Chapter XXVII: Section II

_History of Lynn continued to the accession of Q. Anne—example of William and the revolutionists did not liberalize our townsmen—persecution of nonconformists here within this period—stocking trade_, _and complaints of the hosiers—petitions to parliament—addresses to the throne—law-suits—water-works—affair of the coal-meters—and of the noblemen_, _knights_, _esquires_, _clergy_, _&c._

William’s ideas of civil and religious liberty, though perhaps, not perfectly correct or unexceptionable, were yet far more so than what was generally entertained by our countrymen at that period—and probably, even what is generally entertained among us at this time: for civil and religious liberty seems not to have been of late years among our favourite studies. William and his consort would gladly have placed the liberty of protestant Dissenters on a broad and liberal footing, but it was not approved by the majority of the two houses of parliament. They however readily passed an Act, in the summer of 1689, for _exempting their Majesties Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certain Laws_; which is commonly called the _Act of Toleration_. But _toleration_ is a word not to be applied to honest and virtuous men, in a land of liberty; for it implies some unworthiness in the objects, or their being unentitled to what is granted, and that the magistrate grants it by way of favour, indulgence, or connivance; whereas religious liberty is the natural and inalienable inheritance of every human being, and should be claimed as a right, and not as a boon or favour. The Toleration Act received the royal assent May 24. 1689, and the protestant dissenters have sat under the shade of it, mostly, but not always unmolested, ever since. Tories and high churchmen have often attempted to disturb them, but by this law they have been in a great measure protected. Had it not passed in the reign of William, it is doubtful if it had passed at any subsequent period. Even at this time some great men are proposing to have it revised, as being too comprehensive, and requiring certain restrictions. What the event will be, time will shew: but it will be a sad thing if the rights of conscience, or the enjoyment of religious liberty should be curtailed, now in the 19th century.

Lynn is a notable instance of a town declaring for the revolution, without entering at all into the spirit of it: for it continued still as bigoted and intolerant as before. This was remarkably exemplified in the bitter and violent persecution that broke out here about 1690, against a society of protestant dissenters of the Baptist denomination, and especially against _James Marham_, their minister. He appears to have been a very worthy man, zealous and diligent in propagating that sort of religious knowledge which he thought most useful and interesting to his fellow-creatures. Some of the great ones, or heads of the town became his chief persecutors. What they affected to take most umbrage at was, the denomination to which he belonged. They pretended that it was a _new_ religion; and they would not suffer it to be disseminated in the town, but were resolved to break up the meeting. They first proceeded against him under the Conventicle Act, and employed two men, named _Robert Whitehead_ and _Henry Oseincraft_, as _informers_; who having been at the meeting, laid their information before the justices, or aldermen, {861} who forthwith issued their warrants to levy 20_l._ on the _house_, 20_l._ on the _preacher_, and 5_s._ on each of the _hearers_. Marham owned that he hired the meeting-house, but produced the licence, or certificate, which shewed it to have been regularly registered as a place of worship, according to the Toleration Act; but that they over-ruled, and caused their levy to be executed, both upon him and others. And finding afterwards that he persisted in continuing the meeting, they resolved to ruin him, by charging him with some heinous crime, which the account does not specify. They got one person to swear against him, intending then to commit him to prison; but the witness could not substantiate the charge; so that they were obliged to drop the proceeding. Marham now getting a copy of their levy, found that the informers had sworn, that when they were at the meeting-house one _John_ Marham was _preaching_; whereas there was no preacher of that name. The preacher that was speaking when they were at the meeting was a minister from London, whose name was _Wm. Lang_, but he was only _praying_, and not preaching, at the time. They had also sworn, that one _Francis Robinson_ was then at the meeting, which was not true. Having made these discoveries Marham was advised to proceed against them at common Law, which he accordingly did; and the two informers were put into the crown office. The great men now interfered, and prevailed with Marham’s attorney to desist from further prosecution, “as he would answer it, (says the account) in the hands or _custody of a messenger_.” {862} These threats inducing the attorney to stay the proceedings for a time, the informers, advised by their patrons or employers, took advantage of that to remove the cause from common law to chancery. A notice or subpœna was then served upon Marham to answer their bill of complaint, which bill consisted of 31 sheets. “Though the substance of it, (our account says) _will be proved utterly false_, yet it will cost more money by far than Marham is able to disburse, without _evident ruin_.” An appeal was therefore made to the whole denomination for assistance; and they are thought to have come forward pretty liberally on the occasion, the _particular_ as well as the _general_ baptists, to the latter of which Marham belonged. He was up in London and gave in his answer in February 1693; but when or how the affair ended does not appear, for our account was published before it was brought to its final issue. As a chancery cause it might remain long undetermined, perhaps for some years. But how or whensoever it ended, here is enough to shew very clearly with what illiberality, intolerance, tyranny, and villany, the gentry or chief men of Lynn were capable of acting at that period. Much of the same spirit continued here very long after, even down to the memory of the present writer.

About the beginning of 1690 (or 1689–90) the _hosiers_ of this town appeared much concerned and alarmed, (as had indeed been the case for some time before, {864}) at the prevalence of the _weaving_ method, by which that of _knitting_ was much discouraged and fallen off, to the great injury of vast numbers of the poor, who were consequently left without employment. They therefore now petitioned the Hall to have the case brought before parliament, which was readily acceded to. This affair is thus memorized in the Town-Books.—“Jan. 17. (1689–90) On petition of the Hosiers of this Town in behalf of the poore, against the new invention of _weaving_ worstead hose; whereby many thousands of the poor are destitute of employment; It is ordered and agreed that a Petition from this House to the Honorable House of Commons representing that grievance, now read, be sealed with the common seal of this burgh.”

It may therefore be presumed that this petition was actually presented to the House of Commons, but what was there made of it, or what reception it met does not appear. It must, however, have indicated a very contracted idea of trade, or the rights of manufacturing adventurers. Near seven years after a different sort of petition was presented by this town to the same house; of which the following notice occurs in the Hall or Town-Books—“Oct. 26. 1696; Mr Mayor, Mr Recorder, Sir Henry Hobart baronet, Sir John Turner knight, Sir Charles Turner knight, Robert Walpole, Maurice Kendall, Esquires, Mr. Bell, Mr. Holly, Mr. Turner, or any five of them, to manage and present a petition to the parliament to remove obstructions, and for preserving navigation—[and] for removing the Dam and Sluices near Salters load.”—The obtaining the object of this petition might probably have proved very beneficial to the country; but it does not appear that the application succeeded.

Our corporation, as might be expected, did not neglect during this reign to send some loyal _addresses_ to the throne. How many they actually did send we have not the means of ascertaining. One was probably sent upon their majesties accession, though we have not met with any particular account of it. We are indeed informed in our extracts from the Hall-Books, that Thursday, the 11th of April 1689, the day of the coronation of King William and Queen Mary, was appointed _to be kept here with all due solemnity_: whence one might pretty safely infer, that an Address did soon after follow. Such was the case, we presume, with all the rest of our corporations.

Another address was sent from Lynn in 1696, occasioned by the discovery of the _assassination plot_, and the intended French _invasion_. One of our historians {865} speaking of that horrid plot, thus adds—“At the same time there was to be an invasion from France, for which purpose king _James_ was come to _Calais_, and the troops, artillery, and stores, were immediately ordered to be embarked; but by the news of the assassination plot having miscarried, and the speedy sending of a formidable fleet under admiral _Russell_, this other part of the design was frustrated; and Calais was not long after bombarded by the English. The king on February 21. acquainted parliament with the discovery of the plot; upon which both Houses addressed his majesty to congratulate him on his happy preservation: and the House of Commons drew up and subscribed an _association_ to stand by one another in defence of his majesty’s sacred person and government, against the late king James and all his adherents. The Lords also agreed to the same association; and the example of the two Houses was followed by all the corporations in the kingdom.”—The part which Lynn took in this memorable business is thus noticed in the book of extracts from the Hall records—“March 11th. (1695–6) sign’d an Address to his Majestie in the nature of ane Association to stand by and assist his Majesty against all his Ennemys whatsomever.”—We have seen no copy of this address.

On the king’s return from the continent, in the autumn of 1697, another address went to him from this town, of which the following is a copy—

“Great Sir. Wee your Majesties most dutifull and loyall subjects,
the mayor, aldermen, and common-councell, and chiefe inhabitants of
the burgh of King’s Lynn in the county of Norfolk, crave leave to
prostate ourselves at your Royall feet, with sincerest joye and most
devout thankfulness adoreing the Divine Goodness for watching over
your pretious life (in all the Dangers it has been exposed to by sea
and land) upon the safety whereof the fate of so many nations did
depend. The comfort is too bigg for us to express, To behold your
sacred person with happyness and honor retorned to these your
dominions after the vast toyles of a war ingaged in for the security
of your realms and the tranquillity of Europe. For no sooner had
your princely tenderness secured to us the inestimable blessings of
Lawe, Liberty, and Religion, but injured and ruined provinces abroad
implored your ayd. Then it was you awakened the slumbering genius of
this warlike people, and with matchless conduct, courage, vigilance,
you led forth the British forces to fame and great atchievements in
forreign lands. Let other chiefes and potentates of your allyance
have their deserved praise; but it is your majesties right for what
by your councell and armes has been done in accomplishing the great
worke to remain possest of the brightest share of the glory that
attends it, will outweigh the pomp of all other triumphs to be the
chosen instrument of Providence to calm a stormy world, to make wars
and desolation to cease, and to restore repose and peace to
christendome. May the same propitious providence make these
blessings durable and perpetuall, may your sacred Majestie be still
the charge of the Life Guards of Heaven, may your royall cares be
sweetened, though they can never be requited, by the constant loyalty
and duty of a gratefull people; may your days be long and prosperous,
and your renoune increase; may your Realms flourish in virtue, union,
plenty and peace; and when you shall be called to a heavenly crowne
may generations to come rise up and call you blessed.”

This Address, no doubt, was drawn up by one of our first orators and ablest hands of that day, and in his very best manner. But our augustan age does not appear to have commenced till after the accession of Q. Anne. Our addresses to the throne became then long and frequent; and they were all penned in so striking a style of eloquence as clearly evinced the abundant confidence the compilers had in their own parts and powers.

In 1697 our corporation had a law-suit with one _Hulton_, before Lord Chief Justice Holt, which by the following hint in the Hall-Books they appear to have gained—“March 29. 1697, Recovered, on a tryall before Lord Chief Justice Holt, of Leonard Holton a Quitt rent of 23_s._ 6_d._ per annum, and arrears for 38 years to Michaelmas 1694, on his house, late Th: Toll Esq: and also a rent charge of 6_s._ 8_d._ per annum.”—In the same year they had also a suit in the court of Exchequer, with one _Vinckeson_, of which the following notice occurs in the Hall-books—“June 16. Ordered that Hubert Vinckeson be prosecuted in the court of Exchequer for the duty of Lastage of great quantities of corn and graine belonging to fforreigners and strangers to the liberties of this burgh, which have been unjustly coloured and own’d by him, contrary to his aath of ffreedome.”—It does not appear that there was any thing unjustifiable in this prosecution.

About this same period our _water-works_ appear to have been a losing concern to our corporation; which they seem to have felt so far as to have the following notice of it inserted in their books—“April 20. 1696. It is reported that the charges and disbursements of maintaining the water-rents for ten 10 years last past, as per particulars is 1427_l._ 7_s._ {869} 8_d._ the rents and profits thereof for the sametime is 1338_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._—Lost by the water account in ten years 288_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._ which divided by ten years is 28_l._ 17_s._ 4_d._ per annum.”—How this concern turned out afterwards, or how it stands at present, we have not had hitherto the means of ascertaining.

At this period which we are now reviewing the whole body of our _coal-meters_ and _head-porters_ brought themselves into most sad disgrace, by certain dishonest and fraudulent doings. The customhouse complained against them and had them all turned out at once:—but some weeks after, on profession of contrition or promise of amendment, they were again restored. Of this unpleasant affair, so disreputable and humiliating to these meters and porters, our Corporation have preserved the following memorial in their books—“July 11th. 1701; Upon Information this day made to this House by the chief officers of his Majesties Customes of this Port against the whole body of the Company of Head Porters and Metters of the Port and Burgh, that they have severally received deputations and instructions from the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners, as metters, weighers, and measurers, in pursuance of an act for granting to his Majesty severall duties upon coales and culme, have every one of them taken and received bribes, and made short and false certificates and retornes, and been guilty of other corrupt ill practices contrary to the said trust and the oath and duty of their offices of Head Porters and Metters, and to the defrauding his Majestie of the said Duties; which upon examination they have this day severally confest: it is therefore this day ordered that all and every of them be and stand discharged from the said offices of Head Porters and Metters of this burgh and port.”—Then we read as follows—“August 13. Upon the humble application and submission of divers of the corne and coale metters, head porters, this House hath reestablished them, and ordere’d that beside the accustomed oath they give security by bond with one surety in 20_l._ for the just performance, and so to continue for the future.”—This regulation is probably still in force.

About the same time our corporation appeared to claim kindred and fall passionately in love with gentility and high life, or the titled classes of the community, as contradistinguished from the unprivileged orders or swinish multitude; which is evinced by the conclusion of the following passage in the Hall-Books, on the regulation of Tolls,—“Nov. 24. 1701; Ordered that the present Tables of Petty Tolls, taken by water and at the gates, be regulated according to the alterations now made, and such as are now marked be exchanged, and that new tables thereof be made to be hung up at the gates, and delivered to the wharfinger; and that _all Noblemen_, _Knights_, _Esquires_, and _Clergymen be from henceforth exempted from all Tolls for goods bought by them_.” One can perceive in this neither justice nor charity; and it was probably the offspring of mere caprice.

At the period now under review our clergy were, seemingly, treated, or provided for by the corporation more liberally and handsomely than they are at present. In 1702 the minister and lecturer had their Stipends augmented to 100_l._ a year each; which must have been equal to 3 or 400_l._ at least, of our money. Before that time they had but 50_l._ each, as appears by the following articles in the Hall-Books—“Aug. 29, 1701; Ordered that Mr. Th: Pile be appointed minister or preacher at St. Nicholas Chaple to preach once every Sunday, and to read divine Service once every day in the week, except Sundayes, at St. Margarets Church, and he shall be allowed 50_l._ per annum.”—again—“March 18. 1701; Dr. Th: Little chosen Lecturer at St. Margarets Church, in the room of Mr. Fysh deceased, and to have 50_l._ per annum.”—again—“Nov. 20. 1702; Mr. Th: Pyle and Dr. Little’s stypends _augmented more_ 50_l._ _per annum each_, on Mr Jaggard’s decease.”—If we are not mistaken, there has not been afterwards any further augmentation for 60 or 70 years; when 50_l._ more were added to the minister or vicar: and the same has been added lately.—Being now brought to the close of William’s reign, and the accession of Anne, we shall here finish this section.