His unfortunate son and successor Charles I. was no less distinguished in this same way than his royal father had been.  Great numbers are said to have been by him both touched and cured; of whom not a few were little children, which has been urged as a proof that it could not be ascribed to the effect or strength of imagination.  Carte observes, that Dr. Heylyn, an eye witness of such cures, says, “I have seen some children brought before the King by the hanging sleeves, some hanging at their mother’s breasts, and others in the arms of their nurses, all cured, without the help of a serviceable imagination.” [312a]  Both Heylyn and Carte were full of faith in these miracles.  If they were right, the decapitation of Charles must have been a great loss to the nation, and especially to those who were afflicted with the Evil.  For twelve years or more, after that event, not one of these miracles appears to have been wrought in this country.

As to Oliver Cromwell, it does not appear that he ever tried his hand at this wonder-working operation; conscious, it may be supposed, that it did not belong to his province, or to the protectoral office and dignity, with which he was invested.  What he would have done, had he accepted or assumed the regal title, cannot be said or known with absolute certainty: though the probability seems to bear against his even then becoming a practitioner, as it would hardly have met the approbation of his best friends, or accorded with the ideas of his most trusty and powerful coadjutors, or even with his own.

After a total cessation or suspension of this ancient princely practice, during the whole time of the Common wealth and Protectorate, it revived again at the memorable restoration; and Charles II. took it up vigorously and solemnly, and on a very extensive scale.  The Register of the Royal Chapel is said to exhibit a list of 92,107 persons touched by him for the Evil in a certain number of years; [312b] not including, it seems, the whole of his reign; so that double that number, or more for aught we know, may have passed under his hand during the whole course of his government.  Yet we find he practised only at some particular seasons of the year; at least after the summer of 1662, when a royal proclamation was issued to inform the public that such would be the case from thenceforth.  His majesty had been then a practitioner full two years, during which time there is reason to believe that he had touched some thousands.  He began the work almost immediately after his restoration, so that it may be considered among the first acts of his reign.  Of the state of the practice in his royal hands, or under his wise management, a pretty accurate idea may be formed from the following extracts—out of some of the principal Public Papers of that era.

“Saturday being appointed by his majesty to touch such as are troubled by the Evil, a great number of poor afflicted creatures were met together, many brought in chairs and flaskets; and being appointed by his majesty to repair to the Banqueting House, his majesty sat in a chair of state, and stroked all that were brought to him, and then put about each of their necks a white ribbon with an angel of gold on it.  In this manner his majesty stroked above 600; and such was his princely patience and tenderness to the poor afflicted creatures, that though it took up a very long time, his majesty, never weary of well doing, was pleased to make enquiry, whether there were any more who had not been touched.  After prayers were ended the duke of Buckingham brought a towel, and the earl Pembroke a bason and ewer; who, after they, had made obeysance to his majesty, kneeled down, till his majesty had washed.”

Another weekly paper, called Mercurius Publicus, February 21, 1661, had the following passage—

“We are commanded to give notice That his Majesty finds the season such, that it will neither be safe nor fit to continue his Healing those that have the King’s Evil; and therefore that His Majesties good subjects therein concerned do forbear to come to Court till All-Saints Day next, till which time His Majesty doth not intend to Heal.”

“Hampton Court.—His Majesty lately set forth a Proclamation for the better ordering of those who repair to the Court for cure of the disease called the King’s Evil, wherein his Majesty being as ready and willing to relieve the necessities and diseases of his good Subjects by his Sacred Touch, which shall come for cure, as any of his Royal Predecessors, in which, by the Grace and Blessing of God, he hath in an extraordinary measure had good success, and yet in his princely wisdom, foreseeing that fit times are necessary to be appointed for the performing of that great work of Charity, doth declare his Royal pleasure to be, that from henceforth the usual times for presenting such persons, shall be from the Feast of All-saints, commonly called Alhallowtide, to a week before Christmas, and in the month before Easter, being more convenient for the temperature of the season, and in respect of any contagion that may happen in this near access to his Majesties Sacred Person.  His Majesty doth further command that none presume to repair to Court for cure of the said disease, but within the limits appointed, and that such persons who come for that purpose, bring certificates under the hands of the Parson, Vicar, or Minister and Church-Wardens of the Parishes where they dwell, testifying that they have not at any time before been touched by the King; further charging all Justices of Peace, Constables, &c. that they suffer not any to pass but such as have such Certificates, under pain of his Majestys displeasure: And that his Majesties Subjects may have the better knowledge of it, his Majesties will is, that this Proclamation be published and affixed in some open place in every Market Town of this Realm.” [317a]

To the above Extracts, only one more shall be here added, from another Public Paper, called The Newes, of May 18, 1664.—

“His Sacred Majesty having declared it to be his royal will and purpose to continue the healing of his people for the Evil during the month of May, and then give over till Michaelmas next, I am commanded to give Notice thereof, that the people may not come up to the town in the interim and lose their labour.” [317b]

From these premises it plainly appears that the king really pretended to be endowed with the power or gift of working miracles, and of healing or curing one of the most obstinate and incurable diseases incident to the human frame, even by his touch.  Most curious and ludicrous it surely must be to see such a man as Charles making such a pretension, and affecting to be hand and glove with Heaven; and no less so to see the whole nation, or at least the whole body of the church folks, or national religionists, (clergy and laity) which constituted the great bulk of the people, giving him full credit for every thing, and deeming the least doubt or hesitation about his miraculous claims as a sure indication of disloyalty, and scarcely short of high treason.  Allowing or supposing his majesty to have really possessed this miraculous power, or supernatural healing gift, still it must appear rather a queer case that it should be affected by the temperature of the seasons, and actually controlled, overpowered, and crippled, as it were, by the hot weather; and that the royal operator, in the meantime, in case he persisted in his benevolent practice, or labour of love, during the dog-days, and for some time before and after, should be exposed to the imminent danger of some alarming contagion: at least he and his courtiers seemed evidently to have had such apprehension.  In all this, however, his loyal and admiring subjects could discover nothing, either marvellous or suspicious, or yet any way inconsistent.  Their sovereign’s miraculous claims found in them the most ready acquiescence.  With some, indeed, especially among the poor persecuted nonconformists, the case was otherwise.  They disbelieved those royal pretentions.  But it only served to strengthen the public prejudice against them; being generally looked upon as an additional and sure proof of their disaffection, or their moral and political depravity.—So much for Charles’s supernatural powers and miraculous deeds.

His brother and successor, James II. another of our religious monarchs, continued this practice with unabated zeal, solemnity, and devotion.  He appears to have made some improvement in the process; particularly by restoring the sign of the cross, which had been unaccountably omitted by his father, and grandfather.  It is probable that none of its ancient appendages were by him forgotten, or left unrestored, if he did not also, in his princely wisdom, devise some others, equally suitable and edifying: and had the crown continued in his family, the good subjects of these realms would hardly have failed of having the institution or practice still preserved amongst them, and observed in all things according to the pattern exhibited by him.  But his unexpected abdication forced things into another channel, and deprived us of so fair and important a chance.  James is supposed to have practised at Whitehall as frequently, in proportion to the length of his reign, as his brother had done.  But as his reign, compared with that of Charles, was very short, (though, in some respects, much too long) it is not to be supposed that he, like the other, could boast of his myriads of patients and cures.  It appears, however, that he was very assiduous in this business, as well when his occasions called him abroad, as when detained within the precincts of his own court or palace: hence when he went to Oxford in 1687, about the affair of Magdalen-College and other matters, part of his time there is known to have been employed in touching; which shews how very partial he was to the practice, and how very ready he was to attend to it on every occasion that might offer. [319]  Dr. Sykes in a letter to Dr. Charlett, of September 4, 1787, expresses himself thus, “This morning the king touches in Christ Church Quire; hears one Father Hall this morning at the new Popish Chapel there; but whether he will be there in the afternoon, or at University College, I know not.”  And Creech in a letter to Dr. Charlett, of September 6, the same year, says, “On sunday morning the king touched.  Warner and White officiating: all that waited on his majesty kneeled at the prayers, beside the Duke of Beaufort, who stood all the time.” [320]  All this shews how partial and devoted James was to this practice, as well as how obsequiously the learned Oxonians observed and contemplated this part of their Sovereign’s conduct.  Had he not gone beyond this royal touch, neither the Magdalenians nor any other Oxonian fraternity had ever resisted his mandates: his popularity, in that case, might have been as unbounded as that of our present sovereign, and his descendants might have reigned here gloriously to this day.

At the Revolution this practice or operation was again suspended.  William III. was a Presbyterian, and Oliver Cromwell an Independent: the spirit and principles of these sects seem not to be congenial with, or favourable to the practice; nor does this gift or privilege appear to extend to sectarian or heterodox princes, but only to those of the Romish, or Church of England faith.

At the accession of Anne, of course, this sanative virtue and practice again revived, and numbers were touched by the royal hand of that illustrious princess, among whom was the late celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson, then in his childhood.  At the death of Anne, the said virtue forsook the British throne: at least none of our succeeding monarchs have yet ventured to revive the practice.  The two first princes of the present dynasty had, doubtless, their reasons for refraining from it; but as it is not known what they were, it is impossible to say whether their majesties were governed therein by wise or unwise, proper or improper motives.  We know that actions very right in themselves may yet be performed upon very wrong and unjustifiable principles.  There is, however, no room to suppose that these two potentates were in any measure influenced in this instance by what their enemies, the Jacobites, would be ready to insinuate: an apprehension of their own title to the Crown being defective.  The voice of the Nation (than which, there can be no better title) had placed them on the throne of these realms.

His present majesty has hitherto followed the example of his two immediate predecessors, in not restoring or resuming this dormant or neglected branch of the royal prerogative.  If he ever should hereafter, at any time, think proper to restore or resume it, there can be no manner of doubt of his meeting with ample success, as well as abundant employment.  In that case it may be presumed that multitudes of patients would soon be flocking in from all quarters, not excepting the County of Norfolk and the parts about Lynn Regis.  His resolving to resume the practice would instantly occasion the revival of the national faith in the efficacy of the operation; and so far would such a resumption or experiment be from endangering his majesty’s fair fame and popularity, that it would, in all probability, augment the same, and so render him for the residue of his reign, within the British Isles at least, more popular and more celebrated than ever.  But as we are not warranted to expect that his majesty will ever try the experiment, or put to the test the faith of his subjects in the miraculous efficacy of his touch, we shall here drop the subject as far as it may concern him.

It appears that after the death of queen Anne it was firmly believed by a great part of the nation, that the sanative virtue, or miraculous power which she was allowed to possess, still existed in the person of a certain exiled prince of her family.  In proof of which a story was industriously propagated of one Christopher Lovel, of Bristol, who being most sadly and grievously afflicted with the Evil, after having recourse to the most eminent of the faculty, and availed himself of the best medical help in vain, went at last to the Continent, in quest of the said prince.  Having found his royal highness, and being kindly received, he underwent the operation of the touch, got perfectly cured, and returned home safe and sound, in full health and high spirits, after an absence of four months and some few days.  Carte, the historian, and many more, gentlemen of the faculty as well as others, visited him, examined the case thoroughly, and pronounced the cure complete.  Some of them, of whom one was Dr. Lane, an eminent physician, considered it as one of the most extraordinary and wonderful events that had ever happened.—After this, who can doubt the reality of the fact, that such a sanative virtue, gift, or power, was actually possessed by the said prince?—It seems, however, that the miracle did not effect a radical cure: poor Lovel relapsed again, sometime after, and died of the Evil at last.  Such, in all probability, were all the other great cures performed by the rest of our royal doctors, although many of them, like this, were attested as perfect cures, by very respectable, but too credulous witnesses.

It is somewhat remarkable that Whiston, as well as Carte, believed in the efficacy of the royal touch: the former derives it from the prayer used at the time, while the latter seems to consider it as a divine or miraculous gift bestowed upon, or inherent to all the rightful heirs to the English throne.  Both of them were men of considerable respectability, and very confident, it seems, of the soundness of their respective opinions in this case.  Their opinions however appear equally untenable, and may pretty safely be pronounced utterly unfounded.  The favourable effects, or apparent benefit which some of those patients might experience after having undergone the operation of the touch, must doubtless be ascribed to their own operative faith and strength of imagination, rather than to any supernatural virtue proceeding from that princely performance, or any miraculous gift possessed by the royal practitioners.  To the same cause must also be attributed the salutary effects said to have sometimes resulted from the pretended animal magnetism, as well as such empirical charms and nostrums as have acquired an uncommon share of popular fame, or have stood very high in the good opinion of the public.  A patient’s favourable opinion of a remedy administered to him, and his very confident expectation of deriving from it very essential benefit, are allowed to have had a happy effect, and to have done great things sometimes in very serious and dangerous cases.

It must be rather mortifying to our national vanity and pride, to think that our dear ancestors, for seven hundred years, firmly believed in the miraculous efficacy of the royal touch, in scrofulous complaints. [324]  But while we reprobate, or pity their stupid and miserable credulity, in this and other instances, let us not forget that we ourselves are not without our errors and failings, and those no less inexcusable and degrading: witness our general belief in witchcraft, conjuration, prodigies, and newspapers, together with the unshaken faith of multitudes in Richard Brothers, Joanna Southcote, and many other notorious impostors of different descriptions: and it may be justly questioned, if there ever was a period when the inhabitants of this country have been more inexcusably credulous, more easily and egregiously imposed upon, or more generally and universally duped, than in this very age.—But we will here close this long section; hoping that its contents will not fail to contribute, at least in some measure, to the amusement and satisfaction of the inquisitive and candid reader; especially if he ever wished to learn the history of the royal touch, of which he will find here, perhaps, a more particular and circumstantial account than in any other publication.

HISTORY OF LYNN.  PART III.

The conquest of England by the Normans appears to have been no less complete than those which had been before effected by the Romans, the Saxons, and the Danes.  The English grandees were generally stript of their possessions, and their lands divided among the conqueror’s chief favourites and great captains, who then became the nobles of the realm, and from whom are descended most of our present great families.  This conquest was obtained much easier than any of those that preceded it.  A single battle now determined the fate of the whole country, partly, as was before observed, through the defection, intrigues, and influence of the clergy, most of whom were in the interest of the invader, as he was supported by their holy father the Pope, who had distinguished him by such special marks of his favour as, could not fail of attaching them to his cause.

William’s army consisted of 60,000 men; not all his own subjects, (for his duchy could not furnish and maintain such a force) but made up chiefly of adventurers, or soldiers of fortune, who had engaged in the expedition, on the promise of forfeited lands, in proportion to the numbers they brought with them.  Accordingly, some are said to have afterward bestowed on them no less than 700 manors, others 5, 4, 3, 2, and 100, or less; insomuch that all the land in England, if we except the royal demesnes, the church lands, and those annexed to the cities and boroughs, were in no more than about 700 hands, whose wide possessions were again distributed among their numerous vassals, according to the principles of the feudal system, which was now completely introduced and established in England. [328]

In consequence of this change, it became a fundamental maxim, and necessary principle of our English tenures, that the king is the universal lord and original proprietor of all the lands in his kingdom, and that no man doth or can possess any part of it, but what has, mediately or immediately, been derived from him, to be held upon feudal services.  This engrafting of the feudal tenure on almost all the land in the kingdom, is said to have been the most important alteration which our civil and military policy then underwent. [329a]  The great lords held their lands of the king, by certain services, as all their vassals held theirs also of them.  Thus the king had the whole power of the country closely connected with, and dependent upon himself.  This state of things was calculated, no doubt, to secure the kingdom from external danger, and may be considered as laying the foundation of that high military character which England afterwards held among its neighbours.

A vast demesne was now set apart for the king, amounting to 1422 manors, together with many other lands which had never been erected or formed into manors.  Besides these he had the profits of all his feudal tenures, his worships, marriages, and reliefs; the benefit of excheats, either upon failure of heirs, or forfeiture; the goods of felons and traitors; the profits of his courts of justice; besides many other casualties, which amounted to an immense revenue; insomuch that the Conqueror, as we are informed, had no less than 1060l. 10s. a day, the annual amount of which, allowing for the comparative value of moneys &c. was equal to several millions (perhaps twenty or more) of ours. [329b]  So large a revenue might probably justify the saying of Fortescue, that originally the King of England was the richest in Europe.

We are told, that William’s military tenants were obliged, on all occasions, to furnish 60,000 knights, completely equipped, and ready to serve forty days at their own expence.  Every seaport also, in proportion to its ability, was obliged to find, in time of danger, one or more ships properly furnished with men and arms; which, joined with such other ships as the king hired were generally an overmatch for the invaders. [330]  Thus we see how powerful and formidable England became after the conquest, in its means of defence and resistance, under its Norman sovereigns.

Whilst we are noticing the changes now introduced into this country, it may not be improper to observe, that the feudal system was a favourite branch of the Norman policy, and which they appear carefully to have established wherever they could get a firm footing.  They did so, not only in Normandy and England, but also in Sicily, which they appear to have subdued much about the time of which we are now speaking, and which has groaned under the oppression of that System ever since, even to this day.  Of the commencement of that order of things in that island, and its present aspect and bearings, a very recent writer gives the following account, which may serve to cast some light on the state of our country at the period now under consideration.

“Roger the Norman, conqueror of Sicily, and contemporary with our William the First, on his accession to the throne, divided the lands of the kingdom into three portions—One third of these was called the demesnes of the Crown, which are administered by the corporation of the royal towns where they are situated; each town, according to the revenue of its demesnial lands, pays to the king a certain income, besides maintaining the police, roads, &c. &c. and the tribute which each territory pays is called the royal patrimony.—The next third part of these lands was distributed by King Roger among his nobles; some of these were fiefs contained within the territory of the demesnial towns, while others had a town of their own, of which the estate or barony formed the territory.  Sometimes townships of these baronial towns have estates belonging to them, which are administered by their corporations, called giurati.—The remaining third portion was either distributed among the bishops and mitred abbots, or served to endow the several Convents, which in an age fertile in superstition were so generally established.

“This distribution of property has remained thus ever since the Norman Conquest; and all the noble fiefs, as they are held by a grant in military tenure, are supposed to belong to the crown, and given to a family and their descendants, subject to military service.  This Circumstance supposes an absolutely strict entail, which prevents the sale of fiefs without the king’s sanction; (verbo regio;) it supposes also the indivisibility of the fief—hence the rights of promogeniture, which has reduced the younger branches of families to a most miserable state.  Thus the lands of the nobles are entailed in their families.  Those of the church are attached to it, and the demesne lands are equally so to the corporations, as above-mentioned.” [331]

Of the orders of Society in Sicily, the same writer says—

After noticing the multiplied miseries under which the bulk of the people is involved by this wretched order of things, which forms an insuperable obstacle in the way of national happiness and prosperity, our author informs us, that, according to the original constitution of Sicily, the three houses of parliaments have the faculty of granting supplies to the Crown; but the majority of the two houses (he says) are sufficient; by which means the house of commons, or demesnial assembly becomes totally nugatory, and the lords and ecclesiastics, after generously granting the supplies, throw the whole burden of them on the commons.  Whatever remonstrances are made, the matter is left to the decision of those who have done the evil, and the mischief is thus perpetuated: [333] for it seems they never think of yielding in the least to the remonstrances of the commons, or complaints of the people.

In Sicily the feudal system exists without its original energies; and it may be said to exist in its very worst state, so as to spend all its force in oppressing beyond measure the middle and lower orders of the community, or great body of the nation, without contributing to the real benefit of any.  The consequence is that the people, for the most part, groan hopelessly under their burdens, and seem perfectly indifferent about the issue of the present contest with France.  Yet some people seem to wonder at their supineness, and their not rising as one man in defence of their king and country.  They might probably have done so, had their rulers been wise, and left them what would have been worth contending for, or defending.  When rulers cease to feel for the people, it is not unnatural or unusual for the people also to cease to feel for them.  This, perhaps, will apply to many of the recent changes among the European powers.

Beside the feudal system, our Norman conqueror introduced into this country divers other innovations—One of which was the separation of the Spiritual courts from the Civil; which was effected (says Blackstone) in order to ingratiate the new king with the popish clergy, who for sometime before had been endeavouring all over Europe to exempt themselves from the secular power; and whose demands the conqueror, like a politic prince, thought it prudent to comply with, by reason that their reputed sanctity had a great influence over the minds of the people; and because all the little learning of the times was engrossed into their hands, which made them necessary men, and by all means to be gained over to his interests.  And this was the more easily effected, because the episcopal sees being then in the breast of the king, he had taken care to fill them with Italian and Norman prelates.  This innovation produced very grievous consequences; so that by degrees the rights and privileges of the English clergy were delivered up into the hands of the Pope, who taxed them at his pleasure, and in process of time drained the kingdom of immense treasures: for besides all his other dues, arising from annates, first fruits, peter-pence, &c. he extorted large sums of money from the clergy for their preferments in the church.  He advanced foreigners to the richest bishopricks, who never resided in their dioceses, nor so much as set foot upon English ground, but sent for all their profits to a foreign country; nay so covetous was his Holiness, that before livings became void, he sold them provisionally among his Italians, insomuch that neither the king nor his clergy had any thing to dispose of, but every thing was bargained before hand at Rome. [334]

Another grievous innovation, introduced at the same period, consisted in the depopulation of whole countries for the purposes of the king’s royal diversion; and subjecting both them and all the ancient forests of the kingdom to the unreasonable severities of forest laws imported from the continent, whereby the slaughter of a beast was made almost as penal as the death of a man.  In the Saxon times, though no man was allowed to kill or chase the king’s deer, yet he might start any game, pursue, or kill it, upon his own estate.  But the rigour of these new constitutions vested the sole property of all the game in England in the king alone; and no man was entitled to disturb any fowl of the air, or beast of the field, of such kinds as were specially reserved for the royal amusement of the sovereign, without express licence from the king, by a grant of a chase, or free warren: and those franchises were granted as much with a view to preserve the breed of animals as to indulge the subject.  From a similar principle to which, though the forest laws are now mitigated, and by degrees grown entirely obsolete, yet from this root has sprung a bastard slip, known by the name of the game law, now arrived to and wantoning in its highest vigour: both founded upon the same unreasonable notions of permanent property in wild creatures; and both productive of the same tyranny to the commons; but with this difference, that the forest laws established only one mighty hunter throughout the land, the game laws have raised a little Nimrod in every manor. [335]

Another innovation produced by the conquest was, “narrowing the remedial influence of the country-courts, the great seats of Saxon justice, and extending the original jurisdiction of the king’s justiciaries to all kinds of causes arising in all parts of the kingdom.  To this end the Aula-regis, with all its multifarious authority, was erected; and a capital justiciary appointed, with powers so large and boundless, that he became at length a tyrant to the people, and formidable to the crown itself.  The constitution of this court, and the judges themselves who presided there, were fetched from Normandy: and the consequence naturally was, the ordaining that all proceedings in the king’s courts should be carried on in the Norman [or French] instead of the English language:—a provision the more necessary, because none of his Norman justiciaries understood English; but as evident a badge of slavery as ever was imposed upon a conquered people.”  And yet the nation was obliged to submit to it and bear it, for ages.  The former plainness and simplicity now gave way to the abstruseness, chicanery, and subtilty, which have ever since so unhappily characterized our legal proceedings. [338a]

Another of the hateful innovations of the same memorable period was, the introduction of the trial by combat, for the decision of all civil and criminal questions of fact in the last resort.  This was the immemorial practice of all the northern nations, but first reduced to regular and stated forms among the Burgundi, about the close of the fifth century: and from them it passed to other nations, particularly the Franks and the Normans; which last had the honour to establish it here, though clearly an unchristian, as well as most uncertain method of trial.  But it was a sufficient recommendation of it to the conqueror and his warlike countrymen, that it was the usage of their native duchy of Normandy. [338b]  This vile remain of ancient barbarism, and foul disgrace of the legal polity of our ancestors, has long ceased to exist in our island.

As the general changes introduced by the conqueror must have affected the inhabitants of Lynn, in common with the rest of their countrymen, the above sketch of them became necessary, in order to give the reader some idea of the state of things here at and subsequent to the conquest.  Before and at that period, as has been already observed, Lynn and its neighbourhood formed part of the possessions of Harold, of Stigand archbishop of Canterbury, and of Ailmar bishop of Elmham.  All the possessions of the former, of course were forfeited by the conquest.  Those of the two others soon followed; for being both Anglo-Saxons, (or Englishmen,) and deemed inimical to the Norman succession, they were both expelled, and their sees filled by foreigners.  Ailmar’s power and possessions here were in right of his see, and of his lordship of Gaywode, which had been long attached to that see: those of Stigand were in his own right, or that of his lordship of Rising, and that of the hundred of Freebridge, which he held, (as well as the lordship of the hundred of Smithdon, and many other lordships,) as a lay fee.  His possessions in these parts were bestowed by he conqueror on his half brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, in Normandy, whom he created Earl of Kent.  On his rebellion afterward against William Rufus, he was deprived of them, and they were bestowed on William de Albini, that king’s butler, whose son, of the same names, was created Earl of Sussex [of this more may be seen in the account of Castle Rising.]—Ailmar’s possessions here went to his successor Arfast or Herfast, who removed the see from Elmham to Thetford, in whose successors they continued for many generations.

Most, if not all the great gentry of England, in these parts, and throughout the whole kingdom, at or within a few years after the conquest, were deprived of their power, stript of their possessions, and completely humbled.  Great numbers of them lost their lives under the charge of treason, sedition, or other crimes.  Those who escaped with their lives were reduced to poverty, and obliged to occupy such humble stations as they could not one day have thought of without disdain. [340]  This memorable revolution, (as such revolutions mostly do,) chiefly affected the higher orders.  It affected them, indeed, with a vengeance.  The middle classes seem to have felt but little of it, at least compared with their superiors.  The lower orders felt it still less, or, perhaps, not at all.  They were slaves before, and so they continued for several ages after, seemingly without any material change.  Nor does their hard condition appear to have been at all ameliorated till after the civil wars broke out between the rival houses of York and Lancaster.  The fatal effects of those wars in reducing the numbers of each party, obliged the leaders (as has been before observed) to turn their attention to the lower orders, that is to the real slaves, great numbers of whom were then emancipated, to fill up the thinned and reduced ranks of their respective armies.  And this seems to have been the only good that attended those bloody and destructive wars.  It certainly proved of great national benefit, although, like the reformation of Henry VIII, it sprung from no virtuous or honourable motive.  The proverb says, It is an ill wind that blows no good; and it may be very safely said, that seldom, if ever, have any calamitous occurrences been known, but what have been productive of some real benefit.  This, doubtless, is owing to the overruling hand of providence, and ought to be acknowledged as such.

But though the manumission of great numbers of English slaves took place during those bloody and fatal wars, and also in consequence of the politic and wise measures adopted by Henry VII.  Yet it does not appear to have been fully or universally effected, or that slavery was then totally eradicated in England.  We find that there were here some slaves in the reign of Henry VIII. and of Edward VI. and even of Elizabeth: [341a] and it may be doubtful, if they had entirely ceased to exist here before the reign of Charles I. and the civil war.  They abounded in the parts about Lynn for a very long period; but whether as late as in some other parts of the kingdom is rather uncertain. [341b]—In talking and boasting of our great charter, and of the unwearied and undaunted exertions of our ancient barons and patriots to obtain and enforce it, and how careful they were on every occasion to maintain inviolate the rights and liberties of the people of England, we are seldom aware that a great part of the nation was all the while in actual slavery, and not a soul among the whole host of contemporary patriots and redoubtable zealots for freedom, ever once thinking of pleading their cause, or commiserating their sufferings!  So also in more recent times have we been congratulating ourselves on our national virtue and ardent love of liberty and justice, while we were every year dragging thousands and tens of thousands of the poor Africans into west-indian slavery!!

CHAP. II.

The mighty change effected in this country by the conquest must have been felt at Lynn in common with all other places of a similar description.  The great and opulent were doubtless the people who felt it most. [342]  As to the middle classes, (if such there were that might properly be so denominated,) it must have affected them much less, and the lower orders very little, or perhaps, not at all.  The latter were all slaves before, and most unfeelingly treated by their masters and proprietors; and they could but be slaves still; nor is it likely that they met with worse treatment from their new masters.  What might not be hoped from the virtue or justice of the Normans, might yet be expected from their policy; for in that quality they seem not to have been deficient; and it may be reasonably supposed that it would induce them to use the numerous slaves they found here no worse than they had been used by their former proprietors.  Thus a great part of the nation, and perhaps the greatest part of it, might not be so very materially affected, or injured, by the Norman conquest, as some would be apt to imagine—if indeed it did not prove, on the whole, a benefit rather than detriment to them. [343]

We must not however imagine or suppose that this revolution bore any resemblance to that which took place in this country above six hundred years afterwards, and which has been justly the fond and proud boast of our countrymen ever since.  They were scarcely in any thing alike, except in the names of their respective authors.  But William of Normandy must not be compared with William of Nassau; for they were two men of very different and opposite characters: the former came over to subdue and enslave the nation, the latter came as the champion and guardian of its rights and its freedom—one came to rob and destroy, the other to succour and to save—one merited the detestation and execration, the other the esteem, the gratitude, and the benediction of mankind.

Of all the English grandees, who were ruined by the conquest, none were more completely undone than the three great proprietors and lords of Lynn.  One of them as has been already observed, was king Harold: of his downfall we need say no more.  The other two were archbishop Stigand, and his brother, bishop Ailmar.  The former seems to have been the elder brother and head of the family, and was probably of noble birth, and of Danish extraction, as the bulk of his vast possessions lay in East Anglia.  Carte says, that it appears from the Domesday book, that he had the best estate of any man in England, except Harold and Edwin: there can be little doubt therefore of his being the head of one of the first families in the kingdom.  He was lord of Rising, and of the Hundreds of Freebridge and Smithdon, and also, of divers other extensive districts.  He is represented as a man of no great learning, but of eminent natural parts, improved by reflection, exercise, and experience, and directed by a clear head and solid judgment.  He had the reputation of being endowed with uncommon capacity for business; and we also hear that he was a person of very great weight and power in the country, of which no doubt can be entertained when his immense wealth is considered, and the vast influence, arising from both his temporal and spiritual dignities.  That such a man should be marked out as one of the victims of the Norman revolution, was naturally to be expected: his being an Englishman, and so very opulent and powerful, were sufficient temptations to sacrifice him.  But he seems to have conducted himself so warily at that critical juncture, that the Conqueror for sometime appeared at a loss how to proceed against him.  At last some frivolous or pretended ecclesiastical misdemeanor was found out, for which he was deprived of his spiritual dignity, under the sanction of the papal authority, by two popish legates, at a council held at Winchester in 1070.  This appeared a hard and severe measure: but William, as a politic prince, laid the whole blame or responsibility of it on the then Pontiff, Alexander II.  Yet he immediately seized on Stigand’s vast estates in East Anglia and elsewhere, and confined him in prison on a very scanty allowance, where it is said he died, of want, in the course of the same year, and so did not long survive his disgrace, or rather his downfal.  His great possessions, in and about Lynn, the Conqueror bestowed on his half brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, in Normandy, whom he created Earl of Kent, and, who then became one of the new masters and lords of Lynn. [346a]

Stigand’s brother, bishop Ailmar, who had still greater power in this town, is supposed to have been deprived, at the same time, and by the same council.  It is likely that he too was then immured in a prison, and never released from it to his dying day.  Such has often been the fate of men who had attained the highest honours and preferments among their countrymen.—Ailmar was succeeded in the see of Elmham, and in his jurisdiction and possessions at Gaywood and Lynn, by Herfast, one of the conqueror’s chaplains, as Rapin says.—Here it may not be improper, or unacceptable to the reader, to subjoin a List of the names of all the bishops that preceded and succeeded Ailmar, as masters and lords of Lynn, from Felix the Burgundian, first bishop of the East Angles, to Richard Nykke, or Nix, 31st. bishop of Norwich, [346b] who surrendered into the hands of Henry VIII. his authority or dominion over this town, when the name of it was changed from Bishop’s Lynn to King’s Lynn, which it has retained ever since.—Those bishops were,

1.  Felix the Burgundian.  He was the apostle of the East Angles, among whom his ministry was attended with eminent success, and issued in the conversion of the whole nation: schools were consequently instituted, and numerous places of worship erected throughout the whole country.  He was consecrated their bishop in 630, and fixed his seat first, it seems, at Soham in Cambridgeshire, and then at Silthestow, afterwards called Domnoc, and since Dunwich, in Suffolk.  He has been represented as very learned and pious.  The fame of his uncommon sanctity was so great, that after his death, which happened in 647, he was canonized as a saint, and his festival stands on the 8th of March, in the Romish calendar.  (See more of him above at p. 242.)—His immediate successor was Thomas, who had been trained up under the famous Paulinus archbishop of York, to whom he had been appointed deacon.  On the expulsion of that metropolitan from his see, Thomas served the same office under Felix, till his death.  After presiding five years he died, in 653, and was succeeded by Boniface, who also sometimes goes by other names.  He was a native of Kent, a priest of Canterbury, whose archbishop consecrated him, in 653; and dying in 669, he was succeeded by Bisus, or Bosa, who was consecrated by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury.  In his time the diocese was divided into two sees, one of which remained at Dunwich, and the other was fixed at North Elmham, in Norfolk, among whose possessions the demesne or lordship of Lynn and Gaywood was included.—The bishops of Elmham, according to the best account we have met with, were the following,

Bishops of Elmham after the union of the sees.—(1.) Theodred I.  He is reported to have been an eye witness of St. Edmund’s corpse being found uncorrupt, 70 or 80 years after his death.—(2.) Theodred, II. surnamed the Good: He was first bishop of London, and then of Elmham; both of which he held till he died, sometime after 962.—(3.) Athulf, or Adulf: succeeded in 966; or, as some think, earlier.—(4.) Alfric or Alfrid: was one of those who signed and confirmed king Edgar’s charter to the abbey of Croyland.  He died in 975, at the close of Edgar’s reign.—(5.) Athelstan, Edelstane, or Elstane: He was consecrated the latter part of 975.—(6) St. Algare, or Algarc: he had been Confessor to St. Dunstan archbishop of Canterbury, and promoted to this see in 1012.  He afterwards resigned, and retired among the monks of Ely, where he died in 1021.—(7.) Alfwin, or Elfwin, succeeded the same year.  He had been keeper or guardian of the body or remains of St. Edmund, and afterwards removed the same from Bury to London.  He was also a violent stickler for the monks, or Regulars, in their furious squabbles with the Seculars.  He resigned in 1032.—(8.) Alfric II. succeeded, and died in 1038; and was succeeded by—(9.) Alfric III. surnamed the Little, who is said to die in 1139. [349]—(10.) Stigand; (afterwards archbishop) he had been chaplain to king Harold Harefoot; but having obtained this see by simony, which his vast wealth would enable him easily to do, he was afterwards ejected by king Hardicanute, in 1040.—(11.) Grinketel: he held it in commendam with the bishopric of the South-Saxons, during the rest of Hardicanute’s reign.  Under the Confessor, Stigand was restored to favour, and promoted to Winchester, and last to Canterbury.—(12.) Egelmar, Ailmar, of Almar: of whom an account has been given already, as well as of his brother Stigand.—(13.) Arfast, or Herfast, chaplain to the Conqueror.  He succeeded at Easter, 1070.  In compliance with an order of a council held by Lanfranc, that all episcopal sees should be removed from villages to the most eminent cities or towns in the respective dioceses, Herfast translated the see of Elmham to Thetford.  He was by birth a Norman, in great favour with the Conqueror, and chancellor of England.  He died in 1084; and in 1085 was succeeded by (14.) William Galsagus, de Bellafago, or Beaufo.  He also was one of the Conqueror’s favourites, had been his chaplain, and became chancellor of England.  He was, like most of that monarch’s great favourites, a person of immense wealth; which at his death, in 1091, was, by his will, divided between his family and see: and this must have contributed not a little to augment the large possessions that were formerly attached to this bishopric.  In his time the celebrated survey, called Domesday, was made, in which, at folio 145, is contained an enumeration of the estates then belonging to the bishopric; and at folio 148, is an account of the lands of the said bishop, either in fee or inheritance.  As many of the latter were bequeathed to the bishopric, the revenues of the see at that period may nearly be ascertained.  All these were alienated in the exchange made by Henry VIII. [350]—After this bishop’s death the see was removed from Thetford to Norwich.

Bishops of Norwich.—1. Herbert Lozinga, who having, through the favour of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, obtained, by grant and purchase, certain lands, called Cowholm, commenced the execution of his favourite plan of building a magnificent cathedral, the first stone of which was laid by him in 1096.  He erected a palace also for his residence, on the north side, and a monastery on the south side, which he furnished with 60 monks, all which doings were sanctioned by Pope Paschal II.  Herbert was also abbot of Ramsey, and lord Chancellor of England; and moreover a most notorious simoniac, for which the pope imposed upon him some heavy penances, in the doing of which he very notably acquitted himself, and gave good proof how well he was cut out for that kind of business.—Besides the large edifices he erected at Norwich, he also built the two great churches at Yarmouth and Lynn; the latter he dedicated to St. Margaret the Virgin, or, as some say, to St. Mary Magdalen, St. Margaret, and all the maiden saints.  A priory was also built by him on the south side of this church.  These he is said to have undertaken at the request of the people of Lynn; and yet it seems as if those same people were not otherwise very forward in their encouragements to him; for he was obliged to have recourse to a very ungraceful expedient in order to induce them to hasten their contributions:—to all who would subscribe or contribute towards these erections he offered and granted an indulgence, for forty days; [351] or, in other words, a Licence to commit with impunity any species of wickedness, or all manner of sin and villany, for the space of forty days!  It is supposed that this expedient fully answered the bishop’s purpose; for the buildings were soon finished, in a style of superior magnificence.  It reflects no credit on the memory of our townsmen of that day, that in order to do some good, or contribute liberally towards the erection of religious edifices in the town, they must be indulged with a licence to commit all manner of crimes.  It shews that they were much more attached to evil than good, and liked sin far better than holiness.  How much the present population of Lynn excels them, is a question that will not here be discussed.—Bishop Herbert died in 1119 and was buried before the high altar of his new cathedral.

2.  Eborard, or Everard, succeeded Herbert, after a vacancy of almost three years.  In his time the Jews, as we are told, crucified a boy, named William, who being considered a martyr, and canonized, brought no small gains to the church, by the numerous pilgrimages and offerings made annually on this occasion.  Though the truth of this shocking crucifixion story seems more than doubtful, yet the monks managed to procure it general belief, and to get the poor boy (real or fictitious) canonized, under the name of Saint William.  Their main object no doubt was to bring grist to the mill; and as that end was amply obtained, it may be said that they received their reward, and did not labour (or rather invent the tale) in vain.  This bishop was the founder of the hospital and church of St. Paul in Norwich; and a great benefactor to the monastery which had been endowed by his predecessor.  He was deposed, or resigned about 1146, and died at Fountain’s Abbey in Yorkshire, in 1149, and was succeeded by

5.  John de Grey, who was promoted to the see by that great and memorable patron of Lynn, King John, with whom he appears to have been in very high favour, and from whom he procured the liberties of Magna Charta for his diocese.  He also obtained from that monarch a charter to make his town of Lynn a free borough, which was dated at Lutgershall, Sept. 14, 1204, the 6th year of that reign.  This was the first of the Lynn charters.  These concessions the king was induced to grant, as it is said, either to obtain favours, or in return for some he had received.  The wealth of this prelate is reported to have been of great service to the sovereign in his troubles; and for various loans he had obtained, he pledged to the bishop his regalia, viz. his great crown, the surcoat, cloak, sandals, gloves, spurs, &c.  This bishop built the palace of Gaywood, and so seems to have resided pretty much here, and may be supposed to have acquired among the inhabitants a good portion of popularity.  We are also told that he confirmed to the monks of Norwich our church of St. Margaret, and the chapels of St. James and St. Nicholas, and the church of Mintling, together with the tithes of Gaywood, &c.  This bishop died at Poictou, in 1214: after which the see was vacant seven years; when

6.  Pandulphus, an Italian, was consecrated in 1222.  He had been sent to England as legate by the pope, on account of the deposition of archbishop Langton by king John.  While at Rome, to have his election to this see confirmed, on his representing that it was greatly in debt, (whether true or false, we know not,) he obtained a grant of the whole first fruits of the clergy in his diocese, for himself and successors; which thenceforth became attached to those prelates, till the time of Henry VIII, and must have considerably augmented the episcopal revenues.  He died in Italy, in 1296; but his remains were brought to England for interment, and buried in his cathedral.

10.  Walter de Suthfield, or Suffield, who was consecrated in 1224.  He obtained for the bishopric a charter of free warren to himself and successors.  So we may presume that he was himself a sportsman.  By the command of Pope Innocent, he drew up a general and particular valuation of all the ecclesiastical revenues in the kingdom; which, after receiving the papal confirmation, was called the Norwich-Inquest; and subsequently became the ratio of clerical taxation.  He erected and endowed the Hospital of St. Giles, in Norwich, for poor pilgrims, and died in 1257.  He was succeeded the next year by

16.  Robert de Baldock, who resigned shortly after, and was succeeded by

20.  William Bateman, dean of Lincoln.  He was a great benefactor to the nunnery of Flixton in South Elmham, and gave the nuns a body of statutes for their regulation; and, in 1347 founded Trinity Hall in Cambridge, for the express purpose of supplying his diocese with persons properly qualified for the discharge of the duties of parochial cures.  He died in 1354, at Avignon, while on an embassy to the pope.  This prelate was a native of Norwich, but spent much of his time abroad, and chiefly at Rome, till the pope promoted him to this bishopric.  So great was his interest with his holiness, that he also obtained for himself and successors, the first fruits, as we are told, of all vacant livings within his diocese, which occasioned, it seems, frequent disputes between him and his clergy.  But the clergy were not likely to gain much by disputing with him, for he is represented as “a stout defender of his rights, and one who would not suffer himself to be injured or imposed upon, or his dignity insulted, by any one.”  In proof of which, the following anecdote has been related of him by some of our historians:—“Lord Morley, having killed some of the bishop’s deer, infringed upon his manors, and abused his servants who opposed him, was obliged to do penance by walking through the streets of the city with a wax candle of six pounds weight in his hand, and kneel down before the bishop, in the cathedral, and ask his pardon, although the king had sent an express order to the contrary.”—From this anecdote we may safely infer, that this prelate governed his slaves and vassals, the inhabitants of Lynn, with despotic sway.  It is said that there was in his time such a dreadful plague in England, and throughout Europe, as scarcely left a tenth part of the inhabitants living; and that it appears from the Chronicle of Norwich, that from the first of January to the first of July 1348–9, 57374 persons, besides ecclesiastics and beggars, died in Norfolk alone.  We cannot learn how many of them were of the town of Lynn.—A circumstance that seems to corroborate this extraordinary mortality is, that this bishop instituted and collated 850 persons to benefices vacant at this time. [358]  His successor was

21.  Thomas Percy, youngest brother of the Earl of Northumberland, though but twenty-two years of age.  After erecting the steeple of the cathedral, which had been blown down by a violent wind, and repairing the choir, which had been much damaged, he died, in 1369.  The next year he was succeeded by

22.  Henry Spencer, or Le Spencer, a prebendary of Salisbury.  He was consecrated in March 1370, by the pope in person, which probably contributed not a little to cherish that self importance and haughtiness for which he was so remarkable.  In an aid granted through the kingdom to the king’s use, this prelate certified for his diocese, that it contained, in Norfolk 806 parishes, and in Suffolk 515; and each county was accordingly rated.  He took a most active part, at the commencement of what is called the grand Schism, in the memorable warfare between pope Urban and his competitor pope Clement: for there were then two popes; two infallible heads of the catholic church! and each reviling and damning the other without mercy, and most bloodily seeking his destruction!!  Bishop Spencer was on the side of pope Urban, with whom he was in very high favour.  In 1383 that pontiff published a bull, in which he called upon all who had any regard for religion, to exert themselves in its defence, by taking up arms for him, against his rival Clement and his adherents; promising at the same time, for the encouragement of all who would volunteer in this meritorious service, the same pardons and indulgences as had been usually granted to those who had engaged, or lost their lives, in the great eastern crusades, or holy wars. [359]  This papal bull met with no small success in England, owing perhaps to France being on the side of pope Clement, and to Urban’s choosing an English ecclesiastic for his general.  This was our bishop Spencer, “a young and stout prelate (says Fox) much fitter for the camping cure than for the peaceable church of Christ.”—A most dashing and bouncing high priest he certainly was; of which he gave repeated and abundant proofs, both at home and abroad.  This right reverend warrior, and champion of holy church, (at least, of Urban’s portion or moiety of it) having obtained an aid or subsidy, of the English parliament, set out upon his continental expedition against the Clementines at the head of 50,000 foot and 2,000 horse: but he did not bring back quite so many. [360]  Our general with his furious crusaders, after they had landed at Calais, to shew their strict regard for propriety and consistency, turned their arms against Flanders; a country that was not favourable to Clement, but had actually declared for Urban.  After ravaging the country, taking divers towns, and defeating the Flemish force which had attempted to oppose them, an effectual stop was put to their career, by the French king, Charles VI. at the head of a powerful army.  In short the expedition ended disgracefully, as it deserved, and not very unlike certain expeditions to Flanders and Holland in modern times.  The great general, bishop Spencer, at his return, found himself somewhat in disgrace; in which he proved more ill-fated than our modern Yorks and Chathams.  The king ordered the temporalities of his see to be seized, and several of his officers to be imprisoned.  In a year or two, however, his temporalities were restored, and he probably regained the royal favour.—He lived in great splendor, and had divers sumptuous palaces, among which was that at Norwich, another at South Helingham, and another, supposed to be one of the chief of them, at Gaywood by Lynn, the inhabitants of which town had ample experience of his imperious and turbulent spirit.  Being one time in town with his retinue, he quarrelled in the street with the mayor (who was supported by the townsmen) on some point of frivolous etiquette.  From words the parties came to blows, and a very serious battle ensued, which terminated in the total defeat of the haughty prelate and his company, who were all furiously driven out of town, many of them sorely bruised and wounded.  This turbulent high priest afterwards bent his rage against the poor Lollards, and appeared among the first to proceed against them upon the law De hæretico Comburendo.  He prosecuted William Sawtre, minister of St. Margaret’s at Lynn, who at first recanted, and afterwards became minister of St. Osith in London, where he relapsed, and was the first that suffered under the above law.  This bishop also afterwards persecuted Sir Thomas Erpingham at Norwich, and as a penance, for favouring Lollardism, enjoined him to build the gate, at the entrance of the College precinct, which still goes by his name.  Bishop Spencer died in 1406, and was, it seems, the first prelate who quartered the episcopal arms with his own.  His successor was