Chapter XLVIII: Section IX (2)

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.

Further remarks on the revolutionary effects of the conquest throughout the whole kingdom as well as at Lynn—Catalogue of bishops who formerly bore rule in this Town.

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,

I. BEDWINUS, or _Baldwinus_. He has been spoken highly of as a man of profound learning and exemplary virtue, and author of numerous works (now lost) which confirmed many in the christian faith. 2. NORTHBERTUS, or _Northbert_, succeeded sometime after 679.—(3) HEDULACUS, or _Hadulac_, filled this see in 731; when Bede completed his ecclesiastical History.—(4.) EDELFRIDUS, or _Ethelfrith_.—(5.) LAMFERTHUS, or _Lameferd_.—(6.) ATHELWALFUS, or _Ethelwolph_, occupied this see in 811.—(7.) ULFERTUS, or _Alberth_: said to attend at the council of Cloveshoe, in Berks, where King Offa proposed erecting a new bishopric at _Lichfield_.—(8.) SIBBA, or _Sibban_: he sat in 816.—(9.) HUNFERTH, or _Hunferd_: was living in 824.—(10.) HUMBERT, or _Humbrit_: it was he who crowned king Edmund, or St. Edmund, in 856, with whom he perished in 870, or 871, in opposing the Danes. He too was canonized.—(11.) WYBRED, _Wyred_, or _Wilbred_: He was set over the two sees of Dunwich and Elmham, which occasioned their being then reunited: the seat was fixed at Elmham.

_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

3. WILLIAM TURBUS, or _Turbeville_. He was a great stickler for _Becket_, whose influence, even while in disgrace and exile, drove him sometimes to unwarrantable and perilous lengths; especially when he excommunicated the bishop of London, the Earl of Norfolk and some other nobles, who were disliked by that proud prelate. He died in 1174, and was succeeded the next year, by

4. JOHN OF OXFORD, who was very differently affected towards Becket, and took part with the king against him, by which he greatly ingratiated himself with his sovereign; who being desirous of having the laws more strictly executed, and a more impartial administration of justice enforced, appointed him, together with the bishops of Ely and Winchester, his three principal justices for the purpose. He built Trinity Church at Ipswich, repaired the damages his cathedral had sustained by fire, in the time of his predecessor, and was a great benefactor to the episcopal convent at Norwich. He died in June 1200, 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.

7. THOMAS DE BLANDEVILL succeeded him, and died in 1236, when

8. RALFO succeeded, and died the next year; of whom as well as the former, nothing remarkable is known to be recorded. His successor was

9. WILLIAM DE RALLEIGH, who obtained the bishopric after three years contesting his right. He granted, we are told, an indulgence of twenty days pardon, to all in his diocese who would contribute towards the building of St. Paul’s in London. Hence it appears, as well as from the case of Herbert Lozinga, above noticed, that _bishops_, as well _as popes_, in those times, assumed the power of giving a licence to sin with impunity. They must have been rare teachers of morality, who could pretend to promote good works by allowing the people, for a limited time, to run into all possible excesses of riot and evil doing:—and, on the other hand, their intellects must have been in a most unenviable and degraded state, who could accede to the preposterous proposals of such instructors, or patiently listen to such shameless representations. The doctrine of indulgences was afterwards made good use of by Luther and his coadjutors, in their successful struggle against the papal tyranny.—Bishop Raleigh was translated to Winchester, where he died, soon after his induction. He was succeeded by

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

11. SIMON DE WALTONE, who died in 1265; and was succeeded the same year by

12. ROGER DE SKERNING, in whose time several dreadful affrays happened between the citizens of Norwich and the monks, in one of which the cathedral was burnt. This bishop died in 1278; and was succeeded the same year by

13. WILLIAM MIDDLETON. The cathedral being partially repaired, he was enthroned at Norwich; and he rededicated the church, in presence of the king and queen and principal nobility, who were assembled on the occasion. He died in 1288; whose successor was

14. RALPH DE WALPOLE, a Marshland man, it seems, and ancestor of the present noble family of the _Walpoles_. He was translated to Ely, in 1299, and his successor at Norwich was

15. JOHN SALMON, or _Salomon_. Enlarging or rebuilding the palace at Norwich, and founding the Charnel-house, now the free school, are among the principal works ascribed to him. He died in 1385, and his successor was

16. ROBERT DE BALDOCK, who resigned shortly after, and was succeeded by

17. WILLIAM DE AYRMINNE, who employed himself in enclosing his palace, cathedral, &c. with stone walls, and fortifying then with embattled parapets. He died in 1336; and had for his successor

18. THOMAS HEMENHALE, who soon resigned this see, and accepted that of Worcester in lieu of it. Then succeeded

19. ANTHONY DE BECK, a man of the most imperious and turbulent temper, who had terrible quarrels with the monks, by whose instigation, as it was thought, he was poisoned by his own servants at his seat of Hevingham, in 1343. His successor was

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

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.

27. THOMAS BROWN, or _Breus_, succeeded him, being translated hither from Rochester, by Pope Eugenius IV. by bull, dated September 19, 1436. We are told that he left a sum towards the payment of the city tax, and exhibitions for poor scholars, prosecuting their studies in the universities, who might be natives of the diocese: so that he seems one of the better sort of those of his order. He died at Hoxne, in 1445.—JOHN STANBERY, a carmelite friar, was chosen to succeed him, but never consecrated, owing to papal interference, then at its height. The real successor therefore was

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

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

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

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

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

Poor Will, thou _rugged_ art and _ragged_ all:
Thy _abbey_ cannot bless thee in such fame,
To keep a pallace fair and stately hall,
When gone from thence what should maintaine the same.

First pay thy debts, and hence return to _cell_,
And pray the blessed _saint_ whom thou dost serve,
That others may maintaine the _pallace_ well;
For if THOU stayst, we all are like to starve.

The convent, or abbey of St. Benedict’s, appears to have been his chief palace, or place of residence, during the whole time of his sustaining the episcopal character: after which it soon went into decay, and ceased to be the residence of his successors; with whom however we have no further concern, as they were no longer the temporal lords and masters of Lynn. Here therefore ends this episcopal catalogue; which exhibits a pretty long list of names, though but few among them appear to have merited the praise and benediction of their contemporaries, or the veneration and imitation of posterity.

CHAP. III.

State of Lynn previously and subsequently to its becoming a corporate-town, or free borough, with general remarks on that event, and on the progressive state of society in the towns and cities of this country, as well as at Lynn, in those times.

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

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