same crime, and fled, and never returned." Although, how-
ever, at the time this presentment was made they had not
returned, they seem shortly afterwards to have done so; for
the fourth membrane contains a list of nearly all of them,
together with the value of their chattels, and the names of
the persons in whose custody they then were.
Of the par-
ties included in the list, no less than thirteen are described
"Chaplains" or "Clerks;" confirming Cotton's account,
that many of the city and country clergy were on the citi-
zens' side.

as

*

The chroniclers of this event are divided into two parties; one throwing all the blame on the citizens, the other on the negligence of the men placed by the Prior in the steeple to 66 vex" the citizens. The "Liber de Antiquis Legibus," before referred to, has a long circumstantial account of the latter character; and it adds to our previous knowledge the important fact, that the Prior conveyed a large body of men from Yarmouth by water, into the monastery, to assist him in his schemes. This curious account of the transaction was brought to the notice of the members of the Archæological Institute, at their Norwich meeting, by Mr. Hudson Turner, one of their secretaries. It was not, however, then known that two copies of this very account existed in the Norwich Record Room. The "Liber Albus" contains one; and the other is on a paper roll. Both give the name of the book from which the extract was made, and the folio at which it would be met with.

It will be observed, that the above presentment expressly states the parties to have been concerned in the burning and robbery of the Cathedral, and that this is a return made by

* The disputes of the Norwich citizens with the men of Yarmouth about river jurisdiction, were second only in frequency and acrimony to those with the Priors. The Priors had a cell, too, at Yarmouth.

the citizens themselves. They would hardly have stated this, if it had not been a well-known fact; or, if they had been compelled to make a false presentment, they would have taken care to destroy it, as soon as the purpose it was intended to serve, was answered. Both parties, no doubt, were greatly to blame.

The further entries show, moreover, that, notwithstanding the dreadful events that had just taken place, after so much blood had been shed,* so many public buildings and private dwellings demolished, and such a fearful waste of treasure had been occasioned by these paltry bickerings about jurisdiction, the parties could not, even for a time, abstain from advancing afresh their pretensions,—from again renewing the strife which had already cost them so dear.† It would scarcely be credited, were it not upon record, that these contentions, beginning nearly a century before the events above referred to, continued down to the dissolution of the monasteries,—that for a period of above three centuries these disgraceful quarrels were almost continually going on. ‡

Yet so it was; and so, it is to be feared, that, "mutatis mutandis," it will ever be. Generation after generation have

1

* In addition to the many lives lost during the fight, upwards of thirty people were executed when the king was in the city; hundreds of others fled, some returning after fourteen years, only to be remanded to a prison.

"They present that the Prior claims view of frankpledge in Newgate." "The same Prior claims view of frankpledge in Holm Street."

From among many of similar character I take the following incident, A Sergeant at Mace arrested a felon on Palm Sunday, 1507, on Tombland, on the “disputed territory," and was taking him off to the Guildhall prison : the Prior, Bronde, (afterwards Wolsey's successor at St. Alban's) with many of the monks, attempted a rescue. The citizens, and subsequently the sheriff, joined in the fight. The sheriff had just succeeded in laying hold of the prisoner, when one of the monks drew the sheriff's gown tight behind, pulled him down backward, and held him, whilst others got the prisoner from his clutch, and led him off to sanctuary in the Cathedral.

passed away, and the "view of frankpledge," and the other exciting causes of turmoil, have long been numbered with the things that were; but, despite these changes in laws and customs and individuals, human nature remains the same, and we of the nineteenth century are no less prone than were our forefathers in the thirteenth, to strain after some fancied privilege,-to " snap at the shadow and leave

Remarks on a Figure

REPRESENTED ON THE ROOD-LOFT SCREENS

OF

GATELEY AND CAWSTON CHURCHES,

In this County.

BY THE REV. JAMES BULWER.

THE attention of the Society was lately called to a remarkable figure on one of the panels of the Screen in the church of the village of Gateley. This Saint-for such his situation, as well as the glory round his head, shows him to be-holds in his left hand a boot, in which may be seen the semblance of an imp or devil; whether in the act of ascending or descending, may be doubtful. The legend, to be presently noticed, would lead us to suppose the latter. The right arm of the Saint is extended, and the thumb and two first fingers of his hand raised towards the boot.*

* As regards this position of the hand and fingers, some discussion took place at our Quarterly Meeting in October, 1847; and two letters shortly after appeared in the Norwich papers, in one of which the writer contended, that the gesture was admonitory; while Mr. Hart, the author of the other, gave several reasons for his supposing it to be benedictional. Without entering upon the subject at any length, one point may be mentioned as having escaped both correspondents; namely, that the gesture is not, as