A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 



Their order was confirmed by the Council, lo October, 1621,^ and in the 

 month of January following, Denis I'Ermite was again reported to the Council 

 for refusing payment of the rate of one penny per shilling on his house rent, 

 levied for the maintenance of Fulk. Roberts, the minister of the parish of 

 St. Saviour's, according to the agreement made on the first entry of the 

 strangers.'' It can be easily understood that this double payment was found a 

 heavy burden by the strangers, but it had been an original condition of their 

 settlement, and Denis I'Ermite seems to have persistently tried to evade 

 contribution to either ; appearing again in 1623 with Joel Desormeaux and 

 Samuel Cambry, who were reported by the mayor and justices of Norwich to 

 the Council for refusing to pay contributions to the minister and poor of the 

 Walloon congregation, with a note by the bishop that they allege petty 

 grievances against the minister as the ground of their refusal, and that unless 

 exemplary justice be exacted from them the Walloon congregation will fall 

 to nothing.' It is plain that it was to the process of disintegration which 

 had begun in the Walloon congregation itself more than to the action of the 

 bishop's successors that its ultimate disappearance was due. Sufficient credit 

 has hardly been given to the bishops or the Council for their endeavours to 

 preserve this congregation of strangers. As late as 1631* we find an order of 

 the Council to the Dutch church at Norwich that all members of the said 

 church, although born in the kingdom, shall continue to be of such church 

 so long as His Majesty shall please, and shall contribute to the maintenance 

 of the ministry and poor as occasion shall require, which shows that attempts 

 to evade this were continued. 



In May, 1624, an accusation was brought against the bishop in 

 Parliament, of suppressing lectures and sermons at Norwich, exacting undue 

 fees, negligence in registrarship, prosecuting his parishioners for not praying 

 to the east or standing during the Te Deum, etc., and commanding the 

 setting up of images in churches. His defence was that he only put down 

 lectures when they interfered with attendance on common prayer or 

 cathedral service ; that he had established several where needed, and that 

 the accusations proceeded from the Puritans, whom he had vainly endeavoured 

 to bring to conformity. He denied the other charges made by Mr. Stokes, 

 a disappointed candidate for the archdeaconry of Norfolk.' Locke writing 

 to Carleton, 21 May, 1624,' says that these charges were preferred against 

 the bishop of Norwich by factious Puritans and reported to the Upper 

 House by Sir Edward Coke, who, lawyerlike, amplified them, but that 

 the bishop's answers were so satisfactory that the matter would have dropped 

 had he not himself requested it to be examined for his credit's sake, and 

 it was referred to the archbishop. A few days later the king, in his speech 

 in reply to the speaker of the House of Commons, declared that he would 

 rather commend than punish the bishops of Norwich and London for setting 

 up and adorning images in churches and putting down popular lay lecturers, 

 but would punish any suppression of popular ministers.' 



' Cal. S. P. Dom. 1619-23, p. 297. The order is that Denis TErmite and all others of the Walloon 

 congregation, although born in England, shall continue to belong to the Walloon church and conform to 

 its discipline. ' S. P. Dom. cxix. No. 58, 31 Jan. 162 1. 



' Cal. S. P. Dom. 1619-23, p. 548. * Ibid. 1629-31, p. 476. 



' S. P. Dom. vol. 16;, No. 2, 19 May, 1624. • Ibid. 21 May, 1624. 



' Ca/. S P. Dom. 1623-5, 2 June, 1624, p. 265. 



280 



