23.  Alexander de Totington, who, though immediately elected, was not admitted to his spiritualities till the following year.  Some of his manor-houses and palaces having fallen into decay, through the negligence of his predecessors, he is said to have spent large sums in repairing and beautifying them, which constituted, apparently, his most meritorious and memorable deeds.  He died in 1413, and was succeeded by

24.  Richard de Courtney, chancellor of Oxford, who died suddenly, about two years after, at the siege of Harfleur; from which it would seem that he was a prelate that delighted in war, or another of our fighting bishops, who, at the best, are but unamiable characters.  He was succeeded, in 1416, by

25.  John de Wakeryng, archdeacon of Canterbury, who was confirmed by the archbishop; which unusual circumstance was owing to the ecclesiastical anarchy still existing, occasioned by the continuance of the grand schism, which was then at its height.  During that period there always were two popes, but they were now three, and each prefering a legal claim to the papal chair, as the lineal descendant of St Peter!  Three contemporary popes exhibited an unusual and queer spectacle, and would naturally suggest the idea of three heads of the church: and a church, or any thing else, with three heads may pretty fairly be deemed a monster.  Even the protestant church of England, however, has had before now two heads; one in London, and the other at St. Germans; which ought to deter its members from bearing too hard on the church of Rome in the above case.  Bishop Wakeryng is said to have made considerable improvements in and about his cathedral; which seems to have been among his most praiseworthy performances.  It appears that he died in 1425.

Here it may be proper to observe, that in this bishop’s time, and that of some of his predecessors, as well as of his immediate successor, the tranquillity of the town of Lynn appears to have been exceedingly disturbed by the violence of two contending factions, which kept the town in a continual state of discord and distraction, it seems, for the space of about thirty years: as may be gathered from existing documents, or copies of Letters, of that period, still preserved in a MS. History of Lynn, in the possession of Mr. Thomas King of this town. [363]  From which we discover that those two contending factions were headed by two of the Aldermen of that time; one of whom was Bartholomy Petipas, who was twice mayor, and the other John de Wentworth, who served that office three times.  The cause and nature of the difference that arose between these opposing parties is not easy to develop.  That their animosity was bitter and violent is but too obvious, but its source or ground is involved in no small obscurity.

This however is not the place to enter minutely upon the subject, which shall be resumed in another part of the work.  This dire contention seems to have begun in 1403, the 7th of Henry IV. and to have lasted till 1434, the 13th of Henry VI.  The first of those years were the 3rd. of Wentworth’s mayoralty, between whom and Petipas there evidently existed some serious competition; but whether it was merely a contest for power or superiority in the management of the town, or arose from certain political questions about a reform of abuses, on which the parties disagreed, does not very plainly appear.  It is however very well known that questions of a political, as well as theological nature, were then much agitated in different parts of the country, by the enlightened and patriotic disciples of Wickliff, who were anxious to promote every where political as well as ecclesiastical reformation; but that such was actually the case then at Lynn, and the ground of the said disagreement cannot perhaps be positively affirmed.  There are indeed some intimations of insufficient or suspicious persons having for sometime been chosen or found among the 24 Jurats that were here annually elected, in a Letter or injunction from Henry VI, addressed, seemingly, to the mayor and burgesses, and dated November 23 in his 13th year, which may indicate that politics had no small share in the said contention, and the persons alluded to might belong to the advocates of reform, or democrats of that day.  But this subject we will now drop, [365] and proceed with our episcopal catalogue.  John de Wakeryng dying in 1425 was succeeded the following year by

26.  William Alnwick, archdeacon of Salisbury, who, having sat ten years, was translated to Lincoln.  The principal entrance of the palace is said to have been erected at his expence, and by his arms being united with those of the see, on the west end of the cathedral, he is supposed to have contributed towards the erection of that also.

28.  Walter Hart, or Lyhart, master of Oriel College Oxon, who was appointed by the pope, and consecrated February 27, 1446.  Paving the cathedral; and erecting the elegant carved roof of the nave, where a hart, or deer couchant, in sculpture, alluding to his name, is seen in several places, are the works ascribed to him.  He died in May 1472, and was succeeded by

29.  James Goldwell, the Pope’s Prothonotary, who was made bishop by papal provision, and consecrated at Rome by pope Sixtus IV. October 4, 1472.  He appears to have been a thorough-paced ecclesiastic, and legitimate son of his Holy Father.  Before he left Rome, at the time of his consecration, he is said to have obtained of the Pope a perpetual indulgence, to repair and ornament the cathedral; by which he was empowered to grant, to all persons who frequented it annually, on Trinity Sunday and Lady-day, twelve years and forty days pardon, in lieu of offerings made on the occasion: and having received the sum of 2200 marks, for dilapidation, he finished beautifying the tower; made the elegant stone-fretted roof of the choir; and ornamented the chapels on each side of it; especially that dedicated to the Holy Trinity, in which he was afterwards interred.—We need not wonder that he could do so much, when he was empowered to grant such long indulgences, and such extensive and ample pardons.  Wealthy people, who could believe him really possessed of such a power, might be expected to furnish him pretty readily with any sums of money he wanted for his sumptuous buildings and architectural decorations.  To such pious frauds and cunning devices, many of our ecclesiastical structures, throughout the kingdom, owe much, perhaps, of their boasted beauty and magnificence.  Sad however must have been the case of this country, when such vile tricks could take, or succeed, even with the most enlightened part of its population; and sadder still must be our case, if we are not yet proof against equally vile and palpable impositions.—Bishop Goldwell died in 1498, [370] and the see, on the refusal of Christopher Urswyke, was filled by

30.  Thomas Jane, archdeacon of Essex, and Canon of Windsor, who was consecrated in 1499, and died the next year: whose successor was

31.  Richard Nykke, or Nix, archdeacon of Exeter, who was elected in 1500.  He must have been a man of an unamiable and hateful character.  Writers unanimously concur to brand his name with the greatest obloquy.  Of his vile persecuting spirit no further evidence need be adduced than the fact, that by his sanguinary judgments, Ayers, Bingy, Norrice, and the amiable Bilney were consigned to the flames, for only, in a peaceable manner, expressing those sentiments, which, as they were sanctioned by conscience, they had a right to suppose were the dictates of truth.  He died January 14. 1535.  In his time Chorepiscopi were first appointed by act of parliament; their office answering to that of suffragan, which, prior to that period, had been chosen at the discretion of the diocesan.  While this bishop bore sway, as master and lord of Lynn, there was among the aldermen here a very remarkable person, whose name was Thomas Miller.  He was mayor of the town six or seven years, but not six or seven times; for the first time he was in the office for four years successively, viz. 1520 and the three following years.  He was mayor again in 1529, and again in 1546, the last of Henry VIII.  That he was a man of spirit and intrepidity appears by his contending with his lord, the bishop, about the right of having the sword carried before him, which his lordship, it seems, objected to, and claimed as his own proper and exclusive right and prerogative.  Our mayor and the corporation, not satisfied with this, went boldly to law with their lordly master, on the occasion, and carried their cause; which determined and established the point, and the sword has been carried before their worships, the mayors of Lynn, ever since, without any further demur or litigation.  It appears indeed that it would have so happened, in no long time after, had the said law-suit, or legal decision not taken place; for the king, in the course of a few years, thought proper to require of this same bishop the relinquishment and surrender of his supremacy, or dominion over Lynn, for such valuable considerations as his majesty, in his princely wisdom, saw fit to grant or allow him, by way of exchange or remuneration.  To this his lordship readily acceded; for he must have known the king too well to suppose that it would have been any way safe for him to have done otherwise.  But he died soon after, and before the affair was fully concluded.  The actual surrender, therefore, and probably under some new arrangements, was left to be executed by his immediate successor, the no less memorable

32.  William Rugg, or, Reppes, fortieth abbot of St. Bennet’s in Holme, and native of North Repps, in this county, where his father, of both his names, is said to have resided.  He had his education at Cambridge, and was fellow of Gonvill Hall in that university.  After being abbot of St. Bennet’s about six years, he was promoted to this see, by way of recompence, as some seem to think, for the part he had acted among the Cambridge divines, in obtaining from that university the judgment his majesty wished, respecting his marriage with queen Catherine.  They might also suppose, that his being a warm and stanch stickler for the king’s ecclesiastical supremacy, and influencing those of his convent to subscribe to the same, in 1534, were additional recommendations that contributed to his promotion.  But when we consider the hard terms, or humiliating conditions, on which he was to obtain, or hold his episcopal dignity, (that is, by relinquishing the greatest part of the revenue and possessions attached to his see,) it will not be a very easy matter to prove that any favour was intended by this preferment, and much less a recompence or reward for former services: this was certainly very different from Henry’s wonted manner of using his favourites, and rewarding his approved servants.  But this point is too uninteresting to merit any further discussion.—Abbot Rugg being promoted to the see of Norwich in 1536, he, by virtue of a private act of parliament, parted with all the lands of his bishopric, except the site of his episcopal palace in Norwich, to the king, by way of exchange for the revenues belonging to the abbey of Holme and priory of Hickling; which last being soon after alienated by him, the whole income, since his time, appertaining to the see of Norwich, has been only the estate of Holme monastery, which his successors still enjoy, according to the purport of the said act, which, continuing unrepealed, gave occasion to bishop Montague, in the time of Charles I. to subscribe himself, in his leases, “Richard, by divine permission, lord bishop of Norwich, and Head Abbot of St. Benedict’s de Hulm.”  The exchange of the lands of the bishopric, for those of the Abbey of St. Benedict’s and priory of Hickling, is said to have been made by Abbot Rugg some months before his election to the see of Norwich, [372] though not before his promotion thither had been predetermined.  We are further informed that this prelate alienated from his bishopric, not only the priory of Hickling, but many good manors besides, belonging to the abbey, some by absolute gift, others upon trifling exchanges, and gave long leases, so that, at last, he was unable to maintain the state of the bishopric, and forced to resign, with an annual pension of 200 marks.  He seems to have been a singularly improvident and thoughtless prelate, and very different from most of that order, who seldom lose sight of their terrestrial interests, or temporal concerns, whatever they may do as to those that are of an eternal nature.  After having resigned the see for the paltry pittance of 200 marks, or, as some say, 200l. per annum, he died in 1550.  In allusion to the straits and difficulties to which his manifest and manifold indiscretions had reduced him, one of the members or officers of his household is said to have made the following verses on his resignation:

CHAP. III.

It is difficult to ascertain the exact state of this town, or the nature of its police, and the social condition of its inhabitants, not only before and at the Conquest, but also for a good while after, any further than that its population appears to have then consisted chiefly, if not entirely, of the bishop’s slaves or vassals, governed by such agents or officers as he thought proper to appoint, whose administration as may be reasonably presumed, would not always be of the mildest, or most equitable and unexceptionable description.  Had there been now in existence regular and authentic records of the affairs of the town, in those days, we should probably discover that its police, at least the spirit of it, bore but too much resemblance to our present West Indian jurisprudence.  Slaves, in those ages, seem to have constituted the bulk of our population; and were, in all probability, the offspring of the lower orders of the original inhabitants, whose lives had been spared, when the Anglo-Saxons over-run and conquered the country, on condition of submitting to perpetual servitude.  Such seems to have been the origin of those slaves of different descriptions which formerly abounded in this country for many ages.  These, in country places, were the cultivators of the soil, or tillers of the ground; and in the towns, they were the tradesmen, mechanics, artificers, and labourers.  In short, both in the towns and in country places all useful employments were occupied by them.  As to their masters, the nobility, gentry, and every description of military men, who constituted the great or main body of reputed freemen, they were all above engaging in any such employments.  War and the chace were the only occupations that were deemed worthy of them; and there lay the whole stock or sum of their knowledge and acquirements.  Literature of every kind they usually set at nought; scorning to learn so much as to write their own names, as an attainment that would be too degrading for an English gentleman.  Under such beings, how unenviable, miserable, and deplorable must have been the condition of the enslaved or unfree part of the community.

Of the original, low, and servile state of the inhabitants of our English, and other European towns, and their progress from thraldom to freedom, no one has perhaps given a juster account than Dr. Adam Smith, in the second volume of his celebrated Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  He there observes that the inhabitants of cities and towns, after the fall of the Roman Empire, were not more favoured than those of the country.

“They consisted, indeed, of a very different order of people from the first inhabitants of the ancient republicks of Greece and Italy.  These last were composed chiefly of the proprietors of lands, among whom the public territory was originally divided, and who found it convenient to build their houses in the neighbourhood of one another, and to surround them with a wall, for the sake of common defence.  After the fall of the Roman empire, on the contrary, the proprietors of land seem generally to have lived in fortified castles on their own estates, and in the midst of their own tenants and dependants.  The towns were chiefly inhabited by tradesmen and mechanics, who seemed in those days to have been servile, or very nearly of servile condition.  The privileges which we find granted by ancient charters to the inhabitants of some of the principal towns in Europe, sufficiently shew what they were before these grants.  The people to whom it is granted as a privilege, that they might give away their own daughters in marriage without the consent of their lord, that upon their death, their own children, and not their lord, should succeed to their goods, and that they might dispose of their own effects by will, must, before those grants, have been either altogether, or very nearly in the same state of villanage with the occupiers of land in the country.  They seem, indeed, to have been a very poor, mean set of people, who used to travel about with their goods from place to place, and from fair to fair, like the hawkers and pedlers of the present times.  In all the different countries of Europe then, in the same manner as in several of the Tartar governments of Asia at present, taxes used to be levied upon the persons and goods of travellers, when they passed through certain manors, when they went over certain bridges, when they carried about their goods from place to place in a fair, when they erected in it a booth or stall to sell them in.  These different taxes were known in England by the names of passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage.  Sometimes the king, sometimes a great lord, would grant to particular traders, to such particularly as lived in their own demesnes, a general exemption from such taxes.  Such traders, though in other respects of servile condition, were upon this account called Free-traders.  They in return usually paid to their protector a sort of annual poll tax.  In those days protection was seldom granted without a valuable consideration, and this tax might, perhaps, be considered as compensation for what their patrons might lose by their exemption from other taxes.  At first, both those poll-taxes and those exemptions seem to have been altogether personal, and to have affected only particular individuals, during either their lives, or the pleasure of their protectors.  In the very imperfect accounts which have been published from Domesday-book, of several of the towns of England, mention is frequently made, sometimes of the tax which particular burghers paid, each of them, either to the king, or to some other great lord, for this sort of protection; and sometimes of the general amount only of all these taxes.” [377]

“That part of the king’s revenue which arose from such poll-taxes in any particular town, used commonly to be lett in farm, during a term of years for a rent certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county, and sometimes to other persons.  The burghers themselves frequently got credit enough, to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort which arose from their own town, they becoming jointly and severally answerable for the whole rent.”

“At first, the farm of the town was lett to the burghers, in the same manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only.  In process of time, however, seems to have become the general practice to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent certain, never afterwards to be augmented.  The payment having thus become perpetual, the exemptions, in return for which it was made, naturally became perpetual too.  Those exemptions, therefore, ceased to be personal, and could not afterwards be considered as belonging to individuals as individuals, but as burgesses of a particular burgh, which, upon this account, was called a Free-burgh, for the same reason that they had been called Free-burghers or Free-traders.  Along with this grant, the important privileges above mentioned, that they might give away their own daughters in marriage, that their children should succeed them, and that they might dispose of their own effects by will, were generally bestowed upon the burghers of the town to whom it was given.  The principal attributes of villanage find slavery being thus taken away from them, they now, at least, became really free in our present sense of the word Freedom.—Nor was this all.  They were generally at the same time erected into a commonality, or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates and a town-council of their own, of making bye-laws for their own government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, by obliging them to watch and ward; that is, as antiently understood, to guard and defend those walls against all attacks and surprises, by night as well as by day.  In England they were generally exempted from suit to the hundred and country courts; and all such pleas as should arise among them, the pleas of the crown excepted, were left to the decision of their own magistrates.” [379]

For the origin of corporate towns, in this country, we are generally referred to the times of which we are now treating, that is, the ages subsequent to the Conquest; and yet it seems to be very evident from the old book called The Mirrour, that there existed here some towns of that description even as early as the days of Alfred: [380] but they were probably few, and disregarded afterward, if not entirely disannulled; till a good while after the accession and establishment of the Norman dynasty: nor can we learn scarcely any thing of the cause and object of their formation, or the nature and principles of their constitutions.  The case is otherwise as to those corporations formed since the Conquest; which seems to apply to all those that now exist in this country: it is not so difficult to find, or make out, how and why they were formed; and it is with them only that we have here any concern.  Before they sprung up the feudal system was in its full and utmost vigour; and the power of the country was divided between the sovereign and the barons, or great lords; and the latter were sometimes an over match for the former.  As a counter-balance or check to the formidable and enormous power of the barons, the incorporation of the great towns and cities seems chiefly to have been resorted to, or adopted.  At least this appears to have been the case as far as any good policy, and not mere caprice, had any share in the business: for justice and humanity, or a desire to enlarge the liberty, and promote the welfare of the people were totally out of the question.  These were motives too sublime and godlike to enter into the contemplation of the English kings and courtiers of those days.

But the said measure, whatever might be its cause and object, or the motive for its adoption, appears to have produced very salutary effects: for by forming cities and towns into corporations, and conferring on them the privileges of municipal jurisdiction, the first check was given to the overwhelming evils of the feudal system: and under their influence freedom and independence began to peep forth, from the rigours of slavery, and the miseries of oppression.  To be free of any corporation, however, was not then, as at present, merely to enjoy some privilege in trade, or to exercise the right of voting on particular occasions, but it was to be exempt from the intolerable hardships of feudal service; to have the right of disposing both of person and property, and to be governed by laws intended to promote the general good, and not to gratify the ambition and avarice of individuals.  These laws, however rude and imperfect, tended to afford security to property, and encourage men to habits of industry.  Thus commerce, with every ornamental and useful art, began first in corporate bodies to animate society.  But in those dark ages force was necessary to defend the claims of industry; and such a force the municipal societies possessed; for their towns were not only defended by walls and gates, vigilantly guarded by the citizens, but oftimes at the head of their fellow freemen in arms, the mayor, aldermen and other officers, marched forth in firm array, to assert their rights, defend their property, and teach the proudest and most powerful baron, that the humblest freeman was not to be injured with impunity.  It was thus the commons learned and proved they were not objects of contempt; nay, that they were beings of the same species as the greatest lords. [381]

In this country the king is said to be the fountain of honour; and such he was to the incorporated towns and cities.  From him they derived their chartered and municipal privileges, and to him they owed their emancipation from their former bondage, or manumission from feudal servitude.  Though these royal acts appear to have proceeded from no generous or noble motives, such as the love of justice, or a regard for liberty, but rather from a selfish and sordid policy; yet, as they proved of vast benefit to the inhabitants of those towns and cities, they strongly attached them to the throne, and greatly added to the power and resources of the sovereign.  The aversion and contempt manifested by the nobles towards this new body of freemen, tended to promote still further their attachment and subserviency to the court.  The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not only as of a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves, almost of a different species from themselves.

“The wealth of the burghers never failed to provoke their envy and indignation, and they plundered them on every occasion without mercy or remorse.  The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords.  The king hated and feared them too; but, though perhaps he might despise, he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers.  Mutual interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and the king to support them against the lords.  They were the enemies of his enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure and independent of those enemies as he could.  By granting them magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, he gave them all the means of security and independency of the barons, which it was in his power to bestow.  Without the establishment of some regular government of this kind, without some authority to compel their inhabitants to act according to some certain plan or system, no voluntary league of mutual defence could either have afforded them, any permanent security, or have enabled them to give the king any permanent support.  By granting the farm of their town in fee, he took away from those whom he wished to have for his friends, and, if one may say so, for his allies, all ground of jealousy and suspicion, that he was ever afterwards to oppress them, either by raising the farm rent of their town, or by granting it to some other farmer.” [383]

The armed force, with which the towns now furnished themselves, must have produced a very material change in the state of the kingdom.  This new order of warriors, or trained bands of the towns, seem not to have been inferior to those of the country; and as they could be more readily assembled on any emergency, they are said to have frequently had the advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords.  In some parts of the continent they became so powerful and successful as to subdue the nobles in their vicinity, and enable the cities to which they belonged to form themselves into independent republicks.  But in England, the cities and burghs had no opportunity to become entirely independent.  They became, however, so considerable, as Dr. Smith observes, that the sovereign could impose no tax upon them, beside the stated farm-rent of the town, without their own consent.  They were, therefore, called upon to send deputies to the general assembly of the states of the kingdom, where they might join with the clergy and the barons in granting, upon urgent occasions, some extraordinary aid to the king.  Being generally, too, more favourable to his power, their deputies seem, some times, to have been employed by him as a counterbalance, in those assemblies, to the authority of the great lords. [384]  Hence, as it seems, the origin of the representation of burghs in our parliaments.

However useless or objectionable our modern burghs or corporate towns may be, it must be allowed that they were originally productive of no inconsiderable national advantages.  In them, as has been observed by the writer last mentioned, order and good government together with the liberty and security of individuals, were established at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every kind of violence.  That industry also, which aims at something more than necessary subsistence was found in them before it was commonly practised, or did exit among the country farmers.

“If in the hands of a poor cultivator, oppressed with the servitude of villanage, some little stock should accumulate, he would naturally conceal it, with great care, from his master, to whom it would otherwise have belonged, and take the first opportunity of running away to a town.  The law was, at that time, so indulgent to the inhabitants of towns, and so desirous of diminishing the authority of the lords, over those of the country, that if he could conceal himself there, from the pursuit of the lord, for a year, he was free for ever.  Whatever stock therefore accumulated in the hands of the industrious part of the inhabitants of the country, naturally took refuge in cities, as the only sanctuaries in which it could be secure to the person that acquired it.” [385]

Thus it appears the cities and towns were then replenished with inhabitants from the industrious and most valuable part of the population of the country, and not, as is too often the case in our time, from the most idle, profligate, and worthless.

From what has been already said of the motive or policy that seems to have given birth to our burgh-system, it might naturally be expected that those princes, who lived upon the worst terms with their barons, would be the most ready and active promoters of it, and the most liberal in their grants of municipal immunities.  This, at least, appears to have been the case: and we find our king John, for example, and we may add, his son, and successor, Henry III. were most munificent benefactors to those towns; of which Lynn, may be mentioned as one notable instance.  This town owes, to those two sovereigns, its political redemption, or elevation to the rank of a corporate town, or free borough.  The era of its arriving at this high, and proud distinction, was the 13th century; whereas it was, before that period, the miserable abode of a horde of slaves, the vassals of the lord bishops of the see in which it is situated.

King John, granting to Lynn its charter of incorporation at the instance of bishop Grey, who had so much interest with him, and to whom he had very great obligations, was not likely to attempt to deprive him of his baronial rights, or supreme power and jurisdiction, in this town: nor do we know that the bishop was at all disposed to relinquish the same.  We accordingly find an express clause in the royal charter, saving to the said bishop and his successors, the liberties, &c. which had previously belonged to the bishops of Norwich.  That this was understood as securing to the bishops their former rights and authority in this town, may be inferred from the general conduct of the succeeding prelates for many generations, who seem to have been uniformly striving to retain and perpetuate the said rights and authority, and keep the inhabitants in their original state of subjection to them.  Nor did the mayor and corporation appear, at all, disposed to the point with their lordships, except in very few instances; as in the time of bishops Spencer, Wakeryng, and Nix, already noticed.  There seems, also to have been some stir, of the same sort, made in the time of bishop Hart, or Lyhart, in the year 1446, and the corporation, probably, complained, or appealed to the king, (Henry VI.) who then visited this town, and seems to have favoured the cause of the corporation; for he is said to have ordered the sword to be carried before the mayor.  But the bishop would not long submit to this royal order, for the very next year he had the sword carried before himself, as formerly, the mayor following, as one of his retinue or municipal officers. [387]

On the whole, therefore, it seems pretty evident that though Lynn became a corporate town, and was declared a free burgh as early as the beginning of the 13th century, yet it was not entirely freed from the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop, and the hard yoke of feudal domination, and so did not attain to equal liberty and independence with the generality of our English boroughs till a good part of the 16th century had elapsed.  We accordingly find that the mayor and corporation, in the mean time, or during most part of it, seemed perfectly ready to approve as well as profess themselves the lordly prelate’s humble tenants and devout bedesmen; giving him the most explicit and solemn assurance, “that he should find in them as lowly tenants as any that longed to him within his lordships,” and that their bodies as well as goods were entirely at his service, &c. agreeably to the tenour of the above memorable letter to bishop Wakeryng. [388]—We may therefore venture to affirm that this town was, at most, but partially liberated from feudal vassalage, till the period above specified; that is, within these 300 years; before which the mayors of Lynn appeared, or might justly be considered, as the bishops’ head-men, chief bailiffs, or slave drivers; and the aldermen as so many underlings, or petty officers, implicitly executing his lordship’s paramount orders or commands.—Though the Charters might sometimes be thought to entitle his worship and his brethren to greater independence and a higher character, yet till then it does not seem that they were enabled to assume their proper dignity and consequence.  The bishops being so powerful here, took care always to manage so as to thwart and baffle all their attempts.  Nor did there seem to be any prospect of their succeeding in obtaining their proper station while the bishop continued to retain a paramount sway and uncontrolled power in the town.  This the king, probably saw: and it might be one, if not the chief reason of his requiring the bishops, Nix and Rugg, to relinquish their oppressive jurisdiction here.  However that might be, it is certain that his majesty deserved well of this corporation: and whatever their ideas or feelings may have been, or may now be, on this point, it must be said, that they ought to consider Henry among the very chief of their royal benefactors; with whom such princes as Charles and James the second, can, surely, bear no comparison; to whom, nevertheless, statues have been here erected!! [389]

CHAP. IV.

It has been already observed that Lynn was a place of considerable trade, and of growing importance and opulence, at and before the Conquest.  Afterward its trade kept rapidly increasing; and in the reign of Richard I. it was become a place of distinguished eminence, insomuch that it was called by William of Newburgh, who lived at that time, “a noble city, or a city of note for its trade and commerce.” [390]  Foreign merchants had then a regular established connection and intercourse with this town, and their ships and sailors frequented it in great numbers.  A considerable body of Jews also had settled here, and must have been among the most active and useful part of its population; which further corroborates the report of its being in those days a place of no small commercial note and consequence, for those people were not likely to settle, in any great numbers, except in places of that description. [391]  Indeed it seems pretty clear and certain that both in the reign of Richard and that of his brother and successor John, Lynn ranked very high among the trading towns of this kingdom, in point of commercial importance: and it is recorded upon undoubted authority, that in the sixth year of the last of those two reigns, (the date of our first royal charter) the tax or tallage of the king at Lynn, amounted to 651l. whereas that of London at the same time amounted only to 836l. 12s. 6d. [392]  From which we may infer that the revenue which the crown then derived from the trade of this town, was more than two thirds of what it derived from that of London; and consequently that the trade itself of this town did in the mean time bear the same proportion to that of the metropolis; which may be presumed to have been the case of very few places, if any, besides in the kingdom.—Lynn being allowed to have a mint, or mints for the coining of money, belonging to the king and the bishop, [393a] has been deemed another proof of the flourishing state of the town at that period.

Of the government of Lynn, or its municipal economy in those times, very little is known, except that it appears to have been under the management of an officer who bore the name of provost, who doubtless was nominated by the bishop, and acted as his bailiff or deputy; but whether he was elected annually or held his office for a longer or shorter term, or during the pleasure of his master, seems rather uncertain.  He was, however, the chief magistrate of the town, and had, of course, other officers assisting and acting under him, like our chief magistrates of more modern times.  It is very provable that the order of things in this town was not so materially changed by king John as some may imagine.  The chief alteration apparently was, that the town now ranked among those incorporated by royal charter, was consequently declared a free burgh, had its burgesses exempted from tolls, &c. in all parts of England, but London; and finally, had its chief magistrate denominated mayor, instead of provost, [393b] a circumstance, probably of no mighty consequence, or real benefit to the community, though highly gratifying, perhaps, to the pride and vanity of the corporation.  The real difference, however, between a mayor and a provost, seems to be very little, if any thing, more than that between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.  The former indeed is generally taken to be the highest and most honourable appellation, and therefore our corporations naturally prefer it to the other, as the title of their head man, or chief magistrate.  After all, the inferiority of the provost does not seem always perceivable; and nobody, perhaps, would deem the lord Mayor of York as superior in dignity to the lord Provost of Edinburgh.

The sword, which is usually carried before our mayors, has been also considered as another mark or token of king John’s favour to this town; but this appears a very questionable matter.  This weapon, which has a silver mounting, the king is said to have taken from his side, and given to the corporation, to be carried before the major: but it does not appear that there was a sword at all carried before our mayors as early as the reign of king John, or even for a long time after.  If such a ceremony was really observed here before the reign of Henry V. or of Henry VI. it must seemingly have been appropriated solely to the great lords of the place, the bishops of Norwich, who appear, all along to have claimed, that honour as their own peculiar, and exclusive prerogative: the mayors having no share in it, but only as they followed their masters, the bishops, and formed a part of their retinue.  Bishop Gibson, in his additions to Camden, observes that the present sword, though said to have been given by king John, was really the gift of Henry VIII. after the town came into his possession, and he changed their burgesses into aldermen.  John’s charter does not mention the sword, but that granted by Henry expressly says, that he granted them a sword to be carried before their mayor.  As to the inscription on the blade of the present sword, purporting its being the gift of king John, it proves nothing, being apparently the unauthorized contrivance of two forward fellows of the town, a sword cutler and a school-master, as late as the reign of queen Elizabeth. [395]  But, however improbable it may be that the said sword was ever the property of king John, and given by him as a present and mark of his royal and special favour to this corporation, yet there does not seem to be any just reason for entertaining similar doubts respecting the cup before-mentioned.  The only circumstance relating to the cup which one would be inclined to deem doubtful, or rather incredible, is a certain sly insinuation, which has been sometimes heard, that it was a part of a parcel of stolen goods, which his majesty, while on a visit at Walsingham, contrived to pilfer from that celebrated abbey, and coming afterward to Lynn, made a present of it to the corporation.

Lynn seems to have paid very dearly for the said king’s favours.  Camden, in his account of this town observes, that it enjoys very large immunities, which its inhabitants “purchased of king John with the price of their own blood, spent in the defence of his cause:” alluding, probably, to the powerful assistance they afforded him in reducing the disaffected barons of this county, whose subjugation proved an arduous undertaking, and whom he afterwards severely chastised.  The assistance they rendered to this sovereign consisted not only in recruits for his army, or a strong and resolute body of landsmen, but also in sailors and ships for his naval operations: hence Lynn and Yarmouth are mentioned by Carte among the principal places that furnished his majesty with a fleet to oppose that of France on a certain occasion. [396]  In short, the good people of this town appear to have assisted that memorable monarch to the utmost of their ability, or in all the ways, and by all the means that were in their power.  He, on the other hand, is said to have been very partial to them, and deemed them so trustworthy, and their town so secure a place, that he deposited there, for some time his crown and regalia, and his most valuable treasures; but took them away at his last visit, and lost them all, soon after, in crossing the Wash, at an improper place, or improper time; which he laid so to heart that it hastened his death, which took place a very short time after at Newark.  There is indeed no small disagreement among our historians in their accounts of king John after his last departure from Lynn.  Some represent him as crossing the Wash, or rather the Ouse, then called Wellstream, at the Cross Keys; others represent him as crossing it at Wisbeach, and the latter seems to be the truth.  Some, again, ascribe the illness which terminated his life, to poison, administered by a monk of Swineshead; others ascribe it to vexation for the loss of his treasures; while others assure us that it is to be ascribed to neither of these causes, but that he was ill before that disaster of losing his treasures befel him.  Nay, some have alleged, or suggested, that his last illness originated at Lynn, and was occasioned by his intemperate living during his stay here.  In accounts different and contradictory, it is no easy task to distinguish truth from fiction.  It seems however to be pretty well established that the said king left Lynn on the 11th of October, 1216, was at Wisbeach on the 12th, at Sleaford on the 15th, and at Newark on the 18th, where he died the very next day: but the story of the poison seems very doubtful and even improbable; nor does that concerning the loss of his crown and treasures seem perfectly clear and indubitable. [398]

Even the fact that Lynn had been the depository of the king’s treasures, with his crown and regalia, during his absence from these parts, and till he removed them at his last departure, becomes very doubtful, or rather quite improbable, if we believe Rapin’s assertion, from M. Paris, that the king’s great competitor, the Dauphin, not long before, and within that same year, had actually reduced Lynn, and made the whole county, as well as those of Suffolk and Essex tributary to him.  In that case, those treasures, &c. if deposited here, must inevitably have fallen into the Dauphin’s hands, and so be entirely lost to the king.  We must therefore either conclude that the alleged fact of Lynn having been the depository of the said treasures, for any length of time, is unfounded, or that the said assertion, that Lynn had been that year taken by the Dauphin, is so.  But as these matters are not very interesting, we will now drop them, and also our account of king John for the present.

After the death of John, and in the reign of his son and successor, Henry III. the people of Lynn, at one time, seem to have sided with the malcontents of that period, and so forfeited their chartered rights: but their defection was of no long duration; they returned to their duty with every appearance of contrition, and soon gave full proof of the ardour, as well as the unfeignedness of their loyalty.  Camden says that they “purchased their lost liberties of Henry III. not without blood, when they sided with him against the outlawed barons, and unluckily engaged them in the Isle of Ely.  An account whereof we have in the book of Ely, and in Matthew Paris.” [399a]  The battle here alluded to was fought somewhere about Littleport, where the Lynn volunteers of that day were very roughly handled by their opponents, and lost a considerable number of their people; of which mention has been made by several of our historians.  In the 8th and 9th years of that king’s reign, licence was granted to foreign merchants to come with safety to the fair of Lenn; and in the 11th year a talliage was granted to the king by the bishop.  The oath of the burghers then was, “You shall faithfully pay your talliage made by the lord (bp.) at his will, of all your chattels’ of your own property, whatever they are, and of the chattels of your wife, and all that is your due to pay.” [399b]  Thus payment was made upon oath; but the tax was granted to the king by the bishop, without the concurrence of the burghers; and also assessed and levied by him at his will, without check or control.  In such a case, and under such circumstances, it might be reasonably supposed there would be some misdoings, and not a few causes of complaint, and that misunderstanding would arise between his lordship and his Lynn vassals, which might lead to very serious results.  That it really did so happen appears from authentic documents.

Sometime after the above taxation, the people or burgesses of Lynn, dissatisfied, it seems, with the arbitrary and oppressive proceeding of their lord, the bishop, in that instance, and questioning his right to tax them at will, or without their consent, took upon them to tax themselves without consulting him, as well as to elect a mayor also without his permission.  This his lordship greatly resented, as absolutely illegal and highly criminal: and he also, very sorely felt it, no doubt, as deeply affecting his own baronial claims here, or endangering his feudal dominion.  He accordingly proceeded against them in the ecclesiastical court, and had them all excommunicated.  In that grievous dilemma, and from so arbitrary and galling a sentence, they appealed to the king’s justices at Westminster, before whom the affair underwent a legal investigation: of which, and its result, the following account is given by Parkin.

“In the 8th. of this king (Henry III.) a fine was levied, at Westminster in Trinity term, before Robert Lexington, William de York, Ralph de Norwich, William de Lisle, Adam Fitz-William, and Ralph de Rokele, the king’s justices, between the mayor and burgesses, querents, and Thomas Blundevile, bishop of Norwich, deforcient.  The Mayor &c. complained, that the bishop had impleaded them in a court christian (ecclesiastical or spiritual court) and had excommunicated them, because they had created a mayor among themselves, and had taxed and talliaged themselves, in the said burgh without his assent; and it was agreed between them in the said court, that the bishop should grant for himself and successors, and his church of Norwich, that the said burgesses, for the future, may chuse and create to themselves a mayor, whomsoever they pleased of their own body, on this condition, That immediately after his election, or creation, they should present him to the bishop and his successors, wherever they should be in the diocese of Norwich; who on the presentation should be admitted by the bishop without any contradiction: and for this fine and concord, the mayor and burgesses grant for themselves, their heirs and successors, that whosoever shall be so created and elected mayor by them, shall promise on his good faith and fealty, by which he is engaged to the bishop, and his successors, that he will observe all things that belong to his office, as long as he shall continue therein, and preserve, as much as is in his power, the liberties of the church of Norwich.  This agreement and fine was made in the presence of the king, who consented to it.  This king, as appears from many instances, sate frequently in the court of king’s bench at the head of his justices.” [401]

It does not appear from the above account how the taxation or assessment business was then settled; but it seems most probable that it was taken out of the hands both of the bishop and the burgesses, and committed to the management of certain officers appointed by the crown.  It is likely indeed that that point had been previously settled, and that the names of the first officers, or assessors, are still preserved: for we are told that “in the 17th. of the said reign, (which was the year preceding that of the above trial) Thomas de Milton, and Warin, son of Imbert, were named by the king, to assess the talliage, and all the demeans of the see of Norwich.” [402]  This point therefore might not come under discussion in the above trial at Westminster.  But the case of creating, or choosing a mayor, seems to have been there very carefully investigated.  The result was (as above stated) that the right of the burgesses, to elect a mayor from among themselves, was fully established; on the express condition, however, that, immediately after his election they should present him to the bishop, wherever he should be within the diocese; who on his part was to receive him without any refusal, disapproval, or, contradiction.

From the preceding statement one would be apt to conclude, that the right of the burgesses to choose a mayor, independently of the bishop’s will and pleasure, was now fully settled and that his lordship would no longer presume to interfere, either directly or indirectly, on that occasion.  But it cannot be affirmed that the event warrants that conclusion.  The lust of power is a strong passion, and not very soon or easily subdued.  The bishops having so long borne uncontrolled sway in the direction and management of every thing in this town, it was not to be expected that they would be very ready to resign or relinquish it.  The mayors here from the first, it seems, were called The bishop’s men, and their lordships appeared always desirous to perpetuate the appellation, or, at least, to do all in their power to prevent its becoming inapplicable.  Though the words of charters, the opinions of judges, and even the declarations of kings, might appear against them, yet they were scarcely ever at a loss for ways and means to surmount or evade all such difficulties, and secure their own beloved power and preponderance.  So the case seems to have been at Lynn for a very long period.  Neither the provision of charters, the verdict of judges, nor the orders of princes, could effect any material or lasting diminution of the exorbitant power of the bishop over this town, till the 16th century.  It appeared like an inveterate evil, or incurable malady, until it felt the royal touch of Henry VIII. when it gave way at once, and underwent a radical and perfect cure.

As to the above agreement between the contending parties at Westminster, it does not appear that the bishops thought proper long, if at all, to act in compliance with it, and so refrain from any further interference in the election of appointment of a chief magistrate.  This must have sat uneasy on the minds of the corporation, and they would naturally, and perhaps repeatedly complain to their sovereign against so oppressive an infringement of their municipal rights.  Even the king himself also would feel it as an insult offered to him, as he was personally present when the agreement was made, and had sanctioned it by his own express approbation.  On this ground we may account for that clause in the charter which he granted to our burgesses in the 52nd year of his reign, in which he not only confirms their former liberties, but also allows them to choose a mayor of themselves, without presenting him to the bishop.  This last exemption from a former obligation and customary observance, seems plainly to indicate that the bishop had taken some such undue advantage of his power and influence as was before suggested; of which his majesty now thought proper to signify his entire disapprobation, by discharging the burghers from every obligation to pay his lordship any further regard, in their future choice or appointment of a chief magistrate.  This the bishop must have felt somewhat mortifying.  But as his feudal jurisdiction here still continued unabolished, it was not likely he would be long at a loss to find means to evade the force or operation of that humiliating clause, and secure or reestablish his wonted preeminence.  That it actually did so happen, appears but too evident by all that we know of the subsequent history of the town.  Every attempt to reduce the bishop’s predominance here, during the period of which we are now treating, proved unsuccessful.  The burgesses never could effectually shake off his yoke, or cease to be his vassals and subjects; and even their elections of mayors, in general, if not always, might be compared to the modern conge d’elire elections of bishops, by our Deans and Chapters.

During the long reign of which we have been speaking, this kingdom suffered extremely from civil discord and intestine commotions, and the inhabitants of Lynn bore their share in those sufferings.  Great numbers of their people perished in a bloody and unfortunate engagement against the barons, up in the country somewhere towards Littleport, as has been before noticed; which must have proved a most distressing calamity to the whole town, and especially to the wives and children and other relatives of the vanquished and slaughtered warriors.  The enemy, being so strong and formidable in and about the Isle of Ely, must also have cut off all communication between Lynn and that district, and even interrupted its intercourse with all the interior parts of the country, as he had the entire command of the rivers and channels of internal navigation.  This seems to have continued a long while, and must have distressed this town in a very great degree.  It appears, however, to have been quite over, and tranquillity fully restored in the 41st year of that reign, as we find the mayor and burgesses were that year commanded by the king to permit the men of Ely to come here to sell their beer, and exercise merchandise, as they had been used to do before the disturbance. [405a]  In the 50th year the same reign, as we are further informed, the king’s purveyors bought at Lynn 36 tuns of wine, which the sheriff of Norfolk was ordered to have conveyed to his majesty, then at the siege of Kenilworth, or Kennelworth Castle, in Warwickshire. [405b]  This also shews that there were then no very serious or dangerous commotions in the parts about the Fens, and westward of Lynn, otherwise it would have been out of the sheriff’s power to have the said wine conveyed across that country, and to his majesty’s camp before Kennelworth.  It however alleged by our historians that the malecontents who seized upon the Isle of Ely were the last that held out, and that they did not surrender till after the reduction of Kennelworth Castle.  However that was, it is allowed that the rebellion was now soon quelled, and that the country afterwards enjoyed peace and tranquillity, for a long period.

It was in this king’s reign, as was before observed, that the Ouse and other rivers deserted their ancient and natural course by Wisbeach, and after inundating the fen country to a very great extent, from the effect of which it has never yet recovered, forced their passage into the sea by Lynn.  A neglecting of the old outfall, which occasioned the choking up of the channel and impeding the course of the waters, in the time of a great flood, has been assigned as the cause of that memorable event.  But as the malcontents had for sometime occupied the fens, and made their last stand there, and as the inundation might conduce materially to their defence, it seems very natural to suspect that they also had some hand in the business.  Yet as our historians are silent on this head, we cannot affirm it as a matter of fact.  The event proved, no doubt, detrimental to Wisbeach; and yet not materially advantageous, at least, not immediately so, to Lynn.  Nor does it appear that even our harbour was at all improved by so large an accession of fresh water: on the contrary, for aught we know, the approach from the sea to this town was quite as good before as it has been since.  It may be said however to be an event that somewhat contributes to preserve the memory of the third Henry, among the people of these parts.  The character of this monarch is well known, and is no way worthy of respect or imitation.  He was great in nothing but the vileness of his government and the length of his reign, which extended to the 57th year: the longest of any English reign, for the last ten centuries.  For the evils of which, and of all the bad and unfortunate reigns that have occurred ever since that period, many, it is supposed, will deem the blessed prosperity of the present wise and happy reign as more than a sufficient counterbalance and compensation—especially, if it should also last as long, or still longer than that of Henry III. which seems not at all improbable: and who is it, within this favoured country, but does consider this as a consummation most devoutly to be wished?

CHAP. V.

It is sad enough to think, that during so long an interval as that between the conquest and the reformation, the good people of Lynn should never be able entirely to emancipate themselves from their feudal vassalage.  But as that desirable object always proved to them unattainable, they appear to have submitted to their hard fate with exemplary patience and forbearance; well knowing, it seems, to use the words of the old adage, that what cannot be cured must be endured.  It is much to be doubted if their descendants, or rather their successors of the present day, would have endured what they did with equal propriety and long suffering.  We are indeed but imperfectly acquainted with the social complexion, or characteristic features of the community here in those times; but from what we do know, there is reason to think favourably of the prevailing disposition of the inhabitants.  Except in the shocking affair of the poor Jews, and what happened in the time of bishop Spencer and of bishop Wakeryng, and of the two aldermen Wentworth and Petipas, already noticed, we perceive no vestige here of tumultuous risings or factious combinations.  Industry and harmony appear generally to have prevailed at Lynn, and the community seldom failed in the duty of submission to their superiors, or of obeying the higher powers.

The Gilds, certainly, form a most prominent feature in the character of the ancient inhabitants of Lynn.  They were indeed very common in this country before the reformation, and during the period we are now considering; but were more numerous in this town than anywhere else we know of, which is a very remarkable and, perhaps, unaccountable circumstance.  It seems very honourable to the memory of our forefathers—more so, probably, than any thing else we can mention; and therefore we shall dwell upon the subject with the greater pleasure.  It shews that there was then among the inhabitants a prevailing or general disposition to assist one another, and to give to every honest individual an opportunity to place himself in such a situation as would not fail of bettering his condition, and procuring him useful friends and reputable associates.

These useful institutions, in most other places, only amounted to one or two, or a few, by which only a small part of the population could be very materially benefited by them.  But here they were formed on a large scale, and multiplied to above thirty; some of them varying pretty much from others, to suit, as we may suppose, the different conditions of the inhabitants, all, or most of whom might consequently accommodate themselves, or easily find a fraternity whose constitution exactly corresponded, with their respective capacities, wants, or wishes.—Our Gilds had all of them a strong tincture of religion, or rather of superstition, according to the prevailing fashion of the times.  In that view they exhibited, no doubt, a large portion of weakness, ignorance, and absurdity.  But they appear to have been very free from that jealousy, bigotry, and ill will towards each other, which too often disgrace the religious fraternities of the present day, who look upon one another with such an evil eye, that they may be too justly said to hate one another.  Trusting in themselves that they are righteous, they despise others, and are ready to say to their neighbours, and all who differ from them, stand by yourselves, come not near to us, for we are holier than you.  While they inveigh against Pharisees, and a pharisaical spirit, they give impartial and intelligent bystanders every reason to think, that they are themselves, in fact, the Pharisees of the present day, and are led by the very spirit against which they declaim.  But we will drop this subject for the present, and resume that of the Gilds, which we shall here handle under different heads, or sections.

Observations on the origin of our ancient Gilds. [411]

The author of a late publication, entitled Caledonia, gives it as his opinion, that the monks were the earliest Gild brethren, and had exclusive privileges of trade and of fishery when boroughs had scarcely an existence.  To which the annual reviewer of that work objects, and affirms that the origin of Gilds lies hidden in obscurity inaccessible: and against the idea of their being of monkish origin, he urges, their being constructed so much on the principles of a purse club, that they can hardly not have been founded by married men. [412]  The truth seems to be, that they originated among the Anglo-Saxons, long before the Conquest, if not also before their conversion to Christianity, and the commencement of English monkery.  At first, they may be supposed to assume a simple and homely appearance, among the civil institutions of the Anglo-Saxon community; but afterwards to pass through different changes, and especially after the conquest, when the general state of society and the whole order of things experienced so considerable a revolution.  They were then, at first, perhaps, put down or laid aside, and afterwards revived and resumed: at least, we hear little or nothing of them under the first Norman kings, or till about the 13th century.