Page:VCH Norfolk 2.djvu/314

 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