PART IV. From the Reformation to the present time. (continued 4)

“His lordship taking these things into consideration, and regarding the obstinacy of the mayor and burgesses, notwithstanding the former verdict; and he having then in court advised the bridge being repaired by a rate through the whole town, [as the South Lynnians had before proposed] which they [of the opposite party] there in court refused:—His lordship then said, if we and they would join issue to traverse it, he would know who ought to repair it, and he would take such course in the recording that it should never come before a judge of assize again to determine it. After some discourse [the cause went on.] But one witness for the mayor and burgesses, Thomas Williamson, carpenter, who swore that he had done some repairs to the bridge in 1654 with his master Robert Hart, and were paid by two of the inhabitants of South Lynn: but they appeared to be tenants of the mayor and burgesses, and had got the money from them to pay the carpenters, as far as Williamson knew.” [His evidence therefore could be of no avail; and he seems to have been the principal and only witness on the side of the corporation.]

“Thus [adds the MS.] the proud were infatuated in their own wisdom by their book, paper, and witness! that we of the poor parish of South Lynn had not one witness examined; the court thinking it needed not: for their charters, the verdict as aforesaid, their own books and papers, and their witness there was enough. Upon which judge Hale said to the jury, they must bring in their verdict in three parts; for they must answer him three questions he should ask them. The jury went out, and when they came in again, his lordship asked them, Whether the inhabitants of King’s Lynn were guilty, or not guilty? They answered, not guilty. Record that, said my lord. He queried 2ndly, Whether the inhabitants of South Lynn were guilty, or not guilty? They answered, not guilty. Record that saith my lord. He asked 3rdly, Whether the mayor and burgesses were guilty, or not guilty? They answered, guilty. Record that, saith my lord. Then he asked the jury, Why they found the mayor and burgesses guilty? and they said, for that the mayor and burgesses had many lands and tenements, the gift of K. Edward VI. to the yearly value of some 100l. given to them for that end and purpose. Record that also, said his lordship.” [834]

Thus was this vexatious dispute put to rest and settled beyond the possibility of being ever after litigated. The mayor and burgesses appear on the occasion in a very unfavourable and unamiable light. That great and good man, and most upright and eminent judge, Sir Matthew Hale, before whom this cause was tried, must have thought, and evidently did think very indifferently of them, as no better than a nest of oppressors and tyrants. Who but they would have run the risk of being thought ill of by such a man? But corporations are seldom deterred from evil by the fear of disgrace, for they consider the odium of their misdoings as greatly diminished, if not quite annihilated, by being shared among so many: and when a member is reproached for any corporate or municipal misdeed, he generally contrives to excuse himself and lay the whole blame upon others of the brotherhood, whom however he will seldom condescend to name.

Section V.

History of Lynn continued from 1680 to 1688—Addresses to the throne—Quo Warranto proceedings—surrender and restoration of the charters—the revolution.

The years 1680 and 1681 (or 1682) were distinguished here by two notable addresses to the throne. Of that of the former year an account has been given already at pages 788 and 789, and a rare piece of curiosity it certainly was. Of the address of 1681 (or 1682) we cannot speak so positively, having never met with a copy of it; but there is great reason to presume that it was pretty much of a kin, or not at all dissimilar to the former. Relating to this memorable document the following article has been extracted from the Town-Books—“March 2. 1681, 2; Ordered that Mr. Recorder (Henry Ferrour Esq.) be desired to draw up an Humble Address to his Majestie in abhorrence and detestation of that late designed traiterous association lately produced at the Old Baly.” This evidently alludes to a circumstance that transpired in the course of the proceedings that had then lately been carried on against the earl of Shaftsbury, at the instigation, it seems, of the sovereign, of which an account has been given by Rapin, Burnet, and other historians.

“The king (says Rapin,) passionately wished to be revenged of this lord, who for sometime had shown him little regard: To this end he granted a special commission of Oyer and Terminer to all the judges of the kingdom to sit, the 24th of November, with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, at the Old Baily, on the Earl’s trial. Eight witnesses were heard against him, who deposed upon oath many things from his own mouth, which discovered pernicious designs against the king’s person. But the greatest crime objected against him was, the copy (or plan) of an Assosiation (found in his study) against the enemies of the king, of the protestant religion, and of their country. But notwithstanding the hopes conceived by the Court, of being freed from this enemy, the Grand Jury, consisting of one and twenty of the principal citizens of London, considering that the paper containing the association was only a copy, and not writ in the earl of Shaftsbury’s hand, and observing very great improbabilities in the depositions of the witnesses, found no sufficient ground for the Bill, and returned it Ignoramus. Immediately the whole city testified their joy for the earl’s deliverance, by bonfires in all the Streets, and other marks of satisfaction; and the witnesses against him were in great danger of being torn in pieces by the mob.” [837]

Arbitrary and vindictive as these proceedings of the Court were, they appear to have been entirely approved of by our corporation. Of the conduct and principles of Shaftsbury and the country party they evidently had no opinion. They were ready to condemn them without hesitation and without mercy: and as to the very idea of an association to counteract or check the tyrannical measures of the Court, it was looked upon by them as truly horrid and detestable. Yet it was to something of that kind, a few years after, that we owed our glorious revolution, our deliverance from popish superstition and despotism, and the establishment of civil and religious liberty. [838] This Corporation afterwards seemed no less pleased with the proceedings of William and the revolutionists than they had been before with those of Charles and his cabal, or of James and his popish counsellors: and had the pretender succeeded in 1715, or in 1745, they would probably have been as joyful on that, as they had been on any former occasion, and addressed the new sovereign with a zeal no way inferior to what they had expressed or manifested towards the most favoured and patriotic of his predecessors. In short, like most corporations, their conduct would have been regulated by circumstances or self interest, rather than by truth or genuine patriotism.

Great and notorious as had been the obsequiousness and devotedness of this corporation to the two last of the Stuart princes, it did not give them entire satisfaction. They wanted to have this, and all other corporations that sent members to parliament, completely in their own power, so as to have their parliament-men to consist solely of such as they should please to appoint; that is, of the tools or minions of the court; which would bid fair always, to insure a parliamentary majority. To accomplish this, it was necessary to abolish, or disannul all the Charters, and grant new ones on such terms as would enable his majesty to appoint all the leading men or municipal functionaries, and remove at any time all such as he should find unfit for his purpose, and replace them with such as would prove perfectly ductile and manageable. This, no doubt, was deemed by many a deep and well-laid scheme, which entitled its projectors to the reputation of being endowed with uncommon sagacity. But they never could bring it to bear, so as to realize the hopes they had conceived from it; and it was at last abandoned: when the former charters were restored, and things reverted again into their old channels. Of the process or trial of this notable experiment here, the following, it is presumed, is a fair and correct representation.

Lynn had not the honour of being the first of our corporations that was made to experience this mode or description of the royal touch. The precedence, as on other occasions, was given to the corporation of London, against which a Quo Warranto was issued in 1683; in the event of which the judges of the court of King’s Bench declared, that the liberties and privileges of the city of London were forfeited, and might be seized into the king’s hands. It was not till the following year that it came to the turn of Lynn to be questioned on a similar account. Accordingly we find the following notice of it in the Town-Books—“May 26. 1684. This day the mayor, (Benj. Keen Esq.) aldermen, and common councell of this Burgh, with one assent and consent, have ordered, consented, and agreed, that all and singular the powers, franchises, liberties, priviledges and authorities whatsoever and howsoever granted to the mayor and burgesses, or to be used or exercised by or under them, by virtue of any charters, letters patents, custome or prescriptions now in force, of or concerning electing, nominating, or appointing any person or persons into any the offices of magistracy or places of trust within this Burgh, Be fully and freely surrendered unto the King’s most excellent Majestie, and that an Instrument for that purpose be forthwith drawn and prepared to be sealed with the common Seale of this Burgh at the next Hall: and it is ordered that a committee be appointed and empowered, as deputies and attorneys for the mayor and burgesses, to attend the King’s Majestie, with the instrument of surrender aforesaid, as the act and deed of the mayor and burgesses.—May 29. This day the Letter from Lord Townshend, High Steward, resigning his Patent, being read, was delivered to Mr. Mayor till the same be further considered.—This day the Instrument of surrender was sealed.—June 9. This day the Instrument of deputation to surrender the Charter and Liberties was signed; and the deputies are ordered and authorized to petition his Majestie to regrant, renew, and confirm such liberties, franchises, and powers as his Majestie in his princely wisdom shall think proper for his service, and the good government, profit and interest of this burgh. [840]—July 24. This day the charter of our most gracious Lord and King, renewed and confirmed to the mayor and burgesses, dated 9th. instant, was read in the outward open Hall. [841]—August 6th. The Duke of Norfolk by his Majesties Charter being appointed High Steward, 10l, the ancient annual Fee, is ordered to be paid at Christmas yearly.”

Such a change was now effected here as thoroughly corresponded with the royal policy. Our Corporation continued subject to this new order of things afterwards, for several years; even till within a few weeks of the Revolution. The king, dying a few months after he had granted his second Charter, had little opportunity to act much upon it, or give it its full operation. All that was left for his brother and successor James, who took special care that it should be rendered sufficiently operative. He, accordingly, in the Summer of 1688, thought proper to set it in motion, and play it on our body corporate with full and terrible effect. Fifteen of that body, not thought well of by his majesty, and including the mayor himself, the Town-Clerk and five aldermen, were then expelled the Hall in one day, and replaced by others who were more to their sovereign’s liking. Of this memorable event there are the following memoranda in the Hall-Books.—

“June 11th. (1688) Whereas by order of Councell at White-Hall, dated 1st. June 1688, for the discharging severall members from their respective places in this Corporation, those words following—“By the King’s most excellent majestie, and the Lords of his most honorable Privy Councell, whereas by the Charter lately granted to the town of Lynn Regis in the county of Norfolk a power is reserved to his Majesty, by his order in Councell, to remove from their employments any officers in the said town, His Majestie in Councell is this day pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered that Robert Sparrow, mayor and alderman, Sir John Turner, Benj. Holly, Willm. Hadfield, Robt. Pain, Giles Bridgeman, aldermen; Hen. Bell, Wm. Holly, Chas. Turner, Hen. Pope, Sam. Bridgeman, Ja: Greene, Tim. Priest, and John Bradfield, Common Councell, and Edmd. Rolfe, Town-Clerke, and Mayor’s Clerk, and Clerk of Guild-Hall Courts, and Courts of Sessions, Court Leet, and Court of Pyepouder, Be, and they are hereby removed and displaced from their said offices in the said Town of Lynn Regis.

John Nicholas.

[Then it immediately follows] “And the said severall persons in the said order mentioned were and are by the Hall this day accordingly displaced and discharged.” [Next after which it is added.] “June 11th. Att a further congregation the same day, before Sir Symon Tayler Kt. Th. Robinson, John Kidd, Benj: Keen, Th. Lemon, Edwd: Hooke, Edwd. Bodham. A mandate under his Majesties Hand and Seale read before the members above mentioned to remove severall therein mentioned, and to require to elect John Davy to be mayor, Wm. Linstead, Cyp. Anderson, Hen: Framingham, Charles Peast, Wm. Blyth, to be aldermen; and Th. Buckingham, Sym: Tayler, John Hall, Wm. Thompson, John Tidd, Pet: Busby, Seel Peast, and St: Tayler to be Common Councell, and Math: Oufande to be Town-clerk, without administering to them any Oaths but for the execution of their respective offices, with which wee are pleased to dispense in their behalfe. [843]—By his Majesties Command.

Sunderland.”

The king appeared now bent upon persevering in these arbitrary measures; and in the following month of September, he issued his royal mandate for continuing as chief magistrate, during another year, the above mentioned John Davy, who seems to have been highly thought of by his sovereign, and, but for the revolution, might, perhaps, have been appointed mayor of Lynn for life. Of the said royal mandate the following notice is taken in the Hall-Books.—“Sept. 29. 1688. This day a madat [mandate] under his Majesties hand and seal was read, to elect and continue John Davy mayor for the ensuing year, without administring any oaths but of office.” Then it is added—“This day John Davy Esq. is elected mayor for the next year, by the common councell.”

Dark and humiliating as was the aspect of this new order of things, it continued only between four and five years. The last charter which reduced the corporation to so degrading a condition was granted in June 1684; and it was cancelled, in effect, or disannulled in the autumn of 1688, when the old Charters were again restored and the former order of things reestablished. Of these events the Hall-Books contain the following memoranda—“October 20. 1688: This day his Majesties Royal Proclamation for restoring Corporations to their antient Charters, Liberties, Rights and Franchises bearing date 17th. October being read in this House, and thereupon the several members of this Corporation being members at the time of the late surrender made of the Priviledges of this Burgh being now assembled did proceed, viz.—The Common Councell have elected Ed: Hooke, Robt. Sparrow, and Cyprian Anderson, aldermen; and chosen Cyprian Anderson, alderman, mayor till Michaelmas next.—Oct. 26. the Duke of Norfolk is elected and confirmed Lord High Steward of this Burgh.”—Under the same date the following memorandum is inserted—“In pursuance of an order from the office of Ordnance, signifying his Majesties Commands to send all the Guns to Hull, it is agreed to remove the same accordingly.” [845a]—“Nov. 2. Ordered the Seal to be affixed to the Patent for the Duke of Norfolk being High Steward. [845b]—Also the Seal to one Letter of Attorney giving authority to sundry persons therein named to receive from his Majesties attorney general the late Instrument or Deed of Surrender of divers franchises and liberties.”—While things were going on thus at Lynn, the prince of Orange arrived; which brings us to the happy era of the Revolution, and to the close of this chapter.

CHAP. VI.

History of Lynn from the Revolution to the present time.

The change which took place at the accession of William and Mary we denominate, by way of eminence, The Revolution, and sometimes, The glorious Revolution. It was certainly a most happy change for this nation, and very different from that which took place at the restoration of Charles II. The nation behaved now like people in their senses; but they behaved then like madmen, and were accessary to all the enormities of that detestable reign, and of the whole period from the restoration to the revolution. Had the people, or their leaders, done their duty at the Restoration, neither Charles nor James would have found it so easy a matter as they did to tyrannize over their subjects, and enslave their country. They were placed on the throne, like all other despots, not only without any terms or stipulation in favour of the people, but even with those lofty notions which they inherited from their predecessors, and in which they were confirmed by their priests and courtiers, and other sycophants, that they were absolute princes, who ruled by right divine, and so were not amenable to any human tribunal, or accountable to any earthly being for any of their actions. With such notions we need not wonder at the arbitrary measures they pursued, or at their wishing to be as absolute or uncontrolled here as their cousin, Lewis XIV, was in France, or the grand Seignior in Turkey. It was very natural for such men as they to be or to do so, and for their fawning and time-serving courtiers to encourage them in it: but for the whole church and priesthood to act herein as abettors, till James, rather impoliticly, proceeded to take some undue liberties with the hierarchy, is somewhat more remarkable. As to Charles, he took special care to keep fair with the prelates and mother church, and play into their hands to their utmost wishes, which enabled him to rule as despotically as he pleased, with or without a parliament: they on the other hand complimented him, by calling him most sacred majesty, and telling, even the Almighty, that he was a most religious king. But James departed from this wise policy of his brother, by presuming to encroach upon the sacred prerogatives of the church, and order the very bishops to read, and cause their clergy also, in all the churches, publickly to read his Declaration of Liberty of Conscience to all his subjects; which, certainly, was, in itself, no very unreasonable demand. Yet this was the rock on which he split, and the occurrence which most of all contributed to facilitate and hasten the Revolution. For it caused such an accession to the patriotic party as rendered it predominant and irresistible.

Section I.

A sketch of the Revolution, or brief observations on that memorable and interesting event.

The English Hierarchy, or national priesthood, is that body, of all others, which it most behoves a tyrant king to secure its attachment and cooperation. Nor will he find this attended with much difficulty, provided he take care not to encroach on the ecclesiastical department, and let the ecclesiastics tyrannize as much as they please in their own province. Charles II understood this subject well, and by that means could act the tyrant with perfect safety throughout his whole reign. The alliance between church and state was by him preserved inviolate; and consequently none of the enormities of his vile government were able to shake, or endanger his throne. But James, by violating that alliance, deprived himself of his chief support and bulwark, and lost every thing. Had he kept fair with the church, or the ecclesiastics, he might venture to play the despot, persecute the nonconformists, and other descriptions of his subjects, as much, and as cruelly as he pleased: they would once have remonstrated against that sort of conduct. But being himself a non-conformist, and assuming a dispensing power, and issuing a Declaration for liberty of conscience, and withal, interfering with the dignities and revenues of the church and universities, they were alarmed beyond measure, and all at once forgot, even their favourite doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance, for which they had so long contended, and the disbelievers of which they had so often represented as vile miscreants, unentitled to the common comforts of society, or the natural rights of men. While the nonconformists and the laity were the only sufferers from the oppressions of government, they blamed them for complaining, and preached up passive obedience and nonresistance, and the divine right of kingship; [851a] but when those oppressions began to affect them, they immediately changed their tone, and appeared among the foremost to complain, and even to disobey and resist.—Such was the character of the English clergy, before and at the Revolution; and it deserves to be noted and remembered.

In imprisoning the bishops, James filled up the measure of his folly and infatuation. It converted a large majority of his subjects into enemies, and hastened that crisis which blasted all his prospects, and transferred his kingdom to another family.

“The imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops, (says an excellent historian, [851b]) were the last measures of infatuation that remained. When a second indulgence was issued, and ordained to be read in the church, the bishops petitioned against an order calculated to reduce the clergy, on their compliance, to the contempt and reproach of becoming accessary to their own destruction; or to subject the disobedient to the penalties recently inflicted by the high commission. The whole nation was agitated at the imprisonment of the fathers of the church. The same violent agitation was excited by their trial; but their acquittal resounded through the capital, and was received with tumultuous joy by the whole kingdom, as a religious and even a national triumph over the sovereign. From the public ferment, which was not likely to subside, that dangerous crisis had at length arrived, to which despotism and bigotry conducted James.

“The eyes and expectations of men had been long fixed on his nephew, the prince of Orange, whose marriage with his eldest daughter had opened a near prospect of obtaining the crown. Religion, as well as interest, had connected William with the popular party, as alike adverse to the ambition of France, and impatient for a protestant successor to the English throne. The discontented found a secure asylum in Holland, and an honourable or secret reception at his court; and his connexion with every party was preserved and enlarged by their correspondence with their friends.

“While the chance of a protestant succession remained, the prince was averse to a premature rupture, and the nation was desirous to await the natural course of events. But the birth of a son, during the ferment excited by the imprisonment of the bishops, consoled James with the prospect of a catholic heir, and accelerated every preparation for his ruin. The most injurious surmises had been entertained of the queen’s conception; and from some mysterious circumstances, the report of a supposititious child, however improbable at present, was eagerly propagated and implicitly believed. From the prospect of an hereditary religious despotism the invitation of the prince of Orange was no longer deferred. The whigs, who had urged the exclusion, were indifferent to the hereditary line of succession, from which the tories, who had no view beyond a parliament, were unwilling to deviate. But as every political and religious party deposited their animosities during the common danger, a secret conspiracy was formed by their coalition, the most extensive perhaps, and the best concerted which history has preserved.

“The secret, although entrusted to many thousands, transpired only from the preparations of the prince of Orange. Although his declaration announced that he was invited over by divers of the temporal and spiritual lords, the king was unable to discover the lines of conspiracy with which he was surrounded at home. The declaration issued on the embarkation of the prince, enumerated the grievances of the three kingdoms, the suspicious birth of the prince of Wales, and the necessity of interposing to establish the religion and liberties of the people on a secure foundation. Terrified at the approaching danger from abroad, and at the contempt and hatred which he had incurred at home, the king endeavoured, when too late, to retract his former illegal measures; but when the Dutch fleet was dispersed, and driven back by a storm to Holland, his confidence in the protection of heaven revived. But the expedition was renewed in a few days. While the English fleet was confined to its station off Harwich, the prince, with six hundred transports and ships of war, passed with an east wind through the Straits of Dover, in the presence of wondering multitudes, who gazed at the sublime spectacle from either coast; and disembarking at Torbay, afforded a signal proof to the nation, that its navy will not always prevent an invasion, nor a standing army ensure stability to the throne.

“For a few days the prince of Orange was joined by none; but when the first example was given, the extent of the confederacy was announced by a rapid and universal defection from the king. The gentlemen of Somerset and Devon hastened to the prince, who had advanced to Exeter, and entered eagerly into an association for his support. The earl of Bath admitted his fleet into Plymouth. The earl of Devonshire and the gentlemen of Derby and Nottingham declared for the prince and a free parliament. Lord Delamer took arms in Cheshire; and in the northern counties lord Danby and his associates surprised Newcastle, York, and Hull. Cornbury, the earl of Clarendon’s son, was among the first to desert; but when a petition for a free parliament, signed by nineteen peers and prelates, was evaded, he was followed by Churchill, Kirk, Trelauny, Drumlanrig, the dukes of Ormond and Grafton, prince George of Denmark, the king’s Son in law, while a greater number of inferior officers refused to fight against the prince of Orange.

“The king, who had arrived at Salisbury to give battle to the prince, was overwhelmed with misfortunes. All England appeared in commotion. The capital was full of discontent; the very fleet declared for a free parliament; and surrounded, as he believed, by a disaffected army, he knew not in whom to confide. He withdrew his army, and retired to London; but when informed of his daughter the princess Anne’s escape, “God help me,” cried he, with tears of anguish, “my own children have deserted me.” Every new disaster increased his perturbation. He summoned a council of peers; issued writs for new parliament; dispatched commissioners to propose a treaty: but as the prince, amidst the acclamations of all ranks, continued to advance, he was bereft of all fortitude and strength of mind. His conduct was irresolute, pusillanimous, absurd; and unable to submit to necessity, yet incapable of a single effort of generous despair, he sunk, without dignity, beneath his misfortunes. His father’s execution was still present to his desponding thoughts; and he listened credulously to every suggestion of personal danger, without reflecting either on the difference of the characters or of the times. His terrors were flattered as the result of political wisdom, and he was easily persuaded that his departure would produce a scene of anarchy to accelerate the recovery of absolute power. His hopes were absurdly placed on the public confusion, to increase which he recalled and burnt the writs for a new parliament; directed Feversham to disband the army; threw the great seal into the Thames; and with a single attendant, embarked in a small vessel at midnight for France, whither the queen and his son had before been secretly conveyed. When he was intercepted at Feversham and brought back to Whitehall, the returning affections of the city might have convinced him that the nation was not yet lost. In this delicate extremity he attempted to resume his authority by an indiscreet proclamation against the late excesses; [856] but was required at midnight to remove from the palace, and permitted to retire to Rochester, with an obvious design to connive at his escape. He was convinced himself that his departure would prove acceptable to the prince; and the few friends who adhered in adversity to his fortunes, urged him to remain. But the despair of life returned. An expression of his father’s was remembered—that ‘short is the distance between the prison and the grave of kings:’ and by the desertion of his kingdom, which he was destined never to revisit, he left his rival an unbloody victory, and a vacant throne.—The revolution was accomplished in Scotland with the same ease and success.”

A convention was assembled in each kingdom, to manage their respective concerns, and settle their future government. In England the revolution was accomplished by a coalition of whig and tory; but in Scotland, where the same distinctions prevailed under different names, the parties kept separate and opposed to each other; the episcopalians siding with James, and the presbyterians with William. The latter, however, in the end prevailed, and the convention adopted a plan, prepared by a committee, for the settlement of the crown.

The deliberations had degenerated in the English convention into verbal disputes between the two houses, whether the late king had deserted or abdicated the vacant throne. In Scotland there was neither the same necessity to gratify the tories, nor the same propriety in declaring that the king had abdicated the government, by the desertion of a country wherein he did not reside. But the opposite genius of the two nations was never more conspicuous than in the result of their deliberations on that important event. The English convention declared that James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution, by breaking the original contract between the king and people, and having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn from the kingdom, had abdicated [857] the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant. The Scots, on the other hand, instead of attempting by an ambiguous fiction to reconcile hereditary right with a change in the succession, placed the vacancy of the throne on its true basis, the religion and mal-administration of James. The same oppression which the English apprehended while yet distant, they had long endured. Their loyal attachment to the Stewarts, which survived the civil wars, had been effaced by their sufferings since the restoration. From the same national ardour which rendered the reformation so complete, or destructive in Scotland, they proposed and passed a bold and decisive vote, that James had forfaulted [forfeited] the crown by his misconduct and crimes.

When the throne was declared vacant, the convention, of both nations, resolved that the crown should be tendered to William and Mary, as joint sovereigns. The prince in an agreeable and obliging manner accepted of the crown in the name of them both; and the same day, (Feb. 13. 1689,) they were proclaimed king and queen by the named of William and Mary, at which a general joy appeared among the people. On the 11th. of April the new sovereigns were crowned in London, and proclaimed in Scotland on the same day. From the latter Argyle and others were deputed by the three temporal estates to present the crown, and administer the oath to the king and queen. The instrument of government and the grievances were first read; to which an Address to turn the convention into a parliament, was subjoined. When the coronation Oath was administered to William, at the obligation to root out heretics, he paused, and declared that he did not mean to become a persecutor; and on the assurance of the commissioners that such was not its import, protested that in that sense only he took the Oath. This must be extremely honourable to William’s memory, and is a rare instance of princely virtue, wisdom, and patriotism. If all kings were of his sort the objections to monarchical government would lose most of their strength. With this sketch of the British Revolution, so much talked of, and so ill understood by most, the reader, it is hoped, will not be displeased. [859]

Section II.

History of Lynn continued to the accession of Q. Anne—example of William and the revolutionists did not liberalize our townsmen—persecution of nonconformists here within this period—stocking trade, and complaints of the hosiers—petitions to parliament—addresses to the throne—law-suits—water-works—affair of the coal-meters—and of the noblemen, knights, esquires, clergy, &c.

William’s ideas of civil and religious liberty, though perhaps, not perfectly correct or unexceptionable, were yet far more so than what was generally entertained by our countrymen at that period—and probably, even what is generally entertained among us at this time: for civil and religious liberty seems not to have been of late years among our favourite studies. William and his consort would gladly have placed the liberty of protestant Dissenters on a broad and liberal footing, but it was not approved by the majority of the two houses of parliament. They however readily passed an Act, in the summer of 1689, for exempting their Majesties Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certain Laws; which is commonly called the Act of Toleration. But toleration is a word not to be applied to honest and virtuous men, in a land of liberty; for it implies some unworthiness in the objects, or their being unentitled to what is granted, and that the magistrate grants it by way of favour, indulgence, or connivance; whereas religious liberty is the natural and inalienable inheritance of every human being, and should be claimed as a right, and not as a boon or favour. The Toleration Act received the royal assent May 24. 1689, and the protestant dissenters have sat under the shade of it, mostly, but not always unmolested, ever since. Tories and high churchmen have often attempted to disturb them, but by this law they have been in a great measure protected. Had it not passed in the reign of William, it is doubtful if it had passed at any subsequent period. Even at this time some great men are proposing to have it revised, as being too comprehensive, and requiring certain restrictions. What the event will be, time will shew: but it will be a sad thing if the rights of conscience, or the enjoyment of religious liberty should be curtailed, now in the 19th century.

Lynn is a notable instance of a town declaring for the revolution, without entering at all into the spirit of it: for it continued still as bigoted and intolerant as before. This was remarkably exemplified in the bitter and violent persecution that broke out here about 1690, against a society of protestant dissenters of the Baptist denomination, and especially against James Marham, their minister. He appears to have been a very worthy man, zealous and diligent in propagating that sort of religious knowledge which he thought most useful and interesting to his fellow-creatures. Some of the great ones, or heads of the town became his chief persecutors. What they affected to take most umbrage at was, the denomination to which he belonged. They pretended that it was a new religion; and they would not suffer it to be disseminated in the town, but were resolved to break up the meeting. They first proceeded against him under the Conventicle Act, and employed two men, named Robert Whitehead and Henry Oseincraft, as informers; who having been at the meeting, laid their information before the justices, or aldermen, [861] who forthwith issued their warrants to levy 20l. on the house, 20l. on the preacher, and 5s. on each of the hearers. Marham owned that he hired the meeting-house, but produced the licence, or certificate, which shewed it to have been regularly registered as a place of worship, according to the Toleration Act; but that they over-ruled, and caused their levy to be executed, both upon him and others. And finding afterwards that he persisted in continuing the meeting, they resolved to ruin him, by charging him with some heinous crime, which the account does not specify. They got one person to swear against him, intending then to commit him to prison; but the witness could not substantiate the charge; so that they were obliged to drop the proceeding. Marham now getting a copy of their levy, found that the informers had sworn, that when they were at the meeting-house one John Marham was preaching; whereas there was no preacher of that name. The preacher that was speaking when they were at the meeting was a minister from London, whose name was Wm. Lang, but he was only praying, and not preaching, at the time. They had also sworn, that one Francis Robinson was then at the meeting, which was not true. Having made these discoveries Marham was advised to proceed against them at common Law, which he accordingly did; and the two informers were put into the crown office. The great men now interfered, and prevailed with Marham’s attorney to desist from further prosecution, “as he would answer it, (says the account) in the hands or custody of a messenger.” [862] These threats inducing the attorney to stay the proceedings for a time, the informers, advised by their patrons or employers, took advantage of that to remove the cause from common law to chancery. A notice or subpœna was then served upon Marham to answer their bill of complaint, which bill consisted of 31 sheets. “Though the substance of it, (our account says) will be proved utterly false, yet it will cost more money by far than Marham is able to disburse, without evident ruin.” An appeal was therefore made to the whole denomination for assistance; and they are thought to have come forward pretty liberally on the occasion, the particular as well as the general baptists, to the latter of which Marham belonged. He was up in London and gave in his answer in February 1693; but when or how the affair ended does not appear, for our account was published before it was brought to its final issue. As a chancery cause it might remain long undetermined, perhaps for some years. But how or whensoever it ended, here is enough to shew very clearly with what illiberality, intolerance, tyranny, and villany, the gentry or chief men of Lynn were capable of acting at that period. Much of the same spirit continued here very long after, even down to the memory of the present writer.

About the beginning of 1690 (or 1689–90) the hosiers of this town appeared much concerned and alarmed, (as had indeed been the case for some time before, [864]) at the prevalence of the weaving method, by which that of knitting was much discouraged and fallen off, to the great injury of vast numbers of the poor, who were consequently left without employment. They therefore now petitioned the Hall to have the case brought before parliament, which was readily acceded to. This affair is thus memorized in the Town-Books.—“Jan. 17. (1689–90) On petition of the Hosiers of this Town in behalf of the poore, against the new invention of weaving worstead hose; whereby many thousands of the poor are destitute of employment; It is ordered and agreed that a Petition from this House to the Honorable House of Commons representing that grievance, now read, be sealed with the common seal of this burgh.”

It may therefore be presumed that this petition was actually presented to the House of Commons, but what was there made of it, or what reception it met does not appear. It must, however, have indicated a very contracted idea of trade, or the rights of manufacturing adventurers. Near seven years after a different sort of petition was presented by this town to the same house; of which the following notice occurs in the Hall or Town-Books—“Oct. 26. 1696; Mr Mayor, Mr Recorder, Sir Henry Hobart baronet, Sir John Turner knight, Sir Charles Turner knight, Robert Walpole, Maurice Kendall, Esquires, Mr. Bell, Mr. Holly, Mr. Turner, or any five of them, to manage and present a petition to the parliament to remove obstructions, and for preserving navigation—[and] for removing the Dam and Sluices near Salters load.”—The obtaining the object of this petition might probably have proved very beneficial to the country; but it does not appear that the application succeeded.

Our corporation, as might be expected, did not neglect during this reign to send some loyal addresses to the throne. How many they actually did send we have not the means of ascertaining. One was probably sent upon their majesties accession, though we have not met with any particular account of it. We are indeed informed in our extracts from the Hall-Books, that Thursday, the 11th of April 1689, the day of the coronation of King William and Queen Mary, was appointed to be kept here with all due solemnity: whence one might pretty safely infer, that an Address did soon after follow. Such was the case, we presume, with all the rest of our corporations.

Another address was sent from Lynn in 1696, occasioned by the discovery of the assassination plot, and the intended French invasion. One of our historians [865] speaking of that horrid plot, thus adds—“At the same time there was to be an invasion from France, for which purpose king James was come to Calais, and the troops, artillery, and stores, were immediately ordered to be embarked; but by the news of the assassination plot having miscarried, and the speedy sending of a formidable fleet under admiral Russell, this other part of the design was frustrated; and Calais was not long after bombarded by the English. The king on February 21. acquainted parliament with the discovery of the plot; upon which both Houses addressed his majesty to congratulate him on his happy preservation: and the House of Commons drew up and subscribed an association to stand by one another in defence of his majesty’s sacred person and government, against the late king James and all his adherents. The Lords also agreed to the same association; and the example of the two Houses was followed by all the corporations in the kingdom.”—The part which Lynn took in this memorable business is thus noticed in the book of extracts from the Hall records—“March 11th. (1695–6) sign’d an Address to his Majestie in the nature of ane Association to stand by and assist his Majesty against all his Ennemys whatsomever.”—We have seen no copy of this address.

On the king’s return from the continent, in the autumn of 1697, another address went to him from this town, of which the following is a copy—

“Great Sir. Wee your Majesties most dutifull and loyall subjects, the mayor, aldermen, and common-councell, and chiefe inhabitants of the burgh of King’s Lynn in the county of Norfolk, crave leave to prostate ourselves at your Royall feet, with sincerest joye and most devout thankfulness adoreing the Divine Goodness for watching over your pretious life (in all the Dangers it has been exposed to by sea and land) upon the safety whereof the fate of so many nations did depend. The comfort is too bigg for us to express, To behold your sacred person with happyness and honor retorned to these your dominions after the vast toyles of a war ingaged in for the security of your realms and the tranquillity of Europe. For no sooner had your princely tenderness secured to us the inestimable blessings of Lawe, Liberty, and Religion, but injured and ruined provinces abroad implored your ayd. Then it was you awakened the slumbering genius of this warlike people, and with matchless conduct, courage, vigilance, you led forth the British forces to fame and great atchievements in forreign lands. Let other chiefes and potentates of your allyance have their deserved praise; but it is your majesties right for what by your councell and armes has been done in accomplishing the great worke to remain possest of the brightest share of the glory that attends it, will outweigh the pomp of all other triumphs to be the chosen instrument of Providence to calm a stormy world, to make wars and desolation to cease, and to restore repose and peace to christendome. May the same propitious providence make these blessings durable and perpetuall, may your sacred Majestie be still the charge of the Life Guards of Heaven, may your royall cares be sweetened, though they can never be requited, by the constant loyalty and duty of a gratefull people; may your days be long and prosperous, and your renoune increase; may your Realms flourish in virtue, union, plenty and peace; and when you shall be called to a heavenly crowne may generations to come rise up and call you blessed.”

This Address, no doubt, was drawn up by one of our first orators and ablest hands of that day, and in his very best manner. But our augustan age does not appear to have commenced till after the accession of Q. Anne. Our addresses to the throne became then long and frequent; and they were all penned in so striking a style of eloquence as clearly evinced the abundant confidence the compilers had in their own parts and powers.

In 1697 our corporation had a law-suit with one Hulton, before Lord Chief Justice Holt, which by the following hint in the Hall-Books they appear to have gained—“March 29. 1697, Recovered, on a tryall before Lord Chief Justice Holt, of Leonard Holton a Quitt rent of 23s. 6d. per annum, and arrears for 38 years to Michaelmas 1694, on his house, late Th: Toll Esq: and also a rent charge of 6s. 8d. per annum.”—In the same year they had also a suit in the court of Exchequer, with one Vinckeson, of which the following notice occurs in the Hall-books—“June 16. Ordered that Hubert Vinckeson be prosecuted in the court of Exchequer for the duty of Lastage of great quantities of corn and graine belonging to fforreigners and strangers to the liberties of this burgh, which have been unjustly coloured and own’d by him, contrary to his aath of ffreedome.”—It does not appear that there was any thing unjustifiable in this prosecution.

About this same period our water-works appear to have been a losing concern to our corporation; which they seem to have felt so far as to have the following notice of it inserted in their books—“April 20. 1696. It is reported that the charges and disbursements of maintaining the water-rents for ten 10 years last past, as per particulars is 1427l. 7s. [869] 8d. the rents and profits thereof for the sametime is 1338l. 14s. 2d.—Lost by the water account in ten years 288l. 13s. 6d. which divided by ten years is 28l. 17s. 4d. per annum.”—How this concern turned out afterwards, or how it stands at present, we have not had hitherto the means of ascertaining.

At this period which we are now reviewing the whole body of our coal-meters and head-porters brought themselves into most sad disgrace, by certain dishonest and fraudulent doings. The customhouse complained against them and had them all turned out at once:—but some weeks after, on profession of contrition or promise of amendment, they were again restored. Of this unpleasant affair, so disreputable and humiliating to these meters and porters, our Corporation have preserved the following memorial in their books—“July 11th. 1701; Upon Information this day made to this House by the chief officers of his Majesties Customes of this Port against the whole body of the Company of Head Porters and Metters of the Port and Burgh, that they have severally received deputations and instructions from the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners, as metters, weighers, and measurers, in pursuance of an act for granting to his Majesty severall duties upon coales and culme, have every one of them taken and received bribes, and made short and false certificates and retornes, and been guilty of other corrupt ill practices contrary to the said trust and the oath and duty of their offices of Head Porters and Metters, and to the defrauding his Majestie of the said Duties; which upon examination they have this day severally confest: it is therefore this day ordered that all and every of them be and stand discharged from the said offices of Head Porters and Metters of this burgh and port.”—Then we read as follows—“August 13. Upon the humble application and submission of divers of the corne and coale metters, head porters, this House hath reestablished them, and ordere’d that beside the accustomed oath they give security by bond with one surety in 20l. for the just performance, and so to continue for the future.”—This regulation is probably still in force.

About the same time our corporation appeared to claim kindred and fall passionately in love with gentility and high life, or the titled classes of the community, as contradistinguished from the unprivileged orders or swinish multitude; which is evinced by the conclusion of the following passage in the Hall-Books, on the regulation of Tolls,—“Nov. 24. 1701; Ordered that the present Tables of Petty Tolls, taken by water and at the gates, be regulated according to the alterations now made, and such as are now marked be exchanged, and that new tables thereof be made to be hung up at the gates, and delivered to the wharfinger; and that all Noblemen, Knights, Esquires, and Clergymen be from henceforth exempted from all Tolls for goods bought by them.” One can perceive in this neither justice nor charity; and it was probably the offspring of mere caprice.

At the period now under review our clergy were, seemingly, treated, or provided for by the corporation more liberally and handsomely than they are at present. In 1702 the minister and lecturer had their Stipends augmented to 100l. a year each; which must have been equal to 3 or 400l. at least, of our money. Before that time they had but 50l. each, as appears by the following articles in the Hall-Books—“Aug. 29, 1701; Ordered that Mr. Th: Pile be appointed minister or preacher at St. Nicholas Chaple to preach once every Sunday, and to read divine Service once every day in the week, except Sundayes, at St. Margarets Church, and he shall be allowed 50l. per annum.”—again—“March 18. 1701; Dr. Th: Little chosen Lecturer at St. Margarets Church, in the room of Mr. Fysh deceased, and to have 50l. per annum.”—again—“Nov. 20. 1702; Mr. Th: Pyle and Dr. Little’s stypends augmented more 50l. per annum each, on Mr Jaggard’s decease.”—If we are not mistaken, there has not been afterwards any further augmentation for 60 or 70 years; when 50l. more were added to the minister or vicar: and the same has been added lately.—Being now brought to the close of William’s reign, and the accession of Anne, we shall here finish this section.

Section III.

History of Lynn from the death of William to that of Anne—her majesty’s accession—address to her from Lynn—dangerous state of the Boale or World’s End, and measures adopted for its preservation—the great storm in 1703, and its effects on this town—address to the throne in 1704—petitions to parliament the same year, from the counties of Bedford and Huntingdon, against unreasonable and exorbitant exactions at Lynn—constructive disloyalty of our corporation—minister’s house in Webster’s Row.

On the death of King William, Anne, the younger sister of his late queen, succeeded to the throne, by virtue of the act of settlement, which had passed in the preceding reign. She was proclaimed on March 8, 1701–2, a few hours after the king’s death; and her accession gave entire satisfaction to all her protestant subjects. Those of this town appeared on that occasion very conspicuous, as they were actually among those who addressed the throne within that selfsame month. We have never seen a copy of this address, but have learnt from our book of Extracts that it was dated March 30, 1702. Whether it was long or short, we know not; but there can be no doubt of its being very loyal: and, in point of style or diction we may take it for granted that it bore no small resemblance to those of succeeding years, of which we shall not fail by and by to exhibit some fair specimens.

About the time of which we are now speaking, Lynn was thought to be in some danger from the encroachment of the tide upon that point called the Boale, or world’s end; and the most effectual means that could be thought of were therefore adopted for the safety of the town.—This affair is thus noticed in the Hall books:—“Sept. 24. 1708; In pursuance of a late order wee have considered Robert Elsden’s Petition to us referred, and taken a view of the ground called the Boale or World’s End, and the lands and houses on either side, and are of opinion, that there is an absolute necessity that the said ground as it now is be preserved from being lost to sea, and for that purpose that some present meanes be considered by Jettys and Counter-shores to repell the flow and reflow the sea, without which the houses on the north side of the Mill ffleet, and consequently the town will be in great danger of ruin; and considering how necessary it is that present care be taken of the defence of the town so incumbent upon this House, which the said Elsden is in no wise able to performe, and also considering the advantage it will be to this corporation to have the duties of wharfage and groundage, stakes, mooreage and other dutys claimed and long enjoyed the owners of that ground united and made entire to this port, Wee have treated and contracted with the said Robert Elsden for the absolute purchase of the said ground and all profits and advantages thereunto belonging for the sum of 130l. and 20l. more at the end of five years if the said ground shall continue so long preserved from sea without considerable diminution.”—Then it is added—“Said Report and Articles are read and well approved by this House.” This was, no doubt, an advantageous bargain to the corporation; and as might be expected, they now set themselves in good earnest about effectually preserving their new purchase. They laid out upon it a good deal of money; of which the following memoranda occur in their books—“Sept. 29. 1704: Ordered 100l. to be taken up for reimbursing the chamberlain’s charges about the Jetties and defences against the sea at the Boale, or World’s End.”—again—“Jan. 12 1704–5: Ordered that Mr. Hainsworth chamberlain’s account audited at 347l. 8s. 9d. relating to the Boale be allowed, and that he have 10l. 10s. for his extraordinary trouble.”—This spot, we presume, has been ever since the property of the corporation, which we cannot find to have been ever the case before.

About this same time happened that dreadful national calamity, commonly called the great storm, the most tremendous and most disastrous, perhaps, ever experienced in this kingdom. It continued for several days but was at the highest on the 27th of November 1703. No place escaped its fury, but in some places it was most awfully terrible and destructive. It blew from the west, and therefore could not so much affect this coast; and at Lynn the loss it occasioned was comparatively inconsiderable; amounting to seven or eight ships, twenty or thirty hands, and damage to the houses, or buildings, computed at about 1000l. and the whole including the shipping to about 3000l, [874] which was but a trifle, compared to the losses which some other places had then sustained.

On the western coast the ravages of this storm far exceeded what they were in these eastern parts. At Bristol it occasioned so high a tide as did above a 100,000l. damage to the merchants goods only. It also caused the Severn to break down its banks, and overflow a vast tract of land, by which 15000 sheep, besides other cattle were drowned. The famous Eddystone Lighthouse also, which had borne several storms unmoved, was not able to stand this. It was swept off on the tremendous night of the 27th. and nothing was to be seen the next morning but the bare rock. Winstanley too, its ingenious projector and constructor, who happened then to be there, perished with the rest. [875] Soon after, on that very night, the Winchelsea, a homeward bound Virginia-man, split on the same rock, and most of its hands were lost.

It was computed that no less than 300 sail of ships, some of them belonging to the royal navy, were lost on different parts of out coasts, and that there were drowned then in rivers and at sea, at least 8000 persons. Between one and two hundred lost their lives by the fall of houses, chimneys, &c. and a still greater number were grievously bruised and hurt from the same causes. More than 800 dwelling houses were blown down, and barns and outhouses without number. Above 400 wind-mills were overset and destroyed; upwards of one hundred churches were uncovered, and the lead from some of their roofs blown to an incredible distance: many of their steeples and battlements were also demolished. In addition to all which, above 250,000 trees were said to be then torn up by the roots. In short the whole country for sometime after exhibited the appearance of dejection, dismay, and desolation.

The public feelings being greatly affected by this national calamity, we need not be surprized that a general fast was soon after solemnly proclaimed and devoutly observed throughout the kingdom; and though we may not very readily fall in, or coincide with every idea suggested in the royal proclamation, [876] yet we cannot help looking upon that fast as much more proper and justifiable than most of those that have been observed by our countrymen ever since.—After all, what were the deplorable ravages of that great and mighty storm, compared with those of a single campaign in some of our modern wars, when myriads of human beings have miserably perished, entire provinces cruelly laid waste, and whole nations involved in utter ruin? Yet these most calamitous scenes are seldom looked upon by governments and nations as the judgments of Heaven, or what ought to lead men to serious reflection, religious humiliation, and repentance.

In the course of the following year, (1704) our national feelings were very differently affected. The dejection of the preceding year was no longer felt, and the public mind became suddenly elated in a wonderful manner, and to an extraordinary degree. This was occasioned by the battle of Hochstet, or Blenheim, as we most commonly call it. That surprising victory filled the nation with such vainglorious triumph as to throw it almost into a state of atheistical intoxication. Addresses to the throne came in thick now from all quarters, and our corporation appeared conspicuous among those memorable addressers. Our address was not a little remarkable; but whether most so for its piety, good sense, and elegance, or for its loyalty, adulation, and fustian, or bombastry, may be left for the reader to judge. [878]

But however loyal or patriotic we seemed at this period, and elated with the idea of our military successes and national glory, we yet lay at the same time under some very unfavourable and disreputable imputations from some of our neighbours, on the score of extortion, or unwarrantable and exorbitant exactions in our commercial dealings. Nor is it at all clear that the charge was absolutely or entirely groundless.—These circumstances appear from the following document in the Hall-books.—

“Jan. 12th. 1704–5. Whereas Petitions have been lately exhibited to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament by the Deputy Leuftenants, Justices of the Peace, Gentlemen and Inhabitants of the Countys of Bedford and Huntingdon, complaining of great duties and payments exacted by this town of Lynn by force of pretended By-Laws on all such sea coales brought into this port as are not consumed in this town, and for that under a pretence of a certain custome of Foreign bought and foreign sold all masters of ships and others not free of this corporation who bring in coales are compelled to lye three market days after arrival before they are permitted to sell their coales to any person whatsoever; and after they have layn such time yet they are permitted to sell to non but Freemen and inhabitants of the burgh at their own prices, whereby all other traders in Sea coales are discouraged, that trade monopolised there, and the prices raised to an excessive rate, and that the freemen and inhabitants thereby make exorbitant gains to themselves, to the great oppression of the petitioners and diminution of the queen’s revenue, which custom and practices are contrary to divers laws and statutes, viz. 9th of Ed. 3 and 25th. Ed. 3. and 11th. Rd. 2. and therefore pray to be relieved against them.—And whereas the matters in said petition are referr’d to a private committee it is ordered that Councell be taken in said case, and that such concession and disclaims [880a] be made before the committee or otherwise as by our Burgesses in Parliament with advice of such Councell shall be thought reasonable touching the duty of 8d. per Chalder and compelling Strangers ships to lye 3 days mentioned in the said case, and to act farther therein as they shall see cause, saving to this corporation the ancient custome of fforeign bought of foreign sold, and the duty 4d. per chalder time out of mind received and injoyed.” [880b]

How this affair terminated we have not been able to ascertain.

Soon after the affair just now mentioned another circumstance transpired which had a still more serious aspect on our corporation, as it seemed to involve them in a kind of dispute with the crown itself, and to threaten them with a repetition of former alarming regal procedures, or another deprivation of their charters and municipal franchises. A process was accordingly commenced against them on the part of their sovereign, for the embezzlement, or non-payment of certain royal dues; and it is thus noticed in their own records—“June 13th. 1705; upon reading a writt directed to the sheriffe of this county, for seizing into Her Majesties hands the liberties of this Burgh, for default of entering claims, and answering and accounting for the debts, fines, and forfeitures due to Her Majestie arising within this Burgh. It is this day ordered that the Town Clerke forthwith take care to cause appearance to the said writt, and such other matters be performed as are incumbent on the mayor and burgesses.”—It is not said what was the result, but it may be supposed to have ended favourably, though, probably, not without absolute submission and great expense. But for any disloyalty that might be alleged against them in this instance, they seem to have made ample amends by their memorable address to the throne in 1706, which shall be given in the next section.

Among the advantages enjoyed formerly by the minister of the town, or the vicar of St. Margaret’s parish, was that of a parsonage house for his habitation. This house was situated in Webster’s row, or Broad street. For sometime before the period of which we are now speaking there seems to have been some doubt, whether this house belonged to the corporation, or to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich. But now, during the deanship of the celebrated Dr. Prideaux, the Dean and Chapter expressly relinquished their claim in favour of the corporation. But this is supposed to have proved to succeeding ministers an unfortunate relinquishment: for it does not seem that they had any longer an appropriate mansion in the town, but were obliged to shift for themselves, and procure a dwelling as they could, like the rest of the inhabitants. How the corporation came to deprive the minister of his parsonage house we have not learnt.—Of this affair the following notice occurs in the Hall-Books; “August 29. 1705; It appeareth by old deeds that the minister’s house in Webster’s Row belongeth to the mayor and burgesses, and Dr. Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, by his Letter produced doth disclaim the same, as never in possession of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich.”

Section IV.

State of Lynn under Q. Anne continued—pompous address to the throne in 1706—cut made the same year from Kettlewell to Gannock gate—state of the Middleton river and water-mills—another notable address to the throne—execution of two children—state of the harbour—Dr. Hepburne and other doctors—the medical as well as clerical profession supposed to be more highly esteemed here formerly than at present—reasons for that supposition—law-suit—Walpole’s expulsion—death of Anne and accession of George I.

In the summer of 1706, our corporation distinguished themselves by another most elaborate and pompous address to the throne, which might well compensate for all that constructive disloyalty, or treasonable delinquency which seemed imputable to them the preceding year. Indeed, as far as words could do it, this address must have placed them among the most loyal, most zealous, and most devoted of all her majesty’s subjects. Whether she herself deemed it to have completely white washed them from their former foulness, or not, we are unable to say. But if she did really condescend to bestow upon it any thought at all, she could hardly avoid considering it as an extraordinary production: and the reader will probably view it in much the same light. [883]

In the self-same year, and soon after the date of the said addresses to the throne, there was here no small stir made about the corn water-mills, which were situated close by the present Lancastrian school. From those mills the fleet from thence to the harbour was called mill-fleet, and the lane adjoining had the name of mill-lane. Those corn water-mills appear to have been here long noted, and of great use to the town. But about the time of which we are now speaking they were falling into decay, and so continued till they were at length entirely laid aside, and every vestige of them has long ago disappeared. The wind-mills now supply their place and do their work, at least so much of it as is wanted to be done here; for the chief of the meal and flour consumed in the town is brought from other parts. When Lynn depended for its bread entirely, or almost so, on its water-mills, they must have been of great consequence, and the laying of them by must have been much felt by the inhabitants. At present our situation is very different, and we perceive and feel no need of water-mills. [885]

In the spring of the very next year (1707) another flaming address to the throne went from Lynn; and as it is not inferior to the former in point of eloquence and sublimity, it may be desirable to have it preserved, for the entertainment of the rising generation.—It was dated April 25.—The following is a correct copy of it, as it stands in our volume of extracts—

“May it please your Majestie, Nothing could ever equal your Victories in the field but your Councells in the cabinet: thus happily in spite of all the Jesuiticall contrivances of your and our Ennemys to vanquish nationall and hereditary prejudices, to reconcile so many jarring and different pretensions, and to unite England and Scotland into one kingdome and interest, hitherto by all in vain attempted, will together with the Blenheim and Ramilies remain everlasting monuments of your Majesties glory.—Our Protestant succession is hereby extended thro’ the British Isle, Our Legislature, Trade, and Interest one, and all Jealousies and differences being removed, that strength which has often been a weakening to us, to the mutual endangering our constitution and safety, is now become a real security to both, and formidable to our enemies. Thus the hopes of our divisions, fomented by a popish Pretender and his heedless abettors, will be now extinguished, and wee shall always think it our dutie, as what is most agreeable to your Majestie and beneficiall to ourselves, to be unanimous with one another, and to pay a friendly regard to our united Neibours, as becomes fellow protestants and fellow subjects.—May your Majestie, seated on the throne of your united Britannia, long hold the ballance and arbitrate the peace and safely of Europe, and be as great and happy here, as your memory will be immortall and glorious hereafter.” [887]

We now take our leave of the Lynn Addresses. This and the two former are probably to be classed among the prime productions of our augustan age. Our volume of Extracts contains no more copies of addresses to the throne; which seems to indicate that a great tailing off took place afterwards in their style and composition, so that the succeeding ones were not worth preserving. However that was, these samples have been here inserted upon the supposition that they were some of the best written and most eloquent that any of our sovereigns ever received from this borough: and it is in that view chiefly they are now recommended to the perusal and consideration of the reader.

In 1708, according to one of our MS. accounts of that time, two children were hanged here for felony, one eleven, and the other but seven years of age; which if true, must indicate very early and shocking depravity in the sufferers, as well as unusual and excessive vigour on the part of the magistrates in the infliction of capital punishment. [888a]—In that also and the succeeding year, the wretched state of the harbour appears to have occasioned considerable disquietude and alarm in the town; and the most effectual means that could be thought of were adopted to remedy the growing evil, and tranquillize the minds of the inhabitants. [888b]

At the time now under review, two of the most prominent characters in this town were the elder Pyle and Dr. Hepburne. Of the former some account may be expected hereafter. The latter was a North-Briton, and of the medical profession. At what time he settled here does not very distinctly appear; but it is supposed to have been about the latter part of king William’s reign. Be that as it might, he soon became eminent as a physician, so as to stand at the head of the profession, in all this part of the kingdom, for near half a century. Walpole, with our principal nobility and gentry, held him in high estimation, and his practice became in time so very extensive that he was seldom to be found at home, so that the town was obliged then to have recourse for medical advice solely to Browne and Lidderdale the two other physicians.

On the 3rd. of February 1709, the Hall voted Dr. Hepburne the freedom of the town gratis; and he took up that freedom on the 12th. of the next ensuing August. Browne is supposed to have had the same compliment paid him: so had Lidderdale on the 29th. of August 1737. so also had Tayler on the same day of the same month, ten years after. The last of our physicians, if we are not mistaken, who have been thought worthy of the honour of being made free of this ancient and renowned borough, was the late Dr. Hamilton. He was not, like Paul, free-born, nor did he, like most of his predecessors, become free gratis; but might say with the Roman chief captain, “With a great sum obtained I this freedom,” for it cost him at least 30l. which was a great deal more than it was worth to a mere medical man, fifty years ago. His being obliged to purchase it, and so dearly too, seems a pretty plain indication that a change of disposition towards the physicians had then taken place in the Hall, and that they were actually sinking in the estimation of that worshipful body. That same body is supposed to have been no less determined ever since, even from the commencement of this jubilee reign, against making any more of the physicians free, than his majesty is said to be against making any more of his subjects Dukes, except those of his own family. So remarkable a coincidence between the humour of our corporation and that of their beloved sovereign must, no doubt, be very curious to contemplate. As to the two physicians that are now, and have long been resident here, the present writer positively disavows any knowledge or suspicion of either of them being in the least uneasy in their state of villanage, or at all desirous of obtaining their freedom. On the contrary, he supposes them to be perfectly indifferent about that matter; even as much so as he is himself, who has not the least idea that the freedom of Lynn, or of any other town, would be worth to him a single groat, or what would afford the smallest gratification.

Not only the medical profession, but even the clerical also seems to be in lower estimation here now than what it was a hundred years ago. The heads of both professions were then, and long after, we presume, invariably admitted to their freedom, which is not the case now. The very Lecturer, if we are rightly informed, is at present unfree, as well as the physicians. The Vicar also, as was before noted, had here then a parsonage-house, which he has not now. Nor is his present stipend, or income, any way equal to what it was at that period. Yet for all this seemingly declining credit of these two learned professions among us, it is more than probable, that both physic and divinity are as well understood, and as rightly and judiciously administered here now, as ever they were in the days of Thomas Pyle and George Hepburne.

In 1713 our corporation, in conjunction with some others, engaged in a law-suit about Sir Thomas White’s benefaction, [891] but it does not appear how it terminated.—About the same time, and somewhat earlier, Lynn must have been much agitated by the affair of Walpole, who was one of its parliamentary representatives. Because he would not join with the new ministry, they resolved to be revenged, by accusing him of a breach of trust and corruption. They finally succeeded, though by small majorities, and had him committed to the Tower and expelled the House. Lynn re-elected him, but it was declared null and void: so he was kept out of parliament till after its dissolution, which took place on the 8th. of August 1713. Lynn then again re-elected him, and he sat in the new parliament which met on the 16th. of February 1714. The queen died a few months after, and was succeeded by George I. which opened the way and was the prelude to Walpole’s future elevation and prosperity.

Section V.

State of Lynn under George I.—sketch of his character—attachment and wishes of the people divided between him and the son of James II commonly called the Pretender—our accounts of this town, during this reign, very barren of interesting or memorable incidents—enumeration of some of the most remarkable—the king dies and his son succeeds.

No prince, says Coxe, ever ascended a throne under more critical circumstances, and with less appearances of a quiet reign, than George the First; whether we consider the state of the European powers, the situation of parties in Great Britain, or his own character. As to the latter, he was ill calculated by nature, disposition, and habit to reconcile the then jarring parties, and remove the unfavourable impressions which it was natural for all people to entertain of a foreigner, destined to rule over them. He was already fifty-four years of age, and had been long habituated to a court of a very different description from that of England, and to manners and customs wholly repugnant to those of his new subjects. He was easy and familiar only in his hours of relaxation, and to those alone who formed his usual society; not fond of attracting notice, phlegmatic and grave in his public deportment, hating the splendour of majesty, shunning crowds, and fatigued even with the first acclamations of the multitude. This natural reserve was heightened by his ignorance of the language, of the first principles of the English constitution, and of the spirit and temper of the people.

It was currently reported, before his arrival, that measures were preparing to evade the laws which excluded foreigners from honours and employments. He had several mistresses, of whom two the most favoured were expected to accompany him to England, with a numerous train of Hanoverian followers, eager to share the spoils of the promised land; to set up a court within a court, and an interest opposite to the true interest of England. It was also maliciously circulated that he was indifferent to his own succession, and scarcely willing to stretch out a hand to grasp the crown within his reach. “But, adds the same writer, he had excellent qualities for a sovereign, plainness of manners, simplicity of character, and benignity of temper; great application to business, extreme exactness in distributing his time, the strictest economy in regulating his revenue; and, notwithstanding his military skill and tried valour, a love of peace; virtues, however, which required time before they were appreciated, and not of that specious cast to captivate the multitude, or raise the tide of popularity.”—Such was our first sovereign of the present family. [894]

A great part of the nation was hostile to the Hanover succession; but it was a divided party, and could never be brought to act in concert, or with whiggish energy. The Tories were then a very powerful body, and mostly in favour of the Pretender, but not so decidedly as the Jacobites, who were to a man violent for his restoration. These two parties were then more numerous and powerful than the Whigs, or adherents of the House of Hanover and the protestant succession. But they wanted the talents, the unanimity, and the decision of the latter, and therefore proved unable to gain their point, or introduce the pretender and place him on the throne. An attempt, however, was made, chiefly in Scotland, to bring him in, in 1715, and again in 1745; but they both miscarried, so that the present family in the end got firm and undisputed possession of the sovereignty of these realms; and the pretending or rival family is now extinct. Considering the many adverse appearances, at and before the queen’s death, George’s quiet accession was not a little remarkable and surprising. His success, it has been thought, “was principally owing to the abilities, prudence, activity, and foresight of the great Whigs, and to the precautions which they had always taken, and now took to promote the succession in the protestant line, with whom the Hanoverian agents in London concerted their mode of conduct, and to whom George, from the first news he received of the queen’s death, wholly resigned himself and his cause.” In nothing did he discover so much discretion and wisdom, as in acting under the guidance of such able and trusty adherents.

The history of Lynn during this reign, seems remarkably barren of interesting, or very memorable incidents. Scarce any thing that we know of, relating to this town, occurred within that time that is worth recording. The town no doubt, or at least the members of the corporation, derived many good things from the high station then occupied by Walpole, their great patron and representative; and this circumstance would hardly fail to render Lynn the envy of most other corporations, who would naturally be desirous of obtaining so powerful a patronage. But upon this subject we will not here enlarge.

Among the principal objects that engaged the attention of our corporation during this reign, was an inquiry into the extent and limits of the estates in Dunham and East Lexham, belonging to the Gaywood Hospital, of which they were the trustees or guardians. This inquiry commenced as early as 1710–11. as appears from the following note or hint in our volume of Extracts—“March 23. 1710–11; St. Mary Magdalen estate to be surveyed and new buttal’d.”—Afterwards, under the year 1715, we read as follows; “July 27. upon reading the report of the Comittee, ordered to inspect the Estate in East Lexham and Dunham, belonging to Gaywood Hospital, It is ordered that a Letter be sent to Edmd. Wodehouse, Esq. to request and demand a new particular and abuttals of the lands there late in his possession, and that the Town Clerk attend the persons employed to new abuttal the same, as occasion shall require.”

This work appears to have been attended with considerable difficulty, and therefore to have made for a great while but very slow progress; but our gentlemen still persevered, and seemed fully determined to effect their purpose, in spite of all obstacles. Accordingly the affair is thus further noticed under 1718: “April 7th. Ordered a Letter be wrott to Edmd. Wodehouse, Esq. to desire new abuttals of the lands in Dunham and East Lexham, belonging to St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospitall, which he and his predecessors have holden 99 years by lease lately expired.”—A month after (i.e. May 7. 1718.) it was further “ordered that Mr. Mayor, (Ja: Boardman Esq.) Mr. Turner, Mr. Berney, Mr. Bagge, Mr. Rolfe, Aldermen; Mr. Robotham, Wm. Allen, Tho. Allen, Town Clerk, and Chamberlains, be a Comittee to inspect the Hospitall lands belonging to St. Mary Magdalen, at Dunham and East Lexham, and settle the schedules, and treat for a new Lease thereof; likewise to consider of the regaining the foldcourse at Dunham.”

Somewhat more than a year and half after the last date, we find the same business still employing the attention of our gentlemen. Hence, in our volume of Extracts, the following passage occurs.—“December 23rd. 1710. Order’d that alderman Bagg, with the town clerk, be desired to wait upon Mr. Wodehouse at Lexham, and endeavour to ascertain the lands late in his lease from St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospitall, and enquire after what other lands there are in Dunham and East Lexham for which no rent is paid.” [897] How they succeeded, or how the inquiry finally turned out, does not appear. But it is pretty certain that the Hospital and poor pensioners there, have never owed much obligation to the Wodehouse family; and but for the interference of the corporation, this charity, in all probability, had long ago been alienated and lost. Let this therefore stand on record among the good and worthy deeds of our body corporate.

The origin of the appointment of Watchmen for this town, is a circumstance that seems to be very little known here: but from the following hint in our volume of Extracts, it seems to be now of near 90 years standing.—“Feb. 3. 1719–20, Order’d that a Letter be sent to the members of parliament, to gett a clause incerted in the act now about passing for night watches for the city of Westminster, in favour of this corporation to have the like regulation.” It seems probable therefore, that Lynn had its night watchmen as early as the city of Westminster, and of course earlier probably, than most other places in the kingdom. Somewhat more than two months after the last date, the following circumstance is memorized in our book of Extracts—“April 6. 1720, Mr. John Cary junr. is elected Master of the Writting School, and aldermen Berney and Scarlet, governors and inspectors of the said schoole.” This school still exists; but who are its present governors and inspectors we have not learnt. They may be supposed to be expert penmen, or good judges of penmanship. On the 23rd. of the following December, it was “ordered that a book be prepared to register all the Acts of our Common Councell that pass the seale.”—This book of the Acts of our Common Council, though not quite so interesting as the book of the Acts of the Apostles, may nevertheless contain some very curious passages, which might be very useful for this work, could we have been favoured with a sight of it. But it is supposed to be a book of secrets, and so not accessible to the uninitiated and unprivileged. Containing now the acts of near 90 years, it may be presumed to be, by this time, rather bulky.

In the spring of 1722, our book of Extracts speaks of the Blockhouse being let on lease to one Quash. The reason of noticing this here, is, because the passage alluded to shews that one of the gates of the town anciently stood there, and bore the name of St. Agnes.—The passage reads thus:

“April 4th. 1722, Ordered that a lease be made to Wm. Quash, mariner, of the messuage called the Blockhouse, in North End, being formerly St. Agness Gates, for the terme of 99 years, at 10s. per annum, from Lady Day last, he putting the same into repair, and so keeping it as a dwelling house during the said terme, and leaving the same in tennantable repair at the expiration, excepting to this corporation the common way and passages as usual through the same.”

On the 23rd. of the following November, according to the Hall Books, it was “ordered that the tolls for the carriage of goods through the two gates be suspended for one year, from Lady Day next.” This shews that toll was formerly paid for the passage of goods through our gates; but we have not learnt the reason of the suspension of that payment now for one year. It was a measure, no doubt, which some circumstances were thought to render necessary, at least by way of experiment. Its country and commercial connections had long given Lynn a bad name, for its extortioning spirit, and exorbitant exactions; and it is probable that the town had suffered on that account: this might therefore be an expedient used, along with others, for the purpose of retrieving its character. Whether it promoted that object in any degree, or proved of any material benefit to the town, we have not been able to discover.—Under the date of March 1. 1722–3, (or 1723, as we reckon) the following short note or hint occurs in our book of Extracts—“Market Tolls declared to be the Mayor’s.” By which it would seem that there were before some doubts entertained here upon this subject, and that it had never been fully settled, till now, to whom those tolls belonged.

In the following August, the resentment of the Hall, was excited in a very high degree against Dr. Browne the physician, for having set up, on some occasion, a kind of competition for precedence with the very Mayor himself. This daring deed is thus memorized in our book of Extracts—“August 29. 1723, Ordered that a Letter be written by the Town Clerke to Dr. Wm. Browne, to acquaint him with the resentment of this corporation of his affront to the mayor (Richd. Harwich Esq.) justices and gentlemen of this corporation, by an undue precedence he assumed and persisted in, on Monday last.” [also] “that the Letter now written by the Town Clerke, on that occasion, be sent to Doctor Browne.”—Things must have been then queerly situated at Lynn; especially between the mayor and Dr. Browne. What effect the Town clerk’s Letter had upon the doctor, we have not been able to discover. But we have always understood that there was never any great cordiality between him and the corporation. He resided here long after this, and afterwards removed to London, where he received the honour of knighthood, and became president of the Royal College of Physicians, to the no small gratification of his vanity, of which he had a most enormous portion. He has been spoken of as a good physician, but beyond that, or out of the line of his profession, he is not known to have acquired much respectability. In one thing he seemed more fortunate than his contemporary Hepburne; for he died rich, and the other poor. Hepburne’s numerous patients were, it seems, more liberal in feasting than in feeing him; whereas Browne would not have been satisfied with that sort of liberality. He was the grandfather of our present parliamentary representative, Sir Martin Browne Folkes, baronet. [901a]

In 1724 and 1725, the decayed, unsafe, and dangerous state of the river and harbour, which had been much complained of for many years before, continued still to engage the attention of our rulers, as appears by the following memoranda in the Hall records—“August 3. 1724; this day Col. Armstrong’s Report concerning the river, with severall maps, &c. were brought into this House.” again—“Jan. 4th. 1724–5; To apply to Parliament for reviving the Extinct Powers for Commissioners concerning the navigation of the river Ouze.” again—“Febr. 3. appointed a Comittee to state, settle, and consider of proper ways and means, by tonnage upon goods imported, to raise 2500l. per annum, stipulated to be employed in amending and restoring the navigation of this harbor.”—again [901b]—“June 7th. 1725; Ordered that Mr. Badslade be paid 20l. for his disbursements for printing the severall schemes, cases, and answers, relating to this navigation.”

In the latter part of 1726, an affair came on between the corporation and one Henry Southwell, a freeman, which ended rather disgracefully to the former. They seized a quantity of coals belonging to him, under pretence of their being foreign bought and foreign sold; for which he brought an action against the Town Clerk, which the corporation defended. They proceeded further, and actually disfranchised Southwell. Upon which he procured a mandamus, and obliged them to restore him to his freedom. This must have been not a little mortifying to them. They thought they had him entirely in their power, and could master him; whereas the mastery, in fact, belonged to him, and it so turned out that they were in his power: so that like the Irishman, [902] they caught a Tartar, and thereby brought themselves into a most humiliating dilemma, and exposed themselves to the ridicule and derision of the whole country. The Hall-records notice and memorizet his affair as follows: “Nov. 16th. 1726; ordered that the suit brought by Henry Southwell, a freeman, against Edw. Bradfield, Town-clerk, for seizing a parcell of coales, fforeign bought and fforeign sold, which came into this port in a ship, Wm. Coverdale, master, a foreigner, for Wm. Taylor, fforeigner, be defended, at the publick charge—and that Hen: Southwell be disfranchised for his collouring bargains and sales, contrary to his Oath of ffreedom, and using opprobious words (in his Letters) to the corporation, unless he shews good cause to the contrary, upon due notice to him for that purpose to be given.”—again—“Febr. 3rd. 1726–7. Ordered that Mr. Hen: Southwell, appearing and shewing no sufficient cause to the contrary, be disfranchised the freedom of this burgh, and he is disfranchised accordingly.”—again—“April 29th. 1728. Ordered that the former order, made for discharging Hen: Southwell of the freedom of this burgh, be made void, and that he be restored again, according to the direction of a peremptory mandamus, issued out of his majesty’s court of King’s Bench, to the mayor, aldermen, and common councell for that purpose directed: and the said Hen: Southwell appearing, was sworn, and found pledges.”—This might have taught our corporation a very useful lesson, and been a standing warning to them never more to act in so arbitrary a manner, or attempt to extend their power beyond its due bounds.

Being now come to the close of this reign, it may be proper here just to mention some of the principal events by which it was distinguished. Among them the first in order of time was the rebellion in 1715, in favour of the pretender; which, though it was suppressed early in the ensuing year, was far from being eradicated from the minds of the people. The malcontents were long after very numerous in the kingdom, and ever busy in forming new plots against the government, of which that wherein bishop Atterbury was concerned seems to have been the most formidable. The seasonable discovery of it prevented its being productive of much mischief, except to the conspirators themselves, some of whom paid very dear for the share they had in it; particularly Layer and Atterbury. The former was hanged and quartered, and the latter banished his country for ever.

But of all the occurrences of this reign the South Sea scheme, or grand bubble, as it is sometimes called, was that which proved most disastrous and calamitous to the nation. This memorable scheme was laid before the House of Commons by the South Sea Company, along with another from the Bank of England, in 1719, for reducing all the public Funds into one, in order to discharge the national debt, on some valuable consideration to be granted them, &c. After much debate and contest, it was determined in favour of the South Sea Company, and their proposals were accepted on Feb. 1. 1719–20. An Act afterwards passed both Houses for that purpose, which received the royal assent in April following. Upon the proposals being accepted, stock rose gradually to a prodigious height; to 310 per cent. even before the bill received the royal assent; in a few days to 340, then to 400, and before the end of May to 500. In short, what by the artifices of the managers, and the credulity of the people, eager to grasp the riches now held out to them, by the 2nd. of June it got up to 890, and continued rising and falling till it amounted to above 1000. Nothing was now minded but the business of stock-jobbing. Exchange Alley, where these affairs were transacted, was in a continual hurry, and thither crowds of all ranks and qualities daily resorted. The desperate, who ventured first, were generally gainers, whilst the more wary, who came in later, were many of them great sufferers: so that the wrongheads, (as the saying then was,) had the better of the longheads. A spirit of gaming thus prevailing in the nation, many projects were set on foot, which obtained the name of bubbles, and were evidently the progeny of the grand bubble. They were near 100 in number, and it was reckoned that almost a million and half was won and lost in them. A proclamation was issued against them on the 11th. of June, and they were soon after entirely suppressed by order of the Lords Justices.

As to the South-Sea Stock, it continued to rise till about the end of August. It then began to fall, and fell faster than it rose; so that by Michaelmas-day it sunk to 150. In December it underwent a parliamentary enquiry, which induced Knight, the South-Sea Company’s treasurer to abscond. In the end, parliament applied to the relief of the sufferers the estates of the sub-governor, deputy-governor, directors, &c. And also that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Aislabie. They were also incapacitated from sitting or voting in either House of Parliament, or holding any office or place of trust under his Majesty, his heirs, or successors. The following Summer an Act against the directors received the royal assent, and shortly after another for restoring the public credit. The share Walpole had in settling this distracted affair, and restoring public credit, brought him into great favour at court, and facilitated his promotion. He was now made chancellor of the Exchequer, and first Commissioner of the Treasury, and continued prime minister to the end of this reign, and fifteen years after; to the no small benefit, no doubt, of many Lynn freemen, whatever may be said of the nation at large.