Chapter LXV: Section IX (2)

“Then the said archbishop assigned unto the said Sir William time to
deliberate, and more fully to make his answer till the next day; and
continued this convocation then and there till the morrow. Which
morrow, to wit, the 19th day of February, being come, the foresaid
archbishop of Canterbury, in the said chapter house of St. Paul in
London, before his councell provinciall then and there assembled,
specially asked and examined the same Sir W. Sautre, there personally
present, upon the sacrament of the altar, as before. And the same
Sir William again, in like manner as before, answered. After this
amongst other things the said bishop demanded of the same William, if
the same materiall bread being upon the altar, after the sacramentall
words being of the priest rightly pronounced, is transubstantiated
into the very body of Christ, or not? And the said Sir William said,
he understood not what he meant. Then the said archbishop demanded,
whether that materiall bread being round and white, prepared and
disposed for the sacrament of the body of Christ upon the altar,
wanting nothing that is meet and requisite thereunto, by the virtue
of the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, be
altered and changed into the very body of Christ, and ceaseth any
more to be materiall and very bread, or not? Then the said Sir
William, deridingly {605} answering, said he could not tell.”

“Then consequently the said archbishop demanded, whether he would
stand to the determination of the holy church, or not, which
affirmeth that in the sacrament of the altar, after the words of
consecration being rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread,
which before in nature was bread, ceaseth any more to be bread? To
this interrogation the said Sir William said, that he would stand to
the determination of the church, where such determination was not
contrary to the will of God. This done, he demanded of him againe,
what his judgement was concerning the sacrament of the altar: who
said and affirmed, that after the words of consecration, by the
priest duly pronounced, there remained very bread, and the same bread
which was before the words spoken.”—This examination commenced at
eight o’clock in the morning, and lasted about three hours: and as
the prisoner would not now retract, or recede from his Lollardism,
and receive what was called _Catholic information_, but chose to
persist, at all events, in his own way of thinking, the archbishop,
as we are told, “by the counsell and assent of his whole covent then
and there present, did promulgate and give sentence by the mouth of
Robert Hall, against the same Sir William, being personally present,
and refusing to revoke his heresies, but constantly defended the
same.” {606}

After passing the said sentence, an adjournment took place, till the week after, when the prisoner was again brought before them, two or three different times. On the Wednesday they read to him bishop Spencer’s statement of his process against him, near two years before. The archbishop and divers others now reproached him for holding opinions which he had before abjured; as if it were a mighty crime for a man, after having been once so weak as to renounce or abjure the truth, afterwards to repent and embrace it—or, after having once been so overseen as to resign the right of private judgment, ever any more to think of resuming it! As all the stratagems and means they could use proved now too feeble to shake him from his integrity, or induce him to sacrifice his conscience to their unrighteous and infernal pleasure, they resolved he should be forthwith degraded: and a sentence of degradation {607} was accordingly passed upon him that same day. The execution of this sentence was deferred till the Friday following; and as the archbishop could not then attend, owing to his detention in parliament, it was further deferred till the morrow after. They then proceeded to business in good earnest, and a most curious process it certainly was—They first deprived him of his _priest’s order_, next of his _deacon’s order_, next of his _subdeacon’s order_, then of his _acolyte’s order_, then of his _exorcist_, or _holy-water-clerk’s order_, then of his _reader’s order_, then of his _sexton’s order_, and finally, of his _privilege of clergy_: in token of which his tonsure was erased, a layman’s cap put on his head, and himself so entirely secularized, or reduced to the state of a lay person, as if he had never been in orders.

All this was certainly absurd enough; {608} but as it was also very curious, we shall here give it more circumstantially, in the words of the historian so often referred to in these pages—

Upon Saturday, being the 26th. of February, the said archbishop of
Canterbury sate in the bishop’s seat of the foresaid church of St.
Paul, in London, and solemnly apparelled in his pontificall attire,
sitting with him as his assistants these reverend fathers and
bishops, of London, Lincolne, Hereford, Exeter, _Menevensis &
Roffensis episcopi_, [i.e. the bishops of St. Davids and Rochester]
above mentioned, commanded and caused the said Sir William Sautre,
apparelled in priestly vestments, to be brought and appeare before
him. That done, he declared and expounded in English to all the
clergy and people, there in a great multitude assembled; that all
processe way finished and ended against the said Sir W. Sautre.
Which thing finished, before the pronouncing of the said sentence of
the relapse against the said Sir William, as is premised, he often
then and there recited and read. And for that he saw the said
William in that behalf _nothing abashed_; he proceeded to his
degradation and actual deposition in forme as followeth.

_In the Name of the Father_, _and of the Son_, _and of the Holy
Ghost_. {610} We Thomas by God’s permission archbishop of
Canterbury, primate of all England, and Legate of the apostolike Sea,
do denounce thee William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris,
_chaplaine fained_, in the habite and apparell of a priest, as an
heretike, and one refallen into heresie, by this our sentence
definitive by councell, assent, and authority to be condemned, and by
conclusion of all our fellow brethren, fellow bishops, prelates
councell provinciall, and of the whole clergy, do degrade and
_deprive thee of thy priestly order_. And in sign of degradation and
actual deposition from thy priestly dignity, for thine
incorrigibility and want of amendment, we take from thee the _patent_
and _chalice_, and doe deprive thee of all power and authority of
celebrating the masse, and also we pull from thy backe the _casule_,
and take from thee the _vestment_, and deprive thee of all manner of
priestly honour.

Also, We Thomas, the aforesaid archbishop, by authority, counsell,
and assent, which upon the foresaid William we have, being _deacon
pretensed_, in the habit and apparell of a deacon, having the _New
Testament_ in thy hands, being an heretike, and twice fallen,
condemned by sentence as is aforesaid, do _degrade and put thee from
the order of a deacon_. And in token of this thy degradation and
actuall deposition, we take from thee the book of the _New
Testament_, and the _stole_, and do deprive thee of all authority in
reading of the gospel, and of all and all manner of dignity of a
deacon.

Also, we Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority counsell, and
assent, which over thee the foresaid William we have, being a
_subdeacon pretensed_, in the habit and vestment of a subdeacon, an
heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence, as is aforesaid,
do _degrade and put thee from the order of subdeacon_; and in token
of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the
_albe_ and _maniple_, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of
subdiaconicall dignity.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by counsell, assent and
authority which we have over thee the foresaid William, an _Acolyte
pretensed_, wearing the habit of an acolyte, and heretike, twice
fallen, by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, doe degrade and
put from thee all order of an acolyte; and in signe and token of this
thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the
_candlestick_ and _taper_, and also the _urceolum_, and do deprive
thee of all and all manner of dignity of an Acolyte.—Also, We Thomas
archbishop aforesaid, by assent, council, and authority, which upon
thee the foresaid William we have, an _Exorcist __pretensed_, in the
habite of an exorcist or holy water clerke, being an heretike, twice
fallen, and by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, do _degrade
and depose thee from the order of an Exorcist_; and in token of this
thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the _book of
conjurations_, and do deprive thee of all and singular dignity of an
exorcist.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, counsell, and
authority, as is abovesaid, do degrade and depose thee the foresaid
William, _reader pretensed_, clothed in the habit of a reader, an
herctick, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as aforesaid, condemned,
from the order of a reader: and, in token of this thy degradation and
actual deposition, we take from thee the _book of the divine
lections_ (that is, the book of the church legend) and do deprive
thee of all and singular manner of dignity of such a reader.—Also, We
Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority, counsell, and assent, the
which we have, as is aforesaid, doe degrade, and put thee the
foresaid William Sawtre, _Sexton pretensed_, in the habit of a
sexton, and wearing a surplice, being an heretike, twice fallen, by
our sentence definitive condemned, as aforesaid, from the order of a
sexton: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition,
for the causes aforesaid, we take from thee the _keyes of the church
doore_, and thy _surplice_, and do deprive thee of all and singular
manner of commodities of a doore-keeper.

Also, by the authority of omnipotent God, the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and by our authority, counsell, and assent of our whole
councel provinciall above written, we do degrade thee, and depose
thee, being here personally present before us, from orders,
benefices, priviledges, and habit in the church; and for thy
pertinacy incorrigible we doe degrade thee _before the secular court
of the high constable and marshall of England_, being personally
present; and do depose thee from all and singular _clerkely honours
and dignities whatsoever_, by these writings. Also in token of thy
degradation and deposition, here actually we have _caused thy crowne
and ecclesiasticall tonsure in our presence to be rased away_, and
utterly to be abolished, like unto the form of a secular layman; and
here we do put upon the head of thee, the aforesaid William, the cap
of a lay secular person; beseeching the court aforesaid that they
will receive _favourably_ {613} the said William unto them thus
recommitted.

Having thus performed their part of this diabolical work, and delivered the prisoner into the hands of the civil magistrate, “the bishops, not yet contented, cease not, (says our historian) to call upon the king to cause him to be brought forth to speedy execution. Whereupon the king, ready enough, and too much, to gratifie the clergy, and to retaine their favours, directeth out a terrible decree against the said William Sawtre, and sent it to the maior and sheriffes of London to be put in execution.” This terrible decree, or royal warrant for the prisoner’s execution, was obtained, it seems, on the very day of his degradation, when the convocation passed their final sentence and gave him up to the civil power: so that there was here no time lost; and the closing scene, no doubt, soon ensued. The royal decree, or warrant was as follows:

“_The decree of our sovereigne Lord the King and his Councell in
parliament_, _against a certain new sprung up heretick_. _To the
maior and sherifs of London_, &c. Whereas the reverend father,
Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and legat of
the apostolike sea, by the assent, consent, and councill of other
bishops, and his brethren suffragans, and also of all the whole
clergy within his province or dioces, gathered together in his
provinciall councell, the due order of the law being observed in all
points in this behalfe, has pronounced and declared, by his
definitive sentence, William Sawtre sometime chaplaine, fallen again
into his most damnable heresie, the which before time the said
William had abjured, thereupon to be a most manifest heretick, and
therefore hath decreed that he should be degraded, and hath for the
same cause really degraded him from all prerogative and privilege of
the clergy, decreeing to leave him unto the secular power; and hath
really so left him, according to the laws and canonicall sanctions
set forth in his behalfe, and also that our holy mother the church
hath no further to do in the premisses: We therefore being zealous in
religion, {615a} and reverent lovers of the catholike faith, willing
and minding to maintaine and defend the holy church, and the lawes
and liberties of the same, to root all such errors and heresies out
of our kingdome of England, and with condigne punishment to correct
and punish all heretikes, or such as be convict; provided always that
both according to the law of God and man, and the canonicall
institutions in this behalfe accustomed, such heretikes convict and
condemned in forme aforesaid ought to be burned with fire: We command
you as straitly as we may, or can, firmely enjoyning you that you
cause the said William, being in your custody, in some publike or
open place within the liberties of your city aforesaid (the cause
aforesaid being published unto the people) to be put into the fire,
and there in the same fire really to be burned, to the great horrour
of his offence, and the manifest example of other christians. Fail
not in the execution hereof upon the perill that will fall
thereupon.” {615b}

This memorable warrant (dated 26th. of February) was, no doubt, speedily executed: perhaps the very day on which it was issued. The death which it orders or appoints for the alleged crime of heresy, or to which it devotes the reputed offender, is supposed to distinguish it from all other warrants that had ever been issued before by our English monarchs: at least, there is not known to have been here, previously to this reign, any law dooming adjudged heretics to the flames. Henry IV. therefore, stands preeminent among our sovereigns as a promoter of the burning of those whom the priests pronounced or denominated heretics. It is remarkable enough that the poor lollards found such an enemy in him, who, as well as his father, had long affected to be their great patron. But it was all, probably, nothing but policy: neither father nor son can be supposed ever to have been real lovers of either liberty or justice. Henry’s accession to the throne (to which he had no right) disclosed his true character; and he has been known ever since, as one of the worst of our princes. Arundel and his brethren helped him to obtain and usurp the crown, in hopes that he, in return, would help them in such affairs as this of Sawtre: nor were they disappointed. They favoured his baseness on that, and he favoured theirs, to the utmost extent of their wishes, on this and on all similar occasions.

The execution of Sawtre was the first fruit of the new law for burning heretics; and it was soon followed by an abundant harvest. The number of those who were burnt for their religion in England whilst this execrable law was in force, which was near 300 years, was enormously great. As Sawtre stands at the head of those memorable confessors, it was thought requisite to be somewhat particular and circumstantial in our account of him. The sons of freedom will venerate his memory, while they detest and execrate that of his crowned and mitred persecutors. Of our crowned demons none could well exceed _Henry IV._ and of our mitred ones scarce any ever did or could go beyond _Arundel and Spencer_. For Sawtre to fall into such hands must truly have been a most sad and pitiable case. It was like falling among thieves, or into a den of hungry lions.

It is pretty remarkable that the prisoner’s plan of reform, or intended application to parliament was not allowed to come at all under the discussion of the convocation; although they had pretended to take it under their serious consideration, instead of its going before parliament. But they knew better than to have done so, and took a much shorter and surer course to gain their point and effect the reformer’s ruin, by proceeding simply on a religious ground, and having him tried as a relapsed heretic. So well did they know their business, and how to avail themselves of all the advantages belonging to their exalted situation.—We shall now take our leave of them, and also of William Sawtre, whose memory we have here endeavoured to rescue from oblivion. His being so distinguished a character among the then inhabitants of Lynn, and, especially, his being the English porto-martyr, will, it is presumed, sufficiently justify and apologize for the unusual length of this article—and as it exhibits religious bigotry and intolerance in their native deformity and hatefulness, it may be of use to those individuals among us, of every denomination, who have not yet made any, or much progress in the christian virtues of forbearance, candour, and liberality.

3. ALAN, _Aleyne_, or _Allen of Lynn_, was, it seems a native of this town, and contemporary with Sawtre, but a younger man, and long his survivor, and so represented as flourishing about twenty years later. He was evidently of a very different cast from him, and never gave himself the least concern, as far as we know, about the politics of the time, or the _reform_ of civil or ecclesiastical abuses. Perfectly regardless of the oppressions of the rulers and the grievances of the people, he employed his time in poring over the huge volumes of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and writing indexes to them. We are told he made _indexes_ to no less than 33 of those authors, among which were Augustin, Anselm, and Aquinas. Such an employment, though of no real use or benefit to the community, procured him the honour of being classed among the eminent men, or literati of that age; and his name has been handed to posterity as one of the distinguished characters which Lynn has produced. His skill and industry in making those indexes might, no doubt, deserve commendation, but can hardly be said to entitle him to any degree of literary celebrity. He may be said therefore to have acquired more fame than was fairly his due. But so it has often happened: while the merits of some have been greatly underrated, those of others, on the contrary, have been magnified beyond all reason and justice. Alan received his education at Cambridge, where he obtained the degree of Doctor in Divinity. He was of the order of Carmelites, or White Friars, and therefore his residence here must have been at their great house, or convent in South Lynn. How long he resided there cannot now be said. We are told that he died about the year 1428, and was buried at Lynn. The place of his burial, no doubt, was the dormitory of his own convent, situated on that spot in South Lynn now called the _Friars_.

4. WILLIAM WALLYS. He was cotemporary with the last, and like him one of our Lynn friars, but of the augustinian order. He was not, like the former a mere reader, and maker of indexes, but a real author, and is said to have written many books; but their titles and contents are no longer remembered or known. They might be on interesting subjects, and those subjects might there be handled in a judicious and masterly manner; or they might not. However that was, and whatever they were, it seems they have long ago perished, like innumerable other works, no less valuable and worthy of preservation; and, perhaps, much more so. But his name, has been preserved, as one of the eminent Lynn men of former times. How long he resided here, we are not informed; but we are told that he died in 1421; and we may presume that he was buried in the convent or dormitory of the Austin friars, which stood behind the house now inhabited by Mr. Rishton. He must have been eminent in his day, especially among those of his fraternity, for we are told that he became _general_ of that order.

5. JOHN BARET, of _Barret_. He too was a friar, of the same order with Alan; that of the _Carmelites_. He was a native of this town, and educated at Cambridge, “when learning (as _Fuller_ says) ran low and degrees high in that University; so that a Scholar could scarcely be seen for Doctors; till the university, sensible of the mischief thereof, appointed Dr. Cranmer (afterwards abp. of Canterbury) to be the examiner of all candidates in Divinity. Amongst others, he stopt Baret, for his insufficiency, who then went back to Lynn, and applied himself to learning with such success, that in a short time he became an admirable scholar; and commencing doctor, with due applause, lived many years a painful preacher at Norwich; always making mention of Cranmer as the means of his happiness.” But we find that he had something of the Vicar of Bray about him; for it seems he was at first a papist; afterwards, in the latter part of Henry the eighth’s reign, and that of Edward, a protestant; again, in that of Mary, a zealous papist; and lastly, in that of Elizabeth, a staunch protestant. It seems, however, that he died soon after the commencement of the latter reign: and one would hope that he died in the true faith.—As to his veering or changing with the times, where is the impropriety of that? Ought not the ministers of a national or state religion to be submissive to, or directed by the state, from which they derive their creed, their revenue, their power, and their every thing?

The subjects of the foregoing biographical articles being all _ecclesiastics_, and all the ecclesiastics of any note that distinguished Lynn, as far as we know, during the long period of which we have been treating, it might be expected that we should in the next place give a list of the eminent _laymen_ that sprung up here in the course of the same period. But, alas! we look and search for them in vain: hardly can one be found whose name deserves to be recorded, or remembered by posterity. William de Bittering, John de Wentworth, Bartholomy Petipas, and Thomas Miller, four of our ancient aldermen, were perhaps the most memorable, or notable that can now be discovered. Of two of them somewhat has been said already, and a sort of promise was made to bring them again under review; but, upon second thought, they did not appear to deserve so much further notice as was then intended.—As to

6. WILLIAM DE BITTERING, we learn that he flourished in the reign of Edward III. and was chosen mayor of the town four or five different times; so that he must have been here, in his day, a person of no small note and influence. The first year of his mayoralty, it seems, was 1351. He was again chosen, and served the office the ensuing year; so that he was then mayor two years successively. He is said to have been again chosen in 1355, but begged to be excused, on the plea that it was wearisome to be so often in office, and, especially, that he was then under a vow, to go on pilgrimage to a certain saint: from which it would seem that he was, in his way, a very religious character. His resignation was accepted, and _John de Coultshall_, who had served the year before, was chosen again, and had 20_l_, given him by the commonalty to take upon him the office for that year. Bittering was again chosen and served the office in 1358, and again in 1365. The time of his death does not appear. He was buried in St. Nicholas’ chapel, where his grave is known by a flat stone of uncommon dimensions, being above ten feet long and above six broad, and is supposed to be the oldest sepulchral monument now existing in this town. (Mackerell, 134.)

7. 8. JOHN DE WENTWORTH and BARTHOLOMY PETIPAS. They are not here coupled or joined together because they were friends for no two men could well be further from that, but rather because they were foes, and the heads of two hostile factions, by which the town was kept in a state of constant distraction for a great length of time. It seems impossible now to ascertain the ground, or cause of that deadly animosity which those two factions, or these two men entertained against each other. Lollardism, we know, did then much agitate the kingdom, but we cannot say that it was the occasion of this discord at Lynn. Nor can we say that it was a mere political broil, or, contest between the partizans of the episcopal feudal prerogatives and their opponents, though this may seem more probable, as it appears from pages 365 and 559 of this volume, that Petipas was on good, and Wentworth on bad terms with the bishop. However this was, it is pretty evident that these two were mighty men and men of renown here in those days.

9. THOMAS MILLER, or _Milner_. He was the leading man among our ancestors in the reign of Henry VIII. being _governor_ of the town, and mayor also one time for four successive years; and he served that office afterwards twice, if not more; so that he was mayor of Lynn six or seven times, which is not known to have been the case with any other. But what made him the most memorable was his successful contest, or law-suit with the bishop, during the former part of his mayoralty, about their respective claims to have the _Sword_ carried before them. This legal decision established the mayor’s independence upon the bishop.

Having now paid our tribute of respect to the memory of our eminent men of those times, we shall here close this chapter, which brings us down to the era of the reformation.

* * * * *

_End of Part_ III.

SUPPLEMENT TO THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL TOUCH.

See page 326.

Since the section on the royal touch has been printed off, a paper has appeared in the _Monthly Magazine_, under the signature of _I. Bannantine_, which casts some further light upon that subject. As it is presumed it will not be unacceptable to the reader, we take the liberty of inserting here the substance of it.—

“It does not appear (says that writer) that any of the House of
Brunswick have asserted this royal function; at least, it has not
been publicly announced, as was formerly the practice: but were his
present majesty to resume it, such faith is yet put in the assertion
of a king, that all the courtiers and the great body of the ignorant
multitude would not hesitate to believe its infallibility. The last
sovereign who appears to have exercised this miraculous gift was
queen _Anne_. In the royal gazette of Mar. 12. 1712. appears the
following public notice: “It being her Majesiy’s royal intention to
touch publicly for the Evil the 17th. of this instant March, and so
to continue for sometime, it is her Majesty’s Command, that tickets
be delivered the day before at Whitehall, and that all persons bring
a certificate, signed by the minister and church-wardens of their
respective parishes, that they _never received the royal touch_.”

He further adds, that _Wiseman_, Sergeant Surgeon to Chas. 2nd, in a treatise on the Evil, speaks of the _royal touch_ in the following terms:

“I have myself been frequent eye witness of many hundreds of cures
performed by his majesty’s touch alone, without the assistance of
chirurgery, and those many of them such as had tired out the
endeavours of able chirurgeons before they came thither. It were
endless to relate what I myself have seen, and what I have received
acknowledgement of by Letters, not only from the several parts of the
nation, but also from Ireland, Scotland, Jersey, and Germany.”

It was the office of Wiseman, as Sergeant Surgeon, to select such afflicted objects as were proper to be presented for the royal touch.—Is it possible (I. Bunnantine here exclaims) to desire a more satisfactory testimony of these miraculous cures, than that of a man of science and respectability, under whose immediate inspection they were performed, and who had “himself been a frequent eye-witness of many hundreds of cures performed by his majesty’s touch alone!”—The late judge Barrington (he further observes) relates what he heard from an old man, a witness in a cause, with regard to this miraculous power of healing.

“He had by his evidence fixed the time of a fact, by queen Anne’s
having been at Oxford, and touched him, whilst a child, for the Evil.
When he had finished his evidence, I had an opportunity of asking
him, whether he really was cured? Upon which he observed, with a
significant smile, that he believed himself never to have had a
complaint that deserved to be considered as the Evil; but that his
parents were poor, and _had no objection to the bit of Gold_.”

It seems to me (adds the judge) this piece of Gold, that was given to those who were touched, accounts for the great resort on this occasion, and the supposed afterwards miraculous cures.—_Gimelli_, the famous traveller, gives an account of 1600 persons offering themselves to be cured of the Evil by Lewis xiv. on Easter Sunday, 1686. Gimelli himself was present at the ceremony: every Frenchman received 15 Souce, and every foreigner 30. This power of healing assumed by the kings of France occasioned great resort to Francis I. while prisoner at Madrid, by the Spaniards, who had not such faith in their own king’s touch. It appears by a proclamation of Jas. I. Mar. 25, 1617, that the kings of England would not permit any resort to them for these miraculous cures in the summer-time. By another proclamation of June 18, 1626 it is ordered that no one shall apply for this purpose, who does not bring a proper certificate, that he has never been touched before: the same, it has been already seen, were the terms on which _queen Anne_ granted her royal touch.—In a prayer-book printed in 1703, is a form of the Church-service for the occasion of the royal touch. After the Lord’s Prayer it is stated, “Then shall the infirm persons, one by one, be presented to the queen; while the queen is laying her hands upon them and is putting the Gold about their necks, the chaplain that officiates turning himself to her majesty shall say these words following: “God give a blessing to this work and grant that these sick persons on whom the queen lays her bands may recover through Jesus Christ our Lord!”—After some other prayers, the chaplain, standing with his face towards those come to be healed, shall say: “The Almighty God, who is a most strong tower to all them that put their trust in him, to whom all things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, do bow and obey, be evermore your defence; and make you know and feel that there is no other name under heaven given to man, and through whom you may receives health and salvation, but only in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Amen!”—Mo. Mag. Mar. 1810.

* * * * *

_END OF VOLUME 1_.

ERRATA. {626}

Page 2, line 3, for _mumerous_ read _numerous_.—p. 9, l. 19, for _its_ r. _their_.—p 19. last line but two, dele comma after _least_.—p. 31, l. 3. for _drgree_ r. _degree_—p. 32, for _Section_ II, r. _Section_ I.—p. 79, l. 13, for _seperated_ r. _separated_—p. 83, l. 9, for _decerned_ r. _discerned_—p. 85, l. 1, for _sagacions_ r. _sagacious_—p. 106, l. 5, for _cansideration_ r. consideration—p. 107. l. 28, and 29, for acdingly r. _accordingly_—p. 134, Note, 1. 3, before _side_ r. _east_—p. 148, l. 14, for _numbers_ r. _members_—p. 192, l. 3, for _compositions_ r. _composition_—p. 96, last line for _heterdoxy_ r. _heterodoxy_—p. 200, l. 17, for _vareigata_ r. _variegata_—p. 210. l. 9, after Britain _a period_ instead of a _comma_—p. 222, l. 4, delete _s_ in _collections_—p. 237, l. 10, for _supremary_ r. _supremacy_—p. 312, last line but one, for _way_ r. _may_—p. 317, l. 14, for _loose_ r. _lose_—Same p. l. 18, for _miricles_ r. _miracles_—p. 325, l. 7, for _Susanna_ r. _Joanna_—p. 347 l. 11, after _Silthestow_ a _comma_—and the next line, for _sincc_ r. _since_—p. 353, l. 3, for _Fountian_ r. _Fountain_—p. 374. l. 3, for _pregressive_ r. _progressive_—p. 395, l. 6, from the bottom, after _some_ r. _of_—p. 400, l. 2, and 14, for _arbitary_ r. _arbitrary_—p. 402, l. 26, for _directiom_ r. _direction_—p. 403, l. 2, for _appelation_ r. _appellation_—p. 507. l. 3, for _now_ r. _new_—p. 511, note, dele _them_ in l. 16—same page l. 35 of the note, for _they were_ r. _it was_—p. 515, l. 12. for _da_ r. _de_—p. 517, l. 3, from bottom, for 1526, r. 1256—p. 592, note l. 3., _member of_. r. _members and_.

* * * * *

_Whittingham_, _Printer_, _Lynn_.

FOOTNOTES.

{1} The exact situation of Lynn, as to its Latitude and Longitude, has been ascertained with the utmost accuracy by Mr. Walker. He informs the author, that the Latitude of St. Nicholas’ Chapel, in this town, deduced from observations with a mural circle made by Mr. Troughton, is 52d. 45m. 25s to North; and its Longitude, by Chronometers, 1m. 35s. in time, East of Greenwich.

{2} The original, or British name may pretty safely be concluded to have been _Wysg_, or _Gwysg_.

{7} Except, perhaps, about Castlacre.

{8} Something of the same kind is related of the rivers Thames and Medway in the reign of Henry I. See Stow, 138.

{9} His last years were spent at East Dereham in Norfolk, where he finished his course in 1800. In the north transept of that parish church, where his remains have been deposited, is a neat monument of white marble, with the following inscription:—

In Memory of

WILLIAM COWPER, ESQUIRE,

Born in Hertfordshire, 1732:
Buried in this Church, 1800.

Ye who with warmth the public triumph feel
Of talents dignified by sacred zeal,
Here, to Devotion’s Bard devoutly just,
Pay your fond Tribute due to COWPER’s dust.
England, exulting in his spotless fame,
Ranks with her dearest sons’ his fav’rite name.
Sense, fancy, wit, suffice not all to raise
So clear a title to affection’s praise:
His highest honours to the heart belong:
His virtues form’d the magic of his Song.

{10} The _Cam_ and the _Larke_ also passed then along with the Ouse by Wisbeach.

{11} See _Vancouver’s_ Map, and his _Appendix_, p. 10, where the original track or course of these rivers appears to have been divided by a kind of ridge or higher ground from that of the lesser Ouse and Wessey or the river of Stoke, (sometimes also called Winson and Storke) which together with the Lenne or Nare seem to have been the only original Lynn rivers.

{12} The haven and river of Wisbeach while the Ouse passed that way went by the name _Wellstream_ and the _Water of Well_, while those of Lynn went by the name of _Wigenhale Ea_, and the _Water of Wiggenhale_. Vide MS. late Mr. Partridge’s.

{16a} Hist. Embank. chap. 37.

{16b} By an arm of the sea he meant, probably, something similar to what Lynn Haven is now.

{16c} A Commission is said to have been issued 21 Edward I. for sending the _Waters of Well_ by Wisbeach, their ancient outfall; which further corroborates the idea that _Wellstream_ or _Waters of Well_, was formerly a name of the Ouse about Wisbeach.

{18} Elstobb speaks of several efforts having been made to turn the Nene down to its ancient outfall at Wisbeach; and particularly that—

“about the year 1490 John Morton, bishop of Ely, and Lord Chancellor
of England, [afterward Archbishop of Canterbury and a Roman Cardinal]
for the better obtaining that end, and for the more effectual
recovery of the outfall at Wisbeach, cut a new river, or drain 14
miles in length, 14 feet wide, and about 4 feet deep, beginning at
the high grounds, within a mile of Peterborough, and continuing it
down to Guyhorn, an hamlet in Wisbeach parish; and setting down a
sluice across the old river Nene at Standground, turned the waters of
that river down this new cut. This (he adds) with some other works,
said to have been done by him, did for a time make some improvement
in the fens about Wisbeach, so as to make them good sheep pasture,
&c. But this (he further adds) continued not long, being cut too
shallow, and not sufficiently embanked, or kept clear and free from
impediments and obstructions.”

Elstobb’s Observations, p. 25, 26.

{19} Bishop Morton was in his time one of the most distinguished characters in this country. He was a person of deep penetration, singular address, and sound judgment; and possessed, in the highest degree, those rare talents that constitute the profound politician and consummate statesman. He was a warm and determined partisan of the House of Lancaster. Richard III. rightly considering him as too dangerous a person to be left at liberty, took care betimes to have him secured. He was accordingly imprisoned in the castle of _Bracknock_, where he was committed to the custody of the Duke of Buckingham, then the said king’s most powerful and confidential adherent. Somehow he managed to seduce the Duke from his allegiance to Richard, and engage in his scheme in favour of the Earl of Richmond. The Duke’s ruin soon followed; but Morton escaped to the continent, where he afterward joined Richmond, and with him returned to England. After his victory at Bosworth, and elevation to the throne, Morton became his most confidential servant and counsellor. He was preferred to be Lord High Chancellor of England, archbishop of Canterbury, and at last, a Cardinal. He may be presumed to have been an adviser and promoter of the most important measures of that reign; of which the depression of the nobles, and elevation of the commons, were not the least memorable or salutary. He died, before Empson and Dudley came into employ; so that he had no share in their malpractices.

{21a} Kinderley’s Ancient and Present State, 2nd Edit. p. 68.

{21b} Kinderley, p. 77.

{22} Badeslade p. 98.—Here it ought not to be forgotten that the said large accession of fresh waters to the Lynn river, while it widened and deepened the harbour, seems to have proved eventually fatal to a great part of West or Old Lynn, which (including one of its churches and church yard) was in time swallowed up by the waters. This, it must be allowed, was a disastrous event. It is, however, an ill wind (as the proverb says) that blows nobody good: though the church is gone, the income remains, which the incumbent still duly receives, for nothing; for it is a sinecure, and not a very poor one.

{24a} The Nene, of late years, has been gradually choking up, till it is at length become, it seems, a mere shallow ditch, filled with mud, and hardly navigable at any time. Its navigation is become, of course, inconsiderable and unproductive; to the no small loss and injury of those unfortunate people, who, in an evil hour, had entrusted their property in that ill fated concern. Most inexcusable mismanagement is said to have occasioned this; and much of the blame has been confidently, if not truly imputed to the abominable inattention and neglect of certain Lynn Merchants.

{24b} In p. 4.

{26a} Badeslade p. 12.

{26b} In 1645, five or six years before Denver Sluice was erected, Lynn Haven was in a very good condition. It had two channels, one called the _East_, the other the _West Channel_, in which the biggest ships, drawing 13 or 14 feet water, sailed up and down on the neap as on the spring tides. One John Attleson, aged 80, deposed that for 60 years and upwards, he had known the river Ouse, and all the rivers falling into the same; and that before the erection of the sluices near Salter’s Lode, all the rivers were free and open, and received such quantities of water by the flood from sea, that large barges with from 26 to 30 chalders did constantly pass with great ease up to Cambridge town.—See Budeslade: also Elstobb’s Observations, p. 23, 24.

{30a} Armstrong, it seems, ascribed the silting of Lynn Haven, and of the river above, to the hundredfoot drain.—See Kinderley p. 29.

{30b} Hence we hear of manufacturers of Bays, Dyers, Dyehouses, Falling-mills, Button-makers, and worsted-weavers at Lynn, with some thousands employed in knitting stockings, &c.—In behalf of the latter, a petition against the worsted-weavers was presented to parliament in 1689.—See Town Book, No. 10.—Mackerell, about 70 years ago, makes the population of Lynn to amount to upwards of 20,000—if his estimate was right, even within 5 or 6,000, (and he published it under the auspices of the Corporation) the town must have been far more populous than it is at present. See Mackerell, p. 93.—From the great, and increasing number of empty houses now in the town, it may be concluded, that its population is at this time decreasing. The rapid decay of trade, the prospect of an endless war, and the daily increase of the public burdens, are doubtless among the causes of this depopulation. Neither the _paving_, nor yet the _new poor’s rate laws_, are likely to realize the vast benefits promised or held out by the promoters of them, and fondly expected by many of the inhabitants. On the contrary, those very Acts are said to be severely felt by a large portion of the householders, many of whom, it seems, have already broken up housekeeping, and many more are expected to take the same course. Upon the whole, it does not seem to appear, either from the Registers of Births and Burials, or from any other known circumstances or sources of information, that the population of Lynn, within the last twenty or thirty years (as generally supposed) has exceeded that of former periods. This subject, however, shall be reserved for future consideration.

{35a} They are still called, _The Roman Banks_.

{35b} See Badeslade, p. 15.

{36} See Carte’s History of England, vol. 1, p. 115, 119, 122.

{49} Philosophical Transactions, No. 481—also Beauties of England, volume XI, p. 94.

{53a} Vita Agricola.

{53b} Compare Dugdale’s maps of this tract in its morassy and improved states p. 375, 416.

{54} History of Embanking.

{60} No, surely, not sufficient proofs that the surface was lower; but rather, or only, that the country was once dry and woody, and long remained so: for upon the reasonable supposition of an _Earthquake_, as was before repeatedly suggested, the probability would be, that the surface was anciently as high at least, if not higher than at present, but was considerably lowered by that convulsive event, which would make way for the violent bursting in of the sea.

{66} Of this undertaking _Elstobb_ gives the following account—

“That it was entered into by the Earl, at the earnest request and
importunities of the country in general, who at a numerous sessions
of sewers held at Lynn, January 13, 1630, became humble suitors to
him to undertake the business, which he condescended to comply with,
and accordingly contracted with the commissioners and the country,
and engaged that he would use his best endeavours to _drain_ the said
_marsh_, _fenny_, _waste_ and surrounded _grounds_, in such a manner
as that they should be fit for _meadow_, _pasture_, or _arable_; and
the work to be completed within the compass of _six years_. To the
end the Earl might the more confidently undertake and effect the said
work, and be assured of enjoying the 95,000 acres, as the fruit and
recompence of his labours and charge; and that the country might be
more assured of obtaining a benefit proportionable to the very great
quantity of land they were to part with, it was agreed that 12,000
acres, part of the 95,000, should be presented to the king, in lieu
of all and every benefit he might claim by a certain law of sewers,
made in the 19th year of king _James_, or by any other law or decree
of sewers, and for his royal _approbation_ and _confirmation_ of the
contract, &c.”—Having described the work in its commencement and
progress, he adds, that having expended about £100,000 these lands
were so benefited that, in about seven years time, from the first
undertaking, viz. in 1637, at a session of sewers held at
Peterborough, October 12, the Level was adjudged to be drained, and
the 95,000 acres were, by six or more commissioners set out for the
Earl, his heirs and assigns.—But it being soon after discovered that
these lands, though benefited, were not perfectly recovered, but in
winter were still subject to inundations, the very next year, 1638,
at a sessions of sewers held at Huntingdon, April 12, the Earl’s
undertaking was adjudged _defective_. The _King_ then taking the
business into his princely consideration, and understanding by an
estimate made by Sir C. Vermuiden, that if this Level of near 400,000
acres were made _winter-lands_, it would be of extraordinary
advantage, viz. of about £600,000 to the common wealth, his Majesty
determined to become himself the undertaker; and accordingly on July
18, the same year, he was actually declared undertaker; and was to
have, not only those 95,000 acres, which had been set out for the
Earl of Bedford, but also 57,000 acres more, from the country, it
being his Majesty’s design to make the land good _winter-ground_.
The Earl, in consideration of the costs he had been at, was to have
40,000 acres out of the 95,000 before granted him.—The King to
manifest his real and earnest purpose of speedily effecting the
business, caused the following works to be done: a bank on the south
side of Morton’s Leam, and another begun on the north side: a
navigable sass at Standground: a new river cut between the stone
sluice, at the Horse-Shoe, and the sea below Wisbeach, sixty feet
broad, and two miles long, with banks on both sides: also a sluice in
the marshes below Tydd, upon the outfall of the _Shire Drain_. But
the King being embroiled in a civil war, the Level lay neglected; and
the country complaining that they had received no benefit by the
draining, they entered upon the 93,000 acres again, which had been
taken from them.”

Elstobb’s Observations, p. 9 to 12.

{69} _Estobb_, speaking of the above act, says, that the Governor, Bailiffs, and Conservators were made _Commissioners of Seven_, for preservation of the Level, by convenient outfalls to the sea; and they or any five of them, whereof the governor or any of the bailiffs be two, to act as commissioners of sewers within the said great level, and of the works made, or to be made without the said level for conveying the waters by convenient outfalls to the sea. No other commissioners to meddle. A governor or bailiff to have 400 acres out of the said 95,000; the conservater 200; and the commonalty electors 100 acres, to enable them to vote. Elstobb’s Observations, p. 14.

{70} See Beauties of England, vol. 2.

{71} This fund was at first usefully applied, and the channel and navigation of the Nene considerably improved. The interest of the money borrowed on the occasion, was also for some years regularly and punctually paid; so that the river Nene securities, as they were called, were generally reckoned very good. Of late years, however, the state of things has greatly altered for the worse: the river has been neglected, and suffered to be filled up with silt and mud; the navigation impeded; the interest of the money borrowed between fifteen and twenty years in arrears, and the creditors gravely told, that there is no money in hand for them. Their case therefore seems to be without remedy and without hope; there being, it is to be feared, no prospect of another chance to restore or improve the said river. What is become of the said fund?

{73a} See Agricultural Survey of Cambridgeshire.

{73b} Beauties of England, 2, 18.

{74} See Beauties of England, 2, 18, 19.

{79a} In consequence of the late improvements of the Smeeth and adjacent parts, the reeds are said to have become much more scarce than they used to be.

{79b} The small feathers are plucked five times a year, (about Lady day, Midsummer, Lammas, Michaelmas, and Martinmas,) and the larger feathers and quills twice. Goslings are not spared; for it is thought that early plucking tends to increase their succeeding feathers. Some proprietors are said to have had a stock of a thousand, and even fifteen hundred, or more, beside the young ones.

{80a} It has been said, indeed, that mere plucking hurts the fowl but little, as the owners are careful not to pull until the feathers are _ripe_; that is, until they are just ready to fall; because if forced from the skin before, which is known by blood appearing at the roots, they are of very inferior value. Those plucked after the geese are dead, are also said not to be so good—see Beauties of England, vol. IX. p. 553.

{80b} Gough’s Camden.—Also Beauties of England.

{81} “All this tract (of Marshland) and adjoining fens being little higher than the level of the sea, or that of the rivers that pass through the country, was once so exposed to inundations from floods and high tides, that till dikes and drains were made, it was all one large morass; and even now, after so much labour and expence, the country is still liable to be overflowed by extraordinary high tides or floods, or other casual events. By the evaporation of this water, and especially by that of the water of the numerous ditches, in which various plants and insects die and rot, the atmosphere during the latter part of summer and autumn is filled with moisture, and with putrid and insalutary vapours.—Another cause of the insalubrity of the atmosphere is an _imperfect ventilation_. As there are no hills here to direct the winds in streams upon the lower grounds, the air is apt to stagnate and become unwholesome. An additional cause of the unhealthiness of this flat and marshy country, may be the impurity of the water in common use; for this being either collected from rains, and preserved in cisterns, or drawn from shallow wells, is, in hot and dry-seasons soon corrupted. This being the case, the general tendency to putrefaction must be increased by the use of such water, as well as by the meats, which in a close, hot, and moist air, are quickly tainted. Several circumstances therefore in this country concur in summer, not only to relax the solids, but to dispose the humours to putrefaction; and as the combination of heat and impure moisture is the great cause of the speedy corruption of animal substances, so it is observed in every place to produce remitting and intermitting fever.”—See Pringle’s Observations on Diseases of the army, pp. 2, 3, 4.

{91} Brief view of the Sufferings and living Testimonies of the Martyrs, p. 392.

{93} Milner’s Letters to a Prebendary, No. 4.

{94a} Challoner’s memoirs of missionary Priests, I. 392, 436.