Chapter XLVIII: Section VII (4)

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

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

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

{760a} Rushworth.

{760b} Page 182.

{762a} Those sufferings, as to _loss of lives_, seem to have been inconsiderable: even during the siege we hear of but _four_ of the townsmen _killed_, and a _few wounded_. They made not many _sallies_, nor did they wait till the town was _stormed_, or the case might have been very different. We have seen no account of the loss of the _besiegers_.

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

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

{765a} His name is differently spelt.

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

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

{766} It seems by this, that the members had been used to receive their pay at the _close_ of each session, and not before.

{767} They had also, about two months before, lent the parliament 100_l._ out of the _town-stock_, as appears from the town records.

{768} The celebrated and patriotic _Andrew Marvell_, member for _Hull_, who died in 1678, is said to have been the last who received an allowance from his constituents for his parliamentary services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then it is added—

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

Then it is added in another paragraph, as before—

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

Next after this we read as follows—

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

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

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

_Received by virtue of severall
warrants from Mr. John May
maior_.—1644,
July 13 Of I. Hinderson, 00_l._ 01_s._ 00_d._
ostler, for an oath
sweareing in Mr.
mayor’s hearing
Dec. 23. Of Mihill Turner, 00. 10. 00.
alehousekeeper, for
suffering tippling in
his house
Dec. 24. Of John Say, 00. 10. 00.
alehousekeeper, levied
for the same offence
Mar. 6. Of John Pratt, dier, 00. 03. 04.
for tippleing in the
said John Saves house
Mar. 7. Of Margarett Freeman, 00. 10. 00.
alehousekeeper, for
suffering tipling in
her house
Mar. 15. Of Phillip Murrell for 00. 05. 00.
loytring in time of
church service on a
Lords Day
Mar. 16. Of Richard Porter, 00. 01. 00.
pinner, for an
apprentice boy of his
offending in the like

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

{774b} See Abstract of Town-books under 1650.

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

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

{776} Under 1646 we find as follows—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 26. Levied upon another stranger, for the same offence, 5_s._
to Brian Middleton, informer, 12_d._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{779} “_Mony collected in St. Margaret’s Church for charitable uses by breifes_, _since the feast of Easter_ 1653, _to the feast of Easter_ 1654, _by the then present Churchwardens_, _for the said yeare_, _Thomas Grinnell and Robart Greene_.

Imprimis—Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Drayton_ in
Shropsheire, for a loss sustained by fyre, and paid the 13th. of
October 1653, to Robt. Blessed of King’s Lynn 1_l._ 17_s._ 4_d._

Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Newmarkett_, in Southfolk,
for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 9th. of February, 1653,
to George Howard of the same towne, 1_l._ 9_s._ 3_d._

Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Long Sutton_, in the county
of Lincolnsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 28th.
of Febr. 1653: to Elizabeth Plunkett of the same towne 1_l._ 13_s._

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

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

Collected for the natives and distressed people of _Newe England_,
and that from house to house, within this parish, and paid unto Mr.
Joshua Greene the 20th. of November 1653, 25_l._ 13_s._

“_Moneys collected in St. Margaret’s Church for charitable uses_, _in the
year_ 1654.

Collected for the inhabitants of _Glosco_, (Glasgow) in Scotland, for
a losse sustained by fyre to the vallew of 1,000000_l._ the 23d. of
Aprill 1654, which was paid unto Mr. John Basset, then maior, the
sume of 3_l._ 10_s._ 10_d._

Collected for a Greation, (grecian) towards the redemption of those
that were prisoners in _Argeare_ (Algier): their ransome amounting to
12,000 dollers; and paid unto him 13th. Sept. 1654. 5_l._ 4_s._
6_d._

Collected (again) for the towne of _Drayton_, county of Salop, for a
losse by fyre, and paid unto Pollicarpus Tooke, the 4th. of February
1654, 2_l._ 3_s._ 1_d._

Collected by the ministers and church-wardens, from house to house,
for the poore Prodestance (protestants) in _Savoy_, the 17th. of June
1655, and paid to Mr. Tho. Greene, then maior, 47_l._ 15_s._ 9_d._

Among subsequent collections we find 10_l._ 1_s._ for the relief of the distressed protestants in _Poland_.

{783} The number, if we mistake not, is _eight_; the _recorder_, _three_ aldermen, and _four_ common-council-men. What blame is imputable to them, may not be easy to say. We are willing to suppose it may not be very much; at least, not so much as what belongs to their resident brethren, who have it in their power to strike off their names from the list of members: and though it may not be of any material consequence to the community at large if they be still continued on the list of members, or if _eight_, or even _eighteen_ more were to become absentees and retain their respective memberships; yet in point of good policy it may not be quite the thing, lest the _unprivileged_ part of the townsmen should by decrees take it into their heads, that it would be no very serious cause of alarm if the whole corporation, except the mayor, recorder, and town clerk, were to set out in a body to make the _tour of Europe_, or to perform a _voyage round the world_.

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

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

{792a} Kimber.

{792b} Ibid.

{796a} Hist. Purit. IV. 270.

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

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

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

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

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

{803} See Mackerell 253, 254.

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

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

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

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

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

{832a} 1673 according to our reckoning.

{832b} What follows is somewhat abridged occasionally.

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

{837} Of this affair _Burnet_ speaks as follows—

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

{838} See Burnet H. O. T. 2. 535.

{840} From the preceding extracts it appears that the corporation affected or pretended to have surrendered their old charters _voluntarily_, or as their own free and spontaneous act and deed: hence they speak of having done it _with one assent and content_—_freely surrendering_—as the _act and deed of the mayor and burgesses_, _&c._ Whereas it was all the effect of constraint, or imperious and unavoidable necessity. The same was the case with the monks and friers at the reformation, previously to the dissolution of the monasteries: they all solemnly declared, in their instruments of surrender, that they acted _freely_ and _without compulsion_, though the contrary was well known to have been invariably the fact. Thus it is very clear that the surrendering of the charters as well as of the convents was a scene of hypocrisy and falshood.

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

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

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

{843} The _oaths_ being _dispensed with_ seems to imply that some of them were _catholics_, or that way inclined. Their places and new honours, however, they did not long retain; for about a fortnight before the arrival of the prince of Orange they were all in their turn displaced, and the old ones were restored: only _Mr. Cyprian Anderson_ was readmitted and chosen mayor. Of this event one of our old MS. histories gives the following account—

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

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

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

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

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

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

{851a} “The right divine of kings to govern wrong.”

{851b} Laing.

{856} That is, of the populace, who on the first discovery of his flight proceeded to plunder the popish chapels and houses, but were soon restrained and obliged to desist.

{857} “A voluntary desertion and a virtual renunciation, both of the government and realm, were meant to be implied in that ambiguous expression, in order to open the succession to the next protestant heir. But the abdication of government was irreconcileable with the premises, as it was neither applicable to his abuse of power, nor to his departure from the kingdom, which was more from constraint than choice.”—Laing, as before.

{859} For a more circumstantial account see _Rapin_, and especially _Laing_, from whose excellent History of Scotland much of the preceding account if taken.

{861} The chief of whom, we presume, was the famous _Framingham_, who was then mayor. There was another great man that was also deeply concerned in this vile business, perhaps the first _Turner_, but we are not sure, for a blank is left for the name in the printed account.—Of Framingham there can be little doubt, and Turner seems the most likely to be the other, as he was mayor the next year, when the persecution was still going on. They were, no doubt, very competent to judge, what sort of _religion_ was fit to be allowed in the town: one educated at a _bakehouse_, and the other at a _pot-house_, or _tavern_.

{862} About this same time, if we are not mistaken, the informers affected to be very sorry for what they had done, and pretended great trouble of conscience and contrition, whereby they so wrought upon Marham, that they got from him a discharge from their false information, upon their giving bonds for their future good behaviour. But it was all a villanous contrivance, in order to escape out of their present danger, and be able more easily to effect his ruin; for, about a fortnight after, they came (says our account) “and actually seized his goods according to the former levy; which plainly discovered their design of agreement was but to have a safer advantage against him; and by seizing, to ruin him; and therefore it was that he was advised to _sue the Bonds_.”—See a small tract entitled _The Lynn Persecution_, printed in London in the early part of 1693.

{864} That affair appears to have been in agitation as early as 1685; whence the following note has been inserted in the town-books—“Nov. 23. 1665, Recommended a petition which was presented to this house, concerning the decay of the stocking trade in this towne, by _weaving_ of the same, to the care of Sir Simon Taylor and Sir John Turner, our members of parliament.”—It would seem by this, that the case was, even then, laid before the legislature, or meant so to be; but we know not the result.

{865} Kimber.

{869} So it is in the Extracts, but it should, no doubt, be 1627_l._

{874} This appears from a Letter sent by _Dr. Little_, then minister of this town, to the author of an Account of that storm, published soon after in a 12mo. volume: of which Letter the following is a copy—

“Sir, I had answered yours sooner, but that I was willing to get the
best information I could of the effect of the late dismal storm
amongst us. I have advised with our merchants and ship-masters, and
find that we have lost from this port seven ships, the damage
whereof, at a modest computation, amount to 3000_l._ The men that
perished in them are reckoned about twenty in number. There is
another ship missing, tho’ we are not without hopes that she is gone
northward: the value of ship and cargo about 1500_l._ The damage
sustained in the buildings of the town is computed at a 1000_l._ at
least.

I am your faithful Friend and Servant,
_Thomas Little_.”

Lyn, January 17. 1703–4.

{875} So confident was he of the firmness of the structure, that he is said to have declared, when doubts were suggested of the danger it might be exposed to from a great storm, that he should have no fear to be there in the greatest storm that could blow.

{876} Of the general tenor of that proclamation the reader may form some judgment from the following extract—

“Whereas by the late most terrible and dreadful storms of wind; with
which it has pleased almighty God to afflict the greatest part of
this our kingdom on Friday and Saturday, the 26th. and 27th. days of
November last; some of our ships of war, and many ships of our loving
subjects, have been destroyed and lost at sea, and great numbers of
our subjects serving on board the same have perished, and many houses
and other buildings of our good subjects have been either wholly
thrown down and demolished, or very much damnified and defaced, and
thereby several persons have been killed, and many stacks of corn and
hay thrown down and scattered abroad, to the great damage and
impoverishment of many others, especially the poorer sort; and great
number of timber and other trees have by the said storm been torn up
by the roots, in many parts of this our kingdom. A calamity of this
sort so dreadful and astonishing, that the like hath not been or felt
in the memory of any person living in this, our kingdom, and which
loudly calls for the deepest and most solemn humiliation of us and
our people. Therefore, out of a deep and pious sense of what we, and
our people have suffered, by the said dreadful winds and storms,
which we most humbly acknowledge to be a token of the divine
displeasure, and that it was the infinite mercy of God that we and
our people were not thereby wholly destroyed—we have resolved, and do
hereby command, that a general and public fast be observed, &c.”

{878} Of that address the following notice and copy are to be found in the Hall-books—

“Sept. 25. 1704. It is ordered that the common Seale be affixed to
the following address To the Queen’s most Excellent Majestie. May it
please your Majestie, To admitt us (amongst the great number of your
loyall subjects) with unfeigned hearts to congratulate the glorious
success of your arms in the victory obtained by your successfull
Generall John Duke of Marleborow over the French and Bavarians near
Hochstet; a defeat so entire, that hardly foreign or English history
can paralell, so seasonable that the safety of the whole empire was
the consequence of it; and upon the distant Danube, where the English
arms never triumphed before: and whilst reverence makes us approach
leisurely to your Majesties Throne, every day still produces new
trophies; the Sea as well as the Land, Affrica as well as Europe must
loudly proclaime Your Majestie is every where, invincible.—These are
blessings justly due to your Majesties Piety and Courage, who so
steddily have pursued the example of your glorious Predecessor, that
from his early years, and almost a private station was always the
chiefe opposer of the torrent of France, Popery, and Slavery, and
whose memory will always be valuable in all true English hearts; were
it for nothing else, yet for paving us the establishment of a
Protestant succession in the person of your sacred Majestie,
Notwithstanding which by the treachery of your faithless Ennemys your
Majestie upon your accession found the dreadful powers of France and
Spain united, who singly have in their turns push’d fair for the
western monarchy. This would have shaken any courage less firm than
your own, who whilst all Europe lay gasping waiting for the result of
your councell, you stretched out your powerful arme to support the
then tottering frame of its liberty, and was alone able to preserve
it, and in that ourselves. And whilst your Majestie so carefully
nurses our established church, your charity extends to the whole
Protestant interest of Europe, which must certainly appear very
naturall to your Majestie whilst your capital Enemy prides himselfe
in being the Head of the Roman Catholicks and they in him.—May Your
Majesties Subjects unite in their acknowledgements to your Majestie
that the last subterfuge of our conquered Ennemys (our Divisions) may
not prevail amongst us; but that whilst our Armys are so bravely
commanded, our Treasury so frugally expended, our Laws so equally
administered—and above all, The whole by your Majesties providentiall
care so wisely superintended, Our Religion and Liberty may under your
most auspicious government be immovably secured to us and to our
Posterity.”

Such was this notable specimen of the wisdom and loyalty, the genius and eloquence of our honoured ancestors.

{880a} This teems to bespeak a consciousness that all was not right, and that some of their exactions were unjust and oppressive.

{880b} It appears that they were now ready to relinquish, if hard pressed, all the exactions complained of, except the two particulars last specified; which certainly does not look well.

{883} Of this memorable address we have found the following copy extracted from the Hall-books; which will give the reader an opportunity to form his own opinion of its merits or character.

“June 9. 1706—The Humble Address of the mayor, recorder, aldermen,
and common-councell of your Majesties ancient Burgh of King’s
Lynn.—May it please your Majestie—Having ever since our happy
revolution (which restored our English Constitution) undergone the
various events of a long war with the utmost cheerfullness and
alacrity, our zeal can never slacken (but increase) under your
Majesties reign of wonders, who is raised by Providence to extricate
us out of the greatest difficulties, and to putt a hooke into the
nostrills of that great Leviathan who hath so long sported himself
upon our waters.—It is your Majesties genius that inspires, ’tis your
choice that enables your brave generall the Duke of Marleborow to
make our streets thus often resound with the joyfull noise of
victorys. These strokes are master-pieces not to be found in the
Louvre at Versailles. Whilst with one blow he reduces the
treacherous Bavarian and makes him fly his own country; with the
other he drives him out of his French government too, effectually
confirming the just Ban of the Empire, (where your generall hath so
well deserved the prime dignity) and restores the flourishing
Provinces of Brabant and Spanish Flanders to its rightfull Prince.
The haughty Spaniard will hereby see if they would preserve their
unwieldy monarchy entire, it is your majesties protection they must
have recourse to. But no lest wonderfull are all the rest of the
steps of your Majesties government upon the main continent (even the
farthest parts of Spain nearest France) wee see the large provinces
of Catalonia and Valentia (with ane amasing success reduc’d to their
lawful sovereigne), where our brave Englis’h Peterborough’s zeale,
for the honour of his Prince and Country hath rivalled even the
longest experience. And as it is as difficult to preserve as gaine,
how have wee seen half a hundred capitall ships reach the length of
the distant Barcelona before the time they almost used to put to sea.
At their approach Lewis’s blood chills in the veins of Anjou and
Tholouse. They fly from before us. Wee hope (the former) to
increase the numbers of the French king’s pretended and abdicated
Princes, who crye to him for succour (tho’ in vain) which might
convince Lewis (as Alexander’s wound did him) that notwithstanding
the statues and Panegyricks,) he is not yet arrived at
immortality.—But our prospects are still more comfortable att home,
wee find an universal calme amongst us, and as one effect of it the
nationall credit advanced to a degree even beyond what the most
peaceable times could boast off, which is the best evidence in the
Body Politick as the face is of health in the body naturall. Wee are
thankfully convinced your Majestie is the best Protector, as well as
the greatest Ornament and Benefactor of our established Church, and
are best Judge of what is for its advantage: and if any party
ffaction (out of a private ambition) should endeavour to insinuate
any groundless ffears, or erect as any other guarautees (that your
Majesties daily actions) as wee are satisfied it is, endeavouring to
allieniate and transfer from your Majestie the affection of your
subjects and their just depending on your Person, so it is to robb us
of our peace and quiett.—That your Majestie may be always fear’d and
honor’d abroad and reverenc’d at home, as it shall be always (in our
low sphere) our utmost wishes and endeavours, so may he be deemed
unworthy of the name of ane Englishman that doth not heartily say
Amen.”

{885} What occasioned the decay and demolition of our water-mills seems to have been the want of a sufficient supply of water to work them, owing, perhaps, partly, if not chiefly to the neglect of keeping the different water-courses in due repair, and especially those connected with the Middleton river. The following articles from the Hall-books will throw some light on this subject—“August 29. 1706; ordered the cutting and opening a trench in the common ditch from Kettlewell to a sluce at Gannock gate in order to carry the water from thence to the same water-mills.” Again—“Nov. 8. It is ordered that it be referred to a Committee to state the case touching the flow and reflow of the salt waters in Middleton river for the service of the corn water-mills, and the benefite of continuing or deserting those priviledges to this corporation, and to inform themselves now far this corporation will be obliged, in case of deserting that river to the ditching or scouring the same or any or what part thereof.”—Again—Dec. 20. The committees report is,—

1. We find that the flow and reflow of the salt-waters for the
service of the corn-water-mills is an antient right and priviledge
enjoyed time out of mind by this corporation, under a fee farme rent
of 20_s._ payable to the lords of the manor of Gaywood, heretofore
the bishop, prior, and convent of Norwich—2. That whilst the said
corn-mills did bear a considerable rent the charges of ditching and
scouring the rivers and drains in which these waters had their
course, were easy and supportable, and the said mills were of great
service and benefits to this corporation—3. That the rents and
profits of the same mills of late years are much reduced and
lessened, and the rivers and drains so silted and grown up that the
charges of ditching and scouring those rivers, will be greater than
the future rents and profits thereof will compensate. We are
therefore of opinion that it will be of less disadvantage to this
town to disanul the said flow and reflow of the salt waters than to
continue the same under the present great and unavoidable charges of
opening the said rivers; and that the use of the fresh waters
constantly descending in these rivers not being obstructed by the
salts, will be of great advantage to the country adjacent draining by
these rivers, and will also in a great measure be serviceable to the
working the said mills and preserving the said drains and
outfalls.—4. That in case the said flow and reflow be deserted, wee
are of opinion that the said rivers and drains ought to be ditched
and scoured at the equal charge of all the lands draining thereby
according to the ancient laws and customs of sewers.—Signed by Ch.
Turner Esq. mayor, Hen. Framingham, &c. &c.

{887} It is not said who presented this address. Perhaps it might be the noted Framingham, who was then high sheriff of the county, as well as one of our leading aldermen. Perhaps too, it might be on this occasion that her majesty called him her _cousin_, which compliment is said to have so highly gratified his vanity, that he used to boast of it ever after, in his ostentatious way, to the no small divertisement of his companions and acquaintance.

{888a} The circumstance is thus stated in the MS.—“1708—Michael Hamond and his Sister, both children—one seven and the other eleven, were hanged for felony on the gallows out of South Gates.” What the particular crime was does not appear.

{888b} This affair is thus stated in our book of extracts—

“June 27. 1709. We having taken several views of the condition of
this Harbor and the banks, walls, and defences thereof, the dolphins
and stakes antiently erected for the security and safe mooring of
ships, and of the dangers of undermining the foundations of the
houses and buildings next the Haven there: It appears to us that in
the space of a few years last past, by the rapid and violent descents
of the waters in the Ebb Tides, the course of the chanell is much
altered and diverted and the deep run brought under the said Dolphins
and stakes, and so near the said banks, walls, and defences, and the
danger of undermining the said foundation daily more increasing, that
the charges of preserving the said Harbour are become insupportable.
Wee are [therefore] of opinion that it is absolutely necessary that
some speedy care be taken for erecting one or more large Jettys of
timber and stone in fitt places for reducing the chanell to its
usuall course, and that Engineers experienced to such works, be
consulted, and endeavours considered for obtaining ane act of
parliament for some reasonable tax or assessment upon tunnage for the
enabling the performance of such works, and that the vast charges and
expences already laid out on this behalf be inspected and
computed.—Signed _Hon. Chennery_ mayor, _Robt. Auborne_, _Ed. Rolfe_,
_John Berney_, _Dan: Scarlett_, _Saml. Browne_.”

Afterwards, under the date of Aug. 29, the same year, it is added, “Capt. Hawley is desired to come down to view the Harbor.” Then it immediately follows—“Referr’d to a Comittee Lord Townshend’s Letter respecting the employing of poor _Paletines_ come over, and to consider how many.”—It would seem by this, that they were to be employed in improving the harbour, erecting jetties, repairing the sea-banks, &c.

{891} Of that benefaction Mackerell says nothing; but there is some account of it in the Town-books, under April 1. 1713, and in the Monthly Magazine for July 1810, page 568.

{894} See Coxe’s mem. of Walpole, vol. I.

{897} On the 26th. of the preceding January, it was decreed in the Hall, that no person under 60 years old should be elected, or admitted into Gaywood Hospital. The same rule, we presume, has been ever since strictly observed.

{901a} Here it may be proper just to observe, that the author rather thinks he was mistaken at page 889, in supposing that Browne had been _complimented_ with the _freedom_ of this town. He has since examined the book which contains a list of the names of all our freemen, and cannot find the doctor’s name there. This is not to be wondered at, considering the bad terms on which he lived with the corporation.