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
