Chapter XLVII: Section VII (3)

1810. This year a negotiation took place, and was carried on for some months, between _Mr. William Corston_ of Ludgate Hill, London, and the Lynn _Court of Guardians_, in consequence of a proposal from the former, to furnish employment for the _female_ children of the Lynn poor, in plaiting of straw and knitting of hats, on certain terms and conditions: _viz._ To be provided with a proper house for the manufactory, and a dwelling for the superintendents, together with the loan of a large sum of money, on proper security, for seven years, without interest.—This notable treaty was opened in March, and after a number of Letters had passed between the parties, it was closed by a Letter from the _Registrar_ to Mr. Corston, dated Sept. 15. of which the following is a copy—

“Sir, I was duly favoured with your Letter of the 20th. of August,
inclosing answers to my questions respecting your plan for employing
the female poor of this borough, which, with the sketch of the
proposed building, &c. transmitted to Mr. Dixon, I laid before the
Court of Guardians at their meeting, holden on Thursday last; who
after having given the matter their most mature consideration,
instruct me to inform you, that they entirely decline acceding to
your propositions. I therefore return you the several papers,
requesting you will be pleased to accept the thanks of the Court for
the trouble you have had in the business. I am, &c. J. _Smeatham_.”

So the affair ended; happily or otherwise, we take not upon us to say.

1811. St. Margaret’s church thoroughly cleaned, white washed, and beautified, at considerable expense.—A new place of worship, called _Salem Chapel_ erected—and premises Purchased, in Tower Street, for the erection of the splendid Methodist minster.—Those premises cost between 8 and 900_l._ and the subsequent erection will cost between 4 and 5000_l._ more.—In the early part of this year, if we are not mistaken, Mr. Allen, one of our common—brewers, relinquished his memorable attempt to dig a well, after having sunk to the vast depth of 560 feet and spent a large sum of money without success; so that it seems now that though Lynn is situated in a bog, the ground below is as destitute of water as any spot in the kingdom can well be. Some praise however seems to be due to Mr. A. for having so long persevered in this arduous undertaking, attended as it was with so much expense and discouragement. Some curious fossils, and even bones; were said to be discovered there at a great depth.

On Saturday evening, Oct. 5, one of the ferry-men in a small boat, which they use only occasionally, attempting to bring over from West-Lynn too many passengers, the boat suddenly went down and every soul perished: They were 9 if not more beside the ferry-man; and the boat was capable of carrying safely not above half that number. This fatal disaster was imputed to the perverse temerity of the boatman.

The last month of this year was rendered memorable by the death of the most singular and excentric character in the whole town, and probably in the whole county. His name was _Robert Pursglove_: he was descended from very worthy and reputable parents, who belonged to the respectable society of Friends or Quakers. With that society he himself was also generally classed, although for many years past almost every shade of resemblance between his character and theirs had disappeared. His parents left him in possession of good property, which he managed most strangely and in a manner peculiar to himself. He had a _Ship_, which he might have sold for a good sum of money; but he had it laid up, till it rotted all to pieces—a number of _hay-stacks_ he also had, which he might have sold and turned to good account, but he would hear nothing of that, and they were left, year after year, till they were quite spoilt and good for nothing.—He had _kine_ and other cattle, which were of course neglected and mismanaged—he lived in a large house, which he had purchased, where formerly had resided one of our first families; but he suffered every thing there to go to decay and utter ruin, till doors, windows, floors, stair-cases, roofs, and every thing became perfect pictures of desolation—his dogs, and even his swine and kine occupied some of its best apartments, all ill-fed and half starved.—In this dreary mansion of desolation he was himself at last found, in the agonies of death, resulting from an apoplectic attack, and beyond the possibility of deriving any relief from medical skill. He is said to have often wanted food, though he left behind him property to the amount, as it is reported, of near if not quite 10,000_l._—This sketch might be greatly enlarged, but this will serve to give the reader some idea of the eccentricities and peculiarities of this extraordinary person.

1812. This year has been yet distinguished by nothing more than a miserable stagnation of trade, and a probability of the bread and beer and other necessaries of life being dearer than ever. Nothing, in short, appears to be going on here now with vigour or spirit, but the methodist erection above mentioned and taxgathering; so that were we required to name whatever is here at present in a very thriving state, or rapidly on the increase, we should be able to mention scarce any thing besides these two articles, _taxation_ and _methodism_.—As to the much talked of _Evening Lecture_ at the Church, it will seemingly be given up at last; our churchmen not having zeal enough to effect its accomplishment.—As to the _Dispensary_, its prospect of success is far more flattering, and there can be little doubt now of its speedy establishment: large sums have been already subscribed, a house has been purchased, or is about to be purchased, and every thing fairly promises the sure completion of the undertaking, and the full application of its benefits to those classes of the inhabitants for whose behoof or relief the institution is intended. That it has succeeded better than the proposed _Lecture_, will perhaps be considered by some people as an indication, that our wealthy churchmen are more ready to provide for the _corporeal_ than for the _spiritual_ accommodation of their neighbours.—Of the notable plan of _economy_, so laudably adopted, and so steadily pursued during the present mayoralty, to save certain expenses usually attached to that important office, some account has been given at pages 1087, and 1154.—Of the present state of the _Workhouse_, and the prospect in regard to the future management of it, and of the _poor-rates_, some further observations, in this latter part of the work, were intended; but our information is too imperfect to admit of our resuming these subjects at present: we can therefore only say, that it is to be feared our sanguine hopes of being greatly benefited by the new plan, or lately adopted system, will, after all, terminate in useless regret and vexatious disappointment. Whatever they may do on the other side, it seems now pretty clear that our managers are not likely very soon to fall into the sin of being too frugal or economical in the application of the public money. {1215}—Among the extraordinary and memorable events of this year, the tragical exit or assassination of our late premier will be expected, perhaps, to be here noticed: and much as we do deplore that shocking catastrophe, we would fain hope it will operate as a warning to all future ministers, not to trifle with the serious complaints and sufferings of their fellow subjects. What may be the results of that fatal and melancholy occurrence, and the subsequent changes, it is impossible yet to say. They seem to have already produced the _rescinding_ of the vile and pernicious _orders of council_, which had reduced almost half the nation to distress and beggary, and proved how easily the Americans can cramp our manufactories. Should they also produce a redress of the grievances complained of by the Catholics and other Dissenters, together with a thorough parliamentary reform, and a general peace, we may still escape national perdition, and even hope yet to see brighter and happier days.—The convulsion and expulsion lately experienced at the _Independent_, or rather _Presbyterian_ chapel, may be also placed among the remarkable occurrences of this year. That congregation, it is hoped, (and all our other congregations) will no longer tolerate _priestcraft_, or submit to be _priest-ridden_. Whatever may be said of their successors who denominate themselves _Independents_, our _Presbyterian ministers_, we believe, were never chargeable with priestly domination.

_FINIS_.

ERRATA. {1216}

Page 638, last word of the contents of section III, for _ineffetual_ r. _ineffectual_.—p. 638, l. 8, _for fovourite_ r. _favourite_—p. 735, l. 9, after _them_ a _comma_.—p. 773, l. 2, after _conscience_ a _semicolon_.—p. 782, last line but one, after _absentees_, a _comma_. —p. 794, l. 4, for _rejected_, r. _ejected_—p. 800, l. 5, after _stand_, r. _by_.—p. 803, l. 21, after _rubbish_, a comma—p. 821, l. 9, for _Guyborn_, r. _Guybon_.—same page, l. 19, after _even_ r. _the_.—p. 835, l. 21, for _Assesiation_ r. _Association_—p. 847, Note, l. 19, for _proceeding_ r. _preceding_.—p. 959, last line but one, for _egregiously_ r. _eggregiously_—p. 1027, note, l. 24, for _pastime_ r. _patience_.—p. 1087, l. 14, for _exegencies_ r. _exigences_.—p. 1106 l. 1, _comma_ after _here_—p. 1127, note, l. 5, for _townsnen_ r. _townsmen_.—p. 1140, last l. for 1570 r. 1590—p. 1142, note, l. 8, after _could_ r. _not_. —p. 1147, note, l. 2, after _much_ r. _to his_.

_Whittingham_, _Printer_, _Lynn_.

FOOTNOTES.

{625a} Such as the lawfulness of suppressing reputed error by violence, or of contending for the faith and extirpating heresy by fire and sword.

{625b} For instance, translating the scriptures into the vulgar tongue, and putting them into the hands of the common people, that they might examine and judge for themselves.

{626a} _Bucer_ owns, as will be seen further on, that their converts considered this doctrine as favourable to their licentious propensities.

{626b} “I say, (says _Calvin_,) that by the ordination and will of God Adam fell. God would have man fall. Man is blinded by the will and commandment of God. We refer the causes of hardening to God. The highest and remote cause of hardening is the will of God. It followeth that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening.” [See Barclay’s Apology, Edit. 1703, p. 113, where reference is made to those places in Calvin’s Works where these expressions are found.] Those who are acquainted with this reformer’s _Institution_, must know that many passages to the same purpose, and equally strong, occur there.—Others of the reformers come not a whit behind Calvin in the boldness of their language on this topic.—“God (says _Beza_) hath predestinated, not only unto damnation, but also unto the causes of it, whomsoever he saw meet. The decree of God cannot be excluded from the causes of corruption.”—“It is certain (says _Zanchius_) that God is the first cause of obduration. Reprobates are held so fast under God’s almighty decree, that they cannot but sin and perish.”—“God (says _Peter Martyr_) doth incline and force the wills of wicked men into great sins.”—“God, (says _Zuinglius_) moveth the robber to kill. He Killeth, God forcing him thereunto.” [See _Barclay_, as before.]

{628a} Luth. Serm. in Postill. Evang. 1. Adv.

{628b} Luth. Serm. Dom. 26, post Trin.

{628c} Luth. in Serm. conviv.

{628d} Bucer de regn. Christ. 1, i. c, 4.

{628e} See Milner’s Letters to Sturges, 3d. Ed. p. 170, 171, &c. a work that contains a great deal of very curious matter on these subjects, and on most of the great points at issue between the catholics and their opponents.

{629a} Calv. 1. vi. de scand. quoted by Milner, as before.

{629b} Erasm. Ep. 1. vi. 4.—It appears by the mode of expression here used, that notwithstanding all the unfavourable and unchristian-like effects of their ministry, they actually did, like some modern, labourers in the same vineyard, boldly arrogate to themselves the exclusive name of _evangelical_ ministers, or propagators of the genuine and pure _gospel_.

{630} Erasm ad. Frat. Infer. Germ, quoted by Milner, as before, p. 172.

{632} Mosheim, iii, 313.

{634} See Milner, as before: 182.—_Carlostadius_ was Luther’s first disciple of any considerable note: and he co-operated with, and supported him with great firmness and ability. But having ventured to alter the mass, during Luther’s absence in the year 1521, and to deny the real presence, the latter commenced a furious war against him and his followers, and condemned them in terms of the utmost rancor and bitterness. _Melancthon_ too (misnamed the _mild_) now calls him “a brutal ignorant man, void of piety and humanity, one more a Jew than a christian.”—a rare specimen of mildness and meekness!

{636a} See Milner as before, 188.—It is not said how Henry brooked all this; but it was well for Luther that he was not within his reach. The most curious circumstance is that “Luther, in giving an account of his book, reproaches himself with having been _too mild_ in it towards the king, saying that he did so at the request of his friends, in hopes that his _sweetness_ would gain Henry.”—If such was Luther’s _sweetness_, what could his _sourness_, or his _bitterness_ be?

{636b} Milner, 181.

{636c} Ibid, 132.—No wonder he should behave as he did to Cariostadius, whose chief crime seems to be his having acted _without his authority_, though in conjunction with Bugenhagius, Melanancthon, Jonas, &c. He continued afterwards to persecute him with unrelenting virulence, and nothing would satisfy him short of absolute submission to his sovereign will and pontifical mandates. His banishment ensued. He appears to have been one of the best men among the reformers. It seems, however, that Luther was at last convinced of his misconduct in this affair, and obtained permission for his return from exile. See Mosheim, IV. 30.

{637} See Milner, 123.

{638} See Milner, 185, 186, where the authorities are referred to.

{642} Their blindness generally proceeded from a fallacious kind of reasoning, which is still very common among their orthodox descendants or successors, but which, like a two-edged sword, cuts both ways. They plead that they are the people of God, and are in the right way, so that their cause is the cause of God and truth, and therefore the papists are cruel persecutors when they deprive them of their lives or liberties. When they are reminded of having themselves before now deprived the papists and other christian sects of their liberties and lives, they answer, that that was done very justly, as those sufferers were either seditious persons or heretics, and what they did to them was in the way of suppressing _sedition_ or restraining _heresy_. When they are told that the papists excuse and justify their own violent proceedings against the protestants much in the same way and with equal plausibility, they will answer, that what the papists assert is not true. When they are further told that the papists insist upon the truth of their allegations and the falshood of those of the protestants, they will reply that the papists belonging to a false church and influenced by a lying spirit, are not to be credited, but as for them, being the people of God and followers of the truth, their testimony ought to be received without hesitation.—Thus their reasoning ends just where it began—We are God’s people, and therefore our proceedings are not to be impeached! No better reasoning can be expected in defence of injustice and persecution.

{644} Robinson’s Pref. to 3d. vol. of Saurin, p. xii.

{645} The French protestants, or Gallic Calvinists were no less bigoted and intolerant than their brethren elsewhere. Their ministers, in 1563, requested that in order to prevent the propagation of heresy and monstrous opinions, the king would be pleased to receive into his royal protection their confession of faith tendered to him in 1561, and the profession of it; and to provide that atheists, libertines, anabaptists, and Servetists should be severely punished. See Priestley’s Ecclesiastical History, 6, 135.

{646} See p. 636.

{649} “He was called up to the cardinal (Wolsey) for heresie, where he was content to subscribe and graunte unto such articles as they propounded unto him.” Fox A. and M. p. 1736. This happened in 1529. In 1531 he was cited before the archbishop of Canterbury, Wareham, on fresh charges of heresy, and forced to sign an abjuration of them—see Fox, p. 4738. The third time he was called upon, with certain others, to give an account of his opinions, by Henry himself, on which occasion he escaped by an absolute submission of himself to his supreme head in spiritual matters. His fourth and last recantation was when he was deprived of his bishopric, and committed prisoner to the Tower, where he lay till the end of Henry’s reign, on suspicion of heresy, and for violating the fast and abstinence of Good Friday.—It has been suggested that imprisonment did not constitute the whole of his correction or chastisement on this occasion, as Shaxton bishop of Salisbury was forced to recant his Lutheran opinions, and carry a faggot at the burning of four other protestants, in 1546; and it is not likely that Henry would have been content with less from Shaxton’s fellow prisoner, Latimer, than a solemn abjuration of his doctrine.—See Milner, as before, page, 196.

{650} See Milner, p. 196.—Latimer’s name is to the sentence of Joan of Kent, who was burnt in 1549. See Burnet’s Hist. Ref. part ii. b. i. rec. 35. It also appears from Collier and Fox that he was one of the leading bishops who sat at the trial of Lambert the martyr.—See Milner, as before.

{651} See his signature to the sentence against Van Parre; in Burnet’s H. Ref. as before.

{652a} See Milner, 194.

{652b} Fox A. and M.

{652c} Collier vol. ii. rec. 22.

{653a} Heylin Hist. Eliz. p. 89.

{653b} Collier vol. ii. rec. 24.

{653c} Collier, as before.

{653d} Burnet, Collect b. ii. n. 47.

{654a} The royal pair were married by Dr. Rowland Lee, in the presence of Cranmer, the duke of Norfolk, &c. Nov. 14, 1532. Heylin Hist. Eliz. p. 89. Stow fixes the marriage two months later, viz. Jan. 25, 1533. Elizabeth was born September 7. 1583.

{654b} The prevailing notion seems to be, that Henry’s wish for a divorce arose from his attachment to Ann Boleyn; but from a paper in the 3rd. volume of the Harieian Miscellany it appears to be unfounded. We learn from that paper that archbishop Warham was from the first averse to Henry’s marriage with his brother’s widow, but that Fox bishop of Winchester inclined Henry VII. to be for it, as a dispensation from the pope would remove all difficulties. It appears further that the king (Henry VII.) afterwards thought with Warham: and the day the prince came of age he by his father’s order protested against it as null and void. His father also with his dying breath persisted in charging him to break it off. The king continued to have scruples, and at last sent Cardinal Wolsey to France to negotiate a match between him and the duchess of Alencon about August 1527. After that Lord Rochford came over from France with the picture of the duchess. His daughter Ann Boleyn, who was in the duchess’ service, came over probably at the same time; and then it was that Henry set his affection upon her.—There can be no truth therefore in the report that she was the cause of alienating the king’s affections from Catherine, and his scrupling the marriage. The Cardinal returned from France September 30, 1527; and it was not till afterwards that the king expressed to him his attachment to Ann Boleyn. Harl. Misc. vol. 3. p. 43.

{655a} See letter in Burnet History Ref. b. iii. p. 200.

{655b} Burnet, p. 203.

{655c} The two sentences, the one of attainder for adultery, the other of a divorce because of precontract, did so contradict one another, that one if not both must be unjust. Burnet.

{655d} Heylin, Edw. p. 28.

{656a} Collier, vol. p. 218. Burnet.

{656b} See Milner’s 5th Letter to Sturges, whence the above passages or quotations are taken, mostly verbatim.

{657a} Fuller says: “It cannot be denied that he had a hand in the execution of Lambert, Frith, and other godly martyrs,” adding that he would leave him to sink or swim by himself where he is guilty. Ch. Hist. b. 5. sec. 2. He elsewhere accuses Cranmer of arguing against the aforesaid Lambert contrary to his own private judgment; and remarks that “as the latter was burnt for denying the corporal presence, so Cranmer himself was afterwards condemned and died at Oxford for maintaining the same opinion,” b. 5. sec. 6.

{657b} She is also called Joan Butcher and Joan of Kent—“When he (Cranmer) was on the point of passing sentence upon her, . . . she reproached him for passing the like sentence upon another woman, Ann Askew, for denying the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament; telling him that he had condemned the said Ann Askew not long before for a piece of bread, and was then ready to condemn her for a piece of flesh.” Heylin, Edw. vi, p. 89.—As three other protestants, Lassels, Otterden, and Adams were burnt with Askew for the selfsame cause, there is every appearance that Cranmer was as instrumental in their punishment as he was in that of Askew. (Milner, 207.)

{657c} See the process of their condemnation in Burnet’s Collect. of Rec. part ii, b. 1, n. 35.

{658a} In 1538 a special commission was granted to Cranmer, with two other bishops and six other persons, to try _summaris el de plano_, even though they had not been denounced or detected, all Anabaptists, &c. and to deliver them over to the secular arm. Collier vol. 2. sec. 46.—Within a month from the date of this commission, viz. Nov. 24. I find two Anabaptists burnt, and four bearing faggots. Stow.—About a year after this, by virtue of a special commission, Cranmer with certain other bishops tried Alexander Seaton for protestant opinions, and condemned him to bear a faggot and recant at St. Paul’s Cross, which he did accordingly. Collier, vol. 2 p. 184. The same year three other Anabaptists were burnt by virtue of the former commission. Stow—In Edward’s reign certain chiefs (of the Gospellers and Anabaptists) were condemned April 12, 1549, before the archbishop (Cranmer), the bishop of Westminster, and Drs. Cox, May, Cole, and Smith. Being convicted, some of them were dismissed only with an admonition, some sentenced to a recantation, and others condemned to bear their faggots at St. Paul’s. Heylin, p. 73. About the same time John Champneys of Stratford was convented before Cranmer, Latimer, and two other doctors, at which time he was forced to recant upon oath certain “heretical and damnable opinions” concerning regeneration, &c. as also to carry a faggot. In like manner John Ashton, priest, being convented before Cranmer, abjured his heresies, &c. and took an oath to submit to whatever penance was enjoined. Ex. Regist. Cranm. Collier part ii. b. i, rec. 35.

{658b} Milnes, as before, p. 208.

{659a} Perhaps she meant no more than that he was born free from that natural pollution or hereditary depravity implied in the orthodox doctrine of original sin.

{659b} Burnet, past ii p, 111, 112. Milner, p. 208, 209.

{660a} The two first of these retractions are without date. The third appears to have been signed Feb. 14. The fourth is dated Feb. 16; and the last is dated March 13. See Strype’s Mem. Ecc. vol. iii, p. 134. Cranmer retracted his recantations and was executed March 21.

{660b} Milner, as before, 210.

{661} Stow’s Annals, an. 1546. Milner, p. 173.

{662a} Hist. Ref. part ii. p. 226.

{662b} Heylin’s Hist. Ref. Edward IV, 1550. Milner, 174.

{662c} Strype’s Mem. Eccl. p. 440.

{663a} Strype’s Mem. Eccl. B. 11. c. xxiii.

{663b} Camden, Appar. ad Annal Eliz.—Milner 175.

{664} The unfavourable and ill effects of the reformation on the manners, and morals of the people, both at home and abroad, must be chiefly ascribed to some of the great defects of the system—some of its most prominent features or distinguishing doctrines, as was before suggested—such as justification by faith without works, predestination to perdition as well as to salvation, or election and reprobation representing all human characters and actions (even the most horrid crimes), as emanating or resulting from the decrees of Heaven, or will of God—doctrines which certainly cannot be said to be favourable to practical holiness or virtuous living. Yet they form a main part of what has been called _evangelical_ religion ever since. As to their licentious tendency, Luther is known to have gone very far, and expressed himself very strongly on the above doctrine of _justification_; even so as to speak very slightly of the _Epistle of James_, calling it “dry, chaffy, and unworthy the apostolic spirit,” for no other reason than its manifest opposition to his views of this doctrine. He probably deemed that Epistle far inferior to his own writings when he called himself the _second Elias_ and the _Chariot of Israel_, and said in his book against the king of England, “My ministry and calling are of that excellency that it is in vain for princes or any persons on earth to expect submission or forbearance from me.” Be this as it may, it is evident, from _Bucer’s_ testimony, (see p. 628) that the reformed converts made a great handle of that doctrine, and considered it as excusing and encouraging their licentiousness: and Bucer was a witness of the effects of the reformation in England as well as on the continent.—As to those reformed doctrines relating to the _Divine Decrees_, or predestination to perdition as well as to salvation, and which are commonly comprehended under the terms Election and Reprobation, their loose and licentious tendency, must be obvious to every unbiassed mind, seeing they place good and evil, virtue and vice, truth and error, right and wrong, as it were upon a level, and in effect annihilate all the distinctions between them, making the worst as well as the best of human actions to be agreeable to the will of God and the offspring of his eternal counsel or purpose. Where such doctrines prevail it may be expected that moral restraints will be soon overpowered.

{668} So far they were evidently of use, and their suppression was a real and public loss, in that view and as things then stood.

{672} In the days of Wickliff, and for a good while after, there was among the common people a spirit of revolt against papal tyranny and corruption; but that spirit had been suppressed and extinguished before Henry had begun his work of reformation. Between his work and that of Wickliff there was a wide and striking difference—the former originated with the court, the latter with some thinking men at Oxford; the former was carried on by royal caprice, orders of council, and acts of parliament, the latter by the diligent and persevering exertions and eloquence of private individuals of integrity and learning, who were convinced of its importance, and who travelled on foot about the country to instruct and enlighten the people, in order to improve their manners, their morals and their religious principles.

{673} This might be the reason why so many places of worship besides the convents, and which had no connection with them, were here laid by and demolished at that time—such as the church or chapel of St. James, those of St. John, and of St. Catherine, &c. the demolition of which, except for the reason now suggested, must appear exceedingly unaccountable.—As to the church or chapel of _St. Catherine_, of whose site the author expressed much uncertainty at p. 559, he now begs leave to inform the reader that he has been since led to conclude, from some old MSS. that it stood in that small field without the East gate, on the left hand as we go out of the town, and which is now enclosed from the road by a brick wall. It appears that it retained the name of _St. Catherine’s ground_ long after the church had disappeared.

{674} Many of them could hardly read; and as to preaching, it was what few of them were capable of. To supply that deficiency the _Book of Homilies_ was provided, and the reading of those homilies, for a while, appears to have supplied the place of preaching. But the plan was ill calculated to instruct and enlighten the common people, though it might be of use to their superiors.

{675a} Hist. Ref. 1. 317.

{675b} Hist. Ref. as before.

{676} Burnet Hist. Ref. as before.

{678} Of the prodigious popularity and reputation of the friars, see above at page 495.

{680} The following is thought a pretty correct statement of the numbers of worshipers that might be accommodated in each and all our present places of worship—In _St. Margaret’s_ church; 1322; in _St. Nicholas’_ chapel 1066; in _All Saints_, or South Lynn church, 388: in the _Methodist chapel_, 500; in the _Independent chapel_ 450; in the _Baptist chapel_ 500; and in that of the Friends or Quakers 100.—Thus all the churches might admit 2776; and all the Dissenting chapels about 1500, or 1550—in all 4326. But it is well known that the number of those that do actually attend falls greatly short of 4326, and we may very safely venture to affirm that they do not exceed 3000: so that there must be here between 7 and 8000 people whose minds are strangers to religious impressions, and whose conduct is very little regulated or affected by any sound moral principles. Would it not therefore be very desirable to increase among us the means of religious and moral instruction? Some more new chapels, under proper direction, might prove of no small benefit to the town, and help to bring from darkness to light another third part of its population. This hint deserves consideration.

{682} For an account of the Lynn Gilds, see above, Part iii. ch. v. p. 403.

{684a} Thus in the old ballad of Truth and Ignorance, the latter, who is represented as a rustic, says,

Che’ll tell thee what, good fellowe,
Before the vriars went hence,
A bushel of the best wheate,
Was zold for vourteen pence:

And vorty egges a penny,
That were both good and newe;
And this, che say, myselfe have seen,
And yet I am no Jewe.

(Andrews, 2. 282.)

These lines were quoted before imperfectly. They are now given correctly in the original orthography.

{684b} We allude principally to the _poor-rates_ and _paving-tax_, which are certainly most severely felt, and likely to be still more so. The former by frugal and wise management might, doubtless, be greatly reduced, without any material detriment to the poor: and the latter ought never to have existed till the times proved more favourable. When the project was brought forward it was firmly opposed by a large body of the householders: but it was carried against them, very wrongfully. They were told that the work would be completed at the expence of about 13,000_l._ and it has already far exceeded, if not doubled, that sum: yet the work is not finished. Thousands have been lavished, merely to suit the convenience, or gratify the caprice of a few opulent families, without being of the least use or benefit to the town at large; which must have been exceedingly disingenuous and dishonourable. So great was the liberality which the paviers experienced at Lynn, that they are reported to be satisfied to do their work at Norwich and Yarmouth, 25 per cent. under what they had here.—In short, the managers, or rather the mis-managers of this concern, went on lavishly and blunderingly, till they could go no further. They were aground for sometime this last autumn, and had probably remained so over the winter, and the summer too, and thrown the whole town into the utmost confusion, but for the timely assistance of a certain individual, who on this critical occasion stood in the place and acted the part of that good man noticed in holy writ, who by his wisdom _delivered the city_. Eccl. ix. 15.

{687} See Martin’s History of Thetford chap. xiii. p. 170.

{688} The Surrenders seem to have been all much of the same cast and tenor, and so were probably the _confessions_ which accompanied them, a copy of one of these is given by Burnet, and is as follows—

“Forasmuch as we _Richard Green_, abbot of our monastery of our
blessed lady St. Mary of Betlesden, and the convent of the said
monastery, do profoundly consider, that the whole manner and trade of
living, which we and our pretensed religion have practised and used
many days, does most principally consist in certain dumb ceremonies,
and other certain constitutions of the bishops of Rome, and other
forinsecal potentates, as the abbot of _Cistins_, and therein only
noseled and not taught in the true knowledge of God’s laws, procuring
always exemptions of the bishops of Rome from our ordinaries and
diocesans: submitting ourselves principally to forinsecal potentates
and powers, which never came here to reform such disorders of living
and abases as now have been found to have reigned amongst us. And
therefore now assuredly knowing, that the most perfect way of living
is most principally and sufficiently declared unto us by our Master
Christ, his Evangelists and Apostles, and that it is most expedient
for us to be governed and ordered by our supreme Head, under God, the
king’s most noble Grace, with our mutual assent and consent, submit
ourselves and every one of us, to the most benign mercy of the king’s
majesty; and by these presents do surrender &c.”

The Surrender follows in common form, Signed by the abbot, subprior, and nine monks, 15th Sept. 30th year of that reign.—From these samples one may from an idea of the tenour of the surrenders and confessions which went from Lyon. See Burnet, vol. I. Col. rec. p. 150.

{689} There were then dissolved 645 monasteries, 90 Colleges, 2374 Chauntrys, and 110 hospitals. The yearly revenue of the whole amounted then to 161,100_l._ a sum equal perhaps, to 3 or 4 millions of our money, which must be far less than the present ecclesiastical revenue of England and Ireland. From a part of the above fund the universities were indulged with some additional colleges and professorships; and six new bishoprics were erected. An immense sum too accrued to the king from the furniture, clocks, bells, lead, &c. of these edifices; and even from bullion, 5000 marks of which were found in one abbey. See Andrews, 2. 282.

{699} These have long been deemed here among the _chief of sinners_, as tippling and other vices are supposed to have abounded through their patronage or connivance.

{702a} Mr. Man was minister of South Lynn till 1646, when he was succeeded by the worthy and learned _John Horne_, who was not likely to restrain his parishioners from eating meat in _Lent_, or require the sick to take out licences on that occasion. Of this memorable person we shall have occasion to say more hereafter.

{702b} This Thomas Lilly was a respectable ancestor of our present representative in parliament, Sir Martin Browne Folkes, and original proprietor, it is supposed, of that gentleman’s valuable possessions in South Lynn. His daughter and sole heiress married Sir William Hovel of Hillington, and was grandmother of Martin Folkes Esquire, president of the Royal Society, and of William Folkes Esquire, the father of Sir Martin.

{704} Those _Licences and Dispensations_ seem to have been no longer at the disposal or option of the parish ministers, for there was an _office_ in London opened expressly for that purpose, as we find by an advertisement which appeared in the said _Mercurius Publicus_ of Feb. 26. 1662, and the two following weeks, and which was expressed as follows—“An advertisement—The _Faculties Office_ for granting Licenses (by Act of Parliament) to eat flesh in any part of England, is still kept at Paul’s-Chain, near St. Paul’s Church-yard.” The present writer cannot find when this notable office was first opened, or how long it existed, but thinks it not very likely that it was laid by, or shut up before the revolution.

{712} This is said to have been remarkably the case in a certain excursion which her majesty made to _Coventry_. The mayor, recorder, and corporation met her on the road at some distance from the city, with what they deemed an appropriate or suitable address. _Versifying_ being then much in vogue, and the queen herself rather fond of such compositions, they had their address drawn up in that way, which the recorder read before it was presented to her majesty. It was but short, and said to run thus,

“We men of Coventry, are very glad to see,
Your gracious majesty. Good Lord, how fair you be!”

Which drew from her immediately the following, not very gracious answer.

“My gracious majesty, is very glad to see,
You men of Coventry: Good Lord! what fools ye be!”

Loyalty abounded then, it seems, at Coventry, not only among the members of the corporation, but also among those of the cathedral.

Accordingly, on the following Sunday, _Mr. Thomas Boyce_, the clerk of the cathedral, had a hymn composed on purpose to celebrate this royal visit, and do honour to his sovereign, which he thus gave out, just as the queen was entering the church—“Let us sing to the praise and glory of God, a hymn of my own composing—

Re—joice Tom Boyce, re—joice,
And echo Coven—try,
For that our gracious queen is come
To see poor we, we, we!”

One would fain hope that wisdom is not at quite so low an ebb at this time, in any of our corporations or cathedrals as it seems to have been then at Coventry.

{715} Each of our Convents is supposed to have been furnished with a library. But what became of those libraries after the dissolution does not appear. They were probably destroyed: for we learn that although _Leland_ was employed to survey the libraries throughout the kingdom, and preserve the choicest books, yet _Bale_ says that those who got possession of the religious houses at the dissolution of them, generally took possession also of the libraries, reserving the books, some to serve their jakes, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots with: some they sold to the grocers and soap boilers, and some they sent over sea to the bookbinders, not in small quantities, but at times whole shipfulls, to the great wondering of foreign nations.—“A merchant (he says) bought the contents of two noble libraries for 40_s._ a-piece. This stuff he used for more than ten years instead of grey paper to wrap up his goods with, and yet he hath enough remaining for many years to come.” (See Seward’s An. vol. 1. 49.) All this discovers some strange mismanagement on the part of the government.

{717} This Fort is a platform battery, mounted with ten eighteen pounders, planted here in 1627; but having no defensive cover, could be of little use if the town were attacked from the river side. Of such an attack, however, Lynn could never be in much danger; the difficulty of approach that way by men of war, forming its best security.

{720} We are told that there is a copy of Paramo’s book now in Dr. Williams’s library in Red-Cross Street, London, and a most extraordinary production it appears to be. It was undertaken under the patronage of _Don Gaspar de Quiroga_, then abp. of Toledo, and Inquitor general, and first printed at Madrid in 1614.—It begins by proving _God_ himself to have been the _first_ inquisitor—He convicts Adam and Eve of pertinacious heresy, infidelity, apostacy, and blasphemy. God cited Adam, otherwise the process would have been null. On Adam’s appearance, He enquired, that is, made _inquisition_ into the crime. The man accused his _wife_, then the judge questioned her: He did not examine the _Serpent_, because of his obstinacy.—The examinations were secret and separate, that there might be no collusive lying. He calls no witness; the inquisitor overlooks the reason, that there were none to call, and affirms that conscience and confession are a thousand witnesses, and save the judge all the trouble, except that of condemning. The whole was done secretly, that it might be a precedent for the holy office; and so closely does this holy office observe the precedent, that they make the dress of penitent offenders after the very pattern of the clothes which God made for Adam and Eve, and confiscate all the property of a heretic, because Adam and Eve were turned out of paradise.—The author further maintains, that _Abraham_ was an inquisitor, and _Sarah_ likewise; for she turned _Ishmael_ out of doors for _idolatry_. In this manner he goes on through the Pentateuch, and the books of Joshua and Judges, finding inquisitors all the way through.—_David_ was a staunch inquisitor. _Zimri_, who slew his master, was of the holy office: so was _Elijah_. _Elisha_ and _Jehu_ also are among the heroes of persecution; and _Nebuchadnezzar_ most unexpectedly proves to be an inquisitor also.—Under the Gospel, _Christ_ was the first inquisitor: the lice, which devoured Herod, and the rulers who spoiled the Jews, only executed the sentences of death and confiscation which he had pronounced. _James_ and _John_, who proposed to have the Samaritan heretics destroyed by fire, were inquisitors, of course. Then follow the _apostles_, and after them the _popes_. &c. Thus the divine origin and authority of the horrid inquisition is proved from scripture—and proved as plainly and conclusively too, as many venerated religious tenets and usages are now every day proved by some of our most renowned protestant writers:—for instance the precious contents of the athanasian creed, the popular rite of infant sprinkling, and the whole ceremony of what is called christening. The scriptures seem no less violated or abused, in being brought to support these, than they are in being brought to support the inquisition. Let us therefore not be too severe on Luiz de Paramo for writing such book as that here noticed.

{723a} Mackerel says that she was _hanged_; but the above account is supposed to be the most correct. See Mackerel 233. and Tour of Norfolk, last edit. 253.

{723b} That notable book the present writer has never happened to meet with, or he might, perhaps, have been able to throw some further light upon this dark and doleful transaction.

{727} See Granger’s Biographical History, 2. 409.—Hopkins appears to have wrote and published an account of his own exploits in the way of his vacation; but the present writer has not met with it.

{732} The distinction between some of those, as pointed out sometimes by our law writers and others, is not a little curious: _conjurers_ are said to differ from _witches_ and _wizards_, in that the former endeavour by prayers and invocations to compel the devil to say or do what they command him; whereas the latter deal rather by friendly and voluntary conference with the devil, or familiar, to have their wishes obtained in lieu of _blood_, or other gift offered. Both conjuration and witchcraft differ from enchantment or sorcery. The sorcerer is supposed to have personal conferences with the devil, and by the use of certain superstitious words and incantations, or by means of images, is said to produce strange and preternatural effects.—All these false and wild notions must have originated from knavery and imposture, on the one hand, and credulity and superstition on the other. _Juggling_, or notable skill in the arts of dexterity might promote the imposture; but as to infernal agency, it will not be very wise and safe to give any credit to that part of the story.

{734a} Andrews 2. 46.

{734b} He was probably superior to the generality of his brethren, and therefore became suspected of being in league with Satan and the infernal powers, according to the curious and absurd notions which then prevailed.

{736a} The author did not advert to the date of this law, when the last sheet was printed, or he would have said _seventy or eighty_, instead of _sixty or seventy years_, in page 725.

{736b} Blackstone, iv. 61.—It is somewhat remarkable that _France_ set us the example of prohibiting those bloody prosecutions for witchcraft, even in the reign of Lewis xiv. who thought proper by an edict, to restrain the tribunals of justice from receiving informations of witchcraft. It was right certainly to follow Lewis xiv, and the French in this instance; but one could have wished we had set the example to them, and not they to us.

{737} And if such was not always the case, they must, in those exceptions, have proceeded from extreme ignorance, or self delusion, as is the case also with many religious visionaries, who pretend to extraordinary gifts and divine revelations. In either case, therefore, it must have been extremely hard and cruel to take their confessions as any evidence of their reputed or supposed guilt, or proof that they had actually made a contract with the devil, and had been endued by him with extraordinary knowledge and miraculous powers.

{739} See Encyl. Brit. vol. 18. under _Witchcraft_.—The above sketch may suffice to give the uninformed reader an idea of what is called witchcraft; of the existence of which the present writer has expressed his disbelief. He is aware, however, that the word is used in our translation of the scriptures, but thinks it there _misused_, and applied to a different matter from what our language meant by that term.

{740} Even such men as _Henry More_ and _Dr. Cudworth_ could brand as _atheists_ those who denied or doubted the reality of witchcraft.

{742} See Encycl. Brit. as before; where other matters relating to this vile subject, and equally disgusting, are related. The above statement reflects no honour on the memory of our ancestors. But that we are better, or less brutal and savage than they cannot be proved from our Indian history, our American War, our blowing up the Spanish frigates, our sacking and burning Copenhagen, or the recent cruelties exercised in Ireland.

{744} The circumstances which led, as it is said, to this trial, being not a little remarkable, may be here related for the reader’s edification.

“Lord chief justice Holt, who had been wild in his youth, was once
out with some of his raking companions on a journey into the country.
Having spent all their money it was resolved that they should part
company and try their fortune separately. Holt got to an inn at the
end of a straggling village, and putting a good face on the matter,
ordered his horse to be well taken care of, called for a room,
bespoke a supper, and looked after his bed. He then strolled into
the kitchen, where he saw a lass about thirteen years old shivering
with an ague; he inquired of his landlady, a widow, who the girl was,
and how long she had been ill. The good woman told him that she was
her daughter, an only child, and had been ill near a year,
notwithstanding all the assistance she could procure from physic, at
an expence which almost ruined her. He shook his head at the
doctors, and bade the landlady be under no further concern, for that
her daughter should never have another fit. He then wrote a few
unintelligible words in court hand on a scrap of parchment which had
been the directions to a hamper, and rolling it up, ordered that it
should be bound upon the girl’s wrist, and remain there till she was
well. As it happened the ague returned no more; and Holt, having
continued there a week, now called for his bill, with as much courage
as if his pockets had been filled with gold. ‘Ah! God bless you,’
said the landlady, ‘you are nothing in my debt, I’m sure; I wish I
was able to pay you for the cure you have performed upon my daughter;
and if I had had the happiness to see you ten months ago, it would
have saved me forty pounds in my pocket.’ Holt, after some
altercation, accepted of his week’s accommodation as a gratuity, and
rode away. It happened that many year’s afterwards, when he was lord
chief justice of the king’s bench, he went a circuit into the same
county; and among other criminals whom he had to try, there was an
old woman who was charged with witchcraft: to support this charge
several witnesses swore that she had a spell with which she could
either cure such cattle as were sick, or destroy those that were
well: in the use of this spell they said she had been lately
detected, and it having been seized upon her, was ready to be
produced in court: the judge then desired it might be handed up to
him: it appeared to be a dirty ball, covered with rags and bound many
times round with pack-thread: these coverings he removed with great
deliberation, one after another, and at last found a piece of
parchment, which he knew to be the same that he had used as an
expedient to supply his want of money. At the recollection of this
incident he changed colour, and sat silent: at length, recollecting
himself, he addressed the jury to this effect: ‘Gentlemen, I must now
relate a particular of my life, which very ill suits my present
character, and the station in which I now sit: but to conceal it
would be to aggravate the folly for which I ought to atone, to
endanger innocence, and countenance superstition: this bauble, which
you suppose to have the power of life and death, is a senseless
scrawl which I wrote with my own hand and gave the woman, whom, for
no other cause, you accuse for a witch.’ He then related the
particular circumstances of the transaction, and expatiated on the
evil of such prosecutions: and it had such an effect upon the minds
of the people, who now blushed at the folly and the cruelty of their
zeal, that the poor woman was acquitted, and was the last that ever
was tried for witchcraft in that county, and, as some say, in this
kingdom.”

This anecdote is related in the Brit. Biogr. vol. 7. and more at large in some other biographical works.

{747a} See Beauties of Engl. Vol. 7.

{747b} The above trial before lord chief justice Holt, is said to have been the last, but its date we cannot discover.

{749} The cart was overturned on the 5th of May, 1808. On the following Sunday Evening, the 8th of the same month, as the minister of the parish informs us, “a considerable number of people assembled together, as it grew dark, and taking with them the young women ridiculously supposed to be bewitched, about ten o’clock proceeded to the house of _Wright Izzard_, which stands alone at some distance from the body of the village. When they arrived at this solitary spot, so favourable for the execution of their villanous designs, they broke into the poor man’s house, dragged his wife out of bed, and threw her naked into the yard; where her arms were torn with pins, her head was dabbed against the large stones of the causeway—and her face, stomach, and breast were severely bruised with a thick stick that served as a bar to the door. Having thus satisfied themselves, the mob dispersed. The woman then crawled into her house, put on her clothes and went to the constable, who said, he could not protect her, because he was not sworn.” The humanity, protection, and assistance which she could not find at the constable’s very happily for herself she found under the roof of a poor widow; who unlocked her door at the first call, wrapped up her neighbour’s bleeding arms with the nicest linen rags she had, affectionately sympathized with and comforted her, and gave her a bed. But, horrible to relate! the compassion and kindness of this poor woman, were the means of shortening her days. “The protectors of a witch are just as bad as the witch, and deserve the same treatment!” cried the infatuated and savage populace, the next morning. This so affected and terrified the poor companionate widow that she actually died soon after.—The next evening, that of Monday the 9th of May, Ann Izzard was a second time dragged out of her house, when her arms were again torn with pins till they streamed afresh with blood. Alive the next morning, and apparently likely to survive this attack also, her enemies resolved to have her _ducked_, as soon as the labour of the day was over. On hearing this, she hastily quitted her home, and took refuge in the house of the minister of the parish; where the vile wretches durst not follow her.—The worthy clergyman, for taking her part, and becoming her protector, lost the good opinion, and incurred the detestation of a great part of his parishioners; and if he and his friends had not had recourse to the strong arm of the law it is impossible to say where the madness would have ended.—See Preface to a sermon against Witchcraft, preached in the parish church of Great Paxton, July 17. 1808. By the rev. J. _Nicholson_, curate of that parish.