Part 38

{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.