A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 



may be excused ; they add that he is said to be grown into great decay and 

 poverty, and that he had been enlarged out of prison eleven years before, and 

 committed to the private custody of a clergyman, one Daniel Reeve, D.D. 

 (he had been appointed rector of Quidenham, 8 June, 1584, by consent of 

 Humphrey himself). He lingered on, and had his confinement altered, 

 6 June, 1600,^ that he might repair to the house of his son-in-law, Anthony 

 Thwaytes, by reason of his sickness." 



The bishop of Norwich had had many other difficulties to deal with in 

 addition to the recusancy question. When the multitude and the violence 

 of the religious changes which had taken place since the first attack on the 

 old order was made by Henry VIII are considered, it can be no matter for 

 surprise that, though by the end of Elizabeth's reign there were beginning to 

 be signs of recovery from the spiritual disorder which marked its commence- 

 ment, this was accompanied by a very serious endangering of the ecclesi- 

 astical position. It not unfrequently happened that ministers were opposed 

 by their congregation, either because they were disapproved of for their 

 conformity or for its opposite. In 1576 a petition was presented -o 

 Parliament by certain preachers in Norwich concerning ceremonies insisted 

 on by the bishop, against whom they made complaint ;' and his suspension 

 in that year of Richard Gawton, one of their number, who refused the 

 surplice, set at nought the rubrics, preached without licence, and repudiated 

 the existing church government, attracted much attention by reason of 

 Gawton's friendship with Field and Wilcox, the authors of the Admonition, 

 and among those who in 1572 drew up a definite Presbyterian organization at 

 Wandsworth.* In the same year also various persons were apprehended for 

 publishing infamous books and libels against the dean.^ In 1578 the bishop 

 was engaged in a hot dispute with his chancellor. Dr. Beacon, about fees,* 

 and was censured for using over-much severity, ' the circumstances being so 

 rare and strange as to seem almost incredible.' He was also accused of having 

 made such heavy claims against the estate of his predecessor as threatened 

 to absorb the legacies which had been made to his servants and for pious 

 uses within the city of Norwich.^ But for this his predecessor's administra- 

 tion should perhaps be blamed rather than himself. It is certain that he 

 offered a firm resistance to Elizabeth's shameless spoliation of the bishopric 

 of Ely, and to attack him would consequently be looked on as a profitable 

 course to adopt. 



' jict! P. c. XXX, 356. 



'Among his fines he had to contribute in 1598 to the furnishing of post-horses. Other Norfolk 

 recusants who had to contribute in August and September of that year {Jc/s P. C. vol. xxix) are 

 Henry Everard of Swinstecdc, Robert Downes of Melton, John Yaxley of Brumpton, Robert Lovell of 

 Beechamwell, and Henry Carvell of Wlggenhall (31 August) ; Edward Wolverton of Wolverton, John Downes 

 of Babingley, John Drewrie of Hamsworth, Henry Hubbard of Fincham, Giles Townsend of Wcarham, 

 Elizabeth Bedingfield of Holme Hall, Roger Townsend of Long Stratton, Thomas Foster of Old Buckenham, 

 and William Melton of Buckenham Martin (3 September). 



It is interesting, in connexion with the recusant families of Norfolk, to notice that when, on the death of 

 Edward VI, Queen Mary's life and title were in jeopardy by the proceedings of the duke of Northumberland 

 (much feared in Norfolk, since, as earl of Warwick, he put down Ket's rebellion), she took refuge in her 

 palace at Kenninghall in Norfolk, and among the gentry who favoured her title and religion, and who waited 

 upon her then, were Sir Henry Jerningham, Sir Henry Bedingfield, Sir William Drury, Sir John Shelton, 

 and Mr. John Sulyard. (Blomefield, iii, 266.) 



' Hist. MSS. Com. R(J>. ii, 44. * Stephens, Hist, of Engl. Ch. v, 196. ' Jets P. C. ix, 25. 



' Ibid. X, 320, 336, 394 ;and Cal. S. P. Dom. 1547-80, pp. 601, 602, 604, 607. 



' Jets P.C. X, Pref 25, and 320, 336, 369, 390, 394. 



274 



