CHAP. VI.

“On the 29th of August, 1677, Ben. Holly Esq. one of the aldermen, was fined 40l.for refusing to accept of the mayoralty, being thereunto chosen.” The reason of this refusal is not mentioned; but the alderman was not poorer, probably, at the end of the year than hewould have been had he accepted the office.—About the close of the same year, (or early, in the next, as we reckon,) a step was here taken, the result of which the present writer has often wished to ascertain, but without success. The step or circumstance alluded to is thus expressed in the volume of extracts from the Hall books so often referred to in this work—“February 4th.” (1677, 8) “Ordered that a Letter be wrott to Th. Goddard, Son to Guybon Goddard Esq. late Recorder of this Burgh, to confer his Father’s labours about the antiquities and antient priviledges of this Corporation, and that he have a gratuity of 21l.” This shews that Mr. Guybon Goddard had collected materials for a history of Lynn: the same has been also affirmed by his brother-in-law, Sir William Dugdale, in some part of his works; so that the fact is beyond all doubt. But the question is, what became of those materials? If our Corporation obtained them, they seem to have been lost long ago. No one now in the Hall, it seems, not even the town-clerk himself, knows any thing about them. It is probable Mr. Th: Goddard did not choose to part with them. What became of them after his time, or whether they are now in existence or not, there is perhaps very little chance of discovering. Had they fallen in the present writer’s way, there can be no doubt, from the known character of Guybon Goddard, but he would have found them of considerable use in this undertaking.

In the autumn of 1678 a pretty strong antipathy to popery appears to have been prevalent in this town, and measures were adopted to secure the inhabitants fromsuch dangers as might arise from that quarter. Accordingly we learn from the Hall books, that it was ordered on the 11th of November that year, to have “a watch kept every night to prevent dangers from Popish Recusants.” This seems to indicate that the Corporation and people of Lynn were now inclined to side with the patriots or Whigs against the Court; which appears somewhat corroborated by their resolving sometime after to elect two of their own townsmen, in preference to court candidates, to represent them in the ensuing parliament; as is evinced by the following document from the Hall books—“January 29th (1678, 9.) This day upon reading in this House a Letter from Robert Wright Esq. late one of the burgesses in parliament for this town, intimating his desire of being again elected here, it is ordered that thanks be returned for services received, and to acquaint him that this House taking notice of the generall averseness of this corporation to choose any other than an inhabitant of this town, and two of the Society having declared themselves to stand, this House cannot with any assurance incourage his coming down for that purpose. But that they doe and shall retain a true sense and opinion of his former performances.” The candidates they now returned were Messrs. Turner and Taylor, afterwards Sir John Turner and Sir Simon Taylor. How patriotically they discharged their respective duties we are unable to say.

On the 28th of the following April, 1679, an occurrence took place here which is well worth recording. It did so much credit to the moral feelings of one of thethen members of the Hall, and does so little to those of certain members of it in more recent times, (namely, theabsentees, ornonresidentsabove noticed,) that it ought by no means to be here passed over in silence. The person first alluded to was one of thealdermen, and he was also aphysician. He perceived, upon serious reflection, that the duties attached to the office of an alderman were incompatible with those that belonged to the exercise of the medical profession; and as he was not disposed to relinquish the latter, he felt himself bound inconscienceto withdraw from the Hall and resign his municipal function. This occurrence is thus noticed in the volume of Extracts from the Hall or Town Books—“April 18th. 1678, William Bassett having sent a Letter insinuating the inconsistence of his place in this House with his Profession of a Physician, and how that he is necessarily compelled to be criminal in the one whilst he endeavours to discharge his duty in the other, begs most heartily to be discharged,—[this House] doe consent that he be discharged, &c.”—This singular transaction gives us a very favourable idea of the character of this alderman, ordoctor Bassett: it certainly deserves to be remembered; and it is now earnestly recommended to the serious consideration of the present members of the Hall, and especially theabsentees, whose nonresidence must be more incompatible with their municipal duties than that gentleman’s medical profession was with his. If there be really any municipal factions or duties, that are any way useful or interesting to the community, attached to the appointmentof common-council-man, or alderman of Lynn, the due discharge of them, without all doubt, must be utterly incompatible with the absence or nonresidence of such functionaries.—These hints, it is hoped will not fail to have their due weight with those individuals to whom they are applicable.

Danger incurred by the corporation on account of the issuing of farthings—third part of the duty levied on coals brought by strangers and landed in South Lynn,allowed to the South-Lynnians—difference and great lawsuit between them and the corporation about the Long-Bridge—the consequence,&c.

Towards the close of 1670 our corporation appeared in no small fear of danger from their gracious sovereign’s displeasure, on account of their having issued farthings, which was deemed an encroachment on the royal prerogative. They accordingly took measures forthwith towards appeasing the Monarch’s wrath and obtaining his forgiveness. This memorable affair is thus stated in the Town books,—“November 4th 1670, Forasmuch as Mr. Mayor, (Henry Bell Esq.) did this day present to this House two Letters, the one from Mr. Recorder, the other from Mr. Wright, for and about the danger the Town is lyable too, (to) for and concerning their putting out of Farthings, Mr. Mayor is desired to answer the said Letters and let them know this House doedesire that they would both effectually take care to use all means to prevent the Quo-ranto (Quo warranto) issuing out against the Town, and to petition his Majesties pardon, and to doe whatsoever else they shall judge necessary to prevent any trouble that may fall on the corporation for the putting out of these farthings which are out on the corporation account.”

The recorder therefore and the other gentleman, (who was also another great lawyer and one of the members for the town) appear to have exerted themselves faithfully and successfully on this occasion. We accordingly find that his sacred majesty’s pardon was actually obtained; but it seems to have taken up a long time, no less than two years, to effect this. It may be supposed to have cost a large sum of money, and we may presume that our corporation did not deem that money ill spent, though it might far exceed all the profits they had derived from their coinage. Both king and courtiers might deem it good policy to seem to be in great wrath for sometime, which would make the corporation the more ready to part with their cash. The successful termination of this business is thus noticed in the Town-books—“November 2nd. 1672, Ordered the Town Seal to be fixed to an instrument acknowledging his Majesties grace and favour in pardoning the Corporation for making of farthings.”

How many of these farthing coinages were undertaken by this corporation, it does not seem very easy to ascertain;nor are we able to discover when this measure was here first resorted to, or adopted. The present writer is in possession of several Lynn farthings, but they appear to have been all issued either in 1668, or in 1669. Whether or not any have been issued here before 1668 he is not able to say. He has seen farthings of other towns of a much earlier date, and has himself aBristolfarthing of 1652, which is the earliest of these town tokens he remembers to have met with. It is likely that Lynn was led into this coining adventure by the example of other places, and especially Norwich, which may be presumed to have been previously concerned in this business.[826]The same offence had been committed earlier, oftener, and later, by many, if not by most of its neighbours, so that it must be somewhat odd that the resentment of the court should appear so bitter towards this town, beyond what it seems to have been towards other offending places.—Norwich,Yarmouth,Diss,Thetford,Bury,Ipswich,Lowestoft, and other towns, all, if we are not mistaken, coined and issued farthings, and Wisbeachhalfpence; yet we do not find that they were brought into any mighty trouble, or alarm, like Lynn, on that account. However this might be, these private coinages seem to have been discontinued every where soon after 1670, and never more resumed till within these last twenty or thirty years, when they became again very general, in consequence of the example of the Paris-mountain copper Company, in the Isleof Anglesey, who issued large penny pieces, which were for some years very common, and in extensive circulation. They have been latterly suppressed, with all the others to which they had given rise. Government seem resolved to prevent or discourage any thing of the kind being again attempted; for which we impute to them no blame, and sincerely wish we had no greater grievance to complain of.

Between the borough, or corporation of Lynn, and the parish of Allhallows, or Allsaints, alias South Lynn, there has been for ages, at times, no very good understanding. That parish has been too often treated like a younger brother, or a weaker neighbour, though we know not that it ever appears to have advanced any unreasonable claims. About the year 1672, some difference seems to have arisen between the two parties, about the participation or distribution of the benefit derived from the duty of 12d.in the chalder upon coals brought by strangers and deliveredin South-Lynn parish. The borough, or great parish of St. Margaret, claimed the whole, as their exclusive right, but affected to condescend, at last, to allow athird partof the same to the South-Lynnians, as an act of generosity. The latter, by their agent, Tho. Hugins, consented to this, in consideration that their poor rates were moderate and easy, compared with those of Saint Margaret’s parish, which were said, even then, to be very heavy.

The South-Lynnians, however, as appears by their old Parish-book, considered that there was here someover-reaching, or foul play, on the part of the mayor and burgesses, and that their agent, Hugins, had been taken in on this occasion. So they really appear to have viewed this business. But the mayor and corporation viewed it differently; and the following is their representation of it, as given in the Hall-books—“October 17. 1672: Whereas there is due unto the mayor and burgesses, from Mr. Thomas Hugins and others of South Lynn, divers sums of money, arising upon the duty of coales bought by them of strangers, and whereas they have earnestly requested, forasmuch as the said duty doth arise for coales landed or sold within the said parish of South Lynn, that a third part of the said moneys may be allowed unto the said parish of South Lynn for the benefite of the same parish, to be employed by the paritioners according to the meaning of the order for that purpose, in regard of their present great charges. Thereupon this House doe think fitt to order that the same be allowed accordingly.” Thus we see that the corporation did not appear disposed to acknowledge that their South Lynn neighbours had any direct right to this allowance.

The mayor and corporation were very culpable, not only in granting their neighbours of South-Lynn, with such ill grace, a third part of the duty on coals delivered there by strangers, but also in refusing to accede to any such measure till now; which appears to have been really the case. To have been a little more neighbourly and accommodating would have been much more to their credit and their interest. But nothing better,perhaps, could be expected from them, as things then stood. Could they have foreseen the humiliating and mortifying condition, into which their illtreated neighbours would bring them in the course of a few months after, there is reason to believe they would have used them with a greater degree of gentleness and condescension. The fact is, they had been at bitter variance with them for several years, about the obligation of keeping up and repairing theLong Bridge, which they would fain throw entirely upon them. But that they were not able to effect, though they actually went to law with them for that very purpose. This memorable law-suit forms a prominent feature in the history of Lynn at that period: an account of it has been preserved in the old Parish-book of South Lynn, and is given as follows—

“South Lynn Allhallowes,March25 1674.—At a Congregation met and assembled to take the report of Tho. Hugins concerning Long Bridge and other business treated about and considered of by him with the mayor and burgesses of Lynn Regis as followeth hereunder.”—“Memorandum: That whereas the bridge commonly called Long Bridge, standing over Sandringham Ea, (alias White Friars Fleet,) is and hath been long time in great decay, and contest hath long time been between the mayor and burgesses of King’s Lynn, and the inhabitants of South Lynn, which of them should repair it: We the inhabitants of South Lynn taking it into consideration and not being very willing to contest with the said mayor and burgesses, if that by a way of treatywith them the difference might be composed, did, upon the 13th of April 1669. make our request to Samuel Barron Esq. Thomas Spencely gentleman, and Thomas Hugins, inhabitants of this parish, that they would treat with the mayor and burgesses concerning the premisses: what they, or any two of them did agree concerning the same we would condescend unto, as it is recorded in this book the said 13. April 1669.“Now this daie one of the said Committee, named Thomas Hugins, (the other two being lately dead,) doth make report unto us, that notwithstanding they oft made request unto the mayor and burgesses to treat about the same, they commonly did refuse to meet, and the bridge being much in decay the country did indyte the mayor and burgesses and inhabitants of South Lynn at the country Quarter Sessions held in Lynn 16. January 1671. We traversed it against the mayor and burgesses, and then and there by verdict of the Jury the mayor and burgesses, were found guilty, and the court did set but a small fine upon them of 3l.expecting they would forthwith repair it. But they still continued refractory, and said they would try it at the assizes: Whereupon we prepared for tryal, and I Thomas Hugins did attend at the next assizes held at Thetford, 12. March 1671, 2; with five witnesses, and did retain three counsels, and was at the charge of two copies of the charter of K. Edward VI. and one of Q. Mary to the mayor and burgesses: and notwithstanding their former word, that they would try it there, and Henry Bell alderman, and Mr. Farrow their recorder, andMr. Francis Rolph (Rolfe) their town-clark were there, they did then refuse to try it, nor did not but put us and themselves to further cost and charges; The Bridge being more and more in decay, the country did still complain, and in the month of July, 1672, the mayor and burgesses did appoint a committee to treat with us, and we did meet at the house of Mr Samuel Barron, but still they did wholly refuse to be at any cost or charge, notwithstanding we did offer them that if a rate were made for the repair thereof through the whole borough, of which we are part, that we of this parish would willingly have paid our proportion, which would have been a fourth part, if not more; and this they would not accept of neither: And then it was proposed to refer it to four men in the country, two for them and two for us; and when they had nominated two for them and accepted of by us, all the gentlemen in the country would not afford two for us that they would accept of; but they had always something or other to object against them: so jealous were they of the men, and indeed of their cause.“So nothing [being] done, and the assizes at Thetford drawing towards, I Thomas Hugins, by request of the above-said Samuel Barron and Thomas Spencely, (they not being in health, nor in capacity to go abroad) did make address to Mr Seth Hawley, mayor, desiring him to use his interest that his committee would once again meet and treat with us, to see if it might not be determined between us. The said mayor did acquaintthe Hall with it, and then they added MrFarrow, theirrecorder, to the committee, but after that no meeting; for the mayor did once in place where I was present desire the said Mr Farrow, that he would meet and treat with us: he did peremptory reply to the mayor, he would not meet, and said to the mayor, it was but spending of 20l.at the assizes, and there would be an end of it; and so it fell out [as] to the end, tho’ not the end as he dreamt of: for at the assizes held at Thetford the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7th. of March 1672[832a]it was there tried, and the mayor and burgesses were found guilty; which trial was after this manner”—[832b]“Messrs. Farrow and Rolfe, recorder and town-clerk, retained three counsels to plead for them. The South Lynnians, by their attorney, Jacob Wrag, retained also three counsels and a serjeant at Law. When they came to the indictment, it lay against the inhabitants of King’s Lynn and those of South Lynn. Butlord Chief Justice Hale, [before whom this cause was tried,] understanding by our attorney and counsel, that it was the mayor and burgesses we complained of, and producing to my lord the true copies of the aforesaid charters, whereby it appeared that Edw. VI. had granted lands and tenements in King’s Lynn and South Lynn, amounting to the value of several 100l.a year, for the purpose of their maintaining ofbridges, and jetties against floods, &c, Q. Mary’s charter also concurred with this; as did likewise the verdict of the jury in 1671, which was then also produced.“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 inthreeparts; for they must answerhim 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 thatsaith my lord. He asked 3rdly, Whether themayor and burgesseswere 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]

“Memorandum: That whereas the bridge commonly called Long Bridge, standing over Sandringham Ea, (alias White Friars Fleet,) is and hath been long time in great decay, and contest hath long time been between the mayor and burgesses of King’s Lynn, and the inhabitants of South Lynn, which of them should repair it: We the inhabitants of South Lynn taking it into consideration and not being very willing to contest with the said mayor and burgesses, if that by a way of treatywith them the difference might be composed, did, upon the 13th of April 1669. make our request to Samuel Barron Esq. Thomas Spencely gentleman, and Thomas Hugins, inhabitants of this parish, that they would treat with the mayor and burgesses concerning the premisses: what they, or any two of them did agree concerning the same we would condescend unto, as it is recorded in this book the said 13. April 1669.

“Now this daie one of the said Committee, named Thomas Hugins, (the other two being lately dead,) doth make report unto us, that notwithstanding they oft made request unto the mayor and burgesses to treat about the same, they commonly did refuse to meet, and the bridge being much in decay the country did indyte the mayor and burgesses and inhabitants of South Lynn at the country Quarter Sessions held in Lynn 16. January 1671. We traversed it against the mayor and burgesses, and then and there by verdict of the Jury the mayor and burgesses, were found guilty, and the court did set but a small fine upon them of 3l.expecting they would forthwith repair it. But they still continued refractory, and said they would try it at the assizes: Whereupon we prepared for tryal, and I Thomas Hugins did attend at the next assizes held at Thetford, 12. March 1671, 2; with five witnesses, and did retain three counsels, and was at the charge of two copies of the charter of K. Edward VI. and one of Q. Mary to the mayor and burgesses: and notwithstanding their former word, that they would try it there, and Henry Bell alderman, and Mr. Farrow their recorder, andMr. Francis Rolph (Rolfe) their town-clark were there, they did then refuse to try it, nor did not but put us and themselves to further cost and charges; The Bridge being more and more in decay, the country did still complain, and in the month of July, 1672, the mayor and burgesses did appoint a committee to treat with us, and we did meet at the house of Mr Samuel Barron, but still they did wholly refuse to be at any cost or charge, notwithstanding we did offer them that if a rate were made for the repair thereof through the whole borough, of which we are part, that we of this parish would willingly have paid our proportion, which would have been a fourth part, if not more; and this they would not accept of neither: And then it was proposed to refer it to four men in the country, two for them and two for us; and when they had nominated two for them and accepted of by us, all the gentlemen in the country would not afford two for us that they would accept of; but they had always something or other to object against them: so jealous were they of the men, and indeed of their cause.

“So nothing [being] done, and the assizes at Thetford drawing towards, I Thomas Hugins, by request of the above-said Samuel Barron and Thomas Spencely, (they not being in health, nor in capacity to go abroad) did make address to Mr Seth Hawley, mayor, desiring him to use his interest that his committee would once again meet and treat with us, to see if it might not be determined between us. The said mayor did acquaintthe Hall with it, and then they added MrFarrow, theirrecorder, to the committee, but after that no meeting; for the mayor did once in place where I was present desire the said Mr Farrow, that he would meet and treat with us: he did peremptory reply to the mayor, he would not meet, and said to the mayor, it was but spending of 20l.at the assizes, and there would be an end of it; and so it fell out [as] to the end, tho’ not the end as he dreamt of: for at the assizes held at Thetford the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7th. of March 1672[832a]it was there tried, and the mayor and burgesses were found guilty; which trial was after this manner”—[832b]

“Messrs. Farrow and Rolfe, recorder and town-clerk, retained three counsels to plead for them. The South Lynnians, by their attorney, Jacob Wrag, retained also three counsels and a serjeant at Law. When they came to the indictment, it lay against the inhabitants of King’s Lynn and those of South Lynn. Butlord Chief Justice Hale, [before whom this cause was tried,] understanding by our attorney and counsel, that it was the mayor and burgesses we complained of, and producing to my lord the true copies of the aforesaid charters, whereby it appeared that Edw. VI. had granted lands and tenements in King’s Lynn and South Lynn, amounting to the value of several 100l.a year, for the purpose of their maintaining ofbridges, and jetties against floods, &c, Q. Mary’s charter also concurred with this; as did likewise the verdict of the jury in 1671, which was then also produced.

“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 inthreeparts; for they must answerhim 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 thatsaith my lord. He asked 3rdly, Whether themayor and burgesseswere 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 indifferentlyof 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.

History of Lynn continued from1680to1688—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 pages788and789, 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 traiterousassociationlately 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 ofShaftsbury, at the instigation, it seems, of the sovereign, of which an account has been given by Rapin, Burnet, and other historians.

“The king (saysRapin,) 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 anAssosiation(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 returneditIgnoramus. 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 anassociationto 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 civiland 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 adeep 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 theroyal touch. The precedence, as on other occasions, was given to the corporation of London, against which aQuo Warrantowas 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 nowin 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, Befully and freely surrenderedunto 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, asthe 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 charterof 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 Corporationcontinued 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 successorJames, 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.Fifteenof that body, not thought well of by his majesty, and including themayorhimself, the Town-Clerk andfive 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 Norfolka 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.”

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 mentionedJohn 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 fiveyears. 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 Letterof Attorney giving authority to sundry persons therein named to receive from his Majesties attorney general the late Instrument or Deed of Surrender of divers franchisesand 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.

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 thoselofty notions which they inherited from their predecessors, and in which they were confirmed by their priests and courtiers, and other sycophants, that they wereabsoluteprinces, 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 toCharles, 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 himmost sacred majesty, and telling, even the Almighty, that he wasa most religious king. ButJamesdeparted 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 hisDeclaration 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 occurrencewhich 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.

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.CharlesII 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. ButJames, 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 remonstratedagainst that sort of conduct. But being himself a non-conformist, and assuming adispensing power, and issuing a Declaration forliberty of conscience, and withal, interfering with thedignitiesandrevenuesof thechurchanduniversities, 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 petitionedagainst 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 withthe 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 illegalmeasures; 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 anassociationfor 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 agreater 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.”

“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 withthe 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 illegalmeasures; 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 anassociationfor 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 agreater 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 accomplishedby 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. TheEnglishconvention 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, hadabdicated[857]the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant. TheScots, on the other hand, instead ofattempting 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 torootout heretics, he paused, and declared that he didnot 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]

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, forexempting their Majesties Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certain Laws; which is commonly called theAct of Toleration. Buttolerationis 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 againstJames 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 anewreligion; 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, namedRobert WhiteheadandHenry Oseincraft, asinformers; who having been at the meeting, laid their information before the justices, or aldermen,[861]who forthwith issued their warrants to levy 20l.on thehouse, 20l.on thepreacher, and 5s.on each of thehearers. Marham owned that he hired the meeting-house, but producedthe 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 oneJohnMarham waspreaching; 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 wasWm. Lang, but he was onlypraying, and not preaching, at the time. They had also sworn, that oneFrancis Robinsonwas 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 orcustody of a messenger.”[862]These threats inducing the attorneyto 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, withoutevident 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, theparticularas well as thegeneralbaptists, 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) thehosiersof this town appeared much concerned and alarmed, (as had indeed been the case for some time before,[864]) at the prevalence of theweavingmethod, by which that ofknittingwas 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 ofweavingworstead 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 thefollowing 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 loyaladdressesto 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 appointedto 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 theassassination plot, and the intended Frenchinvasion. 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 kingJameswas come toCalais, 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 admiralRussell, 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 anassociationto 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 thecounty 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 belong 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 oneHulton, 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 oneVinckeson, 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 ourwater-worksappear 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 ourcoal-metersandhead-portersbrought 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 thegates, and delivered to the wharfinger; and thatall Noblemen,Knights,Esquires, andClergymen 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 stypendsaugmented more50l.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.

Back to Index Next