Chapter XLIX: Section IX (3)

“They consisted, indeed, of a very different order of people from the
first inhabitants of the ancient republicks of Greece and Italy.
These last were composed chiefly of the proprietors of lands, among
whom the public territory was originally divided, and who found it
convenient to build their houses in the neighbourhood of one another,
and to surround them with a wall, for the sake of common defence.
After the fall of the Roman empire, on the contrary, the proprietors
of land seem generally to have lived in fortified castles on their
own estates, and in the midst of their own tenants and dependants.
The towns were chiefly inhabited by tradesmen and mechanics, who
seemed in those days to have been servile, or very nearly of servile
condition. The privileges which we find granted by ancient charters
to the inhabitants of some of the principal towns in Europe,
sufficiently shew what they were before these grants. The people to
whom it is granted as a privilege, that they might give away their
own daughters in marriage without the consent of their lord, that
upon their death, their own children, and not their lord, should
succeed to their goods, and that they might dispose of their own
effects by will, must, before those grants, have been either
altogether, or very nearly in the same state of villanage with the
occupiers of land in the country. They seem, indeed, to have been a
very poor, mean set of people, who used to travel about with their
goods from place to place, and from fair to fair, like the hawkers
and pedlers of the present times. In all the different countries of
Europe then, in the same manner as in several of the Tartar
governments of Asia at present, taxes used to be levied upon the
persons and goods of travellers, when they passed through certain
manors, when they went over certain bridges, when they carried about
their goods from place to place in a fair, when they erected in it a
booth or stall to sell them in. These different taxes were known in
England by the names of passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage.
Sometimes the king, sometimes a great lord, would grant to particular
traders, to such particularly as lived in their own demesnes, a
general exemption from such taxes. Such traders, though in other
respects of servile condition, were upon this account called
Free-traders. They in return usually paid to their protector a sort
of annual poll tax. In those days protection was seldom granted
without a valuable consideration, and this tax might, perhaps, be
considered as compensation for what their patrons might lose by their
exemption from other taxes. At first, both those poll-taxes and
those exemptions seem to have been altogether personal, and to have
affected only particular individuals, during either their lives, or
the pleasure of their protectors. In the very imperfect accounts
which have been published from Domesday-book, of several of the towns
of England, mention is frequently made, sometimes of the tax which
particular burghers paid, each of them, either to the king, or to
some other great lord, for this sort of protection; and sometimes of
the general amount only of all these taxes.” {377}

“That part of the king’s revenue which arose from such poll-taxes in
any particular town, used commonly to be lett in farm, during a term
of years for a rent certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county,
and sometimes to other persons. The burghers themselves frequently
got credit enough, to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort
which arose from their own town, they becoming jointly and severally
answerable for the whole rent.”

In return, being allowed to collect it in their own way, and to pay it into the king’s exchequer by the hands of their own bailiff, they would be altogether freed from the insolence of the king’s officers; a circumstance in those days of no small importance.

“At first, the farm of the town was lett to the burghers, in the same
manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only. In
process of time, however, seems to have become the general practice
to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent
certain, never afterwards to be augmented. The payment having thus
become perpetual, the exemptions, in return for which it was made,
naturally became perpetual too. Those exemptions, therefore, ceased
to be personal, and could not afterwards be considered as belonging
to individuals as individuals, but as burgesses of a particular
burgh, which, upon this account, was called a Free-burgh, for the
same reason that they had been called Free-burghers or Free-traders.
Along with this grant, the important privileges above mentioned, that
they might give away their own daughters in marriage, that their
children should succeed them, and that they might dispose of their
own effects by will, were generally bestowed upon the burghers of the
town to whom it was given. The principal attributes of villanage
find slavery being thus taken away from them, they now, at least,
became really free in our present sense of the word Freedom.—Nor was
this all. They were generally at the same time erected into a
commonality, or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates
and a town-council of their own, of making bye-laws for their own
government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing
all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, by
obliging them to watch and ward; that is, as antiently understood, to
guard and defend those walls against all attacks and surprises, by
night as well as by day. In England they were generally exempted
from suit to the hundred and country courts; and all such pleas as
should arise among them, the pleas of the crown excepted, were left
to the decision of their own magistrates.” {379}

For the origin of corporate towns, in this country, we are generally referred to the times of which we are now treating, that is, the ages subsequent to the Conquest; and yet it seems to be very evident from the old book called _The Mirrour_, that there existed here some towns of that description even as early as the days of Alfred: {380} but they were probably few, and disregarded afterward, if not entirely disannulled; till a good while after the accession and establishment of the Norman dynasty: nor can we learn scarcely any thing of the cause and object of their formation, or the nature and principles of their constitutions. The case is otherwise as to those corporations formed since the Conquest; which seems to apply to all those that now exist in this country: it is not so difficult to find, or make out, how and why they were formed; and it is with them only that we have here any concern. Before they sprung up the feudal system was in its full and utmost vigour; and the power of the country was divided between the sovereign and the barons, or great lords; and the latter were sometimes an over match for the former. As a counter-balance or check to the formidable and enormous power of the barons, the incorporation of the great towns and cities seems chiefly to have been resorted to, or adopted. At least this appears to have been the case as far as any good policy, and not mere caprice, had any share in the business: for justice and humanity, or a desire to enlarge the liberty, and promote the welfare of the people were totally out of the question. These were motives too sublime and godlike to enter into the contemplation of the English kings and courtiers of those days.

But the said measure, whatever might be its cause and object, or the motive for its adoption, appears to have produced very salutary effects: for by forming cities and towns into corporations, and conferring on them the privileges of municipal jurisdiction, the first check was given to the overwhelming evils of the feudal system: and under their influence freedom and independence began to peep forth, from the rigours of slavery, and the miseries of oppression. To be free of any corporation, however, was not then, as at present, merely to enjoy some privilege in trade, or to exercise the right of voting on particular occasions, but it was to be exempt from the intolerable hardships of feudal service; to have the right of disposing both of person and property, and to be governed by laws intended to promote the general good, and not to gratify the ambition and avarice of individuals. These laws, however rude and imperfect, tended to afford security to property, and encourage men to habits of industry. Thus commerce, with every ornamental and useful art, began first in corporate bodies to animate society. But in those dark ages force was necessary to defend the claims of industry; and such a force the municipal societies possessed; for their towns were not only defended by walls and gates, vigilantly guarded by the citizens, but oftimes at the head of their fellow freemen in arms, the mayor, aldermen and other officers, marched forth in firm array, to assert their rights, defend their property, and teach the proudest and most powerful baron, that the humblest freeman was not to be injured with impunity. It was thus the commons learned and proved they were not objects of contempt; nay, that they were beings of the same species as the greatest lords. {381}

In this country the king is said to be the fountain of honour; and such he was to the incorporated towns and cities. From him they derived their chartered and municipal privileges, and to him they owed their emancipation from their former bondage, or manumission from feudal servitude. Though these royal acts appear to have proceeded from no generous or noble motives, such as the love of justice, or a regard for liberty, but rather from a selfish and sordid policy; yet, as they proved of vast benefit to the inhabitants of those towns and cities, they strongly attached them to the throne, and greatly added to the power and resources of the sovereign. The aversion and contempt manifested by the nobles towards this new body of freemen, tended to promote still further their attachment and subserviency to the court. The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not only as of a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves, almost of a different species from themselves.

“The wealth of the burghers never failed to provoke their envy and
indignation, and they plundered them on every occasion without mercy
or remorse. The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords. The
king hated and feared them too; but, though perhaps he might despise,
he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers. Mutual
interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and the king
to support them against the lords. They were the enemies of his
enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure and
independent of those enemies as he could. By granting them
magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their
own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and
that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military
discipline, he gave them all the means of security and independency
of the barons, which it was in his power to bestow. Without the
establishment of some regular government of this kind, without some
authority to compel their inhabitants to act according to some
certain plan or system, no voluntary league of mutual defence could
either have afforded them, any permanent security, or have enabled
them to give the king any permanent support. By granting the farm of
their town in fee, he took away from those whom he wished to have for
his friends, and, if one may say so, for his allies, all ground of
jealousy and suspicion, that he was ever afterwards to oppress them,
either by raising the farm rent of their town, or by granting it to
some other farmer.” {383}

The armed force, with which the towns now furnished themselves, must have produced a very material change in the state of the kingdom. This new order of warriors, or trained bands of the towns, seem not to have been inferior to those of the country; and as they could be more readily assembled on any emergency, they are said to have frequently had the advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords. In some parts of the continent they became so powerful and successful as to subdue the nobles in their vicinity, and enable the cities to which they belonged to form themselves into independent republicks. But in England, the cities and burghs had no opportunity to become entirely independent. They became, however, so considerable, as Dr. Smith observes, that the sovereign could impose no tax upon them, beside the stated farm-rent of the town, without their own consent. They were, therefore, called upon to send deputies to the general assembly of the states of the kingdom, where they might join with the clergy and the barons in granting, upon urgent occasions, some extraordinary aid to the king. Being generally, too, more favourable to his power, their deputies seem, some times, to have been employed by him as a counterbalance, in those assemblies, to the authority of the great lords. {384} Hence, as it seems, the origin of the representation of burghs in our parliaments.

However useless or objectionable our modern burghs or corporate towns may be, it must be allowed that they were originally productive of no inconsiderable national advantages. In them, as has been observed by the writer last mentioned, order and good government together with the liberty and security of individuals, were established at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every kind of violence. That industry also, which aims at something more than necessary subsistence was found in them before it was commonly practised, or did exit among the country farmers.

“If in the hands of a poor cultivator, oppressed with the servitude
of villanage, some little stock should accumulate, he would naturally
conceal it, with great care, from his master, to whom it would
otherwise have belonged, and take the first opportunity of running
away to a town. The law was, at that time, so indulgent to the
inhabitants of towns, and so desirous of diminishing the authority of
the lords, over those of the country, that if he could conceal
himself there, from the pursuit of the lord, for a year, he was free
for ever. Whatever stock therefore accumulated in the hands of the
industrious part of the inhabitants of the country, naturally took
refuge in cities, as the only sanctuaries in which it could be secure
to the person that acquired it.” {385}

Thus it appears the cities and towns were then replenished with inhabitants from the industrious and most valuable part of the population of the country, and not, as is too often the case in our time, from the most idle, profligate, and worthless.

From what has been already said of the motive or policy that seems to have given birth to our burgh-system, it might naturally be expected that those princes, who lived upon the worst terms with their barons, would be the most ready and active promoters of it, and the most liberal in their grants of municipal immunities. This, at least, appears to have been the case: and we find our _king_ JOHN, for example, and we may add, his son, and successor, HENRY III. were most munificent benefactors to those towns; of which Lynn, may be mentioned as one notable instance. This town owes, to those two sovereigns, its political redemption, or elevation to the rank of a corporate town, or free borough. The era of its arriving at this high, and proud distinction, was the 13th century; whereas it was, before that period, the miserable abode of a horde of slaves, the vassals of the lord bishops of the see in which it is situated.

But though Lynn acquired then the rank and denomination of a free burgh, it does not appear, that it also became possessed of equal freedom from baronial domination, and feudal vassalage, with all the rest of our corporate towns; or, that it actually arrived at that state or degree of liberty, for a very long while after, even till the reign of _Henry_ VIII. about 300 years after it had been first declared a free burgh by king _John_ and his successor. The time when it acquired the name of _King’s Lynn_, seems, therefore, to be the true era of its actual, and entire liberation from its former feudal encumbrances. Lynn then is a place where the memory of the last Henry ought to be held dear, and where he should be commemorated as one of its best benefactors. These, however, are circumstances, not generally adverted to; but they seem to be real matters of fact, and may deserve here some elucidation.

King _John_, granting to Lynn its charter of incorporation at the instance of bishop _Grey_, who had so much interest with him, and to whom he had very great obligations, was not likely to attempt to deprive him of his baronial rights, or supreme power and jurisdiction, in this town: nor do we know that the bishop was at all disposed to relinquish the same. We accordingly find an express clause in the royal charter, _saving to the said bishop and his successors_, _the liberties_, _&c. which had previously belonged to the bishops of Norwich_. That this was understood as securing to the bishops their former rights and authority in this town, may be inferred from the general conduct of the succeeding prelates for many generations, who seem to have been uniformly striving to retain and perpetuate the said rights and authority, and keep the inhabitants in their original state of subjection to them. Nor did the mayor and corporation appear, at all, disposed to the point with their lordships, except in very few instances; as in the time of bishops _Spencer_, _Wakeryng_, and _Nix_, already noticed. There seems, also to have been some stir, of the same sort, made in the time of bishop _Hart_, or _Lyhart_, in the year 1446, and the corporation, probably, complained, or appealed to the king, (Henry VI.) who then visited this town, and seems to have favoured the cause of the corporation; for he is said to have ordered the sword to be carried before the mayor. But the bishop would not long submit to this royal order, for the very next year he had the sword carried before himself, as formerly, the mayor following, as one of his retinue or municipal officers. {387}

On the whole, therefore, it seems pretty evident that though Lynn became a corporate town, and was declared a free burgh as early as the beginning of the 13th century, yet it was not entirely freed from the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop, and the hard yoke of feudal domination, and so did not attain to equal liberty and independence with the generality of our English boroughs till a good part of the 16th century had elapsed. We accordingly find that the mayor and corporation, in the mean time, or during most part of it, seemed perfectly ready to approve as well as profess themselves the lordly prelate’s _humble tenants and devout bedesmen_; giving him the most explicit and solemn assurance, “that he should find in them _as lowly tenants as any that longed to him within his lordships_,” and that their _bodies_ as well as _goods_ were entirely at his service, &c. agreeably to the tenour of the above memorable letter to bishop Wakeryng. {388}—We may therefore venture to affirm that this town was, at most, but partially liberated from feudal vassalage, till the period above specified; that is, within these 300 years; before which the _mayors_ of Lynn appeared, or might justly be considered, as the bishops’ head-men, chief bailiffs, or slave drivers; and the _aldermen_ as so many underlings, or petty officers, implicitly executing his lordship’s paramount orders or commands.—Though the Charters might sometimes be thought to entitle his worship and his brethren to greater independence and a higher character, yet till then it does not seem that they were enabled to assume their proper dignity and consequence. The bishops being so powerful here, took care always to manage so as to thwart and baffle all their attempts. Nor did there seem to be any prospect of their succeeding in obtaining their proper station while the bishop continued to retain a paramount sway and uncontrolled power in the town. This the king, probably saw: and it might be one, if not the chief reason of his requiring the bishops, _Nix_ and _Rugg_, to relinquish their oppressive jurisdiction here. However that might be, it is certain that his majesty deserved well of this corporation: and whatever their ideas or feelings may have been, or may now be, on this point, it must be said, that they ought to consider _Henry_ among the very chief of their royal benefactors; with whom such princes as _Charles_ and _James_ the second, can, surely, bear no comparison; to whom, nevertheless, _statues_ have been here erected!! {389}

CHAP. IV.

Further observations on the history of Lynn during the period under consideration—probable state of the town, as to its internal police and municipal economy previously to its being declared a free burgh and receiving its first royal charter—changes resulting from that event—statement of subsequent occurrences.

It has been already observed that Lynn was a place of considerable trade, and of growing importance and opulence, at and before the Conquest. Afterward its trade kept rapidly increasing; and in the reign of _Richard_ I. it was become a place of distinguished eminence, insomuch that it was called by William of Newburgh, who lived at that time, “a noble city, or a city of note for its trade and commerce.” {390} Foreign merchants had then a regular established connection and intercourse with this town, and their ships and sailors frequented it in great numbers. A considerable body of Jews also had settled here, and must have been among the most active and useful part of its population; which further corroborates the report of its being in those days a place of no small commercial note and consequence, for those people were not likely to settle, in any great numbers, except in places of that description. {391} Indeed it seems pretty clear and certain that both in the reign of Richard and that of his brother and successor John, Lynn ranked very high among the trading towns of this kingdom, in point of commercial importance: and it is recorded upon undoubted authority, that in the sixth year of the last of those two reigns, (the date of our first royal charter) the tax or tallage of the king at Lynn, amounted to 651_l._ whereas that of London at the same time amounted only to 836_l._ 12_s._ 6_d._ {392} From which we may infer that the revenue which the crown then derived from the trade of this town, was more than two thirds of what it derived from that of London; and consequently that the trade itself of this town did in the mean time bear the same proportion to that of the metropolis; which may be presumed to have been the case of very few places, if any, besides in the kingdom.—Lynn being allowed to have a mint, or mints for the coining of money, belonging to the king and the bishop, {393a} has been deemed another proof of the flourishing state of the town at that period.

Of the government of Lynn, or its municipal economy in those times, very little is known, except that it appears to have been under the management of an officer who bore the name of _provost_, who doubtless was nominated by the bishop, and acted as his bailiff or deputy; but whether he was elected annually or held his office for a longer or shorter term, or during the pleasure of his master, seems rather uncertain. He was, however, the chief magistrate of the town, and had, of course, other officers assisting and acting under him, like our chief magistrates of more modern times. It is very provable that the order of things in this town was not so materially changed by _king_ JOHN as some may imagine. The chief alteration apparently was, that the town now ranked among those incorporated by royal charter, was consequently declared a free burgh, had its burgesses exempted from tolls, &c. in all parts of England, but London; and finally, had its chief magistrate denominated _mayor_, instead of _provost_, {393b} a circumstance, probably of no mighty consequence, or real benefit to the community, though highly gratifying, perhaps, to the pride and vanity of the corporation. The real difference, however, between a _mayor_ and a _provost_, seems to be very little, if any thing, more than that between _Tweedledum_ and _Tweedledee_. The former indeed is generally taken to be the highest and most honourable appellation, and therefore our corporations naturally prefer it to the other, as the title of their head man, or chief magistrate. After all, the inferiority of the _provost_ does not seem always perceivable; and nobody, perhaps, would deem the _lord_ MAYOR _of York_ as superior in dignity to the _lord PROVOST of Edinburgh_.

The smiles and favours of royalty are always gratifying to most people: those of _king JOHN_ were so, no doubt, to his Lynn subjects, and may be supposed to have confirmed them more than ever in their attachment to him, which appears to have continued strong and steady afterwards during the remainder of his reign. Of the worth and merit of that attachment, his majesty seemed duly sensible: as a proof of which, they received from him in return, some very flattering and lasting tokens, beside the immunities and privileges specified in his charters; especially the silver _cup_ which is still in being, and shewn to strangers and others as a great curiosity. It is an elegant double-gilt, embossed, and enamelled cup and cover, weighing 73 ounces, and of exquisite workmanship, and shews the uncommon skill and ingenuity of some our silver-smiths of that period, who were probably of the monkish order, as our best artists, as well as most renowned scholars, were then chiefly to be found within the solemn precincts of our monasteries.

The _sword_, which is usually carried before our mayors, has been also considered as another mark or token of king _JOHN’S_ favour to this town; but this appears a very questionable matter. This weapon, which has a silver mounting, the king is said to have taken from his side, and given to the corporation, to be carried before the major: but it does not appear that there was a sword at all carried before our mayors as early as the reign of king John, or even for a long time after. If such a ceremony was really observed here before the reign of Henry V. or of Henry VI. it must seemingly have been appropriated solely to the great lords of the place, the bishops of Norwich, who appear, all along to have claimed, that honour as their own peculiar, and exclusive prerogative: the mayors having no share in it, but only as they followed their masters, the bishops, and formed a part of their retinue. Bishop Gibson, in his additions to Camden, observes that the present sword, though said to have been given by king John, was really the gift of Henry VIII. after the town came into his possession, and he changed their _burgesses_ into aldermen. John’s charter does not mention the sword, but that granted by Henry expressly says, that he granted them a sword to be carried before their mayor. As to the inscription on the blade of the present sword, purporting its being the gift of king John, it proves nothing, being apparently the unauthorized contrivance of two forward fellows of the town, a sword cutler and a school-master, as late as the reign of queen Elizabeth. {395} But, however improbable it may be that the said _sword_ was ever the property of king John, and given by him as a present and mark of his royal and special favour to this corporation, yet there does not seem to be any just reason for entertaining similar doubts respecting the _cup_ before-mentioned. The only circumstance relating to the cup which one would be inclined to deem doubtful, or rather incredible, is a certain sly insinuation, which has been sometimes heard, that it was a part of a parcel of stolen goods, which his majesty, while on a visit at Walsingham, contrived to pilfer from that celebrated abbey, and coming afterward to Lynn, made a present of it to the corporation.

Lynn seems to have paid very dearly for the said king’s favours. Camden, in his account of this town observes, that it enjoys very large immunities, which its inhabitants “purchased of king John with the price of their own blood, spent in the defence of his cause:” alluding, probably, to the powerful assistance they afforded him in reducing the disaffected barons of this county, whose subjugation proved an arduous undertaking, and whom he afterwards severely chastised. The assistance they rendered to this sovereign consisted not only in recruits for his army, or a strong and resolute body of landsmen, but also in sailors and ships for his naval operations: hence Lynn and Yarmouth are mentioned by Carte among the principal places that furnished his majesty with a _fleet_ to oppose that of France on a certain occasion. {396} In short, the good people of this town appear to have assisted that memorable monarch to the utmost of their ability, or in all the ways, and by all the means that were in their power. He, on the other hand, is said to have been very partial to them, and deemed them so trustworthy, and their town so secure a place, that he deposited there, for some time his crown and regalia, and his most valuable treasures; but took them away at his last visit, and lost them all, soon after, in crossing the Wash, at an improper place, or improper time; which he laid so to heart that it hastened his death, which took place a very short time after at Newark. There is indeed no small disagreement among our historians in their accounts of king John after his last departure from Lynn. Some represent him as crossing the _Wash_, or rather the _Ouse_, then called _Wellstream_, at the _Cross Keys_; others represent him as crossing it at _Wisbeach_, and the latter seems to be the truth. Some, again, ascribe the illness which terminated his life, to _poison_, administered by a monk of Swineshead; others ascribe it to _vexation_ for the loss of his treasures; while others assure us that it is to be ascribed to neither of these causes, but that he was ill before that disaster of losing his treasures befel him. Nay, some have alleged, or suggested, that his last illness originated at Lynn, and was occasioned by his intemperate living during his stay here. In accounts different and contradictory, it is no easy task to distinguish truth from fiction. It seems however to be pretty well established that the said king left Lynn on the 11th of October, 1216, was at Wisbeach on the 12th, at Sleaford on the 15th, and at Newark on the 18th, where he died the very next day: but the story of the poison seems very doubtful and even improbable; nor does that concerning the loss of his crown and treasures seem perfectly clear and indubitable. {398}

Even the fact that Lynn had been the depository of the king’s treasures, with his crown and regalia, during his absence from these parts, and till he removed them at his last departure, becomes very doubtful, or rather quite improbable, if we believe Rapin’s assertion, from M. Paris, that the king’s great competitor, the Dauphin, not long before, and within that same year, had actually reduced Lynn, and made the whole county, as well as those of Suffolk and Essex tributary to him. In that case, those treasures, &c. if deposited here, must inevitably have fallen into the Dauphin’s hands, and so be entirely lost to the king. We must therefore either conclude that the alleged fact of Lynn having been the depository of the said treasures, for any length of time, is unfounded, or that the said assertion, that Lynn had been that year taken by the Dauphin, is so. But as these matters are not very interesting, we will now drop them, and also our account of king John for the present.

After the death of John, and in the reign of his son and successor, Henry III. the people of Lynn, at one time, seem to have sided with the malcontents of that period, and so forfeited their chartered rights: but their defection was of no long duration; they returned to their duty with every appearance of contrition, and soon gave full proof of the ardour, as well as the unfeignedness of their loyalty. Camden says that they “purchased their lost liberties of Henry III. not without blood, when they sided with him against the outlawed barons, and unluckily engaged them in the Isle of Ely. An account whereof we have in the book of Ely, and in Matthew Paris.” {399a} The battle here alluded to was fought somewhere about Littleport, where the Lynn volunteers of that day were very roughly handled by their opponents, and lost a considerable number of their people; of which mention has been made by several of our historians. In the 8th and 9th years of that king’s reign, licence was granted to foreign merchants to come with safety to the fair of Lenn; and in the 11th year a talliage was granted to the king by the bishop. The oath of the burghers then was, “You shall faithfully pay your talliage made by the lord (bp.) at his will, of all your chattels’ of your own property, whatever they are, and of the chattels of your wife, and all that is your due to pay.” {399b} Thus payment was made upon oath; but the tax was granted to the king by the bishop, without the concurrence of the burghers; and also assessed and levied by him _at his will_, without check or control. In such a case, and under such circumstances, it might be reasonably supposed there would be some misdoings, and not a few causes of complaint, and that misunderstanding would arise between his lordship and his Lynn vassals, which might lead to very serious results. That it really did so happen appears from authentic documents.

Sometime after the above taxation, the people or burgesses of Lynn, dissatisfied, it seems, with the arbitrary and oppressive proceeding of their lord, the bishop, in that instance, and questioning his right to tax them at will, or without their consent, took upon them to tax themselves without consulting him, as well as to elect a mayor also without his permission. This his lordship greatly resented, as absolutely illegal and highly criminal: and he also, very sorely felt it, no doubt, as deeply affecting his own baronial claims here, or endangering his feudal dominion. He accordingly proceeded against them in the ecclesiastical court, and had them all excommunicated. In that grievous dilemma, and from so arbitrary and galling a sentence, they appealed to the king’s justices at Westminster, before whom the affair underwent a legal investigation: of which, and its result, the following account is given by Parkin.

“In the 8th. of this king (Henry III.) a fine was levied, at
Westminster in Trinity term, before Robert Lexington, William de
York, Ralph de Norwich, William de Lisle, Adam Fitz-William, and
Ralph de Rokele, the king’s justices, between the mayor and
burgesses, querents, and Thomas Blundevile, bishop of Norwich,
deforcient. The Mayor &c. complained, that the bishop had impleaded
them in a court christian (ecclesiastical or spiritual court) and had
excommunicated them, because they had created a mayor among
themselves, and had taxed and talliaged themselves, in the said burgh
without his assent; and it was agreed between them in the said court,
that the bishop should grant for himself and successors, and his
church of Norwich, that the said burgesses, for the future, may chuse
and create to themselves a mayor, whomsoever they pleased of their
own body, on this condition, That immediately after his election, or
creation, they should present him to the bishop and his successors,
wherever they should be in the diocese of Norwich; who on the
presentation should be admitted by the bishop without any
contradiction: and for this fine and concord, the mayor and burgesses
grant for themselves, their heirs and successors, that whosoever
shall be so created and elected mayor by them, shall promise on his
good faith and fealty, by which he is engaged to the bishop, and his
successors, that he will observe all things that belong to his
office, as long as he shall continue therein, and preserve, as much
as is in his power, the liberties of the church of Norwich. This
agreement and fine was made in the presence of the king, who
consented to it. This king, as appears from many instances, sate
frequently in the court of king’s bench at the head of his justices.”
{401}

It does not appear from the above account how the taxation or assessment business was then settled; but it seems most probable that it was taken out of the hands both of the bishop and the burgesses, and committed to the management of certain officers appointed by the crown. It is likely indeed that that point had been previously settled, and that the names of the first officers, or assessors, are still preserved: for we are told that “in the 17th. of the said reign, (which was the year preceding that of the above trial) Thomas de Milton, and Warin, son of Imbert, were named by the king, to assess the talliage, and all the demeans of the see of Norwich.” {402} This point therefore might not come under discussion in the above trial at Westminster. But the case of creating, or choosing a mayor, seems to have been there very carefully investigated. The result was (as above stated) that the right of the burgesses, to elect a mayor from among themselves, was fully established; on the express condition, however, that, immediately after his election they should present him to the bishop, wherever he should be within the diocese; who on his part was to receive him without any refusal, disapproval, or, contradiction.

From the preceding statement one would be apt to conclude, that the right of the burgesses to choose a mayor, independently of the bishop’s will and pleasure, was now fully settled and that his lordship would no longer presume to interfere, either directly or indirectly, on that occasion. But it cannot be affirmed that the event warrants that conclusion. The lust of power is a strong passion, and not very soon or easily subdued. The bishops having so long borne uncontrolled sway in the direction and management of every thing in this town, it was not to be expected that they would be very ready to resign or relinquish it. The mayors here from the first, it seems, were called _The bishop’s men_, and their lordships appeared always desirous to perpetuate the appellation, or, at least, to do all in their power to prevent its becoming inapplicable. Though the words of charters, the opinions of judges, and even the declarations of kings, might appear against them, yet they were scarcely ever at a loss for ways and means to surmount or evade all such difficulties, and secure their own beloved power and preponderance. So the case seems to have been at Lynn for a very long period. Neither the provision of charters, the verdict of judges, nor the orders of princes, could effect any material or lasting diminution of the exorbitant power of the bishop over this town, till the 16th century. It appeared like an inveterate evil, or incurable malady, until it felt the royal touch of Henry VIII. when it gave way at once, and underwent a radical and perfect cure.

As to the above agreement between the contending parties at Westminster, it does not appear that the bishops thought proper long, if at all, to act in compliance with it, and so refrain from any further interference in the election of appointment of a chief magistrate. This must have sat uneasy on the minds of the corporation, and they would naturally, and perhaps repeatedly complain to their sovereign against so oppressive an infringement of their municipal rights. Even the king himself also would feel it as an insult offered to him, as he was personally present when the agreement was made, and had sanctioned it by his own express approbation. On this ground we may account for that clause in the charter which he granted to our burgesses in the 52nd year of his reign, in which he not only confirms their former liberties, but also allows them to choose a mayor of themselves, _without presenting him to the bishop_. This last exemption from a former obligation and customary observance, seems plainly to indicate that the bishop had taken some such undue advantage of his power and influence as was before suggested; of which his majesty now thought proper to signify his entire disapprobation, by discharging the burghers from every obligation to pay his lordship any further regard, in their future choice or appointment of a chief magistrate. This the bishop must have felt somewhat mortifying. But as his feudal jurisdiction here still continued unabolished, it was not likely he would be long at a loss to find means to evade the force or operation of that humiliating clause, and secure or reestablish his wonted preeminence. That it actually did so happen, appears but too evident by all that we know of the subsequent history of the town. Every attempt to reduce the bishop’s predominance here, during the period of which we are now treating, proved unsuccessful. The burgesses never could effectually shake off his yoke, or cease to be his vassals and subjects; and even their elections of mayors, in general, if not always, might be compared to the modern conge d’elire elections of bishops, by our Deans and Chapters.

During the long reign of which we have been speaking, this kingdom suffered extremely from civil discord and intestine commotions, and the inhabitants of Lynn bore their share in those sufferings. Great numbers of their people perished in a bloody and unfortunate engagement against the barons, up in the country somewhere towards Littleport, as has been before noticed; which must have proved a most distressing calamity to the whole town, and especially to the wives and children and other relatives of the vanquished and slaughtered warriors. The enemy, being so strong and formidable in and about the Isle of Ely, must also have cut off all communication between Lynn and that district, and even interrupted its intercourse with all the interior parts of the country, as he had the entire command of the rivers and channels of internal navigation. This seems to have continued a long while, and must have distressed this town in a very great degree. It appears, however, to have been quite over, and tranquillity fully restored in the 41st year of that reign, as we find the mayor and burgesses were that year commanded by the king to permit the men of Ely to come here to sell their beer, and exercise merchandise, as they had been used to do before the disturbance. {405a} In the 50th year the same reign, as we are further informed, the king’s purveyors bought at Lynn 36 tuns of wine, which the sheriff of Norfolk was ordered to have conveyed to his majesty, then at the siege of Kenilworth, or Kennelworth Castle, in Warwickshire. {405b} This also shews that there were then no very serious or dangerous commotions in the parts about the Fens, and westward of Lynn, otherwise it would have been out of the sheriff’s power to have the said wine conveyed across that country, and to his majesty’s camp before Kennelworth. It however alleged by our historians that the malecontents who seized upon the Isle of Ely were the last that held out, and that they did not surrender till after the reduction of Kennelworth Castle. However that was, it is allowed that the rebellion was now soon quelled, and that the country afterwards enjoyed peace and tranquillity, for a long period.

It was in this king’s reign, as was before observed, that the Ouse and other rivers deserted their ancient and natural course by Wisbeach, and after inundating the fen country to a very great extent, from the effect of which it has never yet recovered, forced their passage into the sea by Lynn. A neglecting of the old outfall, which occasioned the choking up of the channel and impeding the course of the waters, in the time of a great flood, has been assigned as the cause of that memorable event. But as the malcontents had for sometime occupied the fens, and made their last stand there, and as the inundation might conduce materially to their defence, it seems very natural to suspect that they also had some hand in the business. Yet as our historians are silent on this head, we cannot affirm it as a matter of fact. The event proved, no doubt, detrimental to Wisbeach; and yet not materially advantageous, at least, not immediately so, to Lynn. Nor does it appear that even our harbour was at all improved by so large an accession of fresh water: on the contrary, for aught we know, the approach from the sea to this town was quite as good before as it has been since. It may be said however to be an event that somewhat contributes to preserve the memory of the third Henry, among the people of these parts. The character of this monarch is well known, and is no way worthy of respect or imitation. He was great in nothing but the vileness of his government and the length of his reign, which extended to the 57th year: the longest of any English reign, for the last ten centuries. For the evils of which, and of all the bad and unfortunate reigns that have occurred ever since that period, many, it is supposed, will deem the blessed prosperity of the present wise and happy reign as more than a sufficient counterbalance and compensation—especially, if it should also last as long, or still longer than that of Henry III. which seems not at all improbable: and who is it, within this favoured country, but does consider this as a consummation most devoutly to be wished?

CHAP. V.

State of society at Lynn during the period under consideration—the subject may be elucidated from documents relative to our ancient Gilds—observations on the nature of those fraternities—very common in this country before the reformation—names and number of those of Lynn.

It is sad enough to think, that during so long an interval as that between the conquest and the reformation, the good people of Lynn should never be able entirely to emancipate themselves from their feudal vassalage. But as that desirable object always proved to them unattainable, they appear to have submitted to their hard fate with exemplary patience and forbearance; well knowing, it seems, to use the words of the old adage, that what cannot be cured must be endured. It is much to be doubted if their descendants, or rather their successors of the present day, would have endured what they did with equal propriety and long suffering. We are indeed but imperfectly acquainted with the social complexion, or characteristic features of the community here in those times; but from what we do know, there is reason to think favourably of the prevailing disposition of the inhabitants. Except in the shocking affair of the poor Jews, and what happened in the time of bishop Spencer and of bishop Wakeryng, and of the two aldermen Wentworth and Petipas, already noticed, we perceive no vestige here of tumultuous risings or factious combinations. Industry and harmony appear generally to have prevailed at Lynn, and the community seldom failed in the duty of submission to their superiors, or of obeying the higher powers.

On the state of society in this town, during the period now under consideration, nothing perhaps throws so much light as certain existing documents relating to out ancient Gilds, which seem to have been more numerous here than any where else in the kingdom. They were friendly associations formed for the mutual benefit of their respective members. Some of them were large trading companies, holding considerable possessions, in houses, lands, and mercantile property. Others were of a humbler sort, suited to the convenience and wants of those who moved in a lower sphere, and constructed on principles, perhaps, somewhat similar to those of our modern purse clubs, or benefit societies. All were calculated to help the individuals who composed them, to pass through life more comfortably, obtain a more easy and plentiful subsistence, cherish love and goodwill within their respective circles, and promote the peace and welfare of the town or community in general.

The Gilds, certainly, form a most prominent feature in the character of the ancient inhabitants of Lynn. They were indeed very common in this country before the reformation, and during the period we are now considering; but were more numerous in this town than anywhere else we know of, which is a very remarkable and, perhaps, unaccountable circumstance. It seems very honourable to the memory of our forefathers—more so, probably, than any thing else we can mention; and therefore we shall dwell upon the subject with the greater pleasure. It shews that there was then among the inhabitants a prevailing or general disposition to assist one another, and to give to every honest individual an opportunity to place himself in such a situation as would not fail of bettering his condition, and procuring him useful friends and reputable associates.

These useful institutions, in most other places, only amounted to one or two, or a few, by which only a small part of the population could be very materially benefited by them. But here they were formed on a large scale, and multiplied to _above thirty_; some of them varying pretty much from others, to suit, as we may suppose, the different conditions of the inhabitants, all, or most of whom might consequently accommodate themselves, or easily find a fraternity whose constitution exactly corresponded, with their respective capacities, wants, or wishes.—Our Gilds had all of them a strong tincture of religion, or rather of superstition, according to the prevailing fashion of the times. In that view they exhibited, no doubt, a large portion of weakness, ignorance, and absurdity. But they appear to have been very free from that jealousy, bigotry, and ill will towards each other, which too often disgrace the religious fraternities of the present day, who look upon one another with such an evil eye, that they may be too justly said to hate one another. Trusting in themselves that they are righteous, they despise others, and are ready to say to their neighbours, and all who differ from them, stand by yourselves, come not near to us, for we are holier than you. While they inveigh against Pharisees, and a pharisaical spirit, they give impartial and intelligent bystanders every reason to think, that they are themselves, in fact, the Pharisees of the present day, and are led by the very spirit against which they declaim. But we will drop this subject for the present, and resume that of the Gilds, which we shall here handle under different heads, or sections.