Chapter XXXIX: Section I

_Brief account of the Churches and Chapels_.

In an account of the churches of Lynn, the first place, no doubt, is due to that of ST. MARGARET, which was founded about the close of the 11_th_, or commencement of the 12_th_ century, by Herbert de Lozinga bishop of Norwich; memorable for his simoniacal offences, and subsequent architectural expiations. Among the latter were the _cathedral_ and episcopal _palace_ at Norwich, the great church of _St. Nicholas_ at Yarmouth, and this of St. _Margaret_ at Lynn. The latter according to a certain ancient deed or register was built by him _at the request of the men of the town of Lynn_. But if that was the case, it seems their contributions proved by no means adequate to the magnitude or exigences of the undertaking; for the work it seems went but slowly and heavily on, till he had recourse to that notable and wonderful expedient of offering forty days pardon, or an indulgence for that time in all manner of licentious or vicious courses, to all who would contribute towards the completion of the sacred edifice. The work then went on prosperously, was soon finished in a magnificent style, and the indulgence effected what an appeal to the most pious considerations would probably have failed to accomplish.

[Picture: St. Margaret’s church, King’s Lynn]

Herbert dedicated this edifice to _St. Margaret the virgin_, {1088} or, as some say, to saint _Mary Magdalen_, St. Margaret and all the virgin saints; which probably made Mr. Britton in the Beauties of England call it St. _Mary’s church_, a name which does not appear to have been given to it by any body else. This church has been so often re-edified and repaired since its first erection, that but a small part of it, as it now stands, is supposed to be as old as the days of Lozinga. If there be any, it seems to be towards the west, or south-west end, where the style of architecture appears to bespeak much higher antiquity than any other part, according to the opinion of the best judges.

The church in its original state is supposed to have been of greater dimensions, as well as more magnificent, than it is at present; and it was certainly the case in later ages, and until the last century, when the spire fell on the body of the church and demolished a great part of it. This happened in 1741. Soon after the eastern tower lanthorn was taken down, from a fear (groundless it seems) that it might also fall, as the spire had done, and occasion irreparable damage. It was therefore done to preserve the eastern part of the church. The West end being demolished by the fall of the spire, an act of Parliament was procured for re-building the body of the church. The king, it is said, contributed a thousand pounds, and lord Orford 500_l._ towards the work; and it was completed in 1747. {1089} It is much smaller than the former, but is still one of the largest and handsomest parish churches in the kingdom:—it also abounds with the tombs of our principal townsmen of other times; (and so do the other churches of St. Nicholas and All-saints,) with endless monumental inscriptions, which those who are fond of such compositions may find at large in _Mackerell’s_ volume, which contains little else. But they would take up too much room in this work. This church had formerly at least three chapels attached to it, or comprehended in it: one dedicated to the _Trinity_, one to _St. John_, and one if we are not mistaken, to _St. Stephen_; only one or two of which now remain. That of the _Trinity_ was taken down very lately, in the progress of our paving-act improvements: and long before that the whole north side of the church-yard was laid open and made a part of the street, or market place. A new burying-ground, however, of a much larger extent, has been since laid out adjoining to St. James’s Church-yard, on which a neat small chapel has been erected, merely for the purpose of reading the burial service. Had the friends of the establishment contrived to build it on a larger scale, in order to have divine service there on Sunday evenings, it might have answered a very good purpose; and such a place would have been much filter for delivering evening lectures than either of the two great churches, both of which were originally constructed for very different purposes, it is to this omission of having evening lectures in the churches, that the methodists and other dissenters owe their crowded audiences, and not to the greater purity of their creeds, or the superior abilities and respectability of their ministers.

[Picture: N. W. view of Chapel & Burial Ground]

2. ST. NICHOLAS’S CHAPEL. Both _Mackerell_ and _Parkin_ have employed their pens in describing this respectable fabrick. But a much better account of it, and the best, no doubt, that has ever yet been given, came from the pen of the _revd. Edward Edwards_, one of the present ministers of the town, and has appeared in the 7th. number of the 3rd. volume of _Britton’s Architectural Antiquities_. From that and other accounts we learn, that this chapel, was built in the latter part of the 14th century on the site of another erected about two centuries before, and of much smaller dimensions. Mackerell seemed much puzzled to determine to what Nicholas this sacred building had been dedicated, whether _the proselyte of Antioch_, mentioned in the book of Acts, or _the bishop of Myra_ of the same name, who so stoutly opposed the Arians at the Council of Nice. After all, it seems not very likely that it was either of them, but a namesake of theirs, of a much more modern date. {1093} This, however, is a question in which few of the readers of this work will feel themselves much interested.

This elegant edifice is supposed to be the largest parochial chapel in the kingdom.

[Picture: St. Nicholas Chapel]

“It measures (says Mr. Edwards) 194 feet in length from East to West,
within the walls, and about 74 feet in breadth; having no transept or
distinct choir. The interior consists of a lofty nave, with two
lateral ailes. The latter are divided from the former by eleven
arches on the north side, and ten on the south:—the space of one arch
at the S.W. angle being occupied by the base of the tower. The place
of another arch, at the east end, is taken up by a vestry on the
south side, and a similar apartment, over the vault of Sir Benjamin
Keene, towards the north, leaving a kind of recess between, of the
whole width of the nave, for the communion table. The distinguishing
characters of this structure, as seen within, are lightness,
simplicity, and perfect uniformity of style; the _tower_ alone being
of an earlier date than the rest of the fabric. The pillars are
slender, having the horizontal section of the shaft nearly in the
form of a truncated lozenge, relieved by shallow flutings, and raised
about four feet from the ground upon corresponding bases. They have
no capitals, but small brackets which support the inner ribs of the
Arches. Opposite the arches, in the side ailes, are an equal number
of windows: between the windows are niches and canopies. The east
and west windows are very large, with a pleasing mixture of curved
and rectilinear tracery, and embattled ornaments upon the transoms.
The former is divided into nine days, or lights, by eight vertical
mullions, and the latter has eleven-days, or vertical compartments of
glass. More ornament has been bestowed upon the _doors_ than on any
other part of the building. The western door-way in particular, is
divided by a mullion which supports an elegant niche, and is adorned
with other sculpture in stone. The small south door-way is in the
same style, as is also the larger door-way towards the north. The
front of the _South Porch_ is still more elaborate, being covered
with a variety of minute decorations. The roof of it is handsomely
groined with stone. At the intersection of the ribs are some heads
and figures in bold relief, but much obscured with whitening: in the
centre is a figure of the Almighty Father with a globe in one hand,
and the other lifted up as in the act of blessing those who approach
his temple. {1095} In the circle surrounding this compartment appear
to be angels in the act of adoration; and at a little distance
towards the windows, are two crowned heads of a male and female,
which might be intended for Edward III and his queen Philippa. The
inner roof of the chapel is of oak, in a plain and simple style, yet
with a sufficiency of ornament to harmonize with the rest of the
building. The beams and cornices and relieved with carvings of the
strawberry leaf, which was so great a favourite with our ancestors;
and overall the upper windows there were originally figures of angels
with outspread wings, represented as playing on various musical
instruments.”

The original chapel, built by bishop Turbus, or de Turbe, about the time of king Stephen, (the middle or latter part of the 12th century,) having proved too small for the accommodation of the inhabitants, it is understood to have been taken down and rebuilt upon its present scale, in the latter part of Edward the 3rd’s reign, and of the 14th century: “For the pope’s bull to that effect is stated by Parkin (p. 595) to have been granted to the mayoralty of Jeffrey Tall, or Talbooth, who served that office in 1371 and 1379. And it is recorded that in the latter year, pope Urban VI sent his bull hither, which was received with great veneration, to authorise and allow the baptizing of infants and others in this chapel.” This is supported by the authority of Parkin and Mackerell, and corroborated by the gravestone and history of William de Bittering. Moreover “the figures of a lion and an eagle upon the summit of the South porch, are thought to be the armorial supporters of Edward III: and there was very lately in the centre of the west window, a figure greatly resembling the usual portraits of that monarch, with three crowns upon his sceptre. The ornaments which surmount the two canopied niches in the buttresses on each side of the western door, also appear very like the crest of the same king, as it is represented in his first gold coin, the quarter florin.”—[see Folkes’ Tables p. 121.]—Repeated efforts were made to render both the original chapel and the present one independent of the mother church; but those attempts were always opposed and frustrated by the bishop. But it really seemed sometimes to be considered as independent by the inhabitants; and the _parish of St. Nicholas_ occurs in old records as distinct from that of St. Margaret: and in the reign of Philip and Mary the extent of each parish, and the limits or boundary that divided them appear to have been accurately marked out. Afterwards, however, the managers of St. Nicholas’ parish were found to encroach on their neighbours of St. Margaret; which produced a dispute between them that occasioned the interference of the Hall to put a stop to it, by declaring afresh the proper bounds of each parish. This happened in 1585, as appears from a passage in an old record, now in the hands of this writer, mostly extracted, as he thinks, from the Hall-Books of those times. {1097} About fourteen years after, as we learn from the same document the corporation’s title to St. Nicholas’ _church yard_ was seriously disputed, but it is not said by whom. {1098} The last effort to establish the independency of this church and parish was in 1609, but it was then crushed by the consistory court at Norwich, and set for ever at rest. At present the two ministers serve this church and that of St. Margaret alternately; and it would be no very easy matter, perhaps, to find any two churches that are better served. At the general dissolution of the monasteries, the impropriation of these churches was purchased by the corporation; but it seems that the provision they made for the ministers was more ample formerly than it has been latterly.

3. ALL-HALLOWS, otherwise ALL-SAINTS, or _South Lynn Church_. _Mackerell_, from its nearness to the site of their convent, infers that “that this church did formerly belong to the _Carmelites_ or White Friars”—he might as well have inferred that St. James’s formerly belonged to the Grey Friars, and St. Nicholas’s to the Augustinians, as they stand equally near to the sites of their convents. He also informs us that it has been used for a parish church, ever since the abolition of the Carmelite convent; as if South Lynn, (or _Suthsoken_ as it was anciently called) had been without a parish church till the reign of Henry the 8th; than which there cannot be a more groundless supposition. Of its _former state_, in other respects, his account is more correct: “This fabrick (says he,) though it cannot be said to be large, yet it is a neat, regular, and solid structure, built in the form of a cross, within a fair cemetery, or church-yard, well walled and fenced in. The steeple is square and flat, with proper battlements round it. In the middle is a streight pinnacle, upon which is placed a weather-cock, and has five tuneable bells. Here are two convenient porticos, one on the south side, and the other at the west end. The dimensions of the whole here follow—From east to west within, 139 feet; from north to south, 48 feet; length of the cross isle, 83 feet; height of the steeple, 83 feet; height of the spire, 31 feet. The body consists of three alleys, and in a cross isle besides the quire are very many grave-stones for _monks_, and others, [of the different orders of friars] who came thither about the reign of Henry III, and here settled, building themselves convents in different parts of the town” [as divers protestant sects have also done in more recent times.]—Of this Edifice, in its more modern state _Parkin_ says; “This church is dedicated to _All Saints_: it is a regular pile built in form of a cross, with 3 isles and a chancel, covered with lead; the whole being about 140 feet long; breadth 48 feet; cross isle 83 feet long. At the west end was a strong tower—and 5 tuneable bells. The tower fell down in 1763, and part of the end of the church, which is now repaired with a strong brick wall; on the top of which is a kind of cupola of wood, &c. in which hangs one small bell.—At the dissolution this impropriate rectory being in the crown, was assigned to the Lady Mary (afterward queen Mary) and was valued 11_l._ 0_s._ 9_d._—[a very small sum compared with its present value, or annual product.] In the 20th. of James I. it was possessed by Sir John Jolleys,” [and at present by Sir Martin Browne Folkes bart.] The _vicarage_ is in the gift of the bishop of Ely; but is a very poor one, and said to be worth very little if any thing more now than it was 150 years ago.

[Picture: All Saints Church of South Lynn, published April 1810, by W.
Whittingham, Lynn]

4. OLD LYNN, or _West Lynn_ Church; otherwise _West Lynn St. Peters_. This edifice, as its last name implies, is dedicated to _St. Peter_; meaning, as we presume, the apostle so called. It stands on the western bank of the Ouse, nearly opposite to St. Margaret’s. It is not the original church of old Lynn; nor does it stand on the same spot: that stood to the east of it, and within the present bed of the river. It is said to have been destroyed, together with the church-yard, about the 56th. of Henry III, or 1271, by an _inundation of the sea_; or rather, perhaps, by the vast _increase of fresh water_ in this harbour, from the addition of the Grant, the Ouse, and the Nene, about that time, to those other rivers which before had their passage to the sea by this town. The present church, it seems, was erected very soon after, on a piece of ground which the rector, William Pakenham, had procured for that purpose; who, to avoid all disputes, allowed the former patron, the prior of Lewes, the soil or ground, and the right of patronage. To this new church was afterwards added a _chapel_ dedicated to _our Lady_, in which was _her image_: also a chauntry, endowed with much land and divers tenements; all which was seized by the crown at the dissolution, and granted afterwards to the L’estranges of Hunstanton. This church is a rectory:—it is covered (says Parkin) with lead, and the chancel with reed; and he adds, “it has a square tower with 3 bells.” So much for this consecrated fabric.

5. NORTH LYNN _church_, or, (as we may call it) _Lynn St. Edmund’s_, from its being dedicated to a royal saint of that name. Of this sacred structure not a vestige now remains. We have been able to discover neither the time when it was built, nor yet when it disappeared. But it was probably built soon after the death, or canonization of _king Edmund_, called the _martyr_, to whom it was dedicated. It seems to have stood many ages; for it was standing in the latter part of the reign of Henry VII; and it probably stood a good while after that; even to the time of the reformation or later. It appears from Parkin’s account, that it was standing at the beginning of the 16th century; for John Byrd, the then rector, and who calls himself _parson of_ OLD LYNN, (which, by the bye, seems to imply that the name of _old Lyn_ was then applied to both parishes,) by his will dated 1505, wills to be buried in the chancel of this church. This proves that it was then standing, and that there was no apprehension entertained of its being in any great danger of falling, or of being swallowed up by the waters. Yet it certainly underwent that catastrophe sometime after though perhaps not very soon: so that both church and church-yard were completely swept away. It is supposed they stood in the present bed of the river, somewhere nearly opposite to the fort, or the block-house. Since that period the North-Lynn rectory has been a _sine cure_. Repeated attempts, if are not mistaken, have been made since (though in vain) to have this benefice bestowed on the corporation, for the better maintenance of the ministers of the town. One of those attempts was made in the reign of Charles I, as is evinced by the following extract from the Hall-books—“1647, _Dec._ 17. _Ordered a Letter to Mr. Alderman Toll and Mr. Recorder_, _to acquaint them with the death of Mr. Scott_, _minister of North-Lyn_, _and to get that living by some means to be bestowed on this town toward the maintenance of the ministers thereof_.”—The present incumbent, being also one of the ministers of the town, the object then had in view may be said to be in some measure secured during his life-time. But it is not certain, or even very likely, that it will be secured any further.