lords of the place, the bishops of Norwich, who appear, all along to have

claimed, that honour as their own peculiar, and exclusive prerogative:

the mayors having no share in it, but only as they followed their

masters, the bishops, and formed a part of their retinue. Bishop Gibson,

in his additions to Camden, observes that the present sword, though said

to have been given by king John, was really the gift of Henry VIII. after

the town came into his possession, and he changed their _burgesses_ into

aldermen. John’s charter does not mention the sword, but that granted by

Henry expressly says, that he granted them a sword to be carried before

their mayor. As to the inscription on the blade of the present sword,

purporting its being the gift of king John, it proves nothing, being

apparently the unauthorized contrivance of two forward fellows of the

town, a sword cutler and a school-master, as late as the reign of queen

Elizabeth. {395} But, however improbable it may be that the said _sword_

was ever the property of king John, and given by him as a present and

mark of his royal and special favour to this corporation, yet there does

not seem to be any just reason for entertaining similar doubts respecting

the _cup_ before-mentioned. The only circumstance relating to the cup

which one would be inclined to deem doubtful, or rather incredible, is a

certain sly insinuation, which has been sometimes heard, that it was a

part of a parcel of stolen goods, which his majesty, while on a visit at

Walsingham, contrived to pilfer from that celebrated abbey, and coming

afterward to Lynn, made a present of it to the corporation.

Lynn seems to have paid very dearly for the said king’s favours. Camden,

in his account of this town observes, that it enjoys very large

immunities, which its inhabitants “purchased of king John with the price

of their own blood, spent in the defence of his cause:” alluding,

probably, to the powerful assistance they afforded him in reducing the

disaffected barons of this county, whose subjugation proved an arduous

undertaking, and whom he afterwards severely chastised. The assistance

they rendered to this sovereign consisted not only in recruits for his

army, or a strong and resolute body of landsmen, but also in sailors and

ships for his naval operations: hence Lynn and Yarmouth are mentioned by

Carte among the principal places that furnished his majesty with a

_fleet_ to oppose that of France on a certain occasion. {396} In short,

the good people of this town appear to have assisted that memorable

monarch to the utmost of their ability, or in all the ways, and by all

the means that were in their power. He, on the other hand, is said to

have been very partial to them, and deemed them so trustworthy, and their

town so secure a place, that he deposited there, for some time his crown

and regalia, and his most valuable treasures; but took them away at his

last visit, and lost them all, soon after, in crossing the Wash, at an

improper place, or improper time; which he laid so to heart that it

hastened his death, which took place a very short time after at Newark.

There is indeed no small disagreement among our historians in their

accounts of king John after his last departure from Lynn. Some represent

him as crossing the _Wash_, or rather the _Ouse_, then called

_Wellstream_, at the _Cross Keys_; others represent him as crossing it at

_Wisbeach_, and the latter seems to be the truth. Some, again, ascribe

the illness which terminated his life, to _poison_, administered by a

monk of Swineshead; others ascribe it to _vexation_ for the loss of his

treasures; while others assure us that it is to be ascribed to neither of

these causes, but that he was ill before that disaster of losing his

treasures befel him. Nay, some have alleged, or suggested, that his last

illness originated at Lynn, and was occasioned by his intemperate living

during his stay here. In accounts different and contradictory, it is no

easy task to distinguish truth from fiction. It seems however to be

pretty well established that the said king left Lynn on the 11th of

October, 1216, was at Wisbeach on the 12th, at Sleaford on the 15th, and

at Newark on the 18th, where he died the very next day: but the story of

the poison seems very doubtful and even improbable; nor does that

concerning the loss of his crown and treasures seem perfectly clear and

indubitable. {398}

Even the fact that Lynn had been the depository of the king’s treasures,

with his crown and regalia, during his absence from these parts, and till

he removed them at his last departure, becomes very doubtful, or rather

quite improbable, if we believe Rapin’s assertion, from M. Paris, that

the king’s great competitor, the Dauphin, not long before, and within

that same year, had actually reduced Lynn, and made the whole county, as

well as those of Suffolk and Essex tributary to him. In that case, those

treasures, &c. if deposited here, must inevitably have fallen into the

Dauphin’s hands, and so be entirely lost to the king. We must therefore

either conclude that the alleged fact of Lynn having been the depository

of the said treasures, for any length of time, is unfounded, or that the

said assertion, that Lynn had been that year taken by the Dauphin, is so.

But as these matters are not very interesting, we will now drop them, and

also our account of king John for the present.

After the death of John, and in the reign of his son and successor, Henry

III. the people of Lynn, at one time, seem to have sided with the

malcontents of that period, and so forfeited their chartered rights: but

their defection was of no long duration; they returned to their duty with

every appearance of contrition, and soon gave full proof of the ardour,

as well as the unfeignedness of their loyalty. Camden says that they

“purchased their lost liberties of Henry III. not without blood, when

they sided with him against the outlawed barons, and unluckily engaged

them in the Isle of Ely. An account whereof we have in the book of Ely,

and in Matthew Paris.” {399a} The battle here alluded to was fought

somewhere about Littleport, where the Lynn volunteers of that day were

very roughly handled by their opponents, and lost a considerable number

of their people; of which mention has been made by several of our

historians. In the 8th and 9th years of that king’s reign, licence was

granted to foreign merchants to come with safety to the fair of Lenn; and

in the 11th year a talliage was granted to the king by the bishop. The

oath of the burghers then was, “You shall faithfully pay your talliage

made by the lord (bp.) at his will, of all your chattels’ of your own

property, whatever they are, and of the chattels of your wife, and all

that is your due to pay.” {399b} Thus payment was made upon oath; but

the tax was granted to the king by the bishop, without the concurrence of

the burghers; and also assessed and levied by him _at his will_, without

check or control. In such a case, and under such circumstances, it might

be reasonably supposed there would be some misdoings, and not a few

causes of complaint, and that misunderstanding would arise between his

lordship and his Lynn vassals, which might lead to very serious results.

That it really did so happen appears from authentic documents.

Sometime after the above taxation, the people or burgesses of Lynn,

dissatisfied, it seems, with the arbitrary and oppressive proceeding of

their lord, the bishop, in that instance, and questioning his right to

tax them at will, or without their consent, took upon them to tax

themselves without consulting him, as well as to elect a mayor also

without his permission. This his lordship greatly resented, as

absolutely illegal and highly criminal: and he also, very sorely felt it,

no doubt, as deeply affecting his own baronial claims here, or

endangering his feudal dominion. He accordingly proceeded against them

in the ecclesiastical court, and had them all excommunicated. In that

grievous dilemma, and from so arbitrary and galling a sentence, they

appealed to the king’s justices at Westminster, before whom the affair

underwent a legal investigation: of which, and its result, the following

account is given by Parkin.

“In the 8th. of this king (Henry III.) a fine was levied, at

Westminster in Trinity term, before Robert Lexington, William de

York, Ralph de Norwich, William de Lisle, Adam Fitz-William, and

Ralph de Rokele, the king’s justices, between the mayor and

burgesses, querents, and Thomas Blundevile, bishop of Norwich,

deforcient. The Mayor &c. complained, that the bishop had impleaded

them in a court christian (ecclesiastical or spiritual court) and had

excommunicated them, because they had created a mayor among

themselves, and had taxed and talliaged themselves, in the said burgh

without his assent; and it was agreed between them in the said court,

that the bishop should grant for himself and successors, and his

church of Norwich, that the said burgesses, for the future, may chuse

and create to themselves a mayor, whomsoever they pleased of their

own body, on this condition, That immediately after his election, or

creation, they should present him to the bishop and his successors,

wherever they should be in the diocese of Norwich; who on the

presentation should be admitted by the bishop without any

contradiction: and for this fine and concord, the mayor and burgesses

grant for themselves, their heirs and successors, that whosoever

shall be so created and elected mayor by them, shall promise on his

good faith and fealty, by which he is engaged to the bishop, and his

successors, that he will observe all things that belong to his

office, as long as he shall continue therein, and preserve, as much

as is in his power, the liberties of the church of Norwich. This

agreement and fine was made in the presence of the king, who

consented to it. This king, as appears from many instances, sate

frequently in the court of king’s bench at the head of his justices.”

{401}

It does not appear from the above account how the taxation or assessment

business was then settled; but it seems most probable that it was taken

out of the hands both of the bishop and the burgesses, and committed to

the management of certain officers appointed by the crown. It is likely

indeed that that point had been previously settled, and that the names of

the first officers, or assessors, are still preserved: for we are told

that “in the 17th. of the said reign, (which was the year preceding that

of the above trial) Thomas de Milton, and Warin, son of Imbert, were

named by the king, to assess the talliage, and all the demeans of the see

of Norwich.” {402} This point therefore might not come under discussion

in the above trial at Westminster. But the case of creating, or choosing

a mayor, seems to have been there very carefully investigated. The

result was (as above stated) that the right of the burgesses, to elect a

mayor from among themselves, was fully established; on the express

condition, however, that, immediately after his election they should

present him to the bishop, wherever he should be within the diocese; who

on his part was to receive him without any refusal, disapproval, or,

contradiction.

From the preceding statement one would be apt to conclude, that the right

of the burgesses to choose a mayor, independently of the bishop’s will

and pleasure, was now fully settled and that his lordship would no longer

presume to interfere, either directly or indirectly, on that occasion.

But it cannot be affirmed that the event warrants that conclusion. The

lust of power is a strong passion, and not very soon or easily subdued.

The bishops having so long borne uncontrolled sway in the direction and

management of every thing in this town, it was not to be expected that

they would be very ready to resign or relinquish it. The mayors here

from the first, it seems, were called _The bishop’s men_, and their

lordships appeared always desirous to perpetuate the appellation, or, at

least, to do all in their power to prevent its becoming inapplicable.

Though the words of charters, the opinions of judges, and even the

declarations of kings, might appear against them, yet they were scarcely

ever at a loss for ways and means to surmount or evade all such

difficulties, and secure their own beloved power and preponderance. So

the case seems to have been at Lynn for a very long period. Neither the

provision of charters, the verdict of judges, nor the orders of princes,

could effect any material or lasting diminution of the exorbitant power

of the bishop over this town, till the 16th century. It appeared like an

inveterate evil, or incurable malady, until it felt the royal touch of

Henry VIII. when it gave way at once, and underwent a radical and perfect

cure.

As to the above agreement between the contending parties at Westminster,

it does not appear that the bishops thought proper long, if at all, to

act in compliance with it, and so refrain from any further interference

in the election of appointment of a chief magistrate. This must have sat

uneasy on the minds of the corporation, and they would naturally, and

perhaps repeatedly complain to their sovereign against so oppressive an

infringement of their municipal rights. Even the king himself also would

feel it as an insult offered to him, as he was personally present when

the agreement was made, and had sanctioned it by his own express

approbation. On this ground we may account for that clause in the

charter which he granted to our burgesses in the 52nd year of his reign,

in which he not only confirms their former liberties, but also allows

them to choose a mayor of themselves, _without presenting him to the

bishop_. This last exemption from a former obligation and customary

observance, seems plainly to indicate that the bishop had taken some such

undue advantage of his power and influence as was before suggested; of

which his majesty now thought proper to signify his entire

disapprobation, by discharging the burghers from every obligation to pay

his lordship any further regard, in their future choice or appointment of

a chief magistrate. This the bishop must have felt somewhat mortifying.

But as his feudal jurisdiction here still continued unabolished, it was

not likely he would be long at a loss to find means to evade the force or

operation of that humiliating clause, and secure or reestablish his

wonted preeminence. That it actually did so happen, appears but too

evident by all that we know of the subsequent history of the town. Every

attempt to reduce the bishop’s predominance here, during the period of

which we are now treating, proved unsuccessful. The burgesses never

could effectually shake off his yoke, or cease to be his vassals and

subjects; and even their elections of mayors, in general, if not always,

might be compared to the modern conge d’elire elections of bishops, by

our Deans and Chapters.

During the long reign of which we have been speaking, this kingdom

suffered extremely from civil discord and intestine commotions, and the

inhabitants of Lynn bore their share in those sufferings. Great numbers

of their people perished in a bloody and unfortunate engagement against

the barons, up in the country somewhere towards Littleport, as has been

before noticed; which must have proved a most distressing calamity to the

whole town, and especially to the wives and children and other relatives

of the vanquished and slaughtered warriors. The enemy, being so strong

and formidable in and about the Isle of Ely, must also have cut off all

communication between Lynn and that district, and even interrupted its

intercourse with all the interior parts of the country, as he had the

entire command of the rivers and channels of internal navigation. This

seems to have continued a long while, and must have distressed this town

in a very great degree. It appears, however, to have been quite over,

and tranquillity fully restored in the 41st year of that reign, as we

find the mayor and burgesses were that year commanded by the king to

permit the men of Ely to come here to sell their beer, and exercise

merchandise, as they had been used to do before the disturbance. {405a}

In the 50th year the same reign, as we are further informed, the king’s

purveyors bought at Lynn 36 tuns of wine, which the sheriff of Norfolk

was ordered to have conveyed to his majesty, then at the siege of

Kenilworth, or Kennelworth Castle, in Warwickshire. {405b} This also

shews that there were then no very serious or dangerous commotions in the

parts about the Fens, and westward of Lynn, otherwise it would have been

out of the sheriff’s power to have the said wine conveyed across that

country, and to his majesty’s camp before Kennelworth. It however

alleged by our historians that the malecontents who seized upon the Isle

of Ely were the last that held out, and that they did not surrender till

after the reduction of Kennelworth Castle. However that was, it is

allowed that the rebellion was now soon quelled, and that the country

afterwards enjoyed peace and tranquillity, for a long period.

It was in this king’s reign, as was before observed, that the Ouse and

other rivers deserted their ancient and natural course by Wisbeach, and

after inundating the fen country to a very great extent, from the effect

of which it has never yet recovered, forced their passage into the sea by

Lynn. A neglecting of the old outfall, which occasioned the choking up

of the channel and impeding the course of the waters, in the time of a

great flood, has been assigned as the cause of that memorable event. But

as the malcontents had for sometime occupied the fens, and made their

last stand there, and as the inundation might conduce materially to their

defence, it seems very natural to suspect that they also had some hand in

the business. Yet as our historians are silent on this head, we cannot

affirm it as a matter of fact. The event proved, no doubt, detrimental

to Wisbeach; and yet not materially advantageous, at least, not

immediately so, to Lynn. Nor does it appear that even our harbour was at

all improved by so large an accession of fresh water: on the contrary,

for aught we know, the approach from the sea to this town was quite as

good before as it has been since. It may be said however to be an event

that somewhat contributes to preserve the memory of the third Henry,

among the people of these parts. The character of this monarch is well

known, and is no way worthy of respect or imitation. He was great in

nothing but the vileness of his government and the length of his reign,

which extended to the 57th year: the longest of any English reign, for

the last ten centuries. For the evils of which, and of all the bad and

unfortunate reigns that have occurred ever since that period, many, it is

supposed, will deem the blessed prosperity of the present wise and happy

reign as more than a sufficient counterbalance and

compensation—especially, if it should also last as long, or still longer

than that of Henry III. which seems not at all improbable: and who is it,

within this favoured country, but does consider this as a consummation

most devoutly to be wished?

CHAP. V.

State of society at Lynn during the period under consideration—the

subject may be elucidated from documents relative to our ancient

Gilds—observations on the nature of those fraternities—very common in

this country before the reformation—names and number of those of Lynn.

It is sad enough to think, that during so long an interval as that

between the conquest and the reformation, the good people of Lynn should

never be able entirely to emancipate themselves from their feudal

vassalage. But as that desirable object always proved to them

unattainable, they appear to have submitted to their hard fate with

exemplary patience and forbearance; well knowing, it seems, to use the

words of the old adage, that what cannot be cured must be endured. It is

much to be doubted if their descendants, or rather their successors of

the present day, would have endured what they did with equal propriety

and long suffering. We are indeed but imperfectly acquainted with the

social complexion, or characteristic features of the community here in

those times; but from what we do know, there is reason to think

favourably of the prevailing disposition of the inhabitants. Except in

the shocking affair of the poor Jews, and what happened in the time of

bishop Spencer and of bishop Wakeryng, and of the two aldermen Wentworth

and Petipas, already noticed, we perceive no vestige here of tumultuous

risings or factious combinations. Industry and harmony appear generally

to have prevailed at Lynn, and the community seldom failed in the duty of

submission to their superiors, or of obeying the higher powers.

On the state of society in this town, during the period now under

consideration, nothing perhaps throws so much light as certain existing

documents relating to out ancient Gilds, which seem to have been more

numerous here than any where else in the kingdom. They were friendly

associations formed for the mutual benefit of their respective members.

Some of them were large trading companies, holding considerable

possessions, in houses, lands, and mercantile property. Others were of a

humbler sort, suited to the convenience and wants of those who moved in a

lower sphere, and constructed on principles, perhaps, somewhat similar to

those of our modern purse clubs, or benefit societies. All were

calculated to help the individuals who composed them, to pass through

life more comfortably, obtain a more easy and plentiful subsistence,

cherish love and goodwill within their respective circles, and promote

the peace and welfare of the town or community in general.

The Gilds, certainly, form a most prominent feature in the character of

the ancient inhabitants of Lynn. They were indeed very common in this

country before the reformation, and during the period we are now

considering; but were more numerous in this town than anywhere else we

know of, which is a very remarkable and, perhaps, unaccountable

circumstance. It seems very honourable to the memory of our

forefathers—more so, probably, than any thing else we can mention; and

therefore we shall dwell upon the subject with the greater pleasure. It

shews that there was then among the inhabitants a prevailing or general

disposition to assist one another, and to give to every honest individual

an opportunity to place himself in such a situation as would not fail of

bettering his condition, and procuring him useful friends and reputable

associates.

These useful institutions, in most other places, only amounted to one or

two, or a few, by which only a small part of the population could be very

materially benefited by them. But here they were formed on a large

scale, and multiplied to _above thirty_; some of them varying pretty much

from others, to suit, as we may suppose, the different conditions of the

inhabitants, all, or most of whom might consequently accommodate

themselves, or easily find a fraternity whose constitution exactly

corresponded, with their respective capacities, wants, or wishes.—Our

Gilds had all of them a strong tincture of religion, or rather of

superstition, according to the prevailing fashion of the times. In that

view they exhibited, no doubt, a large portion of weakness, ignorance,

and absurdity. But they appear to have been very free from that

jealousy, bigotry, and ill will towards each other, which too often

disgrace the religious fraternities of the present day, who look upon one

another with such an evil eye, that they may be too justly said to hate

one another. Trusting in themselves that they are righteous, they

despise others, and are ready to say to their neighbours, and all who

differ from them, stand by yourselves, come not near to us, for we are

holier than you. While they inveigh against Pharisees, and a pharisaical

spirit, they give impartial and intelligent bystanders every reason to

think, that they are themselves, in fact, the Pharisees of the present

day, and are led by the very spirit against which they declaim. But we

will drop this subject for the present, and resume that of the Gilds,

which we shall here handle under different heads, or sections.

SECTION I.

_Observations on the origin of our ancient Gilds_. {411}

The author of a late publication, entitled _Caledonia_, gives it as his

opinion, that the monks were the earliest Gild brethren, and had

exclusive privileges of trade and of fishery when boroughs had scarcely

an existence. To which the annual reviewer of that work objects, and

affirms that the origin of Gilds lies hidden in obscurity inaccessible:

and against the idea of their being of monkish origin, he urges, their

being constructed so much on the principles of a purse club, that they

can hardly not have been founded by married men. {412} The truth seems

to be, that they originated among the Anglo-Saxons, long before the

Conquest, if not also before their conversion to Christianity, and the

commencement of English monkery. At first, they may be supposed to

assume a simple and homely appearance, among the civil institutions of

the Anglo-Saxon community; but afterwards to pass through different

changes, and especially after the conquest, when the general state of

society and the whole order of things experienced so considerable a

revolution. They were then, at first, perhaps, put down or laid aside,

and afterwards revived and resumed: at least, we hear little or nothing

of them under the first Norman kings, or till about the 13th century.

The most common and prevailing opinion seems to be, that the gilds sprung

from the Anglo-Saxons _tithings_: though it may, perhaps, be questioned,

if the tithings themselves did not take their rise from them. Jacob,

from Camden, informs us,—

“that the origin of gilds and fraternities is said to be from the

Saxon law, by which neighbours entered into an association, and

became bound for each other, to bring forth him who committed any

crime, or make satisfaction to the party injured; for which purpose

they raised a sum of money among themselves, and put it into a common

stock, whereout a pecuniary compensation was made according to the

quality of the offence committed. From hence came our fraternities

and gilds: and they were in use in this kingdom long before any

formal licences were granted for them: though at this day [that is,

in Camden’s time] they are a company combined together, with orders

and laws made by themselves, by the prince’s licence.” {413a}

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

“The original of Gilds, says he, is thus related: it being a law

among the Saxons, that every freeman {413b} of fourteen years old

should find sureties to keep the peace, or be committed to prison;

certain neighbours [therefore] entered into an association,

[consisting of ten families,] and became bound for each other, either

to produce him who committed an offence, or to make satisfaction to

the injured party. That they might the better do this, they raised a

sum of money among themselves, which they put into a common stock;

and when one of their pledges had committed an offence, and was fled,

then the other nine made satisfaction out of this stock, by payment

of money according to the offence. Because this association

consisted of ten families, it was called a _decennary_: hence came

our fraternities. In observance of the above law, or custom, as the

same writer informs us, the sheriffs at every county court did from

time to time take the oaths of young persons, as they arrived at the

age of fourteen, and see that they belonged to one _decennary_ or

another.” {413c}

Such is the account given by these writers of the ancient decennaries or

tythings, from which the gilds are supposed to have sprung; but it seems

uncertain, after all, whether the gilds sprung from the decennaries, or

the decennaries from them, or which of the two is the most ancient. They

might be coëval, and grow up together: and the gilds having survived the

decennaries might occasion their being supposed to have sprung from them.

Turner, the ingenious historian of the Anglo-Saxons, seems also to

ascribe to them the origination of Gilds: and he observes, that the

gilds, or social confederations, in which many of those people chose to

arrange themselves, deserve very particular attention. Among other

things, he says, that their gilds are sometimes alluded to in the laws.

If a man without paternal relations should fight and kill another, then

his maternal kinsmen were ordered to pay one third of the Were, his gild

a third, and for the other part his gild was to escape. In London there

appears to have been free gilds. In a charter of Canterbury, the three

companies of the Citizens within the walls, and those without, are

mentioned. Domesday also mentions a Gild of the Clergy in that city. In

short, Gilds appear to have been very common, and in great request among

the Anglo-Saxons. They seem on the whole, as our author thinks, to be

friendly associations, made for mutual aid and contribution, to meet the

pecuniary exigencies which were perpetually arising, from burials, legal

exactions, penal mulcts, and other payments, or compensations. That much

good fellowship was connected with them, cannot be doubted. The fines of

their own imposition imply that the materials of conviviality were not

forgotten. In short, he thinks they may be called the Anglo-Saxon

clubs.—Even the more uncommon species of those confederations, called

_Gilda Mercatoria_, _or Merchant’s Gild_, seems to have existed among the

same people. That in mercantile and Seaports, says the same author,

there were also gilds and fraternities of men constituted for the purpose

of carrying on more successful enterprizes in commerce, even in the

Anglo-Saxon times, appears to be a fact. Domesday, (he adds,) mentions

the Gihalla, or Guildhall of the burghers of Dover. {415}

The Gilds of Lynn, however, cannot be traced to so remote a period as

that of the Anglo-Saxons. There may, indeed, have been gilds here at

that period, and the fact can hardly be doubted, as they were then so

much in vogue, but we have no traces of them now remaining. All the Lynn

Gilds, whose names and remains have reached our time, seem to have sprung

up long after the conquest. Of them we shall treat in the ensuing pages.

SECTION II.

_Names and Number of our ancient Gilds_; _with some additional

observations_.

Of the Lynn Gilds our printed books give but a very imperfect and

wretched account. Their list of names is extremely defective, and the

idea which they give of those institutions is equally so. For a more

correct and ample information on this subject we are chiefly indebted to

Mr. King’s MS. volume, before mentioned, which was compiled about a

hundred years ago, by some unknown hand, or hands, from certain ancient

and authentic documents, which seem no longer to exist. Both Mackerell

and Parkin appear to have seen this volume, but they have not availed

themselves of it to the extent they might have done. Even its most

curious and interesting parts they have left unnoticed. In the latter

part of this volume is inserted the following “Catalogue of the Gildes in

the Towne of Lynn”—amounting in all to thirty one. They stand in the

following order: 1. The Gild of _St. George_. 2. The Gild of _St.

Erasmus_. 3. The Gild of _St. John Baptist_. 4. The Gild of _St. Gyles

and St. Julian_. 5. The Gild of _St. Ethelerede_. 6. The Gild of _St.

Margarett_. 7. The Gild of _St. Anne_. The Gild of the 12 _Apostles_.

9. The Gild of _St. Christopher_. 10. The Gild of _our Lady_. 11. The

Gild of _St. Micheal the Archangel_. 12. The Gild of _St. Nicholas_.

13. The Gild of _St. Awdreys_. 14. The Gild of _St. Michael and King

Henry_. 15. The Gild of _St. Cyprian_. 16. The Gild of _St. Fabian and

St. Sabestian_. 17. The Gild of _St. Lawrence_. 18. The Gild of _St.

Agnes_. 19. The Gild of _Corpus Christi_. 20. The Gild of the

_Trinity_. 21. The gild of _St. Andrew_. 22. The Gild of _Holy Rood_.

23. The Gild of _St. Lovis_. 24. The Gild of _St. Austin_. 25. The Gild

of _St. Barbara_. 26. The Gild of _St. Antony_. 27. The Gild of _St.

Stephen_. 28. The Gild of _St. Francis_. 29. The Gild of the

_Shoemakers_. 30. The _Red Gild_. 31. The Gild of _St. William_,

trading to North Bern.

Such a large number of these fraternities, in such a place as Lynn, and

at such a period, must appear not a little extraordinary, and what seems

very difficult, if not impossible, to account for, but on the

supposition, that there existed here, in the mean time, a very

respectable degree of public and social virtue, or in other words a

prevailing disposition among the inhabitants to promote each other’s

interest and happiness. Upon that idea they must be thought very highly

as nothing could well be more creditable or honourable to their memory.

A tribute of respect, which seems to be so fairly and justly their due,

ought not to be here withheld from them.—Nor should it here pass

unnoticed, that Lynn is still distinguished for a respectable number of

similar institutions; that is to say, for its purse-clubs, or benefit

societies, the gilds of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their number is

about _twenty_; and their members, altogether, may amount to 700, or

more; but, as most of them have families, the benefit or advantage of

these useful associations may be supposed to extend, perhaps, to more

than three times that number. Of the real and important utility of these

social institutions no doubt can be entertained. The fact is universally

admitted. They are certainly beneficial, not only to the individuals

more immediately concerned, but even to the community at large, by

keeping a great many honest and industrious people from becoming

burdensome to the parishes to which they belong.—It ought also to be

remarked that the benefits resulting from these estimable institutions

are to be attributed neither to the wisdom of government, nor yet to the

fostering care of the corporation, but merely to the very commendable

thoughtfulness and virtue of the individuals that compose them. But here

is not the place to enlarge upon this topic: we shall therefore drop it

for this time, and resume the former subject.

Of these thirty one Gilds, above named, several seem to have been of the

higher order of those associations, or of the mercantile sort, consisting

of trading or commercial adventurers, who enjoyed certain privileges by

grants from the crown. This appears to have been the case with the 1st

the 4th, the 19th the 20th, and 31st in the above catalogue; that is, the

Gild of _St. George_, that of _St. Gyles_ and _St. Julian_, that of

_Corpus Christi_, that of the _Trinity_, and that of _St. William_,

trading to north Bern. There might probably be some few more of the same

description. All the rest, it is supposed, were friendly associations,

formed for the benefit of the lower orders of freemen, that is, of those

who were not in a state of villanage, for none of the latter appear to

have been admitted into those fraternities. Poor creatures! they were

debarred from all such advantages and comforts! In further considering

the Lynn gilds, we shall take them in the order in which they stand in

the catalogue, though it does not seem to be the most regular and natural

order, that of seniority.

SECTION III.

_A more particular account of some of the Lynn Gilds_.

1. St. _George’s Gild_. Of this fraternity the following account is

given by Parkin—

“Henry IV. by his letters patent, gave and granted licence to John

Brandon, Bartholomew Sistern, and John Snailwell of Lenne Epispopi,

that they might make, found, and establish to the honor of God, and

the glorious martyr, St. George a certain fraternity, brotherhood,

and perpetual Guild of themselves and others, who out of their

devotion, were willing to be of the said fraternity: and that

brothers and sisters of the fraternity and guild for the time being

might chuse, make, and ordain one alderman, and four custodes of the

said fraternity and guild, yearly, for the good and profit of the

same, and out of the brethren of the said fraternity and guild: and

that the said alderman and custodes and their successors, by the

names of the alderman and custodes of the said guild, should have

power, and be able to take, receive, and hold, any lands, tenements,

rents, and possessions whatsoever, or should be by any ways or means

granted to them, and to do in all other respects, &c. and to act as

the rest of his liege subjects, or persons do, and have power, and

are enabled to act.—And further the said king, out of his abundant

grace, granted and gave licence, by his said, letters parent, for

himself and his heirs, to the aforesaid alderman and custodes and

their successors, for the time being, that they might receive and

hold to themselves and their successors for ever, and purchase of J.

March the right that Richard Waterden had therein of all that

tenement, with a kay adjoining, with all its buildings and

appertenances in Lenn aforesaid, which belonged to Robert Baylly,

which tenement is in the street called Cheker, between the tenement

formerly of John de Couteshale and the heirs of the late William

Bytering, now of William Hundredpound, and the heirs of the late John

Wyntworth, on the south part, the tenement formerly of Nicholas

Swerdeston, late of John Wyghton, wherein Walter Tudenham now dwells,

and extends itself in length from the common way towards the west to

the tenement formerly of Dominick Baude, afterwards of Richard Denne,

lately of John Grene, clerk, then of Thomas Botekesham to the east.

And the aforesaid kay lies opposite to the said tenement, in breadth,

between the kay formerly of the aforesaid John Couteshale, lately of

the aforesaid John Wyntworth, to the south, and the common lane,

(venellam) called cornlane, on the north, and extends itself from the

common way to the east, to the great bank (ripam) of Lenne, to the

west, as well as for the maintenance of one or two chaplains, as to

pray for the good estate of the king and his most beloved consort

Joan, queen of England, as long as they lived, and for their souls

after their deaths, and for the souls of their most beloved father

and mother, deceased, as also for the good state of all and singular

the brothers and sisters of the fraternity and guild aforesaid,

according to the will and ordinance of the aforesaid alderman, the

custodes, and their successors.” {420}

This Gild, it is said, received many other grants of lands and tenements

from Henry V. which probably might also be the case from some of the

succeeding princes. But at the reformation it was dissolved, as were

also the rest, at least those that were of a trading nature: {421a} all

whose possessions, it is supposed, were given to the corporation by

Edward VI.—The premises here described were in Checker Street, and

comprehended the Gild Hall of the fraternity, called St. George’s Hall,

now the Play-house. {421b}

From the above extract the reader may form some idea of our ancient gild

of St. George. But in order to have a more accurate and perfect

conception of it, and of the others, all the following accounts must be

compared together. Of most of our gilds we have only the names. Of

others some further information is still obtainable, of which the author

will endeavour in these pages to make the best use he can. It may be

here just observed, that the gilds of the higher order appear to have

their respective _altars_ in the different churches of the town, which

shews how much religion was blended with those institutions, and what a

high character for sanctity the members assumed. They had also their

respective _chaplains_, to act as their proper religious functionaries,

and pray for the souls of their members and benefactors, dead as well as

living.

Of the second and third gild in the above catalogue, that is, those of

_St. Erasmus_ and of _St. John Baptist_, we have been able to obtain no

further information. They were probably of the lower description of

these fraternities, and having no large possessions attached to them,

they left behind scarcely any trace or memorial of their existence. They

might, for all that, be very respectable in their day, and their members

be as useful and worthy members of the community as those who composed

the great trading or mercantile gilds.

Of the fourth gild in the catalogue, that of _St. Gyles_ and _St.

Julian_, we know more than of the two last mentioned. This, in its day,

must have been a notable gild. It was founded in the 14th century, and

in the reign of Richard II. as appears from the following very curious

document, preserved in Mr. King’s book, and which is here given in the

original orthography—

“In the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Ladie Seynt Marie,

and of all the holy company of heaven, and speciallith of the holy

corsayntis Seynt Gyles and Seynt Julian, This Gild is ordeynd and

begonnen ye year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1384.—And this Gild

shall be holden at Lenn the Sunday next after ye ffeast of the

apostelis Peter and Paul, that the alderman and gild bretheren and

sisters of this gild shal gone togeder to ye church of Seynt James of

Lenn orderly and manly two and two togedir, and offer there at ilke

messes each brother and sisters ob. upon payn of a pound of wax.—Also

ordeynd is that the alderman of the gild and also the gild brothers

and sisters shal dyen togedir every general day and each brother and

sister shall pay to ye subsidie and costages of this gild 8_d_ on the

morng. after the general day without any long abideing, as well those

that are absent as those that are present, except the officers, that

is to say, the alderman, 4 skyveyns, clerk, and dean, which shall no

subsidie pay for the time they are in office.—And also it is ordeynd

that what brother or sister of this gylde yt is in the towne of Lynne

or in 40 mile and in heela and will not come to his general day and

to his mornspech and does as is aforesaid and make none attone for

him he shall pay for the amendment of the gild as oft sithes as may

be P’nd on him 6_s._ 8_d._ without any forgiveness.—And also ordeynd

it is that what man that will bene a brother of this gilde from this

time aforesaid shall not be received but at the genll. day, or at the

mornspech, and that he have 2 bretheren to withness with him yt he is

good man and able and of good conversation before ye alderman & all

ye gild bretheren, & he shall pay to the profith of this house 6_d._

that is to say, to ye wax 2_d._ to the alderman 2_d._ to the clerke

1_d._ to the dean 1_d._—And also each man yt shll enter into this

gild for to be a brother, he shll pay for his entry to ye increase of

ye chattels of ye gild 13_s._ 4_d._ and find a sufficient {423} to

pay it within ye first year after his coming in upon pain of double

or his {424a} for him.—And also if any brother or sister of this gild

be deed in ye towne of Lenn ye dean shall warn all ye gild bretheren

& sisters yt are in towne to go to ye church with ye cors & offer

each man a ffarthing, & who comandett & is in towne & in hele on this

maner he shll not come nor do as is aforesaid, he shll pay to the

amendment of this gild one pound of wax, and if the dean fail of

comanding ilke brother and sister yt is in towne & none comand he

shall payen 1_d._—And what brother or sister of this gild be deed in

ye contre or in any other place as soon as ye alderman may wit it he

shall see the dean warn all the gild bretheren & sisters yt are in

Lenn & in hele to go with him to ye church of St. James aforesaid &

so sing a messe for him or hir yt is dede as if the body were there

present & offer in ye maner aforesaid upon ye paine aforesaid & whoso

be not in towne nor offer in ye manner aforesaid nor with the corps

where it is buryed he shall pay at next mornspech after a ffarthing,

& yt shall be done for the soul of him or hir yt is dede by ye

ordeynance of ye alderman and ye officers.—And where yt any of ye

bretheren dye in ye countre & any of his bretheren be near him be 10

miles he shll go to ye place where as he is dede & ordeyne & see yt

his goods be saved & kept & done for his soul as best is after ye

will of him yt is dede upon ye payn of 6_s._ 8_d._—Also it is ordeynd

yt no brother or sister of yis gild shall amerse no emplead either in

courte nor in consistorie nor in non other place for no maner of

cause till he have revealed his greivance to ye alderman or his

deputy & have leive of him upon payn of 2_l._ {424b} if ye alderman

nor his deputy may not accord hem he shll gife hem leive for to

persue ye same yt way they hope best to spede.—And also what brother

of this gild yt bete upon or mysay other in contre or in any other

place and it may be proved on hym he shall pay to ye amendment of

this gild a stone of wax and make amends to hym that he trespass

to.—An if any brother or sister of this gilde or other in strange

place or in coledge in power or in mischief through theves or other

sudeyne {425a} shall releve him after yat his state is in—And whose

trespass agst ye alderman or any of ye gilde bretheren in time of

mornspech or of drinke or of any other time unskilfullich he shall

pay to ye amendment of this gild 6_d._ and make his peace yt he

trespasst.—And while the Gild plener drynketh ye alderman shll have

every night gallon of ale, either skyvans a pottle, ye clerke a

pottle, & ye dean a pottle.—And who is chosen in office of alderman &

he forsake his office he shll pay to ye amendment of the gild 20_s._

each skyvan 10_s._ & ye Dean 3_s._ 4_d._ and ye clerke 6_d._—And the

clerke shall have for his travail by ye year 3_s._ {425b}—And whosoe

discover the counseil of this gilde to any strange man or woman shall

pay to ye amendment of this gilde 10_s._ without any forgiveness.

{425c}—And whosoe enter in the house where the ale lithe without leve

of the officers he shall pay to ye amendment of yis gild 4_d._—Also

ordeynd it is by ye alderman and gild bretheren that the Skyveyns yat

shall have ye cattel of this Gild in hand each of ym shall find 2

sureties to bring ye cattel of ye gild every generall mornspech or

their sureties for ym & lay it down with the increase thereof afore

ye alderman & ye gild brotherg each of ym upon paine of the double

yat he have received.—Also it is ordeynd yt ye bretheren of this gild

shall be hooded in . . . {426a} every year and have ye use of his

hood 2 year, & whosoe refuse his hood or give it away within 2 years

shll pay to ye amendment of ye gild 3s. 4d.—Also it is ordeynd yat no

brother in time of mornspech shall gone oute of ye Hall {426b} nor

stand no roome time of mornspeck no of drynke withouten leve of ye

alderman in lettyng of ye officers upon payne of 1lb. of wax.—And

also ordeynd is that if any brother of yis gild use snarlings, false

weights or measures, or any other such thing that may be reputed as

vilany to ye company he shll pay to ye amendment of this gilde 20_s._

as often sithes as it may be proved on him without any

forgiveness.—Also ordeynd it is yt this company shll have a Preist to

sing for them, & each bro. & sister shll pay each year to ye costage

of ye Preist aforesaid 6d. {426c}—Also it is ordeynd yt after ye

bretheren and sisters have dyned togedir on ye generall day ther

shall no mo meles ben holden afterwd but bread & cheese & drink.—Also

it is ordeynd yat whosoe will bene a brother of this Gild he shall

not be received by ye alderman & all ye company at ye generall day, &

yt he have 2 sufficient sureties of ye gild as well as of his

entrance as of his good beryng & honest.—Also it is ordeynd by ye

alderman & all ye gild bretheren yt ye alderman shall call up 4 men,

which 4 men shll call up 8 men to ym to gone on ye election to chosen

ye officers of ye Gild, yt is to say, an alderman, 4 Skyveyns, 1

clerke, & 1 dean, but they shll no man chuse to none of these offices

of ym yt are of ye election for yt year, & also what brother

rebelleth or letteth ye alderman in ye first 4 calling he shll be

fined to ye use of ye company 20s. so often as he so doth.—Also ye

election have ordeynd at ye geull mornspech in ye yr of our Lord 1406

yt they yt come in as bretheren shll there take his charge and find

sufficient securities for their enterance, yt is to say 13s. 4d.

which shll belong to Lenn _holy company_ abateing and also they yt

bene as bretheren but be lawful for ym with yt subsidy to make ym

merry there and if so think to ye company as bene more proffit to ye

Gild to send home ye money of ye entres of ye bretheren yat come

in—Also it is ordeind by ye election ye 1st. day of July year of ye

reign of Henry 5th. they have ordeynd that this company shll none

have [hoods {427}] but at every 2 yrs end.—Also ordeynd yt no man

shll have hooding but be paid therefore as cometh thereto.—Also it is

ordeynd by ye same election yt wht bro. dye of this company he shll

have sung for him 30 messes for his soul so soon as it is known yt he

is dead and yt shll be done after ye old manner of ye alderman & ye

officers yt shll be for ye time.—It is ordeynd by ye alderman & all

ye bretheren yt what come into ye said Gild shall pay 7s.—Also it is

ordeynd by ye election of the company by ye alderman & all ye

bretheren yt ye skyveynts shall find all ye costs of ye house.”

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

“These be ye names of ye flounders and benefactors of ye Gild of St.

Gyles and St. Julian holden in St Jame’s church in Lenn.”

“Edmd. Bellyter, Mercht. Tho. Constantyn, Esq. & Margaret his

daughter, William Inot, Mercht. Founders of ye Gild of St. Gyles and

St. Julian holden, &c.”

[I.e. in St. Jame’s church in Lenne, as before.—Then are added the names

of the principal subsequent benefactors, as we may suppose.]

“Tho. Hulyett, Mercht. Robt. Braybroke, Mercht. Walter Coney,

Mercht. William Wallis, Mercht. William Nicholson, Mercht. Robt.

Scryme, & Julian his wife, John Soame, Richd. Evelyn, Mercht. Wm.

Amfles, Mercht. John Taylor, Mercer, Richd. Amfles, Mercht.—Special

benefactors of ye said Gild, & for all ye bretheren and sisters souls

of this said Gild, & for all xn Souls.”

From some notes, in the same volume, immediately following the above long

extract, it appears that there was an _Almshouse_ connected with the said

Gild, or under its patronage, from the first: Also that there was a

_charity company_, dwelling in a _Bede house_ adjoining to that same

Almshouse; which likewise became afterwards connected with the said gild.

The Bedehouse was, probably, the present women’s Hospital, still

sometimes called _the Bedehouse_; and the Almshouse might stand where Mr.

Bonnett’s dwelling and school now do. From the same notes it also seems,

that the date of the foundation of the said Gild, as given above, must be

wrong, owing perhaps to the carelessness of the transcriber, and that it

had been founded earlier.—The notes alluded to are the following; which

are here inserted, that the intelligent reader may have an opportunity to

judge for himself.

“1476. This day comond {429} of ye Almeshouse by St. James’s & it is

agreed that Wm. Walter, Robt. Braybroke, Tho. Constantine, John

Bambage, Robt. Bastard, & John Gillom shall have the oversight of the

Almeshouse between this and ye genll day to the use of the Gild.

“Also Tho. Constantine on of ye bretheren of this gild as executor to

Margarett his daughter, heir to Edmd. Bellyete hath granted this same

day to make a lawful estate of ye said almeshouse in ffee simple to

such persons as shall be named by the gild.

“1477. As for ye rule and keeping of ye almeshouse & vestments to be

left to ye alderman & 4 of the bretheren.

“1487. Given by ye gild to ye prior towards repairing ye church

6_s._ 8_d._ the rest towards repairing ye chappell of St. Julian and

ye almeshouse.

“Wheras John Reed, Mercht. has been misguided agst ye alderman and

officers, John Goodwin, Mayor, & John Bunton, alderman, have ordered

he shd pay 6s. 8d. for his broke, which was pd accordingly, but was

returned on condition he shd. give to ye Almeshouse 2 new pair of

sheets, 2s. 4d. the pair.

“1473. Delivered to John Waller a Whystle wt. 12¼ oz. the gift of

Robt. Gring to ye fellowship.

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

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

gild.

“The Alderman to gather in ye debts of ye gild & to have 20_d._ to ye

£. which debt is for repairing ye chappel of ye gild & ye almeshouse.

“Ordered yt ye bretheren shall go about in ye even praying for ye old

benefactors, & ye benefactors to be written in ye Gild Book, & ye

Bellman to have a list of their names, & yt Thos. Toylet be

remembered in ye Bederoll when ye Bellman goeth about.

“1482. Ordered yt ye sisters be received into ye gild paying their

dutys without delay & ye said sisters shall go with ye bretheren on

ye same daies.

“Such bretheren & sisters as be in poverty & not able to bury

youselves shall have the dean & wax at the cost of the Gild so they

be clear in the Gild. {430}

“The Alderman to lay out 2_l._ 11_s._ 1_d._ in his hands towards

repairing the Almeshouse & beding.

“John Soame, Alderman gave 3_l._ to ye Gild.

“At one of the Generalls there was a vote in ye fellowship for hoods,

42 was for hoods, & only 8 {431a} which wd. have none, whereupon it

was agreed they shd. have hooding.

“In the 28th year of the reign of K. Hen. 6th. the Generall mornspech

was kept at Corpus Christa [Christi] Hall {431b} Cyprian Pouleson

have taken into ye same fraternity the charity company with the

ornaments pertaining to the same.

“These be ye implements pertaining to ye altar of St. Lawrence {431c}

in St. James’s Church belonging to the charity company Anno 1533.

“ffirst 3 altar clothes 3 pillows a vestment of cloth of Bawdekyn

with a cross of cloth of gold in ye midst, a printed Mass Book, 2

latten candlesticks, one altar cloth before ye altar stained, 2

stained curtains, 2 Bulls for pardons, 2 curtains of darnick, a Pall

of black wursted, with I. H. S. of gold embroidered, and a cross of

white ffustin in ye midst, a crucifix of timber with a foot, a blue

say for the Herse, 2 great candlesticks of timber for ye Herse with

scallops and 4 iron bars at ye feet, a Horn harnessed with silver.

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

above Almeshouse.”

“1488. The alderman to have for making his dinner on the gild even

for the officers & minstrells {432a} 3s. 4d. a Botte of good Ale and

4d. in Bread.” {432b}

[A Bill, as it is called, and some memoranda are annexed to this last

article in the MS. Volume. They were thought curious, and well worth

preserving. The reader will find them in the note below, and will, of

course, judge for himself, as to the merit or value of them.] Then

follows

_An Inventory of the ornaments belonging to the Altar of St. Gyles &

St. Julian in St. James’s Church_.

_Imprimis_. A Cyprus hanging before the Altar.

Two Pillows, one of portray’d work with the Holy Lamb, another of

needlework with an Hart in the midst, Two curtains of stained work

with angels.

Two Irons for the Curtains.

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

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

Three low candle-sticks lattin.

Two altar clothes of plain cloth with crosses of red silk with 8 . .

. a Peice & C on the corners of the same clothes & one of red silk in

ye middle.

2 Chests of Cyprus wood.

Witnesses Sr. Wm. ffinne, Sr. Richd. Houghton, Sr. Tho. Knights,

Priests, with many others.

* * * * *

_An Inventory of the Jewell belonging to the above gilde_.

oz. dwt.

_Imprimis_. A Chalice of Silver and gilt with 18. 1.

gold Pottant of the same, wt.

A great Maser with a print of St. George. 46. 0.

A Maser with St. Julian and a Hart in the bottom 18. 0.

with a Scepter.

A Maser with I. H. S. in the bottom. 13. 0.

A Maser with Rich. Collyns name. 16. 0.

A Horne harnissed with Silver and gilt with three 43. 0.

feet the same.

A Scepter silver part gilt with a Christall stone.

3 Table clothes.

[Then follows an Inventory of furniture in the _men’s_ and the _women’s

Almshouse_.]

These be the Parcells belonging to the Almeshouse

FOR THE MEN.

Imprimis. _In the first Chamber_, _called the Schooler’s Chamber_.

A Mattriss stuffed with . . . A Bolster, one pair of Blanketts, one

pair of Sheets & one Coverlid white & black.

_In the second Chamber_, A Mattriss 2 Pillows 1 pair of Sheets 1 pair

Blanketts & a Coverlett red & yellow.

_In the third Chamber_. A Mattriss a Bolster one pair Blanketts one

pair Sheets a Coverlett blue & yellow.

_In the fourth Chamber_. A Mattriss a Bolster one pair Blanketts one

pair Sheets & a Coverlett red & white.

_In the fifth Chamber_. A Mattriss a Bolster 1 pair Sheets 1 pair

Blanketts a Coverlett black & yellow.

_In the sixth Chamber_. A Mattriss a Bolster a pair Sheets a pair

Blanketts & a Coverlett red and yellow.

_In the seventh Chamber_. A Mattriss a pair Sheets a pair Blanketts

a Coverlett red & yellow.

IN THE WOMEN’S HOUSE.

_First Chamber_. A Mattriss a Bolter a pair Sheets & a Coverlett.

_In the second Chamber_. A Mattriss a pair Sheets a Coverlett of red

& yellow another Coverlet white & black.

_In the third Chamber_. A Mattriss a Traunsome a pair Sheets a pair

Blanketts & a Coverlett red & yellow.

_In the fourth Chamber_. An old Mattriss a Daggeswaine & a Coverlett

white & green.

_In the fifth Chamber_. A Mattriss a Transome a pair of Blanketts a

pair of Sheets a Coverlett red and yellow another red & green.

_In the sixth Chamber_. A Mattriss a Bolster a Blankett Lincy wolley

a Coverlett red & black lined with woodmill.

_Implements_. A fforme with 2 ffeet, a Rake of iron, a Joiner’s

Table, a Lanthorn to hang in the middle of the house.

_To the Well_.—A Buckett hooped with Iron, a Boile of Iron, a Chain

of Iron with 9 lincks with a swivell of Iron.

_Implements belonging to the WOMEN’S House_.

lb. oz.

_Imprimis_. A Brass Pott 2. 10.

wt.

An old Brass Pott wt. 9. 0.

An old Brass Pott. 1. 0.

An old Brass Pott. 1. 10.

A little Pott. 5. 10.

A Kettle without a Boile. 7. 0.

3 old Pans. 5. 0.

A Pewter dish. 1. 10.

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

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

chair.

_In the Kitchin_. Imprimis. A gridiron, 1 pair Cobbirens, 1 hanging

Brandlett, 2 Spitts, a chopping knife, A hanging Lanthorn with an

Iron Chain & three ffeet.”

[To the above is immediately added the following regulation relating to

the said almshouse.]

“The keeper of the Almeshouse to Ring the Bell every night from

Hallowmass to Candlemas at 6 of Clock at night & lett in ye poor

folks, & lock’d [lock] in ye door all night: & likewise to Ring the

Bell again at 7 of Clock in ye morn, & then to let them out: & in

summer from Candlemass to Hallowmass to Ring & shutt in ye doors at 8

of clock at night & open them at 5 of the morning.”

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

remarkable & curious

“_Memorandum_. John, bishop of Ledence, have granted to every

brother & sister of the fraternity or Gild of St. Gyles & St. Julian,

holden at St. James’s Church in Lynn, that at the time or season that

any manner of person or persons do intend to drink in St. Julian’s

Horn {436a} with good devotion, are granted by the said bishop, as

often as they do, 40 days pardon, which grant was confirmed by the

same bishop in the mansion place of John Baxter of Lynn, Grocer, in

the presence of Cyprian Pouleson, alderman, the said John Baxter,

Thomas Brampton, & other men the 5th day of August in ye yr of our

Lord 1532 in the 24th yr of K. H. 8. John Powis, Mayor, & my Lord of

Norwich Richd. Pykk [Nykk] then bishop did visit the same time.—The

said John bishop [of Ledence] was then suffragan {436b} to my Lord

West bishop of Ely.”

From these Extracts it is very evident that the above fraternity of St.

Gyles and St. Julian must have stood high among our ancient Gilds. It

consisted, it seems, of divers opulent members, who did honour to their

feelings by the attention which they paid to the wants and sufferings of

their indigent neighbours of both sexes: for we find that there were two

Almeshouses, one for poor _men_, and another for poor _women_, under

their patronage, and supported by them, if not also founded by them. On

this account we ought to respect their memory, papists as they were; for

this part of their conduct was, surely, very commendable and exemplary.

Such a conduct is worthy of respect and commendation wherever it is seen:

among papists as well as protestants; and even among mahometans or

heathens as well as christians. There are Almeshouses still at Lynn, but

we know not that they owe much, if any thing, to the bounty or liberality

of any of our present opulent families, or to any of their immediate, or

even remote progenitors. They were endowed by wealthy families or

individuals of other times, whose descendants have long disappeared. Our

modern men of wealth are otherwise disposed: and our Allens, our Bagges,

our Bowkers, and our Cases, have lived and died without exhibiting any

symptoms of feelings like those that appeared in the charitable

fraternity of St. Gyles and St. Julian. If the latter were also in other

matters weak and superstitious, that was perhaps unavoidable by people in

their circumstances. We have our weaknesses and superstitions too, and

those, probably, much less excusable, considering our superior

advantages, than those of the brethren and sisters of the said Gild.

Instead, therefore, of decrying, or pitying their failings, we ought to

blush for our own.

Furthermore, it is observable of the above brotherhood, that they

consisted of _good men and able_, _and of good conversation_. (see p.

423.) So careful were they on this head, that every member at his

admission was obliged to find _two sureties_, who were to answer for the

due performance of his engagement to the gild, and also to testify of his

_good beryng and honest_, or that he was a person of irreproachable moral

character. (see p. 426.) We are not certain that our modern _protestant_

Gilds, the benefit societies, &c. are equally careful that those whom

they receive among them be persons of good report, or blameless

conversation. It would certainly be very creditable to them.—The said

gild also appeared anxious to support a respectable religious character,

and promote, what they deemed, the practice of piety among themselves:

hence they had their proper chaplain or religious functionary, as was

before noticed. Indeed they seemed as if desirous to be thought to excel

in this department, as is pretty plainly indicated, by their assuming the

name of the _Lenn holy company_, which may be thought to smell a little

pharisaical. However that was, as they possessed so many good qualities,

and deserved well of their neighbours and fellow citizens, we can do no

less than dismiss or take our leave of them respectfully.

SECTION IV.

_Account of the Gilds continued_.

After St. Gyles and St. Julian’s Gild, the next, in the Catalogue, is

that of _St. Ethelered_, or _Ethelred_. Of this Gild we have met with no

particular account; and but little more of the next to it, that of _St.

Margaret_: Parkin just mentions that it was founded in the 8th of Henry

IV. a patent being granted by that monarch for that purpose. {439a} Of

_St. Anne’s_ Gild, the 7th in the Catalogue, Parkin only says, that there

was here such a Gild, as appears by the inquisition taken in the 3rd of

Elizabeth. He also queres, if there was not a chapel dedicated to St.

Anne, somewhere near the Fort which still bears her name? {439b} which

seems very reasonable to suppose. Of the next, the Gild of the 12

_Apostles_, we have met with no further account; nor yet of that which

immediately succeeds it, the Gild of _St. Christopher_.

Of the 10th Gild, that of _our Lady_, the following mention is made by

Parkin—

“These are the brethren and sisters of the Guild _Tigulat._ founded

to the honour and purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, _ao._ 3

Edward III.—Thomas de Langham, and Christian his wife; Charles de

Secheford, and Alice his wife; Robert de Derby, and Margery his wife;

William, son of the said Robert, &c. [The names of the rest are not

given.] Robert seems to be alderman of the Guild.—These are the four

Morwespeches of the said Guild: the first morwespeche is on the

Sunday [_le Dymeynge prochein_] after the purification of the Blessed

Virgin, the second on the day of the annunication of our Lady, the

third on the day of the assumption of our Lady, the fourth on the

conception of our Lady.—It is ordained that if any of the brethren be

summoned on any of the four morwespeches, and are in the said town,

and make default, they shall pay 1_d._ to the honour of our Lady.”

{440a}