The History of Lynn, Vol. 1 [of 2]

Like that of the rest of his party, (the Lollards,) Sawtre’s heresy seems to have been of a twofold nature; partly religious, and partly political; which must have rendered him doubly odious to the ruling powers: and as he proved a relapsed, confirmed, and irreclaimable heretic, we need not wonder that he should be made to feel the whole and overwhelming weight of their indignation and vengeance.  The affairs of this country were then, as at some subsequent periods, most wretchedly situated.  Every thing, both in church and state, might be said to be lamentably in the wrong: and Sawtre appears to have been earnestly desirous of having them thoroughly reformed and rectified.  He may therefore be considered, if not as the Sir William Jones, [600] the Sir Francis Burdett, or the Major Cartwright, yet, at least, or rather, as the Christopher Wyvill of that time.  Men of that sort, though ever so honest, virtuous, enlightened, or respectable, are always viewed with an evil eye, and deemed to be dangerous characters by the interested and unprincipled agents and abettors of ecclesiastical and political corruption.  It is no wonder, therefore, that a most horrible outcry was raised against this man throughout the whole camp and borders of those philistines.

Sawtre had formed an important plan for the benefit of his oppressed country, and intended to lay it immediately before parliament.  The design got wind, and the high priests, in particular, with archbishop Arundel at their head, were instantly alarmed, as the project, had it succeeded, would have deeply affected them: and in order effectually to frustrate the reformer’s object, they so managed, that the affair should not go before parliament, but be referred to the convocation, which was then sitting.  From that assembly no good could be expected to result.  Patriots and reformers were there objects of utter aversion; and any one might see that poor Sawtre had no longer any chance of bringing his project to a successful issue, or even of escaping with his life.  He was accordingly brought before that ecclesiastical tribunal, and the result will be seen by the sequel.  This was about the middle of February 1401, or 1400, according to their reckoning; for they placed that month near the close of the year, which, with them, ended on the 25th of March.

“The next yeere after followed a parliament holden at Westminster:” [i.e. in 1400; for he has also, like his predecessors, assigned February to the preceding year:] “in which parliament one William Sautre, a good man and a faithfull priest, inflamed with zeale of true religion, required he might be heard for the commodity of the whole realme.  But the matter being smelt before by the bishops, they obtained that the matter should be referred to the convocation; where the said William Sautre being brought before the bishops and notaries thereunto appointed, the convocation was deferred to the Saturday next ensuing.  When Saturday was come, that is to say, the twelfth day of February, Thomas Arundell archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of his councell provinciall, being assembled in the said chapter-house [i.e. that of St. Paul’s] against one Sir William Sautre, otherwise called Chatris chaplaine, personally then and there appearing by the commandment of the aforesaid archbishop of Canterbury, objected; that the said William before the bishop of Norwich had once renounced and abjured divers and sundry conclusions hereticall and erroneous; and that after such abjuration made, he publicly and privily held, taught, and preached th same conclusions, or else such like, disagreeing to the catholic faith, and to the great perill and pernicious example of others.  And after this he caused such like conclusions holden and preached, as is said, by the said Sir William without renunciation, then and thereto be read unto the said archbishop, by master Robert Hall, chancellor unto the said bishop, in a certain scrole written, in tenor of words as followeth—“Sir William Chatris, otherwise called Sautre, parish priest of the church of Saint Scithe [Osith] the virgin in London, publikely and privily doth hold these conclusions under written—Imprimis, he saith, that he will not worship the crosse on which Christ suffered, but only Christ that suffered upon the crosse—2.  Item, That he would sooner worship a temporall king, than the foresaid woodden crosse—3.  Item, That he would rather worship the bodies of the saints than the very crosse of Christ on which he hung, if it were before him.—4.  Item, That he would rather worship a man truly contrite, than the crosse of Christ.—5.  Item, That he is bound rather to worship a man that is predestinate, than an angell of God.—6.  Item, That if any man would visit the monuments of Peter and Paul, or go on pilgrimage to the Tombe of Saint Thomas, or else any whither else, for the obtaining of any temporall benefit; he a not bound to keep his vow, but he may distribute the expences of his vow upon the almes of the poore.—7.  Item, That every priest and deacon is more bound preach the word of God, than to say the canonicall houres—8.  Item, That alter the pronouncing of the sacramentall words of the body of Christ, the bread remaineth of the same nature that it was before, neither doth it cease to be bread.” [603]

These articles or charges being publicly read and exhibited, the archbishop then called upon Sawtre to answer to them; but he desired that he might first have a copy of them, and that sufficient time might be allowed him to prepare his answer and defence.  A Copy was accordingly delivered to him, and the next Thursday was then fixed upon for him again to appear before his judges.  But on that day, owing, it seems, to the archbishop’s being then necessarily engaged in the parliament-house, the business was adjourned till the next morning at eight o’clock.  The convocation, or rather its upper house, being then assembled, Sawtre appeared again before them, and produced a written defence, and answer to those articles, which were then publicly read by Robert Hall, before mentioned.  He no longer thought of retracting, as he had done near two years before, at Lynn and other places.  On the contrary, he now openly avowed his principles, and appeared neither afraid nor ashamed to defend them.  It is therefore, not to be wondered that the writing, or answer, which he laid before them, and which was now publicly read in their hearing, proved no way satisfactory or conciliating.

After the said Robert Hall had read that paper, or answer, aloud, in the audience of the Convocation, the archbishop, being dissatisfied with the contents, proceeded to question Sawtre on what he deemed the most material points, which chiefly related to the doctrine of transubstantiation.  Among his questions were the following—[604]

“Whether in the Sacrament of the altar, after the pronouncing of the Sacramentall words, remaineth very materiall bread, or not?—Whether in the sacrament after the sacramentall words, rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread remaineth, which did before the words pronounced, or not?—Whether the same materiall bread before consecration, by the sacramentall words of the priest rightly pronounced, be transubstantiated from the nature of bread into the very body of Christ, or not?”

To none of these interrogatories did the prisoner return an orthodox or satisfactory answer.  His answers being therefore deemed insufficient, and the day, probably, too far gone to finish the examination at that time, it was thought proper to adjourn the business till the next day.  Of what then occurred Fox gives the following account.

“Then the said archbishop assigned unto the said Sir William time to deliberate, and more fully to make his answer till the next day; and continued this convocation then and there till the morrow.  Which morrow, to wit, the 19th day of February, being come, the foresaid archbishop of Canterbury, in the said chapter house of St. Paul in London, before his councell provinciall then and there assembled, specially asked and examined the same Sir W. Sautre, there personally present, upon the sacrament of the altar, as before.  And the same Sir William again, in like manner as before, answered.  After this amongst other things the said bishop demanded of the same William, if the same materiall bread being upon the altar, after the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, is transubstantiated into the very body of Christ, or not?  And the said Sir William said, he understood not what he meant.  Then the said archbishop demanded, whether that materiall bread being round and white, prepared and disposed for the sacrament of the body of Christ upon the altar, wanting nothing that is meet and requisite thereunto, by the virtue of the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, be altered and changed into the very body of Christ, and ceaseth any more to be materiall and very bread, or not?  Then the said Sir William, deridingly [605] answering, said he could not tell.”

“Then consequently the said archbishop demanded, whether he would stand to the determination of the holy church, or not, which affirmeth that in the sacrament of the altar, after the words of consecration being rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread, which before in nature was bread, ceaseth any more to be bread?  To this interrogation the said Sir William said, that he would stand to the determination of the church, where such determination was not contrary to the will of God.  This done, he demanded of him againe, what his judgement was concerning the sacrament of the altar: who said and affirmed, that after the words of consecration, by the priest duly pronounced, there remained very bread, and the same bread which was before the words spoken.”—This examination commenced at eight o’clock in the morning, and lasted about three hours: and as the prisoner would not now retract, or recede from his Lollardism, and receive what was called Catholic information, but chose to persist, at all events, in his own way of thinking, the archbishop, as we are told, “by the counsell and assent of his whole covent then and there present, did promulgate and give sentence by the mouth of Robert Hall, against the same Sir William, being personally present, and refusing to revoke his heresies, but constantly defended the same.” [606]

After passing the said sentence, an adjournment took place, till the week after, when the prisoner was again brought before them, two or three different times.  On the Wednesday they read to him bishop Spencer’s statement of his process against him, near two years before.  The archbishop and divers others now reproached him for holding opinions which he had before abjured; as if it were a mighty crime for a man, after having been once so weak as to renounce or abjure the truth, afterwards to repent and embrace it—or, after having once been so overseen as to resign the right of private judgment, ever any more to think of resuming it!  As all the stratagems and means they could use proved now too feeble to shake him from his integrity, or induce him to sacrifice his conscience to their unrighteous and infernal pleasure, they resolved he should be forthwith degraded: and a sentence of degradation [607] was accordingly passed upon him that same day.  The execution of this sentence was deferred till the Friday following; and as the archbishop could not then attend, owing to his detention in parliament, it was further deferred till the morrow after.  They then proceeded to business in good earnest, and a most curious process it certainly was—They first deprived him of his priest’s order, next of his deacon’s order, next of his subdeacon’s order, then of his acolyte’s order, then of his exorcist, or holy-water-clerk’s order, then of his reader’s order, then of his sexton’s order, and finally, of his privilege of clergy: in token of which his tonsure was erased, a layman’s cap put on his head, and himself so entirely secularized, or reduced to the state of a lay person, as if he had never been in orders.

All this was certainly absurd enough; [608] but as it was also very curious, we shall here give it more circumstantially, in the words of the historian so often referred to in these pages—

Upon Saturday, being the 26th. of February, the said archbishop of Canterbury sate in the bishop’s seat of the foresaid church of St. Paul, in London, and solemnly apparelled in his pontificall attire, sitting with him as his assistants these reverend fathers and bishops, of London, Lincolne, Hereford, Exeter, Menevensis & Roffensis episcopi, [i.e. the bishops of St. Davids and Rochester] above mentioned, commanded and caused the said Sir William Sautre, apparelled in priestly vestments, to be brought and appeare before him.  That done, he declared and expounded in English to all the clergy and people, there in a great multitude assembled; that all processe way finished and ended against the said Sir W. Sautre.  Which thing finished, before the pronouncing of the said sentence of the relapse against the said Sir William, as is premised, he often then and there recited and read.  And for that he saw the said William in that behalf nothing abashed; he proceeded to his degradation and actual deposition in forme as followeth.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [610]  We Thomas by God’s permission archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and Legate of the apostolike Sea, do denounce thee William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris, chaplaine fained, in the habite and apparell of a priest, as an heretike, and one refallen into heresie, by this our sentence definitive by councell, assent, and authority to be condemned, and by conclusion of all our fellow brethren, fellow bishops, prelates councell provinciall, and of the whole clergy, do degrade and deprive thee of thy priestly order.  And in sign of degradation and actual deposition from thy priestly dignity, for thine incorrigibility and want of amendment, we take from thee the patent and chalice, and doe deprive thee of all power and authority of celebrating the masse, and also we pull from thy backe the casule, and take from thee the vestment, and deprive thee of all manner of priestly honour.

Also, We Thomas, the aforesaid archbishop, by authority, counsell, and assent, which upon the foresaid William we have, being deacon pretensed, in the habit and apparell of a deacon, having the New Testament in thy hands, being an heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence as is aforesaid, do degrade and put thee from the order of a deacon.  And in token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the book of the New Testament, and the stole, and do deprive thee of all authority in reading of the gospel, and of all and all manner of dignity of a deacon.

Also, we Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority counsell, and assent, which over thee the foresaid William we have, being a subdeacon pretensed, in the habit and vestment of a subdeacon, an heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence, as is aforesaid, do degrade and put thee from the order of subdeacon; and in token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the albe and maniple, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of subdiaconicall dignity.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by counsell, assent and authority which we have over thee the foresaid William, an Acolyte pretensed, wearing the habit of an acolyte, and heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, doe degrade and put from thee all order of an acolyte; and in signe and token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the candlestick and taper, and also the urceolum, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of dignity of an Acolyte.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, council, and authority, which upon thee the foresaid William we have, an Exorcist pretensed, in the habite of an exorcist or holy water clerke, being an heretike, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, do degrade and depose thee from the order of an Exorcist; and in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of conjurations, and do deprive thee of all and singular dignity of an exorcist.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, counsell, and authority, as is abovesaid, do degrade and depose thee the foresaid William, reader pretensed, clothed in the habit of a reader, an herctick, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as aforesaid, condemned, from the order of a reader: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of the divine lections (that is, the book of the church legend) and do deprive thee of all and singular manner of dignity of such a reader.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority, counsell, and assent, the which we have, as is aforesaid, doe degrade, and put thee the foresaid William Sawtre, Sexton pretensed, in the habit of a sexton, and wearing a surplice, being an heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence definitive condemned, as aforesaid, from the order of a sexton: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, for the causes aforesaid, we take from thee the keyes of the church doore, and thy surplice, and do deprive thee of all and singular manner of commodities of a doore-keeper.

Also, by the authority of omnipotent God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by our authority, counsell, and assent of our whole councel provinciall above written, we do degrade thee, and depose thee, being here personally present before us, from orders, benefices, priviledges, and habit in the church; and for thy pertinacy incorrigible we doe degrade thee before the secular court of the high constable and marshall of England, being personally present; and do depose thee from all and singular clerkely honours and dignities whatsoever, by these writings.  Also in token of thy degradation and deposition, here actually we have caused thy crowne and ecclesiasticall tonsure in our presence to be rased away, and utterly to be abolished, like unto the form of a secular layman; and here we do put upon the head of thee, the aforesaid William, the cap of a lay secular person; beseeching the court aforesaid that they will receive favourably [613] the said William unto them thus recommitted.

Having thus performed their part of this diabolical work, and delivered the prisoner into the hands of the civil magistrate, “the bishops, not yet contented, cease not, (says our historian) to call upon the king to cause him to be brought forth to speedy execution.  Whereupon the king, ready enough, and too much, to gratifie the clergy, and to retaine their favours, directeth out a terrible decree against the said William Sawtre, and sent it to the maior and sheriffes of London to be put in execution.”  This terrible decree, or royal warrant for the prisoner’s execution, was obtained, it seems, on the very day of his degradation, when the convocation passed their final sentence and gave him up to the civil power: so that there was here no time lost; and the closing scene, no doubt, soon ensued.  The royal decree, or warrant was as follows:

“The decree of our sovereigne Lord the King and his Councell in parliament, against a certain new sprung up heretick.  To the maior and sherifs of London, &c.  Whereas the reverend father, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and legat of the apostolike sea, by the assent, consent, and councill of other bishops, and his brethren suffragans, and also of all the whole clergy within his province or dioces, gathered together in his provinciall councell, the due order of the law being observed in all points in this behalfe, has pronounced and declared, by his definitive sentence, William Sawtre sometime chaplaine, fallen again into his most damnable heresie, the which before time the said William had abjured, thereupon to be a most manifest heretick, and therefore hath decreed that he should be degraded, and hath for the same cause really degraded him from all prerogative and privilege of the clergy, decreeing to leave him unto the secular power; and hath really so left him, according to the laws and canonicall sanctions set forth in his behalfe, and also that our holy mother the church hath no further to do in the premisses: We therefore being zealous in religion, [615a] and reverent lovers of the catholike faith, willing and minding to maintaine and defend the holy church, and the lawes and liberties of the same, to root all such errors and heresies out of our kingdome of England, and with condigne punishment to correct and punish all heretikes, or such as be convict; provided always that both according to the law of God and man, and the canonicall institutions in this behalfe accustomed, such heretikes convict and condemned in forme aforesaid ought to be burned with fire: We command you as straitly as we may, or can, firmely enjoyning you that you cause the said William, being in your custody, in some publike or open place within the liberties of your city aforesaid (the cause aforesaid being published unto the people) to be put into the fire, and there in the same fire really to be burned, to the great horrour of his offence, and the manifest example of other christians.  Fail not in the execution hereof upon the perill that will fall thereupon.” [615b]

This memorable warrant (dated 26th. of February) was, no doubt, speedily executed: perhaps the very day on which it was issued.  The death which it orders or appoints for the alleged crime of heresy, or to which it devotes the reputed offender, is supposed to distinguish it from all other warrants that had ever been issued before by our English monarchs: at least, there is not known to have been here, previously to this reign, any law dooming adjudged heretics to the flames.  Henry IV. therefore, stands preeminent among our sovereigns as a promoter of the burning of those whom the priests pronounced or denominated heretics.  It is remarkable enough that the poor lollards found such an enemy in him, who, as well as his father, had long affected to be their great patron.  But it was all, probably, nothing but policy: neither father nor son can be supposed ever to have been real lovers of either liberty or justice.  Henry’s accession to the throne (to which he had no right) disclosed his true character; and he has been known ever since, as one of the worst of our princes.  Arundel and his brethren helped him to obtain and usurp the crown, in hopes that he, in return, would help them in such affairs as this of Sawtre: nor were they disappointed.  They favoured his baseness on that, and he favoured theirs, to the utmost extent of their wishes, on this and on all similar occasions.

The execution of Sawtre was the first fruit of the new law for burning heretics; and it was soon followed by an abundant harvest.  The number of those who were burnt for their religion in England whilst this execrable law was in force, which was near 300 years, was enormously great.  As Sawtre stands at the head of those memorable confessors, it was thought requisite to be somewhat particular and circumstantial in our account of him.  The sons of freedom will venerate his memory, while they detest and execrate that of his crowned and mitred persecutors.  Of our crowned demons none could well exceed Henry IV. and of our mitred ones scarce any ever did or could go beyond Arundel and Spencer.  For Sawtre to fall into such hands must truly have been a most sad and pitiable case.  It was like falling among thieves, or into a den of hungry lions.

3.  Alan, Aleyne, or Allen of Lynn, was, it seems a native of this town, and contemporary with Sawtre, but a younger man, and long his survivor, and so represented as flourishing about twenty years later.  He was evidently of a very different cast from him, and never gave himself the least concern, as far as we know, about the politics of the time, or the reform of civil or ecclesiastical abuses.  Perfectly regardless of the oppressions of the rulers and the grievances of the people, he employed his time in poring over the huge volumes of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and writing indexes to them.  We are told he made indexes to no less than 33 of those authors, among which were Augustin, Anselm, and Aquinas.  Such an employment, though of no real use or benefit to the community, procured him the honour of being classed among the eminent men, or literati of that age; and his name has been handed to posterity as one of the distinguished characters which Lynn has produced.  His skill and industry in making those indexes might, no doubt, deserve commendation, but can hardly be said to entitle him to any degree of literary celebrity.  He may be said therefore to have acquired more fame than was fairly his due.  But so it has often happened: while the merits of some have been greatly underrated, those of others, on the contrary, have been magnified beyond all reason and justice.  Alan received his education at Cambridge, where he obtained the degree of Doctor in Divinity.  He was of the order of Carmelites, or White Friars, and therefore his residence here must have been at their great house, or convent in South Lynn.  How long he resided there cannot now be said.  We are told that he died about the year 1428, and was buried at Lynn.  The place of his burial, no doubt, was the dormitory of his own convent, situated on that spot in South Lynn now called the Friars.

4.  William Wallys.  He was cotemporary with the last, and like him one of our Lynn friars, but of the augustinian order.  He was not, like the former a mere reader, and maker of indexes, but a real author, and is said to have written many books; but their titles and contents are no longer remembered or known.  They might be on interesting subjects, and those subjects might there be handled in a judicious and masterly manner; or they might not.  However that was, and whatever they were, it seems they have long ago perished, like innumerable other works, no less valuable and worthy of preservation; and, perhaps, much more so.  But his name, has been preserved, as one of the eminent Lynn men of former times.  How long he resided here, we are not informed; but we are told that he died in 1421; and we may presume that he was buried in the convent or dormitory of the Austin friars, which stood behind the house now inhabited by Mr. Rishton.  He must have been eminent in his day, especially among those of his fraternity, for we are told that he became general of that order.

5.  John Baret, of Barret.  He too was a friar, of the same order with Alan; that of the Carmelites.  He was a native of this town, and educated at Cambridge, “when learning (as Fuller says) ran low and degrees high in that University; so that a Scholar could scarcely be seen for Doctors; till the university, sensible of the mischief thereof, appointed Dr. Cranmer (afterwards abp. of Canterbury) to be the examiner of all candidates in Divinity.  Amongst others, he stopt Baret, for his insufficiency, who then went back to Lynn, and applied himself to learning with such success, that in a short time he became an admirable scholar; and commencing doctor, with due applause, lived many years a painful preacher at Norwich; always making mention of Cranmer as the means of his happiness.”  But we find that he had something of the Vicar of Bray about him; for it seems he was at first a papist; afterwards, in the latter part of Henry the eighth’s reign, and that of Edward, a protestant; again, in that of Mary, a zealous papist; and lastly, in that of Elizabeth, a staunch protestant.  It seems, however, that he died soon after the commencement of the latter reign: and one would hope that he died in the true faith.—As to his veering or changing with the times, where is the impropriety of that?  Ought not the ministers of a national or state religion to be submissive to, or directed by the state, from which they derive their creed, their revenue, their power, and their every thing?

The subjects of the foregoing biographical articles being all ecclesiastics, and all the ecclesiastics of any note that distinguished Lynn, as far as we know, during the long period of which we have been treating, it might be expected that we should in the next place give a list of the eminent laymen that sprung up here in the course of the same period.  But, alas! we look and search for them in vain: hardly can one be found whose name deserves to be recorded, or remembered by posterity.  William de Bittering, John de Wentworth, Bartholomy Petipas, and Thomas Miller, four of our ancient aldermen, were perhaps the most memorable, or notable that can now be discovered.  Of two of them somewhat has been said already, and a sort of promise was made to bring them again under review; but, upon second thought, they did not appear to deserve so much further notice as was then intended.—As to

7. 8.  John de Wentworth and Bartholomy Petipas.  They are not here coupled or joined together because they were friends for no two men could well be further from that, but rather because they were foes, and the heads of two hostile factions, by which the town was kept in a state of constant distraction for a great length of time.  It seems impossible now to ascertain the ground, or cause of that deadly animosity which those two factions, or these two men entertained against each other.  Lollardism, we know, did then much agitate the kingdom, but we cannot say that it was the occasion of this discord at Lynn.  Nor can we say that it was a mere political broil, or, contest between the partizans of the episcopal feudal prerogatives and their opponents, though this may seem more probable, as it appears from pages 365 and 559 of this volume, that Petipas was on good, and Wentworth on bad terms with the bishop.  However this was, it is pretty evident that these two were mighty men and men of renown here in those days.

9.  Thomas Miller, or Milner.  He was the leading man among our ancestors in the reign of Henry VIII. being governor of the town, and mayor also one time for four successive years; and he served that office afterwards twice, if not more; so that he was mayor of Lynn six or seven times, which is not known to have been the case with any other.  But what made him the most memorable was his successful contest, or law-suit with the bishop, during the former part of his mayoralty, about their respective claims to have the Sword carried before them.  This legal decision established the mayor’s independence upon the bishop.

Having now paid our tribute of respect to the memory of our eminent men of those times, we shall here close this chapter, which brings us down to the era of the reformation.

End of Part III.

SUPPLEMENT
TO THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL TOUCH.

See page 326.

Since the section on the royal touch has been printed off, a paper has appeared in the Monthly Magazine, under the signature of I. Bannantine, which casts some further light upon that subject.  As it is presumed it will not be unacceptable to the reader, we take the liberty of inserting here the substance of it.—

“It does not appear (says that writer) that any of the House of Brunswick have asserted this royal function; at least, it has not been publicly announced, as was formerly the practice: but were his present majesty to resume it, such faith is yet put in the assertion of a king, that all the courtiers and the great body of the ignorant multitude would not hesitate to believe its infallibility.  The last sovereign who appears to have exercised this miraculous gift was queen Anne.  In the royal gazette of Mar. 12. 1712. appears the following public notice: “It being her Majesiy’s royal intention to touch publicly for the Evil the 17th. of this instant March, and so to continue for sometime, it is her Majesty’s Command, that tickets be delivered the day before at Whitehall, and that all persons bring a certificate, signed by the minister and church-wardens of their respective parishes, that they never received the royal touch.”

He further adds, that Wiseman, Sergeant Surgeon to Chas. 2nd, in a treatise on the Evil, speaks of the royal touch in the following terms:

It seems to me (adds the judge) this piece of Gold, that was given to those who were touched, accounts for the great resort on this occasion, and the supposed afterwards miraculous cures.—Gimelli, the famous traveller, gives an account of 1600 persons offering themselves to be cured of the Evil by Lewis xiv. on Easter Sunday, 1686.  Gimelli himself was present at the ceremony: every Frenchman received 15 Souce, and every foreigner 30.  This power of healing assumed by the kings of France occasioned great resort to Francis I. while prisoner at Madrid, by the Spaniards, who had not such faith in their own king’s touch.  It appears by a proclamation of Jas. I. Mar. 25, 1617, that the kings of England would not permit any resort to them for these miraculous cures in the summer-time.  By another proclamation of June 18, 1626 it is ordered that no one shall apply for this purpose, who does not bring a proper certificate, that he has never been touched before: the same, it has been already seen, were the terms on which queen Anne granted her royal touch.—In a prayer-book printed in 1703, is a form of the Church-service for the occasion of the royal touch.  After the Lord’s Prayer it is stated, “Then shall the infirm persons, one by one, be presented to the queen; while the queen is laying her hands upon them and is putting the Gold about their necks, the chaplain that officiates turning himself to her majesty shall say these words following: “God give a blessing to this work and grant that these sick persons on whom the queen lays her bands may recover through Jesus Christ our Lord!”—After some other prayers, the chaplain, standing with his face towards those come to be healed, shall say: “The Almighty God, who is a most strong tower to all them that put their trust in him, to whom all things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, do bow and obey, be evermore your defence; and make you know and feel that there is no other name under heaven given to man, and through whom you may receives health and salvation, but only in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!  Amen!”—Mo. Mag. Mar. 1810.

ERRATA. [626]

Page 2, line 3, for mumerous read numerous.—p. 9, l. 19, for its r. their.—p 19. last line but two, dele comma after least.—p. 31, l. 3. for drgree r. degree—p. 32, for Section II, r. Section I.—p. 79, l. 13, for seperated r. separated—p. 83, l. 9, for decerned r. discerned—p. 85, l. 1, for sagacions r. sagacious—p. 106, l. 5, for cansideration r. consideration—p. 107. l. 28, and 29, for acdingly r. accordingly—p. 134, Note, 1. 3, before side r. east—p. 148, l. 14, for numbers r. members—p. 192, l. 3, for compositions r. composition—p. 96, last line for heterdoxy r. heterodoxy—p. 200, l. 17, for vareigata r. variegata—p. 210. l. 9, after Britain a period instead of a comma—p. 222, l. 4, delete s in collections—p. 237, l. 10, for supremary r. supremacy—p. 312, last line but one, for way r. may—p. 317, l. 14, for loose r. lose—Same p. l. 18, for miricles r. miracles—p. 325, l. 7, for Susanna r. Joanna—p. 347 l. 11, after Silthestow a comma—and the next line, for sincc r. since—p. 353, l. 3, for Fountian r. Fountain—p. 374. l. 3, for pregressive r. progressive—p. 395, l. 6, from the bottom, after some r. of—p. 400, l. 2, and 14, for arbitary r. arbitrary—p. 402, l. 26, for directiom r. direction—p. 403, l. 2, for appelation r. appellation—p. 507. l. 3, for now r. new—p. 511, note, dele them in l. 16—same page l. 35 of the note, for they were r. it was—p. 515, l. 12. for da r. de—p. 517, l. 3, from bottom, for 1526, r. 1256—p. 592, note l. 3., member of. r. members and.

Whittingham, Printer, Lynn.

FOOTNOTES.

[1]  The exact situation of Lynn, as to its Latitude and Longitude, has been ascertained with the utmost accuracy by Mr. Walker.  He informs the author, that the Latitude of St. Nicholas’ Chapel, in this town, deduced from observations with a mural circle made by Mr. Troughton, is 52d. 45m. 25s to North; and its Longitude, by Chronometers, 1m. 35s. in time, East of Greenwich.

[2]  The original, or British name may pretty safely be concluded to have been Wysg, or Gwysg.

[7]  Except, perhaps, about Castlacre.

[8]  Something of the same kind is related of the rivers Thames and Medway in the reign of Henry I.  See Stow, 138.

[9]  His last years were spent at East Dereham in Norfolk, where he finished his course in 1800.  In the north transept of that parish church, where his remains have been deposited, is a neat monument of white marble, with the following inscription:—

In Memory of

WILLIAM COWPER, Esquire,

Born in Hertfordshire, 1732:
Buried in this Church, 1800.

Ye who with warmth the public triumph feel
Of talents dignified by sacred zeal,
Here, to Devotion’s Bard devoutly just,
Pay your fond Tribute due to COWPER’s dust.
England, exulting in his spotless fame,
Ranks with her dearest sons’ his fav’rite name.
Sense, fancy, wit, suffice not all to raise
So clear a title to affection’s praise:
His highest honours to the heart belong:
His virtues form’d the magic of his Song.

[10] The Cam and the Larke also passed then along with the Ouse by Wisbeach.

[11]   See Vancouver’s Map, and his Appendix, p. 10, where the original track or course of these rivers appears to have been divided by a kind of ridge or higher ground from that of the lesser Ouse and Wessey or the river of Stoke, (sometimes also called Winson and Storke) which together with the Lenne or Nare seem to have been the only original Lynn rivers.

[12]  The haven and river of Wisbeach while the Ouse passed that way went by the name Wellstream and the Water of Well, while those of Lynn went by the name of Wigenhale Ea, and the Water of Wiggenhale.  Vide MS. late Mr. Partridge’s.

[16a]  Hist. Embank. chap. 37.

[16b]  By an arm of the sea he meant, probably, something similar to what Lynn Haven is now.

[16c]  A Commission is said to have been issued 21 Edward I. for sending the Waters of Well by Wisbeach, their ancient outfall; which further corroborates the idea that Wellstream or Waters of Well, was formerly a name of the Ouse about Wisbeach.

[18]  Elstobb speaks of several efforts having been made to turn the Nene down to its ancient outfall at Wisbeach; and particularly that—

“about the year 1490 John Morton, bishop of Ely, and Lord Chancellor of England, [afterward Archbishop of Canterbury and a Roman Cardinal] for the better obtaining that end, and for the more effectual recovery of the outfall at Wisbeach, cut a new river, or drain 14 miles in length, 14 feet wide, and about 4 feet deep, beginning at the high grounds, within a mile of Peterborough, and continuing it down to Guyhorn, an hamlet in Wisbeach parish; and setting down a sluice across the old river Nene at Standground, turned the waters of that river down this new cut.  This (he adds) with some other works, said to have been done by him, did for a time make some improvement in the fens about Wisbeach, so as to make them good sheep pasture, &c.  But this (he further adds) continued not long, being cut too shallow, and not sufficiently embanked, or kept clear and free from impediments and obstructions.”

Elstobb’s Observations, p. 25, 26.

[19]  Bishop Morton was in his time one of the most distinguished characters in this country.  He was a person of deep penetration, singular address, and sound judgment; and possessed, in the highest degree, those rare talents that constitute the profound politician and consummate statesman.  He was a warm and determined partisan of the House of Lancaster.  Richard III. rightly considering him as too dangerous a person to be left at liberty, took care betimes to have him secured.  He was accordingly imprisoned in the castle of Bracknock, where he was committed to the custody of the Duke of Buckingham, then the said king’s most powerful and confidential adherent.  Somehow he managed to seduce the Duke from his allegiance to Richard, and engage in his scheme in favour of the Earl of Richmond.  The Duke’s ruin soon followed; but Morton escaped to the continent, where he afterward joined Richmond, and with him returned to England.  After his victory at Bosworth, and elevation to the throne, Morton became his most confidential servant and counsellor.  He was preferred to be Lord High Chancellor of England, archbishop of Canterbury, and at last, a Cardinal.  He may be presumed to have been an adviser and promoter of the most important measures of that reign; of which the depression of the nobles, and elevation of the commons, were not the least memorable or salutary.  He died, before Empson and Dudley came into employ; so that he had no share in their malpractices.

[21a]  Kinderley’s Ancient and Present State, 2nd Edit. p. 68.

[21b]  Kinderley, p. 77.

[22]  Badeslade p. 98.—Here it ought not to be forgotten that the said large accession of fresh waters to the Lynn river, while it widened and deepened the harbour, seems to have proved eventually fatal to a great part of West or Old Lynn, which (including one of its churches and church yard) was in time swallowed up by the waters.  This, it must be allowed, was a disastrous event.  It is, however, an ill wind (as the proverb says) that blows nobody good: though the church is gone, the income remains, which the incumbent still duly receives, for nothing; for it is a sinecure, and not a very poor one.

[24a]  The Nene, of late years, has been gradually choking up, till it is at length become, it seems, a mere shallow ditch, filled with mud, and hardly navigable at any time.  Its navigation is become, of course, inconsiderable and unproductive; to the no small loss and injury of those unfortunate people, who, in an evil hour, had entrusted their property in that ill fated concern.  Most inexcusable mismanagement is said to have occasioned this; and much of the blame has been confidently, if not truly imputed to the abominable inattention and neglect of certain Lynn Merchants.

[24b]  In p. 4.

[26a]  Badeslade p. 12.

[26b]  In 1645, five or six years before Denver Sluice was erected, Lynn Haven was in a very good condition.  It had two channels, one called the East, the other the West Channel, in which the biggest ships, drawing 13 or 14 feet water, sailed up and down on the neap as on the spring tides.  One John Attleson, aged 80, deposed that for 60 years and upwards, he had known the river Ouse, and all the rivers falling into the same; and that before the erection of the sluices near Salter’s Lode, all the rivers were free and open, and received such quantities of water by the flood from sea, that large barges with from 26 to 30 chalders did constantly pass with great ease up to Cambridge town.—See Budeslade: also Elstobb’s Observations, p. 23, 24.

[30a]  Armstrong, it seems, ascribed the silting of Lynn Haven, and of the river above, to the hundredfoot drain.—See Kinderley p. 29.

[30b]  Hence we hear of manufacturers of Bays, Dyers, Dyehouses, Falling-mills, Button-makers, and worsted-weavers at Lynn, with some thousands employed in knitting stockings, &c.—In behalf of the latter, a petition against the worsted-weavers was presented to parliament in 1689.—See Town Book, No. 10.—Mackerell, about 70 years ago, makes the population of Lynn to amount to upwards of 20,000—if his estimate was right, even within 5 or 6,000, (and he published it under the auspices of the Corporation) the town must have been far more populous than it is at present.  See Mackerell, p. 93.—From the great, and increasing number of empty houses now in the town, it may be concluded, that its population is at this time decreasing.  The rapid decay of trade, the prospect of an endless war, and the daily increase of the public burdens, are doubtless among the causes of this depopulation.  Neither the paving, nor yet the new poor’s rate laws, are likely to realize the vast benefits promised or held out by the promoters of them, and fondly expected by many of the inhabitants.  On the contrary, those very Acts are said to be severely felt by a large portion of the householders, many of whom, it seems, have already broken up housekeeping, and many more are expected to take the same course.  Upon the whole, it does not seem to appear, either from the Registers of Births and Burials, or from any other known circumstances or sources of information, that the population of Lynn, within the last twenty or thirty years (as generally supposed) has exceeded that of former periods.  This subject, however, shall be reserved for future consideration.

[35a]  They are still called, The Roman Banks.

[35b]  See Badeslade, p. 15.

[36]  See Carte’s History of England, vol. 1, p. 115, 119, 122.

[49]  Philosophical Transactions, No. 481—also Beauties of England, volume XI, p. 94.

[53a]  Vita Agricola.

[53b]  Compare Dugdale’s maps of this tract in its morassy and improved states p. 375, 416.

[54]  History of Embanking.

[60]  No, surely, not sufficient proofs that the surface was lower; but rather, or only, that the country was once dry and woody, and long remained so: for upon the reasonable supposition of an Earthquake, as was before repeatedly suggested, the probability would be, that the surface was anciently as high at least, if not higher than at present, but was considerably lowered by that convulsive event, which would make way for the violent bursting in of the sea.

[66]  Of this undertaking Elstobb gives the following account—

“That it was entered into by the Earl, at the earnest request and importunities of the country in general, who at a numerous sessions of sewers held at Lynn, January 13, 1630, became humble suitors to him to undertake the business, which he condescended to comply with, and accordingly contracted with the commissioners and the country, and engaged that he would use his best endeavours to drain the said marsh, fenny, waste and surrounded grounds, in such a manner as that they should be fit for meadow, pasture, or arable; and the work to be completed within the compass of six years.  To the end the Earl might the more confidently undertake and effect the said work, and be assured of enjoying the 95,000 acres, as the fruit and recompence of his labours and charge; and that the country might be more assured of obtaining a benefit proportionable to the very great quantity of land they were to part with, it was agreed that 12,000 acres, part of the 95,000, should be presented to the king, in lieu of all and every benefit he might claim by a certain law of sewers, made in the 19th year of king James, or by any other law or decree of sewers, and for his royal approbation and confirmation of the contract, &c.”—Having described the work in its commencement and progress, he adds, that having expended about £100,000 these lands were so benefited that, in about seven years time, from the first undertaking, viz. in 1637, at a session of sewers held at Peterborough, October 12, the Level was adjudged to be drained, and the 95,000 acres were, by six or more commissioners set out for the Earl, his heirs and assigns.—But it being soon after discovered that these lands, though benefited, were not perfectly recovered, but in winter were still subject to inundations, the very next year, 1638, at a sessions of sewers held at Huntingdon, April 12, the Earl’s undertaking was adjudged defective.  The King then taking the business into his princely consideration, and understanding by an estimate made by Sir C. Vermuiden, that if this Level of near 400,000 acres were made winter-lands, it would be of extraordinary advantage, viz. of about £600,000 to the common wealth, his Majesty determined to become himself the undertaker; and accordingly on July 18, the same year, he was actually declared undertaker; and was to have, not only those 95,000 acres, which had been set out for the Earl of Bedford, but also 57,000 acres more, from the country, it being his Majesty’s design to make the land good winter-ground.  The Earl, in consideration of the costs he had been at, was to have 40,000 acres out of the 95,000 before granted him.—The King to manifest his real and earnest purpose of speedily effecting the business, caused the following works to be done: a bank on the south side of Morton’s Leam, and another begun on the north side: a navigable sass at Standground: a new river cut between the stone sluice, at the Horse-Shoe, and the sea below Wisbeach, sixty feet broad, and two miles long, with banks on both sides: also a sluice in the marshes below Tydd, upon the outfall of the Shire Drain.  But the King being embroiled in a civil war, the Level lay neglected; and the country complaining that they had received no benefit by the draining, they entered upon the 93,000 acres again, which had been taken from them.”

Elstobb’s Observations, p. 9 to 12.

[69]  Estobb, speaking of the above act, says, that the Governor, Bailiffs, and Conservators were made Commissioners of Seven, for preservation of the Level, by convenient outfalls to the sea; and they or any five of them, whereof the governor or any of the bailiffs be two, to act as commissioners of sewers within the said great level, and of the works made, or to be made without the said level for conveying the waters by convenient outfalls to the sea.  No other commissioners to meddle.  A governor or bailiff to have 400 acres out of the said 95,000; the conservater 200; and the commonalty electors 100 acres, to enable them to vote.  Elstobb’s Observations, p. 14.

[70]  See Beauties of England, vol. 2.

[71]  This fund was at first usefully applied, and the channel and navigation of the Nene considerably improved.  The interest of the money borrowed on the occasion, was also for some years regularly and punctually paid; so that the river Nene securities, as they were called, were generally reckoned very good.  Of late years, however, the state of things has greatly altered for the worse: the river has been neglected, and suffered to be filled up with silt and mud; the navigation impeded; the interest of the money borrowed between fifteen and twenty years in arrears, and the creditors gravely told, that there is no money in hand for them.  Their case therefore seems to be without remedy and without hope; there being, it is to be feared, no prospect of another chance to restore or improve the said river.  What is become of the said fund?

[73a]  See Agricultural Survey of Cambridgeshire.

[73b]  Beauties of England, 2, 18.

[74]  See Beauties of England, 2, 18, 19.

[79a]  In consequence of the late improvements of the Smeeth and adjacent parts, the reeds are said to have become much more scarce than they used to be.

[79b] The small feathers are plucked five times a year, (about Lady day, Midsummer, Lammas, Michaelmas, and Martinmas,) and the larger feathers and quills twice.  Goslings are not spared; for it is thought that early plucking tends to increase their succeeding feathers.  Some proprietors are said to have had a stock of a thousand, and even fifteen hundred, or more, beside the young ones.

[80a]  It has been said, indeed, that mere plucking hurts the fowl but little, as the owners are careful not to pull until the feathers are ripe; that is, until they are just ready to fall; because if forced from the skin before, which is known by blood appearing at the roots, they are of very inferior value.  Those plucked after the geese are dead, are also said not to be so good—see Beauties of England, vol.  IX. p. 553.

[80b]  Gough’s Camden.—Also Beauties of England.

[81]  “All this tract (of Marshland) and adjoining fens being little higher than the level of the sea, or that of the rivers that pass through the country, was once so exposed to inundations from floods and high tides, that till dikes and drains were made, it was all one large morass; and even now, after so much labour and expence, the country is still liable to be overflowed by extraordinary high tides or floods, or other casual events.  By the evaporation of this water, and especially by that of the water of the numerous ditches, in which various plants and insects die and rot, the atmosphere during the latter part of summer and autumn is filled with moisture, and with putrid and insalutary vapours.—Another cause of the insalubrity of the atmosphere is an imperfect ventilation.  As there are no hills here to direct the winds in streams upon the lower grounds, the air is apt to stagnate and become unwholesome.  An additional cause of the unhealthiness of this flat and marshy country, may be the impurity of the water in common use; for this being either collected from rains, and preserved in cisterns, or drawn from shallow wells, is, in hot and dry-seasons soon corrupted.  This being the case, the general tendency to putrefaction must be increased by the use of such water, as well as by the meats, which in a close, hot, and moist air, are quickly tainted.  Several circumstances therefore in this country concur in summer, not only to relax the solids, but to dispose the humours to putrefaction; and as the combination of heat and impure moisture is the great cause of the speedy corruption of animal substances, so it is observed in every place to produce remitting and intermitting fever.”—See Pringle’s Observations on Diseases of the army, pp. 2, 3, 4.

[91]  Brief view of the Sufferings and living Testimonies of the Martyrs, p. 392.

[93]  Milner’s Letters to a Prebendary, No. 4.

[94a]  Challoner’s memoirs of missionary Priests, I. 392, 436.

[94b]  This bishop, whose christian name, as it is called, was Lancelot, seems to have been in his day one of the better sort of the men of that order, as appears by the following anecdote, related of him after he had been translated from Ely to Winchester.—Waller, the poet, being one day at court, while James I. was dining, overheard the following conversation between his sacred majesty and two of his bishops, of whom one was Andrews of Winchester, and the other Neale of Durham.  These two prelates, standing behind the king’s chair, were asked by him, “If he might not take his subjects’ money when he wanted it, without all the usual formality in parliament?”  To which his lordship of Durham readily answered, “God forbid, sir, but you should; you are the breath of our nostrils.”  The other being silent, James addressed himself to him, “Well, my lord of Winchester, and what say you?”  Andrews replied, that he was “not competent to judge in parliamentary cases.”  Upon which the king exclaimed, “No evasions, my lord, I expect an immediate and direct answer to my question!”  “Then, sir,” said he, “I think it lawful for you to take my brother Neale’s money, for he offers it.”—It is easy to see that there was some difference between these two bishops, and that the latter was the better man of the two, being by no means so lost to all shame and decency, or so abject a flatterer of majesty as the other.  Which of them the majority of their successors have resembled most, may be a point not very easy to determine: nor would it be, perhaps, of very material consequence.

[99]  History of the Boroughs, Volume 8.

[100]  Hutchesson’s Account—also Beauties of England.

[101]  According to Hutchesson they used to dine at a groat a head: but a groat then was equal perhaps to two or three shillings of our money.

[102]  In all the adjacent villages the title of Town-Bailiff is given to the treasurer or manager of their respective charitable establishments.—Beauties of England.

[104]  Beauties of England, volume 2.

[105]  Hutchesson’s Account of Wisbeach—and Beaut. of Engl. as before.

[106]  The text is footnoted but there is no footnote for it in the book.—DP.

[109]  See Blackstone’s Commentaries—also Hutchesson’s Account—and the Beauties of England, as before.

[110]  Beauties of England, as before.

[112]  It is really a ditch or dyke that separates Wisbeach from Marshland.

[113]  Queen Henrietta, by her numerous indiscretions, contributed largely to the alienation of the affections of his subjects from the king her husband; and she suffered very severely in consequence of it.  After her retirement into France, that court, at the head of which was her nephew Lewis XIV, is said to have been very remiss in administering to her relief, so as to leave her often in want even of the necessaries of life.  It has been reported that she was in such distress at Paris, in 1643, that she and her infant daughter were obliged to lie in bed, in their room at the palace of the Louvre, for want of wood to make their fire with.  One time during the Protectorate, as Granger reports, she was so reduced, that she actually applied to Cromwell for relief, as queen dowager of England.  In 1660, after an absence of many years, she returned to London, where she seems not to have been treated with much kindness by her son Charles.  In 1665, at the breaking out of the plague, she again retired to France.  From Sir John Reresby’s memoirs it appears, that she was secretly married (probably about that time) to Henry Jermyn, earl of St. Albans, who had for many years attended her as chamberlain of her household, or some such character, and who afterward treated her in a most unkind and brutal manner.  She died in 1669, in her 60th year.