Chapter LXIV: Section IX (1)

_Account of St. James’s Chapel_ (now the Workhouse) _from its first erection_, _in the twelfth century_, _to the present time_.

The founder of this chapel, as well as that of St. Nicholas, according to our best accounts, was WILLIAM TURB, or _Turbus_, alias _De Turba Villa_, or _Turbeville_, the third bishop of Norwich, who was promoted to that see in 1146, {564a} in the reign of king Stephen. It was probably built before the end of that reign, as Parkin refers to a certain charter of that bishop, which proves that it was in being at the commencement of the next reign. {564b} Both this of St. James and that of St. Nicholas were chapels of ease to the church of St. Margaret. These three churches had in those times abundance of officiating priests, or chaplains. The great fraternity, called _Trinity Gild_, alone, maintained no less than _thirteen_; six for St. Margaret’s, _four_ for St. Nicholas’s, and _three_ for St. James’s. {564c} How many they had besides, does not appear; but they had, no doubt, several more. This chapel is said to contain in length five score feet, and in breadth 24 feet; exclusive of the cross aisle, and a chapel attached to it, dedicated to the Trinity. The altar of St. Lawrence stood somewhere in this chapel, and, at the east end of it, an image of our Saviour, to which devout folks were wont to bring their offerings. A particular division of the town appears to have been at one time consigned or appropriated to the officiating services of the chaplains or clergy of this chapel, comprehending, probably, all on the sides next to it of Damgate, Broadstreet, Blackboystreet and Codlin lane. St Nicholas’s clergy appear also to have had appropriated to them another division of the town: hence we find, that—

“on Friday before the feast of St. Tiburtius and Valerian, in the
35th of Edward III. it was ordered by the commonalty, assembled in
the Guild hall, that the clerks of St. James’s in Lynn, for the
future, shall carry the _holy water_ from the East Gate of Lynn,
through all the south part of Damgate, and through the whole street
called Webster’s row; and that the clergy or clerks of St. Nicholas’
shall likewise carry from the aforesaid gate through all the north
part of the aforesaid street of Damgate.” {565a}

[Picture: The work-house formerly the Chapel of St. James]

At the general dissolution this chapel was, it seems, laid by, and shut up, which appears an odd and unaccountable circumstance, as it had not any connection with the convents, being merely a parochial place of worship. We are told that it was pulled down, all but the cross aisle, in 1549, (by order of the mayor and corporation, it is supposed,) when it had four bells, which were worth, with the bell of the charnel-house, CC_l._ We are further told, “that there did also, in the mean time, belong to the said chapel and charnel-house, stone, iron, and glass, to the value of one hundred marks: also timber and lead to the value of 300_l._ also plate, jewels, and stock, to the value of 200_l._ also certain lands and tenements in Lynn, to the yearly value of 5_l._” {565b} All this property appears to have come into the hands of the mayor and corporation; not very fairly and honourably, it seems; for we find that it rather belonged to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich, who, about seventeen years after, on what occasion does not appear, relinquished their right and claim to it, by a formal deed to that purpose, a copy of which is given below. {566a} This was about the year 1566. {566b} From that period it lay, probably, in ruins till 1581, when it was, at the expense of the corporation, prepared and made a place for the manufacture of bays, &c.—How long it was occupied for that purpose is not said; but we learn that the undertaking did not succeed.—About a century after, in the year 1682, it was repaired and fitted up, by the liberal benefactions of the corporation and principal inhabitants, and converted into a hospital, or workhouse for fitly decayed old men, women, and poor children; a good endowment and provision being made for their work, instructions, and maintenance, and for putting the children out to trades.—On that occasion were made and adopted the following

“_Rules_, _Ordinances_ and _Statutes_ made and established by the
mayor and burgesses of the burgh of King’s Lynn in the county of
Norfolk, for the good government of the Hospital or Workhouse of St.
James, there erected and founded, and of the children’s being, and to
be placed therein.—_Imprimis_, That the children be instructed in
their duty towards God, and in good manners.—That the master for the
time being shall cause the children every Lord’s day, both in the
forenoon and afternoon, constantly to repair to the parish church of
St. Margaret, diligently to attend divine service and sermons
there.—That some fit person, to be elected by the mayor and
burgesses, shall daily read the prayers and collects appointed for
that purpose in the chapel of the said house, every morning by eight
of the clock, and every evening by four of the clock precisely, all
the children there attending with becoming reverence.—That such
person, after prayers so read at the times aforesaid, shall teach the
children to read for the space of one hour and an half, twice in the
day, by calling together four at a time, and no more, whilst the rest
are at work.—That such person every Sunday, after divine service in
the afternoon, calling all the said children into the chapel, shall
instruct them in the church Catechism appointed for children, for the
space of one hour, concluding with the prayers and collects.

“ITEM, _For their Recreation and Correction_. That the children be
kept at work between our _Lady_ and _Michaelmas_ from Six of the
clock in the morning till Twelve at noon; and between _Michaelmas_
and _our Lady_ from Eight till twelve, and in all afternoons from One
to Seven: the time for prayers, reading, and refreshment, excepted.
That on festivals and holy-days observed by the church, and every
Thursday after three in the afternoon, they be allowed reasonable
recreation. That for offences committed, gentle and moderate
chastisement be given; and such as will not thereby be reformed, be
sent to the house of correction, to be there punished.

“ITEM, _For their Diet_, _Cloaths_, _Firing_, and _necessary
Provisions_. That three days in the week they have once in the day
competent allowance of flesh meat hot, and three other days like
allowance of other hot provision, to be ready at twelve at noon; and
on the other day fit provision; as also a reasonable breakfast and
supper every day of the week. That all sorts of provision, bread,
beer, and meat, and all other victuals, be good, fresh, and
wholesome. That once every year, a month before Christmas, they be
allowed new suits of cloaths of the usual colours, and new shifting,
shoes, and stockings, so often as it shall be necessary and
convenient, and washing allowed them. That out of six chaldron of
coals to be allowed to the master, a convenient fire be kept in the
working-room all the cold season of the year. That such children as
shall appear to be sick, be removed into a room for that purpose; and
if any be infirm, or taken with contagious distempers (such as are
catching) that special care be taken to lodge them apart from the
others.

“ITEM, _For the Visitation_, _Overseeing_, _Defraying necessary
charges_, and _Regulation of Abuses_. That on the usual day of
electing the corporation officers in every year, the mayor, aldermen,
and common-council, or the major part of them, shall elect and choose
_three_ discreet and fitting persons to be _governors_ of the same
Hospital, or Workhouse, for the year from _Michaelmas_ thence next
ensuing, whose care shall be to inspect and oversee the same, and the
children therein, from time to time; and to order and direct all
expences, charges, payments, and disbursements concerning the same;
and to see and cause all the rules, ordinances, and statutes thereof
to be put in due execution.—That all gifts, benevolences,
contributions, payments, and sums of money whatsoever, now or
hereafter to be made and given to the same Hospital or Workhouse, or
the poor children therein, shall from time to time be paid into the
hands of such governors; and a true account thereof, and of all
expences, charges, payments and disbursements concerning the same,
shall yearly be made and audited on the usual day appointed for
auditing the accompts of the mayor and burgesses.—That a book be
kept, wherein all gifts and benevolences, that have been or shall
hereafter be given to, or bestowed on the said Hospital or Workhouse,
or the poor children therein, shall be fairly registered, to be kept
in the said chapel.—That one other book be kept, wherein the names or
times of placing or removing of all masters and poor children of the
same Hospital or Workhouse shall be entered and recorded.—That a
sufficient chest or box be provided, with two locks, for the reposing
and safe keeping therein the _Deeds of Foundation_, _Endowment_, and
other writings, that do or shall belong thereunto, as also the
_common seal_ of the said Hospital, or Workhouse; one key whereof to
remain with the mayor of this burgh for the time being, the other
with the senior governor thereof.—That the mayor, aldermen, and
common-councilmen, or so many as shall think fit, by appointment of
the mayor for the time being, shall four times in every year, or
oftener if need require, visit the said hospital or workhouse, for
the better encouragement thereof, and discovering abuses that may be
committed contrary to these rules and ordinances.” {570}

“The first Collection among the inhabitants towards this charitable
design, and preparing this chapel, amounted to the sum of 406_l._
1_s._ 6_d._—The Corporation also made an order among themselves, That
every Alderman new elected should pay at his admittance 10_l._ and
every common-council-man 20 nobles, which, to the year ending at Lady
day 1724, amounted to 726_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ The legacies of persons
deceased (besides other benefactions) given to the same” [up to the
above specified time] “amounted to 90_l._ 0_s._ 0_d._—In all 1222_l._
14_s._ 10_d._—They also endowed it with 20_l._ _per annum_.” {571a}

For some reason, to us unknown, the above order of things did not long continue. In the course of a few years another revolution took place: most, if not all the above regulations were repealed, or laid aside, and the house, by an act of parliament, was consigned to the superintendence and management of the _Guardians of the Poor_. {571b} That act passed in 1701, the 12th of William III. _For erecting Hospitals and Workhouses in King’s Lynn_. It contains, as Mackerell observes, the following clause—

“_The Workhouse_, _founded by the mayor and burgesses_, _called_ St.
James’s Workhouse, _and all lands_, _tenements_, _rents_, _revenues_,
_goods_, _and chattels_, _belonging to the same_, _are by this act
vested and settled in the_ guardians of the poor, and their
successors.” {571c}

We are further told, that by another clause in this act, it was to continue in force _only so long as the rates did not exceed what had been paid towards the __maintenance of the poor_, _for any one of the then three last years_. {572} That excess, no doubt, took place pretty soon, though we have not learnt the exact year when it so happened: and yet the guardians, it seems, long after, and even till very lately, acted under that same obsolete law; a conduct which may be thought not altogether justifiable or defensible. But as the proverb says, that “half a loaf is better than no bread,” so they might judge that an obsolete law was better than no law. However that was, one would think that they must cease to be guardians, when the law that constituted them such lost its authority, or ceased to be in force.

From the period when the superintendence and management of St. James’s Hospital were committed to the guardians, it appears to have become the proper poor house of St. Margaret’s parish, and general workhouse of the town.—Of the exact state and regular variations of the poor rates in Lynn during the first sixty years, and more, after the above act had passed, we have but little knowledge; but _for the last forty years_ our information is much more extensive and authentic. During this period our poor-rates, or what we have raised for the support of the poor, have increased _tenfold_, and the number of paupers _four_ or _five fold_.—In 1770 these rates amounted to only 976_l._—In 1796 they amounted to 7713_l._—and in 1809 to about, or near 9000_l._ and the whole expenditure, up to the end of January in the present year, (1810) to the enormous sum of 10,243_l._ 10_s._ 3_d._—for, after the manner of our superiors, who sit above at the helm, we manage and contrive that our outgoings should exceed our income.—The following statements of our out-door expenditure in two different years, (the first and the last of the above period,) extracted from Mr. Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, p. 19 and 20, may throw some further light upon this subject.

Abstract of _Out-door Expenditure_ in 1770, as published by order of the Court of Guardians.

No. of families Wards. No. of Cash paid to each
in each ward. persons. ward weekly.
_l._ _s._ _d._
30. 1. North End 78 2. 14. 0.
Ward
6. 2. Kettlewell 9 0. 7. 6.
ditto
5. 3. Trinity 16 0. 9. 6.
Hall ditto
5. 4. Jews’ Lane 10 0. 11. 6.
ditto
13. 5. Paradise 34 l. 6. 0.
ditto
26. 6. Sedgeford 41 1. 18. 6.
Lane ditto
19. 7. Stonegate 34 1. 13. 0.
ditto
20. 8. Chequer 41 1. 6. 6.
ditto
8. 9. New Conduit 17 0. 11. 6.
ditto
In St. James’s 0. 2. 6.
Workhouse
131. Total as 280. 10. 19. 6. {573}
establishment
account.

Abstract of Out-door Expenditure in 1809, as published by order of the Court (or corporation) of Guardians.

No. of families Wards. No. of Cash paid to each
in each ward persons. ward weekly.
_l._ _s._ _d._
85. North End 172. 9. 19. 9.
Ward
44. Kettlewell 78. 5. 16. 0.
ditto
58. Paradise 141. 8. 18. 6.
ditto
36. Jews’ Lane 99. 5. 10. 6.
ditto
44. New Conduit 91. 6. 12. 0.
ditto
58. Chequer 120. 9. 2. 6.
ditto
33. Trinity Hall 64. 5. 2. 6.
ditto
76. Sedgeford 158. 10. 9. 6.
Lane ditto
80. Stonegate 150. 12. 0. 0.
ditto
514. Weekly 1050. 75. 11. 3.
Allowance
Sick poor 60. 8. 17. 0.
Illegitimate 39. 3. 13. 9.
_Total_. 1149. 88. 1. 9. {574}

The difference between the latter and the former of the above Statements, in so short a period, comprehending only a part of the present prosperous reign, and what some seem to deem the most blessed and glorious part of if, must be exceedingly remarkable and wonderful. In 1770 the rates of the town were only 4_s._ in the pound on the rent, raising an annual revenue of 976_l_; of which 579_l._ were appropriated for the use of the out door poor, leaving only 397_l._ for the maintenance of the Workhouse and all other contingent expences. Thus the total expenditure of the House was then only 397_l_; now it is 3496_l._ 3_s._ 5_d._—Then the total annual expenditure for both the in-door and out-door poor was only 976_l_; now it is above 10,000_l._ {575a} Of course, the charge for the maintenance of the poor is now become a very serious matter, and even a heavy and grievous burden to many of the inhabitants.

Our poor rates have arrived at their present unexampled height under the _new_ heaven-born _poor-law_, which was to be the prolific parent of so many inestimable blessings to the town; not one of which, alas! has yet been, or is ever likely to be realized. This memorable law, and its worthy twin-sister, the _paving law_, have been already productive of incalculable mischief. The vast additional burden which they have brought upon the inhabitants has lessened the value of houses 15 or 20 per cent, and multiplied the number of untenanted dwellings to five or six score, at least. {575b} Nor is it possible at present to calculate how far the evil will or may extend. For such a town as this to contain a large and increasing number of empty houses must certainly have a very dark and unpropitious appearance, and is utterly repugnant to every idea of our being at present in a flourishing or prosperous condition. {576a}

When it was made to appear that the poor rates of Lynn amounted to nearly, if not quite, as much as those of _Hull_ and _Exeter_, places three times its population, it was impossible to avoid suspecting the existence of some sad mismanagement, if not also of most foul and criminal misdoings. The same suspicion was not likely to be lessened, but rather to issue in full conviction, when it was discovered, that the maintenance of each pauper in this workhouse, or hospital, costs even more than that of each pensioner in _Greenwich Hospital_, {576b} and twice or thrice as much as that of each pauper in some, if not all, of the most noted and respectable workhouses, or poorhouses in the kingdom. That the report of these circumstances, with the increasing pressure of the rates, should excite a spirit of mistrust, inquiry, and investigation in the town, was no more than what might naturally be expected. It accordingly did so happen: and the result proved that the previous suspicious were not groundless.

In the course of the investigation, _Butcher’s Meat_ appeared to be here consumed in such unusual quantities {577a} as are utterly irreconcilable with any and every idea of economy and good management: and in the article of _Cheese_ the consumption appeared to be still more palpably disproportionate, unexampled, and excessive; so as to set the wisdom and competency of our managers in a very unfavourable and unseemly point of view.—This the reader will easily perceive, when he is told, that it costs in this house, for cheese alone, between 4 and 5_l._ a week, or that there is consumed here weekly no less than 1 Cwt. of that article. That this is out of all proportion to what is usual in other Poor-houses, will appear from the following statement, extracted from Mr. Grisenthwaite late publication. {577b}

At the _Norwich_ Poor-houses, among 1343 persons, during one of the late years of scarcity, the annual expence for _cheese_ was 135_l._ 2_s._ 5_d._—At _Shrewsbury_, among 274 persons, (in 1801, if we are not mistaken,) the annual expence for the same article was 56_l._ 2_s._ 4_d._—At _Hull_, in 1808, (number of persons not mentioned, but doubtless, not fewer than those in our Poor-house,) the annual expence for the said article was 29_l._ 16_s._—At _Lynn_, the same year, among 200 persons, for that article, 226_l._ 8_s._—At the same town, among about the same number of persons, for the last year, (1809,) the annual expence for that very article amounted to the still more enormous sum of 259_l._ 15_s._ 11_d._ {578a}—If we go on at this rate, we shall soon have 3 or 400_l._ a year to pay _for cheese only_, for the use of our Workhouse; a sum equal to what the whole of that establishment cost _forty years ago_. {578b}

The statement here following will shew the respective and total amount of the expence of the other articles consumed in this house within the last year, with the proportion they bore to the single article above specified.—The _Butter_ used in this house for the whole year cost 30_l._ 11_s._ l_d._—The _Milk_ 33_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._—_Potatoes_ 37_l._ 2_s._—_Oatmeal_ and _Peas_ 56_l._ 6_s._ [Total 157_l._ 13_s._ 3_d._] That the sum total of the expence for the above four, or rather _five_ articles, should fall short above 100_l._ of what it cost for cheese only, must surely be very strange: and yet it appears not to be more strange than true. The whole year’s expence for _Grocery_ was 158_l._ 1_s._ 7_d._—And for _Beer_, 157_l._ 7_s._—Here also it may be thought not a little remarkable, that the _Grocery_ and even the _Beverage_ used here should so much fall short of the _Cheese_ as each of them not to amount to very much above half the expence of that article. Of the two most important articles, _Flour_ and _Meat_, (the only two which exceeded the expence of _cheese_!) the former, including _Bread_, cost 1001_l._ 10_s._ 9_d._ {579a}—and the latter, (_Meat_,) cost 1110_l._—_Coals_ cost 134_l._ 5_s._ 10_d._—_Turf_ 9_l._ 3_s._—_Oil_ 8_l._ 4_s._—The total expenditure of the house for the whole year, including sundry other articles, with repairs, &c. 3496_l._ 3_s._ 5_d._ {579b}—and with the disbursements to the out-door pensioners, the entire expenditure, up to the end of last January, as was before observed, appeared to amount to 10,243_l._ 10_s._ 3_d._: {579c} an enormous sum, surely, for a town that does not contain 11,000 inhabitants, or any manufacture, or even any trade _now_, of much consequence, except the _coal trade_. Under these circumstances, such a rapid and vast increase of poor, and of the poor rates, must amount to an irrefragable proof, that we are now in a state of actual and fast declension, whatever some people may insinuate, or pretend to the contrary. But the more evident this declension is, the more incumbent it must be on those who have the management of our affairs to observe the utmost economy, and spare as much as possible the industrious and lower orders of the community, who can so ill bear the burden of additional charges. Whether they have hitherto ever thought of this, or not, it seems to be now high time that it should occupy its full share of their attention. {580a}

It has also been thought, or rather suspected, that our distributers of parochial relief do not always distribute or administer that relief with judgment and discrimination, or even with a scrupulous or due regard to justice and impartiality: and such statements as the following might be supposed to afford some colour or countenance to such suspicions—

“_Weekly allowances_—To a man and wife and 5 children, 2_s._ 6_d._
To a young woman, aged 24, and one child 2_s._—To a man and wife near
70 years of age, 1_s._ To a single woman, aged 19, 2_s._ 6_d._—To a
widow, aged 76, 2_s._ To a single woman, aged 31, 2_s._ 6_d._—To a
widow, aged 78, 2_s._ To a single woman, aged 22, 1_s._ 6_d._—To an
aged woman, 102 years old, 2_s._ 6_d._ To a widow, aged 48, 3_s._
6_d._—To a widow, aged 38, with 3 children, 3_s._ To a single woman,
aged 36, 2_s._ 6_d._” {580b}

Such a Statement, which may be taken as a sample, or specimen of our out-door distributions, has something like partiality, or inconsiderateness, marked on its very forehead.—“Kisses,” according to the old adage, “go by favour;” and so, it is to be feared, do our out-door parochial allowances, in too many instances. But upon this topic we will not now enlarge, as we may have occasion hereafter to resume the subject, in the latter part of the work. {581a}

At this time (July 1810) a revolution, or new arrangement is said to be actually taking place among our indoor-pensioners, or in the management of St. James’s Hospital, from which very important benefits are expected soon to result: and it is much to be wished that the event may correspond with the present expectations. The household expences have been already, it seems much reduced, {581b} without the least detriment to the poor inmates; and we hear, that the plan is to be followed up with the strictest attention to sound and rigid economy. The present state of the town certainly requires it, and those who have come forward on this occasion seem to be very much in earnest; but it remains to be seen how far our present hopes and expectations will be realized, or whether, after all, we are not destined to be, in this case, as we have been in many others, the miserable victims of delusion and disappointment. {581c}

With very little propriety, especially of late years, has our St. James’s Hospital been called a _Work_-house: it might full as well, and even better, have been called a _play_-house; for it is certain that there is more _play_ than _work_ going on there. Among its 200 pensioners, one half, at least, may be supposed capable of doing some, and even a great deal of work: and yet all their earnings during all the last year amounted to no more than 170_l._ 1_s._ 5_d._ which was at the rate of _little more than a penny a day_. The work, therefore, done by the numerous residents in this house is scarcely worth mentioning, except for the purpose of exhibiting the palpable neglect and mismanagement of the conductors, and their utter incompetency for the charge which they have undertaken. As things have stood hitherto, this house has been little better than a nest of sloth, or an asylum for idleness; where young and strong paupers are so treated as if it were actually wished and intended to unfit them, as much as possible, for any future use or employment in society, or as if their admission here had been meant for their ruin, and not for their relief and benefit—Care, certainly, ought to be taken, that the children, and youth, and hale people, in our poor-houses, be inured to habits of industry, as well as provided with food and raiment; otherwise, the succour afforded will be most materially defective.

The foregoing narration, it is presumed, will enable the reader to form a pretty accurate and adequate idea, of the history of this notable house, from its first erection, or foundation, in the reign of king Stephen, or that of his successor, to the present time. At first, as has been shewn, it was a chapel, or place of worship, of no small consideration in the town, being little inferior to St. Nicholas’ chapel, or even St. Margaret’s church, and continued to be so till the reformation, when it was unaccountably desecrated, and most of it pulled down. After which, it was appropriated successively to different uses, till it became the poor-house of St. Margaret’s parish, and the general work-house of the town, with the annexation, of late years, of extensive new buildings. This is its state at present: but how long it may so continue, it is impossible to say, as we can see but little into futurity. How far the recent change and expected reform will realize or disappoint our hopes, must be left at present among the mysteries. Time is the only revealer of such secrets. We will now take our leave of St. James’s Chapel and Hospital, and proceed to other matters, somewhat less connected with the affairs of the present generation.

CHAP. VII.

Brief biographical notices of the most remarkable or distinguished personages that appeared among the inhabitants of Lynn, in the intervening period between the Conquest and the Reformation.

During the period now under consideration, it is not known that many eminently distinguished, or very memorable characters appeared among the inhabitants of this town, full as it was, in the mean time, of ecclesiastics or priests, and monks or friars of different orders, among whom was usually confined all the little knowledge and learning that did then exist in the nation. But though the population of Lynn, during the said period, did not abound in characters of the above description, yet it does not appear to have been altogether destitute of them. The names of several have been preserved, who seem to have made in their day no mean figure among their most enlightened contemporaries; of whom the following were, perhaps, the most estimable and worthy of remembrance.

1. NICHOLAS DE LENNA, or _Nicholas of Lynn_. He was a native of this town, and flourished in the reign of Edward III. He was educated at Oxford, where his literary proficiency may be supposed to have been very considerable, as he afterwards appeared to exceed most of his fellows, especially in some rare studies and distinguishing departments. To him is supposed chiefly to apply that observation of _Voltaire_, in his Essay on Universal History, (vol. 3. pp. 182, 183.) “That the first [in Europe] who certainly made use of the _compass_ were the English, in the reign of Edward III.” {586a} _Hackluyt_, in his Voyages, makes particular and honourable mention of him, observing, that Nicholas de Lenna, an excellent musician, mathematician, and astrologer, bred at Oxford, after having applied his studies chiefly to astronomy, by the help of his Astrolabe, {586b} made six voyages to the North seas, of which he published an account, in a book entitled “_Inventio Fortunata_ (_aliter Fortunæ_,) _qui liber incipit a gradu_ 54 _usq_; _ad polum_.” In the first (which seems to have taken place as early as 1330) he sailed from Lynn to Iceland, with Company, whom he left on the sea-coast, while he himself travelled up into the island in search of discoveries. He presented his charts of the northern seas, at his return, (from his last voyage, we may suppose) to Edward III, in 1360; and they were afterwards made use of in the reign of Henry VI, and probably much later. He died in 1369, and was buried at Lynn. We are told that he was much esteemed by his celebrated contemporary _Chaucer_, who styled him ‘Frere Nicholas Linn, a reverend clerke.’

Like the great _Roger Bacon_, who lived about half a century before him, Nicholas belonged to the religious order of _Grey Friars_, or Franciscans, otherwise called Cordeliers, and minor brethren. {587} One is apt to forget or overlook, in some measure, the extravagances of the order, in the contemplation of its being capable of producing, and that it actually did produce such men as these. As Nicholas is supposed to have spent the most part of his time at Lynn, among the brethren of his order, it may very naturally and reasonably be concluded, or supposed, that the _Grey Friars’ tower_, which is still standing, was often used by him, as an _observatory_, in the course of his astronomical studies here; which may suggest no despicable reason for preserving that ancient ruin from the ravages of time, and keeping it up as long as possible. The repair which it lately underwent must be creditable to the feelings of those by whom it was promoted. It may seem somewhat odd and remarkable that it has stood so long, and still exists, the last and only remain of our numerous monasteries and conventual towers; (though, perhaps, from the slightness of its structure, the most unlikely of any of them to survive;) as if time, or providence had favoured its preservation, by way of approval of the useful purposes to which it had been once appropriated, or in honour of the memory of him who so laudably occupied it, and was so eminent a benefactor to his country. Much stress, however, is not meant to be laid on these ideas: yet we cannot help thinking that this supposed, or presumed and probable observatory of our ancient astronomer and navigator is entitled to some real and lasting respect from the enlightened part of our population.

It has been already observed that our worthy and respectable townsman, the subject of this brief memoir, died in 1369, and was buried here, [in the church, or dormitory of the Grey Friars, in all probability;] but at what age, does not appear: yet if his first voyage took place in 1330, as it is said, he must have lived to be pretty far advanced in years; it being not probable that he was less than thirty when he set out on that voyage. Between the first and sixth, or last of his voyages there seem to have been nearly if not quite thirty years. They were all apparently voyages of discovery and experiment, and for improvement in the art and knowledge of navigation, and proved, no doubt, of no small advantage and benefit to his countrymen. It is much to be wished that a particular account of them had been preserved, which could not fail of being very interesting; but as such an account is not known to exist, our wishing for it must be all vain and useless. Any records which our worthy voyager might leave behind him have probably perished long ago; but we have from other sources sufficient proofs that he must have been in his day an extraordinary man, greatly distinguished as a mathematician and astronomer, and especially as a navigator. He and the person whose name next follows may pretty safely be deemed the two most eminent characters that appeared among our townsmen, during the long period of which we are now treating, or, perhaps, during any other period.

2. WILLIAM SAWTRE, or _Salter_, otherwise _Sawtry_, _Chawtrey_ and _Chatris_, and commonly called _Sir_ William Sawtre, &c. it being usual in those days, and long after, to prefix that title to the names of a certain description of ecclesiastics. He is rendered peculiarly memorable as the English _proto-martyr_; it being generally agreed that he was the first Englishman that was burnt for his religion. We have no authority to say of Sautre, as we did of Nicholas, that he was born here. The place of his birth, as far as we know, has been no where mentioned. It appears that he took up his residence and settled here, as parish priest of St. Margaret’s, in the time of bishop _Spencer_, of fighting, crusading, and persecuting memory; and that he was afterwards suspected and found to be a _Lollard_ or _Wickliffite_, {590} which meant pretty much the same with what we call being a _protestant_, but was then deemed, by the rulers, in church and state, a very grievous offence, and even a most shocking, pestilent, damnable, and insufferable heresy. The defection of Sawtre, from the established or national faith, roused his ecclesiastical superiors, and he was cited to appear before his haughty and furious diocesan, at his palace of south Helingham; which accordingly he did, on the last day of April, and the first of May 1399. In the mean time he appears to have undergone a long and strict examination, in the chapel belonging to the said episcopal palace, before the bishop, the archdeacon of Norwich, and divers others, consisting of doctors, divines, and notaries. It also appears that he was then so far from being ashamed of the opinions he had espoused, or intimidated by the danger to which they might expose him, that he did not at all scruple or hesitate to avow and defend them. This we may be sure, did not please and conciliate his examiners, or promote and facilitate his acquittal and liberation.

We are not particularly informed how he was disposed of immediately after this examination: but it seems pretty certain, that he then became a close prisoner in some place of confinement within the precincts of the said episcopal palace. A prison, for reputed heretics and other delinquents, was formerly considered among the necessary appendages to a prelatical mansion or residence: and it cannot be supposed, considering the character of bishop Spencer, but that a very complete one was then to be found at South Helingham. In a complete episcopal prison there was usually, it seems, a cell, called _Little-Ease_; which was a small hole, so constructed, that the person there immured could neither stand upright, lie straight, sit comfortably, or enjoy any degree of ease: in short, it was designed as a place of torment, where the sufferer was to be continually tortured, and deprived, as much as possible, of every thing that could render his situation in any degree tolerable or supportable. This diabolically ingenious contrivance could scarcely fail of answering the purpose of its inventors, as it seems to have been most admirably adapted for taming, subduing, and breaking the spirits of reputed heretics and religious free thinkers: few of whom, it is presumed, could stand such an ordeal, or terrible test, for any length of time. The romish hierarchy must have been tremendously formidable, when its prelates had such prisons in their own houses, and were empowered to confine there any that dissented from the church, or objected to its tenets and observances. {592}

That there was such a place of incarceration and torture then attached to the episcopal palace of South Helingham, seems highly probable; and if there were, there can be no doubt but that Sawtre was there confined from the first to the nineteenth day of the month last mentioned.—That he underwent some very severe treatment, in the meantime, seems morally certain, as the remarkable change in his conduct, at the close of that interval, cannot be reasonably or well accounted for on any other ground or supposition. {593} On the _first_ of May he resolutely avowed and defended the obnoxious opinions imputed to him, but on the _nineteenth_ of the same month, the next time he was brought before his judges, he appeared ready to relinquish them all, and pronounce his recantation. There is no reason to think that his opinions had now undergone any change, or that he had become really convinced of their falsity or untenableness; for he appeared, almost immediately after, to be as fully persuaded as ever of their truth and importance. It was evidently the state of his mind that had experienced a change: his fears had got the better of his firmness, and he no longer possessed that fortitude and boldness which he had at first displayed. Torturing severities have often made people deny their principles, and deny, or confess, any thing that their tormentors required. On this ground (and on no other that we know of) can we account for Sawtre’s change and subsequent recantation.

It was determined, by the bishop and his coadjutors, that Sawtre should publicly pronounce his recantation at different places—in order, perhaps, the more effectually to expose and humble him, and so prevent his ever daring again to broach his recanted tenets in these parts. They probably suspected his sincerity, and were resolved to render their triumph over him as complete as possible.—The obnoxious things, or enormities laid to his charge were chiefly and substantially comprised under the following heads—That the Cross on which Christ suffered was not a fit object of worship—That it was more reasonable to worship a temporal prince than that wooden cross—That the worship of angels is unlawful, even more so than the worship of holy or truly good men—That going on pilgrimage is useless, and that vows for that purpose are not binding, and that the money so expended had better be bestowed in alms to the poor—That priests are more bound to preach the word of God than to say their mattins, or observe the canonical hours—and that, after the sacramental words are pronounced, the bread remaineth the same as before, and so does not cease to be bread, or undergo a transubstantiation.—It was a sad time when people held these opinions at the risk of their lives!

On the first two days, as has been already observed, Sawtre openly avowed the said articles, and boldly defended them; but at his next appearance, after eighteen days of close confinement and severe sufferings, as we may reasonably presume, he seemed quite an altered man, ready to retract all he had before affirmed and maintained: which may be easily accounted for on the ground before suggested. How many times, or at how many places the bishop now required and obliged him to publish, or pronounce his recantation, it is not very easy to discover. We find it to have been done at South Helingham, and we are assured that it was also done in the parish churches of _Lynn_ and _Tilney_, and in other places.—_Fox_ has preserved a curious document relating to this affair, being the bishop’s account of the whole process, drawn up by order of archbishop Arundel, and transmitted to him, when Sawtre was taken up the last time, and tried before him and his clergy, assembled in convocation, at the Chapter House of St. Paul’s, in February, 1400, as they reckoned, but 1401, according to our reckoning.—That account, or document is as follows—

“_Memorandum_, That upon the last day of Aprill, in the yeere of our
Lord 1399, in the 7. indiction, and 10 yeere of the papacie of pope
Boniface the 2. in a certain chamber within the manor-house of the
said bishop of Norwich at South Helingham (where the register of the
said bishop is kept) before the 9. houre, in a certain chapell within
the said manor situate, and the first day of May then next and
immediately insuing, in the foresaid chamber Sir W. Chawtris, parish
priest of the church of S. Margaret in the towne of Lin, appeared
before the bishop of Norwich, in the presence of John de Derlington,
archdeacon of Norwich, doctor of the decrees, frier Walter Disse, and
John Rickinghall, professors in divinity, William Carlton, doctor of
both lawes, and William Friseby, with Hugh Bridham, publike notaries,
and there publikely affirmed and held the conclusions, as before is
specified.—All and singular the premisses the forsaid William
affirmeth upon mature deliberation. And afterwards, to wit, the 19.
day of May in the yeere, indiction, and papacie aforesaid, in the
chappell within the manor-house of the said Henry bishop of Norwich,
situate at South Helingham, the foresaid Sir William revoked and
renounced all and singular the foresaid his conclusions; abjuring and
correcting all such heresies and errors, taking his oath upon a book
before the said Henry, the bishop of Norwich, that from that time
forward he would never preach, affirm, nor hold privily nor apertly,
the foresaid conclusions; and that he would pronounce, according to
the appointment of the said bishop, the foresaid conclusions to be
erroneous and heresies, in the parish churches of Lin and Tilney, and
in other places at the assignment of the said bishop; and further
sware, that he would stand to the ordinance of the said bishop
touching the premisses, in the presence of the discreet and
worshipfull men afore-recited, with divers other moe.—As concerning
the first conclusion, that he said he would not worship the cross &c.
he confessed himself to have erred, and that the article was
erroneous, and submitted himselfe. And as touching the second
article, that he said, he would rather worship a king, &c. he
confessed himself to have erred, and the article to be erroneous, and
submitted himselfe, and soforth of all the rest.—Then next after
this, upon the 25. day of May, in the yeere of our Lord aforesaid, in
the _Church yard of the Chappell of St. James_, within the towne of
Lin, the foresaid William, in the presence of the foresaid bishop and
clergy, and the people of the said towne of Lin standing round about,
publikely declared in the English tongue, the foresaid conclusions to
be erroneous and heresies, as was contained in a certain scrole.
{597} And after this, the 26. day of May, in the yeere above said in
the _Church of the Hospital of S. John’s_, in the towne of Lin, the
said Sir William, before the said bishop sitting as judge, sware and
took his oath upon the holy Evangelists, that he would never after
that time preach openly and publikely the foresaid conclusions, nor
would heare the confessions of any of his subjects of his diocesse of
Norwich without the speciall license of the said bishop, &c. In the
presence of frier John Smermen, M. John Rickinghall doctor of
divinity, W. Carlton doctor of both lawes, and Thomas Bulton officer
of the liberty of Lin aforesaid, with divers others.” {598}

Such was the account, or statement of his former process against Sawtre, which bishop Spencer delivered to his metropolitan, Arundel. Not the least hint is here given, how the reputed heretic had been treated, or was disposed of, during the interval between his first and last examination. Had his renunciation of his obnoxious tenets been brought about by mere argument, or rational persuasion, it would, doubtless, have been mentioned by way of triumph, or boasting: but having been the effect of extreme severity or cruel treatment (as was above suggested) it was very natural to pass it over in silence, for it was not capable of yielding any manner of credit to the parties concerned, or give them a plausible pretence to make a merit of it. This silence therefore evidently and strongly corroborates, if it do not also satisfactorily establish, what was before advanced or suggested on this head.

After Sawtre had gone quite through this irksome and humiliating process of recantation, it might be expected that he would not think of tarrying much longer in these parts: he, accordingly, appears to have quitted Lynn shortly after, and obtained the situation of parish-priest, or minister of _St. Osith_, in London. {599} This would seem to indicate, that his character was still deemed respectable, and had not suffered so much by the late event as some might expect. He had also, probably, some good and powerful friends, who now interested themselves very warmly and effectually in his behalf. However that was, he really did, as far as we can discover, obtain the said situation without opposition or difficulty. But he soon appeared to be so far from having abandoned his former principles, that he was still, in fact, as much a Lollard and heretic as ever: and his late miscarriage seems to have operated so as both to confirm him in those principles and also to arm him with boldness and courage to maintain them against all gainsayers, and in the face of every future danger or opposition.

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

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

The story of Sawtre is thus introduced by Fox—

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

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

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

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

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