Chapter XXIV: Section IV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“SOUTH LYNN ALLHALLOWES, _March_ 25 1674.—_At a Congregation met and
assembled to take the report of Tho. Hugins concerning Long Bridge
and other business treated about and considered of by him with the
mayor and burgesses of Lynn Regis as followeth hereunder_.”—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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