Chapter XX: Section IV

_Miscellaneous remarks_, _or a cursory view of divers other matters relating to this town_, _within_, _or about the same period_.

Nothing, perhaps, exhibits more strikingly the wide difference between that time and the present, than the then defective state of _postage_, or letter-carriage, between this town and London. Had any one then foretold that we should ever have a mail-coach or mail-cart, or any other conveyance to bring letters from London, or carry them thither _daily_, it would have passed as an idle tale, no more credible or probable than bishop Wilkins’ notion or supposition of the probability of future intercourse between our world and the moon. The former fact, however, has been realized. But at the period of which we are speaking Letters used to arrive here from London or were conveyed thither from this town _once a week_, and that by a foot messenger.

Accordingly we have the following article, or memorandum in the corporation books, No. 8. under the year 1638, 9—“Feb. 11th. Richard Harrison and Richard Smith are chosen to be two _foot posts_ for this town of Lynn to London interchangeably by turns every week, and to have 30_s._ each, from the town, per annum.” From the then mode of carrying on trade one may easily conceive that the intercourse between the two places was very small, and the letters conveyed to and fro very few, compared to what is the case at present. But the wages or salary of these postmen is not a little remarkable:—_sixty shillings_ a year for going afoot every week to London! Neither the generosity nor even the justice of the town seems to shine here. Who would undertake such a service now for _sixty guineas_ a year? Yet we are not sure that the _shilling_ of that time was altogether as valuable as our _guinea_. It must however have been pretty nearly so: and within our own memory, even in this best of reigns, the _guinea’s value_ has been reduced to _seven shillings_, if not lower. But on this subject we need not to enlarge.

In 1642 a measure was adopted, in the _Hall_, which must needs be creditable to the memory of its then members. The affair is thus expressed in the corporation books, under that year, or rather in the _book of Extracts_ before mentioned—“October 9th. Ordered that the _Charters_ shall be read by the town-clerk, _in English_, that _those of this House_ may the _better understand what they are sworn to maintain_.” This seems very reasonable and very right, and indicates something like an earnest wish in the body corporate to avoid _perjury_, and to act conscientiously and honorably in their official capacities, or as municipal functionaries. How expedient it might be _at this present time_ to have a motion made in the Hall to the same effect, or to have a similar measure adopted there, it is not for us to determine. But we cannot help suspecting that some, if not the majority of our present corporate body are to the full as ignorant of the contents of their charters, and of what they are _sworn to maintain_, as ever their predecessors were, who adapted the measure, or passed the order in question.

Our body corporate at the period of which we are treating, and long after, entertained very different ideas on some points from those of their successors of the present day: and that difference was not, perhaps, more remarkable on any point than on the course to be taken with such of their own members, or brethren, who _ceased to be residents_ in the town, or became _absentees_. Formerly the _non-residence_ of members was on no account allowed, or connived at. _Aldermen_, _common-council-men_, and even the _recorder_, as well as town-clerk and chamberlain, were required to be all residents: and whenever they ceased to be so, or happened to become absentees, they were always forthwith discharged, or cut off, as rotten and useless members. The necessity of this our corporation used formerly to insist upon, as what a due regard for the good government and prosperity of the town, as well as the very nature of their respective oaths and offices rendered indispensible. In short, it seemed to be their unanimous and invariable opinion that the nonresidence of any one of their fraternity was insufferable, and inconsistent with both honour and honesty, and of course with the character of a _gentleman_.

Their successors of the present time view the subject in another and a very different light. Our absentees are now very numerous, and seem to be daily on the increase. They consist already of several _aldermen_ and _common council men_, with the _recorder_ himself at their head—{783} all _honourable men_, no doubt: though we cannot help suspecting that their predecessors, of other times, would have bestowed upon them another and a somewhat more degrading appellation, and especially upon _the rest of the brotherhood_ who quietly suffer their nonresidence, or allow them to retain their membership while they remain absentees. It is now a common complaint, that, owing to these absentees, the corporation business is much obstructed, so that it is often very difficult, and sometimes impossible to get what is called _a Hall_: yet no one, it seems, has the honesty, or the courage to move for the expulsion of those worse than useless members, as would always have been the case heretofore. This obvious symptom of declension and depravity in this corporation, may serve, perhaps, to illustrate what is said to be also actually the case on our great national theatre, or throughout the empire.

How these matters, or this case, stood formerly will appear from the following samples, out of the corporation books—“February 17th (1644, 5) This day it is agreed by order of this House, that Gregory Turnall, late one of the common-councell here, by reason of his _absenting himself_ from the Hall (tho’ he hath often been required) be _discharged_ our society.”—again—“1647, February. 14. This day it is agreed upon, that for that Mr. Richard Davy, late one of the common-councel of this House, is now gone to live at Yarmouth, therefore this House doe discharge him of the same place.” again—“March 16th. 1659. Nathaniel Atwood _discharged_ from the office of a common-councell-man, having long _absented himselfe_, and being _employed in the navy_.”—again—“1661, October 25. Forasmuch as Mr. William Keeling, _one of the aldermen_ of this burgh, hath a long time _absented himselfe_ from this burgh, and from attending the service as alderman of this burgh, although he hath been thereto often requested, and is now at present absent out of the town, whereby the service of this burgh is very much impeded, to the great damage of the said burgh; it is thereupon this day ordered, that the said Wm. Keeling be _discharged_ from being an alderman of this burgh.”—again—“November 28. 1673. This day Mr. Giles Alden (by reason of his being very much _absent_ from this society, whereby the business of this corporation is much impeded and neglected) is by the mayor and aldermen _discharged_ from being one of the common-councell of this burgh.”—again,—“September 29. 1728. Ordered that Robert Britiffe Esq. _Recorder_ of this burgh, be _discharged_ of his attendance as Recorder, for his neglect of duty and _nonresidence_.”—These extracts plainly shew what was the practice of our corporation formerly, in regard to such of their members as happened to become nonresidents or absentees, and how very different that practice was from that which prevails at present. The reader is now left to judge which is the most proper or reasonable, the former or the present practice.

At the period we are now reviewing, a roasted _swan_ seems to have been in great request at our Lynn entertainments: hence we read under the date of Sept. 24. 1649—“Granted to John Bird, a lease for seven years of three ferry rights, at 10_l._ per annum, and a brace of swans well fatted to the mayor.” But the ferryman, probably, found it difficult sometimes to get, or to fatten those large birds; in which case the mayor might be expected to condescend to accept of an equivalent. Something like this accordingly occurs under the date of March 15. 1657, “Ordered that the chamberlain pay to the mayor for the time being 40_s._ on the 1st of January yearly, in liew of a brace of fatted Swanns usually delivered to the mayor by the person who hired the Ferry rights.”—The taste of our countrymen has undergone a great change since; and the Swan no longer appears upon our tables.

[Picture: South Gate Lynn. J Sellett del. Jukes & Sargent fecit]

At the beginning of this period there were here no more than _six corn-meters_, but on the 14th. November 1653 they were increased to _ten_, which seems to indicate our trade, and particularly the corn trade, as well as the agriculture of the country to have been then in a state of progression.—The town seems also to have had then a greater intercourse with the country on its _eastern_ than on its _southern_ side; which we may infer from the following article in the corporation books, dated April 4. 1653: “Ordered that Henry Bloye, the _Southgate_ porter, shall have the Tolls of that Gate at 1_l._ 5_s._ a year; and James Browne, the porter at the _East-gate_, shall pay for the Tolls of that Gate 1_l._ 15_s._ a year, during the pleasure of this House.”—The East gate is supposed still to retain a similar superiority.—It is somewhat remarkable that in those days the town-clerks of Lynn, as well as the recorders, were regular barristers: accordingly we find it noted in the corporation records, “December 6. 1652—This day Thomas Ulber Esq. councellor at Law is chosen Town-clerk, in the room of John Williamson Esq. councellor at Law, discharged.”—Our corporation must have been then well furnished with legal knowledge. In later times all our town-clerks were below the degree of barristers. {787}

On the 3rd of July 1657 the tolls of the East and South Gates, (as appears from the town-books,) were let for 15_l._ a year, which seems to shew that they were now much more productive than in 1653, when they were let for only 3_l._ a year. It is very natural to infer from this, that the trade of the town, or its intercourse with the country had much increased during those years.—On the 18th of July in the next year, (1658, as we learn from the same source) St. James’ church yard was ordered to be a burying place for the parish of St. Margaret’s, _for one year_, “there not being _room_ in St. Margaret’s church-yard:”—but it seems rather unaccountable how making St. James’ church yard the parish burying-place for _one year_ could materially alter the case as to the want of room in St. Margaret’s church-yard, or furnish more room there for burying at the end of that term than there was at the beginning of it. It might however be here suggested by way of query, if it would not have been quite as well, on a recent occasion, and far better in point of expense, to have made use again of St. James’ church yard (including the south side) instead of forming the new burying ground?—at least, till the times proved more favourable; which, it is to be hoped, will be the case in the next reign, if not sooner.

The period we are now reviewing, and the review of which we are now about to conclude, was perhaps the most remarkable of any in the history of this town, as well as that of England and of Britain. Nor does it seem to have been more remarkable for any thing than for the exertions then made to reform the morals and manners of the great mass of the people. But those exertions were generally too rough and violent, and therefore more calculated to make hypocrites than sincere converts, as must always be the case when such works are carried on by coercive means, rather than by rational persuasion, or upon right christian principles. Accordingly our reforming magistrates, by way of reclaiming their townsmen from their tippling propensities, and bringing them from drunkenness to sobriety, had recourse to _fines and imprisonment_, which as was before observed, fell sometimes very heavy upon the publicans, no less than _six and thirty_ of whom were imprisoned in the course of one year, as we learn from one of our old MS. accounts. These measures excited a violent prejudice against our reformers, and against the reformation itself. Fining was called _plundering_, and imprisonment, passed for persecution and tyranny. But the restoration brought things back into the old channel, and relieved our publicans and tipplers from these hardships.

CHAP. V.

History of Lynn from the Restoration to the Revolution.

Between the period which we have been last reviewing and that which we are now entering upon there was confessedly a very wide and glaring dissimilarity: no two periods could well exhibit a more obvious and striking contrast. The spirit of puritanism predominated in the former, and that of libertinism, or, in other words, of licentiousness and profligacy in the latter. The rulers of the nation, in the former period, were men of sobriety and gravity, in the latter they were dissipated and dissolute. The former appeared to have for their aim the amendment or improvement of the national manners and morals, the latter the very reverse, for they were actually the promoters and patrons of all manner of depravity, of every thing that was vile, profligate, or flagitious. The two brothers, Charles and James, and their ministers, were certainly some of the vilest wretches that providence ever sent to punish and plague and curse a sinful nation.

As to Cromwell, it is pretty much the fashion to decry and vilify him, as a dissembling villain, a base hypocritical knave and usurper: but no one need to envy the discernment, penetration, or sagacity of those men who cannot perceive that his moral character was not below that of either the first or second Charles, and that his character as a statesman, and his talents for government, were infinitely superior to those of either of them, or of any of their kindred. No proof has ever been produced that he was a greater dissembler, or a more unprincipled wretch than those two princes; and it might perhaps without much difficulty be shewn, that, _in comparison with either of them_, he was really an honest, virtuous, great and good man.—As to what is deemed his greatest crime, that of compassing the king’s death, the great law of self-preservation will certainly plead much in extenuation of that act; for it is now very well known that Cromwell was previously in possession of good and absolute proof that it was the king’s intention to sacrifice him, in case he could bring the treaty then on foot between him and the parliament to a successful termination. The intercepted Letter to the queen convinced Oliver that he had no chance for his life, if the king reascended the throne. He therefore resolved to prevent that, and save his own life by sacrificing that of the king. {790} This was very natural, and few men would have done otherwise.