be departed from the king_, _at his pleasure_.—“Almighty God, Ruler and
Lord, by whose goodness the blind see, the deaf hear, the dumb speak, the
lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and all sick persons are healed of
their infirmities: By whom also alone the gift of healing is given to
mankind and so great a grace, through thine unspeakable goodness toward
this realm, is granted unto the kings thereof, that by the sole
imposition of their hands, a most grievous and filthy disease should be
cured: Mercifully grant that we may give thee thanks therefore, and for
this thy singular benefit conferred on us, not to ourselves, but to thy
name let us daily give glory; and let us always so exercise ourselves in
piety, that we may labour not only diligently to conserve, but every day
more and more to encrease thy grace bestowed upon us: And grant that on
whose bodies soever we have imposed hands in thy name, through this thy
virtue working in them, and through our ministry, may be restored to
their former health, and being confirmed therein, may perpetually with us
give thanks to thee the chief physician and healer of all diseases; and
that henceforth they may so lead their lives, as not their bodies only
from sickness, but their souls also from sin may be perfectly purged and
cured: through our Lord Jesus Christ thy son, who liveth and reigneth
with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end. Amen.”
The reader will readily perceive that the above office, or formulary was
entirely of _popish_ manufacture; the king and whole nation being then
papists; but it probably differed not much, if at all, from those used
afterwards by our _protestant_ princes, except in the article of
_invoking_ the _Virgin Mary_ and the _Saints_; in which also consists,
seemingly, the chief difference between the _Romish_ and _English
Liturgies_: in other respects the resemblance is great and striking;
which is not much to be wondered at, as the model of the latter is pretty
well known to have been taken from the former.
{306} Seward’s Anecdotes, 1, 38.
{308} Occasional Thoughts, as before, 61.
{309} So little did those reformers know of the _spirit_ of
christianity; and yet they are still held up, by a numerous and powerful
religious party among us, as patterns of orthodoxy and pure religion: as
if those men, who knew the least of the spirit of Christ, and the
principles of common justice, were most likely to know most of the
doctrines and precepts of the gospel, and be of all men the fittest to
follow; or as if that religion should be the most orthodox, pure, and
estimable, that shews the least of the spirit of the New Testament, and
even allows of intolerance, persecution, and murder.
{310a} Her conduct, in torturing and burning those whom the deemed
_heretics_, cannot well be thought more diabolical or execrable than that
of her successors _Elizabeth_ and _James_, toward those whom they viewed
in a similar light: the latter _burns_ them, as _Mary_ did, and no less
cruelly and unjustly; and the former imprisoned, tortured, hanged,
embowelled, and quartered them. This was the good queen Bess. Her whole
bench of bishops, all of the right reformed and _evangelical_ stamp,
applauded her deeds.
{310b} That part of the ceremony, however, appears to have been expunged
in the next reign, and discontinued afterwards till that of James II.
without any diminution of the effect. See Oc. Thoughts, as before, 62.
{310c} Carte, 1, 357.
{312a} Carte, 1, 358, note.
{312b} Athenæum No. 4.
{317a} This proclamation therefore must have been published and affixed
in some open place at Lynn.
{317b} See the _Athenæum_ No, 4, p. 360.
{319} See the _Athenæum_ for April and May 1809.
{320} Athenæum as before.
{324} Would not the case have been the same with their descendants of
the present generation, had our three last monarchs thought proper to
continue the practice, or the present sovereign chose to revive it?—How
strikingly was the easy faith of the nation exemplified in the implicit
credit it gave to a late premier’s possessing extraordinary and plenary
ability to heal all the national or political maladies of Britain, of
Europe, and of the world? And had he pretended to a power to cure the
scrofula, or any other bodily complaint, with his _touch_, would it not
have been readily believed by all his numerous admirers, and by the
greatest part of our countrymen? And would not numerous witnesses have
soon appeared, ready to attest the reality and completeness of his
cures?—Circumstances seem evidently to favour these conclusions: nor will
the story of the _Dumb Doctor_, still fresh in every body’s memory, (not
to mention other cases) allow of our making here an exception in favour
of the inhabitants of Lynn.
For the sake of those readers who live at a distance from Lynn, the
affair here last alluded to may require some explanation. Be it known
therefore, that the empirical Adventurer, called the _Dumb Doctor_, made
his appearance at Lynn about four and twenty years ago; and for a good
while after spent most of his time between this town and Wisbeach. It
was given out that he had been deaf and dumb from his birth, and that he
was a native of New England, or some part of North America, where he had,
somehow, (miraculously, or at least in some very extraordinary and
wonderful manner no doubt) acquired very deep knowledge and skill in the
healing art; and after having performed great and astonishing cures in
his own country, had actually crossed the wide Atlantic out of pure
kindness and compassion to the sick and infirm folk of this kingdom, most
of whose complaints he might be expected capable of removing.—The tale
very generally took with our good townsmen, and numbers of ailing people,
gentle and simple, well-bred and ill-bred, from all quarters, flocked to
the impostor for relief. Not a few of them also declared that they had
actually derived great benefit from his prescriptions.—Thus he went on
very prosperously, till an old acquaintance of his unluckily came to
town, blew him up, and blasted all his hopes. He then suddenly decamped,
and was never since seen or heard of in these parts.—It seems he had
belonged so a company of strolling players, from which honourable
fraternity he had been on some occasion expelled: upon which he took up
the medical profession, pretending to be deaf and dumb, and a native of
North America, as was before stated.—This may serve to shew that with all
our skepticism and infidelity, and our large stock of fancied light and
discernment, learning and refinement, we are by no means so far removed
from the easy faith and blind credulity of our ancestors, or become such
complete proofs against the wiles of imposture, or the specious arts of
daring deceivers, as might be supposed, from our confident, loud, and
boisterous boastings.
{328} Sullivan’s Lectures on the Feudal System, and Laws of England, p.
180.
{329a} Blackstone ii. 51, and iv. 411.
{329b} See Caste 1. 423.
{330} Sullivan’s Lectures, No. xvii, xviii, and xxviii.
{331} Leckie’s Historical Survey of the foreign affairs of Great
Britain, Part I, page 57, &c.
{333} Leckie, as before, p. 66.
{334} Blackstone iv. 408. Neal Hist. Pur. I. 1.
{335} Blackstone iv. 409.—Our _Game Laws_ are not only exceedingly
detested, by those of the middle as well as lower orders, throughout the
country, (which constitute the major part of the nation,) but seem also
to be among the most grievous and disgraceful of all our present laws.
In no view can they be deemed respectable or defensible. Nor is the
conduct of our magistrates perhaps ever more unseemly or disreputable
than in the unfeeling, cruel, and relentless rigour with which they put
these vile laws in execution. In nothing probably more than in this does
our present state resemble that of France before the revolution. The
Game Laws there were then intolerably severe and grievous, and enforced
by the magistrates with unrelenting and diabolical rigour; so that they
used to fill even the very Gallies with their hapless victims: all which
recoiled with vengeance upon them and their abettors, the privileged
orders, in the dreadful change which ensued. Those laws no longer exist
in that country: but a recent traveller, (Pinkney,) informs us, “that
though there are now no game laws in France, there is a decency and
moderation in the lower orders, which answer the same purpose. No one
presumes to shoot game, except on land of which he is the proprietor or
tenant.”—No where in England are these laws supposed to be more
grievously felt than in Norfolk; of which a popular and respectable
author of the present day speaks as follows—“What is denominated _Game_
is very plentiful is this county. The arable lands affording both food
and cover, and the gentry, being particularly attached to the amusement
of sporting, have recourse to the strong arm of the law for its
preservation. This tenacity on the part of the landholders, producing
covetous desires in the tenants, is a strong inducement to poaching, and
the source of numberless disagreements, which too frequently terminate in
suits at law. Hence they are oppressive to one party and disgraceful to
the other. The various statutes, called ‘the Game Laws,’ are justly
deemed the opprobrium of the English code; and in no county perhaps are
those statutes acted upon with greater rigor than they usually are in
Norfolk. The endless litigations upon this despicable point have lately
become the subject of theatrical ridicule; and this county has on the
occasion been made the _butt_ of dramatic satire. “Searchum, get
warrants immediately, for seizing guns, nets, and snares; let every dog
in the parish be collected for hanging to-morrow morning. Give them a
taste for _Norfolk discipline_.” Happy would it be for the country, if
ridicule, as reason has hitherto failed, should be able to induce the
legislature to abrogate laws, which, as they were made to support an
assumed claim, can only be continued in force to protect an usurped
right.” [Beauties of England v. xi. p. 90, &c.]
It is most disgusting to men of sound and liberal minds to hear with what
complacency, selfgratulation, as well as selfimportance, the magistrates,
at the convivial meetings of the gentry, will be sometimes expatiating on
the rigour of their proceedings against the transgressors of the game
laws, and describing how effectually they curb and keep in awe the
farmers, and trounce to their utter undoing some of the most active among
the lower order of poachers. Such a conduct is nothing less than a
publishing of their own shame, and a boasting of their own misdoings; and
had they expanded and reflecting minds, or any minds at all, they would
blush for such a conduct, and carefully and studiously refrain from it,
as well as from all manner of excess in their proceedings against
poachers, many of whom with their luckless families have been utterly
ruined by them. Some of those ill-fated culprits have perished in
prison, after long and rigorous confinement: one of whom, named
_Saunders_, died miserably in goal, after a _six years_ incarceration,
who probably was as well bred as some of his relentless judges; on which
occasion the following lines were composed:
“_Epitaph on Nathaniel Saunders_, _gentleman_:
“Nat! thou’st escap’d just in the nick of time!
Thine was a barbarous and a bloody crime!
How long confin’d?—six years—that’s only fair;
What was his crime? the scoundrel kill’d a hare!”
{338a} Blackstone, iv. 410.
{338b} Ibid, 411.
{340} Not a few of the most high-spirited and warlike withdrew into
foreign parts; some sailed to the Mediterranean, and found at
Constantinople a ready protector in the emperor of the east, who united
them to the Barangi, or battle-ax guards, as some of their countrymen had
been long before. [See Andrews, vol. 1.]
{341a} Blackstone, vol. 1. Robinson’s Sermon on Slavery, and appendix.
Sullivan’s Lectures, 258.
{341b} It has been suggested that some vestiges of our ancient vassalage
is discoverable still in the abject state of the bulk of those miscalled
_freemen_, nine out of ten of whom, perhaps, have no will of their own in
the choice of representatives, but implicitly act under the direction of
the modern masters of the town.—The author, however, does not mean to
give the name of _slave-holders_ to the two families that now nominate,
appoint, return, or send our members to parliament.
{342} The author hopes the reader will excuse the repetition of this
topic: he wishes all the different orders of the community may be
convinced that they are brethren, and that those of the higher orders may
possess the proper feelings towards their inferiors, even of the very
lowest degrees, who though they have not so much at stake in these
perilous times, are yet of the very same species with themselves, and so
must be entitled to their tender and fraternal attentions.
{343} The same seems also to have been the case in the recent
continental conquests and changes: the lower orders and bulk of the
people appear to be gainers rather than losers by those events: they were
so burdened and oppressed by the old governments, without any hope of
redress, or the least prospect of melioration, that they became at last
quite regardless who should be their rulers, and rather hailed than
deprecated the French emperor’s successes and triumphs; believing, it
seems, that, if he became their master, their condition, as it could not
well be worse, would or might probably be better than what it then was
become under their own native princes, who treated them, not as men, or
beings of the same species with themselves, but rather as beasts of
burden, made only for their use and service; and who were oftentimes
disposed of by them and sold like other cattle. Such was the abject and
degraded state of the lower classes and great body of the people in most
of the regular and old established governments of Europe, before the
French revolution. Had the rulers been wise enough afterwards to
conciliate the good will and esteem, and secure the attachment of the
people, by holding out and granting to them what would be worth
contending for, the French had never been able to over-run every country
and overturn every government as, they have done. Emancipating the
people, and admitting them to the enjoyment of real freedom, would render
them a different race of men, capable of effectually defending their
country; and repelling any hostile attack or invasion. But the
statesmen, directors, and managers of the old governments are not, it
seems, to be convinced of these obvious, salutary, and important truths.
Instead of adopting such a plan, they have too plainly manifested a
disposition to augment rather than diminish the burdens and sufferings of
the people. The consequence was natural, and what might have been
expected. But the managers of the old institutions have not yet begun to
learn wisdom from observation and experience.—Even the pretended patriots
_of Spain_, who have made such fuss about their national liberty and
independence, have shewn as much reluctance as the rest, to ease the
burdens of the people, or ameliorate the condition of the great body of
the nation; and as they seem bent upon perpetuating the old tyranny, and
unwilling to avail themselves of the only step that would give their
resistance any chance of success, their miscarriage and downfal ought to
be viewed without regret.
{346a} See Carte, and Parkin; also Beauties of England, vol. xi.
{346b} The business was at least acceded to by bishop Nykke, but the
surrender seems to have been made by his successor bishop Rugg.
{349} It must be a mistake, and should no doubt be 1039; so that he
filled the see but one year.—See Beauties of England, as before.
{350} See Beauties of England, vol. xi, where a fuller account is given
of some of these bishops.
{351} Armstrong’s history of Norfolk, vol. 1. p. 206.
{358} See Tour of Norfolk, p. 180: also Beauties of England as before.
{359} Pope Urban promised _the full remission of all their sins_, not
only to everyone who crossed the seas in that quarrel, and personally
engaged in that bloody crusade against the other pope and his adherents,
but also to all who would engage to pay any number of able soldiers
employed on the occasion, and even to all such as would advance any part
of their substance to the general (bp. Spencer,) towards defraying the
expences of the expedition. The pope’s absolution, pronounced by the
said episcopal commander in chief, was expressed as follows—
“By the authority apostolical, to me in this behalf committed, We
absolve thee A. B. from all thy sins confessed with thy mouth, and
being contrite with thy heart, and whereof thou wouldst be confessed,
if they came into thy memory: and we grant unto thee plenary
remission of all manner of sins, and we promise unto thee thy part of
the reward of all just men, and of everlasting salvation. And as
many privileges as are granted unto them that go to fight for the
Holy Land, we grant onto thee; and of all the prayers and benefits of
the church, the universal synod, as also the holy catholic church we
make thee partaker.”—(See Fox, Vol. 1.)
{360} There were doubtless many Lynn people in that army; the general
being lord of this town.
{363} It is somewhat remarkable, that though both Mackerell and Parkin
appear to have made use of that MS Volume, and the former drew most of
his materials from it, for the most part verbatim, yet neither of them
take any notice of those letters, which yet form the most curious part of
the whole volume.
{365} The documents or papers above referred to, consist of 1. a Letter
from John Wentworth mayor of Lynn to the king (Hon. iv.) dated on St.
Martin’s day 1403, and complaining of the opposite party, as outrageous
persons who committed the most horrid crimes, and proceeded in the most
riotous manner against their opponents, with the intent to spoil and rob
them of their goods, burn their houses, slay and dismember their persons,
&c. It is not the first letter he wrote to his majesty, for he refers to
others of anterior date. Those however are lost, or we might possess a
more correct knowledge of this business. The _second_ of those papers is
a Letter from Petipas, then mayor, to some of his friends, complaining of
Wentworth and his adherents and _assentaunts_ for troubling him in the
discharge of his duty, and requiring them “be bille or be mouthe” [by
letter or by word of mouth] to acquaint his reverend lord of Norwich
[i.e. the bishop] with the affair, and solicit his interference. &c. Its
date is 1413, the first of Henry V.—The _third_ is from the same, and
seemingly to the same, and written, it is presumed, in 1414, the former
part of which was the latter part of his 2nd year, for he was then mayor
two years successively. The _fourth_ was from _Thomas Hunt_, who became
mayor in the autumn of 1415 to _Johan Spencer_, viscount de Norff. [i.e.
the High Sheriff of the county] and is dated “atte Lenn ye tede day of
the mone of Juylet, ye yere of ye regne of King Henry ye fyft ye ferth:”
which was A.D. 1416. This curious paper complains of _Thomas Felwell_,
goldsmith, who had been indicted for his misdeeds, as an instigator of _a
rysing_ and _ryot_—also of _Thomas Hardell_, and _Thomas Enemethe_, “and
very many of the misdoers resorten and drawen again in counsailles to
Barth. Petipas in sustenance of his p. tie,” &c. It also offers the
said Viscount, or high sheriff, a _present of a young He-Bear_, which
seems a queer circumstance. But what makes this paper of most
importance, is its confirming, along with the other documents, the very
distracted state of the town at that period.—The _fifth_ is addressed “to
the lord bishopp of Norwich” (the above _John de Wakeryng_ it seems.)
“from his owen humblest tenants and devout Bedesmen, the Mayre and good
men of his town of Lenne Bishopp.” Its date is the 9 of March, the 3rd
of Henry V. which seems to answer to A.D. 1415, or 1415–16, and the mayor
was probably the above _Thomas Hunt_.—The _sixth_ and last of those
papers was a royal injunction or mandate from “Henry (VI.) by the Grace
of God king of England and of France and lord of Ireland unto the Mair of
the town of Lenne Byshopp;” and relates chiefly, as was before hinted, to
some irregularity or neglect in the choice of the 24 Jurats, directing
and enjoining that they should be freemen and lawful, and of the most
discreet, sufficient, and _least suspicious_ persons of the said town;
and each of them possessing property in lands and tenements to the amount
of C. S (i.e. one hundred shillings) a year—equal no doubt to more than
100_l._ a year now: also directing that in case any of the 24 Jurats
happened to die in the course of the year, others equally unexceptionable
should be immediately chosen in their room, &c.—As a sample of the style
and orthography of the magistrates of Lynn 400 years ago, and a specimen
of their mode of address to their prelatical lord and master, we shall
here subjoin the mayor and aldermen’s Letter to bishop _Wakeryng_.
“Worschipfull Lord and reverent fader in God, we commaund us unto
yow, humble thankant yow wt alle oure hertes, of good & graciouse
lordschip yt. yo han schewed to us before yis tyme prayand to yow of
good continunace & revrent fader, for as meche as we han conteyned be
John Thornham yor. servt. yt ye are & will be graciouse lord to us,
therefor as unknowen men, we wryten to yow in our symple manr.
preying yow yt Barth. Petypas, Will Hallyate, Thomas Middleton
taylor, Thomas Barrington goldsmyth, Thomas Monethe, Thomas Beckham,
John Balders, Thomas Littleport, Thomas Hardell, John Blome, Rich.
Baxter, Andrew Fourbe, abide out of yor. towne of lenne unto the tyme
of yor. stalling at Norwich, the whiche schalle not be longe be the
grace of God, atte which tyme we shalle mete with yow & fulliche
declare to yow all manr. of hevynesse ye whiche yay han wroght to us,
& yt. to yor. worschipfull person disclosed & fulliche in hye & in
lowe, put it in govnance of yow & of yor counsayll, & for truly sire
sithen ye. tyme yt. yay wenten out of ye town of Lenne, of whiche ye
shun sone be lord of, be ye grace of God stode never in beter reste &
pees than it hath done sithen that tyme, & yet dothe atte this day, &
be yor. good governance, these persons above wretyn sett an syde, we
tryste in God to have reste & pees for ever more in yor. towne & in
our persons ye shal fynd us as lowly tenants as any that longs to yow
within yor. lordshippes, & wt. our bodyes & our goodes, be as lowly
to yow worschipful and revrend fader in God we preye, ye. holy
trinite: keep yow body and soule, & fullfill your desires as ye can
yor. self devise. Written at Lenne ye IX day of Marche under ye
seall of the office of Mayralty.
Your owen humblest tenants and devout Bedesmen,
Mayre and good men of your towne of Lenne Bishopp.”
In this lowly and abject manner did these humblest tenants and devout
beadesmen, the mayor and corporation of Lynn, of that day, approach their
high and mighty lord, bishop Wakeryng. They were indeed his subjects and
vassals, as their predecessors had long been; and they might think that
such cringing conduct became them: but some of them would occasionally
shew a disposition to kick and resist, as had been the ease in bishop
_Spencer’s_ time, and also now, it seems, in the case of _Patipas_, as
well as of _Miller_ afterwards, who is said to have gone to law with the
bishop and cast him. But, in general, corporations, while they are some
of the most unfeeling, relentless, and tyrannical towards their
inferiors, are at the same time some of that most abject and obsequious
of all men towards their superiors and masters: hardly presuming at any
time to have a will of their own. They are as ready to erect statues to
bad as to good kings; and the premier, however corrupt or flagitious, is
pretty surf of being always their lord chancellor, or keeper of their
conscience.
{370} That year the king and queen, with their eldest son Arthur prince
of Wales, and Margaret countess of Richmond, the king’s mother, visited
Lynn, and were lodged at the Austin monastery, on the site of which Mr.
Rishton’s house now stands. The occasion of this royal visit we know
not.
{372} See Tour of Norfolk 286, &c. also Beaut. of Engl. as before.
{377} See Smith’s Inquiry, 2. 101. He also observes that how servile
soever may have been originally the condition of the inhabitants of the
towns, they yet arrived at liberty and independence much earlier than the
occupiers of land in the country.
{379} Smith, as before, 104. Among the other principal works that
relate to these matters are Madox Firma Burgi, and Brady’s historical
treatise of cities and boroughs.
{380} See Political Review for December, 1809.
{381} See Monthly Rev. for August 1805, p. 446.
{383} Smith, as before, p. 106.
{384} Smith, as before, p. 108.
{385} Smith, 110.
{387} See Mackerell, 223.
{388} See above, page 366.
{389} Of the spirit, or principle that dictated the erection of those
statues it may now be safely said, that it was thoroughly vile and
disgraceful.—What better can be said of the spirit that was so
predominant here during Pitt’s administration and execrable reign of
terror, when all honest men who saw, deprecated, and reprobated his
madbrain system were held up to the contempt and derision of every
political coxcomb, and even to the fury of the populace, as Jacobins and
traitors? Time has already done something towards justifying the views
and principles of these persecuted people; and futurity will do them
still ampler justice. The present generation is likely to be now soon
convinced that their politics, which have been so bitterly and violently
decried, were a thousand times more worthy of adoption than those of
their malicious opponents and revilers: and posterity will not fail to
exhibit in their proper colours the extreme folly and wrongheadedness of
the measures that this illfated country has been pursuing for the last
eighteen years and upwards.
{390} Parkin, 116.
{391} The Jews were then very numerous in this country, as well as very
opulent, and continued so for no short period. They were generally ill
used, and sometimes underwent the most cruel and base treatment. Yet on
some occasions, they met with different and better usage, and at least
what may be called the appearance of favour and encouragement. The
following instance is not a little remarkable and striking—“It will
hardly be credited, [says Andrews] that, in 1241, Henry III issued writs
to the sheriffs, ordering them to convene a _parliament of Jews_: six
from some towns, and two from others. The writs are now extant. The
Jews were proud of this; but Henry only meant to plunder them.” The last
assertion if probably too true. Henry was just that kind of man. It is
however very little known that he was, beforehand with Bonaparte in
convening a Jewish parliament or Sanhedrim. But the characters of these
two potentates are extremely dissimilar, and so probably were their
motives for convening the Jewish delegates.—In the above mentioned reign
of Richard I. the Jews were most shamefully and cruelly plundered and
massacred here in different places. In the guilt and infamy of those
foul and horrid deeds Lynn appears to have been deeply implicated. The
tragical tale is related by _Parkin_ from William of Newburgh, and by
_Mackerell from_ Hollingshed.—It states that one of the Lynn Jews being
converted to christianity, his brethren were so enraged against him, that
they resolved to kill him whenever they had an opportunity. Having
accordingly met him one day in the street, they instantly fell upon him,
fully intending to execute their bloody purpose, but he escaped out of
their hands, and fled into the next church; they followed him thither,
and breaking open the doors, would have taken him out by force. Crowds
of the inhabitants, with a great number of foreigners, consisting of
mariners and others, who traded here, now came upon them, rescued the
man, and drove them into their own houses. The townsmen refrained from
any further acts of violence, fearful of incurring the displeasure of
their sovereign, who had taken the Jews under his protection; but the
mariners and the other strangers followed them to their own dwellings,
massacred them there, plundered their houses and set them on fire, and
immediately taking shipping, escaped with their spoil.—Of the truth of
some part of this story some doubt may very reasonably be entertained.
It is not very likely that the Jews should act as is here represented
toward their converted brother, as they could not be insensible of the
extreme risk of such a conduct. Nor is it at all probable that the town
rabble should refrain from assisting the strangers in the massacre of the
Jews, or desist from joining them in plundering and burning those unhappy
people’s houses. These may be presumed to be additions to what did then
really happen, and designed for the purpose of exaggerating the conduct
and blackening the character of the poor Jews, as well as throwing the
whole blame and infamy of the most shocking part of the conduct of the
opposite party on those foreign mariners and other strangers who happened
to be then in the town. It was always the manner of the pretended
christians of those days, to impute some previous horrid atrocity to the
Jews, in order to blind people’s eyes, and extenuate their own barbarous
and diabolical treatment of them. Upon the whole the plunder and
massacre of the Jews seem to be that part of the above story which is
unquestionably authentic. But Lynn was not the only place in England
where the Jews were then so treated. The brutal and horrid work began in
London, whence it extended to Lynn and other places, even as far as York,
where it ended in a scene most shockingly tragical; the effects of which
proved fatal to the commercial prosperity of that ancient city.—See
Andrew, 1. 192.
{392} Parkin, 120 whose authority is Madox’s Hist. of the Exchequer.
{393a} Parkin, as before.
{393b} That Lynn was a mayor-town in the reign, or before the death of
JOHN, has been disputed by some; but the fact seems fully ascertained
from the Patent rolls—that king’s letters patents, dated at Devizes,
Wilts, June 7 (1216) in the 18th year of his reign, being addressed to
_the_ MAYOR _and good men of Lenn_.
{395} See Gibson’s Camden—Parkin—Mackerell, and Tour of Norfolk.
{396} Carte 1. 340.
{398} Compare Parkin, Rapin, Carte, and Andrews.
{399a} See Gibson’s Camden.
{399b} Parkin, 122.
{401} Parkin, p. 122.
{402} Parkin, as before.
{405a} Parkin 123.
{405b} See Parkin, as before; who further observes, that Lynn was famous
at that time for importing wine: and it seems that foreign wine was then
very cheap here, compared with what it is at present. Hence Parkin
mentions a pipe of wine as selling here then at 1_l._ 15_s._ and a tun of
wine at 50_s._ These were probably red wine, for he afterwards mentions
a tun of white wine as having been sold for three marks and a half, i.e.
2_l._ 6_s._ 3_d._—The mark being 13_s._ 4_d._—Wine sells here now at a
price above 50 times higher than what it did at that period. Salmon was
an article that appears to have always fetched a high price in those
days; and Parkin, in the place from which these articles have been
extracted, mentions 20_s._ as paid for 5 Salmons sent to the bishop of
Norwich at South Elmham, on Monday before the feast of the purification.
Ten such Salmons were then, it seems, as valuable as a pipe of wine.
{411} The word Gild, (says Chambers,) is formed from the Saxon _Gildan_,
to pay, became every man was _gildare_, i.e. to pay something towards the
charge and support of the company.
{412} Annual Review, for 1807, 490.
{413a} See Jacob’s Law Dictionary, under the word GUILD.
{413b} Religious persons, clerks, knights and their eldest sons,
excepted.
{413c} Chamber’s Cyclopædia, under GILD and FRANK _pledge_.
{415} See Turner’s Hist. of the Anglo-Saxon, 2nd Ed. vol. 2. p. 109, &c.
{420} Parkin, 134, 5.
{421a} The Gilds of the common people, or those which had no large
possessions attached to them, were then probably not meddled with, but
suffered to go on as before. Some of them, as we have before seen,
existed in Camden’s time, and perhaps a good while afterwards.
{421b} St. George’s Hall, after it became the property of the
corporation, was long used as a court-house, to hold the quarter-sessions
for the county. Those sessions have since been removed to the Trinity
Guildhall, now the Town-hall: since which time St. George’s hall has been
converted into a Play-house, and is now during the mart time, and for
sometime after, occupied annually by a company of comedians.
{423} A word is here left out: _Security_, perhaps.
{424a} _surety_, perhaps.
{424b} It probably should be 2_s._
{425a} Here is an illegible word: those that follow also are scarcely
intelligible.
{425b} Our modern clerks are better paid.
{425c} They had secrets, it seems, which they deemed of much importance;
but it does not appear of what sort they were.
{426a} Some word or words seem here wanting.
{426b} This shews that this Gild also had a Hall.
{426c} Supposing the number of members to be 50, his annual stipend, or
salary amounted to only 25_s._ A chaplain now would expect fifty times
that sum, at least.
{427} _Hoods_ must have been the word omitted.
{429} A strange word, whose meaning seems not very easy to ascertain.
{430} This shews that some of the members of this Gild were poor.
{431a} This Gild consisted then, it seems, of 50 members.
{431b} By this it appears that the Corpus Christi Gild had a separate
Hall, but where it stood does not appear. That Gild seems therefore to
have been another of the superior order.
{431c} It seems by this that the Gild of St. Lawrence also was one of
those of a superior order.
{432a} The minstrels, it may be supposed, were employed on their public
days, to add to the conviviality, or glee and hilarity of those meetings;
which shews the members were not of an uncheerly cast. Minstrels must
have been then in no small request at Lynn.
{432b} “A Bill” [of expences relating to the Almshouse, with memoranda.]
_s._ _d._
The Alderman’s ffee 3. 4.
Mess [Mass] Pence 6. 8.
For sowing [sewing] blankets & Sheets 0. 8.
A Bucket for the Almeshouse 0. 5.
Straw to the Beds 0. 3.
To Wm. Lister Almes 0. 4.
To Nicholas . . . Almes 0. 8.
To a Mason for a daies work 0. 7.
His man 0. 4.
Shinks 0. 1.
For 3 pair sheets 7. 6.
2 pair ditto 4. 8.
3 Mattrisses 8. 0.
For Mass pence at Oferings 4. 0.
For the Hearth making in ye Kitchen 1. 8.
For a Lanthorn in the middle of the house 0. 7.
For the Bed bottoms 1. 1.
Paid for the souls of Nicholas Bardeny Prior of Lynn, Wm. Wattlett, John
Dean, and many more, each of them 2s. 6d.
Robt. Soame gave a Load of Oatstraw for repairing their Beds.
Ordered that the Keeper ring the Bell at 6 o’clock at night, & there be
prayers daily, & that the Alderman visit the Almeshouse once a month to
see that nothing be amiss.
{436a} This is the only mention we have met with of _Saint Julian’s
Horn_, the history of which, no doubt, would be very amusing, if it could
be recovered.
{436b} This shews that even our suffragan bishops assumed the power of
granting indulgences, or licences to sin with impunity, on such
conditions as they chose to prescribe.
{439a} Parkin, 130.
{439b} Ibid. 141.
{440a} Parkin, 142.
{440b} Those of the Gilds seem to be _the only aldermen_ of Lynn in
those days, see page 395.
{441} Of St Audrey and her _smock_, and our Lady and her _appearances_
at Thetford, some account may be found in Martin’s History of that town.
Speaking of the church of St. Audrey, he says, it was of but small
revenue, but that a famous relique made ample amends to the priest for
the smallness of his stipend. He then introduces the following extract
from _Bacon’s Reliques of Rome_, fol. 181.—
“In Thetford, a Mayor town in Norfolk, there was a parish church, now
destroyed, called St. Audrise. In this church among other reliques,
was a _smock_ of St. Audrise, which was there kept as a great Jewel
and precious Relique. The virtue of that _smock_ was mighty and
manifold, but specially in putting away the toothach and swelling of
the throte: so that the paciente was first of all shriven and hard
masse, and did such oblations as the priest of the church enjoyned.”
The Vulgar supposed this relique to be so full of sacred virtue, that
they ordered, in their Wills, certain persons to go in pilgrimage to it
for the salvation of their souls. Margaret Whoop, of East Harling, had
the following clause in her Will, which was dated 1501: “I will that
another man go in pilgrimage for me to Thetford, and offer for me to St.
Audrey’s Smock.” See Martin’s Thetford, p. 79.—Nothing is more probable
than that this same smock, in those days, drew many a pilgrim from Lynn
to Thetford.
Of the blessed Virgin’s _appearances_ to divers persons at Thetford, one
was to a woman who had lost the use of her tongue, but whom she cured the
same time. The person who asserted and recorded this was a monk. The
same monk has prefaced his account of another of the Virgin’s miracles at
Thetford in the following notable and curious manner.
“I have thought proper to relate a most remarkable miracle, because
of its tendency to exemplify the mercy of _God_, and to exhibit the
praise of _his mother_, and is most worthy of public attention; for
whatever tends to the Glory of God, and relates to his mother, is not
to be concealed or denied, but to be received as matter of
fact.”—[Then comes the marvellous tale—] “William Heddrich, junr.
carpenter, and Isabell his wife, lived in a town of Norfolk, called
Hockham. They had a child 3 years old, who in harvest time was
carried with them into the field, as was customary with peasants who
went to their day labour. On a certain day about sun setting, the
child happened to be sleep, and actually fell into a sound sleep on
the edge of the field where his parents were reaping. In the dusk of
the evening, a man driving his cart along that side of the field
where the child lay, unfortunately the wheel went over the child’s
head, unknown to the driver, and killed him on the spot. The father
of the child was following the cart when the accident happened. He
took the child up in his arms, and finding him dead and besmeared
with his own blood, he made bitter lamentations. He then ran to an
eminent surgeon in the same town, who had healed many who had
laboured under various infirmities, by the sovereign efficacy of his
medicines. After the surgeon had minutely examined the child, he
found no symptoms of life; but he advised the father to carry it
home, and the next day prepare for its funeral. When the father had
heard the opinion of the surgeon, and was convinced that he was
deprived of his child, with heart full of grief he look up the corpse
and went to his house, and delivered it to his wife, that she might
lay it on the bed. Then he assembled his friends and neighbours
together, in order to watch that night, as was customary before a
funeral. Being thus met they devoted themselves to watching, and
with the greatest ardour of devotion prayed to the blessed _mother of
God_, vowing that, if by her intercession the child should be
restored to life, they would go on a pilgrimage naked to the image of
the blessed virgin, in the church of the monks in Thetford, and there
make the usual offering. When they had made an end of their prayers
and vows, about midnight, the child revived. Those that were
present, when they beheld the happy effect of their prayers, praised
and blessed God. And, to perform their vows, they took the child,
and carried it before the image of the blessed virgin, and fulfilled
the obligation they had put themselves under.”—see Appendix to
Martin’s Thetford, p. 83.
Such were some of the pious and popular tales of other times, in the
parts about Lynn: but before we affect to pity the credulous weakness and
miserable stupidity of our ancestors, who could receive them, let us be
careful that we ourselves are free from similar failings, or from other
failings equally inexcusable and disgraceful.
{444} The electioners, this year, who chose the Alderman and Scabins,
were 8 persons deputed.
{445a} What wages!
{445b} There to play an anteme of our Lady.
{448} Parkin, 145.
{449a} Mackerell’s History of Lynn, 254.—what the last expression,
_after the conquest_, means, seems difficult to make out.
{449b} Of this _Tabernacle_ the author regrets that he can give no
particular account. The above extract is the only record where he has
met with any mention of it.—It was probably a rich shrine enclosing an
image of our Saviour.
{451} At p. 39 of the said MS. volume, speaking of the people of Lynn,
the writer says, “John de Grey, bishop of Norwich, was their great friend
and benefactor: in 1207 he gave king John a palfrey, in order to have
Duplicates of the Charter which he had obtained for his town of Lynn, it
being owing to this bishop that Lynn ever had a charter, as the original
one of king John now in the custody of that corporation testifies: the
whole, or chief liberties of that town being before that time in the
bishop.” [De Grey confirmed the royal charter against his own
successors.]
{453} St. Nicholas and St. James.
{454a} Skivins, Skivini, or Scabini, were the custodes, guardians,
governors, or stewards.
{454b} Mr. Day’s MS. volume, 48, and Parkin, 148.
{455a} A sextary was an ancient measure, said to be a pint and half, but
it appears here, from the price &c. to be much more, and was _four
gallons_.
{455b} _Four Gallons_ of Wine sold then for 10_d._
{455c} The word obliterated was probably serta, a coronet [or chaplet.]
{455d} The skivins were _four_ in number, as appears from a deed of
Thomas bp. of Ely in the 25th of Henry VI. Simon Pigot, Richard Cosyn,
Thomas Benet, and William Pilton, then called therein, custodes sive
scabins, &c. They served, as I take it, in all, two years, the seniors
going off yearly, when two others were chosen &c. they had the charge &c.
as appears, of the goods and effects of the guild.—_Parkin_.
{457} Ante palmatam. Hence we may perceive the old custom of shaking
hands at an agreement or bargain. [Striking hands is still customary in
some places in making bargains; the buyer holds his hand open, and the
seller strikes it with open hand; whence they are said to have _struck a
bargain_.]
{459a} Psalm 116.
{459b} It probably should be _Dirge_.
{459c} 14th of September.
{461} Nativus servus—[This seems to do little credit to the feelings, or
to the memory of these rich gild brethren: Why should any sober,
industrious person, though of servile birth, or origin, be thus
disdainfully precluded from partaking of the benefit of their
institution, while he could advance the admission, or entrance money?]
{462a} Same date. Quere if not Edward, 1. 1279.
{462b} We have not these meetings any where explained: nor do we well
know in what they were distinguished from those called generals.
{464} The remainder of the above article, being rather long, and what
would take up too much room in the text, but too curious, perhaps, to be
omitted, is thrown into this note, and is as follows.—
“And that the said skivins are to take keyage of merchandizes lying
on the key in manner and form following. viz. For every pipe
(dolium) of wine lying on the kay beyond one day 1_d._ and no more
for a week, and so for every week.—_Also_, for every pipe of Wad.
{465a} lying on the kay beyond a day 1_d._ and no more for a week,
and so for every week.—_Also_, for every fardwell called gybe {465b}
of the weight of one pipe or above lying on the kay beyond a day
1_d._ and no more for a week, and so for every week—And in the same
manner for any other goods or ware of the weight of one pipe of wine
or more lying, &c—Of every ship bringing in goods, or carrying out,
4_d._ or less according to the discretion of the skivins—_Also_ for
three stones, called Slipstones, lying on the kay beyond a day, a
farthing, and not more for a week, and so for every week.—_Also_, for
two pieces of Lead {465c} lying on the kay above one day a farthing,
and not more for a week, and so for every week—_Also_, for sand,
chalk, clay, stone, tiles, and other things, of the weight of one
load, lying on the kay above a day, an halfpenny, _&c._—_Also_, for
the load of one boat of sand, chalk, &c. lying, &c. a
farthing.—_Also_, for any wares or goods not herein named, according
to the custom the skivins have used.—_Also_, tor every millstone,
lying above a day, an halfpenny, &c.—_Also_, for every last of
Quernstones. {465d} lying on the kay above a day, one penny
&c.—_Also_, for every last of pitch and brimstone lying one day,
1_d._ and so for every day.—_Also_, for every hawser tyed to the kay,
one penny.—_Also_, The sd. [qu. said] day it is ordered that no bad
persons, nor any spiritual {465e} person, should work upon the kay.”
{465a} Quere.
{465b} A grant, pack, or bale of goods? gybe, from Gibbus.
{465c} Duob. peciis plumbi, probably what are now called piggs.
{465d} De Quernstonis, small grinding stones for mustard, malt &c. as I
take it: Quern for corn by corruption.
{465e} Spiritual: it is likely that some of the monks or fryars used to
do sq.
[These notes are Parkin’s.]
{466a} This article may be considered as a rule for preserving good
manners at the guild. The prohibition of coming there _barefooted_, is a
plain indication, that it was common then, even for those of the better
sort, to go about ordinarily without shoes and stockings. The case is
very different now: and yet it may be questioned, if we live happier than
they did. The former article contains directions for the conduct of the
brethren and burgesses at Stirbich and other such fairs.
{466b} The remainder of the account of this guild, in the said MS.
Volume, consists of brief notices, or rather the names of its aldermen at
different periods: [by _Parkin_.] Of which the following is the
substance.—
Richard Lambert occurs Alderm. 1272. 56. Henry 3.
Robert de London alderm. occurs 15. Edward I. and 18. Edward I. Wm
de Lyndesey was his deputy. Peter de Thrundeyn chos. ald. on Friday
after the assumpt. of the Virg. M. 18. Ed. I. and occurs also in the
34. of the said king.
Simon Fitz Simon occ. ald. 15. § Ed. 2. John de Morton then Mayor
3rd. time.
Robt. de Derby, Q. if not ald. 3. Ed. 3. seems to occ.
Jeff. Drew ald. occ. 27. and 31. Ed. 3.
Tho. Bottesham occ. ald. 44. Ed. 3. and in 1379.
Wm. Franceys ald. 14. Ed. 3.
Hen. Betely occ. ald. tem. Rich. 2.
Roger Galyon occ. Mayor and Ald. 13. Hen. 4. 25 July.
John Brunham occ. ald. 7. Hen. 4. 5. and in 3.
Tho. Hunt occ. ald. 20 June 1 Hen. 6.
Hen. Thoresby occ. ald. 25. Hen. 6. and 21 Hen. 6.
Walter Cony ald. 1464. above 14 years, dy’d 29 Sept. 1479.
{471} _Seche_ is here distinguished from _Sechehythe_.
{472} Mr. Day’s MS. volume, p. 59, &c.
{476} How happy it was for them to have betwixt them and God such a
powerful mediator as _saint Francis_!
{477a} I.e. a halfpenny.
{477b} All this is very good.
{477c} The meaning of that word seems difficult to make out.
{479} This shows that the _mornspechs_ and _generals_ were different
sorts of meetings; but it seems not very clear wherein they were
so.—Quere, if the former were not the religious, and the latter the
convivial meetings.
{480a} Ob. seems to be here a contraction of _obolus_, and signifies a
_half-penny_.
{480b} How very different from the present was that time when _three fat
sheep_ sold for _eight shillings_, and _three fatted calves_ for only
_eight shilling and ten pence_! The difference in a great measure may
consist in the comparative value of money, or of the precious metals.
They were then, perhaps, above 20 times more valuable, and less
plentiful, than now. We are told that the Jewish Solomon made silver to
be in Jerusalem as stone, and that it was nothing accounted of in his
days: our own Solomon seems to be in the way to bring things to the same
pass. But this is no sure indication of national prosperity—Solomon’s
subjects, for all the vast influx of wealth, were grievously oppressed
and unhappy, of which his unwise successor felt the sad and fatal
effects.—The dissolution of monasteries, expulsion of the monks, and
introduction of protestantism were long bewailed by many of our country
men, as very serious evils, and the causes of the dearness of provisions,
&c. Their sentiments and feelings they would often express in verse as
well as prose: whence one of our old popular songs had in it these
remarkable expressions—
“I remember the time, before the monks went hence,
That a bushel of wheat sold for fourteen pence,
And forty eggs a penny—”
We are also told that about the time when those changes took place, beef
sold at a _half penny_ a pound, and mutton at _three farthings_, and that
butchers then sold _penny pieces_ of beef to the poor, which weighed
2_lb._ & half, and often 3_lb._ and moreover, that 14 such pieces were
sold for shilling.—When the price advanced soon after, it is no wonder
that many would impute it to the late religious changes, or previous
ecclesiastical revolution.
{480c} Ob. seems to be here a contraction of _obolus_, and signifies a
_half-penny_.
{485} Our Gilds were somewhat like the navies of our good allies the
Portuguese and Spaniards, where almost every ship bears the name of some
saint or other: but it does not seem that they are at all the better for
that.
{486} How many _Gild Halls_ there were formerly at Lynn, besides those
of _St. George_ and the _Trinity_, it is now impossible to say: but we
may pretty safely presume that there were several; one of them was
probably that place in Purfleet Street which was a dissenting meeting
house 40 or 50 years ago, and is now occupied as a school room: but we
pretend not to guess to what Gild it belonged.
{488} Beauties of England, vol. xi, 245.
{489a} See Parkin 126.
{489b} We cannot find what church this was.
{489c} Men were then in England conveyed with the land.
{490} Parkin as before.
{491a} Parkin, 129.
{491b} Eccl. History, 1. 447. Ed. 1774.
{495} “As the pontiff, (says Mosheim) allowed these four Mendicant
orders the liberty of travelling wherever they thought proper, of
conversing with persons of all ranks, of instructing the youth and the
multitude wherever they went; and, as these monks exhibited, in their
outward appearance and manner of life, more striking marks of gravity and
holiness than were observable in the other monastic societies, they arose
all at once to the very summit of fame, and were regarded with the utmost
esteem and veneration throughout all the countries of Europe. The
enthusiastic attachment to these sanctimonious beggars went so far, that,
as we learn from the most authentic records, several cities were divided,
or cantoned out, into four parts, with a view to these four orders; the
first part was assigned to the Dominicans; the second to the Franciscans;
the third to the Carmelites; and the fourth to the Augustinians. The
people were unwilling to receive the sacraments from any other hands than
those of the Mendicants, to whose churches they crowded to perform their
devotion, while living, and were extremely desirous to deposite there
also their remains after death; all which occasioned grievous complaints
among the ordinary priests, to whom the care of souls was committed, and
who considered themselves as the spiritual guides of the multitude.”
[These Medicants were evidently the Methodists and Evangelical Clergy of
those days, and might, for aught we know, merit the popularity which they
had acquired as much to the full as their successors of the present day.]
“Nor did the influence and credit of the Mendicants end here; for we find
that they were employed, not only in spiritual matters, but also in
temporal and political affairs of the greatest consequence, in composing
the differences of princes, concluding treaties of peace, concerting
alliances, presiding in cabinet councils, governing courts, levying
taxes, and other occupations, not only remote from, but absolutely
inconsistent with, the monastic character and profession.” Mosh. E. H.
iii. 53.
{498} See Mosheim E. H. ii. 412, &c.—Let us not think of reproaching the
_papists_ for the absurdities of their Carmelites:—Our own _protestant_
order of _free-masons_ can any day match them in the ridiculous
extravagance of their pretensions to high antiquity, or empty and pompous
boasts of a very remote and dignified origin. Nor were the Carmelites
perhaps in any view less respectable than the said protestant order.
{499a} Beaut. of Engl. vol. xi.
{499b} Parkin 151.
{504} The very extraordinary zeal and enthusiasm exhibited by these
missionary labourers, which amount to a proof of their sincerity, must
have eminently fitted them for such hazardous services, and desperate
undertakings as those above described. Between those adventures of the
_Franciscans_ and some that occur in the early history of that truly
respectable protestant religious order, or party, commonly called
_Quakers_, there appears a very strong and striking resemblance.
{505} See Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist. iii. 56. Also Priestley’s ii. 233, &c.
whence the above account is chiefly extracted.
{507} There were then probably several images of the virgin in this
town, all much resorted to; but that in her chapel on the mount, and
this, might be the chief of them.
{508} In France they were called _Jacobins_, from having obtained the
house of _St. James_, at Paris, for their principal church, or convent;
the identical place, it is supposed, which gave the very same name in our
time to a certain order of politicians, who used to hold their meetings
there, and who seem to have too much resembled their former and stinted
namesakes in the violence and ferociousness of their tempers and
proceedings.
{511} Dominic now proposed to _unite_ the two orders, but Francis
thought it would be better to keep separate, but in perfect harmony; in
which he was probably right, as they would so be likely to act with the
greater energy.—For some ages these two orders are said to have governed,
with an almost absolute and universal sway, both state and church, filled
the most eminent posts ecclesiastical and civil, taught in the
universities and churches with an authority, before which all opposition
was silent, and maintained the pretended majesty and prerogatives of the
Roman pontiffs against kings, princes, bishops, and heretics, with
incredible ardor and equal success. In short, they were before the
reformation what the Jesuits have been since, and what many, who wear the
mask of religion, are at this very day, even in protestant states.—Much
as Francis and Dominic might wish their two orders to harmonize and
powerfully cooperate, it seems they did not always do so. There were
occasionally some disagreements and disputes between them: one of which
is said to have happened in 1243. The Dominicans insisted “that they
wore a more decent dress:” to which the Franciscans replied, “We have for
the love of God embraced a more austere and humble life, and are
consequently more holy.” “Yes” (rejoined the others) “it is true that
you go barefooted, ill dressed, and girded with a rope; but you are not
forbidden, as we are, to eat flesh meat, even in public, and to make good
cheer.”—It is to be feared that there have been before now, even between
our own protestant sects, in this enlightened country, disputes about
points no less unimportant and frivolous. Another point, of equal moment
with the former, upon which these two rival orders disagreed, and which
occasioned the most bitter contention between them, was what is called
_the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin_, or whether she _was_,
or was _not_ born in original sin. The Dominicans took the affirmative,
and the Franciscans the negative side in this curious controversy. It
was carried on with the utmost rancour, for ages, and the most scandalous
means were sometimes resorted to, by the respective combatants, in order
to obtain an advantage over their opponents. The religious, or rather
the papal world was long divided between those two silly opinions, and
what is worse, it was kept in a state of continual animosity, each side
looking upon the other with perfect hatred. So usefully and commendably
did these holy friars employ their time and their talents, and such
benefactors were they to mankind!
{512} It is even said that he _died with great marks of piety_: if so,
it is to be hoped that one of those marks was that of repentance, or deep
contrition for his many unworthy deeds; for it is certain that he had
been, in no small degree, a violent man, and a man of blood. He was the
father even of the horrid inquisition, an exciter of murderous crusades
against pretended heretics, and a prime abettor of the shocking
barbarities exercised on the hapless Albigenses.—If he really repented of
these execrable misdeeds, he must have made a more hopeful exit than the
renowned reformer of Geneva, the premeditated murderer of Servetus
appears to have done.
{513} There is still what may be called a convent in Clough Lane, and
even a convent of preaching brethren, but of a very different sort from
the former, and whose labours, it is hoped, have been of very material
and extensive benefit to a large portion of the community.
{517} Mosheim as before, vol. 3.
{522} Priestley’s Gen. Hist. Christian Church, vol. iv.
{524} See Priestley as before.
{525a} Priestley, 2. and 4.
{525b} Beauties of England, vol. xi.
{526a} Parkin, 152.
{526b} Very few, perhaps, if any, could be named of our religious
orders, or christian sects but what have done some good in the world, and
as few, probably, that have not also done harm. In estimating the
character of a religious order, sect, or party, we are apt, as it is very
natural, to set the one against the other: in doing which it too often
becomes a matter of doubt, which of the two, the good or the harm,
preponderates, or exceeds in quantity. When that happens, which is much
less seldom than one could wish, it is a sad painful case. In our own
country, at this time, the diversity of religious sects and parties is
very great. Some of them are vastly popular, and others otherwise. Much
do we daily hear of the exemplary zeal, and the laudable, persevering,
and successful exertions of those who assume the name of _orthodox_ and
_evangelical_, both in the establishment and out of it. These reports
seem generally well founded. Much _good_, no doubt, has been done: and
we may venture to add, much _harm_ also. The great error of these
zealous religionists lies in their spirit, or rather in their not knowing
what manner of spirit they are of, which is evidently not the spirit of
Christ. All who cannot pronounce their _Shibboleth_, they teach their
converts to view with an evil eye: and all who go about to do good in the
name of Christ, they are sure to forbid or revile, and so render all
their benevolent endeavours useless, as far as lies in them, _if they
follow them not_, or are not of their party. They may perhaps plead
_apostolical example_, but it is not countenanced, but expressly
condemned by Christ, who enjoins a very different sort of conduct. Until
they therefore think proper to comply with that injunction of his, they
will have no reason to boast of the excellence, or _evangelicalness of_
their spirit. [see Mark 9.39. Luke 9. 50.] All religious sects and
parties, would do well to consider, that the spirit they are of, is what
always forms the most important and decisive part of their
character.—More of this when we come to the present religious state of
Lynn.
{531} See Mackerell, 194.—and Parkin, 146.
{532} Mr. King’s MS.—also Mackerell, 195.
{544} FOR THE WHOLE YEAR—MAWDLYN, _on the Cawsey between Lynn and
Gaywood_.
_s._ _d._
_Imprimis_, Of Mr. Thoresby, for Sayer’s xx. 0.
Marsh
_Item_, Of Nich. Newgate of Holkham, for 5 ii. 6.
acres of meadow in the same town, for a year
_Item_, Of Wm. Clarke of Wotten, for one acre 0. i.
of pasture nigh Holme’s dale in Gaywood: pay
by the year
_Item_, Of Winter and Goodwin, of Rouncton, x. 0.
for 11 acres pasture in Sechie; who pay by
the year
_Item_, Of Robt. Jerviss, for a ffish bale, x. 0.
lying in the north marsh; who payeth by the
year
_Item_, Of Sir Nicholas L’estrange knt. for xxiii. iiij.
two sheep courses and other lands, lying in
West Lexham, East Lexham, and Dunham; who
payeth by the year
_Item_, Of Thomas Brown of Lynn, for a meadow xx. 0.
lying in Gaywood; who payeth every half year,
x_s._
_Item_, Of Philip Bailie, for 4 acres of xxiiij. 0.
meadow, lying on the west side of Mawdlin,
and pays by the half year, xx_s._ [qu.
xii_s._]
_Item_, Of Robt. Hobbs, now in the tenure of xx. 0.
Mr. Graves, for a meadow lying in Gaywood,
paying quarterly, v_s._
_Item_, Of Thomas Miller, of Lynn, for a x. 0.
meadow lying on the side of the high way, who
payeth quarterly ii_s._ vi_d._
_Item_, In the compass of Congham, 7 roods of mod. brasii.
Hebbe land, lying in Congham: pay by the year
one bushel of malt.
_Item_, Of Mr. Fr Bastard, for a close lying xxxiii. iiij.
without Gannock gate, payeth every half year
xvi_s._ viij_d._
_Item_, Of Robt. Jarvis of Lynn, for a meadow xii. iiij.
next the Lord’s close in Gaywood, paying by
the year
The following statement from a paper published by _Parkin_, and written,
as he took it, in the reign of Elizabeth, may be here subjoined, as it
may cast some further light on the state of the possessions of this
Hospital at that period—
“Robert Wylson master of this house, married Isabel, late wife of
Thomas Hesket late master—hath six acres joining to the said house
now in their hands, which is all that they have in occupation in
their own hands.—Also Mr. Thorisbye occupies one marsh lying in
Geywode and Myntlyn, the old rent thereof was 20_s._ _per annum_, at
least, and he is to have of the house for rents belonging to the
manor of Geywode 42_s._ 3_d._ _per annum_.—Mr. Spence occupies one
close lying in Gannock, which is called 10 acres, but in truth is 14
acres at the least, and he pays but 33_s._ and 4_d._ _per
annum_.—Park of Holme holdeth 11 acres in Sechyth, and pays but
33_s._ 4_d._ _per annum_, well worth 4_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ _per
annum_.—Also Mr. Strange hath a fold course and lands in Lexham,
which wont to pay to the said house 23_s._ _per annum_, and by the
space of 80 years hath [remained] unpaid, and by the report of them
that know it, it is well worth 4_l._ _per annum_.—Other lands in
Congham and Creake Abbey, the value whereof is not yet made.—Also
Wrothes of Gaywode holdeth one pigthtle worth 6_s._ _per annum_, and
pays nothing.—_Item_, one close or pigthle lying in Geywode by South
Wotton, hath been let for 8_s._ _per annum_, but now none will give
above 3_s._ or 2_s._ 3_d._ _per annum_.—_Item_, One rede dole in
Geywode containing 8 acres, the old rent is 8_s._—_Item_, Mr. Pell
occupieth 3 acres by the house; the old rent was 10_s._ and now
20_s._—_Item_, Thomas Gybson of Lynne occupies one close of 3 acres
by the house; the old lent was 20_s._ now 40_s._—_Item_, He occupies
. . . acres lying by Maudelyn Bank, and pays 24_s._ _per annum_, and
it is worth 50_s._—_Item_, two acres by Dersingham Lane, worth 20_s._
_per annum_, the old rent 10_s._—_Item_, In Geywode fen 3 acres, the
old rent 6_s._ now 15_s._ _per annum_. Roger Lauson has an acre and
a half, old rent 10_s._ now 26_s._ 8_d._ _per annum_.—Six acres lying
by Salters Load; the old rent 10_s._ now 20_s._ _per annum_.—_Item_,
A whole piece there, and pays 4_s._ 6_d._ _per annum_.—_Item_, 5
acres in Narford, old rent 9_d._ now 3_s._—_Item_, 5 acres in
Hockold, let for 2_s._ _per annum_, worth _5s._”—[_See_ Parkin 148.]
{546a} We cannot learn when this change look place.
{546b} A _sisterhood only_, consisting of a _master_, &c. has a somewhat
of an Hibernian sound.
{546c} Mr. King’s MS. volume.
{546d} Parkin, 145.
{547} It is taken from Mr. King’s MS. volume almost verbatim, though not
always in the exact order in which it there stands.
{548} There are not properly two courts: the space between the portal
and the proper court, consists of two rows of little gardens divided by
the walk, or entrance into the said court.
{549} At the time referred to above, that is, about 1720, or 1724, the
allowances to the pensioners residing in the said house, were as follows—
_l._ _s._ _d._
To the Master of the Hospital, per week 0. 4 6.
To eleven poor widows per week, at 2_s._ 1. 7. 6.
6_d._ each
To the Master yearly, one Chalder and 1. 10. 0.
half of coals
To eleven widows yearly, one Chalder of 11. 0. 0.
coals each
For 15 Sheaves of Sedges to the Master 0. 2. 6.
for kindling
For 10 Sheaves to each of the Sisters (in 0. 18. 4.
all 110)
Total. £96. 14. 10.
Besides repairs and other contingencies. [See Mr. King’s MS. and
Mackerell.]
From the above period to the present time, the weekly allowance to the
master and sisters has been gradually advancing, but not in proportion to
the advance in the price of the necessaries of life; at least not so
during the present reign, and especially this latter part of it. For the
last fifty years the weekly allowance of the sisters, has been from 3_s._
6_d._ of 4_s._ to 5_s._ till the commencement of the present year [1810]
when it was advanced from 5_s._ to 7_s._ and the master’s allowance from
7_s._ to 10_s._—This pleasing change in the situation of these pensioners
has been ascribed to the laudable and humane exertions of the present
acting governor and treasurer, _Edmund Rolfe Elsden Esq._, who is
supposed to have acquitted himself, in this situation, more respectably
and commendably than any of his predecessors, for the last fifty years at
least. Besides advancing the weekly allowance of the pensioners, he has
also put the hospital itself and premises in a state of thorough repair,
at the expence of 400_l._ or more. All this he has been enabled to
accomplish by advancing the rent of the lands according to their present
value: and it is expected that he will be able soon to make an additional
augmentation to the weekly allowance and comforts of the poor pensioners,
whose concerns he so laudably superintends. Till he was appointed to
this situation their condition was very miserable, and every year getting
worse and worse, with little or no hope of amendment. In short, Alderman
Elsden, in the character of acting governor and treasurer of our Magdalen
Hospital, has deserved well, not only of the pensioners of that home, but
also of the public at large. His successors it is hoped will not fail to
profit by his praiseworthy examples and it is to be wished that the
managers of all similar charities would make a point of acting in like
manner. Very different, indeed, by all accounts, has been the conduct of
too many, if not of most of those entrusted with the superintendence and
management of our charitable institutions throughout the kingdom, by
which they have proved themselves utterly unworthy of the confidence
reposed in them, and rendered their very names and memories detestable in
the eyes of all honest men.
{550} Mackerell, 194, &c.
{553a} The builder or founder, probably, of the old parsonage house
there, which has the name still over the door: in which case, that house
must have stood between 3 and 400 years.
{553b} Parkin 164, 165.
{554} The author of the Norfolk Tour, speaking of the Red Mount, gives
the following account of the said king’s visit to this place—
“When Edw. IV. and his brother, the duke of Gloster, fled before the
great earl of Warwick, on passing the Washes in Lincolnshire, at an
improper time, they lost their baggage and money; and arriving at
Lynn, October 2. 1470, [other accounts say 1469] lodged one night in
this building, which the historian erroneously calls a _castle_.”
[But the historian was, perhaps, more correct than his corrector.]
{555a} But though the said chapel is confessedly an ecclesiastical
structure, there might be once about it erections of a military, or
castellated character, which would account for its obtaining the name of
a _castle_.
{555b} Beauties of England, vol. xi. p. 294.
{556} “What led to the great celebrity which this place obtained for
centuries, was the widow lady of _Ricoldie Faverches_ founding, about
1061, a small _chapel_ in honour of the virgin Mary, similar to the
Sancta Casa, at Nazareth. Her son confirmed the endowments, made an
additional foundation of a _Priory_ for Augustine canons, and erected a
_conventual church_. At the dissolution, the annual revenues of the
monastery were valued, according to Speed, at 446_l._ 14_s._ 4_d._ That
its wealth should have been immensely great, is not surprising, when the
fame of the image of our Lady of Walsingham is taken into the account;
for it was as much frequented, if not more, than the shrine of St. Thomas
a Becket, at Canterbury. Foreigners of all nations came thither on
pilgrimage; many kings and queens of England also paid their devoirs to
it; so that the number and quality of her devotees appeared to equal
those of the Lady of Loretto, in Italy.—The celebrated Erasmus represents
it as a place of such transcendent splendor as would lead one to suppose
it the seat of the gods. The monks had contrived to persuade many, that
the _galaxy_ in the heavens was a miraculous indication of the _way_ to
this place: hence that was called _Walsingham Way_.”—See Beaut. Engl. xi.
313.
{558} Having again touched on the subject of the Gilds, the author begs
leave here to correct an inaccuracy or error that escaped him in
mentioning St. Ethelred’s Gild at page 439. It now appears to him that
this fraternity took its name from a female personage, named _St.
Etheldreda_; and he has, since the above page was printed off, observed
the following notice of it in Parkin (134.)—“John Alcock, bishop of Ely,
June 3, 1490, granted 40 days pardon, or indulgence, to all the brethren
and sisters of the guild of St. Etheldreda, in St. Nicholas’s chapel of
Lynn, at the altar of St. Etheldreda the most holy virgin, there founded,
and to all who should hear mass at the said altar, and to all who said
_quinquies_ before the said altar, the Lord’s prayer and the Salutation
_quinquies_. _Reg. Alc. Ep. El._”—So great, in the said bishop’s time,
was the encouragement to enter into St. Etheldreda’s Gild, and to hear
mass at her altar, or say _quinquies_ before it!
{559} Some have thought that the bishop’s town house stood by the Fort,
and that the said stones might belong to that edifice, which must be a
mistake, as it appears, from old records, that that house stood by St.
Nicholas’s chapel _to the west_, which must be about where Dr. Redferne
or Mr. T. Allen’s house now stands.—That the bishop had a house here in
the time of Henry III. appears, according to Parkin, from _Plita Corona
apd. Lenn_, 41 of that reign. “This same house seems to be alluded to
afterwards, in _Plita Assis. Norw._ 4. Hen. IV. when it was found, that
John Wentworth, mayor of Lenne Episcopi, and the commonalty, had unjustly
disseized Henry, bishop of Norwich, of his free tenement here, 100 acres
of land, and 20 acres of pasture, he being seized of it in right of his
church,” &c. From this it would appear, that Wentworth was not on good
terms with the said bishop, which may account for his competitor,
Pettipas, advising his friends to seek his lordship’s interference; and
it appears from his Letters, that the bishop was favourable to him and,
hostile to Wentworth.—Parkin 155.—also Mr. K’s MS.
{560} Parkin 141.
{561a} Parkin, 152.
{561b} Ib. 165.
{562} Parkin, 125.
{563a} The author is sometimes ready to suspect that the two
_anchorages_, mentioned in some of the foregoing pages, were in fact no
other than the lodges or retreats of some anchorets, though he has there
given the word a different explanation. (see p. 507.)
{563b} Parkin, 142.
{564a} Beaut. of England, xi. 23.
{564b} Parkin, 140.
{564c} See p. 453.
{565a} Parkin, 140.
{565b} Parkin, as before.
{566a} “Be it known unto all men by these presents, that we _John
Salisbury_, dean of the cathedral church of the holy undividable trinity
of Norwich, and chapter of the same church, have remised, released, and
clearly for ever, for us and our successors, quit claim, and do by these
presents remise, release, and quit claim to the mayor of the burgh of
Lynn Regis, and to the burgesses of the same; and also to _Robert
Gervise_ and _John Towers_, all manner of quarrels, trespasses,
variances, controversies, debates, and demands, which we have, and ought
to have, for the _Lead_, _Glass_, _Bells_, _Iron_, _Brass_, _Laten_,
_Timber_ and _Stones_, of the _Chapel of St. James_ in King’s Lynn
aforesaid, for all and every other cause and causes whatsoever,
concerning the same Chapel. In witness whereof to these presents, We the
said Dean and Chapter have set our chapter seal this 8th day of January,
in the 8th year of the reign of Elizabeth, by the grace of God, Queen of
England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.
REGISTRATOR.
Sealed and delivered, to the use of the Mayor and Burgesses of King’s
Lynn, and Robert Jervis and John Towers, in the presence of John Debney
of Norwich, David Coytmor, Alexander Auger, and Richard Lasher.”
[Mackerell, 217.]
{566b} In 1560, five or six years anterior to the date of the above
deed, as we learn from Mackerell, “several gentlemen came to Lynn, and
would have taken the state of St. James’s church, by order of the
Councils Letters, but were opposed and resisted by the corporation.” But
if they actually came by the authority of the privy council, as the above
seems to imply, it must be rather odd that the corporation should venture
to oppose and resist them: but so it is said, see Mackerell 227.—The same
writer says, p. 177, that in 1567 _the pinnacle_ of St. James’s chapel,
(by which we may suppose he meant the _spire_ of it,) “was taken down,
and the steeple built flat.” So that the tower appears to have been left
for some time in its original state, after the chief part of the chapel
had been pulled down.
{570} Mackerell, 222.
{571a} Ib. 178.
{571b} By the above Act, if we are not mistaken, or about the time when
it took place, there was also appropriated, as a further adoption to the
revenue and maintenance of the said house, _four pence per chaldron_ on
all coals imported here by strangers; which is said to amount yearly, one
year with another, to 200_l._ and upwards. [Mackerell, 178.]
{571c} Mackerell, 178.
{572} Grisenthwaite’s Remarks.
{573} The reader will perceive that this is not perfectly correct; but
so it stands in Mr. Grisenthwaite’s Pamphlet. The incorrectness,
however, is trivial, and cannot affect the main subject. It may be
supposed to lie among the separate articles, rather than in the casting
up; but it cannot be rectified without a sight of the original account.
{574} This statement also is somewhat inaccurate, but not so as to
affect the main subject. The sum total may be presumed to be strictly
correct, whatever slight errors may have crept among the separate
articles, which might be easily rectified by a sight of the original
documents.
{575a} See Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, p. 21, and the last Account of
Receipts and Disbursements published by the Corporation of Guardians.
{575b} They were between fire and six score last year, and are supposed
to be more now. This is said to have already occasioned to our Lynn
house-owners a loss of above 1000_l._ a year: of course, they have no
great reason to exult in the goodness of the times, or to boast of the
salutary or beneficial effects of the new poor and paving laws.
{576a} Lynn, unquestionably, owes much of its present declension to the
new _poor_ and _paving_ laws, which have so greatly added to those
burdens which were already become almost unbearable: they therefore ought
not to have been brought forward at such a time; especially as they were
disapproved by a large proportion of the inhabitants. Though their bad
effects are visible to the most superficial observer, yet that avails
nothing: we are too self-sufficient to be taught by experience, or to let
the remembrance of past errors correct our future conduct. The present
sudden advance, or augmentation of the _water-rent_, at the rate of fifty
per cent, may serve to illustrate this. Under our present circumstances,
this measure must appear exceedingly inconsiderate, unfeeling, and
illtimed. It would not have been disreputable in the managers of this
concern to pay the inhabitants the compliment of explaining to them the
reason of this measure: but, perhaps, they might think that the
inhabitants had no light to know the reason, nor yet the reasonableness
of their exactions. Private householders are to be charged higher than
shopkeepers: this also seems to want explanation. Were we possessed of
the whole secret, it would probably appear that abuses exist in the
management of our waterworks not very dissimilar to those of our
work-house.
{576b} Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, page 40.
{577a} _Sixty Stone_ a week, or more, as it is positively reported.
{577b} Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, p. 41.
{578a} Account of Receipts and Disbursements of 1809, published by the
Corporation of Guardians.
{578b} G.’s Remarks, p. 33.
{579a} One would hardly have expected that the cost of cheese alone, in
a poor-house, would have been more than one fourth of that of both
_bread_ and _four_.
{579b} Account of Receipts and Disbursements, as before.
{579c} If any thing has been mistated here, the writer will thank any
one that will apprize him of it; and he will take care to have it
rectified.
{580a} Let no one suppose, from what has been above said or suggested
that the present writer would wish our poor to be neglected, or treated
unfeelingly. Nothing on earth can be further from his thoughts. Let
them, by all means, be sufficiently attended to, and duly provided for:
but he sees no reason why they should live better than the poor in all
other English work-houses, or even better than what many of those that
contribute towards their support can afford to do; which yet seems to be
actually the case at Lynn, of late years. Much tender attention,
undoubtedly, is due, not only to those of the poor who are entitled to
parochial relief, but also to those of them on whom a contribution beyond
their power is levied towards that relief. Of these there is said to be
now among us no small number.
{580b} Grisenthwaite’s Remarks p. 24.
{581a} Its connection with the history of St. James’s Chapel and
Hospital was the sole reason of its being adverted to, or brought forward
in this part of the work.
{581b} In the article of _Meat_, for instance, the reduction is said to
be from 60 stone, or more, to less than 30.
{581c} The expectation of the adoption of a thorough economical system,
for our Workhouse, has considerably lowered, with some people, since the
recent appointment of a new collector of poor rates; when a person was
appointed with a salary of 130_l._ a year, although another candidate, of
equally unexceptionable character offered, as it is said, to execute the
office for 50_l._ less. This, indeed, does not seem to be a good omen;
yet we hope it does not augur, or absolutely indicate that things will
still go on after the old sort, so as to admit of such vile and infamous
proceedings as those of the _flour-merchants_, mentioned by Mr.
Grisenthwaite, or that the expenditure of the next and succeeding years
will equal, or nearly equal, that of the last and preceding ones.—No
longer, it is to be hoped, are we to hear of “every thing for the use of
the House being procured of whom and in such quantities as the governor
and master think proper, _at the full current market prices_—or, that
groceries are taken, in small quantities, _at the common retail
rates_—or, that _clothing_ provided for the house _costs upwards of_ 30
_per Cent. more them it might fairly be afforded at_—or, that _our female
paupers_, on holidays, are to be seen associated, in the vilest
ale-houses, with the very dregs of society, manifesting by their lewdness
of expression, immodest demeanour, and depraved sentiment, an entire
dereliction of every virtuous principle.” This last circumstance must
have actually reduced our poor-house to a _wh—house_! a character which,
sorely it ought no longer to retain; otherwise a great part of our
enormous poor rates will be most infamously misapplied.—It is presumed it
will also be very desirable that _our new collector_ should not
tenaciously imitate every part of the conduct of _his predecessor_; and
especially that of harassing the poorer householders, for default of
prompt or speedy payment, by indiscriminately issuing _summonses_, at the
rate of 2_s._ 4_d._ a piece, and by three and four score at a time. Such
a process must bear very hard upon those luckless people, whose poverty
or inability constitutes perhaps, the whole of their delinquency. To
exact, therefore, an additional 2_s._ 4_d._ from each of them, must have
been, to say the least of it, an unchristian and inhuman deed.—N.B. The
_Collector_ above mentioned, with a salary of 130_l._ a year, is a _new
officer_, as is also the _Registrar_, with a salary of 50_l._ a year.
These twin-brothers are the legitimate offspring of the new poor act. To
the Registrar is supposed to belong, to _chronicle small beer_, &c. and
write summonses: if so, as the defaulters are charged 2_s._ 4_d._ for
each summons, are they not, in fact, paid for _twice over_?
{586a} Were it, indeed, ascertainable, that it was Nicholas who taught
England and Europe the use of the Compass, Lynn would have great reason
to be proud of him. But the fact is doubtful, if not more than doubtful,
as the same honour has been confidently ascribed to _Flavio Gioia_, a
celebrated mathematician of Amalfi, in Naples, who flourished about 1300,
which was somewhat earlier than the other, and who marked the
_north-point_ in the Compass by a _flower de lis_, in compliment to the
then Neapolitan royal family, which was a branch of that of France.
Still our townsman might have a share, and that perhaps not small, if not
in the discovery itself, yet, at least, in its improvement, or the
application of it to the purposes of navigation. The _Chinese_ are said
to have been acquainted with magnetism and the use of the compass long
before all other nations.
{586b} The Astrolabe was an instrument formerly in much request, and
still very well spoken of. There were different sorts of instruments
that bore that name. The above was one of those called _sea_-astrolabes,
a description of which may be seen in the works of _Chaucer_, and also in
the Cyclopædias.
{587} _Bale_, however, classes him among the _Carmelites_; but it seems
to be generally agreed that he was mistaken, and that Nicholas certainly
belonged to the Franciscans, as was said above. Mackerell imputes Bale’s
placing him among the Carmelites to his partiality to them, having
himself been of that fraternity.
{590} Which may probably indicate, that he had been educated at
_Oxford_, as that university was the great nest, or fountain-head of
Lollardism, which seems not to have been much, if at all countenanced at
Cambridge.—Abp. Arundel with his commissioners visited Cambridge in 1401,
not long, it seems, after the trial and burning of Sautre. . . . One,
and perhaps the chief object of their visit was, to enquire, Whether
there were among its members “any suspected of Lollardism, or any other
heretical pravity.” One solitary Lollard was found out, whose name was
_Peter Harford_, who was ordered to abjure Wickliff’s opinions in full
congregation. (See Mo. Mag. for Oct. 1803, p. 225.)
{592} Let it not be supposed that the vile prison holes, or places of
torment, above spoken of, and described, were used _only_ by the votaries
of popery, or the roman catholics. Even the member and prelates of the
protestant church of England appear also to have made use of them before
now; and that, too, at what some seem to deem the era of the utmost
evangelical purity of that church—the reign of good queen Bess, as she
has been often called. As to our pretended orthodox and evangelical
sectaries, if they have not followed the above example _literally_, yet
have they made, and still make no scruple of doing it, as we may say,
_metaphorically_ or _figuratively_, at least.—When any one is pronounced
by their petty popes, prelates, priests, exorcists, or consistories, to
be possessed with the demon of heterodoxy or heresy, he is immediately
reviled, defamed, proscribed, and outlawed, at it were, by proclamation;
or pilloried and gibbeted, in their periodical and other publications—in
other words, they do all they can to set every body against him, and
render him odious in the sight of all men, as one who has forfeited the
esteem of his fellow citizens, and is no longer worthy of enjoying the
common rights and comforts of society.—In short, they appear to use all
their efforts and energies to have him effectually secured in a
_Little-Ease_, of a most painful and dismal sort.—If our protestant,
orthodox, and evangelical sects and parties do thus, who can wonder at
the cruelties ascribed to the papists in former times? Instead of
inveighing against the intolerant, persecuting, and antichristian spirit
of popery, as these very people often do, they ought, surely, to consider
how little that spirit differs from their own. While they inveigh or
declaim against the injustice and cruelty of imprisoning, banishing,
hanging, or burning people for their religion, and yet, at the same time,
are in the constant practice of traducing, reviling, defaming, exhibiting
as evil-doers, and treating in the most unkind and injurious manner,
those whom they are pleased to brand with the name of _heretics_, or who
differ from them, they discover the self same spirit with the very worst
of persecutors, and may be compared to the ancient sect called
_Circonelliones_, who would not use the _sword_, because Christ had
forbidden it to _Peter_, but armed themselves with _Clubs_, which they
called _the clubs of Israel_, with which they could break all the bones
in a man’s skin.—See Jones’ Mem. of bishop Horne, 275.
{593} The act _De Hæretico Comburendo_, did not take place till sometime
after; so that its terrors cannot be supposed to have frightened him to
recantation.—We can think of nothing so likely to have produced that
effect as some intolerably severe private sufferings which he had
undergone during the above mentioned interval.
{597} That _scrole_ related, it seems, to the _recantation_, of which,
according to Fox, the following was the tenor or _substance_—
“_Imprimis_, touching the first and second, [articles] where I said
that I would adore rather a temporall prince, and the lively bodies
of the saints, than the wooden crosse whereupon the Lord did hang, I
do revoke and recant the same, as being therein deceived.—To this I
say, that the article is false and erroneous, and by false
information I held it; the which I renounce and ask forgiveness
thereof, and say, that is a precious relique, and that I shall hold
it while I live, and that I sweare here.—I know well that I erred
wrongfully by false information: for I wot well, that a deacon or a
priest is more bound to say his mattens and houres then to preach;
for there he is bounden by right: wherefore I submit me, &c.—Touching
that article, I know right well that I erred by false information.
Wherefore I ask forgiveness.—As concerning vowes, I say that opinion
is false and erroneous, and by false information I held it; for a man
is holden to hold his vow, &c.—To the 7. article I say, that I did it
by authority of priesthood, wherethrough I knowledge well that I have
guilt and trespassed: wherefore I submit me to God and to holy
church, and to you father, swearing that I shall never hold it
more.—To the 8. (article) I say, that I held it by false and wrong
information. But now I know well that it is heresie, and that bread,
anon as the word of the sacrament is said, is no longer bread
materiall, but that it is turned into very Christ’s body; and that I
sweare here.”
Two more articles were then retracted by him, and pronounced to be _false
and erroneous_, &c. but it does not appear what they were, (see Fox, 1.
674.)—This recantation, throughout, exhibits evident symptoms of a man so
overcome by his fears, or his sufferings, as to be ready to say or do any
that his unfeeling persecutors should prescribe or dictate to him.—He
appeared much more fearless and intrepid, afterwards, when he was taken
up the last time, tried before the arch-bishop and convocation, condemned
and committed to the flames.
{598} Fox A. and M. 1. 673.
{599} The Londoners were then distinguished for their partiality to the
Lollards; which may, in some measure, account for the facility with which
Sawtre appears to have obtained the appointment or situation of minister
of St. Osith.—see _Fox_, 670.
{600} The celebrated Sir William Jones is well known to have been one of
our most earnest and warm friends and advocates of reform. The memorable
Dr. _Johnson_ used to call him, _the most enlightened of the sons of
men_.
{603} Fox A. and M. 671, 672.
{604} One circumstance, mentioned as having occurred in the course of
this examination, seems not a little difficult to account for. Fox says,
that Arundel enquired of Sawtre, “Whether he had abjured the foresaid
heresies and errors objected against him before the bishop of Norwich, or
not; or else had revoked and renounced the said or such like conclusions
or articles, or not?” and that the latter answered and affirmed that he
had not. [p. 672.] Also four days after, when the fore-cited process of
the bishop of Norwich was read to him before the convocation, and it was
urged that he had then abjured, among other errors, the heresy, that in
the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration made by the priest,
there still remained material bread, “Whereunto the said William,
answered, smiling, or in mocking wise, and denying that he knew of the
premisses.” [Ib. p. 674.] In all this there is evidently some mystery,
which one knows not how to unravel, except on the supposition, that there
was some material mistake, or designed misrepresentation in the statement
which bishop Spencer sent to the convocation of his process against
Sawtre, and of the tenor of the latter’s retraction, which might, in his
opinion, justify his said denial.
{605} He might well answer _deridingly_, for such interrogations were
fit only to excite contempt and derision.
{606} See Fox 673, who gives the following as a copy of the said
sentence—
“_In the Name of God_, _Amen_. We Thomas by the grace of God
archbishop of Canterbury, primate of England, and Legate of the See
Apostolicall, _by the authority of God almighty_, and blessed Saint
_Peter_ and _Paul_, and of _holy church_, and _by our own authority_,
sitting for tribunall or chiefe judge, _having God alone before our
eyes_, by the counsell and consent of the whole clergie, our fellow
bretheren and suffragans, assistants to us in this present councell
provinciall, by this our sentence definitive do pronounce, decree,
and declare by these presents, thee William Sautre, otherwise colled
Chawtrey, parish priest pretensed, personally appearing before us, in
and upon the crime of heresie, judicially and lawfully convict, as an
heretike, and as an heretike be punished.”
{607} See Fox, p. 674. where we find a copy of this second sentence, or
sentence of degradation, in the following words . . .
“_In the Name of God_, _Amen_. Wee Thomas by the grace of God
archbishop of Canterbury, Legate of the See Apostolicall, and
metropolitan of all England, doe find and declare, that thou William
Sautre, otherwise called Chautris, priest, by us with the counsell
and assent of all and singular our fellow brethren and whole clergy,
by this our sentence definitive declared in writing, hast beene for
heresie convict and condemned, and art (being againe fallen into
heresie) to be deposed and degraded by these presents.”
{608} But its absurdity seems of an opposite cast to that of one our
late parliaments, which undertook to establish the popish doctrine of the
_indelibility of the priestly_, _or clerical character_, than which
neither the above process, nor even transubstantiation itself, can be
more absurd or ridiculous. That such a doctrine should really be
recognised, adopted, and established by the British Senate, now in the
19th century, might have occasioned no small astonishment, had not the
same august body, within the same period, done so many other things
equally strange, marvellous, and disreputable. Should we become
inquisitive, and presume to ask, What is this invisible, mysterious,
indelible something, called character; the episcopal, priestly, or
clerical _character_? some will tell us, that it is a _spiritual power_,
others a _habit_ or _disposition_, others a _spiritual figure_, others a
_sensible metaphorical quality_, others a _real relation_, others a
_fabric of the mind_: by all which, little more, perhaps, can be made
out, or comprehended, than that the advocates or supporters of the
doctrine are much at variance about this character. But however they may
differ in their ideas and definitions of the character itself, they are,
it seems, in perfect agreement as to its indelibility; being all firmly
persuaded, that though a bishop, priest, or deacon, turn heretic; or
schismatic, deist or atheist, he still retains the character; and though
not a christian man, he is still a christian bishop, priest, or deacon:
though he be degraded and excommunicated, he is in respect to the
character still the same. Though he be cut off from the church, he is
still a minister in the church. In such a situation, to perform any of
the sacred functions would be in him a deadly sin, but these would be
equally valid as before. Thus he may not be within the pale of the
church himself, and yet be in the church as a minister of Jesus Christ.
He may openly and solemnly blaspheme God, and abjure the faith of Christ;
he may apostatize to Judaism, to Mahometism, to Paganism, he still
retains the character. He may even become a priest of Jupiter, or a
priest of Baal, and still continue a priest of Jesus Christ. The
character say the Schoolmen, is not cancelled even in the _damned_, but
remains with the wicked to their disgrace and greater confusion; so that
in hell they are the ministers of Jesus Christ, and messengers of the new
covenant!! [see the late Dr. Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical
History, for a more full and striking view of this subject.] That our
legislature, in sanctioning the said doctrine, did really mean to go the
whole length the Schoolmen did, or adopt all their ideas concerning it,
may, perhaps, admit of some doubt: but after agreeing with them in the
main point, it might be thought hardly worth their while to hesitate
about the smaller matters. Be this as it may, the convocation over which
archbishop Arundel presided, in the process against Sawtre, seem to have
been entirely of a different opinion, both from she Schoolmen and our
said late parliament, on this notable question of clerical indelibility.
{610} The sentence printed in italics is given in _Latin_ by Fox.
{613} If there be any one thing more detestable than the rest among the
proceedings of Arundel and his inquisitorial associates, against Sawtre,
it is their affecting to feel for him, or commiserate his case and
recommend him to the _favour_ of the secular power, at the very time when
they were delivering him up as a sheep to the slaughter (or to the
butcher) or as a victim for immediate immolation. They felt no pity for
him, and knew that the magistrate would shew him no favour.—The judges of
the _Inquisition_ also are said always to express much tenderness and
goodwill towards those they condemn to the flames.—Our _protestant and
pretended evangelical sects_, likewise, are often heard to use the
language of kindness and pity towards those whom they have pronounced to
be _heretics_, at the same time they are doing all they can to render
them odious in the eyes of all men, and, deprive them of the kind offices
and good opinion of all their fellow-citizens.
{615a} Yes, devilishly so.
{615b} Fox 675.
{626} The Errata has been applied to this eBook.—DP.