HISTORY OF LYNN. PART III. (continued 5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The story of Sawtre is thus introduced by Fox—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon Saturday, being the 26th. of February, the said archbishop of Canterbury sate in the bishop’s seat of the foresaid church of St. Paul, in London, and solemnly apparelled in his pontificall attire, sitting with him as his assistants these reverend fathers and bishops, of London, Lincolne, Hereford, Exeter, Menevensis & Roffensis episcopi, [i.e. the bishops of St. Davids and Rochester] above mentioned, commanded and caused the said Sir William Sautre, apparelled in priestly vestments, to be brought and appeare before him. That done, he declared and expounded in English to all the clergy and people, there in a great multitude assembled; that all processe way finished and ended against the said Sir W. Sautre. Which thing finished, before the pronouncing of the said sentence of the relapse against the said Sir William, as is premised, he often then and there recited and read. And for that he saw the said William in that behalf nothing abashed; he proceeded to his degradation and actual deposition in forme as followeth.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [610] We Thomas by God’s permission archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and Legate of the apostolike Sea, do denounce thee William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris, chaplaine fained, in the habite and apparell of a priest, as an heretike, and one refallen into heresie, by this our sentence definitive by councell, assent, and authority to be condemned, and by conclusion of all our fellow brethren, fellow bishops, prelates councell provinciall, and of the whole clergy, do degrade and deprive thee of thy priestly order. And in sign of degradation and actual deposition from thy priestly dignity, for thine incorrigibility and want of amendment, we take from thee the patent and chalice, and doe deprive thee of all power and authority of celebrating the masse, and also we pull from thy backe the casule, and take from thee the vestment, and deprive thee of all manner of priestly honour.

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

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

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by counsell, assent and authority which we have over thee the foresaid William, an Acolyte pretensed, wearing the habit of an acolyte, and heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, doe degrade and put from thee all order of an acolyte; and in signe and token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the candlestick and taper, and also the urceolum, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of dignity of an Acolyte.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, council, and authority, which upon thee the foresaid William we have, an Exorcist pretensed, in the habite of an exorcist or holy water clerke, being an heretike, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, do degrade and depose thee from the order of an Exorcist; and in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of conjurations, and do deprive thee of all and singular dignity of an exorcist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of Part III.