Chapter LXIII: Section VIII

_Of the Red Mount_, _and our Lady’s Chapel there—also her Chapel by the Bridge which still bears her name—St. Ann’s Chapel_, _with those of St. Catherine_, _St. Laurence_, _&c._

From the particular situation of the Red Mount, (on the _out-side_ of the town-walls, and within the wet foss which flanked those walls,) there can be little doubt of its being once a small fortress, or fortified and castellated place; so that it might without much impropriety be denominated _a castle_. What will further corroborate this opinion is a fact noticed among our remarkable or memorable occurrences, that in 1469 king Edward IV. came to Lynn with a great retinue, and was lodged in this place; from which it may be very naturally inferred and concluded, that it was then well fortified; for the king in his then situation, (retreating before Warwick,) would hardly have been lodged without the walls in an unfortified place. From the same premises it may be likewise fairly inferred, that it was also a _large_ and _sumptuous_ structure—Edward’s numerous retinue requiring it to be of the former description, and his royal dignity of the latter: had it been _small_ it could not have accommodated so large a company, and had it been _mean_, the _king_ would not have been lodged there—{554} But however strong, large, or sumptuous the edifice on the Red Mount then was, most of it has long ago disappeared, and the little that now remains is chiefly the chapel, which was once of considerable celebrity, but is now in a dilapidated state. Of this curious piece of antiquity, one of the most remarkable that Lynn can boast of, the following description has lately appeared in a popular and respectable work, which we have often before referred to—

“At the eastern extremity of the town is a curious ancient building,
called THE LADY’S CHAPEL, or _The Red Mount_. It has been
erroneously named a _castle_, but is evidently an ecclesiastical
structure. {555a} It consists of an octagonal wall of red brick and
is constructed on a very singular plan, of which, perhaps, not a
similar example is to be found in the kingdom. Within the exterior
wall is a handsome cruciform chapel, measuring from east to west
seventeen feet seven inches, by fourteen from north to south, and
thirteen in height. The roof is formed of stone, with numerous
groins, &c. and exactly resembles the much admired ceiling of King’s
College Chapel, Cambridge. This curious building is in a dilapidated
state, and it is much feared will soon fall a victim to neglect and
wantonness. Such a singular edifice should be carefully preserved,
and as the expence to effect this would be trivial, it is hoped the
corporation, to whom it belongs, will not neglect it, and thereby
entail on themselves the perpetual reproaches of history, and the
lasting censures of antiquarian record.” {555b}

[Picture: Our Lady’s Chapel on the Red Mount]

At what time this notable fabrick was erected, does not appear; but we may pretty safely conclude that it was at a period subsequent to the conquest, and perhaps not before the 12th or 13th century. It appears to have been dissolved, or laid by, at the reformation, and it was defaced, as Parkin says, before the 3rd of Elizabeth. As there has been little or no attention bestowed upon it ever since that time, it is no wonder that it should be now in so ruinous a state. It has been often said that this place was, in its day, the receptable of the pilgrims, in their way to, and from Walsingham. If so, it amounts to a pretty good proof, that it was very capacious, and well endowed, or furnished with ample revenues; for the pilgrims to Walsingham, like those to Loretto, swarmed on all the roads that led thither; but on no road more, or perhaps so much as that through Lynn, as all the devout people from the northern and north western parts of the kingdom must have passed this way, perhaps by hundreds at a time. That house must have been both large and wealthy, that could lodge and entertain such hosts of travellers.—Another reason for pilgrims frequenting our chapel on the Mount might be, because there was there also an image of the Virgin, which had attained to some celebrity; not indeed like that at Walsingham, {556} but evidently beyond any thing of the kind at Lynn. We may therefore be very sure that the holy travellers to Walsingham would pay a greater regard to the chapel of our Lady on the Mount than to any other religions place in this town. It has been observed before, that the offerings to this image of the Virgin on the Mount exceeded sometimes the offerings to all our other images and in all our other religious houses here, numerous as they were. In short, we may venture to affirm, that in former days no one place in Lynn was of greater note or celebrity than the Red Mount, and especially our Lady’s Chapel and Image there.

Of the _Chapel of our Lady on the Bridge_, we know much less than of that on the Mount, though our knowledge of the latter also is but very imperfect. When the former was erected, whether before or after the other, or why there should be two chapels in this town dedicated to the Virgin, are questions which we are unable to resolve. They were both probably more ancient than some of our other religious houses: but they were dissolved, or laid by at the same time with most of the rest. They were probably demolished not long after, and this on the bridge much more entirely than the other. Parkin says, that this chapel was defaced before the reign of Elizabeth, as appears by an inquisition taken in her third year. Our Lady’s Gild in Lynn had seemingly some connection with this chapel, as well as with that on the Mount; but we know too little of the constitution and circumstances of that ancient fraternity to pronounce any thing positively on this head. {558} Some small remains of this chapel, converted into a little dwelling, stood, till very lately, on the eastern side of the bridge; but when the said bridge was widened, by order of the paving-act commissioners, those remains were entirely removed, and there is no longer one stone upon another of that consecrated and venerated fabrick, or the least sign or indication, except in the name of the bridge, that such an edifice ever stood there.—The modern substitutes for this and the other ancient chapels, here suppressed and demolished, are _four_ very decent and commodious dissenting meeting houses; one in New Conduit Street, one in Clough Lane, and two in Broad Street; all, or most of them, at present pretty well attended. Of each of which a particular account shall be given in the course of this work.

Of St. _Ann’s Chapel_ very little is at present known. That it stood somewhere near St. _Ann’s Fort_, and that the latter took its name from it, can scarcely be doubted. The stones that are still to be seen in some of the adjacent walls did once, in all probability, belong to this ancient consecrated structure. {559} We have, however, no reason to suppose that it was a very large edifice, but rather one of our smaller size chapels, like that of _our Lady on the Bridge_, and some others. It probably stood contiguous to other houses, without any yard, or burying-ground adjoining; which may be one, and, perhaps, the chief reason, why its site has so entirely disappeared, so as to baffle, or render fruitless every attempt to discover the exact spot on which it stood. All that can now be fairly concluded is, that it must have been somewhere near the Fort.

The site of _St. Catherine’s Chapel_ seems to be involved in still greater uncertainty than even that of St. Ann. By something that the present writer has somewhere met with, he has been led to think, that this chapel stood without the East Gates, and at no great distance; but as he cannot now recollect upon what he founded that opinion, he will not take upon him here to defend it, or assert that the chapel actually stood there. Parkin owns that he did not know where it stood, but says that it was defaced before the 3rd of Elizabeth, as appears by an inquisition then taken. He also says that it is “mentioned in 1497, and the charity Gyld of the town of Lenn,” which, as he supposes, may allude to our houses of lepers. But those houses were probably not under the direction of any one of the gilds, but rather of a particular religious order, called _the order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem_; of which, however, we know not enough to give here a particular account of it. But as to the chapel in question, Parkin further informs us that “in 5 Richard II. Henry le Despencer, bishop of Norwich, wrote a letter to Roger Paxman, mayor, and to the burgesses of Lynn, wherein he desires that they would, for the love they bore for the bishop, grant part of the _house of St. Catherine_ to one John Consolif, late servant to his brother, the lord le Despencer, there to live a solitary life, upon the alms of the good people; the other part of the house belonging to the archdeacon of Norwich, being before granted to the said John Consolyf.” {560} This shews that there was here formerly a House or Hospital, as well as a Chapel, dedicated to St. Catherine; to which house or hospital, in all probability, the said chapel belonged: but whether they pertained to our Lazarettos, or were founded for some other purposes, it is very difficult now to determine. Beside this chapel of St. Catherine, there was here another chapel dedicated to her, in the church of the friars preachers, or Dominicans: {561a} but this was nothing very remarkable, as we had here also more than one chapel dedicated to the Trinity, as well as to the blessed virgin, if not likewise to some others.

The _Chapel of St. Lawrence_, (like those of St. Catherine and St. John) appears to have belonged to the _Hospital_ of the same name, and therefore must have stood at Hardwick, contiguous, probably, or very near to the said hospital. That house being one of our Lazarettos, its use, or designation is sufficiently obvious. We learn from Parkin,

“that John Duraunt Esq. in the 27 Henry VI. granted to Robert
Synkclere and Agnes his wife the hospital, or house of lepars, with
the _chapel of St. Lawrence_ situate on the cawsey of Hardwyke, by
Lynn—Also that William Walton, Esq. and Catherine, his wife, daughter
and heiress of the said John Duraunt Esq. conveyed by fine, in
Hillary term, 36th year of the same reign, to Sir Thomas Tudenham,
knight, the _advouson of the chapel of St. Lawrence_, with the manor
of Hall Place, and divers other possessions. {561b} This chapel
seems therefore to have been an endowed place, whose advouson was
deemed an object of no trivial consideration. The hospital to which
it belonged, as well as the rest of our Lazar houses, may be supposed
to have been in some sort of subjection to the master of the order of
St. Lazarus, whose chief residence, or station, appears to have been
at Burton Lazars, in Leicestershire. Parkin mentions a remarkable
deed which he had seen, whereby brother Richard de Sulegrave, knight,
master of the whole order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem, and all the
brethren of the said order, dwelling at Burton, by common assent and
council of the whole chapter, grant to Alan de Kele, burgess of Lenn,
his heirs and assigns, a certain piece of land, called Lazar Hill,
lying by the common wall of the said village, containing 7 perches
and 7 feet in breadth, on the north side; and 10 perches and 14 feet,
on the south side; 5 perches and half broad, on the east side; 6
perches broad in the middle, and 7 on the west side, &c. {562} This
seems, by the names of the witnesses, to have been as early as the
reign of king John. “This piece of land,” (our author adds) “I find
afterwards in the hands of Rd. Spany and John de Teryngton, in the
reign of Richard II.”

But the present writer is not able to point out this remarkable spot, or yet to describe the nature and extent of that jurisdiction which the master and chapter of the order of St. Lazarus had over the Lynn Lazarettos.

Most if not all the rest of the smaller chapels were attached to, or connected with our different churches and convents, of which several belonged to St. Margaret’s church: we will therefore give here no separate account of them. Such little chapels and chauntries were pretty numerous here, and mark the character of the inhabitants, and particularly the most devout part of them, in those times. There was here also in former ages, at least one {563a} _hermitage_, or retreat of an anchoret, and that was at the Crouch, or _Crutch_, as it is now commonly called. Of this remarkable place, and its adjacent cross, Parkin gives the following account—

“The mayor and commonalty petition William (Bateman) bishop of
Norwich, begging his favour towards John Puttock, to admit him as a
hermit, who had, in the bishop’s marsh by Lenn, on the sea shore, in
a certain place, called Lenn Crouch, made a cave there, till he could
build himself a proper mansion; purposing, as he declares, to spend
all his time, by your permission and license, in the service of God
there: and the said John Puttock has there erected a certain
remarkable cross, of great service for all shipping coming that way,
of the height of 110 feet, at his own great cost and charge.” {563b}

This occurred as long ago as 1349. To our thinking the Crutch must be a most improper and strange place for a hermitage, where people are continually passing and repassing, and those, at least many of them, some of the rudest and most lawless of the whole population. How the hermits did there in popish times we know not, but we are apt to think that they would not fare very comfortably there in this protestant age.