A notable custom among the Anglo-Saxon christians of the eighth century, and from which Lynn cannot besupposed exempted, was that of theClergyusually celebrating Mass, or administering the Sacramentwithout Shoes and Stockings, and with chalices made of horn: which seems to shew, that they had not then arrived at that sacerdotal pride and pomp, at least in regard to their dress, which became so prevalent among those of their order in latter times, when they thought proper to assume a consequence so far above the other orders of the community.
In private life the Anglo-Saxons are said to have been devout to the extreme of credulity, and hospitable to drunken extravagance. Their manners were rough, but social; their tables were plainly, but plentifully served. Large joints of roasted meat seem to have had the preference; salted victuals also were much in use. At table, the rank of the guests was strictly observed; and, by the laws of Canute, a person sitting above his proper station was to be pelted out of his place with bones, at the discretion of the company, without the privilege of taking offence. The lady, (or, as the Saxons named her,leaf-dien, the bread giver) sat, as now, at the upper end of the table, and distributed the provisions to her guests. The liquors used at genteel tables were wine, ale, and spiced ale, pigment (a composition of wine, spice, and honey,) morat, (honey diluted with mulberry juice) and mead.[263]Such, as may reasonably be concluded, was the state of things with regard to these matters, in the best of the families of Lynn at those times.
State of learning,and of the medical profession,among the Anglo-Saxons.
Learning during the time now alluded to was at a very low ebb in this Country. “Among the various discouragements, (saysAndrews) which literature was obliged to encounter in this ill-fated period may be reckoned the extreme scarcity of materials for writing.” A strong proof of which (he adds) “is that many of the MSS. of the 10th and 11th centuries are written on parchment, from which older works (perhaps the Decades of Livy) have been erased.” It was for want of parchment to draw the deeds upon, (as he supposes,) that estates, were then frequently conveyed from one family to another by the ceremony of a turf and a stone, delivered before witnesses, without any written agreement. However that was, England even in those dark times, exhibited some rays of intellectual light, and produced some literary characters that would have done honour to more enlightened ages.Bede, in particular, styledthe Venerable, who flourished in the 8th century, and has been called,the wise Saxon, is believed to have comprised, in eight folio volumes, the whole body of knowledge that his age afforded. To him may be addedEgbert, arch-bishop of York, and his pupilAlcuin, both distinguished in their day for extraordinary literary attainments.Alfredand his learned associates appeared in the 9th century, and were the ornaments of that dark age; but the light which they exhibited was not lasting, and they left no successors that were any way worthy of them. In the 10th (and most part of the 11th) century, scarce any man of literature appearedamong the English.Elfricis said to have been by far the most remarkable and eminent. He was styledthe grammarian, from his having written a Latin grammar. Two volumes of homilies, in MS. translated by him from the Latin into the Saxon language, are said to be still extant. Very few beside have in any degree contributed to illuminate the gloom of that dismal period.Gerbert, however, who, from a low origin, was advanced to the papal chair in 999, under the name ofSilvesterII. deserves to be respectfully noticed, as it is to his experience, gained by travel, and a long residence among foreign nations, that our arithmetic is said to owe the use of the Saracen numerals.—But as none of these persons appear to have sprung from Lynn, or its vicinity, no further notice can properly be taken of them in this work; and what has been already said of them and other extraneous matters, was chiefly intended for the purpose of pointing out the probable state of things at Lynn in the meantime, for want of more suitable and appropriate materials.
PhysicandSurgery, during those early ages, were in a most wretched state in this country, and, of course, among the inhabitants of Lynn. Old women were then the chief professors of the medical art; and as they mingled charms and spells with their prescriptions, the patient’s fancy sometimes effected, or, at least, assisted in effecting the cure. As Christianity gained ground, the clergy, having much time on their hands, applied themselves to the study of medicine, but made so little progress, that for a long time,Holy Waterseems tohave been the prescription to which they chiefly trusted. If holy water were still in use, as a popular, fashionable, or favourite medical prescription, instead of the innumerable patent medicines, and other vile quackeries that now disgrace this ill-fated country, it had been better, no doubt, for the health and constitutions of myriads of our unwary and credulous fellow-subjects. There seems, however, but little prospect of an end to this great and growing evil, while quackery continues to be so convenient and gainful to the state, or to contribute so largely, as it now does, to the revenue of the kingdom. But it is not the only public evil, the prospect of whose extinction appears very distant and hopeless.
Expressive and remarkable names of the months—state of the coinage,or currency—general value of different commodities in this country before the conquest—slavery—comparison with the present course of things.
The inhabitants of Lynn and the rest of their countrymen, in the Anglo-Saxon ages, could give more satisfactory reasons, it seems, for the names of their months, than we can for those of ours. December, which with them stood first, was calledMidwinter-monath, the midwinter month. January, was denominatedAefter-yula, that is, after Christmas, or rather, after the feast called Yula, a pagan, riotous, lawless festival, observedat that time of the year, and to which our Christmas succeeded, with no small resemblance. February, they calledSol-monath, the sun month, from the returning of the sun at that season. March, they namedRhede, orReth-monath, the rough, or rugged month. April’s name wasEaster-monath, from a favourite Saxon goddess, whose festival was kept at that time, and may be said to be still kept by us, under the idea of the christian passover, which we seem to have dedicated to that same pagan goddess, by our continuing to preserve her precious memory, and celebrating the feast still in her name. May was calledTrimilchi, from the cows being then milked three times in the day. June’s name wasSeremonath, the dry month, July was calledMœd-monath, the mead month, from the meads being then in their bloom and beauty, or the people being there employed in hay making. August had the name ofWeod-monath, the weed month, from the luxuriance, or abundance of weeds at that time. September was namedHærfest-monath, or the harvest month. October bore the name ofWinter-fyllith, or winterfall, from winter approaching with the full moon of that month. November, their last month, they calledBlot-monath, blood month, from the blood of the cattle then slain and stored for winter provision.
The Anglo-Saxons are said to have made use of coins as early as the reign of Ethelbright, or Ethelbert, who governed Kent from 561 to 616; as the fines ordered in his laws are all estimated by shillings, which was even then a denomination of money. The money-pound ofthe Anglo-Saxons, is thought to have been the same with the Tower-pound long in use at the mint, and to have weighed less than the Troy-pound by ¾ of a Troy-ounce. Its value was about 2l.16s.3d.of modern money.[268a]TheMark, like the Pound an imaginary coin, weighed eight ounces, or two thirds of the Pound. The merchant reckoned 12 ounces to the mark. Its value was 1l.17s.9d.TheMancus, a real coin, was valued at the 8th. of a mark, or 4s.and 8d.The Shilling, a real coin, was worth about eleven pence farthing of our money. The Anglo-Saxon penny, (pening, or sceata,) was a silver coin, and weighed near three-pence of our money. This little piece would do more in those times for its owner, than some shillings would do now. Halflings and Feorthlings, were the half, and the fourth, or quarter of the Anglo-Saxon penny, and were of silver. To these may be added a small brass coin called Styca. Beside these coins, it was usual with the Anglo-Saxons to complete the sum destined for any particular purpose, by adding what they calledlive money, such as oxen, sheep, horses, orslaves;[268b]which last species of traffick was carried to an almost incredible height of brutality.
The value or price of cattle, land, and other commodities, in the times of which we are now speaking, amounted to but a very small portion of what they now fetch.
“By the laws of Athelstan, (says Dr. Mavor) a sheep was valued at a shilling, or fifteen-pence of our money: an ox was computed at six times the value of a sheep, and a cow at four. A horse was valued at thirty shillings of our money, and a mare at twenty-four. Between the years 900 and 1000, a hide of land was purchased for about one hundred and eighteen shillings, which was little more than a shilling per acre.[269]On thewhole, (he adds) when we combine the alteration in the weight of the pound, and the modern value of the precious metals from their greater plenty, we may conceive every sum of money mentioned by historians, during the Anglo-Saxon, and even the Norman times, as if it were multiplied more than a hundred-fold above a sum of the same denomination at present.”
“By the laws of Athelstan, (says Dr. Mavor) a sheep was valued at a shilling, or fifteen-pence of our money: an ox was computed at six times the value of a sheep, and a cow at four. A horse was valued at thirty shillings of our money, and a mare at twenty-four. Between the years 900 and 1000, a hide of land was purchased for about one hundred and eighteen shillings, which was little more than a shilling per acre.[269]On thewhole, (he adds) when we combine the alteration in the weight of the pound, and the modern value of the precious metals from their greater plenty, we may conceive every sum of money mentioned by historians, during the Anglo-Saxon, and even the Norman times, as if it were multiplied more than a hundred-fold above a sum of the same denomination at present.”
Probability that Lynn was formerly concerned in the exportation of slaves—comparison between the ancient and modern English slave-dealers—slaves and horsesthe chief exports of this country in those days—corn not then exported,though it had been formerly—imports—commerce—miscellaneous hints and observations.
Considering how very fruitful in slaves England appears to have been under the Anglo-Saxons, and how commonly they bought and sold their slaves, (and even their own kindred,) and that they were actually a principal article of their exports to other countries,[270]it is more than probable that Lynn and other Norfolk ports were then deeply concerned in that traffic.—Slaves are known to have then abounded in the parts about this town; and no other commodity, or produce of the country, was more marketable, or saleable, both at home and abroad; we may therefore be sure that the merchants andopulent people of Lynn were not inattentive to so fashionable and profitable a branch of commerce. Some indeed, even then, disapproved of it, and a bishop, of the name ofWolfstan, is said to have firmly set his face against it at Bristol, and to have made the people somewhat ashamed of their proceedings; but it does not appear that they relinquished it, for Bristol continued to be the chief English mart for slaves, long after his time. His conduct, however, was highly laudable, memorable, and exemplary; but where among our modern prelates, can we find one that has virtue or fortitude enough to imitate the noble example of Wolfstan!
How vile and mercenary must the character of those ancient English dealers in human flesh appear, when we contemplate them as selling their own countrymen and neighbours, and even their kindred! It reminds us of what has often been said of the modern commercial, or mercantile character: that a merchant would sell his own father, if he could do it safely and gainfully.—Between our ancient and modern English slave dealers, there is some dissimilarity, though they both acted from the same principle, and the conduct of each appears thoroughly unjustifiable and atrocious.—The latter dealt only in strangers, at a great distance, and of another colour; but the former trafficked, as was before observed, in their own countrymen, and near neighbours, brought up among them, and, occasionally, even in their own near relations. Of the two, therefore, the conduct of the ancients appears, at first sight, as far the most unnaturaland stocking; but that will cease to be the case, upon further consideration, and when times and circumstances are duly attended to. Those ancients lived in rude and barbarous ages, when the natural rights of man were not understood, and when darkness visible was every where predominant; which must, in some measure, extenuate their misdeeds. But our modern slave-dealers have carried on their operations in the open day, and in the very face of the sun—they have adhered to this most barbarous and savage traffick in the most enlightened age of the world—they have persisted in it, in spite of the frequent and solemn remonstrances of the most virtuous and enlightened of their countrymen, and in defiance of the clearest demonstrations of the flagiciousness of their conduct. They have, therefore, no cloak for their sin, no excuse or palliating plea for their atrocities. To them belongs the pre-eminence of turpitude and infamy, and they may be said to stand at the head of those monsters who have been a disgrace to christianity, to humanity, and to their country.
Slavesandhorsesappear to have been the principal, if not the only articles exported from this country during the Anglo-Saxon ages. Corn constituted then no article of our exports, though it had done so formerly, in a considerable degree, while Britain formed a part of the Roman Empire. Agriculture must therefore have miserably declined here since the arrival of the Saxons, and the country had no reason to congratulate itself on its change of masters. After the introduction of Christianity the monks are said to have been, by muchthe best husbandmen, and also the best, if not the only gardeners in the country. They were certainly the most enlightened class of the community, and the little knowledge and learning which the country then possessed were chiefly, if not entirely, confined within the solemn precincts of the monasteries.
Of ourimportsin those days,books,relics,pictures, andimages of saints,clerical vestments, andchurch ornaments, are said to have been the chief articles; which gives but a very miserable idea of the state of the country, and its commerce, in the mean time.—They were however, not the only articles, for it appears thatwinesalso were imported from France and Spain,clothsfrom Germany and Flanders,furs,deer-skins, (and probably,bear-skins,)ropes,whale oil, &c. from Scandinavian and even a portion of all the different commodities then known in any part of Europe is supposed to have been at that period imported to this country. Yet the balance of trade is said to have been much in our favour—that is, we got much more by the sale of ourSlavesandhorses, in which our exports consisted, than what we lost or laid out in the purchase of all the various articles which we imported, many of which, at the same time, must have been pretty expensive. This seems to imply, that thoseSlavesandhorses, with which foreign markets were supplied from hence, must have been very numerous, as well as very beneficial and lucrative to our English merchants.
During some part of this period the shipping of Englandseems to have been pretty numerous; but what portion of it belonged to the port of Lynn does not appear. The royal navy too, was at times on a respectable footing, particularly in the reigns of Alfred and Canute, as well as in those of Edgar, surnamed the peaceable, and Ethelred: the latter is said to have possessed near 800 sail of men of war,[274]but they were all what would now be called small vessels. The military force of the kingdom consisted generally of about 50,000, though on extraordinary occasions it considerably exceeded that number.
For a long time,marketswere usually kept onSundays, in or near somechurch, but that being found somewhat inconvenient, as interfering with the religious service of the day, they were afterwards changed to Saturdays. Thefairsof those times were also generally kept within the precincts of some great churches, or monasteries, on some notable day, generally the anniversary of the patron saint, and it was customary to oblige every comer to the fair, at the gate, before he entered, toswearthat he would neitherlie,steal, norcheat: which might be very useful, if the people had then a proper sense of the sacredness of oaths, otherwise it would be of but little avail, as it is to be feared it would also be in the present day, when, from the multiplicity or commonness of oaths, a disposition to trifle with, or make light of them is notoriously prevalent. For holding these fairs, bishops and abbots obtained charters from the crown, with a view to increase their own revenuesby the tolls which such charters would authorise them to levy on such occasions. Thus every thing contributed to the aggrandizement of the church. Before the end of this period, the clergy had possession of more than a third part of all the land in the kingdom, with the tithes of all the rest.
Much attention was then bestowed on the decoration of churches and religious houses. Organs and bells were introduced toward the latter part of this period. The famousSaint Dunstangave a fine organ, in the reign of Edgar, to the abbey of Glastonbury. Bells became very common about the 10th century, and were hung in the towers of churches, which were then all of wood: only the altars were, it seems, built of stone. The firstsetof bells in this kingdom, that we hear of, was atCroyland, in Lincolnshire, in the reign of Athelstan, a gift of the abbotTurketulto that celebrated monastery.[275]There had, however, beensinglebells in England long before that period, and even as early as the 7th century, as is attested byBede. In the time of M. Paris, bells were not allowed to ring at funerals, as inspiring too gay and unsuitable ideas. Clocks also began to be introduced here toward the close of thisperiod. About the same time, the English began to be expert and noted manufacturers of woollen cloth; the value of a sheep’s fleece, of course, was then well understood, and rated at two fifths of the animal’s whole price. Silk, though now beginning to be imported, was not woven here until some centuries afterwards: linen, in the mean time, was extremely scarce. It is very remarkable, but seemingly an unquestionable fact, that highly finished works in gold and silver, were the production even of our darkest ages. The monks, in those times, were the best artists, and the famous St. Dunstan inferior to none of them. Yet the means of supplying life with necessaries, appear to have been but imperfectly known and cultivated. The pagans of Sussex, in the 7th. century, though starving for want of food, knew not how to catch any fish, except eels, until bishop Wilfred, who came thither in 678, instructed them in the use of nets. He took 300 at a draught; and by thus supplying their bodily wants, rendered their minds tractable to his doctrines, and easily succeeded in their conversion.[276]—Our modern missionaries to the south sea isles, and other foreign parts, would do well to imitate his example, and not confine their attention or labours solely to religious instruction. A goodly pattern of the same kind has also been very lately set before them among the North American Indians by theQuaker missionaries. But it is to be feared that they and their employers are too wise in their own eyes to profit by such examples.
Population of Lynn,and the country in general,before the conquest—condition of the bulk of the inhabitants in the mean time—sufferings of the inhabitants of Lynn and the adjacent country from the Danes—intrepid and ferocious character of that people—instruments of vengeance on the Anglo-Saxons—their disposition and character not much changed by their conversion to christianity—remarkable instances of imposition,superstition,and credulity.
Of the population of Lynn, at any time during that long period, from the establishment of the Saxons to that of the Normans, no estimate can now be formed; but it is pretty certain that the major part of its inhabitants, as well as those of the adjacent country, and of all the rest of England, wereSlaves, during the whole of that time, and long after. Those unfortunate people, for the most part at least, appear to have been the descendants of the original inhabitants, who were reduced to that condition, at the subjugation, of conquest of the country, and whose lives had been then spared, on condition of their becoming the property, or goods and chattels of the conquerors. So did the Saxons treat those of the natives whose lives they condescended to spare; all the rest they butchered without mercy, except such of them as were fortunate enough to escape to the unsubdued parts of the island. Of these cruel and horrid deeds, they never appear to have repented, even after they assumed the name of christians, for the bondage still continued; but, in time, a severe retaliation took place, and the Saxons, in their turn, were treated much after the same manner as they had formerly treated the Britons. Long peace haddestroyed their martial spirit: from a very warlike people, they became gradually a most dastardly race, and so fell an easy prey to the ferocious Danes. The difference at that time between these two nations in point of military prowess, is said to be so great that the Saxons, alias the English, frequently fled before inferior numbers of the Danes, and could hardly be prevailed upon to meet them in the field of battle on any terms. “Oh the misery and worldly shame in which England is involved through the wrath of God! (said an English bishop in the reign of Ethelred the unready) How often doth two or three troops of Danes drive the whole English army before them from sea to sea, to our eternal infamy, if we were capable of feeling shame! But, alas! so abject are we become, that we worship those who trample upon us, and load us with indignities.” Such was then the abject submission of the English to the insolence of the Danes, “that when an Englishman met a Dane on a bridge, or in a narrow path, where he could not avoid him, he was obliged to stand still, with his head uncovered, and in a bowing posture, till he was out of sight.” Nay, we are assured that English submission and Danish insolence and brutality were sometimes carried still further, and even to degrees that are almost incredible, as well as too indelicate to relate.[278]These Danes, who now became the instruments of retaliation and vengeance upon the Anglo-Saxons, were remarkable for their extraordinary military skill and intrepidity; and they were as unfeeling and ferocious as the latter appear to have been at the time when they invaded andconquered this country: they were therefore probably the fitter for the execution of the work in which they were employed. Much has been said of the cruelties committed by the Danes in this country: they were certainly very enormous and shocking; but there is no reason to conclude that they exceeded, or, perhaps, even equalled those which the Saxons had before exercised upon the former inhabitants. Of all the perpetrators of Danish enormities, in this island,Guthrumseems to be the foremost, or most conspicuous, in the pages of our ancient historians. Of him one of them speaks thus—“The cruel Guthrum arrived in EnglandA.D.878, at the head of an army of Pagan Danes, no less cruel than himself; who, like inhuman savages, destroyed all before them with fire and sword, involving cities, towns, and villages, with their inhabitants, in devouring flames; and cutting those in pieces with their battle-axes who attempted to escape from their burning houses. The tears, cries, and lamentations of men, women, and children, made no impressions upon their unrelenting hearts; even the most tempting bribes, and the humblest offers of becoming their slaves, had no effect. All the towns through which they passed exhibited the most deplorable scenes of misery and desolation; as, venerable old men lying with their throats cut before their own doors; the streets covered with the bodies of young men and children, without heads, legs, or arms; and of matrons and virgins, who had been first publicly dishonoured, and then put to death.”[279]This is very shocking,and looks like providential retaliation. The annals of history exhibit many instances of the same kind. The Danish warriors were always prodigal of life, and not only did not fear, but even courted a violent death. A natural death they dreaded, as a most ignoble and disgraceful end, and which they always appeared very anxious to avoid. No wonder that they became the terror of every nation against which they happened to wage war. No greater evil could well befall any people than to have them for their enemies and invaders.
To no part of this island did the Danes prove a greater, or more terrible scourge than to the province of the East Angles, which became one of their principal settlements, and where they committed the most shocking barbarities. Hence we may very safely conclude that the sufferings which the inhabitants of Lynn experienced from them must have been exceedingly grievous and deplorable. But as those sufferings have not been recorded they cannot now be described or particularized.
The Danes, as well as the Anglo-Saxons, when they invaded this country were pagans. Both of them afterward took up the profession of christianity; but it was only its profession, or bare name that they did take up. Their former ferocity still remained. They continued grossly ignorant, superstitious, and heathenish, and exhibited scarcely a spark of the real spirit of the religion of Christ, except perhaps in the latter part of the reign of Alfred. Their ghostly, or religious instructors were miserable and blind guides, or knavish and artfulimpostors, who taught them that the most meritorious actions consisted in erecting and endowing monasteries, performing pilgrimages, and reverencing the priesthood. From such pretended or pseudo-christianity, what good effect could be expected? Grapes cannot be gathered of thorns, or figs of thistles.—When Earl Alwine, who was the greatest and richest man in England, in the reign of Edgar the peaceable, consulted St. Oswald, bishop of York, what he should do to obtain the pardon of his sins, thesaintedprelate made him the following eloquent harangue: “I beseech your excellency to believe that those holy men who have retired from the world, and spend their days in poverty and prayer, are the greatest favourites of heaven, and the greatest blessings to the world. It is by their merits that the divine judgements are averted and changed; that plagues and famines are removed; that healthful seasons and plentiful harvests are procured; that states and kingdoms are governed; that prisons are opened, captives delivered, shipwrecks prevented, the weak strengthened, and the sick healed: that I may say all in one word, it is by their merits that this world, so full of wickedness, is preserved from immediate ruin and destruction. I intreat you therefore, my dear son, if you have any place in your estate fit for that purpose, that you immediately build a monastery, and fill it with holy monks, whose prayers will supply all your defects, and expiate all your crimes.” The Apostles, no doubt, would have answered such an inquiry very differently. The building of Ramsey abbey, however, as Dr. Henryobserves, was the consequence of this fine speech.[282]Such acts were represented by the monks as contributing greatly to the future repose of those who did them, and of their friends; whence it was usual for all those who had any sense of religion, or concern, for their salvation, to bequeath some part of their estatesto their own souls, as they called those bequests which they made to a church or a monastery.
To promote and establish an unbounded veneration for the priesthood, miraculous tales were industriously propagated, and as readily believed; for the credulity of the people perfectly suited the knavery of the priests. The following talc, or rather miracle, is related by William of Malmsbury, in the very words, as he says, of one of the persons on whom it was wrought:
“I Ethelbert, a sinner, will give a true relation of what happened to me on the day before Christmas,A.D.1012, in a certain village, where there was a church dedicated to St Magnus the martyr, that all men may know thedanger of disobeying the commands of a priest. Fifteen young women and eighteen young men, of which I was one, were dancing and singing in the church-yard, when one Robert, a priest, was performing mass in the church; who sent us a civil message, intreating us to desist from our diversion, because we disturbed his devotion by our noise. But we impiously disregarded his request; upon which the holy man, inflamed with anger, prayed to God and St. Magnus, that we might continue dancing and singing a whole year, without intermission. Hisprayers were heard. A young man, the son of a priest, named John, took his sister, (who was singing with us) by the hand, and her arm dropped from her body without one drop of blood following. But notwithstanding this disaster she continued to dance and sing with us a whole year. During all that time we felt no inconvenience from rain, cold, heat, hunger, thirst, or weariness; and neither our shoes, nor our clothes wore out. Whenever it began to rain, a magnificent house was erected over us, by the power of the Almighty. By our continual dancing we wore the earth so much, that by degrees we sunk into it up to the knees, and at length up to the middle. When the year was ended, bishop Hubert came to the place, dissolved the invisible ties by which our hands had been so long united, absolved us, and reconciled us to St. Magnus. The priest’s daughter, who had lost her arm, and other two of the young women, died away immediately; but all the rest fell into a profound sleep, in which they continued three days and three nights; after which they arose and went up and down the world, publishing this true and glorious miracle, and carrying the evidence of its truth along with them, in the continual shaking of their limbs.”
“I Ethelbert, a sinner, will give a true relation of what happened to me on the day before Christmas,A.D.1012, in a certain village, where there was a church dedicated to St Magnus the martyr, that all men may know thedanger of disobeying the commands of a priest. Fifteen young women and eighteen young men, of which I was one, were dancing and singing in the church-yard, when one Robert, a priest, was performing mass in the church; who sent us a civil message, intreating us to desist from our diversion, because we disturbed his devotion by our noise. But we impiously disregarded his request; upon which the holy man, inflamed with anger, prayed to God and St. Magnus, that we might continue dancing and singing a whole year, without intermission. Hisprayers were heard. A young man, the son of a priest, named John, took his sister, (who was singing with us) by the hand, and her arm dropped from her body without one drop of blood following. But notwithstanding this disaster she continued to dance and sing with us a whole year. During all that time we felt no inconvenience from rain, cold, heat, hunger, thirst, or weariness; and neither our shoes, nor our clothes wore out. Whenever it began to rain, a magnificent house was erected over us, by the power of the Almighty. By our continual dancing we wore the earth so much, that by degrees we sunk into it up to the knees, and at length up to the middle. When the year was ended, bishop Hubert came to the place, dissolved the invisible ties by which our hands had been so long united, absolved us, and reconciled us to St. Magnus. The priest’s daughter, who had lost her arm, and other two of the young women, died away immediately; but all the rest fell into a profound sleep, in which they continued three days and three nights; after which they arose and went up and down the world, publishing this true and glorious miracle, and carrying the evidence of its truth along with them, in the continual shaking of their limbs.”
A formal deed, attesting the truth of this ridiculous story, was drawn up and subscribed by bishop Peregrine, the successor of Hubert,A.D.1013.[283]William of Malmsbury also, the most sensible of our old historians, appears to have given it full credit. In short, it seems very certain that it was long, in common with abundance of other similar tales, universally believed; which shewshow well established the authority of the priesthood, and the popular reverence for that order, must then have been in this country, and here at Lynn, as well as in other places.
Next to the priests and monks, the magicians and fortunetellers appear to have then possessed the largest share of the public confidence and veneration; and very probably with equal worthiness. Strange tales have been related by historians of the ascendancy which these sorts of people long had over the infatuated inhabitants, and even over those of the highest orders among them. These things give but an unfavourable idea of our national character in those times. It would but ill become us, however, to think very contemptuously of those foibles in our poor ancestors, while we ourselves with all our boasted advantages and wisdom, have not yet entirely left off consulting fortunetellers and conjurers: to say nothing of the multitude of other impostors, of different sorts, that are daily countenanced and caressed among us.
Of the Heptarchy and its history—remarks on Egbert,Alfred,and their most renowned successors—character of Canute,and of Edward the Confessor:the latter the first of our monarchs that touched for the Evil—remarks on that circumstance,and on the prevalence of that complaint in the parts about Lynn.
During a good part of the period from the Saxon invasion to the conquest, England was divided into sevenpetty states, or kingdoms, usually denominated, the Heptarchy,[285]the history of which is exceedingly uninteresting; being, as Granger observes, a series of violence, wars, and massacres, among petty tyrants, most of whom were a disgrace to the human species.—Under the famous Egbert those states were consolidated, and formed into one kingdom, under the name of England, which it has borne ever since. The kings who have ruled it, from Egbert to the Norman conqueror, were, for the most part, like their predecessors in the days of the Heptarchy, very disreputable and worthless characters. There were however, some exceptions, among which Alfred was far the most conspicuous, and outshone the rest, as the sun does all the other luminaries.
Among the most renowned and respectable of the other English sovereigns of that period, beside Egbert, already mentioned, were Edward the elder, Athelstan, Edgar the peaceable, Edmund ironside, Canute the great, and Harold the second. Of Edgar we are told, that he styled himselfKing of Great Britain, as Edred, it seems, had done before him; but that title was afterward discontinued, and not used by any succeeding monarch, till the reign of James the first. The most potent among these crowned heads was Canute, being the sovereign of Denmark and Norway as well as of England. That he possessed great talents is allowed on all hands; and though he was cruel here at first, he gradually became mild, devout, and popular. Though an usurper anda foreigner, he was, perhaps, next to Alfred, the wisest of our ancient kings, if not also the most virtuous and enlightened, especially towards the close of his reign: of which his memorable adventure, or experiment with the tide, and with the miserable sycophants of his court, on the seashore, seems a pretty strong indication. That he was also superstitious, and an admirer of relics, must not be denied: but it was likewise the case with all the most eminent of the princes of those days, the great Alfred himself not excepted. There is a remarkable air of honest simplicity in the reason given by Canute for undertaking a voyage, or journey to Rome, which he did a few years before he died:—“I had been told (said he) that the apostle Peter had received great authority from the Lord, and carried the keys of heaven: therefore I thought it absolutely necessary to secure his favour by a pilgrimage to Rome.”—How many of our modern visionaries and devotees would appear more respectable than Canute, were they as honestly to avow their motives, or give the reason of their proceedings?
In adverting to the princes, or sovereigns of this period, to whom the town of Lynn was in subjection, Edward, called the Confessor, must not be left unnoticed: not so much for any shining qualities, or great respectability of character which he possessed, for there he appears to have been very deficient, as for certain incidents or events which distinguished his reign, independent of any personal worth or merit of his own. With the monks and ecclesiastics he was certainly a great favourite, but what made him so redounded not at all to his honour,but may be said to be a disgrace, rather than any credit to his memory.
The most important and laudable occurrence of his reign was the reformation of the law of the land. Before his time different parts of the kingdom were governed by different laws: Wessex, by the West Saxon; Mercia, by the Mercian; and Northumberland, by the Danish laws. In his reign they were reduced into one body, by the name of the laws of Edward the confessor, which then became common to all England. This together with the abolition of that odious tax calledDanegelt, seem to have been his best and most commendable deeds, though probably to be ascribed to his counsellors, such as Goodwin, Leofric, and Siward, rather than to himself. It is said, however, that he was humane, temperate, and charitable, and gave much alms: and, moreover, that he had visions and revelations, the gift of prophecy, and even that of working miracles, his extensive fame for which continued long, and procured him, about two hundred years after his death, from pope Alexander III. the high honour of canonization, under the name ofSaint Edward the Confessor, an appellation that must have been very oddly and unaccountably applied.
But of all his memorable achievements, or traits of character, histouchingfor the Evil, or Scrofula, and pretending to the gift or power of miraculously healing that complaint, are the most remarkable. As this pretended gift or power is supposed to have originatedwith him,[288a]and to have descended from him to all his legitimate successors on the English throne, a sketch of the history of the practice, from first to last, it is presumed, would not prove unacceptable or unentertaining to the reader. And as the disorder, for whose cure this practice was introduced, is said to be nowhere more common, or prevalent, than at and about Lynn,[288b]which is supposed to have been also the case for many generations, it may naturally and safely be concluded that frequent applications to the throne for a cure would be made, time after time, from these parts, while every body believed that the sovereign’stouchwould infallibly remove the malady. Myriads and myriads, labouring under scrofulous complaints, have certainly applied to the throne for relief during the long interval between the time of the Confessor, when the said practice commenced, and the accession of George I. when it was finally laid aside. Even in the single reign of thatmost religiousprince (as he has been called) Charles II. the number, it is said, amounted toabove ninety thousand; and it is morally certain that not a few of that multitude, and of the rest, who resorted, before and since, to our different sovereigns, for relief in the same case, were Norfolk and Lynn patients. The insertion therefore, in this volume, of the proposed Sketch ofthis notable affair, or practice of the royal touch, cannot, it is presumed, be deemed any material deviation from propriety:—so it shall appear in the last section of this chapter, at the conclusion of this second part of the work.
State of Lynn in the Confessor’s time—Stigand,Ailmer,and Harold,bore then the chief sway—great power of the latter—sketch of his character—obtains the crown at the confessor’s death—is soon disturbed by two formidable invasions—the one from the Danish,or Norwegian shores,under Halfagar,whom he vanquishes and slays in battle—the other from France,under his rival or competitor,William of Normandy,in opposing whom he is himself vanquished and slain in the decisive battle of Hastings,which places the conqueror on the throne,without further struggle,through the defection and machinations of the bishops and clergy.
In the time of the Confessor, as he has been already suggested, Lynn was a place of considerable and growing consequence. The town then, and the adjacent country belonged to three of the principal men of the realm. Harold, who afterwards ascended the throne, was then Earl, or Duke of the East Angles,[289]which must have placed Lynn under his jurisdiction. He hadbesides, great possessions here, being chief proprietor and lord of South Lynn and other places. Great Massingham, Westacre &c. did also belong to him. Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, likewise bore then no small sway in this town and neighbourhood, as lord of Rising, &c. So also did his brother Ailmer, bishop of Elmham, to which see, even at that early period, the government of the borough of Lynn seems to have been a kind of appendage. These two prelates were Anglo-Saxons, which was the case, it seems, with but three more of the order in the kingdom;[290]the rest being all foreigners, and mostly French, or Normans. These being his countrymen, and in a manner his subjects, we need not wonder at the facility with which the Conqueror obtained the English Crown; especially as the Pope also patronized the undertaking. Though those bishops could not prevent the accession of Harold, owing to his great popularity and power, yet they kept themselves ready to promote the cause and interest of his rival whenever a fair opportunity should offer, and it was not long before they had their wishes completely gratified.
Harold during the latter part of the Confessor’s reign was the most powerful subject in the kingdom. He possessed also great talents and courage, with no small share of ambition, and had acquired vast and unrivalled popularity. It was therefore no great wonder that he should pretty easily make his way to the throne at the very first vacancy. He had had for sometime the chief management of public affairs, and his conduct inthe mean while appears to have given general satisfaction. No one in the kingdom was better qualified, or perhaps more deserving than he to wear the crown; and whatever the Norman, or monkish historians may have said to the contrary, it seems pretty certain that he ascended the throne with the general assent and approbation of the people.
His reign however, was soon disturbed, first by a Danish, or Norwegian invasion in the north, beaded by Harfager, or Helfager king of Norway, aided by Harold’s own worthless brother Tosti; and shortly after by a French invasion in the south, under William the bastard, Duke of Normandy. The former Harold opposed with success; the invaders were defeated with great slaughter, and the two chiefs, Harfager and Tosti, fell in the action. Great and rich booty is said to have fallen into the hands of the victors, including a considerable quantity of gold. Here Harold appears to have committed a great error, and to have departed most unwisely and unaccountably from his usual policy, by retaining all the spoil for himself, instead of sharing it with his soldiers, which excited great discontents among them, and proved afterwards, in no small measure, detrimental to his cause.
No sooner had the English monarch triumphed over the first invaders than he learnt that the Duke of Normandy with a great army had made good his landing in Sussex. He immediately commenced his march against that fierce and formidable adversary, with an army greatly reduced by the late bloody, though successfulconflict, and rendered discontented by his own impolitic and unwise conduct, already mentioned. Yet notwithstanding those disadvantages, so rapid was his progress from Yorkshire to Sussex, that he actually arrived within sight of his enemies before they had proceeded but a little way from the place of debarkation. It had been better, no doubt, had he taken more time, to refresh and recruit his army, or acted on the defensive, for sometime at least, which could hardly have failed of being very materially to his advantage, as he was then circumstanced. But so impetuous was he, and resolute to bring the contest to a speedy termination, that he absolutely rejected the wholesome counsel given him by one of his brothers, to adopt a different course. To his opponent this must have been perfectly agreeable, and the very thing he wanted, as nothing could have been less his interest than a defensive war on the part of the English, or to find in Harold anotherFabius. Both parties accordingly prepared for a speedy and decisive engagement. The two armies are said to have spent the preceding night very differently: the English impiously passed it in riot and revelry; but the Normans, good creatures! were all the time occupied in the duties of religion; for which, to be sure, from the nature of their errand, and the object of their visit, they must have been preeminently qualified! This story, we may presume, was fabricated afterwards by the monks and priests and Norman historians, who were in the interest of the Conqueror, and wished to pay their court to the reigning family. Be that as it might, the battle of Hastings forms a memorable era in the history of thiscountry. Both armies fought with desperate valour, as if determined to conquer or die; but the invaders proved victorious. Harold and his two brothers, with the flower of the English army, fell in that bloody and fatal field; and that single victory may be said to have placed the conqueror on the throne of England, and advanced him to the first rank among the European potentates of that age. In promptness, decision, military and political talents, as well as good fortune, he may be said strongly to resemble the present sovereign of Normandy and the French Empire. But it is to be hoped that the resemblance will not hold, in case the latter should ever attempt to accomplish his long threatened invasion of this kingdom.
From the disastrous and fatal field of Hastings, Edwin and Morcar, the principal surviving English commanders, with the shattered remains of Harold’s army, retreated in the night to London, where they convened the people, and such of the grandees of the realm as were there to be found, to consult upon the best mode of proceeding, at so critical and desperate a conjuncture. They themselves were for placing Edgar Atheling, the next heir, on the throne, and adopting vigorous measures for the discomfiture and expulsion of the invaders; but their advice was not taken, their reasons were set at nought, and every idea of any further resistance was abandoned; so that William obtained the crown without fighting another battle, or encountering any further difficulty. Nothing could exceed the pusillanimity, or dastardly conduct of the English on that memorableoccasion, instead of the present prevailing and flattering idea, that one Englishman can beat two or three Frenchmen, they seemed to believe, on the contrary, that one Frenchman could beat, at least, two or three Englishmen. In short, they appear to have erred as much on the one hand as we do on the other. But it was not the only time when our dear countrymen discovered a diffidence of their own superiority.
The blame of rejecting the counsel of the two chieftains above-mentioned has been imputed to the defection and machinations of the bishops and clergy, who, as has been already suggested, were decidedly in the interest of the Norman, and, of course, inimical to the Anglo-Saxon or English, government, constitution, and succession. The chief reasons for which, were probably the following—1. Many of them, and most of the bishops were foreigners, and William’s countrymen and subjects; so that it was natural for them to favour his enterprize and pretensions.—2. Ecclesiastical power and priestly domination were more likely to be promoted, and the popular, or opposite spirit depressed and crushed under a Norman, than an Anglo-Saxon, or English government.—3. Even under the Confessor, monk-ridden and priest-ridden as he was, the civil power was so formidable, and superior to the ecclesiastical, that the parliament actually procured the deprivation and banishment ofRobert, archbishop of Canterbury, as an incendiary and fomenter of disputes between the king and his subjects, and hadStigandappointed in his room: a change therefore, or such a revolutionin the constitution and government as William was likely to effect or promote, must have been a desirable object with the whole clerical body.—4. The Pope had openly appeared in favour of the invasion, the success of which he was understood to have much at heart: and so careful had he been to let all see that William was his man, and the church’s favourite and champion, that he first made him a present of a consecrated standard, a golden Agnus Dei, and a ring, in which was pretended to be one of St. Peter’s hairs; (of course a most precious relic;) and then he solemnly excommunicated all that should oppose him. This conduct or example of the pope would alone have been sufficient lo influence and determine the bishops, clergy, and monks, or the whole body of the ecclesiastics, to betray and sacrifice the cause of the people, or of the nation, and promote to the utmost that of the invader. They would have done so without any other reason or inducement; but being further stimulated by those before mentioned, we may safely conclude that their zeal in the disgraceful cause which they had so basely espoused, must have been of no ordinary fervour.
This memorable co-operation of the clergy with the conqueror, so hostile to the liberty and independence of the country, has been pronounced, in a recent publication, to be “the true origin of thealliance between church and state, so much contended for by some of our ecclesiastics; who have renounced the penances of popery, but would fain retain both its pride and its power.”[296]But if it was really its origin here, yet it seems to have begun elsewhere at a much earlier period: for the world does not appear to have existed a very long while before statesmen and priests found it to be their interest to play into each others hands, and enter into partnership, for the better management of their respective concerns; or, in other words, for the sake of keeping the multitude more easily and effectually in subjection.
The papal presents and interference in favour of the Norman expedition, despicable as they appear, must have largely contributed to recruit William’s forces, inspire them with confidence and enthusiasm, and eventually promote and ensure his success. Nor was he himself wanting on his part. Nothing that an intrepid adventurer, and able leader could do to give effect to his undertaking was by him omitted. He even went so far as to make very liberal promises to divide the lands of the English among his followers, in case he proved victorious; which promises he afterwards very punctually and amply performed, so that the English grandees were deprived of their possessions, or if they were permitted to retain any part of them, they held the same under the Normans, who then became every where the great lords and proprietors of the country.
The whole English nation, in the meantime, was so completely subdued and degraded, as to become, like the ancient Gibeonites, mere hewers of wood and drawers of water for their haughty conquerors, whom providence seemed to employ, like the Danes before, asinstruments of retaliation and vengeance, for the atrocities formerly committed on the original inhabitants. The English language itself was now in a manner prohibited and proscribed, and theFrenchsubstituted for it, or introduced in its room, especially in the courts of law, and all legal transactions, which continued to be the case for a long time.[297]French also became now the sole language of gentlemen, or of all who moved in the high and polite circles. None could be admitted into such circles, or allowed the name of gentlemen, without that language, which bore very hard, no doubt, upon many an English buck of those days; hence that well known old proverb, “Jack would be a gentleman, but that he can talk no French.”
The changes which the Norman Conquest produced in this country shall be further noticed in the next part or division of this work, where it will be seen how Lynn in particular, and its vicinity were affected by that memorable and humiliating revolution.
During the period of which we have been treating, Lynn exhibited no appearance of a borough, or corporatetown: that state, or order of things belonged to the policy of a subsequent period, and resulted from the revolution effected by the conquest, and the odious feudal system, for their attachment to which the Normans were so very remarkable. Of the population of Lynn before the conquest, a great part probably consisted ofslavesof different descriptions, the vassals and property of the bishop and other great men. The artificers, tradesmen, and merchants of Lynn were then all, perhaps, in that condition, and following their respective employments or professions, by the permission, and under the protection or patronage of their lordly superiors and proprietors, and also for their, as well as their own behoof or emolument. It is not very clear or probable that the condition of these people and of the rest of their unfree or enslaved countrymen, did or could, by the conquest, suffer any very material deterioration. But with their superiors, the high and mighty, or great men of the land, their lordly and unfeeling oppressors, the case is known to have been far otherwise: that event, like some modern conquests and revolutions, degraded and humbled them with a vengeance.
Sketch of the practice of theroyal touchin England,or a historical Essay on the memorableempiricism of our English sovereigns,from Edward the Confessor to George the First.
It is generally agreed that this notable practice, which appears to have been long deemed as a branch of theroyal prerogative, began in this kingdom with, or in the person of Edward the Confessor.[299a]Some however seem to think it to have existed in France at an earlier period: if so, Edward, who had long lived in that country, and appeared very partial to it, and fond of French fashions, might take the hint from thence, and introduce it here upon his accession to the throne, which he might easily manage by the help of the monks, with whom he was so great a favourite.
Clovis, andRobertof sainted memory, are named among the early French sovereigns who successfully practised the royal touch, and were greatly admired and venerated by their subjects on that account. In the reignof Philipthe first, the virtue is supposed to have been somehow lost, but happily revived again with undiminished splendor in that of Lewis the fat, after which it seems to have long and regularly continued. Francis I.[299b]and Henry IV. are represented as eminent practitioners; how it was with the succeeding monarchs, descended from the latter, we are not informed. No particular attention appears to have been paid to it yet by the emperor Napoleon. What he may think proper to dohereafter, no tongue can tell. Whether he possesses this power or not, it is certain that he possesses some other powers in as great a degree, at least, as any of his royal or imperial predecessors.
But this miraculous gift of healing did not, it seems, belong exclusively to the kings of France and England.[300a]The Earls, or princes of the house of Hapsburg also, are reported to have had it in no scanty measure. They cured the strumous, or scrofulous, it is said, by giving them drink, and the stammerers, by kissing them. But the Kings of Hungary seem to have exceeded all; for we are told that theycouldcure, not only the king’s evil, but all disorders occasioned by poison, the bite of a viper, or any other venomous animal.
“Mr.Bel, who tells us this, observes (what is as remarkable as the account itself) that he cannot find in history, that these Hungarian kings ever exercised this wonderful power.[300b]More shame for them, the unfeeling wretches! if they possessed it.“The case was otherwise with the royal doctors of France and England, who have not been so shy of exerting this power, or rather, of practising this quackery.Some French writers (says Carte) ascribe this gift of healing to the king’s devotion towards the relics of St. Marculf, in the Church of Corbigny, in Champagne, to which the kings of France, immediately after their coronation at Rheims, used to go in solemn procession: and it must be owned there was formerly a great veneration paid to this saint in England. It was in memory of him that a room in the palace of Westminster frequently mentioned in the rolls of parliament, was called the chamber of St. Marculf; being probably the place where our kings touched for the Evil. It is now (our historian adds) called the painted chamber: and though the name of that saint hath been long forgot in this nation, yet the sanative virtue of our kings still continues.”[301a]
“Mr.Bel, who tells us this, observes (what is as remarkable as the account itself) that he cannot find in history, that these Hungarian kings ever exercised this wonderful power.[300b]More shame for them, the unfeeling wretches! if they possessed it.
“The case was otherwise with the royal doctors of France and England, who have not been so shy of exerting this power, or rather, of practising this quackery.Some French writers (says Carte) ascribe this gift of healing to the king’s devotion towards the relics of St. Marculf, in the Church of Corbigny, in Champagne, to which the kings of France, immediately after their coronation at Rheims, used to go in solemn procession: and it must be owned there was formerly a great veneration paid to this saint in England. It was in memory of him that a room in the palace of Westminster frequently mentioned in the rolls of parliament, was called the chamber of St. Marculf; being probably the place where our kings touched for the Evil. It is now (our historian adds) called the painted chamber: and though the name of that saint hath been long forgot in this nation, yet the sanative virtue of our kings still continues.”[301a]
Of the most noted among our sovereigns, as practitioners in this healing art, the following is thought a pretty complete list. Nothing seems to be known in this way of Harold II. or yet of the four succeeding princes; but that Henry II. practised very successfully is said to be attested by Petrus Blesensis, who had been his chaplain.[301b]It seems highly probable that Henry III. likewise was often applied to, and successfully practised in the same way, as John of Geddesden, a physician, who is said to live about that time, advises a scorfulous patient, after his remedies had proved ineffectual, to applyto the king for a cure: for which he has been much blamed, and seemingly not without reason, as, in case he deemed the royal touch a certain care or remedy, he ought to have sent the patient to the king at first, without troubling him with operation and medicine.[302a]
Henry’s great son, Edward I, also appears to have been no mean master of this same art; and so, probably, might be his son, Edward II, though otherwise no great conjuror; but as to his son, Edward III, few, if any, seem to have gone beyond him in this sanative employment.Bradwardine, who attended him in his wars, and whose counsel is said to have contributed to his success, gives a pompous advertisement, in his bookDe Causa Dei, of the wonderful cures wrought by that prince.F. le Brun, however, pays no regard to this. He looks upon it as a crafty stratagem, and says, he does not doubt but that Edward’s pretensions to the crown of France excited his zeal to touch those who were diseased; which is not unlikely; princes often, when nothing but politics lie at the bottom, chusing to make religion to swim on the top.[302b]Edward’s grandson, Richard II, cannot be supposed to drop or lay aside a practice for which his grandfather and immediate predecessor on the throne had been so celebrated. Nor is it at all likely that his successors, of the rival house of Lancaster, should discontinue this practice, as that might have been construed to imply a consciousness of inferiority to the princes of the other house, or something like a defect in their own title to the crown.
Least of all is it to be supposed that this practice should be dropt or neglected afterwards, on the restoration of the York line, in the person ofEdward IV, who would naturally take care to exercise every prerogative or power supposed to have belonged to his ancestors, and which had any way contributed to their popularity, consequence, or celebrity. This monarch, though of a far less religious or devout cast than his immediate predecessor Henry VI. might not on that account be the less qualified to work these miracles, any more thanCharles II.afterwards; who, though by his clerical subjects denominatedmost religious, was yet certainly, in fact, one of themost irreligiousand profligate wretches that ever wore a crown: nevertheless he unquestionably practiced theroyal touch, as extensively, effectually, and successfully as any one whatever in the whole list of our crowned, or kingly practitioners. And why not?—as the extraordinary gift, supernatural virtue, or miraculous power, belonged entirely, it seems, to his regal quality or dignity;[303]and had nothing at all, apparently, to do with his personal or moral character.
RichardIII. also, after he ascended the throne, may be supposed to possess as much of this supernatural andsanative virtue (whatever may be said of the other virtues) as any one of his predecessors or successors; and as it was evidently his interest to omit no popular observance, and to avail himself of whatever had a tendency to excite or gain the admiration of the people, and reconcile them to his government, we may be sure he would not fail to follow, with spirit, the practice in question; and so, by a copious display of its sanative virtue, compensate, in some sort, or degree, for the absence of virtues of another description. There is therefore abundant reason for setting him down among our royal miracle-workers.
None of all these princes appear to have made a greater figure, or to have proceeded with more parade, solemnity, and success, in this royal business or occupation, than Henry VII.—This politic prince, whatever right he might have to the crown, had probably as good a right as any one to try his hand at this notable and wonder working operation, the effect or fame of which he knew full well how to manage profitably and turn to the best account. He accordingly set about it in good earnest; and in order, as may be supposed, to give the process the most striking, sacred, and solemn appearance, and increase its effect, he had a new form, or office, composed and introduced for the purpose.[304]The project answered; and his success in this practice is said to have been very considerable. This prince would also sometimes take upon him toconvert heretics;and he would even give them money to facilitate their conversion;[306]which was certainly no illadapted device, or unpromising expedient; and it is the more remarkable,as his majesty was himself so great a lover of money, and appears to have been so exceedingly close-fisted on other occasions. We may therefore be very sure that the conversion of heretics was of the highest importance in Henry’s estimation, and what lay very near to his royal heart. This monarch also, with his queen and eldest son, visited the town of Lynn, where he very probably exercised theroyal touch, as scrofulous patients may be supposed to have been then, as they are now, very numerous here, all of whom, as well as the rest of the inhabitants, would not fail to give full credit to his majesty’s ability to remove the malady and restore the patients to perfect health; and, of course, would be anxious to apply to him, which he would not be likely to discourage. As toheretics, there might be then none of them here for him to try his royal hand at their conversion.
His son and high spirited successor,Henry VIII, would doubtless be careful to continue the practice of all the rites and ceremonies appertaining to the royal function, which had been handed down to him from his father: and there is every reason to believe that the operation in question would not be forgotten or omitted, were it only to be even with his neighbour and rival,Francis I, who certainly performed it, and would notbe likely to be suffered or allowed to go beyond him on such an occasion. Henry therefore may be safely set down among our said royal practitioners, and even among the most able and powerful of them all. But theKing’s Evilwas not the only Evil in whose cure or removal he was particularly concerned: He was no less concerned in the cure or removal of thePope’s Evil, another dreadful malady, which had long and grievously afflicted most of the good people of this country, and which was generally deemed incurable, till he took it in hand. All the world know how powerfully and effectuallyhis royal touch operatedon that occasion.—It seems he had also the reputation of being endowed with extraordinary gifts for the cure or prevention of thecramp; and we find that he distinguished himself by the consecration ofcramp rings, which Stephen Gardiner says were much esteemed every where, and often sought for.[308]So very eminent was Henry among our royal doctors, and miracle mongers.
Edward VI, Henry’s amiable son and successor, is not known to have been at all an adept at this princely practice, or even to have been in the least partial to it. He probably thought so very lightly of it as entirely to omit and discard it, as he is also said to have done with respect to theconsecration of cramp rings, by which his royal father so much distinguished himself. It is likely that Edward, young as he was, had imbibed some sectarian notions which might unfit him for the performance of these sublime operations. Even the royaland episcopal work ofburning heretics, so much approved of and delighted in by his predecessors, and afterwards by his immediate successor, and so much called for and applauded by ecclesiastics, was to him an object of utter aversion; and if he once suffered it to be done, it was involuntary and against his own better judgement, through the importunate intreaties and urgent expostulations of his bishops, and particularly Cranmer, to whom therefore the guilt and infamy of the deed must properly or chiefly belong.[309]There is reason to believe that no such doings would have sullied or disgraced his reign had he been left to judge and act for himself. It is probable he was left so to judge and act with respect to theroyal touch; so that we need not be surprised at his declining the practice.
FromMary, his bloody sister and successor a different conduct might be expected: and her conduct certainly was, almost in every thing, very different from his. Superstitious as she was, and bigoted to the last degree, it is not to be supposed that she should shrink from the performance of any rite or ceremony, however absurd, that had been in request with her popish predecessors, or devoutly practiced by them. This of theroyal touchcould never escape her attention: nay it isexpressly said that the office was indeed fairly written out for her use; [that very office probably, which has been above inserted;] so that there can be no question of her touching for the Evil, as devoutly, and as successfully perhaps, as any of the rest.[310a]
As toElizabeth, heretic as she was, her legitimacy questioned, and her title litigated, shetouchedfor the Evil with a success acknowledged even by the papists themselves, who are said to ascribe it to thesign of the cross.[310b]A case is mentioned byCarteof a Roman Catholic, who, being put into prison, perhaps for recusancy, and terribly afflicted with the Evil, was, after he had been there a tedious time, at a vast expence to physicians without the least relief,touchedby this queen, and perfectly cured: which gave him occasion to say, he was now convinced by undoubted experience, that the pope’s excommunication of her signified nothing, since she still continued blessed with so miraculous a quality.[310c]—It was well for the poor fellow that he was not apuritan, or he might have gone long enough without his cure, as her majesty is known to have been inexorably pitiless and spiteful against that class of her subjects.
OfJamesI, with his strong faith in ghosts and witches, and lofty notions of indefeasible right, royal prerogative and king-craft, it was not to be supposed that he, of all men, would think meanly or lightly of this royal and religious operation. It accordingly appears that he very readily and warmly engaged in it, and actually became a most dexterous and eminent practitioner—to the no small satisfaction and comfort, as we may suppose, of his liege subjects, as well as advancement of his own fame, or at least, the gratification of his vanity, of which it is well known he possessed no common or scanty portion. Nothing could delight him more than the idea that he could work miracles: his courtiers called himSolomon; but that idea was calculated to make him think himself as still greater than even Solomon. We are not informed how many patients underwent or felt his royal touch; but there is every reason to suppose and believe that the number must have been very considerable.