Chapter 14

[672]In the days of Wickliff, and for a good while after, there was among the common people a spirit of revolt against papal tyranny and corruption; but that spirit had been suppressed and extinguished before Henry had begun his work of reformation. Between his work and that of Wickliff there was a wide and striking difference—the former originated with the court, the latter with some thinking men at Oxford; the former was carried on by royal caprice, orders of council, and acts of parliament, the latter by the diligent and persevering exertions and eloquence of private individuals of integrity and learning, who were convinced of its importance, and who travelled on foot about the country to instruct and enlighten the people, in order to improve their manners, their morals and their religious principles.

[673]This might be the reason why so many places of worship besides the convents, and which had no connection with them, were here laid by and demolished at that time—such as the church or chapel of St. James, those of St. John, and of St. Catherine, &c. the demolition of which, except for the reason now suggested, must appear exceedingly unaccountable.—As to the church or chapel ofSt. Catherine, of whose site the author expressed much uncertainty at p. 559, he now begs leave to inform the reader that he has been since led to conclude, from some old MSS. that it stood in that small field without the East gate, on the left hand as we go out of the town, and which is now enclosed from the road by a brick wall. It appears that it retained the name ofSt. Catherine’s groundlong after the church had disappeared.

[674]Many of them could hardly read; and as to preaching, it was what few of them were capable of. To supply that deficiency theBook of Homilieswas provided, and the reading of those homilies, for a while, appears to have supplied the place of preaching. But the plan was ill calculated to instruct and enlighten the common people, though it might be of use to their superiors.

[675a]Hist. Ref. 1. 317.

[675b]Hist. Ref. as before.

[676]Burnet Hist. Ref. as before.

[678]Of the prodigious popularity and reputation of the friars, see above at page 495.

[680]The following is thought a pretty correct statement of the numbers of worshipers that might be accommodated in each and all our present places of worship—InSt. Margaret’schurch; 1322; inSt. Nicholas’chapel 1066; inAll Saints, or South Lynn church, 388: in theMethodist chapel, 500; in theIndependent chapel450; in theBaptist chapel500; and in that of the Friends or Quakers 100.—Thus all the churches might admit 2776; and all the Dissenting chapels about 1500, or 1550—in all 4326. But it is well known that the number of those that do actually attend falls greatly short of 4326, and we may very safely venture to affirm that they do not exceed 3000: so that there must be here between 7 and 8000 people whose minds are strangers to religious impressions, and whose conduct is very little regulated or affected by any sound moral principles. Would it not therefore be very desirable to increase among us the means of religious and moral instruction? Some more new chapels, under proper direction, might prove of no small benefit to the town, and help to bring from darkness to light another third part of its population. This hint deserves consideration.

[682]For an account of the Lynn Gilds, see above, Part iii. ch. v. p. 403.

[684a]Thus in the old ballad of Truth and Ignorance, the latter, who is represented as a rustic, says,

Che’ll tell thee what, good fellowe,Before the vriars went hence,A bushel of the best wheate,Was zold for vourteen pence:And vorty egges a penny,That were both good and newe;And this, che say, myselfe have seen,And yet I am no Jewe.(Andrews, 2. 282.)

Che’ll tell thee what, good fellowe,Before the vriars went hence,A bushel of the best wheate,Was zold for vourteen pence:

And vorty egges a penny,That were both good and newe;And this, che say, myselfe have seen,And yet I am no Jewe.

(Andrews, 2. 282.)

These lines were quoted before imperfectly. They are now given correctly in the original orthography.

[684b]We allude principally to thepoor-ratesandpaving-tax, which are certainly most severely felt, and likely to be still more so. The former by frugal and wise management might, doubtless, be greatly reduced, without any material detriment to the poor: and the latter ought never to have existed till the times proved more favourable. When the project was brought forward it was firmly opposed by a large body of the householders: but it was carried against them, very wrongfully. They were told that the work would be completed at the expence of about 13,000l.and it has already far exceeded, if not doubled, that sum: yet the work is not finished. Thousands have been lavished, merely to suit the convenience, or gratify the caprice of a few opulent families, without being of the least use or benefit to the town at large; which must have been exceedingly disingenuous and dishonourable. So great was the liberality which the paviers experienced at Lynn, that they are reported to be satisfied to do their work at Norwich and Yarmouth, 25 per cent. under what they had here.—In short, the managers, or rather the mis-managers of this concern, went on lavishly and blunderingly, till they could go no further. They were aground for sometime this last autumn, and had probably remained so over the winter, and the summer too, and thrown the whole town into the utmost confusion, but for the timely assistance of a certain individual, who on this critical occasion stood in the place and acted the part of that good man noticed in holy writ, who by his wisdomdelivered the city. Eccl. ix. 15.

[687]See Martin’s History of Thetford chap. xiii. p. 170.

[688]The Surrenders seem to have been all much of the same cast and tenor, and so were probably theconfessionswhich accompanied them, a copy of one of these is given by Burnet, and is as follows—

“Forasmuch as weRichard Green, abbot of our monastery of our blessed lady St. Mary of Betlesden, and the convent of the said monastery, do profoundly consider, that the whole manner and trade of living, which we and our pretensed religion have practised and used many days, does most principally consist in certain dumb ceremonies, and other certain constitutions of the bishops of Rome, and other forinsecal potentates, as the abbot ofCistins, and therein only noseled and not taught in the true knowledge of God’s laws, procuring always exemptions of the bishops of Rome from our ordinaries and diocesans: submitting ourselves principally to forinsecal potentates and powers, which never came here to reform such disorders of living and abases as now have been found to have reigned amongst us. And therefore now assuredly knowing, that the most perfect way of living is most principally and sufficiently declared unto us by our Master Christ, his Evangelists and Apostles, and that it is most expedient for us to be governed and ordered by our supreme Head, under God, the king’s most noble Grace, with our mutual assent and consent, submit ourselves and every one of us, to the most benign mercy of the king’s majesty; and by these presents do surrender &c.”

The Surrender follows in common form, Signed by the abbot, subprior, and nine monks, 15th Sept. 30th year of that reign.—From these samples one may from an idea of the tenour of the surrenders and confessions which went from Lyon. See Burnet, vol. I. Col. rec. p. 150.

[689]There were then dissolved 645 monasteries, 90 Colleges, 2374 Chauntrys, and 110 hospitals. The yearly revenue of the whole amounted then to 161,100l.a sum equal perhaps, to 3 or 4 millions of our money, which must be far less than the present ecclesiastical revenue of England and Ireland. From a part of the above fund the universities were indulged with some additional colleges and professorships; and six new bishoprics were erected. An immense sum too accrued to the king from the furniture, clocks, bells, lead, &c. of these edifices; and even from bullion, 5000 marks of which were found in one abbey. See Andrews, 2. 282.

[699]These have long been deemed here among thechief of sinners, as tippling and other vices are supposed to have abounded through their patronage or connivance.

[702a]Mr. Man was minister of South Lynn till 1646, when he was succeeded by the worthy and learnedJohn Horne, who was not likely to restrain his parishioners from eating meat inLent, or require the sick to take out licences on that occasion. Of this memorable person we shall have occasion to say more hereafter.

[702b]This Thomas Lilly was a respectable ancestor of our present representative in parliament, Sir Martin Browne Folkes, and original proprietor, it is supposed, of that gentleman’s valuable possessions in South Lynn. His daughter and sole heiress married Sir William Hovel of Hillington, and was grandmother of Martin Folkes Esquire, president of the Royal Society, and of William Folkes Esquire, the father of Sir Martin.

[704]ThoseLicences and Dispensationsseem to have been no longer at the disposal or option of the parish ministers, for there was anofficein London opened expressly for that purpose, as we find by an advertisement which appeared in the saidMercurius Publicusof Feb. 26. 1662, and the two following weeks, and which was expressed as follows—“An advertisement—TheFaculties Officefor granting Licenses (by Act of Parliament) to eat flesh in any part of England, is still kept at Paul’s-Chain, near St. Paul’s Church-yard.” The present writer cannot find when this notable office was first opened, or how long it existed, but thinks it not very likely that it was laid by, or shut up before the revolution.

[712]This is said to have been remarkably the case in a certain excursion which her majesty made toCoventry. The mayor, recorder, and corporation met her on the road at some distance from the city, with what they deemed an appropriate or suitable address.Versifyingbeing then much in vogue, and the queen herself rather fond of such compositions, they had their address drawn up in that way, which the recorder read before it was presented to her majesty. It was but short, and said to run thus,

“We men of Coventry, are very glad to see,Your gracious majesty. Good Lord, how fair you be!”

Which drew from her immediately the following, not very gracious answer.

“My gracious majesty, is very glad to see,You men of Coventry: Good Lord! what fools ye be!”

Loyalty abounded then, it seems, at Coventry, not only among the members of the corporation, but also among those of the cathedral.

Accordingly, on the following Sunday,Mr. Thomas Boyce, the clerk of the cathedral, had a hymn composed on purpose to celebrate this royal visit, and do honour to his sovereign, which he thus gave out, just as the queen was entering the church—“Let us sing to the praise and glory of God, a hymn of my own composing—

Re—joice Tom Boyce, re—joice,And echo Coven—try,For that our gracious queen is comeTo see poor we, we, we!”

One would fain hope that wisdom is not at quite so low an ebb at this time, in any of our corporations or cathedrals as it seems to have been then at Coventry.

[715]Each of our Convents is supposed to have been furnished with a library. But what became of those libraries after the dissolution does not appear. They were probably destroyed: for we learn that althoughLelandwas employed to survey the libraries throughout the kingdom, and preserve the choicest books, yetBalesays that those who got possession of the religious houses at the dissolution of them, generally took possession also of the libraries, reserving the books, some to serve their jakes, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots with: some they sold to the grocers and soap boilers, and some they sent over sea to the bookbinders, not in small quantities, but at times whole shipfulls, to the great wondering of foreign nations.—“A merchant (he says) bought the contents of two noble libraries for 40s.a-piece. This stuff he used for more than ten years instead of grey paper to wrap up his goods with, and yet he hath enough remaining for many years to come.” (See Seward’s An. vol. 1. 49.) All this discovers some strange mismanagement on the part of the government.

[717]This Fort is a platform battery, mounted with ten eighteen pounders, planted here in 1627; but having no defensive cover, could be of little use if the town were attacked from the river side. Of such an attack, however, Lynn could never be in much danger; the difficulty of approach that way by men of war, forming its best security.

[720]We are told that there is a copy of Paramo’s book now in Dr. Williams’s library in Red-Cross Street, London, and a most extraordinary production it appears to be. It was undertaken under the patronage ofDon Gaspar de Quiroga, then abp. of Toledo, and Inquitor general, and first printed at Madrid in 1614.—It begins by provingGodhimself to have been thefirstinquisitor—He convicts Adam and Eve of pertinacious heresy, infidelity, apostacy, and blasphemy. God cited Adam, otherwise the process would have been null. On Adam’s appearance, He enquired, that is, madeinquisitioninto the crime. The man accused hiswife, then the judge questioned her: He did not examine theSerpent, because of his obstinacy.—The examinations were secret and separate, that there might be no collusive lying. He calls no witness; the inquisitor overlooks the reason, that there were none to call, and affirms that conscience and confession are a thousand witnesses, and save the judge all the trouble, except that of condemning. The whole was done secretly, that it might be a precedent for the holy office; and so closely does this holy office observe the precedent, that they make the dress of penitent offenders after the very pattern of the clothes which God made for Adam and Eve, and confiscate all the property of a heretic, because Adam and Eve were turned out of paradise.—The author further maintains, thatAbrahamwas an inquisitor, andSarahlikewise; for she turnedIshmaelout of doors foridolatry. In this manner he goes on through the Pentateuch, and the books of Joshua and Judges, finding inquisitors all the way through.—Davidwas a staunch inquisitor.Zimri, who slew his master, was of the holy office: so wasElijah.ElishaandJehualso are among the heroes of persecution; andNebuchadnezzarmost unexpectedly proves to be an inquisitor also.—Under the Gospel,Christwas the first inquisitor: the lice, which devoured Herod, and the rulers who spoiled the Jews, only executed the sentences of death and confiscation which he had pronounced.JamesandJohn, who proposed to have the Samaritan heretics destroyed by fire, were inquisitors, of course. Then follow theapostles, and after them thepopes. &c. Thus the divine origin and authority of the horrid inquisition is proved from scripture—and proved as plainly and conclusively too, as many venerated religious tenets and usages are now every day proved by some of our most renowned protestant writers:—for instance the precious contents of the athanasian creed, the popular rite of infant sprinkling, and the whole ceremony of what is called christening. The scriptures seem no less violated or abused, in being brought to support these, than they are in being brought to support the inquisition. Let us therefore not be too severe on Luiz de Paramo for writing such book as that here noticed.

[723a]Mackerel says that she washanged; but the above account is supposed to be the most correct. See Mackerel 233. and Tour of Norfolk, last edit. 253.

[723b]That notable book the present writer has never happened to meet with, or he might, perhaps, have been able to throw some further light upon this dark and doleful transaction.

[727]See Granger’s Biographical History, 2. 409.—Hopkins appears to have wrote and published an account of his own exploits in the way of his vacation; but the present writer has not met with it.

[732]The distinction between some of those, as pointed out sometimes by our law writers and others, is not a little curious:conjurersare said to differ fromwitchesandwizards, in that the former endeavour by prayers and invocations to compel the devil to say or do what they command him; whereas the latter deal rather by friendly and voluntary conference with the devil, or familiar, to have their wishes obtained in lieu ofblood, or other gift offered. Both conjuration and witchcraft differ from enchantment or sorcery. The sorcerer is supposed to have personal conferences with the devil, and by the use of certain superstitious words and incantations, or by means of images, is said to produce strange and preternatural effects.—All these false and wild notions must have originated from knavery and imposture, on the one hand, and credulity and superstition on the other.Juggling, or notable skill in the arts of dexterity might promote the imposture; but as to infernal agency, it will not be very wise and safe to give any credit to that part of the story.

[734a]Andrews 2. 46.

[734b]He was probably superior to the generality of his brethren, and therefore became suspected of being in league with Satan and the infernal powers, according to the curious and absurd notions which then prevailed.

[736a]The author did not advert to the date of this law, when the last sheet was printed, or he would have saidseventy or eighty, instead ofsixty or seventy years, in page725.

[736b]Blackstone, iv. 61.—It is somewhat remarkable thatFranceset us the example of prohibiting those bloody prosecutions for witchcraft, even in the reign of Lewis xiv. who thought proper by an edict, to restrain the tribunals of justice from receiving informations of witchcraft. It was right certainly to follow Lewis xiv, and the French in this instance; but one could have wished we had set the example to them, and not they to us.

[737]And if such was not always the case, they must, in those exceptions, have proceeded from extreme ignorance, or self delusion, as is the case also with many religious visionaries, who pretend to extraordinary gifts and divine revelations. In either case, therefore, it must have been extremely hard and cruel to take their confessions as any evidence of their reputed or supposed guilt, or proof that they had actually made a contract with the devil, and had been endued by him with extraordinary knowledge and miraculous powers.

[739]See Encyl. Brit. vol. 18. underWitchcraft.—The above sketch may suffice to give the uninformed reader an idea of what is called witchcraft; of the existence of which the present writer has expressed his disbelief. He is aware, however, that the word is used in our translation of the scriptures, but thinks it theremisused, and applied to a different matter from what our language meant by that term.

[740]Even such men asHenry MoreandDr. Cudworthcould brand asatheiststhose who denied or doubted the reality of witchcraft.

[742]See Encycl. Brit. as before; where other matters relating to this vile subject, and equally disgusting, are related. The above statement reflects no honour on the memory of our ancestors. But that we are better, or less brutal and savage than they cannot be proved from our Indian history, our American War, our blowing up the Spanish frigates, our sacking and burning Copenhagen, or the recent cruelties exercised in Ireland.

[744]The circumstances which led, as it is said, to this trial, being not a little remarkable, may be here related for the reader’s edification.

“Lord chief justice Holt, who had been wild in his youth, was once out with some of his raking companions on a journey into the country. Having spent all their money it was resolved that they should part company and try their fortune separately. Holt got to an inn at the end of a straggling village, and putting a good face on the matter, ordered his horse to be well taken care of, called for a room, bespoke a supper, and looked after his bed. He then strolled into the kitchen, where he saw a lass about thirteen years old shivering with an ague; he inquired of his landlady, a widow, who the girl was, and how long she had been ill. The good woman told him that she was her daughter, an only child, and had been ill near a year, notwithstanding all the assistance she could procure from physic, at an expence which almost ruined her. He shook his head at the doctors, and bade the landlady be under no further concern, for that her daughter should never have another fit. He then wrote a few unintelligible words in court hand on a scrap of parchment which had been the directions to a hamper, and rolling it up, ordered that it should be bound upon the girl’s wrist, and remain there till she was well. As it happened the ague returned no more; and Holt, having continued there a week, now called for his bill, with as much courage as if his pockets had been filled with gold. ‘Ah! God bless you,’ said the landlady, ‘you are nothing in my debt, I’m sure; I wish I was able to pay you for the cure you have performed upon my daughter; and if I had had the happiness to see you ten months ago, it would have saved me forty pounds in my pocket.’ Holt, after some altercation, accepted of his week’s accommodation as a gratuity, and rode away. It happened that many year’s afterwards, when he was lord chief justice of the king’s bench, he went a circuit into the same county; and among other criminals whom he had to try, there was an old woman who was charged with witchcraft: to support this charge several witnesses swore that she had a spell with which she could either cure such cattle as were sick, or destroy those that were well: in the use of this spell they said she had been lately detected, and it having been seized upon her, was ready to be produced in court: the judge then desired it might be handed up to him: it appeared to be a dirty ball, covered with rags and bound many times round with pack-thread: these coverings he removed with great deliberation, one after another, and at last found a piece of parchment, which he knew to be the same that he had used as an expedient to supply his want of money. At the recollection of this incident he changed colour, and sat silent: at length, recollecting himself, he addressed the jury to this effect: ‘Gentlemen, I must now relate a particular of my life, which very ill suits my present character, and the station in which I now sit: but to conceal it would be to aggravate the folly for which I ought to atone, to endanger innocence, and countenance superstition: this bauble, which you suppose to have the power of life and death, is a senseless scrawl which I wrote with my own hand and gave the woman, whom, for no other cause, you accuse for a witch.’ He then related the particular circumstances of the transaction, and expatiated on the evil of such prosecutions: and it had such an effect upon the minds of the people, who now blushed at the folly and the cruelty of their zeal, that the poor woman was acquitted, and was the last that ever was tried for witchcraft in that county, and, as some say, in this kingdom.”

This anecdote is related in the Brit. Biogr. vol. 7. and more at large in some other biographical works.

[747a]See Beauties of Engl. Vol. 7.

[747b]The above trial before lord chief justice Holt, is said to have been the last, but its date we cannot discover.

[749]The cart was overturned on the 5th of May, 1808. On the following Sunday Evening, the 8th of the same month, as the minister of the parish informs us, “a considerable number of people assembled together, as it grew dark, and taking with them the young women ridiculously supposed to be bewitched, about ten o’clock proceeded to the house ofWright Izzard, which stands alone at some distance from the body of the village. When they arrived at this solitary spot, so favourable for the execution of their villanous designs, they broke into the poor man’s house, dragged his wife out of bed, and threw her naked into the yard; where her arms were torn with pins, her head was dabbed against the large stones of the causeway—and her face, stomach, and breast were severely bruised with a thick stick that served as a bar to the door. Having thus satisfied themselves, the mob dispersed. The woman then crawled into her house, put on her clothes and went to the constable, who said, he could not protect her, because he was not sworn.” The humanity, protection, and assistance which she could not find at the constable’s very happily for herself she found under the roof of a poor widow; who unlocked her door at the first call, wrapped up her neighbour’s bleeding arms with the nicest linen rags she had, affectionately sympathized with and comforted her, and gave her a bed. But, horrible to relate! the compassion and kindness of this poor woman, were the means of shortening her days. “The protectors of a witch are just as bad as the witch, and deserve the same treatment!” cried the infatuated and savage populace, the next morning. This so affected and terrified the poor companionate widow that she actually died soon after.—The next evening, that of Monday the 9th of May, Ann Izzard was a second time dragged out of her house, when her arms were again torn with pins till they streamed afresh with blood. Alive the next morning, and apparently likely to survive this attack also, her enemies resolved to have herducked, as soon as the labour of the day was over. On hearing this, she hastily quitted her home, and took refuge in the house of the minister of the parish; where the vile wretches durst not follow her.—The worthy clergyman, for taking her part, and becoming her protector, lost the good opinion, and incurred the detestation of a great part of his parishioners; and if he and his friends had not had recourse to the strong arm of the law it is impossible to say where the madness would have ended.—See Preface to a sermon against Witchcraft, preached in the parish church of Great Paxton, July 17. 1808. By the rev. J.Nicholson, curate of that parish.

[751]Of these occurrences, one relates to a certain farmer, not far off, with his neighbours, and acunning manwhom he went to consult on an interesting occasion.—It was intended to relate it somewhat circumstantially, as it proves the general belief in Witchcraft which still prevails among our country people: but for certain reasons, needless here to mention, we refrain for the present.—Another of those occurrences appertains to thetown, and to such of its inhabitants who profess to think most freely for themselves, and to search most diligently after truth.—How little these good people have yet got beyond their blind and boorish country neighbours in some important points of doctrine, and how unlikely they are at present ever to make much progress in scriptural or religious knowledge, will appear from the mighty offence or alarm which many of them are said to have taken at a late attempt of one of their ministers to correct some of their absurd and stupid notions relating to thedevil. Among these devout alarmists, or rather at their head, are said to be the revd. S. N. and the revd. I. A. two gentlemen of about equal respectability, as well as equal profoundness of understanding. But why need we to wonder at any thing of the kind at Lynn?—it is not very long ago since some of these very people took upon them to pronounce a certain case ofinsanityto be verily a case ofdiabolical possession: and as they thought the demon to be of that kind that would not go out but byprayerandfasting, they actually kept praying and fasting meetings for the express purpose of dislodging the foul fiend!—But these follies may, perhaps, be more properly castigated when we come to exhibit thepresent stateof the town. We will therefore defer, till then, the final execution of the business. But it is really most disgusting to think, after the millions this nation pays annually to its moral and religious instructors, how ignorant the greatest part of the people still are. Most of these instructors must either be ignorant themselves, or desirous that the people should continue so. In either case, it is a shameful consideration.—Withtenortwelve thousandpastors of our national church, and two rich and famous universities, nurseries of new pastors, all maintained at an annual expense, perhaps, of no less thanten millions sterling: (not to mention the numerous pastors and teachers belonging to all our other sects, maintained also atno smallexpense,)—with all these, we will venture to say, our country ought to be much better taught, and in a far more enlightened state than it now is. But while our pastors and teachers are either too ignorant to enlighten the people, or influenced by hypocrisy, fear, or worldly policy, so as to be loth to disturb the minds or offend their bigoted hearers, by attacking their favourite errors and endeavouring to undeceive them, there seems but little chance of our ever getting much further informed or enlightened.

[759a]It was a perfect Helter Skelter, no doubt; but it was well it passed so harmlessly.

[759b]In the same MS. it is added, that “a night or two before the surrender, most of the powder and shott were conveyed away by some of the town”—It was well, the commissioners of the besieging army, at the ensuing treaty, did not know of this, or they would probably have imposed upon the town much harder terms.

[760a]Rushworth.

[760b]Page 182.

[762a]Those sufferings, as toloss of lives, seem to have been inconsiderable: even during the siege we hear of butfourof the townsmenkilled, and afew wounded. They made not manysallies, nor did they wait till the town wasstormed, or the case might have been very different. We have seen no account of the loss of thebesiegers.

[762b]We do not presume that our list is yet complete: many more murders for what was calledwitchcraft, were probably committed here than we know of.

[764]Near two years after the above visit from Cromwell,Sir Thomas Fairfaxappears to have visited this town: accordingly the following memorial of it stands in the town books—“Feb. 17, (1644,5.) ordered that Mr. Basset, chamberlain, shall pay for the Sack and Sugar at the entertainment of Sir Tho. Fairfax to this Towne.”

[765a]His name is differently spelt.

[765b]This plainly shews it had been previously customary to allow the members so much per diem, or appoint them daily wages while they attended their duty in parliament: and it was no doubt very right and proper, though it has been long ago discontinued.

[765c]The mayor and corporation had before, it seems, taken upon themselves to send whom they pleased to parliament, without allowing the freemen at large to have any voice on the occasion. But the members sent to that parliament appear to have been chosen by the freemen at large: and they werethe first ever so chosen here; as we learn from one of the old MSS.

[766]It seems by this, that the members had been used to receive their pay at thecloseof each session, and not before.

[767]They had also, about two months before, lent the parliament 100l.out of thetown-stock, as appears from the town records.

[768]The celebrated and patrioticAndrew Marvell, member forHull, who died in 1678, is said to have been the last who received an allowance from his constituents for his parliamentary services.

[769]Presuming that a view of some of the principal documents on which the above statement is founded may prove acceptable and satisfactory to the reader, the author takes the liberty of introducing them here from a MS. Volume of extracts from the town-books, in the handwriting of one of the former aldermen, whence some of the preceding quotations have also been drawn.—With regard to theshortparliament of 1640 we meet in this MS. the following Note—

“March 13. (1639, 40.) This day Mr Mayor, (Thomas Toll Esq) brought in and caused to be openly read in the House a Warrant or precept directed to him from Thomas Windham Esq. High Sheriffe of this county of Norfolk, to elect and choose according to Law two Burgesses for this Burgh to serve in the parliament summon’d to be holden at Westminster on the 13th April next coming: and Mr.Mayor, theAldermenandCommon Councellhave now accordingly chosen Mr. Doughty and Mr. Gurlyn, two Aldermen of the said burgh, to be burgesses to serve in the said parliament for this borough; and have agreed that Indentures shall be presently made and sealed according to law between the High Sherife and the said Electors: and yt is farther ordered and agreed, that the said two Burgesses, during their service in the said parliament, shall have payd and allowed them, by the town, for their wages, five shillings a day apiece. (Wm. Doughty and Th. Gurlyn were the eldest Aldermen.”)

Of the election for the ensuing, or long parliament the following notice occurs—

“1640, October, 12th. This day two Letters were by Mr. Mayor (Wm. Doughty Esq.) offered and read in the House, the one sent to the mayor, Aldermen, and burgesses, by the Earle of Arundell, Lord Gridall, the other to Mr. Mayor himselfe, the effect of both Lrs. being to elect a burgess to serve in the next insuing parliament, Contain[ing] whom his lordship hath nominated in his said Letter, and that it is unanimously agreed by this House, that they will choose no other burgesses to serve in parliament but only such as are resident and inhabitants within the Corporation.”

In this instance the Corporation discovered what may be called a dignified and independent spirit; and what was no less to their credit, they also discovered a regard for rectitude and equity, in allowing the freemen at large, as was before hinted, to have a voice now, for the veryfirst time, in the election of their representatives. Of the parliaments of 1653, 1654, and 1656 we have spoken already: Of that of 1658, or rather 1659, we have the following notice in the same book—

“December 31. (1658.) This day Mr. Mayor (Henry Bell) brought into this house a precept to him directed, from John Hedley Esq. Sherife of Norfolk for election of two burgesses to serve in the next parliament, to be holden upon the 27th. January next, for this burrough of King’s Lynn, which was read in this House, and it is thereupon ordered that the election of the said burgesses to sitt in parliament be madein this House by the members of this House according to the antient custome, on the 3rd January next, and that publication and warning thereof be made, to the end all persons concerned in the same election may take notice thereof.”

Four days after, the following note occurs, relating to the same election—

“January 3rd. Whereas severall burgesses of this burrough,of the commons at large, have made their requests to this House, that they might be admitted to join with this House in the election of burgesses to sitt in the next parliament, it is ordered that the resolves of the Committee of Priviledges of the last parliament, and the Parliament’s orders thereon concerning elections be first read to them.”

Then it is added—

“This day upon further debate, it being adjudged by this House that the right of election of the burgesses is at present in this House, according to the aforesaid order, it is therefore ordered that this House doe proceed to an election accordingly: and that in case the Commons at large shall after such election persist in their desires to have the Precept for the elections of burgesses to be read unto them, that the same be read unto them accordingly, for their satisfaction.”

Then it is added in another paragraph, as before—

“This day the Mayor, Aldermen, and common Councel have elected and chosen Mr. Th. Toll, one of the aldermen of this burrough and Capt. Griffith Loyd to be burgesses for this burrough in the next parliament to be holden the 27th instant.”

Next after this we read as follows—

“January 5th. This day by order of this House the Common Seal is taken out of the Treasury and affixed unto ane Indenture for the election of Mr. Alderman Toll and Capt. Griffith Loyd to be burgesses in the next parliament for this Burrough of King’s Lynn.”

Thus the affair then ended, and the freemen at large were excluded from any share or concern in the election.

[774a]We accordingly find the following items in one of the Church books within the first year after the siege—

Received by virtue of severall warrants from Mr. John May maior.—1644,

July 13

Of I. Hinderson, ostler, for an oath sweareing in Mr. mayor’s hearing

00l.

01s.

00d.

Dec. 23.

Of Mihill Turner, alehousekeeper, for suffering tippling in his house

00.

10.

00.

Dec. 24.

Of John Say, alehousekeeper, levied for the same offence

00.

10.

00.

Mar. 6.

Of John Pratt, dier, for tippleing in the said John Saves house

00.

03.

04.

Mar. 7.

Of Margarett Freeman, alehousekeeper, for suffering tipling in her house

00.

10.

00.

Mar. 15.

Of Phillip Murrell for loytring in time of church service on a Lords Day

00.

05.

00.

Mar. 16.

Of Richard Porter, pinner, for an apprentice boy of his offending in the like

00.

01.

00.

This is the first account we meet with of these proceedings here; but a great deal in the same way occurs in the memoranda of succeeding years.

[774b]See Abstract of Town-books under 1650.

[775]Under that year the following articles occur in the church-warden’s accounts, May 6. (received) from Hillar Browne, by the hands of Capt. Wm. Mann, levied upon the said Hillar Browne by him, for profanely swearing seven oathes, 7s.

July 9. Levied by vertue of a warrant from Mr. John May maior, by distraining and selling twelve puter platters of the goods of Wm. Churston, for that the said Wm. and Jone his wife were convicted for profanely swearing each ten oathes, 1l.

[776]Under 1646 we find as follows—

April 18. Levied upon Roger Gaunt by virtue of a warrant from Mr Edward Robinson, maior, for neglecting and refusing to serve overseer being chosen, 1l.Nov. 4. Levied upon Peter Dixon, a baker, by warrant from Tho. Toll, maior, for travelling on the Lord’s day 10s.whereof 12d.to John Gray informer.Nov. 22. Levied upon one Smith, a smith, of Wisbeach, for the like offence 10s.whereof to a soldier that informed 12d.and to the Court of Guard 12d.Nov. 23. Levied upon William Tabbott and Francis Pollard for the like offence 20s.whereof to John Rainer and William Disborough informers 2s.6d.Nov. 24. Levied upon Mr. William Edwards of Swinstead, for the like offence 10s.whereof to Thomas Lyny, a soldier, informer, was given 12d.Feb. 9. Levied upon Daniell Rose for drunkeness 5s.and for 3 oathes sworne before Mr. maior 3s.but because he was poor he had 4s.given him, as to the poor.Feb. 24. Levied upon a servant of William Marches, innkeeper, for convicted drunkenness 5s.March 10. Levied upon James Yates for 2 oathes 2s.whereof to Miles Lawes, poor lame and blind, 12d.March 12. Levied upon a stranger at Peeter Lawes, innkeeper, for travilling on a fast day, 5s.March 26. Levied upon another stranger, for the same offence, 5s.to Brian Middleton, informer, 12d.Aprill 15. Levied more upon Richard Paule, alehousekeeper, for suffering tipling in his house, 10s.May 22. Levied more upon the said Richard Paule, alehousekeeper, for breaking of the assize of beere for six quarts 6l.convicted by oath of John Gibson, woolcomber.—More upon Katherine the wife of the said Rich: Paule, for swearing ten oathes, 10s.May 24. Levied upon Thomas Forster, Christopher Pert, and Dorothy Goreing widdow, three alehousekeepers, for drawing beere without licence, each of them 20s.—3l.June 22, Levied upon a stranger, for profanely sweareing one oath, 1s.July 21 Levied upon Edward Arther, alias Logstone, and John Mason, alehousekeepers, for drawing beere without licence, each of them 20s.July 26. Levied more upon William Medcalfe, alehousekeeper, for the same offence 1l.Oct. 15. Levied upon William Greene, alehousekeeper, for the same offence 1l.

April 18. Levied upon Roger Gaunt by virtue of a warrant from Mr Edward Robinson, maior, for neglecting and refusing to serve overseer being chosen, 1l.

Nov. 4. Levied upon Peter Dixon, a baker, by warrant from Tho. Toll, maior, for travelling on the Lord’s day 10s.whereof 12d.to John Gray informer.

Nov. 22. Levied upon one Smith, a smith, of Wisbeach, for the like offence 10s.whereof to a soldier that informed 12d.and to the Court of Guard 12d.

Nov. 23. Levied upon William Tabbott and Francis Pollard for the like offence 20s.whereof to John Rainer and William Disborough informers 2s.6d.

Nov. 24. Levied upon Mr. William Edwards of Swinstead, for the like offence 10s.whereof to Thomas Lyny, a soldier, informer, was given 12d.

Feb. 9. Levied upon Daniell Rose for drunkeness 5s.and for 3 oathes sworne before Mr. maior 3s.but because he was poor he had 4s.given him, as to the poor.

Feb. 24. Levied upon a servant of William Marches, innkeeper, for convicted drunkenness 5s.

March 10. Levied upon James Yates for 2 oathes 2s.whereof to Miles Lawes, poor lame and blind, 12d.

March 12. Levied upon a stranger at Peeter Lawes, innkeeper, for travilling on a fast day, 5s.

March 26. Levied upon another stranger, for the same offence, 5s.to Brian Middleton, informer, 12d.

Aprill 15. Levied more upon Richard Paule, alehousekeeper, for suffering tipling in his house, 10s.

May 22. Levied more upon the said Richard Paule, alehousekeeper, for breaking of the assize of beere for six quarts 6l.convicted by oath of John Gibson, woolcomber.—More upon Katherine the wife of the said Rich: Paule, for swearing ten oathes, 10s.

May 24. Levied upon Thomas Forster, Christopher Pert, and Dorothy Goreing widdow, three alehousekeepers, for drawing beere without licence, each of them 20s.—3l.

June 22, Levied upon a stranger, for profanely sweareing one oath, 1s.

July 21 Levied upon Edward Arther, alias Logstone, and John Mason, alehousekeepers, for drawing beere without licence, each of them 20s.

July 26. Levied more upon William Medcalfe, alehousekeeper, for the same offence 1l.

Oct. 15. Levied upon William Greene, alehousekeeper, for the same offence 1l.

[779]“Mony collected in St. Margaret’s Church for charitable uses by breifes,since the feast of Easter1653,to the feast of Easter1654,by the then present Churchwardens,for the said yeare,Thomas Grinnell and Robart Greene.

Imprimis—Collected for the poore inhabitants ofDraytonin Shropsheire, for a loss sustained by fyre, and paid the 13th. of October 1653, to Robt. Blessed of King’s Lynn 1l.17s.4d.Collected for the poore inhabitants ofNewmarkett, in Southfolk, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 9th. of February, 1653, to George Howard of the same towne, 1l.9s.3d.Collected for the poore inhabitants ofLong Sutton, in the county of Lincolnsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 28th. of Febr. 1653: to Elizabeth Plunkett of the same towne 1l.13s.Collected for the poore inhabitants of the towne ofBungaye, in Southfolke, for a losse sustained by fyre, 1l.15s.—[N.B. This is said not to have been paid; but no reason is assigned for that.]Collected for the poore inhabitants ofMalborowe, in Wiltsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre: 224 houses and a church being consumed by the said fyre, which losse did amount to 70,000l.and was collected in the church, and paid 11th. of March 1653, to John Basset Esq. then maior, appointed to receive the same, the sum of 6l.13s.10d.Collected for the natives and distressed people ofNewe England, and that from house to house, within this parish, and paid unto Mr. Joshua Greene the 20th. of November 1653, 25l.13s.

Imprimis—Collected for the poore inhabitants ofDraytonin Shropsheire, for a loss sustained by fyre, and paid the 13th. of October 1653, to Robt. Blessed of King’s Lynn 1l.17s.4d.

Collected for the poore inhabitants ofNewmarkett, in Southfolk, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 9th. of February, 1653, to George Howard of the same towne, 1l.9s.3d.

Collected for the poore inhabitants ofLong Sutton, in the county of Lincolnsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 28th. of Febr. 1653: to Elizabeth Plunkett of the same towne 1l.13s.

Collected for the poore inhabitants of the towne ofBungaye, in Southfolke, for a losse sustained by fyre, 1l.15s.—[N.B. This is said not to have been paid; but no reason is assigned for that.]

Collected for the poore inhabitants ofMalborowe, in Wiltsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre: 224 houses and a church being consumed by the said fyre, which losse did amount to 70,000l.and was collected in the church, and paid 11th. of March 1653, to John Basset Esq. then maior, appointed to receive the same, the sum of 6l.13s.10d.

Collected for the natives and distressed people ofNewe England, and that from house to house, within this parish, and paid unto Mr. Joshua Greene the 20th. of November 1653, 25l.13s.

“Moneys collected in St. Margaret’s Church for charitable uses,in the year1654.

Collected for the inhabitants ofGlosco, (Glasgow) in Scotland, for a losse sustained by fyre to the vallew of 1,000000l.the 23d. of Aprill 1654, which was paid unto Mr. John Basset, then maior, the sume of 3l.10s.10d.Collected for a Greation, (grecian) towards the redemption of those that were prisoners inArgeare(Algier): their ransome amounting to 12,000 dollers; and paid unto him 13th. Sept. 1654. 5l.4s.6d.Collected (again) for the towne ofDrayton, county of Salop, for a losse by fyre, and paid unto Pollicarpus Tooke, the 4th. of February 1654, 2l.3s.1d.Collected by the ministers and church-wardens, from house to house, for the poore Prodestance (protestants) inSavoy, the 17th. of June 1655, and paid to Mr. Tho. Greene, then maior, 47l.15s.9d.

Collected for a Greation, (grecian) towards the redemption of those that were prisoners inArgeare(Algier): their ransome amounting to 12,000 dollers; and paid unto him 13th. Sept. 1654. 5l.4s.6d.

Collected (again) for the towne ofDrayton, county of Salop, for a losse by fyre, and paid unto Pollicarpus Tooke, the 4th. of February 1654, 2l.3s.1d.

Collected by the ministers and church-wardens, from house to house, for the poore Prodestance (protestants) inSavoy, the 17th. of June 1655, and paid to Mr. Tho. Greene, then maior, 47l.15s.9d.

Among subsequent collections we find 10l.1s.for the relief of the distressed protestants inPoland.

[783]The number, if we mistake not, iseight; therecorder,threealdermen, andfourcommon-council-men. What blame is imputable to them, may not be easy to say. We are willing to suppose it may not be very much; at least, not so much as what belongs to their resident brethren, who have it in their power to strike off their names from the list of members: and though it may not be of any material consequence to the community at large if they be still continued on the list of members, or ifeight, or eveneighteenmore were to become absentees and retain their respective memberships; yet in point of good policy it may not be quite the thing, lest theunprivilegedpart of the townsmen should by decrees take it into their heads, that it would be no very serious cause of alarm if the whole corporation, except the mayor, recorder, and town clerk, were to set out in a body to make thetour of Europe, or to perform avoyage round the world.

[787]We also learn that theexpenseat this periodof taking up one’s freedomin this town (according to ancient custom) amounted to only 7s.3d.which was divided as follows, viz. To the prisoners 4d.—to the poor 1s.—to the officers 1s.—to Mrs. Mayoress 1s.—to the town-clerk 1s.—for the Seal and Burgess-Letter 3s.4d.—(whereof 1s.8d.to Mr. Mayor, and 1s.8d.to the town-clerk,) total 7s.8d.—The expense is a good deal more now; but to those who obtain their freedom by inheritance, or servitude, it is far from being exorbitant.

[790]See Laing’s excellent History of Scotland, where the fact here alluded to is clearly stated and established.

[792a]Kimber.

[792b]Ibid.

[796a]Hist. Purit. IV. 270.

[796b]In 1657 and 1658 our reforming magistrates carried on their rigorous measures with so high a hand that not a few of the drawers, or publicans, were heavily fined, and 30 of them, as was said before, actually imprisoned. No less than 300ticketswere also, in the mean time, issued or given out against different defaulters, as we learn from one of the MS. accounts of that period.

[797]They were not all, it seems, the daughters of respectable or opulent families: 200 of them, if we rightly understand one of our MSS. were poor girls, clothed at the expense of Captain Wharton and Mr. Kirby, two newly restored aldermen, and both flaming royalists. It was very natural for the young girls to be then brisk and joyful, if it were only to find themselves unexpectedly, and all of a sudden, so well and gayly clad. The other hundred lasses may be supposed to have been clothed at their own expense, or that of their parents and friends.

[800]The following hints from Kimber may serve to throw some further light on the above Address and the circumstances that led to it.

“Such was the animosity between the court and country parties at this time (1679) that it looked as if the yearForty-Onewas going to be acted over again; which probably had been the case, if the king’s necessities had occasioned him to make the parliament perpetual, as his father had done—if Scotland had not been so effectually enslaved, by a standing army which the court kept there, that they had not power to stir—and if the bishops and clergy had been as disagreeable to most of the people as they were at that time. Besides, all the staunch episcopalians, fearing the presbyterians might again subvert the established church, forgetting the dangers of popery, joined themselves so firmly with the court, as to make it at last formidable to the other party. During the repeated prorogations of the present parliament abundance of addresses were presented from all parts to petition for its speedy sitting; which being highly distasteful to the court, means were found to have a number ofcounter-addresses, expressing the greatestabhorrenceof such petitions, as an infringement upon the prerogative, which they took care in their expressions to advance as high as possible. And so the nation became divided into two parties,PetitionersandAbhorrers, soon known by the names ofWhigsandTories, which the parties, by way of reproach, gave each other:Torybeing the name of anIrishrobber, andWhigsignifying sour-milk, an appellation first given to theScotchpresbyterians.”

Thus it appears that the Lynn corporation were then ranktories, orAbhorrers—that is, they abhorred liberty and loved slavery. How much things have changed among us for the better since, is a question that we will not now attempt to resolve.

[803]See Mackerell 253, 254.

[805]This prince afterwards, in 1715, made an unsuccessful effort to recover the throne of his ancestors, to which he and many others thought he had so undoubted right.

[806]This was perhaps the expulsion from the Hall of the mayor, town-clerk, five aldermen, and eight common-councilmen, by order of Council, and appointing others who were thought better of (and who were among the present addressers) in their room, by royal mandate. Among the latter wasHenry Framingham. This happened in June.

[812]It is somewhat remarkable that our present members are descended from those two gentlemen who represented the town so long ago. One of the Walpoles has represented it almost ever since, and a moiety of the representation of Lynn is now considered as almost hereditary in that family. One of our present members is generally on therightand the other on thewrongside in the House: for they are mostly on opposite sides.

[820]A late friend of the present writer assured him that he was once servant to her grandfather, who, if he rightly recollects, was abakerat Downham. His enormous vanity, after he grew rich, caused people often to advert to the meanness of his origin.

[826]The author has a Norwich farthing of 1667, which it a year earlier than any of those of Lynn that have fallen in his way. Very few of these tokens appeared before the restoration. They became then very common for ten years or more.

[832a]1673 according to our reckoning.

[832b]What follows is somewhat abridged occasionally.

[834]The above trial cost the people of South Lynn 42l.1s.1d.—The following are some of the items of their bill of costs—“For six horses hire to Thetford 1l.16s.—Expences in our way out and home 6s.6d.—Six men’s diet and horse meat at Thetford, 1l.11s.5d.”—A bill of costs or expences on a similar occasion at present, would make a very different appearance.—We cannot dismiss this subject without suggesting a wish, that this had been the very last foolish and disgraceful lawsuit that our corporation have been engaged in.

[837]Of this affairBurnetspeaks as follows—

“A bill of indictment was presented to the Grand Jury against Lord Shaftsbury. The Jury was composed of many of the chief citizens of London. The Witnesses were examined in open Court, contrary to the usual custom: they swore many incredible things against him, mixed with other things that looked very like his extravagant way of talking. The draught of the Association was also brought as a proof of his treason, though it was not laid in the indictment, and was proved only by one witness. The Jury returned Ignoramus upon the bill. Upon this the Court did declaim with open mouth against these juries; in which they said the spirit of the party did appear, since men even upon oath shewed they were resolved to find bills true or ignoramus as they pleased, without regarding the evidence. And upon this a new set ofaddresseswent round the kingdom, in which they expressed their abhorrence of that association found in Lord Shaftsbury’s cabinet; and complained that justice was denied the king: which were set off with all the fulsome rhetoric that the penners could varnish them with.” H. O. T. 2. 153

[838]See Burnet H. O. T. 2. 535.

[840]From the preceding extracts it appears that the corporation affected or pretended to have surrendered their old chartersvoluntarily, or as their own free and spontaneous act and deed: hence they speak of having done itwith one assent and content—freely surrendering—as theact and deed of the mayor and burgesses,&c.Whereas it was all the effect of constraint, or imperious and unavoidable necessity. The same was the case with the monks and friers at the reformation, previously to the dissolution of the monasteries: they all solemnly declared, in their instruments of surrender, that they actedfreelyandwithout compulsion, though the contrary was well known to have been invariably the fact. Thus it is very clear that the surrendering of the charters as well as of the convents was a scene of hypocrisy and falshood.

[841]The Charter here alluded to, (being the 2nd. and last of those obtained from Charles II,) contains the following clause—

“PROVIDED always, and full power and authority to Us our Heirs and Successors by these Presents we resume, and from time to time and at all times hereafter the Steward, Mayor, Recorder, Town-clerk, and all or any of the Justices of the Peace, or of the Aldermen, or of the Common-Councell, or of the Coroners of the Burgh aforesaid, or of other officers, members, or ministers of the same Burgh for the time being, at the will and pleasure of Us, or of our Heirs and Successors, by any of our order or any order of our Heirs and Successors in Privy Councell made and under the Seal of them signified respectively to remove, or to declare to be removed, and as often as We and our Heirs and Successors by any such our order made in Privy Councell declare the same Steward, Mayor, Recorder, Town-clerk, and all or any of the Justices of the Peace, of the Aldermen, and of the Common-Councell, or of the Coroners of the said Burgh for the time being, or of the other Officers, members, ministers, to be removed from their respective offices aforesaid, That then from thenceforth the Steward, Mayor, &c. &c. of the same Burgh for the time being so removed or declared to be removed from their several and respective offices, Ipso Facto and without any further process, really and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, are and shall be removed, and this as often as the case shall so happen, any thing to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”

This sufficiently shews how completely in the king’s power this memorable Charter placed our corporation, so as to be no longer any better than mere and miserable tools and vassals of the court.

[843]Theoathsbeingdispensed withseems to imply that some of them werecatholics, or that way inclined. Their places and new honours, however, they did not long retain; for about a fortnight before the arrival of the prince of Orange they were all in their turn displaced, and the old ones were restored: onlyMr. Cyprian Andersonwas readmitted and chosen mayor. Of this event one of our old MS. histories gives the following account—

“On the 20th of October John Davy was displaced and Cyprian Anderson was chosen mayor, by reason of the king’s proclamation for restoring Corporations to their ancient rights and priviledges; at which time all those members that came in with the New Charter, or by Mandamus, were displaced, and the old ones put in again: at which sudden alterations all expressed great satisfaction, appearing by the people ringing of bells and firing of guns: and on the 22nd. Mr mayor bringing home the mayoress out of the country was met with near a hundred horsemen and received with firing of guns and ringing of bells, and all sorts of people striving to exceed in their acclamations of joy.”

Thus it appears that even Lynn, at last, came to partake in some degree of the then prevailing national aversion to the system or measures of the court.

[845a]They were again brought back and restored to their former places at the end of about eleven months; for it is noted in the Town Books, under the date of Sept. 27 1689. “The Gunns, &c. were returned from Hull.”

[845b]That nobleman, if the author is not mistaken, was the lastprotestantduke of Norfolk before the present. He was very active after the arrival of the prince of Orange in promoting the cause of the revolution in this county, and nowhere perhaps more so than he was in this town. For we find that he came here himself on that occasion, assembled the inhabitants and harangued them, in the market-place and elsewhere, so successfully, that he seemed to have brought them over altogether to his own way of thinking before he left the town. It is therefore probable that the change which then took place in the politicks of Lynn was in no small measure owing to his exertions. A remarkable anecdote concerning him used to be related by some ancient people at Norwich 30 or 40 years ago, the substance of which was to the following purport.—

“The duke, in the summer and autumn of 1688 was suspected by James and his ministers to be inimical to their proceedings, and was therefore narrowly watched by their emissaries, of which he himself was not unconscious. He resided then chiefly at his palace in Norwich, where his evenings were generally spent with large parties of the principal inhabitants of the city and its vicinity, which consisted not merely of protestants, but also of catholics, who would not be likely to connive at, or conceal any symptoms of dissaffection or disloyalty which they might discover in his conduct. Some correspondence was said to have been carried on between him and the prince of Orange; but on some very particular occasion, not specified by the narrators of the anecdote, he wished for a personal interview with the prince. This would be a hazardous undertaking, as he was then circumstanced; yet he resolved to make the attempt. It was now about Michaelmas, or later, when the prince had collected his forces, had arranged the plan of his expedition to this country, and was preparing to embark. The Duke procured a small fast sailing vessel with all possible secrecy, which was to wait for him, at a given time, somewhere on the Norfolk coast. The very day previous to his intended embarkation, he invited a large party of his accustomed guests to spend the evening with him at Norwich, and they staid there till a late hour. As soon as they were gone, he and a trusty servant mounted their horses and rode towards the sea-coast. Not far from the spot where the vessel lay, there was a farm-house occupied by one of his tenants. When they came nigh to that house he alighted, bid his servant take the horses to the farm house and stay there till he should come to him, as he had some business to transact in the neighbourhood, and would join him as soon as possible. He then walked towards the vessel and got aboard. The wind then proving fair, he was in a few hours conveyed to the Dutch coast, nigh to the place where the prince lay encamped. He went ashore without loss of time, walked towards the tent or head quarters of the prince. But as he was going along he overheard an English soldier say to his comrade, ‘There goes the Duke of Norfolk.’ Alarmed at finding he was discovered, he walked on, apparently unconcerned; but before he got to the Head Quarters he turned aside, returned another way to the vessel, went aboard again, and immediately set sail for England. The wind now proving fair, as before, he actually reached the Norfolk coast before night, near the selfsame spot where he had before embarked. He then walked to the farm-house, remounted his horse and arrived at Norwich early in the evening. He then sent for the same party that had been the preceding evening with him, who spent that evening there as they had done the former, no one having the least idea of his extraordinary adventure. This proved a wise precaution; for the soldier’s report having reached the ears of James’s emissaries in Holland, intelligence of it was immediately conveyed to the English court, when a messenger was forthwith dispatched to Norwich to arrest the Duke. His Grace, in order to discredit, or refute the report, appealed to the parties or guests above mentioned, many of whom were catholicks, who affirmed that he was at home at his own house in Norwich the evening immediately preceding and that immediately succeeding the day in which he was said to have been seen in Holland. This attestation was deemed a sufficient proof of an alibi, and it delivered the Duke from the danger which threatened him.”

This anecdote was related to the present writer above 30 years ago, at Norwich, by a Mr.Cubitt, a very intelligent and respectable old gentleman, who appeared to give it full credit, which he was not likely to have done on any slight ground, or without very good reason.

Back to Index Next