*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 62372 ***

Transcribed from the 1812 W. G. Whittingham edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                          [Picture: Book cover]

[Picture: East View of Lynn Regis, pub. May 1, 1812 by W. G. Whittingham,
               Lynn.  Draw J. Sillett, engraved J. Hassell]





                                   THE
                                 HISTORY
                                    OF
                                  LYNN,


  _Civil_, _Ecclesiastical_, _Political_, _Commercial_, _Biographical_,
                       _Municipal_, _and Military_,

                                   FROM
                THE EARLIEST ACCOUNTS TO THE PRESENT TIME,
                               INTERSPERSED
   With occasional remarks on such national occurrences as may serve to
     elucidate the real state of the town, or the manners, character,
          and condition of the inhabitants at different periods.

                           TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
                      A COPIOUS INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT
                                  OF ITS
     _Situation_, _Harbour_, _Rivers_, _Inland Trade and Navigation_,
                      _the Ancient and Modern State_
                                    OF
                    Marshland, Wisbeach, and the Fens,
                                   AND
     Whatever is most remarkable, memorable, or interesting, in other
                      parts of the adjacent country.

                             IN TWO VOLUMES.
                      _BY WILLIAM RICHARDS_, _M.A._

    _Honorary member of the Pennsylvania Society_, _for promoting the
                                Abolition_
     _of Slavery_, _and the relief of free Negroes unlawfully held in
                                bondage_.

                                * * * * *

                                 VOL. II.

                                * * * * *

                                  LYNN:
                      PRINTED BY W. G. WHITTINGHAM,
             AND SOLD BY R. BALDWIN; PATERNOSTER ROW; LONDON.

                                * * * * *

                                  1812.

                                * * * * *




PART IV.
FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE PRESENT TIME.


CHAP. I.


Miscellaneous remarks on the Reformation—its rise and progress on the
continent—introduction into this island, and effects upon this town.

The reformation formed a new era in the history of the world, and was one
of those mighty revolutionary events which have a most extensive and
lasting effect on the affairs and destinies of mankind.  But men have
been ever since greatly divided in their ideas and judgments concerning
it.  While some have hailed it as a most happy, admirable, and glorious
event, fraught with heaven’s choicest blessings, it has been deemed by
others, and even by a large majority of the inhabitants of christendom,
as an exceedingly unfortunate, pernicious, and execrable occurrence,
which has produced all manner of mischief, and, like the opening of
Pandora’s box, filled the world with calamities and miseries innumerable.
The learned and the wise, as well as the illiterate and fly foolish, have
been found among each of these opposite and contending parties: their
respective opinions and allegations must therefore be entitled to a
serious and candid hearing.  But it is not intended here to go deeply or
largely into this disputed subject: nor would it well accord with the
plan or design of this publication.  Some cursory hints, however, on a
few of the most prominent facts will not, it is presumed, be either
impertinent or uninstructive.


SECTION I.


_Statement of different and opposite opinions respecting the
reformation—with brief remarks_.

The information, like the French revolution, seems to have been too much
admired by its friends, and too much vilified by its enemies.  The
former, for the most part, perceive nothing in it but what is praise
worthy and divine, and the latter nothing but what is detestable and
devilish.  The truth, probably, lies somewhere about midway between these
two extremes, as is usual in most of the disputes that divide and agitate
the world.  The reformation had certainly some good points in it, as well
as some very bad ones, that can never be too much reprobated and
detested.  Had they been all bad, its friends would have defended them,
for they have actually and unblushingly defended its very worst points;
{625a} and had they been all good, its enemies, on the other hand, would
not fail to condemn them, for they have really done so with its very best
parts, whose intrinsic or essential goodness and beneficial tendency are
most obvious and demonstrable. {625b}

The friends of the reformation consider the original and chief actors in
that great revolutionary work as excellent men, actuated by a right
apostolical and christian spirit, with a view to the restoration of
primitive christianity, and the promotion of the best interests of
mankind.  Their opponents, on the contrary, consider them in a very
different light, and hold them up as persons of a disreputable character,
who were actuated by very unworthy and base motives, from whose thoughts
nothing could be further than the restoration of genuine christianity, or
the promoting of real benevolence, philanthropy, or human happiness.  It
will not be safe to give implicit credit to either of these
representations.  There were, certainly, some good men concerned in the
reformation, and there were also some very bad men concerned in it, whose
misdeeds ought never to be palliated; and these were probably the most
numerous and the most powerful, or the work, surely, would have been more
worthy of our praise and admiration.

The reformation, in the judgment of its admirers, was eminently
calculated to promote the cause of truth and virtue, and inculcate the
practice of piety, morality, and all manner of good works.  All this,
however, is flatly contradicted by the champions of the opposite cause,
who positively affirm that the doctrines of the reformers were, in the
very nature of them, of an evil, immoral and impious tendency:—alluding
to the grand Lutheran tenet of _justification_ by faith _without works_,
{626a} and to the famous Calvinian notion of predestination, as extending
to all the deeds of men, bad and good, or that all human actions, even
the very worst, originate in the _Divine decrees_, or _will of God_.
{626b}  This opinion of the evil tendency of the reformation, or of the
reformed doctrine, they represent as further corroborated and established
by undeniable facts, and authentic historical evidence; or in other
words, by its immediate effects, or the very first fruits it produced
wherever it did prevail.

Those who advocate the cause of the reformers say that their labours were
abundantly fruitful of good works, and that their doctrine produced the
happiest effects wherever it was received.  But their opponents flatly
deny it, and positively assert that the very reverse was actually the
case: and they support their assertion, not only by referring to those
long and bloody wars which resulted from the reformation, but also to the
express testimony of credible witnesses, who affirm, that vice and
immorality greatly increased wherever protestantism became predominant.
Nor is it a little remarkable that these same witnesses are, for the most
part, some of the very chief reformers; so that their evidence comes with
a force that cannot well be resisted.  Some of them belonged to the
continent, and others to this kingdom; but we shall in this place bring
forward only the former, reserving the latter till we come to exhibit the
rise and progress of the reformation in this country.

We shall begin with LUTHER, whose testimony on this occasion is very
strong and remarkable.—“The world (says he) grows worse and worse.  It is
plain that men are much more covetous, malicious, and resentful, much
more unruly, shameless, and full of vice, than they were in the time of
popery.” {628a}  “Formerly, when we were suduced by the pope, men
willingly followed good works, but now all their study is to get every
thing to themselves by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury.” {628b}
“It is a wonderful thing, and full of scandal, that from the time that
the pure doctrine was first called to light, the world should daily grow
worse and worse.” {628c}—The testimony of BUCER, another celebrated
reformer, is to the same effect.  “The greater part of the people” (says
he) “seem only to have embraced the gospel, in order to shake off the
yoke of discipline, and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c., which
lay upon them in the time of popery; and to live at their pleasure,
enjoying their lust and lawless appetites without controul.  They
therefore lend a willing ear to the doctrine that we are _justified by
faith alone_ and _not by good works_, having no relish for them.”—{628d}
MUSCULUS also, another eminent reformer, is said to have borne much the
same testimony. {628e}

CALVIN’S evidence in this case seems also to be equally forcible and
decisive: “Of so many thousands (says he) seemingly eager in embracing
the gospel, how few have since amended their lives?  Nay, to what else
does the greater part pretend, except by shaking off the heavy yoke of
superstition to launch out more freely into every kind of
lasciviousness?” {629a}  Thus said Calvin.  When the character of the
reformation is duly and thoroughly considered, and especially that of
Calvin’s own doctrine, it is no great wonder that such effects should
follow.  It would have been much more wonderful if they had not followed;
at least, when we further consider the abominable conduct, the vile and
bloody deeds that were sanctioned by the same reformer’s own example.
Had he been a different sort of man, these unsightly fruits of his
labours might have led him to doubt the soundness of his faith, or
suspect that his creed did not altogether tally with the doctrine that is
according to godliness.  But from him it could not be expected.

Another testimony of no small weight in this case, and which must not be
here omitted, is that of the celebrated ERASMUS, one of the greatest
luminaries and most eminent characters of that age, who has been reckoned
among the principal authors of the reformation as well as restorers of
literature.  Let us listen then to his evidence on this subject: “What an
_evangelical_ generation is this?  Nothing was ever seen more licentious
and more seditious.  Nothing is less _evangelical_ than these pretended
_gospellers_. {629b}  Take notice of this _evangelical_ people, and shew
me an individual amongst them all who from being a drunkard has become
sober, from being a libertine has become chaste.  I, on the other hand,
can shew you many who have become worse by the change.  Those whom I once
knew to have been chaste, sincere, and without fraud, I found, after they
had embraced this sect, to be licentious in their conversation, gamblers,
neglectful of prayer, passionate, vain, as spiteful as serpents, and lost
to the feelings of human nature.  I speak from experience.” {630}

Upon the whole, it seems impossible to evade the force of this evidence,
or deny that vice and immorality increased where protestantism prevailed,
and, consequently, that there must have been some radical and essential
defect in that system from the very first: so that it must be the very
height of folly, absurdity, and arrogance in our present pretended
evangelical demagogues to attempt to hold it up to the people as a
standard of unadulterated truth and model of christian perfection.  It is
remarkable enough that these good people, almost to a man, are very loud
in their reprobation of the French revolution, although it might easily
be proved that that same revolution was nearly, if not quite as
honourable in its origin, and respectable in its progress as that which
was excited and conducted by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and their
coadjutors, and which they seem so much to admire, and so ready to
commend and justify.  While reprobating the Gallic revolution on account
of the licentiousness and crimes it produced, they are not aware how much
the protestant revolution is liable to the same imputation.


SECTION II.


_The former subject continued_, _with occasional and brief remarks_.

There does not seem on any point a greater difference of opinion between
the admirers of the reformation and their opponents than that which
relates to the real character of the reformers.  Volumes have been
written on both sides of the question: one party extolling them to the
skies, as if they had been all perfect beings or angels of light, and the
other degrading them to the lowest point, as if they had been no better
than so many demons.  Too much, no doubt, has been said both for and
against them.  We must not believe them to be quite so bad as some
catholic writers have represented them; nor yet, on the other hand,
altogether so good and perfect as they have been described by the
generality of our protestant authors.  What is unfounded on either side
we wish to explode; but some apparently well established facts relating
to the reformers, and not generally known among protestants, ought not
here to be passed over unnoticed, as they are well calculated to correct
the reader’s ideas, both as to the reformers and the reformation.

As to Luther, it seems to be the common opinion among protestants that he
was convinced of the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome, and,
of course, decidedly hostile to them before the appearance of _Tetzel_
with his indulgences.  But this opinion appears to be untenable.  It is
more likely that he had thought nothing about the said errors and
corruptions before the arrival of that memorable vender of pardons; and
that either wholly out of detestation of his extravagant and shameless
pretensions, or partly also out of spite to the Dominicans, to which
order he belonged, he then ventured to oppose that scandalous traffick,
without any direct intention to declare against any others of the papal
abominations, towards which it does not seem that he had yet begun to
conceive any aversion.

Accordingly, he appeared for some years after, to have no mighty
objection to any thing in the popish religion but the _abuse_ of the
traffick of indulgences; and even on that point he actually consented to
observe in future a profound silence, provided the same condition were
imposed on his adversaries.  Nay he went still further, and proposed to
write a humble and submissive _Letter to the Pope_, acknowledging that he
had carried his zeal and animosity too far: and such a Letter he actually
did write.  He even consented to publish a _circular Letter_, exhorting
all his disciples and followers to reverence and obey all the dictates of
the Roman church.  He declared that his only intention, in the writings
which he had composed was to brand with infamy those emissaries who
abused its authority, and employed its protection as a mask to cover
their abominable and impious frauds. {632}

Such was the hostility to the pope and his cause, and such the anxiety
for religious reformation which Luther manifested for some years after he
had assumed the character of a reformer, or rather after the commencement
of his quarrel with Tetzel and the Dominicans.  Had _Leo_ X. been wise
and politic enough to accept his proffered submission, about the time of
the conferences with _Miltitz_, he would, to all appearance, immediately
and gladly have returned into the bosom of holy church, and, most
probably, never have given his holiness or the world any further trouble
on the score of religious abuses and corruptions.

The haughty pontiff, however, instead of embracing the golden
opportunity, and receiving readily and kindly his rebellious, but now
repentant son, had recourse to the very opposite mode of proceeding.  He
fulminated his anathemas against him, had him solemnly excommunicated,
declared an enemy to the church, and even to the holy Roman empire.
Luther having now no alternative, was obliged to make virtue of
necessity; and it is easy to see that he was actually forced to take that
course which he afterwards pursued, and in the pursuit of which he
displayed such wonderful address, and such extraordinary talents as have
really immortalized his name.  But as to real virtue, it seems hard to
see or say how much of that there was in his opposition to the pope and
church of Rome, except what is implied in the law of selfpreservation.
_Cromwell_ too, had that law on his side, to the full as much, perhaps,
as Luther, even while engaged in what has been deemed the most criminal
parts of his conduct, the dethronement of the king and attainment of the
supreme power.  But which of these two men was the most virtuous or most
vicious, was the better or worse man, is a point that will not be
presumed or attempted to be made here a subject of investigation.  They
certainly had, both of them, great talents and great defects.

Lutheran and other protestant writers have appeared not a little anxious
to have Luther acquitted from the imputation of having opposed Tetzel out
of spite to the Dominicans, or from resentment for the preference shewn
them in the distribution or traffick of indulgences.  We pretend not to
say that that was the _sole_ cause of his opposition; but that it might
be _partly_ the cause seems not at all improbable from what he himself
has owned on other occasions.  Thus he acknowledges that he had tried to
persuade himself of there being no real presence of Christ in the
sacrament, “on purpose _to spite the pope_, but that the words of
scripture were too plain in favour of it.”  Likewise, in his letter to
the Vaudois, he says, “I have hitherto thought it of small consequence
whether the bread remains in the sacrament or not, but now, _to spite the
papists_, I am determined to believe that it does remain.”  Thus also,
writing against those who had presumed to alter the public service
without his authority, he says, “I knew very well that the elevation of
the sacrament was idolatrous, but 1 retained it _out of pure spite to
that devil Carlostadius_.” {634}  A very glaring and most odious trait in
Luther’s character was the ungentlemanly and foul language in which he
used to address his opponents, than which nothing could be more
unbecoming in one who pretended to be engaged in, or anxious for the
reformation of mankind, and the revival or restoration of genuine and
primitive christianity.  We have just now seen in what style he could
speak of his quondam friend Carlostadius: “that _devil_ Carlostadius:”
and it seems he could be sometimes equally uncivil and foulmouthed when
he had occasion to speak of _Zuinglius_ and the rest of that party, who
did not receive his favourite doctrine of consubstantiation, or the real
presence; for whom he had no mercy, but consigned them all to everlasting
perdition; just as his modern disciples, our present _evangelicals_, do
to the poor Arians and Socinians.

As to the _papists_, it was not to be expected that he should be more
civil or polite to them than to the Zuinglians.  Accordingly, we are told
that “the usual flowers of his speech, when addressing the pope and other
catholic prelates, were: villain, thief, traitor, apostle of the devil,
bishop of sodomites: and that the extent of his charity to them was to
wish that their bowels were torn out, that they were cast into the
Mediterranean sea or into the flames, and that they were hurried away to
the devil.  His treatment of the king of England, Henry VIII, with whom
he had at one time a theological controversy, (though afterwards they
grew into a better understanding with each other,) was not more
respectful than his treatment of the pope.  Luther makes no difficulty to
call his royal antagonist, a Thomistical pig, an ass, a jakes, a
dunghill, the spawn of an adder, a basilisk, a lying buffoon disguised in
a king’s robe, a mad fool with a frothy mouth and a whorish face.  He
even addresses him as follows: You lie, you stupid and sacrilegious
king.” {636a}

Another very unamiable and disgustful trait in Luther’s character was his
assuming an extraordinary and apostolic dignity and authority, under the
name or title of _Ecclesiastes_: “Martin Luther _Ecclesiastes_ of
Wittemberg.”—“It is not fitting, (said he,) that I should be without a
_title_, having received the work of the ministry, not from man, or by
man, but by the gift of God, and the revelation of Jesus Christ.” {636b}
This was evidently putting himself upon a level, at least, with Peter and
Paul, and the rest of the apostles, and claiming from professing
christians the deference or submission due to them.  Accordingly, “he
plainly proclaims to the whole body of protestants, in case they presume
to consult together and determine about their common belief, that he will
return back to the ancient church, and revoke every word he had ever
written or taught against it; telling them that even in acting right,
when they acted without his authority, they were plunging themselves into
the jaws of hell.” {636c}

It is not a little remarkable that this reformer pretended to have some
extraordinary intercourse, not only with the Deity, but also with
_Satan_.  Accordingly, he has published to the world, not only that he
held frequent communications with the devil, but also that he learned the
most material part of the reformation, namely, the abolition of the mass
from him.  In his treatise on that subject there is an account of Satan’s
appearing to him by night, and of a long dialogue that passed between
them, in which Luther defends the mass, and the devil argues against it.
The conclusion is that this new apostle yields to the motives suggested
by his internal antagonist, and adopts the important reform which he
proposes.  We are also informed, that Luther in one of his Sermons,
according to _Cochleus_, affirmed that he had “eat more than a bushel of
salt with Satan;” and that in his Colloquies he describes himself as
constantly haunted by the devil, who, he says, “sleeps nearer to me than
my wife Catherine.” {637}

Luther bears testimony to the unfavourable effects of the reformed
religion, not only upon his followers, (as we have seen before) but also
upon _himself_.  He says that whilst he continued a catholic monk he
observed chastity, obedience and poverty; and that being free from
worldly cares be gave himself up to fasting, watching, and prayer:
whereas, after he commenced reformer, he describes himself as raging with
the most violent concupiscence, to satisfy which he broke through his
solemn vow of continency, in direct opposition to his former doctrine, by
marrying a religious woman, who was under the same obligation.  He then
proceeded to teach what most people deem shameful and licentious lessons,
such as the permission, in certain cases, of concubinage and polygamy,
and that pestilential doctrine, which is the utter destruction of all
morality, that there is no freedom in human actions—and that when the
scripture commands good works, “we are to understand it to forbid them,
because we cannot do them; that a baptized person cannot lose his soul,
whatever sins he commit, provided he believe, inasmuch as no sin can damn
except infidelity.” {638}


SECTION III.


_Further remarks on the reformers and reformation—tenaciously adhered
to_, _and retained the very worst part of popery_, _its intolerant_,
_persecuting_, _and bloody spirit—the very first thing whose reformation
or expulsion they ought to have attempted—its omission rendered their
whole undertaking illfavored_, _preposterous_, _and ineffectual_.

Defective in many parts as Luther’s character really was, he appears to
have been, nevertheless, one of the best among the original and leading
reformers.  There seemed to be a frankness or unreservedness about him
that was somewhat pleasing, and which it is not easy to discover in many
of his coadjutors.  He was also apparently not so bloodyminded as some of
them were, at whose head, it is presumed, we may venture to place the
apostle of Geneva, _Calvin_.  This man (as is evinced by the tragical
case of _Servetus_,) when his favourite dogmas were opposed, and his
wisdom, learning, and infallibility set at naught, nothing would satisfy
but the _obstruction_ of his opponent: but Luther, (as appears from the
affair of Carlostadius,) would be pretty well satisfied with the
_banishment_ only of those who happened so to offend him.  The spirit of
Luther, however, though less vindictive and diabolical than that of
Calvin, was yet very dissimilar to that of Jesus Christ, whose followers
they both professed themselves to be.

It seems to have been then the case, that those reformers who had gone
the furthest from the church of Rome in _doctrine_, such as Calvin and
the Swiss divines, who denied the real presence, were yet the nighest to
that church in _spirit_: for they seemed more addicted to the practice of
consigning to destruction those whom they deemed heretics than the
Lutherans, though the latter did not depart near so far as the former
from the grand popish doctrine of _transubstantiation_.  Odd as this may
be considered, it appears to be a fact; though to account for it may,
perhaps, be attended with considerable difficulty.  It cannot however, be
supposed, that the denial of the real presence could have any tendency to
make people more bloodthirsty, vindictive, or intolerant.

The reformers, in retaining the bigotry and intolerance, or the _spirit_
of popery, retained in fact its very worst part, and what may be called
its marrow and substance; which the world had most need to get rid of.
All therefore that they did, or could do, in such a case, was only like
giving a new edition, or an abridgment of an old and bad work, which
still contained the essence of the former, and must, of course, have the
same defective and evil tendency.  They appeared like people undertaking
the cure of a demoniac without casting out the demon, or pretending that
the evil or scrophula may be healed and eradicated by the royal touch.
In short, they began the work at the wrong end, and never meddled with
that part at which they ought to have begun.

Their first work ought to have been to exhibit to the religious world the
meekness and gentleness of Christ, and endeavour to bring those who
professed to be his servants back to the spirit of his religion.  Had
they done so, and succeeded, their work would have beep more than half
done.  The rest would have followed of course, or, at least, with little
comparative difficulty.  For when men have once imbibed the spirit of the
New Testament, it will not be very hard to persuade them to renounce such
doctrines or practices as are not enjoined or countenanced in that sacred
volume: and if any errors or misconceptions happen still to remain, they
will become in a great measure harmless, through the influence of that
divine spirit by which they are now led and governed.

The reformers in foisting into their system the impious and horrid
principle of intolerance and persecution, gave it a most monstrous and
shocking aspect, even more so than that of the centaurs, or minotaurs of
ancient fable; for it was like joining God with the devil, or Christ with
Belial.  But nothing better, perhaps, could be expected from men who knew
so little of the temper which christianity produces; and who never
discerned the difference between the wisdom that is from above and that
which is from beneath; or considered that Jesus Christ came not to
destroy men’s lives, but to save them.  For men who knew so little of the
genius of christianity to take it upon them, as they did, to lord it over
the faith of professing christians, was certainly a most gross and
iniquitous piece of presumption.

The power which the reformers acquired was very great and formidable, and
the authority which they sometimes assumed and exercised was not a little
remarkable and extraordinary, as appears not only from the permission of
concubinage, &c. already mentioned, but also from the _Dispensation_
granted by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and five others, to the prince of
Hesse Cassel to have two wives at a time, and which was afterwards
published by a descendant of that prince.  This was certainly taking a
great deal upon them, and placing themselves, not indeed upon a level
with the apostles, as was before observed, but much above them, even with
the pope himself.  Yet they seemed very angry with his holiness, calling
him antichrist, and many other bad names.  They appeared very desirous to
pull him down, but had no manner of objection to do his work, or act the
pope themselves when it suited them, and that was not unfrequently.

It is curious enough to hear these men inveigh against the intolerant and
persecuting spirit of the church of Rome, at the very time when they
themselves were manifesting the selfsame spirit, and pursuing the same
tyrannical and murderous course which they so much condemned in the
papists.  In our own country, John Fox, the martyrologist, was employed
in writing huge folios to describe the horrors of popish persecution,
while his own protestant sovereign and her bishops and clergy were
persecuting the poor puritans with unfeeling and relentless rigour.
Protestants can see the hatefulness of persecution in the papists, but
very often are quite blind to it in themselves, or those of their own
party. {642}  They can discern what is bad in their opponents, but
overlook what is equally so in themselves.

Christianity, in its first aspect and fundamental principles, is a
religion of peace and good will towards men, which forbids any to
domineer over their brethren, or exercise authority over their
consciences, and requires, in all things whatsoever, to do to others as
we would they should do to us.  But the reformers overlooked all this,
and discovered either an entire ignorance of, or a fixed aversion to
these godlike principles.  In either case they must have been wretchedly
qualified to reform and christianize the world, or form a religion worthy
the reception of mankind.  A religion, however, they would and did form,
and never rested till they got it established by the civil power, and
enforced by penal sanctions; and this rendered its native intolerance
doubly pernicious and detestable.

“No religion” (says an excellent writer) “can be established without
penal sanctions, and all penal sanctions in cases of religion are
persecutions.  Before a man can persecute he must renounce the generous
tolerant dispositions of a christian.  No religion can be established
without human creeds; and subscription to all human creeds implies two
dispositions contrary to true religion, and both expressly forbidden by
the author of it.  These two dispositions are, love of dominion over
conscience in the imposer, and an abject preference of slavery in the
subscriber.  The first usurps the rights of Christ; the last swears
allegiance to a pretender.  The first domineers, and gives laws like a
tyrant; the last truckles like a vassal.  The first assumes a dominion
incompatible with his frailty, impossible even to his dignity, yea even
denied to the dignity of angels; the last yields a low submission,
inconsistent with his own dignity, and ruinous to that very religion,
which he pretends by this mean to support.” {644}

It is very remarkable, and no less true and disgusting, that
protestantism was ushered into the world in the very spirit of the
religion it strove to supplant.  Yet its authors expected to be thought
commissioned by heaven to do what they did, and clearly entitled to the
gratitude and reverence of mankind, as well as their ready submission to
their dictates and authority.  But to one who has carefully examined the
New Testament, they appear so very different from the first disseminators
or propagators of christianity, that they can hardly be supposed to
belong to the same cause or family.  When _Luther_ is seen _banishing_
conscientious people who differed from him, and _Calvin_, and the Swiss
reformers, _burning_ or _hanging_ them, and the French protestants, or
Calvinists of France solemnly soliciting their popish sovereign to
inflict severe punishment on those whom they were pleased to deem
heretics: {645}—when one recollects these acts, and that they were all
done in the name of the Lord, one is ready to sicken at the thought of
the pretensions of the actors, to reform the world and restore
christianity to its original state.  Nor is it less disgusting to hear
our flaming advocates for modern orthodoxy extolling these men, as models
of christian sanctity, and unexceptionable or safe guides to pure,
undefiled, and evangelical religion.


SECTION IV.


_Brief account of the rise and progress of the reformation in this
kingdom_.

No sooner had the reformation begun to gain ground and spread on the
continent than its effects began to be felt in this country.  The court,
or government was at first so far from being disposed to countenance it,
that it seemed, on the contrary, quite determined to oppose and crush it.
The sovereign himself appeared exceedingly hostile to it: which, from his
known character, must have rendered the prospect of its admission and
success here very dark and hopeless.  So inimical was his majesty then to
the cause of the reformers and so hearty in that of their opponents, that
he actually took up his pen and wrote a book against Luther; for which
important performance and acceptable service the pope thought proper to
reward him, by conferring on him the dignified title of _Defender of the
Faith_; a title which all his _protestant_ successors have tenaciously,
if not proudly retained to this day.  This was the book which Luther
answered in the rude and uncourtly manner before described. {646}

Our royal polemic did not long continue to be that fond and dutiful son
of his holy father at Rome of which he had at first exhibited so fair and
hopeful a promise.  His Holiness not readily favouring his inclination,
or gratifying his wish to be divorced from his first wife and marry
another Lady, whom he liked much better, he disdainfully threw off that
paternal yoke, renounced his connection with Rome, and became himself a
great and violent reformer; so as to deserve to be placed in the very
first rank among his contemporaries of that denomination.  A mighty
revolution ensued throughout his dominions: and though we cannot boast of
the purity of the source whence it sprung, or of its being distinguished,
(at least in the outset,) by much, if any, real virtue; yet it proved
eventually of no small advantage and benefit to these nations: and Henry
ought to be commemorated as one of the chief and most meritorious of all
our royal benefactors.

One of the chief objects of Henry’s reformation, like that of Lather,
seems to have been to _spite the pope_.  He had also in view, no doubt,
the gratification of his ambition and caprice, which in a mind like his
must have been very powerful springs of action.  Nor did he miss his
aims: he fairly expelled the pope, obtained full scope for his caprice,
boundless as it was, and actually acquired far more power than ever, for
he now became a complete and uncontrouled despot in temporal, and a pope
in spiritual affairs.  The two other branches of the legislature, from
whom alone any effectual or legal opposition could have arisen, were so
far from daring or attempting to check his soaring career, or cross his
capricious humour, that they readily and obsequiously concurred in
constituting him supreme head both of church and state.

Having reached the utmost point of elevation, or pinnacle of power, he
set about reforming the religion, and rectifying the faith of his
subjects, after the example of his brother-reformers on the continent;
and a most curious, grotesque, and strange piece of work he certainly
made of it.  Yet it is supposed to be the true foundation or groundwork
of our present national establishment, and that Henry himself was the
father, or first patriarch of the English protestant Hierarchy.  Nor has
our established church any just ground or reason, apparently, to disown
him in that character, for he was perhaps as holy and good a soul as most
of her succeeding patriarchs.  But this point we pretend not to
determine.

King Henry made his own faith or creed the standard or model for all his
subjects, male and female, young and old, learned and unlearned.  It was
at the utmost peril of any of his subjects if their religion did not
exactly tally with his; at least, if he happened to find it out.  If
shorter or narrower than his, it was at the peril of their lives; and the
same again if it proved longer or broader.  It must not vary a single
inch, or even a hair’s breadth from his, or his majesty would deem it a
most grievous offence, and a crime deserving capital punishment.  Hence
he is known to have put some to death for _not_ going so far from Rome or
popery as he did, and some again for _going_ further; and both were
occasionally burnt in the same fire, or at the same time.  In short, it
was then a sad and dismal time in this country, and Henry’s reformation
must have been a most strange and terrible work.

Even the bishops and other religious functionaries, who generally fare
better than most other people, could not then have a very pleasant time
of it; especially the better sort of them, who could have wished to lead
honest lives and act somewhat conscientiously, had they been quietly
permitted so to do.  To that class bishop _Latimer_ is supposed to
belong.  He seemed more simple and downright than most of the rest, which
might involve him in difficulties which his more wary brethren would
naturally escape.  Accordingly we find the correctness of his creed
repeatedly called in question, and he got frequently into heretical
scrapes, which he generally managed to get out of by abjuration: {649}—a
method which some would be apt to deem not very creditable to his virtue
or integrity, though in general looked upon as unimpeachable and of the
first order.

“Admitting him” (says Milner to Sturges) “to have been conscientiously
persuaded of the truth of the Reformation, was it consistent with
christian integrity and virtue to dissemble his religion for twenty years
together, and repeatedly abjure it, as he certainly did as often as he
found himself threatened with any serious danger by adhering to it?  Was
it consistent with integrity and virtue to accept of one of the highest
offices, the bishopric of Worcester, in a church which he so much
reprobated, and even to take an oath of opposing, to the utmost of his
power, all persons who dissented from, or were disobedient to it?  But
supposing you inclined to overlook all this, what will you say to the
share he took in the religious persecutions both of Henry’s and of
Edward’s reign?  What excuse will you make for him when you find him
sending christians and protestants to the stake for the very opinion
which he himself holds?” {650}  These are serious charges, and all
apparently well-founded; but the chief and heaviest of them is his being
a bloody persecutor.  He was moreover one of our chief English reformers,
on which account the above brief sketch of his character has been here
introduced, along with the rest of his most conspicuous associates, to
give the reader an opportunity to judge what veneration is due to their
memory, or how well or ill they deserved of their contemporaries and of
posterity.

_Ridley_ is another of our protestant prelates that appeared at the head
of our English Reformation.  Dr. _Sturges_ describes him as “active in
the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs.”  To which his keen and able
opponent replies: “I think, sir, you will grant that he shewed rather too
much activity in these affairs, to be consistent with integrity, after I
shall have reminded you, that when bishop of Rochester in Henry’s days,
and when bishop of London in those of Edward, he was as forward in
persecuting protestants and anabaptists as Cranmer, Latimer, and the rest
of the prelates were; and that he was one of the most zealous and forward
of Dudley’s partisans in endeavouring to interrupt the regular succession
of the throne, and in raising that rebellion which was attended with the
loss of so much blood.” {651}

_Hooper_, another of our chief reformers, was much less active than
Ridley in the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs.  He was somewhat
scrupulous about certain vestments and ceremonies; and he might have some
scruples too on the subject of persecution: at least it is not in the
present writer’s recollection that he was very forward, like the others,
in harassing those who were called heretics.  His character, however,
seems not so indefectible as to entitle him to be held up as a mirror of
evangelical soundness, or an object of universal admiration.  He has been
charged with being the founder of the sect called _puritans_, which
proved so troublesome to our rulers in church and state for a whole
century or more: but this is not mentioned here as a blemish in his
character.  The following circumstances are of a more blamable nature: 1.
His obtaining and holding the bishopric of Worcester, in addition to his
former bishopric of Gloucester, after having inveighed very strongly in
his sermons against pluralities: 2.  His consenting to wear the
vestments, after having engaged the young king to write to Cranmer that
they “were offensive to his conscience;” and his taking the oath of
supremacy, after having made his patron, Dudley, write to the same
prelate that “it was burdensome to his conscience,” when he found that he
could not get promotion otherwise. {652a}

But in our English reformation, under Henry VIII, and Edward VI, the
chief agent was confessedly archbishop _Cranmer_, whose character, as
exhibited by eminent protestant writers, abounded with great and glaring
blemishes.  “The first remarkable circumstance we meet in the life of
Cranmer is his privately marrying a woman of low condition, whilst he was
fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, {652b} contrary to the engagements of
his admission.  He afterwards, when a priest, [and while his first wife
was alive] married a second wife in Germany, by a much more flagrant
violation of his vow of celibacy, and having brought her privately into
England, he continued to live with her, in equal opposition to the laws
of the church and of the land,” [and though he had assured the king that
he had sent her home to Germany.]  “Being a Lutheran in principle, as far
back as the year 1529, he afterwards accepted the office of pope’s
penitentiary, and when named to the archbishopric of Canterbury he was
content to accept different bulls from the pontiff to take upon himself
the character of his legate in England, and even to make a solemn oath of
obedience to him, {652c} with an obligation of opposing all heretics and
schismatics, that is to say, according to the received sense of the
words, all persons of his own religious persuasion.  In like manner he
must have said mass, which, in his opinion, was an idolatrous worship,
both at his consecration, and frequently at other times, during the
fourteen years that he governed the church of England under Henry.  He
must also necessarily, from time to time, have ordained other priests to
perform the same worship, and imposed upon them the obligation of that
continency which he himself did not observe.  In a word, we see his
subscription still affixed to a great variety of doctrinal articles and
injunctions, issued during that reign, which we know to have been in
direct opposition to his real sentiments.”

“Every one knows that Cranmer owed his rise in the church to the part
which he took in Henry’s divorce from queen Catherine of Arragon.  Henry
tired out with the opposition of Rome, and impatient to be united with
his beloved Ann Boleyn, privately marries her Nov. 14, 1532, and Cranmer
himself is one of the witnesses of the contract. {653a}  On the 11th. of
the following March this same prelate writes a letter to Henry, from
“pure motives of conscience” as he declares, {653b} but from a
preconcerted scheme as the fact proves, representing the necessity there
was of determining the long depending cause between him and his queen,
and demanding of him the necessary ecclesiastical jurisdiction to decide
it. {653c}  This being granted, he on the 20th of May pronounces a
sentence of divorce between the royal pair, and authorises Henry to take
another wife; {653d} six months after he himself had officiated as
witness to his marriage with Ann Boleyn, and only four months before the
latter was delivered of an infant who was afterwards queen Elizabeth.
{654a}  What a scandalous collusion in so important a matter of
conscience and public example!”

“In less than three years however [his sacred majesty] grows weary of the
consort whom he had moved heaven and earth to gain, {654b} and becomes
enamoured of a new beauty.  Nevertheless appearances must be saved; and
therefore Cranmer presents himself as the ready instrument in smoothing
the way to the gratification of [his sovereign’s] passions.  After a
feint effort to save Ann, to whose family he had such infinite
obligations, in a cold adulatory letter to the king, which he wrote on
the occasion, {655a} he lent all his aid to ruin and oppress her,
permitting, if not persuading, her, (standing as she then did upon the
verge of eternity) to confess what he knew to be false; {655b} and
pronouncing a sentence of divorce, which contained that she had never
been _validly married to Henry_, at the very time when she was lying
under sentence of death for violating his bed by adultery!” {655c}

In the transactions relating to Ann of Cleves, Henry’s fourth queen,
Cranmer’s conduct appears scarcely less dishonourable than in those
relating to Ann Boleyn.  Nor does it seem that the death of Henry
produced in him any real or material amendment: so that there can be no
validity in the excuse usually made for his former misconduct by
ascribing it chiefly to that monarch’s despotic will.  He appeared just
as obsequious to the will of the protector Seymour as he had been before
to that of Henry.  “To gratify this he consented to set aside in a great
measure the last will of his old master, of which he was the first-named
executor. {655d}  Having raised this ecclesiastical no less than civil
idol to undue power, he was ready to pay homage to him with all the
essential authority of the church, taking out a new commission for his
archbishopric, under the pretext that his former power had expired with
the deceased king, and professing to be a prelate no longer than the
child Edward, or rather Seymour himself, should acknowledge him to be
so.” {656a}

“Cranmer concurred no less in other [misdoings] and disorders of this
infant reign, than he did in those stated above.  He gratified Somerset
by subscribing to the death warrant of his brother.  He was afterwards as
forward as any of the other courtiers in paying his homage to the rising
power of Dudley, when he found the interest of the latter growing
stronger than that of Seymour: and he carried his ingratitude to his
deceased benefactor Henry, and his infidelity in the discharge of that
prince’s last will, to such a length as to concur in excluding his two
daughters from their lawful inheritance and right to the crown, in order
to place it on the head of Dudley’s daughter-in-law, the lady Jane.  If
Elizabeth [therefore] had succeeded to the throne immediately after
Edward, she would no more have spared Cranmer and Ridley than Mary did.”
{656b}

“In conclusion, if Cranmer was _burnt_ to death for heresy, instead of
being beheaded for rebellion, [his advocates ought to] reflect, how many
persons he himself, whilst he had power in his hands, had condemned to
this punishment, on the selfsame accusation.”  For it is undeniable that
be was instrumental in the execution of many persons for religions
opinions, and that some of them held the very tenets for which he himself
afterwards suffered.  “Though this part of his conduct has keen kept out
of sight as much as possible, yet we have certain proofs of his having
been one of the chief instruments, under Henry, in bringing to the stake
John Lambert, Ann Askew, John Frith, and William Allen, {657a} for
denying the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, besides a great
number of anabaptists, &c. for their respective opinions.”

“In the reign of Edward VI, besides other most severe persecutions which
he carried on against Gospellers, Anabaptists, and other sectaries,
amongst whom two at least were Sacramentarians, he was the active
promoter and immediate cause of the burning of Joan Knell, {657b} and
George Paris or Van Parr, {657c} for certain singular opinions.  Amongst
those who escaped with their lives, a great part of them were forced to
recant, through the fear of torments, and to carry lighted tapers and
faggots, in testimony of their having merited burning. {658a}  As to the
fate of Joan Knell, or Butcher, commonly called Joan of Kent, (and whose
innocent blood was evidently shed by the procurement of Cranmer,) Dr.
Milner thinks that when it is considered with all its attendant
circumstances, a more cruel and wanton act of persecution (he might have
said _murder_,) is not to be found upon record. {658b}  “The doctrine for
which she suffered (he adds) was of an abstract nature, not calculated to
gain proselytes or to occasion any public disturbances.  She was barely
accused of maintaining, that “Christ passed through the blessed Virgin’s
body as water through a conduit, without participating of that body
through which he passed.” {659a}  For no other cause than persisting in
this opinion, she was convented in the church of St. Paul, before
archbishop Cranmer and his assistants, convicted and delivered over to
the secular arm.  We have the sentence that he pronounced on the
occasion, which is rigorous beyond the usual terms; and we have a
certificate of it, addressed to the king, in which instead of petitioning
for mercy, in the usual style of such instruments, the convict heretic is
expressly recommended “to receive due punishment.”  Nor is this all, for
the royal youth being unwilling to sign the warrant for her execution,
Cranmer employs all his theological arguments to induce him to comply;
amongst other things telling him that “princes, being God’s deputies,
ought to punish impieties against God.”  In the end Edward sets his hand
to the warrant, but with tears in his eyes, telling Cranmer, that “if he
did wrong, he (the said Cranmer) should answer for it to God.”  At
length, by a change in circumstances, the archbishop himself being
condemned as a heretic to suffer that cruel death, to which he had
condemned so many others on the same account, “he was far from imitating
the firmness of the greater part of them.” {659b}

His recantation of his former or protestant principles, at Mary’s
accession, is well known.  The prevailing notion is, that it was the
effect of “a momentary weakness,” or the act and deed of “an unguarded
hour:” but that appears very far from being correct or true.  On the
contrary, “he is proved to have deliberately subscribed six different
forms of recantation, at so many different periods, {660a} each one of
which was more ample and express than the preceding one; and he remained
during the whole five or six last weeks of his life, and until the very
hour of his death, either a sincere catholic or an egregious hypocrite.
At length finding that, notwithstanding so many retractations, he was
upon the point of being executed, he revoked them all, and shewed a
resolution at his death which he had exhibited in no one occurrence of
his life.” {660b}


SECTION V.


_View of the first fruits of the English reformation_, _or its immediate
and subsequent effects on the public manners and morals—system
defective—reasons for introducing these subjects into this work_.

We have seen already what were the first fruits, or immediate effects of
the continental reformation; and as our own reformation was only the
counterpart of that, or, as we might say, its offspring, it was hardly to
be expected but that the effects or fruits of both would be similar.  We
accordingly meet with undeniable evidence that that was really the case.
Among those competent witnesses who describe the effects of the
reformation in this kingdom, the first place or first hearing, no doubt,
is due to that memorable prince who laid the foundation of it, Henry
VIII.  His majesty speaks very plainly and pointedly upon this subject,
in a speech which he delivered to parliament the year before his death.
Having then complained of the abuse which the people made of the
permission he had granted them to read the scriptures in the vulgar
tongue, by “their own phantastical opinions and vain expositions,”
instead of consulting him their spiritual head, he goes on: “I am sure
that charitie was never so faint amongst you, and vertuous and godlie
living was never less, nor God himselfe amongst christians was never less
reverenced, honored, or served.” {661}

“That the state of morality was not rendered better, but rather
infinitely worse, in the following reign, when the protestant religion
was fully developed and established, we have abundant and undeniable
evidence in the confessions of the most zealous advocates and abettors of
that cause.  The following is _bishop Burnet’s_ account of the state of
morality under Edward VI: “The sins of England did at that time call down
from heaven heavy curses on the land.  They are sadly expressed in a
discourse that _Ridley_ wrote soon after, under the title of _The
Lamentation of England_: he says that “lechery, oppression, pride,
covetousness, and a hatred and scorn of all religion were generally
spread amongst all people, but chiefly those of the higher ranks.” {662a}

Ridley’s fellow-bishop, _Latimer_, speaks still more openly as to one
particular vice, in a sermon preached before the king, and quoted by
Heylin.  His words are these: “Lechery is used in England, and such
lechery as is used in no other part of the world.  And it is made a
matter of sport, a trifle not to be passed on or reformed.”  To remedy
this he begs that the church may be reinstated in “her right of
excommunicating notable offenders, by putting them out of the
congregation.” {662b}  In another of his court sermons he seems to glance
at corruption in high places or offices—such as judges taking bribes: “I
would wish,” (says he) “that of such a judge in England now we might have
the skin hanged up.  It were a goodly sight, the sign of the judge’s
skin.” {662c}

“The laborious collector _Strype_, though a most zealous advocate for the
cause of the reformation, yet draws the most frightful picture of the
wickedness which prevailed throughout the nation after its first
establishment that is to be met with in history.  The account is too long
to be here inserted at length, but it is comprised under the following
heads: “The covetousness of the nobility and gentry; the oppression of
the poor; no redress at law; the judges ready to barter justice for
money; impunity of murders; the clergy very bad from the bishops to the
curates; and above all, the increase of adulteries and whoredom. {663a}
The historian _Camden’s_ description of these times agrees with that of
the former writers.  He says, “The sacrilegious avarice of the times
rapaciously seized upon colleges, chantries, and hospitals, under the
pretence of superstition: whilst ambition and jealousy amongst the great,
and insolence and sedition amongst the people, swelled to such a pitch
that England seemed to be raging mad with rebellions, tumults, party
zeal, &c.” {663b}

During the reign of Elizabeth, when Camden wrote, and when the
reformation had arrived at full maturity, though the civil state of the
realm was better regulated, yet in private life, as Dr. Milner observes,
“the vices of individuals in every rank rose to the same height of
profligacy as before.”  In corroboration of this he refers to
contemporary protestant testimonies.  _Stubbs_, the author of a piece
entitled “Motives to Good Works,” with an epistle dedicatorie to the lord
major of London, an. 1596, asserts, among other things, that the
observation of Luther, (quoted above, p. 628,) still holds good: and he
further says; “For good works who sees not that they (the papists of
former times) were far beyond us, and we far behind them.” p. 44.  To the
same effect speaks _R. Jeffery_, in his sermon at Paul’s Cross, an. 1604.
Many other writers, particularly of the puritan party, have given similar
testimonies in reference to the reign both of Elizabeth and also of her
successor James. {664}

From the preceding facts or premises we may venture to affirm that the
effects of the reformation on those who first embraced it were not such
as might be expected, or such as would have appeared, had the religion
which the reformers introduced been of divine origin, or the same with
that which the apostles promulgated, and which is contained in the New
Testament.  The latter, like a good tree, produced good fruit; and its
effects, wherever it prevailed, or was heartily received, were very
different from those above described, and of the very opposite character.
It must follow therefore, that the religion of the reformers was so
radically and materially defective as not to be adapted to answer some of
the chief or most important ends which the religion of Christ was
designed to promote—and even that its whole scope and tendency were
actually subversive of those very ends.

This will not appear very wonderful when it is considered what manner of
spirit the reformers were of, or how their religion was constituted, and
that they appear to have paid far more attention to the sayings and
dictates of Athanasius and Jerom, Ambrose and Austin, and the rest of
those old women called _fathers_, than they did to those of the apostles
and evangelists, or even of Jesus Christ himself.  Nothing therefore very
good and excellent could be expected from them; nor indeed any thing
superior to, or better than such a farrago as they did produce, or such
articles, creeds, confessions, directories, formulas, &c. as they thought
proper to impose on their disciples and followers.  To have produced what
was right good, and excellent, they must have drawn from a purer
fountain, and partaken of another and very different spirit.

The reformation being destitute of the spirit of christianity, and full
of that of popery, which constituted its grand defect, it could not
possibly prove that blessing to mankind which it otherwise would have
done.  It usurped the same dominion over conscience as the old religion
did, and persecuted with equal bitterness and violence those who dared to
think and judge for themselves, and refused to yield obedience to its
authority, or submit to its usurpation.  It is difficult therefore to see
on what that mighty reverence claimed for the names and memory of the
reformers can be founded.  Had they actually published and granted
liberty of conscience to the people, and allowed every honest man to
think and judge for himself, and to serve and worship God according to
the conviction of his own mind—then, indeed, might love and gratitude and
reverence be justly claimed to their memory, and their names be enrolled
among the best and most eminent benefactors of their species.  But such
was not their conduct.—In fine, considering the spirit which they
breathed and the effects which their doctrines produced, it seems
impossible to look upon them as promoters of the religion of the New
Testament, or promulgators of the genuine gospel of Jesus Christ.

But it may, and probably will be asked, Why introduce these subjects into
the present work?  To this we beg leave to answer: 1.  Because they are
in general ill understood, and supposed to be so by many who will
probably peruse these sheets, to whom an attempt to place them in a right
and true light would be, as it was thought, a reasonable and acceptable
service.—2.  Because we are now entering upon that part of the work which
commences at the reformation, in which of course, many things will occur
which have resulted from that event; an introductory sketch of which
therefore seemed necessary for the right conception or illustration of
such occurrences.—3.  Because the discussion of these subjects here will
enable the reader to perceive the living image and offspring of the
original reformers in those of the present day who assume the character
of _evangelical_, and sole promoters of _vital_ religion.  Their
_principles_ and _spirit_ evince the stock whence they are sprung: and so
also do those _filial feelings_ so very visible in their readiness at all
times to defend or palliate the very worst actions of those reformers,
and even the murderous deeds of a Calvin and a Cranmer.—4 Because it
afforded the author an opportunity to bear his testimony against some of
the greatest existing evils that have sprung from the reformation,
bigotry and intolerance; which have ever since, even in this protestant
country and town, and among most of our tolerated sects, usurped the
place of religious liberty, and trampled upon the sacred rights of
conscience.


SECTION VI.


_Further remarks on the effects of the Reformation_, _especially as they
appeared in this town_.

The effects of the reformation were very great and remarkable, not only
on those who were rationally proselyted to it, or who received it upon
conviction, but also on them who went with the tide without exercising
their reason or troubling their heads at all about the comparative merits
of the two religions.  Neither party had their morals improved, but on
the contrary rendered much more dissolute by the change, as we have
already seen.  The same event had likewise effects no less visible and
remarkable on the very aspect or appearance of both town and country; as
must necessarily have been the case from the dissolution and demolition
of so many religious houses, and the suppression and expulsion of such a
multitude of monks, friars, and nuns, who must have had no small
influence in preserving social order, regulating the morals, and
restraining many of the vicious propensities of the community.

In fact, the licentiousness which appears to have resulted from the
reformation is seemingly to be ascribed to the three following causes—1.
The real, apparent, or supposed loose tendency of certain leading
doctrines of the reformers, as was observed before.—2. The suppression of
the religious houses, whose inhabitants used to be the means of promoting
public decency, and checking the influence of licentious principles.
{668}—3. The revolutionary character of the reformation.  All great
revolutions, from their very nature, tend to weaken the ties, and loosen
the bands which preserve the good order of society and strengthen the
moral habits of its members.—It may be reasonably concluded that each of
these causes had a material effect on this town and country at the
memorable era of reformation, and long after.

We can discover no appearance or indication that the character or
disposition of the Lynn people was further christianized, mollified, or
any way improved by that extraordinary event; but rather the contrary.
Among the principal transactions left upon record as having taken place
here since the reformation, one of the first is “the burning of a
Dutchman in the Market place for heresy.”  This is said to have happened
in the year 1335, and so at an early period of our protestantism.  It is
remarkable enough that the only instance that occurred in this town of
putting a man to death for heresy, or burning him for his religion,
happened after the reformation, or since the town became protestant;
which shews that people may bear that honourable name and at the same
time be very far from humanity and righteousness.

The poor hapless sufferer had probably fled to England and made choice of
Lynn as a place of refuge from the persecution which then raged in his
own country.  He might be induced to take this step from the favourable
reports he had heard at home of the generosity and hospitality of our
nation towards strangers, and particularly the oppressed and friendless.
If such was actually the case, he found himself at last miserably
disappointed, and learnt by dear bought and bitter experience, that
however abundant the liberality and tender mercies of England and of Lynn
might be towards some descriptions of oppressed or distressed people, yet
that they by no means extended to those called _heretics_:—an appellation
which has too often meant no more than that those branded with it
differed from the ruling or predominant party, and were consigned by them
to the ill opinion and detestation of the public.

The deplorable fate of this friendless stranger must stamp indelible
disgrace on the memory of his brutal murderers? and it shews what little
reason Lynn then had to congratulate itself on its change from popery to
protestantism.  We have no account what the dreadful heresy was, with
which this unpitied victim to protestant bigotry and persecution was
charged, and for which he suffered.  Whatever it was, it could not be
very dangerous or alarming; for as he was a foreigner there could be no
danger of his disseminating it here among a people of whose language he
can be supposed to have little or no knowledge.  In short, every feeling
heart must be shocked at the aggravated atrocity of this diabolical deed.

It is sad and mortifying enough to think how much this town has been
under the influence of religious bigotry and intolerance, and the most
pitiful narrowmindedness almost ever since.  The harmless _Quakers_ were
here imprisoned and cruelly treated, and the _Baptists_ were harassed in
the most unjust and shameful manner even after the revolution.  Poor
creatures, most wrongfully branded with the odious name of _witches_,
were here also for no short period since the reformation, subjected to
rigorous prosecutions and capital punishments.  These facts are now just
glanced at, but shall be more fully related hereafter in the course of
the work.

Unfavourable as some of the reformed doctrines undoubtedly were to moral
improvement, it cannot be said to be the case with all of them.  Some
were evidently of the opposite tendency, as were also some of the romish
doctrines.  But they could not be expected to produce the desired effect
unless they were extensively promulgated; and that does not appear to
have been the case in this country, at least till a long while after the
commencement of the reformation.  It was one of the great and glaring
defects of the reforming system in England, that it did not provide a
sufficient number of religious or public instructors in lieu of those of
the old religion who had been suppressed and silenced at the dissolution
of the monasteries and other religious houses, or in consequence of their
aversion to the new order of things.  These are known to have been very
numerous, but the number of the reformed ministers, or protestant clergy,
who were appointed to succeed them and supply their places as public
instructors, appears to have been very inconsiderable; comparatively at
least: and, what is not a little remarkable, they were also, for the most
part, far less competent than their predecessors for the charge they
undertook.  In such circumstances, and with such a ministry, it might be
expected that vice and licentiousness would increase and abound.

The state of things at Lynn, at, and long after the reformation, does not
appear to have been at all favourable to moral and religious improvement.
Before that period the town abounded with religious and moral
instructors, such as they were, who certainly contributed in no small
measure to preserve social order and public decency; and when they were
afterwards superseded, their successors did not appear to greater
advantage.  They were not their superiors in abilities, and they were far
inferior to them in number, and probably no less so in the public
estimation, and the weight and extent of their influence over the minds
of the inhabitants at large, especially those of the middling and lower
orders, who constituted the main body or majority of the inhabitants.
For among these there did not appear to be many then, as there had been
formerly, who were dissatisfied with the old order of things, and anxious
for a religious revolution. {672}

Before the reformation the number of ecclesiastics or religious
functionaries at Lynn was very considerable, amounting perhaps to sixty
or seventy at least.  Of them fifteen belonged to the _Austin_ Convent,
twelve to the _Dominican_, ten to the _Franciscan_, and eleven to the
_Carmelite_: making in all _forty eight_.  To these may be added the
monks of the _Benedictine_ Priory, those who belonged to the Convent _de
Penitentia_, and to the _College_ of Priests, amounting, it may be
supposed, on a moderate computation, to twenty or thirty more.  Such a
number as seventy or eighty, or even _sixty_ clergymen, or public
teachers of religion, for this town, would now be thought too large of
all reason and conscience.  But they were no fewer here before the
reformation, if indeed they were so few; and the influence of such a
number of ghostly guides and instructors, to restrain immoral excesses,
and preserve public decency and social order, must certainly have been
very considerable.

At the reformation they were all silenced and suppressed.  They were also
succeeded, when successors could be found, (which was not always the
case) {673} by men who had renounced the spiritual supremacy of the pope,
and acknowledged that of the king, which was always an indispensible
requirement and qualification.  But very generally, it seems, throughout
the nation, the protestant successors of the priests, monks, and friars,
were poor hands, and ill qualified to instruct and enlighten the people;
{674} and such, it is probable, were those who succeeded in this town.
There is reason to think that their number too was very small, not
exceeding perhaps three or four, or half a dozen at most, which,
considering also their deficiency in other respects, was not likely to
render them in the eyes of the public of any thing like equal
consideration with their expelled predecessors.  The state of society
therefore could not be expected to be much benefited or improved, or the
progress of the reformation facilitated and advanced by their
ministration.

To supply the wants or defects, and remedy in some measure the
insufficiency of that new race of clergy, the _Book of Homilies_ was
composed and introduced; portions of which were directed to be read in
the churches instead of sermons.  This seems to have been a wise and
commendable contrivance, as things then stood.  The generality of the
clergy were not allowed to preach, owing, it is presumed, to their known
or supposed incapacity, or insufficiency to perform that task properly,
or to edification.  Those of a superior class, who were judged equal to
that task, were allowed to take out licences to empower or authorize them
to preach to the people.  Their preaching was extempore, or without book,
as had always been the case before, in this as well as every other
country.  They could not therefore be objected to on that account.

But it so happened that their preaching did not give general
satisfaction; owing, perhaps, partly, if not chiefly, to its containing
what Burnet calls “very foul and indiscreet reflections on the other
party;” {675a} (meaning the papists;) a party which still contained a
large majority of the nation, with not a few of its first families.
However that was, the sermons gave great offence, and the preachers were
much blamed.  Complaints against them were made to the king, “by hot men
on both sides,” {675b} as the writer above mentioned expresses himself.
On what ground those of their own side, the protestants, objected to
their preaching, it is not easy to discover: nor does it appear to be
very material.  They must however have been rather unfortunate, to incur
the displeasure of their friends as well as their enemies.  But what
makes this of most importance is what resulted from it, and which we will
now proceed to relate.

Of the charges and accusations brought against those preachers it is very
probable that not a few were utterly unfounded and false, the offspring
of envy and malice.  Others might be mere misrepresentations or
exaggerations, proceeding from unintentional mistake or strong prejudice.
But as the discourses referred to and complained of were delivered
extemporaneously or off hand, the accused could not easily and
effectually disprove what their accusers had alleged against them, as
they could do little more than oppose their own word or testimony to
those allegations, which was not likely to prove always satisfactory to
their superiors.  In order therefore to justify themselves, and be secure
in future from misrepresentation and false accusation, they came
generally to write and read their sermons. {676}  This was the beginning
of preaching from _notes_, and thus was the _reading_ of sermons
introduced among the clergy of the church of England, which has
universally prevailed there ever since, with the exception of the
_puritans_ in former times, and those called _evangelical clergy_ in the
present day.

This practice seems to be still confined to the clergy of the church of
England, and the English presbyterians; which may account for the small
effect the ministry of either has on the lower orders of the community.
By the Scotch Presbyterians, or the church of Scotland it has never been
adopted, nor would it be deemed, beyond the Tweed, worthy the name of
_preaching_: all there is extempore, or from memory; yet the common
people there are of far superior morals, and infinitely better informed
than those of this country; which furnishes at least a strong presumption
that the ancient practice is abundantly preferable to the other in its
tendency, aptitude, or adaptation to attract the attention, impress the
minds, improve the manners and character, and promote the moral and
religious proficiency of the lower ranks of society, which constitute the
great body of the nation.

Such was the practice of the Lollards, or Wickliffites formerly, when
they brought half the nation over to their way of thinking; such also was
the practice of the puritans and nonconformists afterwards, whose success
was by no means inconsiderable, notwithstanding the grievous opposition
and persecution which they had to encounter: and such, we all know, has
been and is the practice of the popular dissenters and methodists of the
present day, who seem to bid fair soon to bring two thirds of the
thinking and serious part of the nation to enlist under their banners.
In short, we know of no preaching, but what has been extempore or without
book, that has ever made very deep impression, or produced any mighty and
salutary effect upon the minds of the common people.  If therefore this
kind of preaching were to cease, or be discontinued among us, there is
every reason to believe that the lower orders of our countrymen would
soon become heathenized, barbarized, and brutalized to a most deplorable
degree; and that the profession of religion would ere long be confined
within narrow limits, and to a comparatively small party among our
middling classes.

This modern device, or, as it may be called, the English mode of
promoting religious knowledge by _reading_ sermons, which excludes half
the nation from almost any chance of receiving instruction, has yet had
its warm admirers and encomiasts among us, who have not failed most
lavishly to congratulate or compliment their dear country on the
important result of this contrivance, in the unequalled number of English
printed sermons, of a cast and merit superior to those of any other
nation.  Now allowing all this to be true, and that the generality of the
clergy have aimed at excelling in the same way in all their unprinted
discourses, must it not follow that they have taken pains to compose such
elaborate productions as will be, after all, of little or no use to the
greatest part of those who have been committed to their charge?  This
seems to be one reason why so many are seen to withdraw from the church
and resort to the conventicle.  May it not be said therefore, that the
practice in question, or this change which commenced at the reformation,
has proved unfavourable, not only to the interest of the common people of
this country, but even to that of the established church itself?

As to this town, at and for some time after the reformation, it does not
seem likely, from the character of that event, and the complexion and
small number of the reformed successors of the priests, monks, and
friars, that it derived much, if any, moral or intellectual improvement
from that change.  Its few officiating protestant clergymen, with their
humdrum reading of homilies or illsuited sermons, could prove but poor
substitutes for the numerous friars that preceded them, whose preaching,
like that of our modern methodists, &c. was always animated and
energetic, directed chiefly and powerfully to affect the feelings, and
move and rouse the passions of their auditors: and it was delivered in a
plain familiar style, and a language suited to the weakest understanding
and meanest capacity.  Here the friars excelled, and here the preachers
of our modern popular sects excel also, and succeed abundantly, like
their prototypes. {678}

It seems very probable, though it may be thought not a little strange,
that the impression and influence of moral and religious principles have
never been so general or extensive among the common people of this town
and country since the reformation, as they were before, in the time and
by means of the friars.  They used to go about unweariedly, and dispense
their precepts to all ranks of people, in a language suited to every
capacity, so that those of the lowest condition appear to have been as
much the objects of their attention, and as completely under their
discipline as any of the rest.  This cannot be said to have been the case
at any one period with our established protestant clergy.  One half, if
not two thirds of those committed to their charge have generally lain
beyond the range of their ministry, with little chance of deriving any
benefit or advantage from their labours.  They would therefore have
remained from generation to generation in a state of mere barbarism or
heathenism, but for the laudable exertions of some of our religious
sectaries, who yet have been always viewed by our rulers with an evil
eye, when they certainly ought to have been looked upon with approbation
and gratitude, as richly entitled to their good opinion and
encouragement.

We know of no period in the history of this town, from the reformation to
the present time, when a great majority of its population was not
involved in deplorable and heathenish darkness.  Nor do we know of any
period when the town was favoured with a more respectable clergy than
those who officiate in the churches here at present.  Yet the state of
the town, even now, appears to answer to the above description; though
there are here several dissenting chapels, besides the established places
of worship, which are all well attended.  In fact, more than two thirds
of our population, at this very time, notwithstanding all the labours and
efforts of our established and dissenting ministers, appear still to
remain as destitute of any sense of religion as if religion had been
actually abolished, or as if a law had passed to prohibit the public
profession of it.

As to our churches and chapels, though they may be thought by some too
numerous and too spacious, yet they are certainly very inadequate to the
want or accommodation of the inhabitants, in case they were generally
disposed to attend the public worship.  The present writer has lately
learnt and ascertained, that but little more than one third of our
population could be held or accommodated for the purposes of religious
worship in all these places. {680}  How very unreasonable therefore must
those little jealousies be which our religious parties too often manifest
towards each other, as if religion had been no more than a trade, and
they thought it allowable to vilify their brother-tradesmen in order to
draw more customers to their own shops.  This evil spirit has been more
manifest and predominant here of late years among Dissenters than among
Churchmen.


SECTION VII.


_Effects of the reformation at Lynn further exemplified—dissolution of
the convents_, _chapels_, _and gilds—suppression and expulsion of the
monks and friars—the consequences_.

It seems very probable, and even morally certain, that all the
inhabitants of this town, before the reformation, were in the habit of
paying attention to religious institutions and observances, or to the
externals of the religion that was then in vogue.  The numerous friars
and other religious functionaries would not fail to keep them to that, as
they had, without doubt, sufficient inclination, influence and power so
to do.  From this state of things we may reasonably conclude that a
change for the worse would, and actually did take place after the
reformation, when so many convents and chapels were shut up, which were
before much resorted to: in consequence of which the bulk of the people
were necessarily deprived of any fair chance or opportunity to attend
upon, and profit by the public ministrations of their new or protestant
pastors: and this, as was before observed, has really been the case here
to this day.

The shutting up and demolition of the _chapels_ must have been a very
strange, impolitic, and unaccountable measure; and the suppression of the
_gilds_ was perhaps not much less so.  The former measure deprived more
than half the inhabitants of an opportunity to receive public
instruction, or to attend public worship; and the latter dissolved and
abolished a number of fraternal institutions, or friendly societies, of
long standing, most of which, if not all, seem to have been very
harmless, and many of them apparently of the same useful tendency as our
modern benefit clubs, whose general utility is unquestionable, and
universally acknowledged.  Were our present government to abolish or
prohibit these, it would certainly be, not only an unjustifiable deed,
but a real and very serious grievance.  How much less so the suppression
of the Gilds may have been, it is perhaps not very easy to determine.
Though the possessions of some of these Gilds were very considerable, yet
they were all sequestered, and no part of them, that we know of applied
to any public advantage, or real benefit to the community. {682}  As it
was with the sequestration of the possessions of the gild companies, so
it was also with that of the possessions of our _convents_, or different
religious orders.  They were lavishly bestowed and thrown away on a
certain royal minion, or court favourite, of the name of _Eyre_, from
whom they soon passed into different hands as regardless as himself of
the public welfare.  Had a due regard been paid to the public good, these
possessions might have been laid out, or applied, so as to form such
foundations and establishments as might have proved of great and lasting
benefit to the community, and amply compensate for any detriment that
accrued to the lower ranks of society, or to the public morals, from the
expulsion of the friars, or shutting up of their houses.  But Henry was
not the only sovereign of these realms who appeared more bent upon the
gratification of his own caprice and waywardness than the promotion or
advancement of the public weal.

The _poor_ of this town must have sustained a most serious loss by the
expulsion of the monks and friars and the sequestration of their
revenues; which deprived them of their best friends, at whose houses they
were entertained, not only with moral and religious instruction, but also
with food for their bodies.  For it is well known that the monasteries
and convents were eminent for their hospitality, and furnished the poor
with their chief support in those days.  The _friars_ also were very
remarkable for the attention which they paid the poor and the rest of the
common people, over whom they maintained no small influence, even in
seasons of public commotion, distraction and anarchy.  It is no wonder
therefore that those of the lower orders long regretted their
disappearance, and had songs composed to celebrate the superior felicity
of the times when the country was honoured with their residence. {684a}

We know of but _two_ periods at which Lynn appears to have materially
suffered from the circumstance of unoccupied or _empty houses_.  One of
those periods is the present, when the number of such houses amounts to
some scores, owing to the extreme pressure of burdens brought upon the
inhabitants by the inexcusable misdoings of some of their own townsmen.
{684b}  The other period was at the reformation, or after the dissolution
of the monasteries, when all the convents in this town with many chapels
and other religious houses were shut up, and afterwards demolished; so
that the people, for the most part, were left without places where they
might attend public worship and receive religious instruction; which must
have proved very unfavourable to the public morals, from its obvious and
powerful tendency to deprave and barbarize those who were so situated.

Previously to the actual dissolution of the monasteries, &c. a formal
surrender and resignation, and also a _confession_, generally took place.
This was solemnly declared to have been done voluntarily, though the
contrary was well known to have been the fact.  These deeds of surrender
are still in being, with some also of the confessions; but most of them
are said to have been destroyed in Mary’s reign: it being then, probably,
in contemplation, if circumstances would admit, to restore those places
to their former occupants.—The instruments or deeds of surrender from
Lynn are supposed to be still extant in the Augmentation Office.  But as
the present writer has not seen them, he can only guess what their tenor
was from such as have fallen in his way, which he has met in Burnet’s
History of the Reformation, and Martin’s History of Thetford.

The work last mentioned contains a copy of the surrender of the Dominican
Convent at Thetford, addressed “To all the Faithful in Christ,” and
solemnly declaring that “the Prior and Convent of the House or Priory
commonly called The Black Friars and Convent of the same, with unanimous
assent and consent, with minds deliberate, and with our free will and
certain knowledge, and for certain just and reasonable causes, our souls
and consciences in a special manner moving, freely and of our own accord
have given, granted, and by these presents do give, grant and restore,
release and confirm to the most illustrious prince, our lord Henry VIII,
by the grace of God of England and France king, defender of the faith,
lord of Ireland, and on earth supreme Head of the English church, all our
said Priory or House called the Black Friars, in Thetford aforesaid,
together with all and singular the messuages, gardens, tofts, lands,
tenements, meadows, feeds, pastures, woods, rents, reversions, services,
mills, &c. &c.”

This Surrender was dated 30. Henry VIII, and subscribed by the _Prior
Richard Cley_, _Robert Baldry_, _Edward Dyer_, _Edmund Palmer_, and two
more.—“Those mercenary monks (says Martin) were obliged by royal
authority to resign what they valued most upon earth, and declare the
will of their sovereign to be the motion of their own minds; whereas
their possessions were extorted from them contrary to their wishes and
inclinations.  They acquired their wealth by hypocrisy, and parted with
it under the influence of the same principle.” {687}  But he should have
remembered that hypocrisy of much the same sort was displayed by the
corporations, or the different cities and boroughs, in the reign of James
II, in the surrender of their respective charters: and the hypocrisy of
the latter was perhaps much less excusable than that of the poor friars,
because they were in much less peril.—The mayors and aldermen ran no risk
of hanging, but several of the others were actually hanged, for refusing
to surrender and play the hypocrites.

A copy of the Surrender of the _Carmelites_ in Stamford has been
preserved by Burnet, and is as follows—

    “Forasmuch as we the Prior and Friers of this House of _Carmelites_
    in _Stamford_, commonly called the White Friers in Stamford, in the
    County of _Lincoln_, do profoundly consider that the perfection of
    Christian living doth not consist in some Ceremonies, wearing of a
    white Coat, disguising ourselves after strange fashions, dockying and
    becking, wearing Scapulars and Hoods, and other-like Papistical
    Ceremonies, wherein we have been most principally practised and
    noseled in times past; but the very true way to please God, and to
    live a true Christian Man, without all hyprocrisy and feigned
    dissimulation, is sincerely declared to us by our Master Christ, his
    Evangelists and Apostles; being minded hereafter to follow the same,
    conforming ourselves to the will and pleasure of our supreme Head,
    under God, on Earth, the King’s Majesty; and not to follow henceforth
    the superstitious traditions of any forinsecal potentate or power,
    with mutual assent and consent, do submit ourselves unto the mercy of
    our said Sovereign Lord, and with the Like mutual assent and consent
    do surrender,” &c. {688}—signed by the Prior and six Friers.

The poor monks and friars and nuns, previously to their expulsion, were
forced to play the hypocrites and tell lies to save their necks, which
was certainly very hard upon them.  But rulers have seldom minded or
commiserated hardships of that sort.  With whatever they ordain or impose
they always expect a ready compliance, however unreasonable in itself, or
however hard it may bear on the consciences of their subjects.  The above
religious orders, by falsely declaring that they surrendered voluntarily
and of their own accord, saved their lives, but lost their livelihood.  A
few abbots &c. were provided for; but thousands of friars and nuns were
turned out into the wide world pennyless; which must have been very
inhuman and cruel.  We are assured that the arts flourished in the
convents to the last.  Many of the abbots and other heads of houses had
been terrified, persuaded, or bribed, as it is said, to surrender their
trusts.  Three only (those of Colchester, Reading and Glastonbury)
resisted to the last, and fell by the hands of the executioner. {689}

With respect to Lynn, it does not appear that the heads of the houses or
convents, or any of the brethren, made the least difficulty to surrender
in the form and manner prescribed to them.  They therefore ran no risk of
the gallows: they saved their lives, but lost their living; for they were
turned adrift and thrown upon the wide world.  Many of them, and of their
fellow sufferers, had a pretty good chance of obtaining subsistence by
their own ingenuity; for they had among them some excellent penmen, some
notable carvers, some admirable embroiderers, some intelligent gardeners;
and, in short, some that excelled in every useful art, and in all
handycraft employments.  There they had greatly the advantage of our
modern clergy, many of whom, it is to be feared, know little beyond what
appertains to the occupation of sportsmen or foxhunters, which would
afford but a poor prospect of subsistence, if they had nothing else to
depend upon.

Moreover, we must reckon among the most striking and memorable effects
which the reformation had upon Lynn the very visible and degrading change
it produced in the aspect or appearance of the town, reducing it, as it
evidently did, to a most mean and paltry object, compared to what it was
previously to that event.  For the demolition and disappearance of so
many stately edifices, which had long been the pride and boast of the
inhabitants, must have had a most strange, humiliating and transforming
effect upon the place, both with respect to its external aspect, or as it
appeared without from the adjacent country, and also as it looked within,
to those who passed through its streets, or observed it internally.  It
must have looked somewhat like a town that had undergone a close and
successful siege, and which had been left half demolished and ruined by a
victorious and exasperated enemy.  In short, the present Lynn, or this
town since the reformation, must have always made a far inferior, or much
meaner figure than the former or papal Lynn, with its four large and
stately convents, adorned with lofty towers, and ranged along the whole
town from south to north.  Besides them we must also reckon the
Benedictine Priory, the convent of the friars _de Penitentia_, the
College, the churches or chapels of St. John, St. James, St. Catherine,
St. Anne, those of our Lady at the Bridge and on the Mount, and
undoubtedly other venerable structures, whose sites and very names are
now forgotten and unknown.

In fine, there were perhaps not many towns in the kingdom, if indeed
there were any at all, whose appearance underwent a greater change than
this, at, and in consequence of the reformation.  Had two persons, a
papist and a protestant, who remembered the town in its former state, now
visited and jointly surveyed it, one would have been apt to take up his
lamentation and pronounce _Ichabod_! its glory is departed! while the
other would be no less apt exultingly to exclaim “Babylon is fallen, is
fallen!”—But a _third_ person, accustomed to view things with the eyes of
a christian philosopher, would have given way to neither lamentation nor
exultation, but would have considered the whole as the natural effect of
a mighty revolution, and an additional proof of the changing and
perishing nature of all human productions and sublunary magnificence.



CHAP. II.


History of Lynn for the first hundred years after the reformation; or
rather, from the dissolution of the monasteries to the meeting of the
long parliament and commencement of the civil wars.

In the preceding account of the immediate effects of the reformation upon
this town little or nothing occurs that appears of a very pleasing or
favourable nature.  No symptoms are discernable of either moral or
intellectual improvement.  The town had become protestant, but
superstition and ignorance still remained, and licentiousness and
barbarism seemed rather to increase than diminish.  The former religious
functionaries or instructors were expelled, and they were succeeded by
men less competent than themselves for the tuition or instruction of the
people: and therefore it was not to be expected that the latter should be
better taught, or further enlightened under their guidance and
management.  On the contrary, we may suppose them to have gone in a
retrograde rather than in a progressive direction: and so it seems really
to have happened.  In fact, very little appears to have been done here of
reformation work, or for the advancement of protestantism during the long
period now under consideration, besides the expulsion of the monks and
friars and demolition of their Houses.  Of that little, some account
shall be given in the following section.


SECTION I.


_Statement of the progress of protestantism_, _or of the most remarkable
and memorable acts or works of reformation which took place at Lynn
during the first century after its renunciation of the papal supremacy_.

The first fruits of the reformation at Lynn seem to be the burning of the
Dutchman before mentioned, and hanging, sometime after, a certain friar,
of the name of _William Gisborough_.  The former suffered for what was
called _heresy_, but we cannot find what the crime was that was laid to
the charge of the latter.  It seems most probable however, that it was
denying the king’s spiritual supremacy, or maintaining that the pope, and
not his majesty, was the supreme head of the church.  This was a crime,
or heresy, which Henry never would tolerate, after he had set up for
himself in competition with the Roman pontiff, as a kind of antipope, or
pontifex maximus of England.  Many a luckless wight was put to death,
during the latter part of his reign, for no other fault, or offence, but
that of being unconvinced of his majesty’s right and title to be on earth
the supreme head of the English church.  They could not, it seems, help
their scruples; and therefore it was, surely, very hard and cruel to put
them to death.  But kings and courtiers are seldom disposed to be very
tender, or shew much mercy to those who do not think well of their
pretensions, however doubtful, unreasonable, or absurd they happen to be:
and they come not unfrequently under one or other of these denominations.

In _Edward’s_ reign, very little if any reformation work appears to have
been carried on at Lynn.  At his death we are told that Lord Audley came
here and proclaimed Lady Jane Grey queen of England; which seems to imply
that this town was favourable to her succession.  However that was, her
succession was frustrated, and she came soon after to an untimely and
tragical end, though she appears to have been worthy of a better
fate.—_Mary_ succeeded; in whose reign the very name of reformation was
exploded: its favourers were persecuted with the utmost rigour, hundreds
of them suffered at the stake, and a still greater number fled their
native country, and found an asylum in foreign parts, where they staid
till the storm was blown over, or, in other words, till Mary was no more.
She was succeeded by a sovereign that was more favourable to a certain
description of reformation and reformers, though in other respects of an
equally intolerant and unamiable character.

At the accession of _Elizabeth_ the pope was again discarded, and her
majesty assumed the character of reformer and supreme head of the church.
The protestant exiles now returned home, and resumed the arduous task of
reforming their countrymen, though from what is known to have been the
conduct of too many of them while abroad, it would seem that they ought
first of all to have _reformed themselves_.  They rapidly obtained
preferment in the church, and many of them were promoted to the vacant
sees, some of whom soon became most bitter persecutors of the poor
puritans and other protestant sectaries:—so little good effect had their
former sufferings upon them, and so far was their experience of the
bitterness of persecution from disposing them to refrain from being
themselves concerned in the same bloody and detestable work.

The effect of the new order of things was soon felt at Lynn, and the
inhabitants were furnished with convincing proofs that the new was once
more to supersede and triumph over the old religion.  In the first year
of this queen’s reign, “the rood lofts,” we are told, “and the images
that were upon them, were taken down from all the churches in this town.”
There surely could be no great harm in this.  The harm, if there was any,
must lie in its being done before the people had been convinced of the
inutility and impropriety of setting up such images and retaining them in
their churches.  The work certainly should have succeeded and not
preceded the people’s conviction of its reasonableness and propriety.

At the same time, or in the course of the same year 1559 “The steps,” as
we further learn, “were taken from the altars in this town, and the
ground, at the upper, or east ends of all the churches levelled with that
in the other parts of them.”—All this seems to have been a courtly or
royal mode of reforming: for it appears to have been done before the
inhabitants were convinced of its necessity, or knew any thing about the
meaning of it.  It was done, no doubt, by royal authority; and that is
reason enough for any thing, in the eyes of most courtiers and statesmen.
It was, however, a preposterous mode of proceeding, as it was beginning
the work at the wrong end, and treating the people as if they had not
been rational beings, but were to be brought under discipline and made to
obey their masters or managers just like all other cattle.  But mankind
have been treated pretty much in the same way in all ages.

The year following, (1560,) “several gentlemen came here,” (as it is
said,) “by order of the privy council, to take the state of St. James’s
church, but were opposed and resisted by the corporation.”  Whether the
object of those gentlemen, in taking the state of the said church was to
have it repaired and refitted for a place of worship, or something else,
we are not told.  If the former the corporation was probably to blame in
resisting them, as there seemed to be need enough for an additional place
of worship, if it was thought desirable that the inhabitants should more
generally attend at such places.  Nor is it very easy to conceive how the
corporation durst resist them, if they were indeed authorised by Letters
from the privy council to do what they proposed.  In short, the
circumstance is involved in too much obscurity and uncertainly to allow
our hazarding any decided opinion upon it.

The next year, (1561,) “many popish relics and mass books are said to
have been burnt here, in the market place.”  This, probably, was also
premature; being done, in all likelihood, before the inhabitants were
sufficiently enlightened and satisfied of the inutility or perniciousness
of those books and relicks.  The articles thus destroyed were seemingly
such as had belonged to this town, and had been, till then, carefully
preserved here.  It is not very clear that the destruction of them could
be of any material advantage to the cause of the reformation: it only
serves to shew the spirit and complexion of Elizabeth’s reforming
system.—About seven years after the date of this last transaction,
another very similar to it occurred here: for we are told under 1568,
“This year several vestments, popish relics, strings of beads, and
crucifixes, were brought from Tilney to Lynn, and burnt in the open
market.”  This seems to indicate that Tilney was a very noted place for
that kind of ware before the reformation: but it was now, as we may
suppose, entirely deprived of them, so as to be reduced, in that respect,
upon a level with the rest of its neighbours.  This, however, would not
have signified much, had the people been carefully instructed and
rationalized.  But that really appears have been exceedingly and
shamefully neglected at Lynn and the parts adjacent for a very long
period after the accession of Elizabeth, as we shall endeavour to shew in
the following Section.


SECTION II.


_Observations on the slow progress_, _or low state of protestantism_,
_and of intellectual and moral improvement at Lynn during the period
under consideration_.

During no one part of the long century which we are now reviewing does it
appear that this town had any great taste or desire for reformation.  It
was forced upon it at first, rather than sought for or desired; and it
was submitted to out of pure loyalty, or profound deference to his
majesty’s royal will and better judgment, as would, probably, have been
the case had he appointed Mahomet, instead of the pope, or himself, to be
the Head of the church.  Be that as it might, it seems pretty evident
that Lynn remained in a very dark and unimproved state from the era of
the reformation till towards the middle of the seventeenth century, if
not much longer.  It bore indeed the name of a protestant town, but its
faith, its morals, and its manners, appear not to have been at all
superior, or more estimable than they were when it was a popish town, or
remained under the papal jurisdiction.  Thus it has often happened, that
large communities as well as individuals have borne the honourable names
of christians and protestants while they remained as far from the kingdom
of heaven, or from the light and influence and spirit of the New
Testament as the most superstitious romanists, or blindest heathens.

In the early part and near the commencement of this period, _Baret_, a
native of this town, as was before mentioned, renouncing popery, embraced
protestantism, and became a very laborious and famous preacher.  But it
was Norwich, and not Lynn that reaped the benefit of his labours; a
pretty plain indication of the very low estimation in which eminent
protestant preachers were then held among our ancestors.  Had they highly
appreciated the labours of such instructors, there can be little doubt
but they would have invited and encouraged him to settle here: nor is it
less probable that he would in that case have preferred his native town
to any other place.  But as there is not the least appearance of its
being thought of getting him to settle here, it is very natural to
conclude that Lynn was then no way zealous in the cause of reformation,
and felt no kind of anxiety for introducing and establishing an able
protestant ministry: and the same we presume continued to be the case for
a very long season afterwards.

About the latter part of the reign of James I, or the beginning of that
of his successor, the pious, learned, and memorable _Samuel Fairclough_
became lecturer of this town: and he is the only protestant preacher that
we know of among the Lynn clergy, during this long period, who set
himself in good earnest, and with any prospect of success, about
civilizing the town or reforming the inhabitants.  But a host of enemies
rose against him, which soon obliged him to desist and retire.  The whole
body of _publicans_ and _sinners_, (and among the latter, without doubt,
the manufacturers of strong beer, or the _brewers_, {699}) became
decidedly hostile to him; for it was found that great numbers of those
who formerly used to spend their Sundays at the alehouses, now
discontinued that practice, and attended Fairclough’s ministry.  This was
very alarming to the votaries of the great goddess Diana, of Lynn.  Like
the Ephesian craftsmen, they perceived that their beloved craft, by which
they got their wealth, was in imminent danger, and therefore it was high
time to bestir themselves, and make such an outcry and uproar against
this troublesome preacher as would oblige him to desist and decamp.

What greatly promoted and insured the attainment of their wishes was,
that the diocesan, _Dr. Harsnett_, with his spiritual (or rather
diabolical) court took the same side.  The other clergy of the town were
also supposed, out of envy, to do the same, underhand.  The pretext for
this spiritual interference was, that the preacher did not use the sign
of the cross in the ceremony of christening; which, however disorderly
some might deem it, had certainly nothing in it of moral turpitude.  Had
the whole ceremony been omitted, as well as that idle appendage, there
would have been, perhaps, no mighty loss to any body, except to the
preacher himself, who, in that case, it may be supposed, would have
sustained some loss.  In short, this preacher of righteousness was driven
away by the violence and threatening aspect of the opposition that had
been raised against him, and which to him and friends appeared
irresistible.  He removed to _Clare_ in Suffolk, a more christianlike
place, where, and in the adjacent parts, he long continued eminently
useful, as well as greatly and deservedly respected.  The Lynn people by
expelling him prolonged the duration of their own blindness and
barbarism.


SECTION III.


_The fast of LENT rigidly enforced and strictly observed at Lynn to the
very close of this period_, _a further proof of the dark and unreformed
state of the town—additional observations_.

That the observance of _Lent_ was rigorously enforced and religiously
regarded here as late as the reign of Charles I, admits of no manner of
doubt.  None, but those whose cases absolutely required it, were allowed
here to taste of flesh meat during all that season.  In such cases
_licences_ were applied for to the parish-minister, and obtained,
provided the cases came well attested.  But a strict charge was given not
to exceed the bounds, or time, specified in the licence, without
acquainting the minister, in order to have the licence renewed and
continued.  Of this we have sufficient evidence in the old parish-book of
South Lynn, where, under the date of 1632, there is the following
memorandum, in the hand writing of Mr. _Man_, who was then the minister
of that parish.

    “A Copy of a License for eating flesh in time of childbed, to the
    wife of goodman Sowell of South Lynn, blacksmyth, according to law,
    during the time of her sickness, granted the 14. of March 1633, and
    now eight dayes after, her sicknes still continuing, registered
    hereunder as followeth”—

    “Forasmuch as the wife of goodman Sowell of South Lynn (being a
    member of the Borough of King’s Lynn) in the county of Norfolk,
    blacksmith, now lying in childbed, is by the testimony of the midwife
    and her said husband and others, testified to me to be very weak and
    sick; these are therefore, upon her and friends very earnest request,
    so far as in me is, and according to the statute in that behalf
    provided, for the better recovery of her former health and strength
    again, to signify that by me the minister of the said parish, she is
    licensed, the time of Lent notwithstanding, to eat flesh: Always
    provided that the said license continue no longer in force than only
    for the time of this her present sicknes: And if this her present
    sicknes shall continue above the space of eight days next after the
    date hereof, that then I be certified thereof further to perform and
    do therein as law requireth.  In witness whereof the day and year
    above written I have hereunto sett my hand and seale

                  By me John Man cler. minister ibid: {702a}
            In the presence of me Tho. Lilly churchwarden.” {702b}

The duty of the Lynn Clergy must have been much greater then, especially
during the time of Lent, than it is at present; for it may be supposed
that these applications for licences were not few or unfrequent: and if
they were obliged to do this work for nothing, it must have been still
harder upon them.  However that was, this practice seems to have
continued till the civil wars broke out, or till the town was besieged
and taken by the Earl of Manchester, when it was strongly garrisoned by
the parliament, and made to undergo a civil as well as religious
reformation.  This appears to have been the greatest and most thorough
reformation this town ever underwent, or experienced; at least, since the
days of Henry VIII: for the long parliament, like his majesty, seldom did
things by halves, but generally carried on with energy and effect
whatever they took earnestly in hand.

It may very safely be concluded that the religious observance of Lent was
discontinued at Lynn from the time referred to till the _restoration_,
when it seems to have been again revived, both here and throughout the
kingdom, among all true churchmen.  For it appears to have been one of
those choice and invaluable blessings which Charles II, (that _most
sacred_, and _most religious_ sovereign, as his bishops and clergy used
to call him,) restored to us at his return from exile.  Accordingly, we
find, by the public prints and records of that period, that his majesty
from the beginning of his reign, or first arrival, was attentive to this
point.  Among other plain indications of this is a striking passage in
the _Mercurius Publicus_, of February 21, 1661, (a flaming weekly court
paper of that time,) which is worded as follows.

    “London Feb. 16.—We are commanded to give Notice of a malicious
    Slander against the good government of the city of London for
    observation of Lent according to law and his MAJESTIES
    _Proclamation_: some malecontents suggesting that the company of
    _Fishmongers_ have confessed they are not able to supply the market
    with fish sufficient for this occasion; (and therefore that the late
    proclamation will be recalled) which is so false and bottomles a
    fiction that the most vigilant Lord Maior hath assured the Lords of
    his MAJESTIES Privy Council how the company of fishmongers do not
    only undertake to furnish the market with plenty and variety of good
    and wholesome fish, but to sell fish cheaper by twopence in a
    shilling; which is more than sufficient to stop the mouths of all
    that are averse to our good and wholesome laws (made upon so long
    experience, and so necessary for the common good and safety of this
    Island) which yet deprive none of the benefit of dispensation, whose
    condition really requires other dyet, such as are aged, or infants,
    women with child, sick persons, and such whose health and
    constitution is known to be prejudiced by continuall eating fish; for
    all whom the Law hath provided Licences and Dispensations to eat
    Flesh.” {704}

Here Charles appears in the character of a _religious king_, to which he,
of all men living, had, perhaps, the least pretension.  Yet his bishops
and clergy unblushingly gave him that title, and would frequently mention
him, even in their addresses to the Deity himself, under the same
appellation, and under one still stronger—“Our _most_ religious king!”
So much for the bishops and clergy of those days.  But it was in
_Scotland_ that his majesty’s _religious_ and _reforming_ character, at
least in respect to the strict observance of Lent, was exhibited in the
most striking light.  This may be inferred from the following curious
document in the above mentioned Court-newspaper of Feb. 26. 1662, which,
though somewhat extraneous and out of place, the author hopes the reader
will excuse his introducing it here, as he knew of no fitter place for
its insertion.

    “_Edinburgh_ 12. Febr. 1662.—Forasmuch as the not keeping of Lent and
    Fish days, conform to several Acts of Parliament and late Act of
    Council of the sixth of _February_ 1662, hath been occasioned by not
    exacting the penalties therein contained from the contraveeners, who,
    upon hopes of impunity, may still continue disobey the saids Acts, to
    the great prejudice of the kingdom: Therefore the Lords of his
    Majesties Privy Council have thought fit to cause intimat publickly
    at the Mercat Cross of _Edinburgh_, that none presume nor take upon
    hand to contraveen the saids Acts; with certification if they
    failize, the pains and penalties therein contained shall be exacted
    with all rigour: and that they will crave an account of all
    Magistrates and other Ministers of Justice, who are intrusted to
    procure obedience to the saids Acts, and give notice of the offendors
    within their respective bounds, as they will be answerable; and for
    that effect to cause, of new again, intimat the aforesaid Act;
    whereof the tenor follows—The Lords of His Majesties Privy Councill
    taking to their consideration the greatest advantage and profit will
    redound to all the Leiges of this kingdome, by keeping the time of
    Lent and the weekly Fish dayes, _viz. Wednesday_, _Friday_, and
    _Saturday_, and discharging of all persons to eat any flesh, during
    that time and upon the saids dayes; or to kill or sell in the Marcats
    any sort of Fleshes which are usually brought at other times, whereby
    the young brood and store will be preserved; so that hereafter the
    hazard of scarcity and dearth may be prevented, and the fishes, which
    by the mercy of God, abound in the salt and fresh waters of this
    kingdome, may be made use of for the food and entertainment of the
    Lieges, to the profit and encouragment of many poor families who live
    by fishing; the improvement whereof hath not been looked to these
    many years by gone, which hath been occasioned by the universal
    allowance of eating flesh and keeping of Mercats at all ordinary
    times without any restraint, against which many laudable Laws and
    Acts of Parliament have been made, prohibiting the eating flesh
    during the said time of Lent or upon the saids Fishdays, under the
    pains therein contained.  Therefore, Ordains and Commands, that the
    time of Lent, for this year, and yearly hereafter, shall begin and be
    kept as before the year of God 1640, and that the saids weekly
    Fishdays be strictly observed in all time coming.  And that no
    subject of whatsoever rank, quality or degree (except they have a
    special Licence) presume to eat any flesh during the said time of
    Lent, or upon the saids three weekly Fishdayes; and that no Butchers,
    Cooks, or Hostlers, kill, make ready or sell any flesh, either
    publickly in Mercats or privately in their own houses, during the
    said time or upon the saids dayes, under the penalties following, to
    be exacted with all rigour, _viz._ For the first fault 10_l_; for the
    second 20_l_; and for the third fault 40_l_; and so to be multiplied
    according to the oft contraveening of the said Act, to be exacted and
    payed, the one half to the king’s Majesty, and the other half to the
    delators.  Likeas, for the surer exacting of the said pains, they
    give power and warrand to all Magistrates within Burghs, and all
    Sheriffs, Stewards, and Bailies within their several Jurisdictions,
    to enquire after the contraveeners and to pursue them before the
    Lords of Privy Council, or such others as shall be appointed or
    delegat for that effect.  And ordains Heraulds, Macers, or Messengers
    at Arms, to make publication hereof at the Mercat Cross of
    _Edinburgh_, and other places needful, and that these presents be
    printed that none pretend ignorance.

                                   _Pet. Wedderburne Cl. Sti. Concillii_.”

The above may serve as a sample of the manner in which that father of his
people, king Charles II, managed, disciplined, and educated his
Caledonian children.  It was severe enough; but he sometimes far exceeded
this specimen of his paternal attention; especially when he had some of
the most obstreperous of those children of his _hunted with bloodhounds_,
like wild beasts.  This, as we learn from Laing’s excellent History of
Scotland, was sometimes actually the case in that memorable reign.
Having been naturally led to these digressions by the circumstance of the
strict and religious observance of Lent in this town till near the middle
of the 17th century, (which shews the small progress protestantism had
made here down to that period,) we shall now resume the thread of our
history.


SECTION IV.


_Observations on other occurrences relating to Lynn during the period
under consideration_.

Lynn appears to have been several times visited, during this period, by
the plague and other destructive diseases; and there is great reason to
be thankful that it has not in more modern times experienced the like
awful visitations.  In 1540 the town is said to have been so severely
afflicted with hot burning agues, (or intermittent fevers) and fluxes,
that no Mart was kept here that year; which shews that the disorder must
have raged to a terrible degree, and proved a most severe scourge to the
town.  The _plague_ also was here three or four different times within
this period.  The last of them was in 1636, when it raged so violently
and dreadfully that the markets were discontinued, and wooden houses or
sheds were set up under the town-walk for the reception of the diseased,
especially those of the poorer sort.  It must have been a most awful
season, and the present generation ought to rejoice in having escaped
such calamities.—In 1598 also there was here a very great and destructive
sickness: but it is not said of what sort or description it was: only we
are told, that the mortality was so great, from _March_ to _July_, that
three hundred and twenty persons were buried in St. James’s Church Yard.
To whatever cause it is to be ascribed, it seems to be a fact, that this
town has been much healthier for the last 140 years than it was during
the period of which we are now treating.  There is a natural cause, no
doubt, for that difference, though it may not be a very easy matter,
perhaps, to discover it, or point it out.

It may be here further observed, that it was within this period the
parish of All-Hallows, or All Saints, otherwise _South Lynn_, became a
part or member of this Borough; being before a separate parish or hamlet,
subject to the jurisdiction of the sheriff of the county.  This union, or
incorporation was first effected in 1546, by a _Licence_ from the king,
and afterwards fully confirmed by the _Charter_ of Philip and Mary, in
the fourth year of their reign.  From that period it has ever been under
the jurisdiction of the mayor, as an integral or indivisible part of the
borough.  Yet it has been long after, (if not down quite to our time,)
treated by the corporation somewhat like a step-daughter, or as regular
governments (as they are called,) are too apt to treat ceded or conquered
places.  Of this some remarkable instances have occurred at different
times, and especially in the reign of Charles II, when the South Lynnians
were very wrongfully involved in a most vexatious _law-suit_ with the
mayor and corporation, about the _Long Bridge_, which ended unfavourably
to the latter, as has been also the case with our corporation law-suits,
not unfrequently since that period.  The above cause was tried at
Thetford in 1672 before Sir Matthew Hale, who was exceedingly severe on
the conduct of the mayor and corporation in that affair.

Many events are mentioned as having occurred at Lynn, during this period,
of whose circumstances we are left very much in the dark: among them are
the following—in 1562, _Sir Nicholas Le Strange_ (according to one old
MS.) “began a suit against Lynn for the House of Corpus Christi:” but we
are not told either where that house stood, or what was the ground of
that knight’s claim to it, or yet how the suit terminated.—In 1567 St.
Margaret’s spire is said to have been shot down by a Dutch ship that then
lay in the harbour, as were also several little crosses and ornaments on
different parts of the church.”  But we cannot learn how all this
happened; whether designedly, or otherwise, or what was its result.  In
1575 _Henry Wodehouse_, vice admiral of Norfolk is said to have arrested
two Fly-Boats at Lynn, by process, which he delivered to the mayor, who
refusing to serve them, brought great trouble on himself and several
others.”  This also is related so baldly, that it is impossible to form
any adequate idea of the affair.  Of much the same sort is what we read
under 1587, “Sir _Robert Southwell_, being admiral of Norfolk, with
several commissioners and justices, sat at Lynn and held a court of
admiralty, at which sixteen _pirates_ were condemned, and most of them
executed at _Gannock_.”  It is in vain we enquire into the particular
case or circumstantial history of those pirates: all we can learn is that
there were so many then tried and condemned here, and that _Gannock_ was
in the mean time the place of execution.

The following Lynn occurrences of this period are somewhat more luminous
than the preceding ones.  In 1576 queen Elizabeth visited Norwich; but it
does not appear that her majesty deigned to honour Lynn with her royal
presence.  The corporation, however, went to meet her majesty.  It is not
said where, but we may suppose it to have been at Norwich, where her
highness appears to have made some stay.  At that interview, wherever it
took place, our corporation presented their gracious sovereign with “a
_rich purse_, finely wrought with pearl and gold, containing _an hundred
old angels of gold_;” the whole valued at 200_l._ a sum equal, perhaps,
to 2 or 3,000_l._ of our money.  This, no doubt, was very handsome, and a
proof of the sterling loyalty, as well as of the wealth and liberality of
our corporation.  What our virgin queen thought of this specimen of Lynn
loyalty and homage, we are not told: but if the same had been done to her
renowned grandfather, Henry VII, when he visited this town, we may be
very sure that it would have proved highly acceptable and gratifying, as
he is well known to have been a most ardent lover of money.  His
grand-daughter was in some things very different from him.  Nor are we
quite certain, though the gift was very handsome, that her majesty did
not on this occasion laugh in her sleeve at the vanity and ostentation of
the donors, who appear to have given her too much reason for so doing.
She is also understood as not entertaining, in general, a very exalted
opinion of the sagacity of her corporations, or the wisdom of the ruling
and leading men of her cities and boroughs, who in her different
excursions would sometimes sadly expose their folly, and excite in no
small degree her contempt and derision. {712}

In, or about 1582, it is said, “that certain lusty young fellows began to
set up ringing again, which for sometime had been disused; divers of the
aldermen, meaning to silence them, occasioned a great disturbance, which
turned to the mayor’s disadvantage, and was the cause of spending a great
deal of money.”  For aught we know, the mayor and aldermen might be very
right on this occasion.  Where there is a great deal of ringing it is
certainly a very serious nuisance to the inhabitants, especially those
who live near the steeples.—It is probable that those _lusty young
fellows_ belonged to some wealthy families, which enabled them to make so
effectual a stand against the mayor and aldermen.  Be that as it might,
this circumstance may serve to shew what serious results may proceed from
very frivolous causes, and how easily a parcel of idle fellows may
sometimes disturb the tranquillity of a whole town, and bring every thing
into the utmost confusion.

In 1587 the _wife of one John Wanker_ and the _widow Porker_ were both
_carted_ here for _whoredom_: and we further learn, that the sin of
whoredom was deemed so detestable then, both at Lynn, and Norwich, that
whoever were guilty of it were publickly exposed fastened to a cart and
driven through the whole town.—This must be highly honourable to the
moral character of both places at that period, and furnishes a favourable
idea of the state of society here in the mean time.  But alas! how very
different must have been the character of Lynn then, from what it is at
present, when it is said to abound with that sort of sinners more than
any other place of its size, and when that vice seems no longer detested,
or thought to have any moral pravity or turpitude attached to it: and as
to the interference of magistrates, that seems to be entirely out of the
question.  After all, it seems to be a fact, that the unexampled burdens
under which the people now lie, have contributed in no small degree to
bring things to this sad pass.

The year 1558 was rendered remarkable in the annals of this town, by an
_order_, as it is called, which was then made, “that on every first
_Monday_ in the Month there should be a meeting at a certain house,
consisting of the Mayor, some of the aldermen and common Council-men, and
the preachers, in order to settle peace and quietness between man and
man, and to decide all manner of controversies: and it was called, _The
Feast of Reconciliation_.”—This certainly looks well, and seems to
reflect honour on the memory of the projector or projectors of it, as
well as those who afterwards devoted their time for so useful and
laudable a purpose.  It is certainly much to be wished that every town
and district was furnished with a similar institution; which, if properly
conducted, would not fail to prove of very important benefit to the
community.  This therefore is here recorded as forming a favourable trait
in the character of the magistrates and ministers of this town in the
latter part of the reign of Elizabeth.—But, alas! those very people, at
the same time, were persecuting, burning, and hanging, (and we may add,
_murdering_) poor ignorant, friendless and harmless old creatures, under
the name of witches!—Of this very dark shade, (which together with the
preceding favourable trait exhibit so deplorable an inconsistency of
character,) we shall take some further notice hereafter.

In the next reign, (that of _James_ I,) the obtaining of a royal Charter,
and the recovery of the alienated revenues and possessions belonging to
the Gaywood hospital, (of the latter of which we have spoken already)
seem to have constituted the principal and most memorable transactions
that appertain to this history.  Besides which scarce any thing occurred
worthy of being here recorded, unless it be the erection or establishment
(in 1617) of a _Library_ in the Vestry of _St. Nicholas’s Chapel_: which
appears to have been the first institution of the kind in this town since
the dissolution of the convents. {715}  So that for about eighty years,
or ever since the reformation, the character of the town as a literary,
or bookish place, must have been at a miserable low ebb.  We need not
wonder therefore at the extreme ignorance that seemed to have prevailed
here in the mean time.  This library is said to have been founded by the
mayor, burgesses, &c.  The library in St. Margaret’s Church is said not
to have been founded till about fourteen years after.  How extensively
useful these bibliothecal collections proved we have not the means of
ascertaining.  At any rate, they were creditable to those by whom they
were projected and promoted.

Upon the accession of _Charles_ I, one of the first and most remarkable
circumstances that appear to have occurred here was the _erection of St.
Anne’s Fort_, on which were mounted, as we are told, “several great
pieces of ordnance, sent from London and planted here for the defence of
the town.”  This some, perhaps, would be apt to construe as ominous of
the subsequent troubles of that reign, of which this town appears to have
had its full share: for having declared against the parliament, it was by
their forces closely besieged and taken, and afterwards laid under
contribution, and strongly garrisoned.  As to the _Fort_, we cannot find
that it proved of any material use to the town in that time of danger:
nor does it appear to have been ever calculated for the defence and
protection of the place, or for any other purpose but to please little or
full-grown children, who are naturally fond of ribands and rattles. {717}

 [Picture: A view of the Pilot Office, St. Ann’s Battery etc.  Published
                   Dec.r 1809 by W. Whittingham, Lynn]

About the beginning of 1637, “an order came from the archbishop (Laud) to
this town, that the ground at the east end of the churches should be
raised; the communion table (or altar) placed at the upper end of the
churches, under the east windows; and that they be decently railed in,
and steps made to ascend thereto.”—This was evidently undoing what
Elizabeth and her reformers had done at the beginning of her reign; for
the ground at the upper or east end of the churches was then ordered, as
we have seen, to be levelled with that in the other parts of them.  That
queen and her prelates were certainly quite high enough in their notions
about these matters, and yet we see that they come not nearly up to
Charles and Laud.  Neither of these had any dislike to popery, provided
they could be themselves at the head of it.  Nor would it be a very easy
matter to point out the time when the spirit of popery was more
predominant, than it was in the church of England in the detestable reign
of the first Charles, and under the vile administration and
superintendence of archbishop Laud.  The latter was a sworn and mortal
enemy to both civil and religious liberty, as the whole tenor of his
conduct shews.  In short, he was no less superstitious, than intolerant,
tyrannical, and cruel, as this order which he sent to Lynn, and many
other parts of his conduct clearly evince: and he may be very safely said
to have contributed largely to accelerate the ruin of the cause which he
had espoused, and the downfal of the church of which he was unworthily
the chief metropolitan.

Laud has been often represented as very learned: but it was paying
learning but a poor compliment, as it appears to have done little, or
rather nothing at all towards humanizing him, or softening his hard
heart, and subduing the bigotry, intolerance, and unfeelingness, which
were in him so preeminently conspicuous and predominant.  Severities and
terrors which most of the vulgar or unlearned protestant persecutors
would have deemed sufficient, could not satisfy him: cropping or cutting
off the ears, and slitting the noses of those who openly objected to his
proceedings, were among his favourite forms of discipline, and what
passed with him as justifiable and wholesome severities.  His atrocities
at last recoiled upon him with a vengeance, and he became the unpitied
victim of his own system of terror and tyranny.



CHAP. III.


Account of reputed WITCHES, of this and subsequent periods, at Lynn and
some other places—inexcusable severity of their sufferings—brutality of
their persecutors—barbaric stupidity and infatuated credulity of the
people and their rulers.

The existence of witches was formerly a part of the creed of the good
people of Lynn, as well as of the rest of their countrymen.  It was not a
mere mental error, which would have made it, at least in a great measure,
harmless, but it was a practical error of a most horrid nature, for it
issued in the persecution and murder of not a few wretched, friendless,
and innocent beings, who were no more in league with satan and the powers
of darkness than their persecutors and judges, or even half so much.
These legal murders were once very common in this country, even since the
reformation: so that many hundreds, if not thousands of them have been
perpetrated under the sanction of our protestant government, and in the
sacred name of justice, and of our sovereign lord the king.  This town,
as was before observed, is among the places where this innocent blood has
been spilt, and where the names of law, justice, and royalty, have been
shamefully prostituted to justify those foul and murderous deeds.  We
shall now proceed to give a sketch of the part which our townsmen of
other times appear to have taken in this detestable business.


SECTION I.


_A sketch of the history of the prosecution and murder of divers poor
harmless creatures_, _falsely denominated witches_, _at Lynn_, _in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries_.

Before the reformation, and since in popish countries, the cognizance of
reputed _witches_, and suppression of what is called _witchcraft_,
pertained to the _inquisitors_.  _Luiz de Paramo_, a Spanish inquisitor,
who wrote a most curious book in defence of the holy office, {720}
declares that in the course of 150 years, (from 1485, if we are not
mistaken) the inquisition had _burnt_ 30,000 _witches_, which he
evidently thought a most meritorious deed, for which the pious actors
were entitled to the gratitude and veneration of posterity, and himself,
who had been very active in the same way, to the praise of having
deserved well of his country and of all Christendom.

After the reformation, the business, in these kingdoms, was taken up by
such zealous protestants (conformists and nonconformists) whose spirit
pretty much resembled that of the Spanish Inquisitors, and who appear to
have been equally unchristianlike.  Their zeal against what they called
witchcraft was unbounded; and whenever they could fix that stigma upon
any one, he could have little chance of escaping with his life.  This
country has therefore been highly infamous for the punishments inflicted,
and the barbarities exercised upon those hapless beings whom our
ignorant, superstitious, and savage ancestors used to brand with the
odious names of _witches_ and _wizards_.  We might well be called to
blush for those execrable deeds of our forefathers, if there were not
others belonging to ourselves which no less loudly call for blushing.

Lancashire, it seems, has been noted for its reputed witches, and so has
Warboys and other places in Huntingdonshire.  Nor has this town been
unproductive of persons who bore the same name, or had the hard fate of
lying under the same imputation.—The first of these, that has fallen
within the knowledge of the present writer, was _Margaret Read_, who is
said to have been _burnt_ here for witchcraft, in 1590.—Poor creature!
She was certainly _murdered_! by the magistrates! by what was called the
law of the land, and in the venerable and sacred name of justice!  Such
acts, however, have been but too common in all ages, in all countries,
and even in what are called protestant states.  England was then such a
state, but that did not always secure the people from injustice and
oppression, or prevent in all instances the rulers and magistrates from
shedding innocent blood.

About eight years after, that is, in 1598, one _Elizabeth Housegoe_ was
executed here on the same account: but whether she was put to death by
_burning_, or by _hanging_, does not appear.  Whichever it was, it was a
most horrid and detestable deed, and would lead one to shudder at the
barbarous character of our ancestors, but for certain existing
circumstances, which seem too clearly to indicate that we are not yet got
so far beyond them in civilization and humanity as we are apt sometimes
to conceive.  Our boasted superiority in those respects over all modern
nations, may also be suspected to be much less real than imaginary.

_Mary Smith_ is the next name that occurs among this description of
hapless sufferers at Lynn.  She is said to have been _burnt_ {723a} here,
on the 12th. of January 1616, for witchcraft, which she was accused of
having practised upon divers persons by means of a vocal contract with
the devil.  The poor creature, who no doubt was insane, acknowledged the
truth of these foolish accusations; which acknowledgement, probably,
formed the chief, if not the only proof of her guilt: and _Alexander
Roberts_, styling himself _preacher of God’s Word at King’s Linne_, in
the same year published a treatise on Witchcraft, in which the story of
this Mary Smith, this pitiable victim of the stupid ignorance and savage
superstition of our ancestors, is related. {723b}

While their hands were still red and poluted with the innocent blood of
this poor defenceless woman, our magistrates went about establishing a
Library in the town, which seems indeed to have been very much wanted
among them: and we have already given them credit for that undertaking.
But its inconsistency with the other part of their conduct is so manifest
and glaring (especially if we join with it their laudable _feast of
reconciliation_,) that one is apt to wonder that they should be capable
of acting such different parts, or of being the performers of actions so
totally dissimilar and heterogeneous.  It must however be owned that the
inconsistencies of the human character are sometimes very strange,
unaccountable, and surprising.

After the last mentioned affair we hear no more of these horrid doings at
Lynn till 1645, when _Dorothy Lee_, and _Grace Wright_, as Mackerel
informs us, were _hanged_ here for witchcraft.  But we suspect that this
is misdated, and that this bloody scene did not take place till the
following year, (1646) as it appears, from the Town Records, that on the
11th. of May, that year, it was “ordered that alderman Thomas Rivett be
requested to send for Mr. _Hopkins_, the Witch-discoverer, to come to
Lynn, and his charges and recompense to be borne by the town.”  We may
presume that he did not hesitate to come, and that it was in consequence
of his coming the prosecution and execution of those poor unhappy
creatures took place.  It must have been a sad time when such
arch-villains as this Hopkins were caressed by the magistrates, and
employed to assist them in the administration of justice!—Of him we shall
hereafter give some further account.

Those two women were probably the last that were put to death here for
witchcraft: but great numbers suffered afterwards for the same imaginary
crime in other parts of the kingdom, to the great disgrace of both the
makers and the administrators of our laws.  Even till within these sixty
or seventy years, if we are not mistaken, there have been instances among
us of poor defenceless beings doomed to capital punishment for the same
pretended offence: and though our legislators and rulers seem no longer
to have any faith in the existence of witches, yet the common people in
many places are as much in that belief as ever, and would be very glad,
no doubt, to have the old sanguinary laws still put in execution.  A
melancholy instance of the present existence of such a superstitious
belief among our country people occurred but about two years ago at Great
Paxton in Huntingdonshire, of which we shall, perhaps, in another place
take some further notice.


SECTION II.


_Brief account of some of the principal_ witch-finders, _or_ witch
discoverers, _as they were sometimes called_, _those pests of society_,
_who were a disgrace to the country and to the age in which they lived_.

It would appear perhaps incredible, that those infernal beings called
witch-finders should ever have been tolerated and encouraged in any
country calling itself christian and protestant, had we not seen
characters no less detestable and diabolical countenanced, caressed, and
patronised in such countries.  The execrable reign of Charles II swarmed
with _Spies_ and _informers_, whose talents were employed to promote
religious uniformity, and suppress liberty of conscience.  Like the witch
finders, they were countenanced by the magistrates, patronized by the
gentry, and enriched by the wages of unrighteousness, and the ruin of
innocent persons and families.  Our own time has seen such wretches, and
poor Ireland has been not a little prolific of them.  Even among our
financial or revenue agents some of the same family have made their
appearance, which some are apt to consider as an evil and a grievance of
no small magnitude.  If our own time has abounded with such characters,
and if they have been really countenanced and cherished by rulers and
magistrates, we must not be too severe upon our ancestors for the course
which they pursued in regard to those called witches and witch-finders:
for we do not seem to have yet gone so far beyond them in wisdom and
virtue as we are sometimes apt to think.

Among those called witch-finders, the first place seems due to _Matthew
Hopkins_, of Maningtree, in Essex, who has been already mentioned, as
invited here by the magistrates, to assist them in the discovery, or
detection and conviction of witches, and the suppression of witchcraft.
This man, as we are told, was witch-finder for the associated counties,
(Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk,) and hanged in one year no less than
_sixty_ reputed witches in his own county.  The old, the ignorant, and
the indigent; such as could neither plead their own cause nor hire an
advocate; were the miserable victims of this wretch’s avarice and
villany.  He pretended to be a great critic in _special marks_; which
were only moles, scorbutic spots, or warts, which frequently grew large
and pendulous in old age, but were absurdly supposed to be teats to
suckle imps.  His ultimate method of proof was by tying together the
thumbs and toes of the suspected person, about whose waist was fastened a
cord, the ends of which were held, on the banks of a river, by two
persons, in whose power it was to straighten or slacken it.  _Swimming_,
upon this experiment, was deemed a full proof of guilt; for which king
James, (who is said to have recommended it, if he did not invent it,)
assigned the following sage reason: “That as such persons have renounced
their baptism by water, so the water refuses to receive them.”  Sometimes
those who were accused of diabolical practices were tied neck and heels
and tossed into a pond.  If they floated they were consequently guilty,
and therefore taken out and burnt: if they were _innocent_ they were only
_drowned_.  The experiment of _swimming_ was at length tried upon Hopkins
himself, in his own way, and he was in the event condemned, and, as it
seems, executed as a wizard; {727} an end or retribution which he appears
to have richly merited.  But how far he was (if at all) convinced of
that, at his exit, we are not informed.  If we are not mistaken, there
was also, about the same time, a noted witch-finder at _Ipswich_, who
found pretty full employment, but as we have no account either of his
mode of proceeding or exploits, or yet of his exit, we can say no more
about him.

At the time when the belief and detestation of witchcraft were universal
in this country there can be no doubt but the number of our pretended
witch-finders was very considerable.  It may be fairly supposed that
there were more than one for every county, and even that they were no
less numerous than our modern mountebanks and quack doctors.  Some of
them, however, would, in the natural course of things, outshine the rest,
or far excel them in point of reputation or celebrity.  Such a one was
Hopkins, and such a one was that famous Scotchman, whose name we cannot
at present make out, who found so much employment, in the way of his vile
vocation, on this, as well as on the other side of the Tweed.  Of him a
curious account is given in a book entitled, England’s Grievance, &c. by
_Ralph Gardiner_, Gent. of Chirton, in Northumberland.  London: printed
in 1655.  Reprinted in 1796.  Where we have the following information.

    “In or about the year 1649 or 1650, the magistrates of Newcastle upon
    Tyne sent two of their sergeants, namely Thomas Shevel, and Cuthbert
    Nicholson, into Scotland, to agree with a Scotchman, who pretended
    knowledge to finde out witches by pricking them with pins, to come to
    Newcastle, where he should try such who should be brought to him, and
    have 20_s._ a-piece for all he could condemn (or convict) as witches,
    and free passage thither and back again: [i.e. have his expenses
    borne to and fro.]  When the sergeants had brought this witch-finder
    on horseback to town, the magistrates sent their bellman through the
    town ringing his bell, and crying, all people that would bring in any
    complaint against any woman for a witch, they should be sent for and
    tryed by the person appointed.  _Thirty_ women were [accordingly]
    brought into the town-hall and stript, and then openly had pins
    thrust into their bodies, and most of them was (were) found guilty by
    him, and set aside.

    “The said reputed witch-finder acquainted colonel Hobson that he knew
    women, whether they were witches or no, by their looks; and when he
    was searching a personable and good-like [or good looking] woman, the
    said colonel replied and said, Surely, this woman in none, and need
    not be tryed: but the scotchman said she was, for the town said she
    was, and therefore he would try her; and presently, in sight of all
    the people, laid her body naked to the waste, [waist] with her
    cloaths over her head; by which fright and shame all her blood
    contracted into one part of her body, and then he ran a pin into her
    thigh, and suddenly let her coats fall, and then demanded whither she
    had nothing of his in her body, but did not bleed?  But she being
    amazed, replied little.  Then he put his hands up her coats and
    pulled out the pin, setting her aside, as a guilty person and child
    of the devil, and fell to try others, whom he made guilty.”

    “Colonel Hobson perceiving the alteration of the foresaid woman, by
    her blood settling in her right parts, caused her to be brought
    again, and her cloaths pulled up to her thigh, and required the scot
    to run the pin into the same place, and then it gushed out of blood,
    and the said scot cleared her, and said she was not a child of the
    devil.  So soon as he had done, and received his wages, he went into
    Northumberland to try women there, where he got of some 3_l._
    a-piece.  But Henry Ogle Esq. a late member of parliament, laid hold
    on him, and required bond of him, to answer the sessions, but he got
    away for Scotland, and it was conceived, if he had staid, he would
    have made most of the women in the north witches, for money.”

The poor Newcastle women, whom this wretch had set aside and pronounced
guilty, were put in prison till the assizes, when 14 of them, and _one
man_, were condemned, and afterwards executed: all solemnly protesting
their innocence.  Their names are mentioned at page 115 of the said book.
The truth of the above account is attested by three persons, whose names
it is needless to insert here.—As to the infamous witch-finder himself,
we are told that “he was afterwards taken up in Scotland, cast into
prison, indicted, arraigned, and condemned for such like villanie
exercised in Scotland: and on the gallows confessed he had been the death
of above 220 women, in England and Scotland, for the gain of 20_s._
a-piece, and beseeched forgiveness, and was executed.”

The author of the work from which this account is extracted, indignantly
inquires, “by what law the magistrates of Newcastle could send to another
nation for a mercenary person to try women for witches? and set the
bellman to cry for them to be brought in?—and give 20_s._ a piece to the
former to condemn them?”  These queries we know not how to answer, but by
supposing that the whole was a _lawless_, as well as a most iniquitous,
barbarous, and scandalous business.  The magistrates of Newcastle
certainly appear on this occasion a vile and infamous crew, whose memory
ought to be held up to the horror of perpetual detestation.  How much
better the magistrates of Lynn would have appeared, had we so particular
an account of their proceedings, when they sent for Hopkins, it is
impossible now to say.  Their conduct, to say the least of it, appears
sufficiently dark and despicable.

While we feel and express a just indignation against the witchfinders, as
well as against the spies and informers and such like miscreants, we
ought not to forget how much the existence, sufferance, and employment of
them reflect on the character of the rulers and magistrates of those
days, and even of the nation, or public at large; for had these been
sufficiently enlightened and humanized, those detestable wretches had
never been encouraged and employed, or even endured in the country.  How
baleful and deplorable therefore must intellectual blindness or ignorance
be in any community? how desirable, important, and necessary for all
descriptions of men, is the true knowledge of their respective rights and
duties!  Had our magistrates and legislators always possessed that
knowledge, and acted accordingly, our annals had never been disgraced, as
they are, with the recital of so many acts of injustice and oppression,
or with such shocking accounts of the torturing, burning, and hanging of
so many reputed criminals, under the misapplied and odious names of
witches, heretics, and blasphemers.


SECTION III.


_Additional observations on Witchcraft_, _and on the absurd and
superstitious notions entertained by our ancestors concerning witches_,
_as well as their deep-rooted and deadly antipathy against all those whom
they considered as such_.

That the world abounded in former ages, and from the remotest periods,
with jugglers and other sorts of artful impostors, who pretended to the
knowledge of future events and other secrets, and so supported themselves
and acquired great names by working upon the weakness, or imposing upon
the credulity of mankind, is well known.  Being of different sorts they
went under different names, according to their respective pretensions, or
peculiar, apparent, or professed modes of proceeding.  Hence we speak of
them under the various appellations of magicians, sorcerers, diviners,
conjurers, witches and wizards, &c. each, or most of which denote a
certain distinction of character or operation. {732}  There were among
them from the earliest times ventriloquists and consummate jugglers, well
skilled in the arts of dexterity, or slight of hand tricks, and their
operations served, (as real miracles did with the true prophets,) to gain
credit to their declarations and pretensions.  Thus their high and solemn
professions, with the aid of gastriloquy, legerdemain or juggling,
obtained credit in the world, so as to establish their character or fame,
and perpetuate the delusion.  Falshood assumed the name or place of
truth, and fiction that of reality: and those who were thus taken in, or
imposed upon, have always with difficulty been undeceived.

Formerly the names of magicians, sorcerers, witches, &c. were
appropriated to those only who avowed or professed themselves to be such;
but latterly, or in more recent times, they seem to have been chiefly, if
not entirely appropriated to those who did _not_ make such an avowal or
profession, and who even disclaimed any such imputation or pretension.
And, what is exceedingly remarkable, those who were uncommonly knowing,
and those who were uncommonly ignorant became now equally the objects of
suspicion, and were of course included under one or another of those
appellations; as if extraordinary intelligence and extraordinary
stupidity equally indicated an alliance or confederacy with the devil.
Such men as _Roger Bacon_ and _Galileo_, the most enlightened of their
species, were more than suspected to be _sorcerers_, and multitudes of
poor creatures, mostly old women, who were no way distinguished from the
rest of the community, except by their extreme poverty, or extreme
ignorance, have been treated in the most brutal manner, and in the end
burnt or hanged, under the opprobrious name of _witches_—in the infamy of
which conduct, as we have shewn, this town is deeply implicated.

Before the reformation there was, it seems, in this country a regular
board of justice, for the constant apprehension and conviction of
magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, witches, &c. and a warrant is said to
be still extant for the seizing of one Thomas Northfield, _professor of
divinity_, and _sorcerer_, with all his books and instruments. {734a}
This double character, of conjurer and divine, exhibits the poor fellow
in a queer kind of light, as a sort of amphibious animal.  What he was as
a divine, it is impossible now to ascertain.  He might be eminent, or he
might not. {734b}  But his being also a sorcerer or conjurer, in the
usual acceptations of those words, seems no way entitled to credit; so
that his lying under that imputation, or his being so reputed, was merely
the effect of the blind superstition which then prevailed, and which
usually ascribed every appearance of superior genius or intelligence to a
diabolical inspiration.

After the reformation, the rage against witches and sorcerers underwent
no abatement.  New laws were enacted against them, and reputed offenders
were prosecuted with the utmost rigour.  The most learned of our
sovereigns, (Henry VIII. and James I.) not only strongly believed in the
existence of such offenders, but likewise held them in the greatest
abhorrence: Hence by statute 33 Henry VIII, c. 8. witchcraft and sorcery
are made felony without benefit of clergy; and by statute 1 Jac. 1. c.
12. it is enacted, “that all persons invoking any evil spirit, or
consulting, covenanting with, entertaining, employing, _feeding_, or
_rewarding_ any evil spirit; or taking up dead bodies from their graves
to be used in any witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; or killing,
or otherwise hurting any person by such infernal arts; should be guilty
of felony without benefit of clergy, and suffer death.  And if any person
should attempt by sorcery to discover hidden treasure, or to restore
stolen goods, or to provoke unlawful love, or to hurt any man or beast,
though the same were not effected, he or she should suffer imprisonment
and pillory for the first offence, and death for the second.”  These acts
(judge Blackstone says) “continued in force till lately, to the terror of
all ancient females in the kingdom: and many poor wretches were
sacrificed to the prejudice of their neighbours and their own illusion;
not a few having, by some means or other, confessed the fact at the
gallows.  But (he adds,) all executions for this dubious crime are now at
an end.  Accordingly it is with us enacted by statute 9 Geo. II. c. 5.
that no prosecution shall be carried on against any person for
conjuration, witchcraft, sorcery, or inchantment. {736a}  But the
misdemeanor of persons pretending to use witchcraft, tell fortunes, or
discover stolen goods by skill in the occult sciences, is still
deservedly punished with a year’s imprisonment, and standing four times
in the pillory.” {736b}

Thus it appears that it was not till the last reign that the sanguinary
laws against witchcraft &c. were repealed in this country; so that we had
enjoyed the light of the reformation full 200 years before we discerned
the injustice and bloodguiltiness of those laws, or even the folly and
absurdity of believing that those poor, ignorant, defenceless women, whom
we were pleased to call witches, had actually sold their souls and bodies
to the devil, and had in exchange obtained from him the power of working
miracles.  For we always imputed to our witches a supernatural power,
which we deemed one of their essential characteristics: and we firmly
believed that they could fly, or ride in the air upon broomsticks, change
themselves into the form of other animals, injure their neighbours in
their persons or property, by their looks, their thoughts, or their
wishes, &c.  Now, if not only the public at large and the juries, but
even the judges and legislators could believe all this, what wonder is it
if some of the poor old women could do so too, as they are said to have
sometimes made such a confession?  Their confession, however, appears to
have been often, if not always, the mere effect of terror and confusion.
{737}  Poor hapless creatures! without a friend in the world to take
their part, or speak a word in their behalf; terrified also and
confounded beyond measure by the presence of their judge and the awful
apparatus of a court of Justice, they would confess any thing that might
be urged upon them, and all without thought or reflection, or even
knowing what they said.

It is not unworthy of observation that witches were formerly, even by our
legislators, classed with heretics, and witchcraft went under the name of
heresy, being deemed a species of that offence, and subjected to the same
punishment, that of _burning_.  It might quite as well have gone under
the name of _rebellion_ or _high treason_, or any other crime, for it has
as much affinity with them, to the full, as it has with heresy.  It is
astonishing how often, or how commonly it is that human laws and
governments are characterized by ignorance, absurdity, injustice,
cruelty, _folly_ and _madness_.  So unfortunate in general has the world
been in its rulers, that most of them have proved its greatest enemies,
though often extolled to the skies, for every imaginable excellence, by
the vile sycophants that surround them, and the vermin of every province
and district who live and fatten on their oppressive and rapacious
devices.


SECTION IV.


_Summary view of the whole subject—account of proceedings against witches
in this country till the repeal of the laws that chiefly affected
them—hints on the present state of the nation in regard to this and its
kindred delusions_.

The proper idea of _witchcraft_, it is presumed, has been already very
plainly suggested; but lest it should not seem sufficiently clear to our
readers in general, it may be proper to attempt here a more explicit
definition.  We say therefore that witchcraft is a supernatural power
which persons were supposed to obtain the possession of by entering into
compact with the devil.  It was believed that they had given themselves
up to him body and soul; and that he engaged on his part that they should
want for nothing, and that he would avenge them upon all their
enemies:—also, that as soon as the bargain was concluded, the devil
delivered up to the witch an imp, or familiar spirit, to be ready at a
call and do whatever it was directed.  By the assistance of this imp and
the devil together, [that is, of both the young devil and the old one,]
the witch, who was almost always an old woman, was enabled, as it was
firmly believed, to do very marvellous feats—even to transport herself in
the air, on a broomstick or a spit, to distant places to attend the
assemblies or meetings of the witches; for, according to this belief, or
way of thinking, the witches, (like some of our modern sects,) actually
had their _assemblies_, _associations_, or general _conferences_, at
which the devil himself always presided.  It was also believed that they
were enabled to transform themselves into various shapes, particularly to
assume the forms of _cats_ and _hares_, in which they most delighted; to
inflict diseases on whomsoever they thought proper; and to punish their
enemies in a variety of ways. {739}  These ideas of witchery could not
obtain belief among the heathens, as they had no knowledge of our
_devil_.

Under popish darkness and delusion these views of witchcraft universally
obtained in Europe till the 16th century, and the doctrine maintained its
ground with tolerable firmness till after the middle of the seventeenth,
and even till the former part of the eighteenth century, when it was
obliged to give way to more rational views of things.  Vast numbers of
reputed witches were here, in _protestant_ and _evangelical England_,
convicted and condemned to be burnt every year; and a man who had the
hardihood to deny the doctrine, or doubt of its truth, would be at once
suspected of atheism, and perhaps run the risk of being burnt, if not for
downright witchcraft, yet at least for advocating the cause, and being
the agent of his Satanic majesty. {740}

Of the _methods of discovering witches_, one was to weigh the supposed
criminal against the _church bible_, which, if she was guilty, would
preponderate.  Another method was by making her attempt to say the Lord’s
Prayer; this no witch was able to repeat entirely, but would omit some
part or other: all witches did not hesitate at the same place; some
leaving out one part and some another.—It was also believed that witches
always said their prayers _backwards_.—_Teats_, though which the imps
suckled, were indubitable marks of a witch: these were always raw, and
also insensible; and, if squeezed, sometimes yielded a drop of blood.  A
witch could not weep more than three tears, and that only out of the left
eye.  This want of tears was, by the witchfinders, and even by some
_judges_, considered as a very substantial proof of guilt.  _Swimming_ a
witch, as was before observed, was another kind of popular ordeal
generally practised: for this she was stript naked, and cross bound, the
right thumb to the left toe, and the left thumb to the right toe.  Thus
prepared, she was thrown into a pond or river, in which, if guilty, she
could not sink; for having, as was said before, by her compact with the
devil, renounced the benefit of the water of baptism, that element, in
its turn, renounced her, and refused to receive her into its bosom.

The trial by _stool_, another method for the discovery of witches, was
thus managed: having taken the suspected witch, she was placed in the
middle of a room upon a stool or table, cross legged, or in some other
uneasy posture; to which if she submitted not, she was bound with cords:
there she was watched, and kept without food or sleep, for twenty four
hours; for it was believed that they should within that time see her imp
come and suck.  A little hole was therefore made in the door for the imp
to come in at: and lest he should come in a less discernible shape, they
that watched were taught to be frequently sweeping the room, and, if they
saw any _spiders_ or _flies_, to kill them; if they could not kill them,
then they might be sure they were _imps_.

If witches, under examination or torture, would not confess, all their
apparel was changed, and every hair of their body shaven off with a sharp
razor, lest they should secrete magical charms to prevent their
confessing.  Witches were believed to be most apt to confess on
_Fridays_.—The two following expedients, or fiery ordeals, are also
mentioned, as used to extort confession: the first, burning the thatch of
the house of the suspected witch; the other, burning any animal supposed
to be bewitched by her, as a hog or ox.  These, it was held would force a
witch to confess, {742} in spite of her teeth, or of the devil.—Our
ancestors, strange as it may seem, persisted in the belief and practice,
or observance of these horrid monstrosities till within the memory of
some of the present generation.  Nor had they perhaps relinquished or
abandoned them quite so soon, but for the laudable exertions of such men
as Locke and Addison, and their enlightened contemporaries.

Our kings, courtiers, and legislators were all believers in witchcraft,
and hearty approvers of the existing laws against that reputed crime.
One of the former, and deemed the _wisest_ of that sacred order, and the
_Solomon_ of his day, (James I,) wrote a book in defence of that belief,
and of subjecting witches to capital punishment; and when _Reginald
Scott_, the first of our countrymen who ventured to dissent froth the
popular creed and write on the other side of the question, published his
book, his majesty ordered it to be _burnt_ by the common hangman.  The
whole nation approved of the royal and magnanimous deed, and poor Scott
passed for a notorious heretic.—It is not a little mortifying and
humiliating to the dignity and pride of man, that the same stupid and
absurd notions about witchcraft were among the articles of the creed of
the great lord _Bacon_ and his most enlightened contemporaries, as well
as of their wise sovereign, and the whole body of the mobility or
national rabblement.  The poor witches, of course, had then almost
terrible time of it; as much so, probably, to the full, as in the darkest
days of popery.

Under Charles I, the Common-wealth, and succeeding reigns, the public
opinion on this subject continued unchanged, and the judicial proceedings
against witches went on as before.  If they exceeded at any particular
period, we presume it must have been under the _Common-wealth_, when the
witch-finders appear to have been in full employment, and at the height
of their prosperity.  But we can hardly give credit to the account which
Dr. Zachary Grey said he had seen, of between 3 and 4000 persons who
suffered death, in the British dominions, for witchcraft, from the year
1640 to 1660.  The spirit which then predominated and reigned, was
certainly violent enough, and bore cruelly hard on the poor creatures who
were accused of witchcraft: but such a number of victims in so short a
space of time, is surely too excessive and extravagant to be credited.
It is however greatly to be regretted that the leaders of that
interesting period adhered in this particular to the creed of their
ancestors, and were so stupidly in the dark as they appear to have been
on this and some other subjects.

It does not appear, as far as the present writer has discovered, that any
of the _judges_, till after the revolution, shewed the least inclination
to discountenance the prosecution of reputed witches, or the prevailing
and popular notions about witchcraft.  Even _Sir Matthew Hale_ went with
the stream of public opinion, and was among those oracles of the law who
passed, without hesitation, the sentence of death on those whom the
verdict of a jury pronounced guilty of that reputed crime.  _Sir John
Holt_ and _Sir John Powel_, to their immortal honour, appear to have been
the first of our English judges who viewed this pretended offence with
minds superior to vulgar prejudice.  The conduct of the former, on a
certain trial for that offence, is said to have been such as put an end
to all similar prosecutions in that part of the country, and even
throughout the kingdom. {744}  But the law was not repealed or altered in
his time.

As to the latter, (Judge Powel,) we hear of two different trials for this
offence before him.  At one of them, a witness gave evidence that the
prisoner at the bar could _fly_: on which the judge asked the poor woman,
if it really was so, and she answered in the affirmative; when the judge,
with a promptitude of expression which evinced the superiority of his
understanding, told her, so she might if she would; he knew of no law
against it.  How this trial ended we are not told; but we may be very
sure that his lordship did all he could to get the prisoner acquitted.
The other trial for witchcraft before him was that of _Jane Wenham_, at
Hertford, March 4. 1712.  The prisoner was charged with having bewitched
several persons, and had the weakness, it seems, sometime before the
trial, to confess herself guilty of the alleged crime: and though she
afterwards accounted for this confession, as arising from terror, it
appears to have had considerable influence on the minds of the jury, in
spite of the endeavours of the humane judge to explain and invalidate the
evidence brought against her.  She was accordingly brought in guilty; but
the judge reprieved her, and the queen soon after pardoned her.

One of the principal witnesses against the prisoner on this trial, as
well as one of the principal writers in the controversy to which it gave
rise, was Mr. Bragge, vicar of Hitchin.  This gentlemen, in his evidence
on the trial, declared, on “the faith of a clergyman,” that “he believed
the prisoner to be a witch:” whereupon the judge told him, that,
therefore, “on the Truth of a Judge, he took him to be no conjurer.”
After she was pardoned, a gentleman in the country provided her an
apartment over his stables, sent her victuals from his table, and
suffered her to attend on his children: and we are informed that she was
ever after looked upon by the family as an honest, good natured woman.
{747a}  Here we will venture to add that the conduct of the judge and the
queen was as just and commendable as that of the prosecutors and the jury
was vile and infamous.

In 1716, about four years after the above trial, came on at Huntingdon,
for the same offence, before judge _Wilmot_, the trial of _Mary Hicks_
and _Elizabeth_ her daughter, _nine_ years of age.  They were, it seems,
the wife and favourite child of a substantial farmer, who had them
apprehended, and became himself, most unnaturally, the principal
prosecutor.  The child had practised some silly illusions on her father’s
weakness, and the mother had had recourse to the antiquated folly of
killing her neighbours in effigy.  On this the suspicion of their being
witches was founded.  A confession on their part, not only corroborated
that suspicion, but was taken as a full proof of their guilt: “and judge
Wilmot suffered them to be hanged, upon that confession, four years (says
Mr. Gough,) after his wiser brother, (judge Powel,) ventured his own life
to save that of the old woman at Hertford.”

About twenty years after the date of this disgraceful and tragical trial,
the 9th. of Geo. II, the old laws which made witchcraft a capital crime
were happily repealed.  How many more of such prosecutions or executions
took place within those twenty years we are not able to say. {747b}  But
it does not appear that the inhabitants in general, or the lower orders
of the community which constitute the bulk of the nation, have ever yet
been fully satisfied with the repeal of those laws.  Hence they have been
often ready to take the business into their own hands and proceed in a
summary and very savage way against those whom they have thought proper
to deem or denominate witches.  A shocking case of this kind occurred at
_Fring_ in _Hertfordshire_ as lately as 1751, when one _Ruth Osborn_, a
reputed witch, fell a victim to the stupid credulity and abominable
prejudice of a frantic mob: and though several of the ringleaders in that
bloody and brutal transaction were afterwards hanged, yet the blind and
superstitious belief that produced it remained still in the country, and
is, even now, in many, if not in most parts of the kingdom as strong as
ever.

But little more than two years ago, as was observed before, one _Ann
Izzard_, a poor, honest, industrious woman, of Great Paxton in
Huntingdonshire, was very near meeting the same fate with the above Ruth
Osborn.  Two or three young women in the neighbourhood having fits, some
people there gave out, that they were bewitched, and the suspicion fell
upon Ann Izzard: a loaded cart sometime after, oversetting on its return
from St. Neot’s market, while the same woman was in company, that
accident was ascribed to her witchery.  This confirmed and established
the public opinion of her being actually a witch, and immediately set the
whole parish in an uproar: “She has just overturned a loaded cart with as
much ease as if it had been a spinning wheel,” was echoed from one end of
it to the other.  Men, women, and children raised their voices and
exclaimed, “we have now sufficient proof of her guilt—this last act in
open day speaks for itself—she is the person that does all the mischief;
and if something is not done to put a stop to her baseness there will be
no living in the place.”—Nor did this fit of phrensy terminate till they
had made two attacks upon her, which, atrocious as they appeared to
rational and enlightened people, where considered, by themselves as not
only justifiable but highly meritorious.  They were proceeding to still
greater atrocities, which she escaped through the interposition of some
of her more humane neighbours, who took her under their protection, and
had the offenders prosecuted. {749}

But let us not suppose that it is only in _Hertfordshire_ and
_Huntingdonshire_ that this stupid belief in the existence of witches
still maintains its ground among us: there every reason to conclude, for
all our boasted advancement in knowledge, that a large majority of our
population is still subject to this stupidity, and strong in the faith of
witchcraft.  It is much to be wished we could here make an exception in
favour of _Norfolk_, and particularly of _Lynn_.  But it cannot be done.
A great part of this county is known to be exceedingly dark and
heathenish; and the vicinity of this town may be said to be much in the
same predicament.  Even of the town itself the majority of the population
appear to be in a miserable low estate, in point of moral as well as
religious cultivation.  It is therefore not to be wondered at if a belief
in such things as witchcraft and conjuration should be here still very
common and prevalent.

The author presumes that there is no need to apologize for the length of
these historical strictures on witchcraft; the belief of it being, even
now, so general among us.  As he deems it a vulgar error, or popular
delusion of a most disgraceful character, and pernicious tendency, he
wished to expose it with effect, which he thought he could not do more
briefly.  He has long observed, with regret, how tenaciously a large
proportion of the population of this town and country still adhere to
their old blind prejudices; and he would gladly contribute, as far as he
can, towards weakening that adherence.  The success, indeed, of all
efforts in this way seems almost hopeless; our countrymen’s progress
here, from darkness to light, having been hitherto so exceedingly slow
and sluggish.  A belief in the existence or reality of conjuration and
witchcraft, and in the almost boundless power and dominion of a malignant
being, called the _devil_, is yet, even now in the nineteenth century,
among our deep-rooted delusions.  That it is really so, might be
exemplified and proved from many undeniable facts, as well as some very
recent and striking occurrences. {751}  But we will now dismiss the
subject, and proceed to another division of the work, where new scenes
will present themselves to our view.



CHAP. IV.


History of Lynn, from the meeting of the long parliament, and the
commencement of the civil war, to the Restoration.

The long parliament, during the first years of its existence, exhibited,
perhaps, a body of national representatives, the most respectable in
point of talents and integrity, that this country could ever boast of, or
has at any time produced.  Between the patriotism of that assembly and
the despotism of the court; there was certainly a most visible and
striking contrast.  The difference between these patriots and the
government, arose from the oppressive proceedings of the latter, and
their flagrant encroachments upon the rights and liberties of the people.
The patriots heartily espoused the people’s cause; but as their
oppressors would not listen to reason, or cease from their tyranny, and
give security for their future good behaviour, an appeal was made to the
sword, which produced the civil war, of which, together with its
memorable effects or consequences, especially as they affected, or
related to this town, we shall now proceed to lay before the reader a
brief account, which will enable him to form some idea of the principal
occurrences of that period.


SECTION I.


_Hints relating to some occurrences here_, _anterior to the breaking out
of the war—Lynn declares for the king—its previous conduct charged with
duplicity—siege and surrender of the town—subsequent events_.

Among the arbitrary measures of the government, which affected this town
previously to the commencement of the war, was the levying of
_Ship-money_.  In 1634, the town is said to have been assessed towards a
ship of 800 tons, with 260 men; but it does not appear what was the
amount of the assessment.  Two years after, however, (Nov. 6. 1637,) we
learn, from the corporation books, that “the town was assessed 200_l._
for a ship of war.”  This sum may be supposed nearly, if not quite equal
to 2000_l._ of our money.  We mean not to say that it was excessive or
exorbitant: it was certainly arbitrary, and therefore illegal and
objectionable.  But by the heads of the town, if we may judge by their
subsequent conduct, it was not deemed a serious grievance, or perhaps any
grievance at all; for they declared for the court, and against the party
which opposed those lawless exactions.

In the succeeding years, previously to the commencement of the war, the
town appears to have been closely and carefully guarded, so that none
were allowed to enter without permission: hence we find in 1639, the
mayor appointing “two warders for the day time, one to stand at the
South, and the other the East-Gate;” and the same to continue, “so long
as he shall think fitting these dangerous times.”  In 1640 and 1641, the
town may be supposed guarded no less vigilantly; in the beginning of
1642, it was, it seems, further fortified, and furnished with seven
pieces of brass cannon from London.  In the early part of the same year,
captain _Sherwood_ of Norwich, at the head of a troop of dragoons, came
close under _St. Catherine’s Wall_, by the East-Gate, and demanded
admittance, but was denied, says Mackerel, “by the mayor and
townsmen”—but we presume it must have been rather by the _governor_; who,
at that time, if we are not mistaken, was _Sir Hamon L’Estrange_, the
father of the afterwards famous _Sir Roger_.

The three gates were now furnished with draw-bridges, and the town, from
its situation and the repairs bestowed on its fortifications, must have
been pretty strong.  The parliament also thought it a place of no small
consequence, and therefore it was besieged and taken at an early stage of
the war, by the earl of Manchester, one of their commanders, at the head
of a very respectable and formidable force, well supplied with artillery.
The town held out near three weeks; for the siege began on August 28. and
the place surrendered on the 16th. of September.  Of this memorable siege
and surrender, the following account is extracted from Rushworth’s
Historical Collections, vol. 5. p. 283, which it is hoped will not prove
unacceptable to the reader.

    “The town of Lynn Regis (says Rushworth,) advantageously situated on
    an arm of the sea, had for a long while fortified itself, on pretence
    of _neutrality_, and for their own defence; but afterwards shewed
    themselves _wholly for the king_: wherefore the earl of Manchester
    being made the parliament’s major-general, for the associated
    counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, &c. resolved to reduce it; and in order
    thereunto, seized the town of _Old Lynn_, and there planted ordnance,
    which much annoyed them in the other town.  And two approaches were
    made, one by the causeway that leads to the _South_, and the other to
    the _East-gate_.”  [Against the latter,] “The besieged made a brisk
    sally, and at once fired two houses in Gauwood, [Gaywood] intending
    to have destroyed the whole town, that the enemy might not have
    quarters there.  But that party were beaten in, and the rest of the
    houses preserved.  The besiegers summoned in pioneers, from all the
    neighbouring parts, and by degrees brought their approaches within
    half musket shot: and had begun from a battery on a hill, near to the
    end of the town, next the sea, and resolved upon storming the town,
    both by land and water, having provided many boats and ladders for
    that purpose.  But then received a letter from the town, intimating
    their willingness to capitulate: and so a treaty was agreed on, to be
    had by eight persons of a side.  Those for the earl of Manchester
    were, _Sir John Pargrave_, _Col. Russel_, _Col. Walton_, _Mr. Philip
    Calthorpe_, _Mr. John Pickering_, _Mr. Gregory Gosset_, _Mr. John
    Spilman_, and _Mr. William Goodz_.  For the town _Sir Hamon
    L’Estrange_, _Sir Richard Hovell_, _Mr. Clinch_, _Mr. Dereham_, _Mr.
    Pallet_ their _recorder_, _Mr. Hudson_ the _mayor elect_, _Mr. Leek_,
    and _Mr. Kirby_: Between whom, after a long debate, it was agreed to
    this effect,—1. That the town, with the ordnance, arms, and
    ammunition be delivered to the earl, and he to enter the town.—2.
    That the gentlemen strangers in the town, shall have liberty to
    depart, with every man a horse, sword and pistols.—3. That the
    townsmen shall enjoy all rights and privileges appertaining to them,
    with free trading as far as may consist with law.—4. All prisoners on
    both sides to be set at liberty.—5. That the desires of the town
    touching certain of their ships taken by the parliament frigates,
    shall be represented by the earl, to the parliament and the earl of
    _Warwick_.—6. That neither the persons nor estates, of any
    inhabitants or strangers now resident in Lynn, shall be molested for
    any thing past, or done by them since the earl of Manchester’s coming
    into these parts.—7. That, for preventing of plundering, the town
    shall raise and pay _ten shillings a man_, to all _private soldiers_
    under the earl’s command, and a _fortnight’s pay_ to the
    _officers_.—8. and lastly, That _Sir Hamon L’Estrange_, _Sir Richard
    Hovell_, _Capt. Clinch_, _Mr. Recorder_, _Mr. Dereham_, and _Mr.
    Leek_, remain as hostages, until the conditions be performed.”

    “The same night, part of the Earl’s forces took possession of the
    town; and the next morning his lordship made his entry, and sent 500
    men to _Hull_.  Soon after be withdrew the rest of his forces into
    Lincolnshire, leaving Col. _Walton_ governor of Lynn.”

Here it may be observed, that the forces that besieged and took Lynn,
consisted solely of infantry: the cavalry attached to this army had
remained in Lincolnshire, under the command of _Cromwell_, who was now
beginning to distinguish himself as a soldier.  But neither he nor his
cavalry, were present at this siege, though some people have thought
otherwise, for no better reason, seemingly, than the idle presumption
that Cromwell must have been concerned in all the notable transactions of
that memorable period.

Among the remarkable occurrences which took place here during this siege,
the following has been found in a certain MS. account of the town—

    “On Sunday the 3rd of September, in the afternoon, and in the middle
    of the sermon, came a shot of 18lb weight in at the window over the
    west door of St. Margaret’s church, and took the middle pillar a
    great part off, and broke it in many hundred pieces, dispersing them
    in all directions, all over the church.  One piece of the stone, fell
    into a seat at the lower end of the church, where five men set,
    [sat,] and split the board before them, on which they laid their
    books; but no harm was done to them.  The preacher, a reverend
    divine, named _Mr. Hinson_, left his sermon and came out of the
    church, and all the people departed in a most confused manner; {759a}
    some leaving their hatts, some their books, and some their scarves;
    but, praised be God, no further hurt was done to any person.” {759b}

Near three months after the surrender of Lynn, the following order of
both houses was issued, bearing date December 9th 1643—

    “Forasmuch as the Earl of Manchester, in his articles of agreement
    with the town of king’s Lynn, remitted the offence in reference to
    himself and his array while they lay before the town; but touched
    upon no private injuries done by the malignants to the well-affected:
    it is this day ordered by the Lords and Commons that such persons as
    did take any of the goods of the well-affected, by themselves or such
    as they appointed, or did any damage to their houses or mills, or any
    other ways, shall make restitution to all such well-affected persons
    as have been damnified, according to the greatness of their losses.
    And that _Col. Walton_, governor of King’s Lynn, _Mr. Percival_ and
    _Mr. Toll_, members of the House of Commons, [for that town,] shall
    examine what damage hath been done to the well-affected, and appoint
    such as have done them injury to make them reparation accordingly:
    and if any of them shall refuse to make such reparation, that the
    said governor, Mr. Percival, and Mr. Toll, shall have power to
    sequester so much of the estates of such malignants as will make the
    reparation, and assign it to those that have been damnified.” {760a}

Hence it appears, that the town was then divided into two great political
parties, the most powerful of which approving, and even admiring the
corruptions and insanities of the Court: how far the case is similar or
dissimilar at present, we need not say.

Sometime after the above order was issued by the two Houses, a party of
royalists, at the head of which was young _L’Estrange_, afterwards the
noted Sir _Roger_, formed a plan for surprising the town and recovering
it for the king, who had granted him a commission, constituting him its
governor, in case of success.  But the design was betrayed by two of his
confederates, though both bound by an oath of secrecy: which shews what
trusty and choice hands they were.  L’Estrange was consequently seized,
tried by a court-martial, and condemned to die as a traitor.  The
sentence however was not executed.  He remained in prison from 1644 till
1648, when he luckily escaped, and sometime after got out of the kingdom,
where he remained, as was said before, {760b} till the autumn of 1653,
when he succeeded in making his peace with the Protector: after which he
lived in this country unmolested to the day of his death, when he was at
a very advanced age.

About two years after L’Estrange’s adventure, we find the following
notice taken of this town in a Public Paper, called “The Weekly Account,”
of Wednesday May 6. 1646—It is an order of Parliament dated April 31. and
thus worded—“Whereas the town of Lynn Regis hath suffered very much by
the _Lord Paulet_, It is ordered that reparation should be made to the
said town, _according to their Petition_, out of his estate.”—The _Weekly
account_ was a quarto news-paper, of one sheet, “containing certain
special and remarkable passages from both Houses of Parliament, and
collections of several Letters from the armies.”—We no where else meet
with any account or intimation of damages sustained by Lynn from _Lord
Paulet_: but the fact cannot be doubted.  The town, it appears, had
complained to Parliament, and _petitioned_ on the occasion.  Could that
petition be found, it would, no doubt, cast some light upon this dark
part of our history.

It is very certain that this town was no small sufferer during that
revolutionary period, as appears from the Journal of the House of Commons
in Rushworth’s Historical Collections, Vol. 7. p. 1217, where we find the
following passage—“Saturday, August 5, 1648.  The House was informed that
the town of _Lynn Regis_ did want much repair, being ruined by these
times of war.  The House ordered 2000 oaks for reparation thereof.”  This
conduct of the parliament, or _then_ House of Commons looked well, as it
indicated some regard for _justice_.  We seldom, if ever, meet with
similar instances in the conduct of the other, or opposite party.  It is
not very usual with crowned heads, or their minions, to think much of
making reparation for injuries, much and devoutly as it is to be wished,
that it always formed a prominent and essential part of their character.

For the remaining years, down to the restoration, this town appears to
have remained tranquil, and pretty loyal to the constituted authorities,
or new order of things.  It seems also to have soon surmounted its former
sufferings, {762a} and to have fast advanced in wealth and prosperity.
We discover no particular symptoms of disaffection here within those
years, unless it was about 1650, when there was an insurrection of the
royalists in this county, and a _major Saul_, a worthy gentleman, as an
old MS. says, was hanged here in the Tuesday market place, for being
concerned, it seems, in that affair.

About the same time, or within the same year, one _Dorothy Floyd_, (or
_Lloyd_,) also was hanged here, as the same old MS. says, for
_Witchcraft_: which we now just mention, as we had overlooked it before,
in our account of those who unhappily suffered at Lynn for that reputed
or imaginary crime. {762b}


SECTION II.


_Cromwell in much request at Lynn about the commencement of this
period—the reason of it conjectured—his visit here_, _and that of
Fairfax—character or quality of the then parliamentary representatives of
the town—how chosen—paid by their constituents—demur on that
score—payment enforced by parliament_: _&c._

The reputation and influence of Cromwell appear to have been very
considerable in these parts before the breaking out of the war.  In his
native county of Huntingdon, and that of Cambridge, he was evidently well
respected; and especially in the Isle and Fens and parts adjacent.  In
the direction and management of the drainage and other affairs of the
Fens his interest appeared scarcely inferior to that of the earl of
Bedford, if it did not sometimes exceed it.  He appears to have been at
the head of the opposition to that nobleman, to which party this town
then belonged, as well as that of Cambridge, which Cromwell represented
in parliament.  The service which he had rendered to his party must have
procured him their good opinion: and this, together with his general
reputation, might be the reason of his being treated here with uncommon
distinction.

In the spring of 1643, and but a few months before the Siege we find him
invited here by the mayor and corporation; and the following order is
still extant in their books—“March 20th. ordered a free entertainment at
the town charge, by Thomas Gurling Esq. mayor, for Col. Cromwell and
those gentlemen of his equipage, according to the invitation of Mr.
Mayor, in answer to a Letter he received from Col. Cromwell.”—In the same
books, a few weeks after, was inserted the following memorandum—“April
17.  Mr. Mayor was allowed 5_l._ for his preparations for the
entertainment of Col. Cromwell.” {764}  This was at an early period of
the war, before the town had ventured to declare for the king, and when
they appeared desirous of keeping fair with the parliament, or being
treated on the footing of neutrality.  But whatever might be its policy,
it was a very undignified conduct, as must always be the case where
duplicity or hypocrisy forms the leading feature.  The event shews that a
different conduct would have answered better:—agreeable to the old adage
or maxim, that “Honesty is the best Policy.”

The burgesses or representatives sent by this town to the _short_
parliament, which met in the spring of 1640, as well as those sent to the
_long_ parliament, which met the ensuing autumn or winter, were chosen
from among its principal and responsible inhabitants; which seems to have
been strictly proper and unexceptionable.—The representatives in the
former or _short_ parliament were _Mr. Wm. Doughty_ and _Mr. Tho.
Gurlyn_, the two _senior aldermen_; those in the latter, or _long_
parliament, were _Mr. John Percival_ and _Mr. Tho. Toll_; who were also
chosen from among the aldermen.  To each of those representatives their
constituents allowed _five shillings a day_ for their trouble, while they
attended their duty in parliament.  With this trifling allowance, while
it was paid, the recipients appear to have been quite satisfied.  But
their constituents soon grew tired of it, and withheld it from them,
which occasioned the interference of parliament, as appears by the
following order.

    “October 15. 1642—It is this day ordered by the Commons, now
    assembled in parliament, that the mayor, aldermen, and common
    counsell of the town of King’s Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, shall
    pay and allow, out of the town stock, as formerly, unto John
    Percevall {765a} and Tho. Toll, their burgesses for this present
    parliament, as large an allowance, per diem, as they have hitherto
    {765b} allowed any of their aldermen that have been burgesses in
    parliament for that towne, notwithstanding the _freemen_ {765c} of
    that town _had their voyces_ in the choice of the said John Percevall
    and Tho. Toll to be their burgesses in the present parliament.  If
    the mayor of Lynn can shew any cause to the contrary wee shall be
    ready to hear him.”

The Corporation appear to have been pretty much at a loss how to act in
this affair.  No public notice appears to have been taken of it from the
middle of October till the beginning of January.  On the 2nd. of that
month the Corporation had a meeting on the occasion, when the above order
was taken under consideration.  On the next day they met again, when it
was resolved and ordered that the following Letter or address should be
presented to the House of Commons, by way of answer.

    “We the Mayor, Aldermen, and Comon Councel, whose names are hereunto
    subscribed, doe in all humbleness represent unto your grave wisdoms,
    That as heretofore no parliamentary wages have been paid before the
    parliament _ended_, {766} nor then out of the town stock, but by the
    _Freemen_ and _Inhabitants_, saving that of late time, meerly of
    bounty not of dutye, the burgesses were diversely rewarded by the
    representative body, so in like humbleness we represent the now
    impossibility of performance of the said order, in respect wee have
    not at present (nor had at any time since notice of the said order)
    any Town-Stock at all, nor are likely to have any for many years to
    come, for that our revenues are not sufficient to defray the
    necessary charges wee annually disburse for the ordinary maintenance
    of the town, whereunto wee are tyed, besides the extraordinary
    expences which unavoidably do and will daily fall upon us for the
    safety of our town in especiall, and of the kingdom in generall, all
    which wee humbly refer to your high Justice and Honorable
    Consideration.”

As this address was a mere shuffle, it was not likely to impose upon
parliament, or prove ultimately of any avail to the corporation.  They
affected however, to be still desirous of keeping fair with that body;
and accordingly treated Cromwell and his company, when they visited the
town, two or three months after, with marks of most respectful attention.
{767}  But that was probably a piece of downright finesse on their part,
to gain time and bring the plot which they were forming, or their plan of
future resistance to greater ripeness and a fairer chance of success.
Even their withholding from their two members the usual allowance for
their attendance in parliament may be naturally supposed to have resulted
from the design of declaring for the king and against the parliament: and
this design was put in execution the ensuing summer, which brought on the
siege and other events already noticed.

The Corporation evaded the payment of the said daily allowance to their
two members for a whole year or more: but it was not forgotten by the
parliament, who sometime after the siege, appear to have put them again
in mind of it.  Accordingly we find that the following memorandum stands
yet in the corporation-books—“Nov. 24. (1643,) ordered that _five
shillings per diem_ be paid to John Percevall and Tho. Toll, burgesses in
this parliament, from the time they went to parliament to this day.”
Thus the affair ended; and our representatives, it is presumed, continued
to receive the like allowance afterwards, till the restoration.  But it
does not appear, or is at all likely to have been the case any longer, as
to this town, though it might elsewhere. {768}  At the period of which we
are speaking, it was, probably, pretty general.  Had it been universal,
and so continued to this day, it would, no doubt, have been a very happy
circumstance for these kingdoms.  Our House of Commons, in that case,
would have felt more for the country than it has generally done in these
latter times: not to say that the people too had been then more careful
in the choice of their representatives.

As to the two last _elections_, already glanced at, that for the _short_
and that for the succeeding _long_ parliament, they appear to have
differed from each other in this, that the former was the act or deed of
the _corporation alone_, and the latter that of the _whole body of
freemen_, as is the case (at least _nominally_) at present.  Succeeding
elections seem to have exhibited similar diversity.  In Cromwell’s
_first_ parliament, that of 1653, it does not appear that Lynn had any
representatives.  It is therefore likely that there was here then no
previous election.  In the _second_ protectoral parliament, which met in
1654, this town was represented as usual; but how the election was
conducted does not seem very clear, though it appears most probable that
the freemen at large had no share in it, as may perhaps be concluded from
the following memorandum in the town-books—

    “1654 July 21.  Ordered that 4_l._ 15_s._ expended by Mr. Mayor on
    the day of the election of the burgesses to serve in parliament _for
    this corporation_ be paid by the chamberlain.”

That the election for the members sent to the 3rd protectoral parliament
(that of 1656,) was managed by the corporation _solely_ seems pretty
evident from the following note in the town books—

    “1656.  August 18th.  This day general John Desborow and major
    general Philip Skippon are chosen _in this house_ to serve as
    burgesses for this borough in his Highness next parliament upon the
    17th September next, according to a precept directed to Mr Mayor from
    the Sherife, and ordered that _their charges be paid by this House_.”

In the election of the members who represented Lynn in the protector
_Richard’s_ parliament the _corporation_ appear to have exercised the
same arbitrary power as before, of being _sole electors_.  Several of the
other freemen at the same time desired permission to poll, but were not
allowed.  At the election which took place in April 1660 the freemen
again applied for permission to vote which, after some hesitation, was
acceded to, and the members were then chosen by the _general body_ of
free burgesses. {769}

Thus we see how things formerly stood in this town, as to the state of
political liberty, or the freedom of election.  Former times appear not
to have been very pure in those respects, any more than the present.  In
looking to our ancestors for much political rectitude or public virtue,
we are often most sadly disappointed.  It is now frequently made a
subject of complaint or reflection, that our present members are chosen,
in fact, by two or three individuals; but the same seems to have been
almost always the case ever since the reformation, and revolution, as
well as before.  The freemen at large are indeed _said_ to have a _voice_
in the election of our members; but it is all a joke, while freedom of
acting, or voting without constraint or control is totally out of the
question.  It is well known at what risk most of our pretended _freemen_
would vote freely at our elections, and how much it has cost some of them
before now for presuming so to do.  All this however must be very wrong,
if our constitution ought to be in practice what is it in theory.


SECTION III.


_Maintenance of the clergy—state of the public morals and manners—mode
and progress of reformation at Lynn_, _under the Common-wealth and
Protectorate_.

Of the Lynn clergy during this period Dr. _Arrowsmith_ and Mr. _Horn_
appear to have been by much the most eminent.  The former we think was
one of the ministers of St. Margaret’s parish.  That his character, as a
divine, stood very high, appears from his being appointed one of the
Assembly of Divines, which was convened in 1643, and which appointment
put an end probably to his residence here.  He became afterwards Master
of Peter-House in Cambridge.  Mr. Horn must have settled here after the
departure of Dr. Arrowsmith; not as his successor, however; for he was
the minister of _South Lynn_, and held that situation till after the
restoration, when we find him among those _two thousand_ worthies,
commonly called the “Ejected Ministers.”  As minister of Alhallows or
South Lynn, he laid his income at 80_l._ a year, a sum equal to 5 or
600_l._ at least, of our money.  This comfortable situation and ample
income he gave up, to preserve a good conscience; an instance and a proof
of integrity which must endear his memory to all honest and good men.

The clergy of St. Margaret’s parish had probably as good an income as
their brother of Alhallows, but the exact amount of theirs we have not
the means of ascertaining.  But in the town-books there is the following
memorandum dated December 18. 1637 “Lionell Gatford minister to have
50_l._ yearly and a dwelling house, provided he agree not to meddle in
the election of church wardens or parish clark.”—This 50_l._ was equal to
3 or 400 of our pounds, so that the liberality of the corporation to
their minister at that period must have far exceeded what we understand
it to be at present.  As the said 50_l._ was over and above, or exclusive
of the vicarial dues, and what we call surplice fees, the minister’s
income must have been what may be called very decent and handsome at the
period of which we are now treating.

After this town had been reduced under the dominion of the parliament it
soon began to put on a religious and puritanical appearance.  The
publicans and those who frequented their houses were now obliged to be
very particularly upon their guard, and at their peril to observe a
decency of behaviour.  Those who were guilty of _tippling_ were fined, as
were also the _occupiers_ of the public houses where those offences were
committed.  _Profane swearing_ was also punished in like manner, as well
as _loitering_ in the time of divine service on the Lord’s day. {774a}  A
strict attention to these matters began to be paid by the magistrates
very shortly after the reduction of the town; and they appear to have
pursued the same course pretty regularly thenceforward till the
restoration.  The town accordingly, soon assumed a decorous and
respectable appearance.  It was no longer disgraced as before by
drunkenness, riot, or profane swearing.  In fact, it was in a manner
regenerated; and might with a good deal of propriety be denominated a
_christian town_.  The _Lord’s Day_ was observed with remarkable decorum
and solemnity; and on the _Thursdays_, in _lecture time_, the _shops_
were kept _shut up_, to the end the people and their servants might the
better attend the hearing the word of God. {774b}  On the whole, this
town appears to have been for the greatest part of this period as well
governed as at any one time either before or afterwards.

The love of _tippling_ appears to have been then in Lynn one of the
greatest obstacles to the reformation of the people.  The town was full
of petty pot-houses, a great many of which were private and unlicensed.
Even as late as 1657 we find no less than 40 or 50 of these private and
unlawful places of resort heavily fined by the magistrates.  This was, at
the time, complained of, as a grievous oppression, and is so still
represented in some of the existing MS. accounts of that period; which
shews how unwilling the people were to forsake their immoralities, tho’
their rulers obliged them to do so outwardly.  The restoration followed
soon after, and we need not wonder that the profaneness and profligacy,
then introduced and _restored_, proved highly acceptable and pleasing to
the majority of the Lynn people, who now found themselves pretty well
freed from most of the former troublesome checks upon immorality and
licentiousness.

Of the persevering exertions of our magistrates, during this period, to
check the prevailing propensity of the lower orders to tippling, profane
swearing, and the like irregularities, many instances occur in our old
records.  Of several of those instances, in 1644, some notice has been
taken already.  Others are recorded as having occurred in 1645, {775} but
a far greater number in the following year, (1646,) {776} which seems to
indicate the uncommon zeal and vigilance of the then chief magistrate, or
chief magistrates, for they seem to have occurred partly in the mayoralty
of _Edward Robinson_, and partly (but chiefly) in that of _Thomas Toll_,
one of the members for the town, who appears to have stood high here then
in the public estimation.

In some of the succeeding years the attention of our magistrates appears
to have been no less engaged in these corrective measures.  1651 was one
of those years.  _Bartholemew Wormell_ was then mayor; at least for the
first nine months of it; and he seems to have trod pretty much in the
steps of his brother _Toll_.  The offences that came under his cognisance
seem to have exceeded in number rather than fallen short of those
committed during the mayoralty of the latter.  They were of various
sorts; such as _swearing_, _tippling_, _excessive drinking_, _keeping
unlicensed alehouses_, _travelling on the Lord’s day_, _&c._  By the
distance between one and another of the years of remarkable delinquency
and coercion, it would seem that the irregularities were checked for a
time, but would afterwards break out afresh, with increasing force, like
water pent up, or impeded in its course by a dam.  At the distance of
five or six years the vigorous interference of the magistrates appears
always to have become necessary.  1645, 1651, and 1657, were the most
remarkable years for the interposition of the municipal power to correct
the existing abuses.

The last of those years (1657) was exceedingly remarkable for the number
of petty pot-houses, or private drinking places then discovered in the
town.  They amounted seemingly to _near fifty_, for such a number of
persons appear to have been then fined, “for selling beer without
licence.”  Vice seems to have then skulked into those places of private
resort, and no longer cared to shew its face in public.  Most of our
misdoings appear to have been then confined to those petty and private
pot-houses, and but one misdeed occurs within that year which would seem
to have been committed elsewhere; and the same is recorded in these
words—“Received of Mr. James Davey, which he levied upon an offender for
prophaneing the Lord’s day, 10_s._”—In short, one cannot help concluding
that the town was then, in point of outward decency, much superior to
what it is in the present day.  We are not quite sure that there were
then any _common breweries_ here: and if there were, it is not probable
that they were the _property of magistrates_.

Nor did the improvement which then took place in the town consist merely
in the outward deportment or appearance of the inhabitants, but it seems
to have also extended to the temper and disposition of a great many of
them; as appears from the numerous acts of humanity and deeds of charity
which are found to have been then promoted and performed here, beyond any
preceding or subsequent period that we know of.  The sufferings and
distresses of their fellow creatures, far and near, at home and abroad,
were then viewed, or listened to, at Lynn with sympathetic and
commiserating attention, as is evinced by the numerous collections which
then took place here for the relief of such sufferers and objects of
distress and misery.  The statement below in reference _chiefly_ to the
years 1653 and 1654, will give the reader some idea of the good character
of our ancestors at the time of which we are treating. {779}—In short, we
know not of any period when Lynn abounded more than it did then, in acts
of charity and humanity, in works of mercy and fruits of righteousness;
or when it made, on the whole, a more christian-like appearance:
notwithstanding the immoral propensities of many of the inhabitants, and
the adherence of not a few of the rest to superstitious or fanatical
delusions.


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.


SECTION I.


_Cursory remarks on the Restoration—its memorable effects—great joy
manifested here on the occasion—several remarkable rejoicings at Lynn in
the course of this period_.

The Restoration was one of those revolutionary events which occur in the
history of this country.  It was effected, says one of our historians,
“without any effusion of blood.”  But what is more to be wondered at, is,
that whereas so much blood had been spilt to compel _Charles I._ to come
to terms with his people, towards which it is certain he at last made
large concessions, _Charles II._ should be received without any
conditions at all.  Upon this bishop Burnet, in the _History of his own
times_, observes, that _Hale_, afterwards lord chief justice, did move
that a Committee might be appointed to look into the propositions that
had been made, and the concessions that had been offered by the late
king, and from thence digest such propositions as they should think fit
to be sent over to the king.  As such a motion was foreseen, _Monk_ was
instructed how to answer [or overrule] it.  He accordingly told the
House, that he had information of such numbers of incendiaries still in
the kingdom, that if any delay was put to the sending for the king, he
could not answer for the peace either of the nation or army: and as the
king was to bring neither army nor treasure with him, either to fright or
corrupt them, propositions might be as well offered to him when he should
come over; so moved for sending commissioners immediately.  This was
echoed with such a shout all over the House, that _Hale’s_ motion was no
more insisted on.  To the King’s coming without conditions, says the
bishop, may well be imputed all the errors of his reign. {792a}  To allow
him so to return and ascend the throne was certainly a flagrant proof of
the folly and pusillanimity of the convention parliament, and of the
baseness of that spirit which then predominated among out ancestors.

Such a tide of extravagant joy overspread the nation upon the king’s
arrival, as in the end very much hurt and debased the morals of the
people, and introduced an almost universal dissoluteness of manners,
which was encouraged and propagated by the ill example of the king and
the court.  From the enthusiasm and fanaticism, which prevailed in the
former period, the nation fell now into the opposite extreme of
licentiousness and immorality; one or the other of which extremes being
always the consequence of men’s not governing themselves by reason.
{792b}  Thus the country had no great cause to congratulate itself on the
blessed effects of the restoration of royalty, or the revival of the old
order of things.  No nation in Europe could be more depraved and
licentious than the English in the reign of Charles the second.

Much pains were taken, before his majesty’s arrival, to represent his
character in the most favourable and respectable light.  Though the first
born of profligacy and scoundrelism, he was reported, by his faithful and
thorough-paced agents, as the very mirror of wisdom, of virtue, and of
piety.  These reports were not more industriously or artfully circulated
than they were readily and generally believed, so that we need not wonder
if the country in general looked upon the arrival of Charles as the
commencement of the golden age, or of the reign of a heaven-born prince.
Such seems to have been actually the case.  The confidence the people had
in the king, says Kimber, from the extraordinary good opinion they had
been prepossessed with in his favour, and their transports of joy at
being delivered from the late confusions and distractions, by means of
his restoration, will account for the excessive complaisance that was
shewn to the court at the beginning of this great event, so that the
parliament could scarce deny the king any thing.  To the ill use made of
this confidence is to be imputed the opposition which the court met with
afterwards.

Our ecclesiastical historian _Neal_, speaking of the restoration, says,

    “Here was an end of those distracted times which our historians have
    loaded with all the infamy and reproach that the wit of man could
    invent.  The puritan ministers have been decried, as ignorant
    mechanicks, canting preachers, enemies to learning, and no better
    than public robbers.  The universities were said to be reduced to a
    meer Munster, and that if the _Goths_ and _Vandals_, and even the
    _Turks_, had overrun the nation they could not have done more to
    introduce barbarism, disloyalty, and ignorance.  Yet in these times,
    and by the men who then filled the university chairs, were educated
    the most learned divines and eloquent preachers, such as the
    _Stillingfleets_, _Tillotsons_, _Bulls_, _Barrows_, _Whitbys_, and
    others, who retained a high veneration for their learned tutors after
    they were ejected and displaced.  The religious part of the common
    people have been stigmatized with the character of _hypocrites_,
    their looks, their dress and behaviour, have been represented in the
    most odious colours; and yet one may venture to challenge these
    declaimers to produce any period of time since the reformation,
    wherein there was less open profaneness and impiety, and more of the
    spirit as well as the appearance of religion.  Perhaps there was too
    much rigour and preciseness in indifferent matters; but the lusts of
    men were laid under a visible restraint; and though the legal
    constitution was unhappily broken, and men were governed by false
    politicks, yet better laws were never made against vice, or more
    rigorously executed.  The dress and conversation of people was sober
    and virtuous, and their manner of living remarkably frugal.  There
    was hardly a single bankruptcy to be heard of in a year, and in such
    a case the bankrupt had a mark of infamy upon him that he could never
    wipe off.  Drunkenness fornication, profane swearing, and every kind
    of debauchery, were justly deemed infamous, and universally
    discountenanced.  The clergy were laborious to excess in preaching
    and praying, and catechising youth and visiting their parishes.  The
    magistrates did their duty in suppressing all kinds of games,
    stage-plays, and abuses in publick-houses.  There was not a play
    acted on any theatre in England for almost twenty years.  The Lord’s
    day was observed with unusual reverence; and there were a set of as
    learned and pious youths training up in the university as had ever
    been known.  So that if such a reformation of manners had been
    obtained under a legal administration they would have deserved the
    character of the best of times.”

    “But when the legal constitution was restored, there returned with it
    a torrent of debauchery and wickedness.  The times which followed the
    restoration were the reverse of those that preceded it; for the laws
    which had been enacted against vice for the last twenty years being
    declared null, and the magistrates changed, men set no bounds to
    their licentiousness.  A proclamation indeed was published against
    those loose and riotous cavaliers, whose loyalty consisted in
    drinking health and railing at those who would not revel with them:
    but in reality the king was at the head of these disorders, being
    devoted to his pleasures, and having given himself up to an avowed
    course of lewdness; his bishops and chaplains said, that he usually
    came from his mistresses apartments to church, even on sacrament
    days.”

Yet he was, on earth, the supreme head of the church, and that church the
best constituted in the world.  It must need, surely, be well, extremely
well constituted (and so must any body) not to be contaminated,
disordered, or distracted with, or by such a head.

    “Nothing was to be seen at court but feasting, hard drinking,
    revelling, and amorous intrigues, which engendered the most enormous
    vices.  From court the contagion spread like wild fire among the
    people, in so much that men threw off the very profession of virtue
    and piety, under colour of drinking the king’s health: all kinds of
    _old cavalier rioting_ and debauchery revived; the appearances of
    religion which remained with some, furnished matters of ridicule to
    libertines and scoffers.  Some, who had been concerned in the former
    changes, thought they could not redeem their credit better than by
    deriding all religion, and telling or making stories to render their
    former party ridiculous.  To appear serious, or make conscience
    either of words or actions, was the way to be accounted a
    schismatick, a fanatick, or a sectarian; though if there was any real
    religion during the course of this reign, it was chiefly among those
    people.  They who did not applaud the new ceremonies were marked out
    for _presbyterians_, and every presbyterian was a _rebel_.  The old
    clergy who had been sequestered for scandal, having taken possession
    of their livings, were intoxicated with their new felicity, and threw
    off all the restraints of _their order_.—Such was the general
    dissoluteness of manners that attended the deluge of joy which
    overflowed the nation upon his majesties restoration.” {796a}

As to Lynn, at and subsequently to the restoration, it appears to have
largely shared the general joy and other effects produced by that
memorable event.  When we consider the extreme rigour of the former
government or governors of this town, {796b} in attempting fines and
imprisonment to restrain the tippling and other vicious and licentious
propensities of the inhabitants, we cannot much wonder at the excessive
joy which the restoration excited here, as it was very natural to expect
that that event would effectually remove those severities, and introduce
a more lax and indulgent system.  How long the first transports of joy
lasted we are not able exactly to ascertain; but that they were at their
height on the first royal birth day, the 29th of May 1660, we may very
reasonably presume.  On that day the town was all festivity and triumph.
Among the curiosities that graced that memorable carnival were 300 young
maids, or lasses of the town, dressed all in white, and parading through
the principal streets. {797}  Whether this may, or may not be considered
as an emblem of the predilection of the sex for Charles, or that of
Charles for the sex, we will not take upon us to say.  That it was a
whimsical contrivance seems very evident; and that it was peculiar to
this town appears more than probable, as we do not recollect having heard
of any thing like it elsewhere on that day, or on that occasion.

This was certainly one of the most gladsome seasons that Lynn ever
witnessed: but it was not the only season of that description that
occurred here during the period now under review.  There are others of
the same kind that ought here not to pass unnoticed.  One of these was in
the spring of 1680, on account of the arrival of the duke of York from
Scotland, and the discomfiture of the _Whigs_ or petitioners, (or the
king’s rejection of the petitions of the people for the assembling of
parliament,) and, of course, the success and triumph of the _Tories_ or
court party, then called _Abhorrers_, as they professed to abhor such
petitioning, and approve of the king’s governing without parliaments.  On
these interesting accounts there was much rejoicing at Lynn; and

    “on the 30th of April that year, the following Address was read in
    the Hall, and signed the same day by every one of that House: and the
    mayor, (Giles Bridgeman) was desired to commend the same to the hands
    of the right honorable the Earl of Yarmouth (Lord Lieutenant of the
    County) to be presented by him to his Majesties.”

                   “To the King’s most excellent Majestie,

    Dread Sir,—Wee your Majesties Dutifull and Loyall Subjects, the
    Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen, and Common-Councell of your Majesties
    ancient burgh of Lenn Regis, on behalf of ourselves and other the
    free Burgesses and principal inhabitants here doe in all humility
    prostrate ourselves at the feet of your most sacred Majestie, and in
    all duty acknowledge the infinite benefits wee of this burgh, with
    all other, the liedge people of this your Majesties Kingdom of
    England by your happy government and royall conduct next under God
    enjoye, and more particularly wee give your Majestie an oblation of
    our duty and thankfullness in your _pious_ and resolute support and
    maintenance of the religion established by the Lawes of this kingdome
    in the Church of England in your couragious conserving the Regalities
    of your Crowne _against insolent petitions_, and protecting the
    lawfull liberties and freedoms of your subjects.  And _with our souls
    we bless Almighty God in the return of your royall brother_, _the
    Duke of Yorke_, _to your Majesties most Gracious presence_, and doe
    cheerfully profess to maintaine and defend your Majesties most Royall
    person your Heirs and lawfull successors in your and their just
    rights,

                         May it please your Majestie

                                                   Your natural Liegemen.”

In this remarkable and curious Address to the Throne, what choice matter
of joy, thankfulness, congratulation, and triumph is exhibited on the
part of the Addressers!  The King appeared resolved to govern
despotically, or without a parliament.  Many of his subjects had
petitioned and prayed him to call or assemble a parliament.  He had
rejected those petitions and prayers with disdain.  The Lynn Corporation
address him on the occasion, congratulating, praising and extolling him
to the skies for acting the despot and turning a deaf ear to the prayers
and supplications of his aggrieved subjects.  For such royal doings, and
for the arrival and presence of the Duke of York at court, which presence
had always been a curse to the nation, the corporation of Lynn
congratulated their profligate sovereign, and offered to stand by him at
all events.  Moreover, they exhibit, all the while, a most sanctimonious
appearance, and profess _with all their souls to bless Almighty God_ for
what was one of the greatest curses of their oppressed country.—So much
for this royal and notable Address from Lynn. {800}

As to the accession of James to the throne, it appears to have been
contemplated at Lynn with no small pleasure and satisfaction, and the day
on which that memorable event was announced here to have been a day of
uncommon rejoicing.  We accordingly find the following note in the Town
Books, “Febr. 10th. (1685) King James II. proclaimed with all due
solemnities and signalls of Joy and Gladness.”  Four days after was
“ordered an _Address_ to the King’s Majestie.”  But having never seen a
copy of this Address the present writer cannot give a particular account
of its contents.  He cannot however doubt but it was in the usual style
of Lynn Addresses to that monarch.

Another season of extraordinary festivity and exultation at Lynn occurred
in 1686.  It was on no less interesting an occasion than the erecting of
the statue of the sovereign in the Tuesday Market place.  We accordingly
read, in _Mackerell’s_ “Chronological Account” of the town, of “great
rejoicings here that year, at the setting up of the statue of king James
II.”  His majesty (as well as king John) seems to have been long the
object of the admiration of the Lynn people.  They admired him while Duke
of York, and after his accession to the throne they never rested till
they had set up his image or statue in the most public and conspicuous
part of their town.  Of this royal and memorable affair Mackerell has
given the following information in another part of his work—

     “_An account of KING JAMES IId’s statue_, _and the Rejoicings at the
                        setting up of the_” [_same_.]

    “On the 13th day of _April_ 1686. which was the anniversary of their
    majesties coronation, the same was kept with all due solemnity; the
    mayor, aldermen, and the rest of the body, meeting in their
    formalities in the _Guild-Hall_, after Divine Service at the church,
    proceeded from thence attended with musick, to the great
    Market-place; in the middle whereof, by the Gentlemen and other Loyal
    Inhabitants of the corporation, was then erected the Effigies of his
    Sacred Majesty upon a Pedestal, with several carvings and
    embellishments, inclosed with a Pallisade of Iron, under inscribed,

                                _Non Immemor_
                    _Quantum Divinis Invictiss. Principis_
                                 _JACOBI II_.
                             _Virtutibus debeat_
                       _Hanc Regiæ Majestatis Effigiem_
                         _Æternum Fidei et Obsequii_
                            _Monumentum_, _Erexit_
                                _S. P. Q. L._
                             _Anno Salutis_ 1686.

In English

    “Not forgetting how much is due to the _Divine Virtues_ of the
    _Victorious_ King JAMES _the Second_, the Senate and People of Lynn,
    as a _lasting Monument_ of their _Faith_ and _Loyalty_, have erected
    this Statue of his Royal Majesty, in the year of our Lord One
    Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty six.

    “N.B. The King, Queen, and the rest of the Royal Family’s Healths
    were drank; and the Day was concluded with Ringing of Bells,
    Bonfires, all sorts of loud Musick, Fire works, discharging the Great
    Guns, with all other Demonstrations of Joy and Loyalty.” {803}

Such is Mackerell’s account of the extraordinary festivities and
rejoicings at Lynn on this great and important occasion.  It was, no
doubt, worth recording, and it may still be worth preserving here, if it
were only for this special reason, that it may help to give us just ideas
of the general character of corporations, and of their proceedings.  Here
is a _Statue_ erected to one of the vilest of human beings; and here are
_virtues_, and even _Divine Virtues_! ascribed to one who was as devoid
of every thing of that kind as the very devil: and here is an
_Inscription_ denominating the erection of the Statue a _Lasting
Monument_ of _Faith_ and _Loyalty_; and yet this boasted _faith_ and
_loyalty_, and _lasting Monument_, lasted only about _three_ or _four_
years.  The Statue was pulled down mutilated, decollated, disfigured,
dismembered, and buried in dirt and rubbish, where it remains to this
day.

There was here also a remarkable exhibition of joy and gratitude, as well
as loyalty, in 1687, excited, it seems, by his majesty’s royal and
memorable Declaration, and the consciousness of its being the duty of
every member of the Church of England to defend and support him with
their _lives_ and _fortunes_.—The following Address to the Throne was
accordingly agreed upon and ordered to be sealed with the common Seal,
September 19. 1687.—

    “GREAT SIR,—The known principles of the Church of England being such
    as oblige every member thereof with their Lives and Fortunes to
    defend and maintain your Majestie Your Royall Prerogative with all
    other rights belonging to your Majesties Imperiall Crown, makes us at
    this time humbly to begg your Majesty to receive this further
    attestation, not in the least doubting of the peaceable enjoyment of
    our religion under Your Majesties most sacred protection, returning
    our most hearty and humble thanks for Your Majesties late repeated
    Assurance thereof, expressed in Your Majesties late gracious
    Declaration.”

Such was the Address which was sent at that time from Lynn.  But his
sacred majesty soon found that the boasted principles of the Church of
England were not sufficient to secure to him the attachment of his
subjects and the quiet possessions of his throne, unless he relinquished
those favourite projects of his which appeared hostile to that church.
For the very next year a very alarming defection took place, and the
majority of those of that communion became inimical to his government.
Even the _Life and fortune men_ forsook him, and beheld his downfal
without concern or commiseration.  So false did that description of his
subjects prove to him, and so unavailing also in the end did he find even
the great orthodox doctrine of _passive obedience_ and _nonresistance_,
which had been the favourite doctrine of the Church of England during the
whole of his brother’s reign.

A few months after the last mentioned affair took place in January 1688,
a fresh occasion of rejoicing was presented to the Lynn people.  This was
the annunication of the queen’s pregnancy; which proved not a little
satisfactory and gratifying to our corporation, as appears from the
following note in their books:

    “January 26.  Ordered and agreed that Sunday the 29th Instant being
    appointed by his Majestie a day of Thanksgiving for her Majesties
    being happily with child, the several members of this House doe
    attend Mr. Mayor (Robert Sparrow Esq.) in their formalitys at morning
    and evening service, to render thanksgiving to Almighty God for so
    signall a blessing, and after evening service to repair to the Custom
    House to drink the king’s health with a Bonefire.”

On the 2nd. of the following July, the Gentlemen and good people of Lynn
were furnished with matter of still higher gratification, by the
knowledge of her majesty’s safe delivery, and the birth of a _prince_
{805} who would be likely to inherit his royal sire’s faith, piety,
sapience, and sublime virtues.  This important intelligence, as might be
expected, was very joyfully received, and occasioned the immediate
assembling of the corporation.  In that assembly, or meeting, was
proposed and voted an Address to his Majesty, of which the following is a
copy:

    “GREAT SIR—Wee Your Majesties Dutifull Subjects crave leave of Your
    Majesty and your Royall Consort that we join with Your Majestie in
    offering our most humble and hearty thanks to God Almighty in sending
    Your Majestie a Sonn and a Prince, and farther we begg of your Sacred
    Majestie to accept our Cordial thanks for your Majesties late favor
    to the body of this Corporation, {806} and also for your Princely
    condescension and affection by both your gracious Declarations, not
    only extending to the Church of England but to all other your
    peaceable and loyall Subjects, Assuring us by Your royall word you
    will stand by us, whereby we are not only obliged but resolved, when
    your Majestie shall think fitt to call a Parliament, wee will
    endeavour to elect such members as shall make your Majesty happie and
    Your Subjects easie, and shall pray for Your Majestie’s long and
    peaceable reigne over us.  In witness whereof we have fixed our Town
    Seale the 2nd of July in the 4th year of your most gracious reign,
    Anno Domini 1688.”

In conclusion, it is presumed that we are fully warranted to affirm, that
Lynn has never been more attached to any of our sovereigns than to King
_John_ and King _James_ the second; and that even his present majesty,
with all his shining virtues, is not more, if so much beloved here as
those two monarchs were.  It may perhaps be difficult to account for it,
yet it seems unquestionably to be the fact, that of all the princes that
ever swayed the British Sceptre, none ever shared more largely in the
affection admiration, and veneration of the good people of this town than
those three potentates.  Nor have there been any other reigns under which
our townsmen seemed more ready to congratulate themselves on the superior
happiness they enjoyed, or the transcendent benefits and blessings they
derived from the throne.


SECTION II.


_Brief account of divers other remarkable circumstances relating to Lynn
during this same period—decay of trade—increase of poor—Anmer coal_,
_&c._

After Charles’ restoration, or accession to the throne, it was not to be
expected that he should remain long unaddressed by this town.
Accordingly we find that within the very first month of his actual reign,
(June 16. 1660,) a congratulatory Address to him was voted and ordered in
the Hall; and moreover, “that the Fee farm rents formerly paid from this
town to the Crown, and lately purchased by the mayor and burgesses,
amounting to 41_l._ 6_s._ 2_d._ be restored to his majestie.”  Having
never seen this Address, or any copy of it, we can give no particular
account of its contents; but we need not to doubt but it teemed with
servility, or was in no small degree of a fawning, crouching or cringing
cast.  As to the _Feefarm rents_ which belonged to the Crown, but had
been lately purchased by the Mayor and burgesses, and were now restored
to his majesty, they appear to require no comment, or farther elucidation
in this place.  The restoring of them to his majesty was a matter not of
choice but of necessity: and in purchasing them the Corporation evidently
_gained a loss_; but to what amount we cannot say, having never learnt
how much was paid for them.

A week after, (on the 23rd of the same month,) our Corporation agreed and
ordered, that _Oliver’s Charter_ confirming the priviledges [of the town]
be _cancelled_.  This also appears to have been a matter of absolute
necessity; but whether so or not, that charter would be of no further use
to the body corporate.  Oliver’s day was now past, and whatever had
sprung from him, if it did not actually disgrace the character of the
holder or owner, yet was no longer held in any manner of estimation.
That there is a copy now extant of this Charter of his we have not
learnt.

Soon after the restoration this town began to suffer considerably from
the decay of trade and consequent increase of the poor, which did not
seem very well to accord with the excessive rejoicings that had then
taken place.  Within two years after that event those effects had made so
alarming a progress, and the complaints of the sufferers had become so
loud, that the body corporate found it necessary to take the affair into
their immediate and most serious consideration, in order to check as much
as possible the growing evil, and alleviate in some degree the sufferings
of the poor inhabitants.  The truth of this statement, and the mode of
proceeding adopted then in the Hall in order to relieve or mitigate the
distresses of the poor will appear by the following extract from the
Corporation books.

    “May 12. 1662.  Forasmuch as the Poor of this Burgh thro’ _great
    losses_ and _decay of trade_ are grown very numerous, and the charge
    of them greater than can be well born by the inhabitants, and a great
    part of the coal trade carried on by Strangers and Foreigners, which
    bring their coals hither to sell in Ships and Vessells belonging to
    other Ports, who tho’ they reap a profit bear not the least part of
    the burthen, to the great discouragement of the Navigation belonging
    to this town and the impoverishing of the inhabitants thereof, It is
    thereupon [at the earnest request of the most considerable freemen
    Burgesses and Inhabitants of this town] this day ordered that every
    freeman or burgess of this burgh that shall from henceforth buy or
    cause to be bought of any stranger or foreign person not being free
    of this burgh any coals called Newcastle, Sunderland or Sea-water
    being lading or freight in any Ship or Vessell belonging to any such
    Stranger or outward Port whether the same be to sell again or for
    there (their) own expense shall pay for every chalder of coals so
    bought as aforesaid to the use of the mayor and burgesses of this
    burgh and their successors the sum of 12_d._ to be employed for and
    towards the necessary reliefe and maintenance of the poor of the said
    borough, the same to be levyed of every such freeman or burgess so
    buying the same as aforesaid by distress and sale of their Goods, or
    by such other ways and means as shall be thought most fitt and
    meete—And it is further ordered that no burgess or inhabitant of this
    burgh shall take any such coals out of any such strangers’ Ship or
    Vessel with intent to sell the same again untill the end of three
    working days next after the arrivall of such Strangers’ Ship within
    this Port, to the end the inhabitants of this town may be served with
    coales in that time for their own firing, according to severall
    former orders made to that purpose, and publication of this order to
    be made by the bellman.”

How long this law remained in force, or this impost continued to be paid
does not appear; but it is not very likely that it ceased, or was
discontinued till the arrival of better times, and the removal of those
evils which led to its adoption.  _Fourpence_ a chalder, if we are not
mistaken, is still charged on the coals brought by strangers, and applied
in like manner to the relief of the poor.  Why should it be no more, when
thrice as much was charged so long ago? and a shilling then was worth a
great deal more of our money.  Surely the present pressure of the poor
rates, which so large a proportion of the householders so severely feel,
would justify the adoption of such a measure now, if it be allowable.

Towards the close of the year when the above transaction took place this
town was visited by Lord Townshend, Sir John Tracy, Sir Edward Walpole,
John Spelman and Roger Spelman Esqrs. as commissioners under a late act
of parliament for the well-governing and regulating of Corporations.
This act seems to have sprung from the narrow and arbitrary policy of the
Stuart princes, who aimed at having corporations as much as possible
under their direction and management, or subject to their immediate and
absolute power and control.  These commissioners were entertained here at
the expense of the mayor and burgesses.  They were, it seems, invested
with large powers, so as to be authorized to displace any they happened
to dislike of our municipal functionaries, and put others whom they
thought better of in their room.  In this town they expelled _alderman_
Robert Thorogood and appointed one Lawrence Withers in his stead.  A few
weeks before “Mr. Fr. Rolfe was discharged from his office and place of
Town-clerk, and Mr. Owen Barnes was elected in his room.”—This is said to
have been done by the _mayor and aldermen_; but it is probable that the
Commissioners were privy to it, and that it was a step taken in
compliance with an intimation from them, for the time of their visit had
been previously fixed.  Those appear to have been the only changes which
then took place in the Hall.

Under 1663 a circumstance has been recorded which casts some light on the
ideas or sentiments which the Lynn people then entertained of their
parliamentary representatives; and though they no longer allowed them
daily wages, as formerly, yet they evidently considered the honest and
diligent discharge of their trust or service as entitled to more than
mere thanks.  Had they on the other hand failed in the performance of
their delegated functions, their constituents undoubtedly would have
deemed that failure censurable.—The circumstance alluded to is explained
in the following extract from the Hall books: “June 13. 1663, It is this
day ordered that the Chamberlaine remitt to London 40_l._ to buy two
pieces of Plate, of the value of 20_1._ each, to be presented as a
gratuity from this House to Sir Edward Walpole and Sir William Howell
(Hovell) {812} burgesses in parliament for this burgh, for their
faithfull services in behalf of this burgh.”  What were those services in
behalf of this burgh, which are here glanced at, and were deemed so
meritorious, we are not told; but it is very clear that these
representatives had acquitted themselves entirely to the satisfaction of
their constituents.  It is much to be wished that the same could be said
of all our present national representatives.

Under the same year an occurrence is mentioned in one of our MSS, which
leaves a foul stain on the memory of our ancestors of that period, and
shews how much they were then the slaves of bigotry and intolerance.
This was the persecution and imprisonment of several members of that
pacific and respectable sect called _Quakers_, which seems to have been
the only description of sectaries, except the _Presbyterians_, that had
then attempted to introduce themselves into this town.  But they were
bitterly opposed here, as they were then also throughout the nation; and
their sufferings were very great and grievous during almost the whole
reign of _Charles_ and _James_ the second, to the lasting disgrace of a
pretended christian and protestant government.  It is to _William_ and
the _Revolution_ that we owe, under providence, the adoption of a wiser
policy and the enjoyment of better times.

In 1664 the high price of coals was severely felt here.  That commodity
advanced that year from 17_s._ a chalder to 30_s._ and upwards.  This
seems to have been owing to the late impost of 1_s._ a chalder laid by
the Corporation on all coals brought by _strangers_, who consequently
discontinued their visits.  It seems rather probable that that impost or
tax was now abolished, for we are told that the coal afterward, _by
reason of strangers’ resort_, came again to the old price.  It may
therefore be concluded that the Lynn ships alone were not sufficient at
that time to supply the town and all the inland country with that
article.  The same would probably be still the case, if this port was not
frequented by any coal ships but such as belonged to the town.  We are
therefore, probably, much more indebted to strangers for our plentiful
supplies of fuel than we are apt to imagine.

In 1665 Lynn was visited by that grievous scourge the Plague, which made
great ravages here.  “Wardsmen were appointed, one at the East and the
other at the South-gate to keep out all Mackerell Carts from coming into
the town:” the communication with the county was cut off; no Mart was
kept that year, and the very markets were for sometime discontinued.—In
the Summer of the very next year, 1666, which was a hundred and forty
five years ago, a cart, (as is recorded in one of our manuscripts,) came
hither from _Anmer_, loaded with _coals_, which were _here sold by the
mett_ or _bushell_.  It seems therefore that there is coal somewhere
about Anmer; but to what extent we cannot pretend to say.  Nor does it
appear what search or trial was there made for it, or why the attempt was
given up.  A good Coal-mine in that part of the country would, no doubt,
be very desirable.

We know of no very remarkable event that occurred here afterward till
1670, when the town was honoured with a visit from the _duke of Richmond
and Lenox_, of which the following notices are extracted from the Hall
books—“July 23.  It is this day ordered that his Grace the Duke of
Richmond and Lenox upon his request shall have his Freedome of this Burgh
gratis: and hereupon his Grace the said duke of Richmond and Lenox did
this day come into this House and did take the Oathes of Aledgiance and
of a Free Burgess; Mr. Thomas Greene and Mr. Benjamin Holly being his
Suretyes.”—again—“July 28th.  Ordered that the Chamberlain pay Mr.
Mayor’s bill of Disbursements for the entertainment of the duke of
Richmond and lord Townshend, 21_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._ and 13_s._ 4_d._ for his
Cook, and for a hogshead of French Wine sent aboard the duke’s
Vessell.”—Hence it appears that the duke came and departed by water.  But
the Sum of 22_l._ would go then much further than it would at present.
It would go now but a very little way in entertaining brace of peers,
with their retinue, and purchasing a hogshead of French wine.

Towards the latter part of this year the Corporation was presented with a
plan or map of their town, as appears from the following note in the
Hall-books—“October 14. 1670, This day alderman Edmund Abbott brought
into this House a Topographical Draught of the town of King’s Lynn, which
was given to the town by Sir Algernoon Payton; and Henry Bell Esq. mayor,
is desired to peruse the said draught, to be mended and put into a Frame,
for the use of the mayor and burgesses.”  The same, we presume, was done
accordingly; but we are not quite sure that this draught is still in
existence: if it be, a sight of it might help towards forming a pretty
just idea of the then state or lineaments of the place.  The principal
Streets and Lanes, however, must have been then much in the same
situation as at present.  In other respects the town must be now very
widely different from what it was then.

In the same year we find Lynn to be in a great measure a _manufacturing_
town, especially in the _worstead_ line, and to have many hands employed
in that branch; as appears from the following note in the Hall-books.
“December 2. 1670, The worstead weavers petition to procure an Act of
Parliament for the liberty of a Dyer and Callender to live in the town
for the better [or the benefit of the] trade.”  Those weavers must have
been pretty numerous, and their trade hopeful and promising, to warrant
or justify such an application.  Still it must seem rather odd that they
should think the obtaining of their object required the aid of an act of
parliament.  It does not appear, however, that an application was
actually made to the legislature on this occasion.


SECTION III.


_Account of the king’s intended visit to Lynn_, _in_ 1671, _with divers
other occurrences relating to this town_, _in that and some of the
subsequent years_.

The king, who used frequently to visit Newmarket, where he had it royal
Lodge or Palace, purposed in the autumn of 1671 to make an excursion into
Norfolk, and to visit Lynn in the course of his tour.  This appears from
the following Note from the Hall-books—“1671, August 11.  Ordered that
100_l._ be paid into the Chamberlain’s hands for defraying disbursements
on account of his Majesties entertainment, who Sir Robert Stewart writes
intends to visit Lynn next month, in his progress.”—Great preparations
were accordingly made by our Corporation for the reception and
entertainment of their sovereign.  But it so happened that our good
townsmen were disappointed at last, for his majesty never came; so that
the great expense they had been at, in preparing for his reception was,
in a manner, all thrown away.

It is not said what it was that prevented his majesty’s coming, or
frustrated his royal intention of visiting his Lynn subjects at that
time.  But it seems most probable that the very foul weather which
happened in that month, and the terrible inundation which then
overwhelmed the country about Lynn, were the principal, if not the sole
causes of the relinquishment of his purpose.  The tide rose so high on
the 17th. of September, as we learn from one of our MSS. that the country
about Lynn was all under water, “the haycocks swam about the fields to
the first house in Gaywood, and several boats were rowed from the East
Gate to that Village, many Ships were lost, Marshland was all overflowed,
great numbers of sheep perished, and an immense loss sustained.”  In
short, it seems to have been here such another disastrous flood as that
which lately devastated the Lincolnshire Coast.  The roads must, in many
places, have been broken up, so that the approaches to the town must have
been rendered difficult, if not impracticable.  On the whole, therefore,
we cannot wonder that this royal visit was given up.  As to the whole of
the provisions and dainties that had been prepared for the intended
august visitor, it does not appear how it was disposed of at last; but as
to what had been procured from the Metropolis, its final disposal is
plainly enough suggested by the following Note from the Hall
books:—“November 10, 1671.  Ordered that the mayor have the whole banquet
lately sent from London, he paying tenn pounds.”—So much for this
intended royal feast at Lynn.

In the same year, we find Lord Townshend tampering with the Corporation,
with a view to the introduction of one of his friends to be chosen one of
the Lynn representatives in parliament: hence we find it thus noted in
the Hall books—“1671.  August 7.  Whereas Lord Townshend hath by his
Letters to this House recommended Sir Francis North knight, his Majesties
Sollicitor General, as a person of great worth and honor, and upon all
occasions fitt to be usefull to this burgh in their most important
concernments: It is therefore this day ordered, that the said Sir Francis
North Knight, shall have his freedom of this Burgh gratis.”  He soon
after became, as had been previously projected, one of our parliamentary
delegates.

Early in 1672 an order was issued from the Hall, which shews that the
occupiers of houses in the Tuesday Market-place were not then allowed to
let their shops during the Mart, unless they paid rent for the same to
the mayor and burgesses.  The following note in the Hall books will serve
to elucidate this circumstance—“January 19.  Whereas severall persons
(who have usually lett their shops in the Tuesday market-place during the
time of the Mart, and have therefor paid a rent for the same to the mayor
and burgesses) have of late refused to pay the accustomed rent, it is
this day ordered that the chamberlains doe demand the arrears, and in
case of refusal to cause blinds or bootes to be built up against the
Shops.”  Such appears to have been the case formerly; but this claim, we
apprehend, is no longer made.  We have not learnt, however, how it came
to be relinquished.

In July 1675 Mr. _John Turner_ was admitted or chosen into the Hall, as
common-council-man.  Of him it is said that “he was chosen
common-council-man, alderman, new-elect mayor, parliament-man, and
captain of the trainbands, all in the course of two years.”  From him
sprung the family of that name which afterwards bore great sway in this
town for a whole century.  It is no disparagement to this family that it
arose from a low origin; for where is that great family that has not so
arisen?  The noble, the royal, and the imperial not excepted.  Many of
whom are known to have sprung from and owed their rise to desperate
Adventurers, captains of bands of robbers and ruffians, men, or rather
demons, who defiled themselves with the foulest deeds, and made their way
to power and greatness in defiance of all laws human and divine.  To the
founder of the Turner family no infamy has been imputed.  Report has said
that he was originally a waiter at an Inn at Cambridge, which cannot
justly be considered as any disgrace to his descendants.

In 1676, according to one of the MSS. were first erected the new
buildings, in Broad Street, designed for an Almshouse for twelve poor
men, “at the cost and charge of one John _Heathcote_ of Lynn.”  Mackerell
calls this person _Helcote_.  Whatever his right name was, it is now
almost forgotten, while that of _Framingham_ is in everybody’s mouth: and
yet the poor men owe, perhaps, as much to the memory of the former as
they do to that of the latter, who has engrossed all the praise and
credit of this charity.  For had not this Helcote or Heathcote erected
these buildings it is very doubtful if Framingham, rich as he was, had
ever thought of endowing an almshouse.  He was a man of low birth, {820}
and became afterwards rich and ostentatious.  The death of the founder
gave him an opportunity to become the endower of this almshouse, and
transmit his name to posterity, which he took care to ensure by having
his Will publickly read, and a commemorative Sermon preached annually.
Upon the whole, it is highly probable that vanity and ostentation had a
larger share than charity, or pure benevolence, in the endowment of these
Almshouses.  That, however, cannot lessen the comfort or enjoyment of the
poor men there admitted.  The endowment does them as much good as if it
had sprung from the worthiest motive, or most virtuous principle.

“On the 29th of August, 1677, Ben. Holly Esq. one of the aldermen, was
fined 40_l._ for refusing to accept of the mayoralty, being thereunto
chosen.”  The reason of this refusal is not mentioned; but the alderman
was not poorer, probably, at the end of the year than he would have been
had he accepted the office.—About the close of the same year, (or early,
in the next, as we reckon,) a step was here taken, the result of which
the present writer has often wished to ascertain, but without success.
The step or circumstance alluded to is thus expressed in the volume of
extracts from the Hall books so often referred to in this work—“February
4th.” (1677, 8) “Ordered that a Letter be wrott to Th. Goddard, Son to
Guybon Goddard Esq. late Recorder of this Burgh, to confer his Father’s
labours about the antiquities and antient priviledges of this
Corporation, and that he have a gratuity of 21_l._”  This shews that Mr.
Guybon Goddard had collected materials for a history of Lynn: the same
has been also affirmed by his brother-in-law, Sir William Dugdale, in
some part of his works; so that the fact is beyond all doubt.  But the
question is, what became of those materials?  If our Corporation obtained
them, they seem to have been lost long ago.  No one now in the Hall, it
seems, not even the town-clerk himself, knows any thing about them.  It
is probable Mr. Th: Goddard did not choose to part with them.  What
became of them after his time, or whether they are now in existence or
not, there is perhaps very little chance of discovering.  Had they fallen
in the present writer’s way, there can be no doubt, from the known
character of Guybon Goddard, but he would have found them of considerable
use in this undertaking.

In the autumn of 1678 a pretty strong antipathy to popery appears to have
been prevalent in this town, and measures were adopted to secure the
inhabitants from such dangers as might arise from that quarter.
Accordingly we learn from the Hall books, that it was ordered on the 11th
of November that year, to have “a watch kept every night to prevent
dangers from Popish Recusants.”  This seems to indicate that the
Corporation and people of Lynn were now inclined to side with the
patriots or Whigs against the Court; which appears somewhat corroborated
by their resolving sometime after to elect two of their own townsmen, in
preference to court candidates, to represent them in the ensuing
parliament; as is evinced by the following document from the Hall
books—“January 29th (1678, 9.)  This day upon reading in this House a
Letter from Robert Wright Esq. late one of the burgesses in parliament
for this town, intimating his desire of being again elected here, it is
ordered that thanks be returned for services received, and to acquaint
him that this House taking notice of the generall averseness of this
corporation to choose any other than an inhabitant of this town, and two
of the Society having declared themselves to stand, this House cannot
with any assurance incourage his coming down for that purpose.  But that
they doe and shall retain a true sense and opinion of his former
performances.”  The candidates they now returned were Messrs. Turner and
Taylor, afterwards Sir John Turner and Sir Simon Taylor.  How
patriotically they discharged their respective duties we are unable to
say.

On the 28th of the following April, 1679, an occurrence took place here
which is well worth recording.  It did so much credit to the moral
feelings of one of the then members of the Hall, and does so little to
those of certain members of it in more recent times, (namely, the
_absentees_, or _nonresidents_ above noticed,) that it ought by no means
to be here passed over in silence.  The person first alluded to was one
of the _aldermen_, and he was also a _physician_.  He perceived, upon
serious reflection, that the duties attached to the office of an alderman
were incompatible with those that belonged to the exercise of the medical
profession; and as he was not disposed to relinquish the latter, he felt
himself bound in _conscience_ to withdraw from the Hall and resign his
municipal function.  This occurrence is thus noticed in the volume of
Extracts from the Hall or Town Books—“April 18th. 1678, William Bassett
having sent a Letter insinuating the inconsistence of his place in this
House with his Profession of a Physician, and how that he is necessarily
compelled to be criminal in the one whilst he endeavours to discharge his
duty in the other, begs most heartily to be discharged,—[this House] doe
consent that he be discharged, &c.”—This singular transaction gives us a
very favourable idea of the character of this alderman, or _doctor
Bassett_: it certainly deserves to be remembered; and it is now earnestly
recommended to the serious consideration of the present members of the
Hall, and especially the _absentees_, whose nonresidence must be more
incompatible with their municipal duties than that gentleman’s medical
profession was with his.  If there be really any municipal factions or
duties, that are any way useful or interesting to the community, attached
to the appointment of common-council-man, or alderman of Lynn, the due
discharge of them, without all doubt, must be utterly incompatible with
the absence or nonresidence of such functionaries.—These hints, it is
hoped will not fail to have their due weight with those individuals to
whom they are applicable.


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.


SECTION V.


_History of Lynn continued from_ 1680 _to_ 1688—_Addresses to the
throne—Quo Warranto proceedings—surrender and restoration of the
charters—the revolution_.

The years 1680 and 1681 (or 1682) were distinguished here by two notable
addresses to the throne.  Of that of the former year an account has been
given already at pages 788 and 789, and a rare piece of curiosity it
certainly was.  Of the address of 1681 (or 1682) we cannot speak so
positively, having never met with a copy of it; but there is great reason
to presume that it was pretty much of a kin, or not at all dissimilar to
the former.  Relating to this memorable document the following article
has been extracted from the Town-Books—“March 2. 1681, 2; Ordered that
Mr. Recorder (Henry Ferrour Esq.) be desired to draw up an Humble Address
to his Majestie in abhorrence and detestation of that late designed
traiterous _association_ lately produced at the Old Baly.”  This
evidently alludes to a circumstance that transpired in the course of the
proceedings that had then lately been carried on against the earl of
_Shaftsbury_, at the instigation, it seems, of the sovereign, of which an
account has been given by Rapin, Burnet, and other historians.

    “The king (says _Rapin_,) passionately wished to be revenged of this
    lord, who for sometime had shown him little regard: To this end he
    granted a special commission of Oyer and Terminer to all the judges
    of the kingdom to sit, the 24th of November, with the Lord Mayor and
    Aldermen, at the Old Baily, on the Earl’s trial.  Eight witnesses
    were heard against him, who deposed upon oath many things from his
    own mouth, which discovered pernicious designs against the king’s
    person.  But the greatest crime objected against him was, the copy
    (or plan) of an _Assosiation_ (found in his study) against the
    enemies of the king, of the protestant religion, and of their
    country.  But notwithstanding the hopes conceived by the Court, of
    being freed from this enemy, the Grand Jury, consisting of one and
    twenty of the principal citizens of London, considering that the
    paper containing the association was only a copy, and not writ in the
    earl of Shaftsbury’s hand, and observing very great improbabilities
    in the depositions of the witnesses, found no sufficient ground for
    the Bill, and returned it _Ignoramus_.  Immediately the whole city
    testified their joy for the earl’s deliverance, by bonfires in all
    the Streets, and other marks of satisfaction; and the witnesses
    against him were in great danger of being torn in pieces by the mob.”
    {837}

Arbitrary and vindictive as these proceedings of the Court were, they
appear to have been entirely approved of by our corporation.  Of the
conduct and principles of Shaftsbury and the country party they evidently
had no opinion.  They were ready to condemn them without hesitation and
without mercy: and as to the very idea of an _association_ to counteract
or check the tyrannical measures of the Court, it was looked upon by them
as truly horrid and detestable.  Yet it was to something of that kind, a
few years after, that we owed our glorious revolution, our deliverance
from popish superstition and despotism, and the establishment of civil
and religious liberty. {838}  This Corporation afterwards seemed no less
pleased with the proceedings of William and the revolutionists than they
had been before with those of Charles and his cabal, or of James and his
popish counsellors: and had the pretender succeeded in 1715, or in 1745,
they would probably have been as joyful on that, as they had been on any
former occasion, and addressed the new sovereign with a zeal no way
inferior to what they had expressed or manifested towards the most
favoured and patriotic of his predecessors.  In short, like most
corporations, their conduct would have been regulated by circumstances or
self interest, rather than by truth or genuine patriotism.

Great and notorious as had been the obsequiousness and devotedness of
this corporation to the two last of the Stuart princes, it did not give
them entire satisfaction.  They wanted to have this, and all other
corporations that sent members to parliament, completely in their own
power, so as to have their parliament-men to consist solely of such as
they should please to appoint; that is, of the tools or minions of the
court; which would bid fair always, to insure a parliamentary majority.
To accomplish this, it was necessary to abolish, or disannul all the
Charters, and grant new ones on such terms as would enable his majesty to
appoint all the leading men or municipal functionaries, and remove at any
time all such as he should find unfit for his purpose, and replace them
with such as would prove perfectly ductile and manageable.  This, no
doubt, was deemed by many a deep and well-laid scheme, which entitled its
projectors to the reputation of being endowed with uncommon sagacity.
But they never could bring it to bear, so as to realize the hopes they
had conceived from it; and it was at last abandoned: when the former
charters were restored, and things reverted again into their old
channels.  Of the process or trial of this notable experiment here, the
following, it is presumed, is a fair and correct representation.

Lynn had not the honour of being the first of our corporations that was
made to experience this mode or description of the _royal touch_.  The
precedence, as on other occasions, was given to the corporation of
London, against which a _Quo Warranto_ was issued in 1683; in the event
of which the judges of the court of King’s Bench declared, that the
liberties and privileges of the city of London were forfeited, and might
be seized into the king’s hands.  It was not till the following year that
it came to the turn of Lynn to be questioned on a similar account.
Accordingly we find the following notice of it in the Town-Books—“May 26.
1684.  This day the mayor, (Benj. Keen Esq.) aldermen, and common
councell of this Burgh, _with one assent and consent_, have ordered,
consented, and agreed, that all and singular the powers, franchises,
liberties, priviledges and authorities whatsoever and howsoever granted
to the mayor and burgesses, or to be used or exercised by or under them,
by virtue of any charters, letters patents, custome or prescriptions now
in force, of or concerning electing, nominating, or appointing any person
or persons into any the offices of magistracy or places of trust within
this Burgh, Be _fully and freely surrendered_ unto the King’s most
excellent Majestie, and that an Instrument for that purpose be forthwith
drawn and prepared to be sealed with the common Seale of this Burgh at
the next Hall: and it is ordered that a committee be appointed and
empowered, as deputies and attorneys for the mayor and burgesses, to
attend the King’s Majestie, with the instrument of surrender aforesaid,
as _the act and deed of the mayor and burgesses_.—May 29.  This day the
Letter from Lord Townshend, High Steward, resigning his Patent, being
read, was delivered to Mr. Mayor till the same be further
considered.—This day the Instrument of surrender was sealed.—June 9.
This day the Instrument of deputation to surrender the Charter and
Liberties was signed; and the deputies are ordered and authorized to
petition his Majestie to regrant, renew, and confirm such liberties,
franchises, and powers as his Majestie in his princely wisdom shall think
proper for his service, and the good government, profit and interest of
this burgh. {840}—July 24.  This day the charter of our most gracious
Lord and King, renewed and confirmed to the mayor and burgesses, dated
9th. instant, was read in the outward open Hall. {841}—August 6th.  The
Duke of Norfolk by his Majesties Charter being appointed High Steward,
10_l_, the ancient annual Fee, is ordered to be paid at Christmas
yearly.”

Such a change was now effected here as thoroughly corresponded with the
royal policy.  Our Corporation continued subject to this new order of
things afterwards, for several years; even till within a few weeks of the
Revolution.  The king, dying a few months after he had granted his second
Charter, had little opportunity to act much upon it, or give it its full
operation.  All that was left for his brother and successor _James_, who
took special care that it should be rendered sufficiently operative.  He,
accordingly, in the Summer of 1688, thought proper to set it in motion,
and play it on our body corporate with full and terrible effect.
_Fifteen_ of that body, not thought well of by his majesty, and including
the _mayor_ himself, the Town-Clerk and _five aldermen_, were then
expelled the Hall in one day, and replaced by others who were more to
their sovereign’s liking.  Of this memorable event there are the
following memoranda in the Hall-Books.—

    “June 11th. (1688) Whereas by order of Councell at White-Hall, dated
    1st.  June 1688, for the discharging severall members from their
    respective places in this Corporation, those words following—“By the
    King’s most excellent majestie, and the Lords of his most honorable
    Privy Councell, whereas by the Charter lately granted to the town of
    Lynn Regis in the county of Norfolk _a power is reserved to his
    Majesty_, by his order in Councell, _to remove from their employments
    any officers in the said town_, His Majestie in Councell is this day
    pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered that Robert Sparrow, mayor
    and alderman, Sir John Turner, Benj. Holly, Willm. Hadfield, Robt.
    Pain, Giles Bridgeman, aldermen; Hen. Bell, Wm. Holly, Chas. Turner,
    Hen. Pope, Sam. Bridgeman, Ja: Greene, Tim. Priest, and John
    Bradfield, Common Councell, and Edmd. Rolfe, Town-Clerke, and Mayor’s
    Clerk, and Clerk of Guild-Hall Courts, and Courts of Sessions, Court
    Leet, and Court of Pyepouder, Be, and they are hereby removed and
    displaced from their said offices in the said Town of Lynn Regis.

                                                          _John Nicholas_.

    [Then it immediately follows] “And the said severall persons in the
    said order mentioned were and are by the Hall this day accordingly
    displaced and discharged.”  [Next after which it is added.]  “June
    11th.  Att a further congregation the same day, before Sir Symon
    Tayler Kt. Th. Robinson, John Kidd, Benj: Keen, Th. Lemon, Edwd:
    Hooke, Edwd. Bodham.  A mandate under his Majesties Hand and Seale
    read before the members above mentioned to remove severall therein
    mentioned, and to require to elect John Davy to be mayor, Wm.
    Linstead, Cyp. Anderson, Hen: Framingham, Charles Peast, Wm. Blyth,
    to be aldermen; and Th. Buckingham, Sym: Tayler, John Hall, Wm.
    Thompson, John Tidd, Pet: Busby, Seel Peast, and St: Tayler to be
    Common Councell, and Math: Oufande to be Town-clerk, without
    administering to them any Oaths but for the execution of their
    respective offices, with which wee are pleased to dispense in their
    behalfe. {843}—By his Majesties Command.

                                                            _Sunderland_.”

The king appeared now bent upon persevering in these arbitrary measures;
and in the following month of September, he issued his royal mandate for
continuing as chief magistrate, during another year, the above mentioned
_John Davy_, who seems to have been highly thought of by his sovereign,
and, but for the revolution, might, perhaps, have been appointed mayor of
Lynn for life.  Of the said royal mandate the following notice is taken
in the Hall-Books.—“Sept. 29. 1688.  This day a madat [mandate] under his
Majesties hand and seal was read, to elect and continue John Davy mayor
for the ensuing year, without administring any oaths but of office.”
Then it is added—“This day John Davy Esq. is elected mayor for the next
year, by the common councell.”

Dark and humiliating as was the aspect of this new order of things, it
continued only between four and five years.  The last charter which
reduced the corporation to so degrading a condition was granted in June
1684; and it was cancelled, in effect, or disannulled in the autumn of
1688, when the old Charters were again restored and the former order of
things reestablished.  Of these events the Hall-Books contain the
following memoranda—“October 20. 1688: This day his Majesties Royal
Proclamation for restoring Corporations to their antient Charters,
Liberties, Rights and Franchises bearing date 17th. October being read in
this House, and thereupon the several members of this Corporation being
members at the time of the late surrender made of the Priviledges of this
Burgh being now assembled did proceed, viz.—The Common Councell have
elected Ed: Hooke, Robt. Sparrow, and Cyprian Anderson, aldermen; and
chosen Cyprian Anderson, alderman, mayor till Michaelmas next.—Oct. 26.
the Duke of Norfolk is elected and confirmed Lord High Steward of this
Burgh.”—Under the same date the following memorandum is inserted—“In
pursuance of an order from the office of Ordnance, signifying his
Majesties Commands to send all the Guns to Hull, it is agreed to remove
the same accordingly.” {845a}—“Nov. 2. Ordered the Seal to be affixed to
the Patent for the Duke of Norfolk being High Steward. {845b}—Also the
Seal to one Letter of Attorney giving authority to sundry persons therein
named to receive from his Majesties attorney general the late Instrument
or Deed of Surrender of divers franchises and liberties.”—While things
were going on thus at Lynn, the prince of Orange arrived; which brings us
to the happy era of the Revolution, and to the close of this chapter.



CHAP. VI.


History of Lynn from the Revolution to the present time.

The change which took place at the accession of William and Mary we
denominate, by way of eminence, _The Revolution_, and sometimes, _The
glorious Revolution_.  It was certainly a most happy change for this
nation, and very different from that which took place at the restoration
of Charles II.  The nation behaved now like people in their senses; but
they behaved then like madmen, and were accessary to all the enormities
of that detestable reign, and of the whole period from the restoration to
the revolution.  Had the people, or their leaders, done their duty at the
Restoration, neither Charles nor James would have found it so easy a
matter as they did to tyrannize over their subjects, and enslave their
country.  They were placed on the throne, like all other despots, not
only without any terms or stipulation in favour of the people, but even
with those lofty notions which they inherited from their predecessors,
and in which they were confirmed by their priests and courtiers, and
other sycophants, that they were _absolute_ princes, who ruled by right
divine, and so were not amenable to any human tribunal, or accountable to
any earthly being for any of their actions.  With such notions we need
not wonder at the arbitrary measures they pursued, or at their wishing to
be as absolute or uncontrolled here as their cousin, Lewis XIV, was in
France, or the grand Seignior in Turkey.  It was very natural for such
men as they to be or to do so, and for their fawning and time-serving
courtiers to encourage them in it: but for the whole church and
priesthood to act herein as abettors, till James, rather impoliticly,
proceeded to take some undue liberties with the hierarchy, is somewhat
more remarkable.  As to _Charles_, he took special care to keep fair with
the prelates and mother church, and play into their hands to their utmost
wishes, which enabled him to rule as despotically as he pleased, with or
without a parliament: they on the other hand complimented him, by calling
him _most sacred majesty_, and telling, even the Almighty, that he was _a
most religious king_.  But _James_ departed from this wise policy of his
brother, by presuming to encroach upon the sacred prerogatives of the
church, and order the very bishops to read, and cause their clergy also,
in all the churches, publickly to read his _Declaration of Liberty of
Conscience to all his subjects_; which, certainly, was, in itself, no
very unreasonable demand.  Yet this was the rock on which he split, and
the occurrence which most of all contributed to facilitate and hasten the
Revolution.  For it caused such an accession to the patriotic party as
rendered it predominant and irresistible.


SECTION I.


_A sketch of the Revolution_, _or brief observations on that memorable
and interesting event_.

The English Hierarchy, or national priesthood, is that body, of all
others, which it most behoves a tyrant king to secure its attachment and
cooperation.  Nor will he find this attended with much difficulty,
provided he take care not to encroach on the ecclesiastical department,
and let the ecclesiastics tyrannize as much as they please in their own
province.  _Charles_ II understood this subject well, and by that means
could act the tyrant with perfect safety throughout his whole reign.  The
alliance between church and state was by him preserved inviolate; and
consequently none of the enormities of his vile government were able to
shake, or endanger his throne.  But _James_, by violating that alliance,
deprived himself of his chief support and bulwark, and lost every thing.
Had he kept fair with the church, or the ecclesiastics, he might venture
to play the despot, persecute the nonconformists, and other descriptions
of his subjects, as much, and as cruelly as he pleased: they would once
have remonstrated against that sort of conduct.  But being himself a
non-conformist, and assuming a _dispensing power_, and issuing a
Declaration for _liberty of conscience_, and withal, interfering with the
_dignities_ and _revenues_ of the _church_ and _universities_, they were
alarmed beyond measure, and all at once forgot, even their favourite
doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance, for which they had so
long contended, and the disbelievers of which they had so often
represented as vile miscreants, unentitled to the common comforts of
society, or the natural rights of men.  While the nonconformists and the
laity were the only sufferers from the oppressions of government, they
blamed them for complaining, and preached up passive obedience and
nonresistance, and the divine right of kingship; {851a} but when those
oppressions began to affect them, they immediately changed their tone,
and appeared among the foremost to complain, and even to disobey and
resist.—Such was the character of the English clergy, before and at the
Revolution; and it deserves to be noted and remembered.

In imprisoning the bishops, James filled up the measure of his folly and
infatuation.  It converted a large majority of his subjects into enemies,
and hastened that crisis which blasted all his prospects, and transferred
his kingdom to another family.

    “The imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops, (says an excellent
    historian, {851b}) were the last measures of infatuation that
    remained.  When a second indulgence was issued, and ordained to be
    read in the church, the bishops petitioned against an order
    calculated to reduce the clergy, on their compliance, to the contempt
    and reproach of becoming accessary to their own destruction; or to
    subject the disobedient to the penalties recently inflicted by the
    high commission.  The whole nation was agitated at the imprisonment
    of the fathers of the church.  The same violent agitation was excited
    by their trial; but their acquittal resounded through the capital,
    and was received with tumultuous joy by the whole kingdom, as a
    religious and even a national triumph over the sovereign.  From the
    public ferment, which was not likely to subside, that dangerous
    crisis had at length arrived, to which despotism and bigotry
    conducted James.

    “The eyes and expectations of men had been long fixed on his nephew,
    the prince of Orange, whose marriage with his eldest daughter had
    opened a near prospect of obtaining the crown.  Religion, as well as
    interest, had connected William with the popular party, as alike
    adverse to the ambition of France, and impatient for a protestant
    successor to the English throne.  The discontented found a secure
    asylum in Holland, and an honourable or secret reception at his
    court; and his connexion with every party was preserved and enlarged
    by their correspondence with their friends.

    “While the chance of a protestant succession remained, the prince was
    averse to a premature rupture, and the nation was desirous to await
    the natural course of events.  But the birth of a son, during the
    ferment excited by the imprisonment of the bishops, consoled James
    with the prospect of a catholic heir, and accelerated every
    preparation for his ruin.  The most injurious surmises had been
    entertained of the queen’s conception; and from some mysterious
    circumstances, the report of a supposititious child, however
    improbable at present, was eagerly propagated and implicitly
    believed.  From the prospect of an hereditary religious despotism the
    invitation of the prince of Orange was no longer deferred.  The
    whigs, who had urged the exclusion, were indifferent to the
    hereditary line of succession, from which the tories, who had no view
    beyond a parliament, were unwilling to deviate.  But as every
    political and religious party deposited their animosities during the
    common danger, a secret conspiracy was formed by their coalition, the
    most extensive perhaps, and the best concerted which history has
    preserved.

    “The secret, although entrusted to many thousands, transpired only
    from the preparations of the prince of Orange.  Although his
    declaration announced that he was invited over by divers of the
    temporal and spiritual lords, the king was unable to discover the
    lines of conspiracy with which he was surrounded at home.  The
    declaration issued on the embarkation of the prince, enumerated the
    grievances of the three kingdoms, the suspicious birth of the prince
    of Wales, and the necessity of interposing to establish the religion
    and liberties of the people on a secure foundation.  Terrified at the
    approaching danger from abroad, and at the contempt and hatred which
    he had incurred at home, the king endeavoured, when too late, to
    retract his former illegal measures; but when the Dutch fleet was
    dispersed, and driven back by a storm to Holland, his confidence in
    the protection of heaven revived.  But the expedition was renewed in
    a few days.  While the English fleet was confined to its station off
    Harwich, the prince, with six hundred transports and ships of war,
    passed with an east wind through the Straits of Dover, in the
    presence of wondering multitudes, who gazed at the sublime spectacle
    from either coast; and disembarking at Torbay, afforded a signal
    proof to the nation, that its navy will not always prevent an
    invasion, nor a standing army ensure stability to the throne.

    “For a few days the prince of Orange was joined by none; but when the
    first example was given, the extent of the confederacy was announced
    by a rapid and universal defection from the king.  The gentlemen of
    Somerset and Devon hastened to the prince, who had advanced to
    Exeter, and entered eagerly into an _association_ for his support.
    The earl of Bath admitted his fleet into Plymouth.  The earl of
    Devonshire and the gentlemen of Derby and Nottingham declared for the
    prince and a free parliament.  Lord Delamer took arms in Cheshire;
    and in the northern counties lord Danby and his associates surprised
    Newcastle, York, and Hull.  Cornbury, the earl of Clarendon’s son,
    was among the first to desert; but when a petition for a free
    parliament, signed by nineteen peers and prelates, was evaded, he was
    followed by Churchill, Kirk, Trelauny, Drumlanrig, the dukes of
    Ormond and Grafton, prince George of Denmark, the king’s Son in law,
    while a greater number of inferior officers refused to fight against
    the prince of Orange.

    “The king, who had arrived at Salisbury to give battle to the prince,
    was overwhelmed with misfortunes.  All England appeared in commotion.
    The capital was full of discontent; the very fleet declared for a
    free parliament; and surrounded, as he believed, by a disaffected
    army, he knew not in whom to confide.  He withdrew his army, and
    retired to London; but when informed of his daughter the princess
    Anne’s escape, “God help me,” cried he, with tears of anguish, “my
    own children have deserted me.”  Every new disaster increased his
    perturbation.  He summoned a council of peers; issued writs for new
    parliament; dispatched commissioners to propose a treaty: but as the
    prince, amidst the acclamations of all ranks, continued to advance,
    he was bereft of all fortitude and strength of mind.  His conduct was
    irresolute, pusillanimous, absurd; and unable to submit to necessity,
    yet incapable of a single effort of generous despair, he sunk,
    without dignity, beneath his misfortunes.  His father’s execution was
    still present to his desponding thoughts; and he listened credulously
    to every suggestion of personal danger, without reflecting either on
    the difference of the characters or of the times.  His terrors were
    flattered as the result of political wisdom, and he was easily
    persuaded that his departure would produce a scene of anarchy to
    accelerate the recovery of absolute power.  His hopes were absurdly
    placed on the public confusion, to increase which he recalled and
    burnt the writs for a new parliament; directed Feversham to disband
    the army; threw the great seal into the Thames; and with a single
    attendant, embarked in a small vessel at midnight for France, whither
    the queen and his son had before been secretly conveyed.  When he was
    intercepted at Feversham and brought back to Whitehall, the returning
    affections of the city might have convinced him that the nation was
    not yet lost.  In this delicate extremity he attempted to resume his
    authority by an indiscreet proclamation against the late excesses;
    {856} but was required at midnight to remove from the palace, and
    permitted to retire to Rochester, with an obvious design to connive
    at his escape.  He was convinced himself that his departure would
    prove acceptable to the prince; and the few friends who adhered in
    adversity to his fortunes, urged him to remain.  But the despair of
    life returned.  An expression of his father’s was remembered—that
    ‘short is the distance between the prison and the grave of kings:’
    and by the desertion of his kingdom, which he was destined never to
    revisit, he left his rival an unbloody victory, and a vacant
    throne.—The revolution was accomplished in Scotland with the same
    ease and success.”

A convention was assembled in each kingdom, to manage their respective
concerns, and settle their future government.  In England the revolution
was accomplished by a coalition of whig and tory; but in Scotland, where
the same distinctions prevailed under different names, the parties kept
separate and opposed to each other; the episcopalians siding with James,
and the presbyterians with William.  The latter, however, in the end
prevailed, and the convention adopted a plan, prepared by a committee,
for the settlement of the crown.

The deliberations had degenerated in the English convention into verbal
disputes between the two houses, whether the late king had deserted or
abdicated the vacant throne.  In Scotland there was neither the same
necessity to gratify the tories, nor the same propriety in declaring that
the king had abdicated the government, by the desertion of a country
wherein he did not reside.  But the opposite genius of the two nations
was never more conspicuous than in the result of their deliberations on
that important event.  The _English_ convention declared that James II.
having endeavoured to subvert the constitution, by breaking the original
contract between the king and people, and having violated the fundamental
laws, and withdrawn from the kingdom, had _abdicated_ {857} the
government, and that the throne was thereby vacant.  The _Scots_, on the
other hand, instead of attempting by an ambiguous fiction to reconcile
hereditary right with a change in the succession, placed the vacancy of
the throne on its true basis, the religion and mal-administration of
James.  The same oppression which the English apprehended while yet
distant, they had long endured.  Their loyal attachment to the Stewarts,
which survived the civil wars, had been effaced by their sufferings since
the restoration.  From the same national ardour which rendered the
reformation so complete, or destructive in Scotland, they proposed and
passed a bold and decisive vote, that James had forfaulted [_forfeited_]
the crown by his misconduct and crimes.

When the throne was declared vacant, the convention, of both nations,
resolved that the crown should be tendered to William and Mary, as joint
sovereigns.  The prince in an agreeable and obliging manner accepted of
the crown in the name of them both; and the same day, (Feb. 13. 1689,)
they were proclaimed king and queen by the named of William and Mary, at
which a general joy appeared among the people.  On the 11th. of April the
new sovereigns were crowned in London, and proclaimed in Scotland on the
same day.  From the latter Argyle and others were deputed by the three
temporal estates to present the crown, and administer the oath to the
king and queen.  The instrument of government and the grievances were
first read; to which an Address to turn the convention into a parliament,
was subjoined.  When the coronation Oath was administered to William, at
the obligation to _root __out heretics_, he paused, and declared that he
did _not mean to become a persecutor_; and on the assurance of the
commissioners that such was not its import, protested that in that sense
only he took the Oath.  This must be extremely honourable to William’s
memory, and is a rare instance of princely virtue, wisdom, and
patriotism.  If all kings were of his sort the objections to monarchical
government would lose most of their strength.  With this sketch of the
British Revolution, so much talked of, and so ill understood by most, the
reader, it is hoped, will not be displeased. {859}


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.


SECTION III.


_History of Lynn from the death of William to that of Anne—her majesty’s
accession—address to her from Lynn—dangerous state of the Boale or
World’s End_, _and measures adopted for its preservation—the great storm
in_ 1703, _and its effects on this town—address to the throne in_
1704—_petitions to parliament the same year_, _from the counties of
Bedford and Huntingdon_, _against unreasonable and exorbitant exactions
at Lynn—constructive disloyalty of our corporation—minister’s house in
Webster’s Row_.

On the death of King William, Anne, the younger sister of his late queen,
succeeded to the throne, by virtue of the _act of settlement_, which had
passed in the preceding reign.  She was proclaimed on March 8, 1701–2, a
few hours after the king’s death; and her accession gave entire
satisfaction to all her protestant subjects.  Those of this town appeared
on that occasion very conspicuous, as they were actually among those who
addressed the throne within that selfsame month. We have never seen a
copy of this address, but have learnt from our book of Extracts that it
was dated March 30, 1702.  Whether it was long or short, we know not; but
there can be no doubt of its being very loyal: and, in point of style or
diction we may take it for granted that it bore no small resemblance to
those of succeeding years, of which we shall not fail by and by to
exhibit some fair specimens.

About the time of which we are now speaking, Lynn was thought to be in
some danger from the encroachment of the tide upon that point called the
Boale, or world’s end; and the most effectual means that could be thought
of were therefore adopted for the safety of the town.—This affair is thus
noticed in the Hall books:—“Sept. 24. 1708; In pursuance of a late order
wee have considered Robert Elsden’s Petition to us referred, and taken a
view of the ground called the Boale or World’s End, and the lands and
houses on either side, and are of opinion, that there is an absolute
necessity that the said ground as it now is be preserved from being lost
to sea, and for that purpose that some present meanes be considered by
Jettys and Counter-shores to repell the flow and reflow the sea, without
which the houses on the north side of the Mill ffleet, and consequently
the town will be in great danger of ruin; and considering how necessary
it is that present care be taken of the defence of the town so incumbent
upon this House, which the said Elsden is in no wise able to performe,
and also considering the advantage it will be to this corporation to have
the duties of wharfage and groundage, stakes, mooreage and other dutys
claimed and long enjoyed the owners of that ground united and made entire
to this port, Wee have treated and contracted with the said Robert Elsden
for the absolute purchase of the said ground and all profits and
advantages thereunto belonging for the sum of 130_l._ and 20_l._ more at
the end of five years if the said ground shall continue so long preserved
from sea without considerable diminution.”—Then it is added—“Said Report
and Articles are read and well approved by this House.”  This was, no
doubt, an advantageous bargain to the corporation; and as might be
expected, they now set themselves in good earnest about effectually
preserving their new purchase.  They laid out upon it a good deal of
money; of which the following memoranda occur in their books—“Sept. 29.
1704: Ordered 100_l._ to be taken up for reimbursing the chamberlain’s
charges about the Jetties and defences against the sea at the Boale, or
World’s End.”—again—“Jan. 12 1704–5: Ordered that Mr. Hainsworth
chamberlain’s account audited at 347_l._ 8_s._ 9_d._ relating to the
Boale be allowed, and that he have 10_l._ 10_s._ for his extraordinary
trouble.”—This spot, we presume, has been ever since the property of the
corporation, which we cannot find to have been ever the case before.

About this same time happened that dreadful national calamity, commonly
called _the great storm_, the most tremendous and most disastrous,
perhaps, ever experienced in this kingdom.  It continued for several days
but was at the highest on the 27th of November 1703.  No place escaped
its fury, but in some places it was most awfully terrible and
destructive.  It blew from the _west_, and therefore could not so much
affect this coast; and at Lynn the loss it occasioned was comparatively
inconsiderable; amounting to seven or eight ships, twenty or thirty
hands, and damage to the houses, or buildings, computed at about 1000_l._
and the whole including the shipping to about 3000_l_, {874} which was
but a trifle, compared to the losses which some other places had then
sustained.

On the western coast the ravages of this storm far exceeded what they
were in these eastern parts.  At _Bristol_ it occasioned so high a tide
as did above a 100,000_l._ damage to the merchants goods only.  It also
caused the _Severn_ to break down its banks, and overflow a vast tract of
land, by which 15000 sheep, besides other cattle were drowned.  The
famous _Eddystone_ Lighthouse also, which had borne several storms
unmoved, was not able to stand this.  It was swept off on the tremendous
night of the 27th. and nothing was to be seen the next morning but the
bare rock.  _Winstanley_ too, its ingenious projector and constructor,
who happened then to be there, perished with the rest. {875}  Soon after,
on that very night, the _Winchelsea_, a homeward bound Virginia-man,
split on the same rock, and most of its hands were lost.

It was computed that no less than 300 sail of ships, some of them
belonging to the royal navy, were lost on different parts of out coasts,
and that there were drowned then in rivers and at sea, at least 8000
persons.  Between one and two hundred lost their lives by the fall of
houses, chimneys, &c. and a still greater number were grievously bruised
and hurt from the same causes.  More than 800 dwelling houses were blown
down, and barns and outhouses without number.  Above 400 wind-mills were
overset and destroyed; upwards of one hundred churches were uncovered,
and the lead from some of their roofs blown to an incredible distance:
many of their steeples and battlements were also demolished.  In addition
to all which, above 250,000 trees were said to be then torn up by the
roots.  In short the whole country for sometime after exhibited the
appearance of dejection, dismay, and desolation.

The public feelings being greatly affected by this national calamity, we
need not be surprized that a general _fast_ was soon after solemnly
proclaimed and devoutly observed throughout the kingdom; and though we
may not very readily fall in, or coincide with every idea suggested in
the royal proclamation, {876} yet we cannot help looking upon that fast
as much more proper and justifiable than most of those that have been
observed by our countrymen ever since.—After all, what were the
deplorable ravages of that great and mighty storm, compared with those of
a single campaign in some of our modern wars, when myriads of human
beings have miserably perished, entire provinces cruelly laid waste, and
whole nations involved in utter ruin?  Yet these most calamitous scenes
are seldom looked upon by governments and nations as the judgments of
Heaven, or what ought to lead men to serious reflection, religious
humiliation, and repentance.

In the course of the following year, (1704) our national feelings were
very differently affected.  The dejection of the preceding year was no
longer felt, and the public mind became suddenly elated in a wonderful
manner, and to an extraordinary degree.  This was occasioned by the
battle of _Hochstet_, or _Blenheim_, as we most commonly call it.  That
surprising victory filled the nation with such vainglorious triumph as to
throw it almost into a state of atheistical intoxication.  Addresses to
the throne came in thick now from all quarters, and our corporation
appeared conspicuous among those memorable addressers.  Our address was
not a little remarkable; but whether most so for its piety, good sense,
and elegance, or for its loyalty, adulation, and fustian, or bombastry,
may be left for the reader to judge. {878}

But however loyal or patriotic we seemed at this period, and elated with
the idea of our military successes and national glory, we yet lay at the
same time under some very unfavourable and disreputable imputations from
some of our neighbours, on the score of extortion, or unwarrantable and
exorbitant exactions in our commercial dealings.  Nor is it at all clear
that the charge was absolutely or entirely groundless.—These
circumstances appear from the following document in the Hall-books.—

    “Jan. 12th. 1704–5.  Whereas Petitions have been lately exhibited to
    the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament by the Deputy
    Leuftenants, Justices of the Peace, Gentlemen and Inhabitants of the
    Countys of Bedford and Huntingdon, complaining of great duties and
    payments exacted by this town of Lynn by force of pretended By-Laws
    on all such sea coales brought into this port as are not consumed in
    this town, and for that under a pretence of a certain custome of
    _Foreign bought and foreign sold_ all masters of ships and others not
    free of this corporation who bring in coales are compelled to lye
    three market days after arrival before they are permitted to sell
    their coales to any person whatsoever; and after they have layn such
    time yet they are permitted to sell to non but Freemen and
    inhabitants of the burgh at their own prices, whereby all other
    traders in Sea coales are discouraged, that trade monopolised there,
    and the prices raised to an excessive rate, and that the freemen and
    inhabitants thereby make exorbitant gains to themselves, to the great
    oppression of the petitioners and diminution of the queen’s revenue,
    which custom and practices are contrary to divers laws and statutes,
    viz. 9th of Ed. 3 and 25th. Ed. 3. and 11th. Rd. 2. and therefore
    pray to be relieved against them.—And whereas the matters in said
    petition are referr’d to a private committee it is ordered that
    Councell be taken in said case, and that such concession and
    disclaims {880a} be made before the committee or otherwise as by our
    Burgesses in Parliament with advice of such Councell shall be thought
    reasonable touching the duty of 8_d._ per Chalder and compelling
    Strangers ships to lye 3 days mentioned in the said case, and to act
    farther therein as they shall see cause, _saving_ to this corporation
    the ancient _custome of fforeign bought of foreign sold_, and the
    _duty_ 4_d._ _per chalder_ time out of mind received and injoyed.”
    {880b}

How this affair terminated we have not been able to ascertain.

Soon after the affair just now mentioned another circumstance transpired
which had a still more serious aspect on our corporation, as it seemed to
involve them in a kind of dispute with the crown itself, and to threaten
them with a repetition of former alarming regal procedures, or another
deprivation of their charters and municipal franchises.  A process was
accordingly commenced against them on the part of their sovereign, for
the embezzlement, or non-payment of certain royal dues; and it is thus
noticed in their own records—“June 13th. 1705; upon reading a writt
directed to the sheriffe of this county, for seizing into Her Majesties
hands the liberties of this Burgh, for default of entering claims, and
answering and accounting for the debts, fines, and forfeitures due to Her
Majestie arising within this Burgh.  It is this day ordered that the Town
Clerke forthwith take care to cause appearance to the said writt, and
such other matters be performed as are incumbent on the mayor and
burgesses.”—It is not said what was the result, but it may be supposed to
have ended favourably, though, probably, not without absolute submission
and great expense.  But for any disloyalty that might be alleged against
them in this instance, they seem to have made ample amends by their
memorable address to the throne in 1706, which shall be given in the next
section.

Among the advantages enjoyed formerly by the minister of the town, or the
vicar of St. Margaret’s parish, was that of a _parsonage house_ for his
habitation.  This house was situated in _Webster’s row_, or Broad street.
For sometime before the period of which we are now speaking there seems
to have been some doubt, whether this house belonged to the corporation,
or to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich.  But now, during the deanship of
the celebrated _Dr. Prideaux_, the Dean and Chapter expressly
relinquished their claim in favour of the corporation.  But this is
supposed to have proved to succeeding ministers an unfortunate
relinquishment: for it does not seem that they had any longer an
appropriate mansion in the town, but were obliged to shift for
themselves, and procure a dwelling as they could, like the rest of the
inhabitants.  How the corporation came to deprive the minister of his
parsonage house we have not learnt.—Of this affair the following notice
occurs in the Hall-Books; “August 29. 1705; It appeareth by old deeds
that the minister’s house in Webster’s Row belongeth to the mayor and
burgesses, and Dr. Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, by his Letter produced doth
disclaim the same, as never in possession of the Dean and Chapter of
Norwich.”


SECTION IV.


_State of Lynn under Q. Anne continued—pompous address to the throne in_
1706—_cut made the same year from Kettlewell to Gannock gate—state of the
Middleton river and water-mills—another notable address to the
throne—execution of two children—state of the harbour—Dr. Hepburne and
other doctors—the medical as well as clerical profession supposed to be
more highly esteemed here formerly than at present—reasons for that
supposition—law-suit—Walpole’s expulsion—death of Anne and accession of
George I_.

In the summer of 1706, our corporation distinguished themselves by
another most elaborate and pompous address to the throne, which might
well compensate for all that constructive disloyalty, or treasonable
delinquency which seemed imputable to them the preceding year.  Indeed,
as far as words could do it, this address must have placed them among the
most loyal, most zealous, and most devoted of all her majesty’s subjects.
Whether she herself deemed it to have completely white washed them from
their former foulness, or not, we are unable to say.  But if she did
really condescend to bestow upon it any thought at all, she could hardly
avoid considering it as an extraordinary production: and the reader will
probably view it in much the same light. {883}

In the self-same year, and soon after the date of the said addresses to
the throne, there was here no small stir made about the corn water-mills,
which were situated close by the present Lancastrian school.  From those
mills the fleet from thence to the harbour was called mill-fleet, and the
lane adjoining had the name of mill-lane.  Those corn water-mills appear
to have been here long noted, and of great use to the town.  But about
the time of which we are now speaking they were falling into decay, and
so continued till they were at length entirely laid aside, and every
vestige of them has long ago disappeared.  The wind-mills now supply
their place and do their work, at least so much of it as is wanted to be
done here; for the chief of the meal and flour consumed in the town is
brought from other parts.  When Lynn depended for its bread entirely, or
almost so, on its water-mills, they must have been of great consequence,
and the laying of them by must have been much felt by the inhabitants.
At present our situation is very different, and we perceive and feel no
need of water-mills. {885}

In the spring of the very next year (1707) another flaming address to the
throne went from Lynn; and as it is not inferior to the former in point
of eloquence and sublimity, it may be desirable to have it preserved, for
the entertainment of the rising generation.—It was dated April 25.—The
following is a correct copy of it, as it stands in our volume of
extracts—

    “May it please your Majestie, Nothing could ever equal your Victories
    in the field but your Councells in the cabinet: thus happily in spite
    of all the Jesuiticall contrivances of your and our Ennemys to
    vanquish nationall and hereditary prejudices, to reconcile so many
    jarring and different pretensions, and to unite England and Scotland
    into one kingdome and interest, hitherto by all in vain attempted,
    will together with the Blenheim and Ramilies remain everlasting
    monuments of your Majesties glory.—Our Protestant succession is
    hereby extended thro’ the British Isle, Our Legislature, Trade, and
    Interest one, and all Jealousies and differences being removed, that
    strength which has often been a weakening to us, to the mutual
    endangering our constitution and safety, is now become a real
    security to both, and formidable to our enemies.  Thus the hopes of
    our divisions, fomented by a popish Pretender and his heedless
    abettors, will be now extinguished, and wee shall always think it our
    dutie, as what is most agreeable to your Majestie and beneficiall to
    ourselves, to be unanimous with one another, and to pay a friendly
    regard to our united Neibours, as becomes fellow protestants and
    fellow subjects.—May your Majestie, seated on the throne of your
    united Britannia, long hold the ballance and arbitrate the peace and
    safely of Europe, and be as great and happy here, as your memory will
    be immortall and glorious hereafter.” {887}

We now take our leave of the Lynn Addresses.  This and the two former are
probably to be classed among the prime productions of our augustan age.
Our volume of Extracts contains no more copies of addresses to the
throne; which seems to indicate that a great tailing off took place
afterwards in their style and composition, so that the succeeding ones
were not worth preserving.  However that was, these samples have been
here inserted upon the supposition that they were some of the best
written and most eloquent that any of our sovereigns ever received from
this borough: and it is in that view chiefly they are now recommended to
the perusal and consideration of the reader.

In 1708, according to one of our MS. accounts of that time, two children
were hanged here for felony, one _eleven_, and the other but _seven_
years of age; which if true, must indicate very early and shocking
depravity in the sufferers, as well as unusual and excessive vigour on
the part of the magistrates in the infliction of capital punishment.
{888a}—In that also and the succeeding year, the wretched state of the
_harbour_ appears to have occasioned considerable disquietude and alarm
in the town; and the most effectual means that could be thought of were
adopted to remedy the growing evil, and tranquillize the minds of the
inhabitants. {888b}

At the time now under review, two of the most prominent characters in
this town were the elder _Pyle_ and _Dr. Hepburne_.  Of the former some
account may be expected hereafter.  The latter was a North-Briton, and of
the medical profession.  At what time he settled here does not very
distinctly appear; but it is supposed to have been about the latter part
of king William’s reign.  Be that as it might, he soon became eminent as
a physician, so as to stand at the head of the profession, in all this
part of the kingdom, for near half a century.  Walpole, with our
principal nobility and gentry, held him in high estimation, and his
practice became in time so very extensive that he was seldom to be found
at home, so that the town was obliged then to have recourse for medical
advice solely to _Browne_ and _Lidderdale_ the two other physicians.

On the 3rd. of February 1709, the Hall voted Dr. Hepburne the freedom of
the town _gratis_; and he took up that freedom on the 12th. of the next
ensuing August.  _Browne_ is supposed to have had the same compliment
paid him: so had _Lidderdale_ on the 29th. of August 1737. so also had
_Tayler_ on the same day of the same month, ten years after.  The last of
our physicians, if we are not mistaken, who have been thought worthy of
the honour of being made free of this ancient and renowned borough, was
the late Dr. _Hamilton_.  He was not, like Paul, _free-born_, nor did he,
like most of his predecessors, become free _gratis_; but might say with
the Roman chief captain, “With a great sum obtained I this freedom,” for
it cost him at least 30_l._ which was a great deal more than it was worth
to a mere medical man, fifty years ago.  His being obliged to purchase
it, and so dearly too, seems a pretty plain indication that a change of
disposition towards the physicians had then taken place in the Hall, and
that they were actually sinking in the estimation of that worshipful
body.  That same body is supposed to have been no less determined ever
since, even from the commencement of this jubilee reign, against making
any more of the physicians _free_, than his majesty is said to be against
making any more of his subjects _Dukes_, except those of his own family.
So remarkable a coincidence between the humour of our corporation and
that of their beloved sovereign must, no doubt, be very curious to
contemplate.  As to the two physicians that are now, and have long been
resident here, the present writer positively disavows any knowledge or
suspicion of either of them being in the least uneasy in their state of
villanage, or at all desirous of obtaining their freedom.  On the
contrary, he supposes them to be perfectly indifferent about that matter;
even as much so as he is himself, who has not the least idea that the
freedom of Lynn, or of any other town, would be worth to him a single
_groat_, or what would afford the smallest gratification.

Not only the _medical_ profession, but even the _clerical_ also seems to
be in lower estimation here now than what it was a hundred years ago.
The heads of both professions were then, and long after, we presume,
invariably admitted to their freedom, which is not the case now.  The
very _Lecturer_, if we are rightly informed, is at present _unfree_, as
well as the physicians.  The Vicar also, as was before noted, had here
then a parsonage-house, which he has not now.  Nor is his present
stipend, or income, any way equal to what it was at that period.  Yet for
all this seemingly declining credit of these two learned professions
among us, it is more than probable, that both physic and divinity are as
well understood, and as rightly and judiciously administered here now, as
ever they were in the days of Thomas Pyle and George Hepburne.

In 1713 our corporation, in conjunction with some others, engaged in a
law-suit about Sir Thomas White’s benefaction, {891} but it does not
appear how it terminated.—About the same time, and somewhat earlier, Lynn
must have been much agitated by the affair of Walpole, who was one of its
parliamentary representatives.  Because he would not join with the new
ministry, they resolved to be revenged, by accusing him of a breach of
trust and corruption.  They finally succeeded, though by small
majorities, and had him committed to the Tower and expelled the House.
Lynn re-elected him, but it was declared null and void: so he was kept
out of parliament till after its dissolution, which took place on the
8th. of August 1713.  Lynn then again re-elected him, and he sat in the
new parliament which met on the 16th. of February 1714.  The queen died a
few months after, and was succeeded by George I. which opened the way and
was the prelude to Walpole’s future elevation and prosperity.


SECTION V.


_State of Lynn under George I.—sketch of his character—attachment and
wishes of the people divided between him and the son of James II commonly
called the Pretender—our accounts of this town_, _during this reign_,
_very barren of interesting or memorable incidents—enumeration of some of
the most remarkable—the king dies and his son succeeds_.

No prince, says Coxe, ever ascended a throne under more critical
circumstances, and with less appearances of a quiet reign, than George
the First; whether we consider the state of the European powers, the
situation of parties in Great Britain, or his own character.  As to the
latter, he was ill calculated by nature, disposition, and habit to
reconcile the then jarring parties, and remove the unfavourable
impressions which it was natural for all people to entertain of a
foreigner, destined to rule over them.  He was already fifty-four years
of age, and had been long habituated to a court of a very different
description from that of England, and to manners and customs wholly
repugnant to those of his new subjects.  He was easy and familiar only in
his hours of relaxation, and to those alone who formed his usual society;
not fond of attracting notice, phlegmatic and grave in his public
deportment, hating the splendour of majesty, shunning crowds, and
fatigued even with the first acclamations of the multitude.  This natural
reserve was heightened by his ignorance of the language, of the first
principles of the English constitution, and of the spirit and temper of
the people.

It was currently reported, before his arrival, that measures were
preparing to evade the laws which excluded foreigners from honours and
employments.  He had several mistresses, of whom two the most favoured
were expected to accompany him to England, with a numerous train of
Hanoverian followers, eager to share the spoils of the _promised land_;
to set up a court within a court, and an interest opposite to the true
interest of England.  It was also maliciously circulated that he was
indifferent to his own succession, and scarcely willing to stretch out a
hand to grasp the crown within his reach.  “But, adds the same writer, he
had excellent qualities for a sovereign, plainness of manners, simplicity
of character, and benignity of temper; great application to business,
extreme exactness in distributing his time, the strictest economy in
regulating his revenue; and, notwithstanding his military skill and tried
valour, _a love of peace_; virtues, however, which required time before
they were appreciated, and not of that specious cast to captivate the
multitude, or raise the tide of popularity.”—Such was our first sovereign
of the present family. {894}

A great part of the nation was hostile to the Hanover succession; but it
was a divided party, and could never be brought to act in concert, or
with whiggish energy.  The _Tories_ were then a very powerful body, and
mostly in favour of the Pretender, but not so decidedly as the
_Jacobites_, who were to a man violent for his restoration.  These two
parties were then more numerous and powerful than the _Whigs_, or
adherents of the House of Hanover and the protestant succession.  But
they wanted the talents, the unanimity, and the decision of the latter,
and therefore proved unable to gain their point, or introduce the
pretender and place him on the throne.  An attempt, however, was made,
chiefly in Scotland, to bring him in, in 1715, and again in 1745; but
they both miscarried, so that the present family in the end got firm and
undisputed possession of the sovereignty of these realms; and the
pretending or rival family is now extinct.  Considering the many adverse
appearances, at and before the queen’s death, George’s quiet accession
was not a little remarkable and surprising.  His success, it has been
thought, “was principally owing to the abilities, prudence, activity, and
foresight of the great Whigs, and to the precautions which they had
always taken, and now took to promote the succession in the protestant
line, with whom the Hanoverian agents in London concerted their mode of
conduct, and to whom George, from the first news he received of the
queen’s death, wholly resigned himself and his cause.”  In nothing did he
discover so much discretion and wisdom, as in acting under the guidance
of such able and trusty adherents.

The history of Lynn during this reign, seems remarkably barren of
interesting, or very memorable incidents.  Scarce any thing that we know
of, relating to this town, occurred within that time that is worth
recording.  The town no doubt, or at least the members of the
corporation, derived many good things from the high station then occupied
by Walpole, their great patron and representative; and this circumstance
would hardly fail to render Lynn the envy of most other corporations, who
would naturally be desirous of obtaining so powerful a patronage.  But
upon this subject we will not here enlarge.

Among the principal objects that engaged the attention of our corporation
during this reign, was an inquiry into the extent and limits of the
estates in Dunham and East Lexham, belonging to the Gaywood Hospital, of
which they were the trustees or guardians.  This inquiry commenced as
early as 1710–11. as appears from the following note or hint in our
volume of Extracts—“March 23. 1710–11; St. Mary Magdalen estate to be
surveyed and new buttal’d.”—Afterwards, under the year 1715, we read as
follows; “July 27. upon reading the report of the Comittee, ordered to
inspect the Estate in East Lexham and Dunham, belonging to Gaywood
Hospital, It is ordered that a Letter be sent to Edmd. Wodehouse, Esq. to
request and demand a new particular and abuttals of the lands there late
in his possession, and that the Town Clerk attend the persons employed to
new abuttal the same, as occasion shall require.”

This work appears to have been attended with considerable difficulty, and
therefore to have made for a great while but very slow progress; but our
gentlemen still persevered, and seemed fully determined to effect their
purpose, in spite of all obstacles.  Accordingly the affair is thus
further noticed under 1718: “April 7th. Ordered a Letter be wrott to
Edmd. Wodehouse, Esq. to desire new abuttals of the lands in Dunham and
East Lexham, belonging to St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospitall, which he and his
predecessors have holden 99 years by lease lately expired.”—A month after
(i.e. May 7. 1718.) it was further “ordered that _Mr. Mayor_, (Ja:
Boardman Esq.) Mr. Turner, Mr. Berney, Mr. Bagge, Mr. Rolfe, _Aldermen_;
Mr. Robotham, Wm. Allen, Tho. Allen, Town Clerk, and Chamberlains, be a
Comittee to inspect the Hospitall lands belonging to St. Mary Magdalen,
at Dunham and East Lexham, and settle the schedules, and treat for a new
Lease thereof; likewise to consider of the regaining the foldcourse at
Dunham.”

Somewhat more than a year and half after the last date, we find the same
business still employing the attention of our gentlemen.  Hence, in our
volume of Extracts, the following passage occurs.—“December 23rd. 1710.
Order’d that alderman Bagg, with the town clerk, be desired to wait upon
Mr. Wodehouse at Lexham, and endeavour to ascertain the lands late in his
lease from St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospitall, and enquire after what other
lands there are in Dunham and East Lexham for which no rent is paid.”
{897}  How they succeeded, or how the inquiry finally turned out, does
not appear.  But it is pretty certain that the Hospital and poor
pensioners there, have never owed much obligation to the Wodehouse
family; and but for the interference of the corporation, this charity, in
all probability, had long ago been alienated and lost.  Let this
therefore stand on record among the good and worthy deeds of our body
corporate.

The origin of the appointment of _Watchmen_ for this town, is a
circumstance that seems to be very little known here: but from the
following hint in our volume of Extracts, it seems to be now of near 90
years standing.—“Feb. 3. 1719–20, Order’d that a Letter be sent to the
members of parliament, to gett a clause incerted in the act now about
passing for night watches for the city of _Westminster_, in favour of
this corporation to have the like regulation.”  It seems probable
therefore, that Lynn had its night watchmen as early as the city of
Westminster, and of course earlier probably, than most other places in
the kingdom.  Somewhat more than two months after the last date, the
following circumstance is memorized in our book of Extracts—“April 6.
1720, Mr. John Cary junr. is elected Master of the Writting School, and
aldermen Berney and Scarlet, governors and inspectors of the said
schoole.”  This school still exists; but who are its present governors
and inspectors we have not learnt.  They may be supposed to be expert
_penmen_, or good judges of penmanship.  On the 23rd. of the following
December, it was “ordered that a book be prepared to register all the
Acts of our Common Councell that pass the seale.”—This book of _the Acts
of our Common Council_, though not quite so interesting as the book of
_the Acts of the Apostles_, may nevertheless contain some very curious
passages, which might be very useful for this work, could we have been
favoured with a sight of it.  But it is supposed to be a book of
_secrets_, and so not accessible to the uninitiated and unprivileged.
Containing now the acts of near 90 years, it may be presumed to be, by
this time, rather bulky.

In the spring of 1722, our book of Extracts speaks of the Blockhouse
being let on lease to one Quash.  The reason of noticing this here, is,
because the passage alluded to shews that one of the gates of the town
anciently stood there, and bore the name of _St. Agnes_.—The passage
reads thus:

    “April 4th. 1722, Ordered that a lease be made to Wm. Quash, mariner,
    of the messuage called the Blockhouse, in North End, being formerly
    _St. Agness Gates_, for the terme of 99 years, at 10_s._ per annum,
    from Lady Day last, he putting the same into repair, and so keeping
    it as a dwelling house during the said terme, and leaving the same in
    tennantable repair at the expiration, excepting to this corporation
    the common way and passages as usual through the same.”

On the 23rd. of the following November, according to the Hall Books, it
was “ordered that the tolls for the carriage of goods through the two
gates be suspended for one year, from Lady Day next.”  This shews that
toll was formerly paid for the passage of goods through our gates; but we
have not learnt the reason of the suspension of that payment now for one
year.  It was a measure, no doubt, which some circumstances were thought
to render necessary, at least by way of experiment.  Its country and
commercial connections had long given Lynn a bad name, for its
extortioning spirit, and exorbitant exactions; and it is probable that
the town had suffered on that account: this might therefore be an
expedient used, along with others, for the purpose of retrieving its
character.  Whether it promoted that object in any degree, or proved of
any material benefit to the town, we have not been able to
discover.—Under the date of March 1. 1722–3, (or 1723, as we reckon) the
following short note or hint occurs in our book of Extracts—“Market Tolls
declared to be the Mayor’s.”  By which it would seem that there were
before some doubts entertained here upon this subject, and that it had
never been fully settled, till now, to whom those tolls belonged.

In the following August, the resentment of the Hall, was excited in a
very high degree against Dr. Browne the physician, for having set up, on
some occasion, a kind of competition for precedence with the very Mayor
himself.  This daring deed is thus memorized in our book of
Extracts—“August 29. 1723, Ordered that a Letter be written by the Town
Clerke to Dr. Wm. Browne, to acquaint him with the resentment of this
corporation of his affront to the mayor (Richd. Harwich Esq.) justices
and gentlemen of this corporation, by an undue precedence he assumed and
persisted in, on Monday last.”  [also] “that the Letter now written by
the Town Clerke, on that occasion, be sent to Doctor Browne.”—Things must
have been then queerly situated at Lynn; especially between the mayor and
Dr. Browne.  What effect the Town clerk’s Letter had upon the doctor, we
have not been able to discover.  But we have always understood that there
was never any great cordiality between him and the corporation.  He
resided here long after this, and afterwards removed to London, where he
received the honour of _knighthood_, and became _president of the Royal
College of Physicians_, to the no small gratification of his vanity, of
which he had a most enormous portion.  He has been spoken of as a good
physician, but beyond that, or out of the line of his profession, he is
not known to have acquired much respectability.  In one thing he seemed
more fortunate than his contemporary Hepburne; for he died _rich_, and
the other _poor_.  Hepburne’s numerous patients were, it seems, more
liberal in _feasting_ than in _feeing_ him; whereas Browne would not have
been satisfied with that sort of liberality.  He was the grandfather of
our present parliamentary representative, Sir Martin Browne Folkes,
baronet. {901a}

In 1724 and 1725, the decayed, unsafe, and dangerous state of the river
and harbour, which had been much complained of for many years before,
continued still to engage the attention of our rulers, as appears by the
following memoranda in the Hall records—“August 3. 1724; this day _Col.
Armstrong’s_ Report concerning the river, with severall maps, &c. were
brought into this House.”  again—“Jan. 4th. 1724–5; To apply to
Parliament for reviving the Extinct Powers for Commissioners concerning
the navigation of the river Ouze.”  again—“Febr. 3. appointed a Comittee
to state, settle, and consider of proper ways and means, by tonnage upon
goods imported, to raise 2500_l._ per annum, stipulated to be employed in
amending and restoring the navigation of this harbor.”—again {901b}—“June
7th. 1725; Ordered that _Mr. Badslade_ be paid 20_l._ for his
disbursements for printing the severall schemes, cases, and answers,
relating to this navigation.”

In the latter part of 1726, an affair came on between the corporation and
one _Henry Southwell_, a freeman, which ended rather disgracefully to the
former.  They seized a quantity of coals belonging to him, under pretence
of their being foreign bought and foreign sold; for which he brought an
action against the Town Clerk, which the corporation defended.  They
proceeded further, and actually disfranchised Southwell.  Upon which he
procured a mandamus, and obliged them to restore him to his freedom.
This must have been not a little mortifying to them.  They thought they
had him entirely in their power, and could master him; whereas the
mastery, in fact, belonged to him, and it so turned out that they were in
his power: so that like the Irishman, {902} they _caught a Tartar_, and
thereby brought themselves into a most humiliating dilemma, and exposed
themselves to the ridicule and derision of the whole country.  The
Hall-records notice and memorizet his affair as follows: “Nov. 16th.
1726; ordered that the suit brought by Henry Southwell, a freeman,
against Edw. Bradfield, Town-clerk, for seizing a parcell of coales,
fforeign bought and fforeign sold, which came into this port in a ship,
Wm. Coverdale, master, a foreigner, for Wm. Taylor, fforeigner, be
defended, at the publick charge—and that Hen: Southwell be disfranchised
for his collouring bargains and sales, contrary to his Oath of ffreedom,
and using opprobious words (in his Letters) to the corporation, unless he
shews good cause to the contrary, upon due notice to him for that purpose
to be given.”—again—“Febr. 3rd. 1726–7.  Ordered that Mr. Hen: Southwell,
appearing and shewing no sufficient cause to the contrary, be
disfranchised the freedom of this burgh, and he is disfranchised
accordingly.”—again—“April 29th. 1728.  _Ordered that the former order_,
_made for discharging Hen_: _Southwell of the freedom of this burgh_, _be
made void_, _and that he be restored again_, according to the direction
of a peremptory mandamus, issued out of his majesty’s court of King’s
Bench, to the mayor, aldermen, and common councell for that purpose
directed: and the said Hen: Southwell appearing, was sworn, and found
pledges.”—This might have taught our corporation a very useful lesson,
and been a standing warning to them never more to act in so arbitrary a
manner, or attempt to extend their power beyond its due bounds.

Being now come to the close of this reign, it may be proper here just to
mention some of the principal events by which it was distinguished.
Among them the first in order of time was the _rebellion_ in 1715, in
favour of the pretender; which, though it was suppressed early in the
ensuing year, was far from being eradicated from the minds of the people.
The malcontents were long after very numerous in the kingdom, and ever
busy in forming new plots against the government, of which that wherein
bishop _Atterbury_ was concerned seems to have been the most formidable.
The seasonable discovery of it prevented its being productive of much
mischief, except to the conspirators themselves, some of whom paid very
dear for the share they had in it; particularly Layer and Atterbury.  The
former was hanged and quartered, and the latter banished his country for
ever.

But of all the occurrences of this reign the South Sea scheme, or grand
bubble, as it is sometimes called, was that which proved most disastrous
and calamitous to the nation.  This memorable scheme was laid before the
House of Commons by the South Sea Company, along with another from the
Bank of England, in 1719, for reducing all the public Funds into one, in
order to discharge the national debt, on some valuable consideration to
be granted them, &c.  After much debate and contest, it was determined in
favour of the South Sea Company, and their proposals were accepted on
Feb. 1. 1719–20.  An Act afterwards passed both Houses for that purpose,
which received the royal assent in April following.  Upon the proposals
being accepted, stock rose gradually to a prodigious height; to 310 per
cent. even before the bill received the royal assent; in a few days to
340, then to 400, and before the end of May to 500.  In short, what by
the artifices of the managers, and the credulity of the people, eager to
grasp the riches now held out to them, by the 2nd. of June it got up to
890, and continued rising and falling till it amounted to above 1000.
Nothing was now minded but the business of stock-jobbing.  Exchange
Alley, where these affairs were transacted, was in a continual hurry, and
thither crowds of all ranks and qualities daily resorted.  The desperate,
who ventured first, were generally gainers, whilst the more wary, who
came in later, were many of them great sufferers: so that the
_wrongheads_, (as the saying then was,) had the better of the
_longheads_.  A spirit of gaming thus prevailing in the nation, many
projects were set on foot, which obtained the name of _bubbles_, and were
evidently the progeny of the grand bubble.  They were near 100 in number,
and it was reckoned that almost a million and half was won and lost in
them.  A proclamation was issued against them on the 11th. of June, and
they were soon after entirely suppressed by order of the Lords Justices.

As to the South-Sea Stock, it continued to rise till about the end of
August.  It then began to fall, and fell faster than it rose; so that by
Michaelmas-day it sunk to 150.  In December it underwent a parliamentary
enquiry, which induced _Knight_, the South-Sea Company’s treasurer to
abscond.  In the end, parliament applied to the relief of the sufferers
the estates of the sub-governor, deputy-governor, directors, &c.  And
also that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, _Aislabie_.  They were also
incapacitated from sitting or voting in either House of Parliament, or
holding any office or place of trust under his Majesty, his heirs, or
successors.  The following Summer an Act against the directors received
the royal assent, and shortly after another _for restoring the public
credit_.  The share _Walpole_ had in settling this distracted affair, and
restoring public credit, brought him into great favour at court, and
facilitated his promotion.  He was now made chancellor of the Exchequer,
and first Commissioner of the Treasury, and continued prime minister to
the end of this reign, and fifteen years after; to the no small benefit,
no doubt, of many Lynn freemen, whatever may be said of the nation at
large.

This reign was also distinguished by those memorable religious
controversies which sprung from the novel or unfashionable opinions
advanced and maintained by Clarke, Whiston, Peirce, Hoadly, and others,
and which wrought a considerable revolution in the minds of a great many,
both in the church and among the dissenters.  The athanasian trinity was
given up by numbers of our most learned countrymen; the nature of the
kingdom of Christ, with the measure and extent of the obedience due to
the civil magistrate, became better understood; the injustice and
iniquity of imposing human creeds, or articles of faith, were more fully
evinced; in short, the English nation is supposed to have been
thenceforth more generally and accurately acquainted with the principles
of civil and religious liberty, the claims of conscience, and rights of
man, than at any former period.  Of late years, however, we are thought
to have made no advances on these grounds, but rather to have been moving
in a retrogressive direction; so that our favourite word _liberty_ itself
would seem to be in danger of losing its wonted meaning, and becoming a
vague, or rather an obsolete term in our language.  Nor will the violent
hubbub lately raised, by Lord Sidmouth’s illiberal, illconditioned,
illfeatured, illdigested, and deservedly reprobated bill, be sufficient
to invalidate this opinion.

The effects of the above-mentioned controversies extended even to this
town; and the elder _Pyle_, who was then at the head of our established
clergy, as well as the elder _Rastrick_, who was at the head of the
dissenting interest here, were both actually brought over to what was
deemed the heterodox side of the question.  They were men of considerable
eminence and learning, and had been both educated at Cambridge; for
Rastrick was originally one of the established clergy, and had been for
sometime vicar of Kirkton near Boston, before he left the church and
joined the dissenters.  But we will say no more of them here, as we shall
have occasion to bring them forward again in our biographical sketches.
The king died suddenly, at Osnaburgh in his German dominions, on the 11th
of June 1727, and was succeeded by his only son, George prince of Wales,
which brings us to the end of this section.


SECTION VI.


_A view of the state of things in this town during the reign of George
II.—his accession attended with no inauspicious circumstances_; _and his
reign_, _on the whole_, _happy and prosperous—recital of some of the most
notable and prominent acts of our municipality in the earlier part of
it—account of certain subsequent proceedings and occurrences_.

The reign of George II. commenced upon the arrival of the news of his
father’s demise, which was very shortly, and within a few days after that
event had taken place.  He was proclaimed in London on the 15th of June,
and at Edinburgh and Dublin on the 19th of the same month.  His accession
was attended by none of those untoward appearances which beclouded that
of his predecessor.  All the lords and others, the late king’s privy
councellors, were sworn of his privy council, the former ministry
retained their places, and Walpole held the premiership for fifteen years
longer; nor was he displaced at last through any dislike or prejudice
which the king had imbibed against him or his service, but by the
persevering and prevailing exertions of the opposition party, headed by
_Pulteney_, who forced him to resign, contrary to the desire or
inclination of the sovereign.  His administration has been much censured,
for its systematic corruption.  But that corruption never extended so far
as that of certain heaven-born ministers of more recent times; and it was
certainly employed for much better purposes.  His aversion to war, and
constant endeavours to avoid it, cover a multitude of his sins: and it
was probably not so often as most people imagine that this country has
been favoured with better ministers than Sir Robert Walpole.

The reign of George II. may safely be pronounced, on the whole, one of
the most happy and prosperous in the annals of this country.  The
principles of civil and religious liberty were then favoured at court,
and recognized by the sovereign, as what had seated his family on the
throne.  Protestant Dissenters he considered as some of his best friends
and most faithful subjects; nor did his ministers and courtiers ever
presume to treat them with coolness and disrespect, or pretend to
entertain any doubt or suspicion of their loyalty, or their attachment to
the king and constitution, according to the principles laid down at the
revolution.  In short, this reign will be contemplated with no small
pleasure by the sons of freedom, as a period when an open attachment to
civil and religious liberty, or the real rights of man, subjected no one
to the suspicion, or imputation, of being a traitor to his king and
country.  How far the same may be said of our situation for the last
twenty years, is a question of which we shall not at present enter upon
the discussion.

One of the first notable acts of our municipality, after the commencement
of this reign, may be presumed to be that of addressing the throne, by
way both of condolence and congratulation; the former on the death of the
late sovereign, and the latter on the happy accession of his successor.
But as no copy of this address has fallen in our way, we cannot form any
judgment of its tenor or merit: only we are informed that our cities and
boroughs, in general, did then actually send up such addresses; and it is
not to be supposed that the same was neglected or omitted at Lynn,
especially as the prime minister himself was one of its representatives.
This address, no doubt, was sufficiently loyal, but whether or not so
eloquent and sublime as those sent up in the reign of queen Anne, must
now be left among the uncertainties, or, perhaps, even among the
inscrutables.

Not long after, or in the course of the autumn of that same year, as it
would seem, the mayor, (Mr. Tho. Allen) according to one of our
manuscript narratives, issued _an order to prohibit the barbers to shave
on Sundays_; for which we may be pretty sure his worship had not many
thanks from that fraternity.  How far this order was obeyed, or did
contribute to the reformation and benefit of the town, we have not been
able to discover.  The wisdom and utility of such measures appear very
questionable, and it is doubtful if they have ever answered any very good
purposes, as they seem to be ill, or not at all, calculated to convince
people of the evil of the conduct or practices against which they are
directed.  Some of our mayors, of more recent days, have taken upon them
to issue similar orders, at the commencement of their mayoralty, but they
have seldom, or never, thought it proper or expedient to enforce them
throughout, or to the end of the year.

Mr John Goodwin, the mayor of the ensuing year, (1728–,) distinguished
himself, according to the same narrative, in another way, by setting down
a stone-cistern at the end of the Fish-Shambles, and also endowing one of
the Almshouses in broad Street for one poor man with two shillings a
week.—His successor, Mr. Andrew Taylor, distinguished himself still
differently: for, as the same narrative words it, “He did abundance of
good, as he thought, by taking away guns and killing of dogs; but was a
friend to the Church, which he seldom troubled.”  That is, if we rightly
comprehend the meaning, he was, in talk, a mighty zealot for the Church,
though he seldom would condescend, or deem it worth his while to honour
it with his presence: which, to all thinking and discerning people, was a
sure sign and clear proof that all his noisy zeal was nothing but mere
pretence, to answer some mercenary or hypocritical end; and but for which
he in reality cared no more for the church than the most heathenish or
irreligious of his neighbours.

How many such churchmen as this Andrew Taylor have been mayors of this
town since his time, it is impossible to say; but that numbers of them
have pretended to be very stanch and zealous for the Church, while they
seldom attended its stated service, or public worship, is very certain.
That there were none of this description among the present members of the
Hall seems much to be wished; and especially that a truly and christian
spirit towards those of other denominations was more visible and
predominant among them; which yet is suspected not to have been
altogether the case at the formation or establishment of the Lancastrian
school, and in some subsequent circumstances relating to that event.  But
this is not the proper place to make these matters the subjects of
inquiry, investigation, or animadversion. {912}

The successor of Taylor, Mr. Charles Harwick, who obtained the mayoralty
in 1730, had most painful scenes to engage his attention, owing to the
most shocking murder of a Mrs Ann Wright, which had been perpetrated in
the town that year, by one George Smith, aided by Mary Taylor, Mrs
Wright’s Servant, who had let him into the house in the dead of the
night.  For this black and horrid deed Mary Taylor was burnt alive in the
market-place, and Smith was hanged at the same time, on a gallows
erected, as Mackerell says, seventeen yards distant from the stake.  This
happened, it seems, in 1731, the latter part of Harwick’s mayoralty.  The
superlative atrociousness of that bloody deed, and the dreadful
abandonment, dereliction, or depravity of mind which it discovered,
called, undoubtedly, for the most exemplary and terrible punishment, in
order to deter those of the like character from the commission of similar
crimes, as nothing else can be expected to have much effect on such, in
restraining their flagitious propensities.  A virtuous principle,
however, after all, is the most powerful and effectual of all preventives
against vicious or criminal excesses, and far beyond all the terrors of
penal laws, or punitive justice.  It is a great pity more care is not
taken to instill this principle as much as possible into the minds of the
rising generations

About the time last mentioned, one _John Rudkin_, a member of our
municipality, fell under the sore displeasure of his brethren, and was
eventually expelled from among them.  The affair is thus related in the
Hall books—“April 26. 1731, Ordered that John Rudkin be discharged from
the office of common Councell man, unless, next Hall-day, he can shew
cause to the contrary; he having disclosed the councells of this
assembly, and the secrets of this corporation, and hath behaved
contemptuously towards the mayor (Charles Harwick Esq. {913}) and other
members, justices of this burgh, and charged some of them with
pyracy.”—again—“June 16. 1731, John Rudkin’s answer being insufficent, he
was expelled and discharged from the office of a common councell.”  This
shews that our corporation, as such, have _counsels_ and _secrets_, that
are deemed very improper and criminal to disclose; which seems to look
somewhat dark and suspicious; for if all their proceedings were fair and
just, honestly and solely directed for the public good, what need could
there be to care if the whole world knew all about them?
{914}—Corporations might be beneficial in their original institution, and
in feudal times, to protect the inhabitants from baronial domination and
tyranny; but they have become long ago (for the most part, at least,)
grievous nuisances, rather than real benefits, to the British public.

At the period we are now reviewing, Lynn was by no means in a flourishing
state, as may be pretty safely concluded from the following passage in
our book of Extracts—“Dec. 23. 1731; Ordered that a memorial be sent to
the Representatives in Parliament, touching the heavy burthen upon them,
from the Land-Tax Act, and from the decrease of traders among them,
praying reliefe.”—Things must have gotten to a sad pass to bring our
high-minded corporation to so dejected and supplicating a posture.  For
sometime previous and subsequent to the date of the above extract, as the
present writer has heard from ancient people who remembered the time, the
_indigence_ of Lynn was a matter of general notoriety; so that _poor
Lynn_ used to be the common appellation of the town, in the language of
the country people.  It seems now to be the prevailing opinion that the
late conduct of our rulers, in subjecting the small houses to taxation,
and otherwise so unconscionably burdening the town, will soon bring
things here again to the same pass, and restore to us the humiliating
name of _poor Lynn_ once more.  Our many _empty houses_ would seem to
corroborate this opinion; but we would fain hope their number will soon
decrease, and that some favourable events, or happy turn of things will
prevent such an opinion, or the fears entertained on this head being
realized.

In the times we are now exploring, our mayor was allowed to confer the
freedom of the town, on some one person whom he should think proper to
select for that purpose: hence such notices as the following occur in our
book of Extracts—“Dec. 8. 1732; Rd. Hawkins made ffree, as the mayor’s,
John Farthing’s ffreeman.”—again—“May 8. 1733; Wm. Langley, mariner, made
ffree, upon Andrew Taylor’s recommendation, not having had a ffreeman
chosen for his mayoralty, as accustomed.”—again—“May 23. 1733; Edmd.
Harwick, of Wiggenhall St. Maries, to have his ffreedom upon
recommendation of alderman John Goodwin, he not having had a ffreeman
chosen for his last mayoralty as hath been accustomed.”—About three
months after, however, our Hall suddenly resolved to discontinue this
custom, as appears from the following passage among our Extracts—“Aug.
29. 1733; Saml. Browne chosen mayor, and to have 150_l._ viz. 50_l._ for
the better carrying on the mayoralty; 50_l._ for the entertainment on
Michaelmas Day; and 50_l._ on St. John’s Day”—Then it is added—“And that
_no succeeding mayor have the liberty of naming_, _or making a ffreeman_,
_as his ffreeman_, _for the future_.”  But they did not long adhere to
this order, or resolution, or persist in so self-denying a course, as we
find by another note among the same Extracts, which is expressed
thus—“May 22. 1739; The revd. Mr. Edmd. Keene had his ffreedom gratis,
_as his father’s ffreeman_.” {917}  Whether or not it was very wise to
discontinue this custom, or afterwards to revive it, after it had been so
expressly and formally abolished, we will not now stop to inquire, but
shall here close this section.


SECTION VII.


_Great chancery suit here about_ 1738—_violent storm or hurricane in_
1741—_its effects here and in the adjacent country—the damages here
repaired—perilous state then of the river and harbour—rebellion breaking
out in_ 1745—_its effects in this town—its progress—suppressed after the
battle of Culloden—reflections thereon—subsequent events relating to Lynn
to the end of that reign—state of the nation—accession of George III_.

About the time of which we have been speaking, our Corporation had a
great suit in Chancery with one of their own principal members; and
however justifiable or unjustifiable it might be, a falling out among
brethren must be allowed to be, at any time and on any occasion, a very
unpleasant occurrence.  Our knowledge of this unlovely affair is derived
from the following luminous passage in our book of Extracts—“Dec. 22.
1738; Whereas there was lately a suit depending in Chancery between the
mayor and burgesses and Robt. Britiffe Esq. their trustee, against
alderman Thomas Allen, (which was the 7th.  Octr. 1738, agreed that Mr.
Serjeant Urlin, Chas. Clarke Esq. and Mr. Tho. Nutting be appointed
Referees to arbitrate) for the recovery of the ancient customary payment
of 1_d._ per quarter for corn sold by the said Tho. Allen, upon contracts
made by him with other merchants, not being freemen, for shipping such
corn at a price certain, clear of all charges.  Said Mr. Allen hath
agreed to pay not only all the arrears for all corn he shipped off out of
this port, where the same was not really his own risque and adventure,
but in all future times to pay the said dues for all corn which he shall
contract for and sell to any persons not being freemen of the said
borough, which shall be exported out of the said borough by water.”  In
this suit the corporation evidently got the better of their opponent; but
this is far from having been invariably the case in all their law-suits,
as has before appeared in the course of this work.

The year 1741 was rendered very remarkable and memorable in this town and
country, on account of a violent storm, or hurricane, which then
happened, and did great damage to the churches and other buildings.  It
arose on the 8th of September O. S. and blew down the spires of St.
Nicholas’ chapel, and St. Margaret’s Church, and demolished a great part
of the body of the latter.  The following memoranda, written at that
period, will further describe the awful effects of this disastrous
visitation.  Among our Extracts, so often quoted, it is noted as follows
under the date of Sept. 9. 1741; “The Hurrycane yesterday blew down the
spire and body of St. Margaret’s Church; also the spire of St. Nicholas’s
Chappell.”  And in another place, but of the same date, it is thus
noted—“That whereas the Hurricane yesterday blew down St. Margaret’s
spire and part of the Church, application be made to Sir Robert Walpole
to procure ane act of parliament for rebuilding the same.”  But a more
particular account of the effects of this furious tempest we have found
written on a blank leaf, at the end of a copy of the history of the great
storm in 1703.  It is in the handwriting of a Mr. _Tho. Peirson_, a
clergyman, if we are not mistaken, whose property the book probably was,
and it runs as follows—

    “M E M.  That on Tuesday 8. Sept. 1741, about 20 minutes after 12 at
    noon, was a most violent storm of wind and rain, which blew down St.
    Margarett’s Church Steeple and St. Nicholas at Lynn Regis, with the
    Weather-cock, &c. of All-Hallows Church in South Lynn, {920} Norfolk.
    Also the great West gabble-end, with a very large stack of chimneys,
    and the Weather-Hand of Middleton-Hall—And a great barn belonging to
    Henry Whiteman’s Farm at Tilney, with a small barn belonging to Thos.
    Cricks Farm at Outwell, in the Isle of Ely, the property of
    Me.—Besides divers other buildings in Marshland; and great damage was
    done to the Timber and others Trees in the country about Lynn and
    Downham.

                                           _Ita Testor_.  _Tho: Peirson_.”

The damages sustained here from this storm were all in time repaired:
those of St. Margaret’s Church, it seems, by virtue of an act of
parliament.  One of our MS. narratives informs us that the rebuilding of
that church was begun in 1742, during the mayoralty of Edward Everard,
and completed in 1747, during that of Walter Robertson; so that it
appears to have been about five years in rebuilding.  But the new, or
present church, like Ezra and Nehemiah’s new temple at Jerusalem, is said
to be much inferior to the former, in point of dimension, as well as
beauty and magnificence.  It may be supposed however, that the _pardons_
or _indulgences_ offered to the contributors towards the old edifice,
procured ampler funds for its completion than the _act of parliament_
that was obtained for completing the new.

It would seem as if our very river and harbour had not entirely escaped
the effects of that storm, and even that it did, or occasioned some very
material damage to them; at least, there were great complaints made just
after, of the bad and very perilous state to which they were then
reduced.  This will appear from the following passage, extracted from the
Town Records—

    “Sept. 9. 1741 agreed that the defences in sundry places of the
    Harbour are become insufficient to confine the fflux and reflux of
    the Tide, so that the Port and Harbour will soon be lost—That the two
    points of land on the east and west side of the river about a mile
    below the town are worn away by the rage of the sea, so that
    Marshland on one hand, and Gaywood and Wooton and all the low-lands
    thereabouts on the other, are in danger of being swallowed up by the
    sea—That, to guard against the flux and reflux, Piers are conceived
    to be absolutely necessary to be placed both above and below Lynn,
    for the preservation of the Town as well as the Port and Harbour.”

Shortly after another meeting was held at the Hall on the same occasion;
which is thus noticed in the same Extracts—“Octr. 15. 1741, Sir John
Turner, bart. is desired to write to Sir Robert Walpole, to recommend a
Surveyor to view the Harbour, and to draw a report thereof, in order to
have the same laid before parliament.”—Three weeks after, the result of
this application to the minister is thus announced—“Nov. 5th.  Sir John
Turner acquainted that he had received a Letter from Sir Robt. Walpole,
recommending Mr. Roswell, then at Hull, to survey the Harbour; and he is
accepted and approved of to be Surveyor, and B. Nuthall Esq. or his
Deputy, Mr. Recorder, aldermen Goodwin, Allen, Farthing, Bagge—Mr.
Hulton, Everard, Langley, or any five or more to be a committee to
prepare instructions for him.”—again—“Dec. 14. 1741; Ordered 21_l._ to be
presented to Mr. Rodwell [_so the name is spelt here_:] for his trouble
and advice in matters relating to the Harbour and South
Marsh.”—Furthermore—“Febr. 24 1741–2;—Mr. Wm. Reynolds presented his
report touching his survey of the Harbour, together with ane estimate of
the charges in the erecting of two Piers which he proposes for the
restoration and preservation thereof, which is approved off.”

Afterwards we hear no more of this business, for nine months or more.
Then we find it further noticed as follows—

    “Novr. 29th. 1742; Ordered that application be made to parliament for
    the preservation of the channel and harbour of this Port and Borough,
    which are in danger of being lost.—The schemes of Mr Rosewell and Mr.
    Reynolds being read and approved of, it is agreed that the same be
    carryed into execution, and this House hath agreed to resolve itselfe
    into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of ways and means
    for raising moneys, by laying such rates and duties on goods and
    merchandizes imported into, and exported out of this Port, or by such
    other ways as they shall think proper for the effectuall carrying
    those schemes into execution, for preserving the channel and harbour
    aforesaid and rendring the same usefull and safe for navigation.”

What beneficial effects resulted from the above measures we have not been
able to discover.  Nor do our Extracts afford us any further information
relating to the subject, except what is suggested in the following
passage—“Dec. 19. 1744; A Committee [was appointed] to view the state of
the banks, in Gaywood and Wooton, lying against the sea—and to view the
breach made in the South Marsh bank, by the rageing tides, and enquire if
the corporation may desert the lands lying upon the banks, and whether by
such desertion the corporation will be discharged from the repairing said
banks.”—This passage discovers more selfishness than public spirit.  They
seemed disposed to let the banks remain unrepaired, and take no further
care of them, whatever might be the consequence to the country, provided
they could be sure it might be done with perfect safety, or without any
pecuniary risk to themselves.  This is in the true corporation character.

The next year (1745) was very memorably distinguished by the rebellion,
which then broke out in Scotland in favour of the pretender, or the son
of James II.

    “On the 6th of August this year some notices having been communicated
    to the government of such an attempt, aided by the French Court, a
    proclamation was published, offering a reward of 30,000_l._ for
    apprehending and securing the eldest son of the pretender, in case he
    should land, or attempt to land, in any of his majesty’s dominions.
    On the 17th. an account arrived, that several persons had landed
    between the islands of _Mull_ and _Skie_, one of whom it was supposed
    was the pretender’s Son.  On September 5, his majesty sent notice to
    the lord mayor of London, that the pretender’s eldest son had landed
    in Scotland, and that several persons had assembled there and broke
    out into open rebellion.

    “Soon after advice arrived, that the rebels had marched Southward.
    On the 13th. they passed the Forth, five miles above Stirling, and on
    the 17th. took possession of the city of Edinburgh.  By that time
    general _Cope_ with his army landed at Dunbar, and began to march
    towards that capital.  The rebels did not wait to be attacked by him,
    but came out to meet him, and on the 21st. at daybreak, they attacked
    him at _Preston Pans_, seven miles east of Edinburgh, and totally
    defeated him, making most of his infantry prisoners.  The dragoons
    made their escape to _Berwick_, with little loss, save that of the
    brave _Colonel Gardiner_.  These advantages on the side of the rebels
    spread a general consternation throughout the kingdom; but all ranks
    and orders, as we are told, vied with each other in displaying their
    loyalty, and abhorrence of this unnatural rebellion.”

Many associations were now entered into for the support of his majesty’s
crown and dignity, and the constitution in church and state.  A large
body of _British_, _Dutch_, and _Hessian_ troops were brought over from
Flanders: and the success of the rebellion, and dread of a threatened
invasion from France, having caused a great run upon the Bank, 1100
merchants and eminent tradesmen met, and subscribed their names to an
agreement, not to refuse bank-notes in any payment to be made to them.—On
Oct. 18. the duke of Cumberland arrived from Flanders, and set out on
Nov. 26. to take upon him the command of the army, then on its march into
Lancashire.  For the rebels, having increased to 8,000, had left
_Edinburgh_, on October 26, and on November 15. the city of _Carlisle_
was surrendered to them.  On the 24th. without any molestation, they
arrived at _Lancaster_, and on the 29th. took possession of _Manchester_,
where they formed into a regiment those who had joined them in England.
In the beginning of December they left _Manchester_ and advanced to
_Congleton_, as if they intended to meet and engage the Duke of
Cumberland, whose advanced guard was then at _Newcastle-under-Line_.  But
they suddenly turned off to the left, and marched into _Derbyshire_,
seeming to have an intention to slip by the duke, and take their way
directly to London.

When this news reached the metropolis it occasioned the greatest
consternation imaginable; the run upon the Bank and depression of the
public Funds became very great and alarming; but recourse was immediately
had to such measures as were thought most proper towards remedying those
evils, and frustrating the supposed intention of the dreaded enemy.  On
the 4th. of December, the rebels entered the town of _Derby_, and soon,
after contrary to expectation, began to retreat northward by the rout
they came.  Such was the panic with which the nation was then seized,
that it was thought if they had proceeded straight to London, they might
have entered and mastered it with little or no opposition.  There were
then no bands of armed citizens, as at some other periods; and the troops
stationed there and thereabout, were now ordered to march and form a camp
upon _Finchley-common_: but had the rebels appeared, they would probably
have behaved no better than their brethren had done at _Preston Pans and
Falkirk_.

In the meantime, the general panic and alarm, as might be supposed,
extended even to Lynn, and produced here very remarkable and whimsical
effects.  No sooner was it known that the rebels were at _Derby_, than it
was concluded, by our wise men, that they certainly meant to visit this
town, in their way to the metropolis.  And as it was judged that they
would attempt to enter at the South-Gate, or that the town was most
vulnerable on that side, it was deemed necessary to strengthen that part
by constructing there some new outworks.  In this service great numbers
of the inhabitants cheerfully engaged.  The late Mr. _Philip Case_ was
then mayor.  His worship and the whole corporate body turned out on this
occasion, and took their places among the numerous workmen, with spades,
shovels, and pickaxes in their hands, assisting with all their might
towards the completion of what was supposed so necessary a measure for
the effectual defence and preservation of the town.

But these extraordinary exertions of our patriotic townsmen did not long
continue, being soon rendered unnecessary, by the arrival of undoubted
intelligence, that the rebels had no immediate design upon these parts,
and were actually in full retreat towards Scotland.  All our fear and
consternation now vanished, of course; the project for fortifying the
town was instantly relinquished; every thing, in short, reverted to its
usual channel, and resumed its former undisturbed and tranquil
appearance.  But, if our traditional information may be relied upon,
there occurred here, during the bustling and alarming interval, some very
queer and ludicrous incidents, which some of our ancient townsmen often
relate, with much pleasantry and good humour, as what would seem less
creditable to the wisdom, the sagacity, and the fortitude of their good
forefathers of that period, than to their loyalty, or their patriotism.
{927}

The rebellion existed for several months after its dread had ceased to be
felt in this town.  As soon as the duke got notice of the retreat of the
rebels, he set out in pursuit of them, with all the horse in his army,
and about a thousand foot soldiers mounted on horseback.  Marshal _Wade_
also, who commanded a separate corps, detached a considerable body of
cavalry, under general _Oglethorpe_ for the same purpose.  On December
18th. the duke came up with the rear of the rebels at _Clifton_, in
Northumberland, where he obtained some advantage over them.  On the 30th.
he retook _Carlisle_, after a siege of nine days, making the garrison
prisoners.  Their main army had by that time reached Scotland, to which
kingdom the rebellion was thenceforth entirely confined till its final
suppression after the battle of _Culloden_.

On Jan. 5, 1746, the duke returned to St. James’s; and on the 17th. of
that month, the rebels defeated the king’s forces commanded by general
_Hawley_, near _Falkirk_, though the latter were much superior in
numbers.  Upon this misfortune, it was thought expedient the duke should
take upon him the command of the army in Scotland.  He accordingly left
London for that purpose, and arrived at Edinburgh on the 30th. of that
month.  The rebels, who had laid siege to the castle of _Stirling_, then
retreated, and the duke followed them, as fast as the severity of the
season and badness of the roads would permit, and arrived at _Aberdeen_
on the 27th of February.  Meantime the rebels reduced the Castle of
_Inverness_ and Fort _Augustus_, and laid siege also to Fort _William_,
and _Blair_ Castle, of Athol, but failed in both those attempts.  On the
8th. of April the duke left _Aberdeen_, and on the 14th. arrived at
_Nairn_; and being there assured that the rebels were encamped at
_Culloden_ House, near _Inverness_, he rested the whole of the 15th. at
_Nairn_, to refresh his men.  That night the rebels marched, with intent
to attack him before daylight; but failed, through some mismanagement;
whereupon they returned to _Culloden_, resolving, in that station, to
wait for their pursuers.

The duke, on the 16th. left _Nairn_, between 4 and 5 in the morning; and
at two in the afternoon the engagement began.  The rebels obtained some
advantage at first, but were soon thrown into confusion and totally
defeated, with great slaughter, and circumstances of unusual barbarity,
which exposed the duke to much censure, especially from our northern
countrymen, and procured him the reproachful appellation of the _bloody
butcher_.  Others, however, hailed him as the saviour of the country, and
a pattern of every patriotic and princely excellence; and he ever after
possessed, especially in these southern parts, great and unrivalled
popularity.  The battle of Culloden put an end to every chance or hope of
restoring the Stuart family, and the evils of rebellion and civil war
have never since been experienced in this island.

Of the numerous prisoners taken in the course of the rebellion, some were
pardoned, and a considerable number executed, but a far greater number of
them were transported to America, where they largely contributed, by
their sobriety and industry, to the increasing population and prosperity
of that country.  The duke continued in Scotland sometime after the
battle of _Culloden_, when some further severities were exercised, but
whether just and wholesome, or not, we will not now take upon us to
pronounce.  Agreeably with those severities, an act passed that same year
for _disarming_ the Highlanders, and restraining the use of the Highland
_dress_; which must have reduced those people to a must humiliating and
degrading situation.  A more liberal and enlightened policy, towards that
country, was adopted by our government some years after, under the
administration of the elder _Pitt_: since which time the Scots have
ranked invariably among the most loyal and zealous of the adherents or
subjects of the House of Hanover.  A similar policy adopted towards
_Ireland_ would, no doubt, produce similar effects there, and place that
whole nation among the most estimable subject of the British empire.  But
it is to be feared that we shall not be very soon blessed with a ministry
endowed with so much virtue, or so much wisdom.

From the termination of the rebellion to the time of the king’s death,
the affairs of the nation went on prosperously, as did also those of this
town.  The years 1747 and 1748 were here much distinguished by the
uncommon number of persons who were then made free _gratis_—Such as
Joseph Tayler M.D.  John Wilson Esq.  Chas. Townshend Esq.  Rd. Hammond
Esq.  Rev. Wm. Everard; Rev. Dr. Edm. Pyle; Rev. Robt. Hammond; Robt.
Hammond Esq.  John Nuthall Esq.  Chas: Cooper Morely; John Partridge
gent.  John Davis Esq.  Rev. John Daville, and Rev. Chas. Phelps.—Such a
batch of new burgesses must, no doubt, have greatly augmented the
consequence and respectability of the town.

The year 1749, or, at least, the mayoralty that began that year,
exhibited here a most sad catastrophe, attended with most shocking
circumstances.  It was the condemnation and execution of one _Charles
Holditch_, for burglary in his own father’s house, and an attempt to
murder the old man in his bed, which he was prevented from perpetrating
by a child, who was then in bed with the old man.  This was certainly an
instance of enormous and almost unexampled depravity; and may, perhaps,
be considered as an indication of the wretched state of morals then in
this town among the common people.  The clergy, as it is too often the
case, cared, probably, little or nothing about instructing the lower
orders; and there were here then but few dissenters to supply the lack of
service, or deficiencies of the established ministry.

In 1751, or during the mayoralty which then commenced, another shocking
scene occurred here, which is thus related in one of our MS.
narratives—“This year _Wm. Chaplain_ was hang’d on a gibbet upon
South-Lynn Common, for the murdering of _Mary Gafferson_—being the first
ever known to be hung in chains in this town.”  This seems to corroborate
what was said before, of the wretched state of morals here then among the
lower orders of the community.  And the present writer can easily
conceive, and is very confident that such must have been then the case,
from what he knows it to have been somewhat more than twenty years after,
(or 35 years ago,) when he first came to reside here.  In point of
morals, manners, and outward decency, the town is much improved since
that period; and yet there is much room still for further improvement.
The change for the better which has already taken place, and which is
hoped to be still in its progress, must be ascribed partly to the
superior character of the church ministry here of late years, and partly
to the unwearied exertions of the methodists and our other dissenters:
{932} and as the numbers of those who have been reformed and converted
from their former rudeness and heathenism have already much increased,
and are still increasing, it may be hoped that the influence of their
example will also increase in equal proportion, till our whole population
becomes thoroughly reformed, civilized, and enlightened.

Among the most memorable and important of the recorded acts of our
municipality in 1751, are to be reckoned the choosing of _Dr. Joseph
Tayler_, a _physician_, into the common-council, and enrolling the name
of our respected townsman, _Thomas Day Esq._ among our free burgesses.
From that time nothing worth notice occurs till 1755, when the following
passage is noted among our Extracts—“1755, July 7th.  Ordered that his
Majesties grant 8th May 1755, to Henry Partridge Esq. Recorder, in trust
for the Mayor and Burgesses, of the fourth part of the Tollbooth and
Tolls in the Village and Port of Lynn, and the Tolls for weighing Wool,
mensuration, and Love Copp, and also the Water of Wiggenhall and office
of Bailif there, with the profits of Courts, &c. and also the office of
gauger in the Village and Port afforesaid, and the profits of the fyshery
of the said waters, &c. to hold for 31 years from Lady Day 1755, and
expires at Lady Day 1786, to be laid up in the Treasury.”—These
advantages seem to have been conferred by the corporation on the Recorder
of that day, in consideration of the slenderness of the Salary annexed to
his office.  Whether there be any similar appendage to the Salary of the
present Recorder, we are unable to say.—Under the same year the following
note occurs—“August 27.  The Mayor’s Sallary to be 100_l._ from
Michaelmas next.”  It seems to have been before unfixed.  It surely ought
to be now 300_l._ at least.  Yet we cannot find that to be the case.

Nothing of any consequence appear to have occurred here during the
remainder of this reign.  The last recorded acts of our municipality
before the expiration of this period, as far as we can find, are the
following—“August 29. 1760, Mr. Th. Day chosen
Common-Councell-man—Honourable Geo. Townshend ffree gratis.”—again—“Sept.
29.  The Mayor for the time being to be indemnifyed from all charges, &c.
occasioned thro’ any neglects of the Goaler or Serjeants at Mace.”  The
king died on the 25th. of October that same year, at Kensington, in the
77th. year of his age, and the 34th. of his reign, the close of which was
distinguished by what has been generally deemed very glorious events, and
a most happy harmony among his subjects.

Before we close this section and take our final leave of George II, some
notice may and ought to be taken of a circumstance, the most important
and interesting, perhaps, in its effects, or consequences, of any that
occurred in that reign: and that is, the _origin of methodism_, or of
that popular religious sect, whose votaries or constituents are
denominated _methodists_, and which is now become the most numerous body
of protestant dissenters in the British dominions.  Their numbers and
their influence are now so great, and so rapidly increasing, as to have
evidently excited no small alarm among our higher powers, in church and
state, and even among the _Wilberforce party_, or that class of churchmen
which assumes or bears the name of _evangelical_; {935} as we learn from
the late memorable Bill of Lord _Sidmouth_, together with certain
circumstances which it was the means of bringing to light.

This Sect, like most others, sprang from a small beginning.  Its founders
were a few young men of the university of Oxford, of the names of Morgan,
John and Charles Wesley, Kirkman, Ingham, James Harvey, George
Whitefield, &c.  A young gentleman of _Christ Church_ named them
_methodists_, in allusion to some ancient physicians, so called.  Others
denominated them the _Holy Club_; but this name soon died away; whereas
the other remained, and became permanent; and the sect is known and
distinguished by it to this day.  Oxford could not long contain, or
retain these birds of paradise.  They soon got out of the shell, quitted
the nest and flew abroad; and by the time of the birth of our present
sovereign, their voice was heard, and much listened to, in London, and a
great many other places.  Since that time they have been ever on the
increase, more or less; and of late years prodigiously so; which may
account for the doubts and fears entertained in certain quarters, as to
the consequence.

_John Wesley_ and _George Whitefield_ being by far the most active and
eloquent of the original methodists, soon came to be looked upon as the
oracles, or proper chiefs and leaders of the sect.  They went on
harmoniously for sometime; but, after a while, these extraordinary men
imbibed opposite opinions, and became attached to different creeds.
Wesley declared himself an _arminian_, and Whitefield a _calvinist_;
which occasioned a separation among their followers, and produced two
distinct sects, under the expressive denominations of _Wesleyan_ or
_arminian methodists_, {936} and _Whitefieldian_ or _calvinian
methodistis_.  But the worst of it was, that from being warm and sworn
friends, they now became bitter and deadly foes, and declared open war
against each other, which was carried on with unabated rancour for many
years, to the no small amusement and gratification of the enemies of both
parties, and the just and lasting reproach of their own arrogant
pretensions to superior goodness and sanctity.

Nothing could be more uncharitable, illiberal, and unchristian than the
behaviour of these two sister sects, for many years, towards each other.
The champions on both sides generally treated their opponents as the
vilest miscreants and reprobates; and such enemies of God and man as had
scarcely any chance of salvation while they retained their professed and
respective principles.  At length their bitter animosities subsided, and
the fierce contest ceased: a sort of alliance took place between them;
and ever since the utmost efforts of their malevolence, and whole energy
of their intolerance have been employed in calumniating and persecuting
other religionists, called _unitarians_, _universalists_, &c. whom they
now treat in a manner much like that in which they formerly treated each
other.  This is a remarkable circumstance, which we ought not to lose
sight of, as it will enable us to form a proper estimate of the respect
that is due to the hostile and clamorous conduct of these domineering
sects towards those illfated religionists who are, at this present time,
the chief objects of their jealousy, their malevolence, and their
opposition.

At the commencement of the present reign this sect was become very
considerable among the religious denominations of this kingdom; and it
has been ever since rapidly increasing, so as to cause no small alarm in
some quarters.  At present, it seems to be the prevailing opinion that
methodism will soon acquire unrivalled preponderance among us, and
perhaps become, at last, and at no very distant period, the established
religion of England. {937}  Should it so happen, it is to be hoped that
it will previously undergo a kind of _regeneration_, so as to prove
(among other things) less illiberal and intolerant than it is at present;
otherwise neither the dissenting sects, nor the nation at large will have
any mighty cause to congratulate themselves on the occasion.—But we will
dwell no longer upon this subject at present, as we may have occasion to
resume it in another part of the work.—Having now made our way to the
year 1760 and the commencement of the present reign, we shall here close
this long section.


SECTION VIII.


_Accession of George III—flattering aspect of British affairs at that
period—general expectation then of the commencement or approach of
halcyon days and a golden age—those expectations have not been yet
realized—on the contrary_, _the nation has witnessed and experienced a
very different order or state of things_—_Views of the affairs of Lynn
for the first twenty years of this reign_.

Upon the demise of the late king, he was succeeded by his grandson the
prince of Wales, under the name of _George the third_; who was
immediately proclaimed, with the usual ceremonies, when he made a most
gracious declaration to his privy-council, which gave great satisfaction,
and was much applauded.  On the 8th of September 1761 he was married to
the princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg Strelitz, and on the 22nd. of the
same month their majesties were crowned at Westminster Abbey.  The issue
of this marriage is more numerous than that of any of our former
sovereigns; at least, for many ages past; so that it is not likely that
there will happen here soon any dispute about the regal succession.

No prince ever ascended the throne of these realms more with the
approbation, or to the satisfaction of the nation at large than did
George III; nor do we know of any other of our sovereigns at whose
accession there was so fair and bright a prospect of a happy and glorious
reign.  The people universally expected it, and thought they had a right
so to do, on account of that proud and unrivalled preeminence which the
nation had lately acquired among the powers of Europe, and of the world.
In this expectation, however, we have been disappointed; for those fond
and sanguine hopes which were once so confidently entertained and
cherished have never yet been realized; and it is not very likely now
that they ever will.  We live at a most eventful period, so that it is no
great wonder that our disasters and disappointments were not foreseen
fifty years ago.

Our miscarriages have been so numerous, and the wrongheadedness of our
Statesmen and public functionaries so notorious, as to give no small
countenance, if not entirely to justify, the opinion of those who assert
that the Evil Genius of Britain has presided in its councils, and has had
the sole direction of its affairs, with very few exceptions, for the last
fifty years, at least.  Strong symptoms of political wrongheadedness and
ministerial depravity appeared as early as the time when the machine of
government was committed to the management of lord Bute, with his
coadjutors and underlings.  The affair of general warrants, and the
project for taxing America, rendered those symptoms still more visible
and alarming, while our persisting in our dispute with the Colonists, and
undertaking to answer their arguments and silence their complaints by the
mouth of our cannon, demonstrated our despotic character and boundless
infatuation, and prepared the world to behold, without surprise, the
folly and insanity of our subsequent projects and undertakings.

It was hoped by many that the disastrous result of the American war would
have brought us to our senses.  But it did not so happen.  Our subsequent
conduct has been for the most part as unwise and senseless as ever it was
during our dispute and war with America.  Had we been capable of serious
reflection, the American war would, doubtless, have brought us to it.
Dear-bought experience is said to have been of great use to some people;
but it has been in this case quite useless to us; though experience has
seldom been more dearly bought than that which Britain has acquired by
the American war.  In fact, it does not seem that experience is of so
much use to mankind, as is generally supposed; not because it is useless
in itself, or incapable of making us wiser, but because most people are
no way disposed to avail themselves of its aid, and choose to follow
their passions rather than their reason.  They seemingly hate to look
back and recollect former mischances, or to profit by past experience.
Both the past and the future appear to be by them equally disregarded.
The present employs all their thoughts; and whatsoever errors they may
have committed, or inconvenience experienced on that account, little care
is generally taken to guard against their repetition or recurrence.  Such
is the case with nations as well as individuals.  So the world goes: and
thus, in spite of past experience, every age performs its own folly, and
re-acts or repeats the absurdities and crimes of its predecessors.

Sometimes the national errors and follies of one age appear to exceed
those of the preceding age, and even of many preceding ages.  This has
been thought applicable to the present period.  Our domestic grievances
from different administrations, for the last fifty years, our treatment
of the _Caribbs of St. Vincent_, {941} together with our American and
subsequent wars, and also the affair of the _Spanish frigates_, and of
_Copenhagen_, seem to exceed _tenfold_ all our internal grievances and
public ministerial enormities for the preceding fifty, or even _seventy_
years.  What addition will be made to this catalogue during the remainder
of this reign, it is impossible to foresee; but it is to be hoped that
things ere long will take a more favourable turn, as it is surely high
time they should.

These observations we shall now conclude, in the words of one of the
historians of this reign—“In comparing (says he) the brilliant and
auspicious commencement of the reign of the present monarch with the dark
and dreadful scenes which ensued (and, it is painful to add, with those
which at [this] advanced period seem yet impending) the imagination is
led forcibly to advert to the sublime symbolical representations
introduced by a poet of the highest order, Mr. Gray, in his celebrated
Ode of _The Bard_, in allusion to the catastrophe terminating the reign
of Richard II. in the splendor of its opening dawn, and its subsequent
_fatal indiscretions_, bearing no very distant analogy to the present.
{942}

       “Fair laughs the morn, and soft the Zephyr blows;
       While proudly riding o’er the azure realm
       In gallant trim the gilded vessel goes;
       Youth at the prow, and Pleasure at the helm;
       Regardless of the sweeping whirlwind’s sway.
    That hush’d in grim repose expects his evening prey.”

Of the transactions and occurrences that constitute the history of Lynn
for the first twenty years of this reign we know of none that can be
deemed very interesting or important.  Some of them, however, are no less
so than many of those that have been already related, and therefore
cannot be silently passed over, or omitted, without departing from the
plan which has been hitherto pursued.  In regard to this period, as well
as the preceding ones, it is much to be wished we could throw some
further light on the internal state of the town, or what relates to the
domestic character, social habits, or lives and manners of the
inhabitants.  Here, however, our materials have always proved very
scanty; and the same has been generally the case with other historical
writers.  This work, accordingly, often appears as a history of the
_corporation_; rather than of the town at large, or of the whole
community; because our materials relate chiefly to that chartered body,
placing all the rest far in the back ground, and often quite out of
sight.  This is to be regretted.

Among the memorable events which took place at Lynn about, or soon after
the commencement of this reign, was the falling of the tower or steeple
of South Lynn church.  This happened, according to one of our MS.
narratives, during the second mayoralty of Walter Robertson, which
commenced at Michaelmas 1761.  This is said to have been a strong square
tower, about 82 feet high, with stone battlements; having thereon a shaft
and vane 30 feet high.  It had in it also, as Parkin says, five tuneable
bells: and it appears to have in its fall demolished a good part of the
west end of the church.  The damage, as to the church, was soon repaired,
but the tower was never afterwards rebuilt.  South Lynn makes now a much
humbler appearance than it did in former days, when it was adorned with
two lofty towers; that which we have now mentioned, and that of the
Carmelite convent, which stood a little way off, adjoining to that
convent, in what is now called _The Friars_.  This tower is said to have
fallen in 1690: so that the tower of the parish Church stood above 130
years longer; owing, perhaps, to its being kept in better repair; though
it may be supposed to have been, like the other, neglected afterwards.

Much about the time of which we have been speaking, another remarkable
event occurred within our municipal or admiralty jurisdiction.  This was
the taking of a large _whale_, near _Beverley creek_, according to one
account, or near _Darsingham_, according to the _Norfolk Remembrancer_;
which further says, that it was 56 feet 9 inches long, and 34 feet 4
inches in girth; and moreover, that it was taken on the 27th. of March
1762.  If we are not mistaken there was some dispute about it between our
mayor of that time and Mr. Styleman, or some other gentleman of the
vicinity of the place where it was taken.  But we believe that the
former’s right to it was, in the end, established.  There have been other
instances of whales being taken on this coast, though it happens but
rarely.

On December 2nd. 1763, a dreadful high wind and tide made great ravages
here: many ships were wrecked on the coast, and an incredible number of
cattle and sheep were drowned in Marshland, &c.  Among other sufferers, a
Mr. Barrell and a Mr. Corfe, of Snettisham, lost 800 sheep each, as we
find in the _Norfolk Remembrancer_.—In the following year, during the
second mayoralty of Philip Case, the town, according to one of our MS.
narratives, was served a trick which could not possibly redound to the
credit of our rulers.  “Purfleet Fleet was then cleaned, from the bridge
to the clough adjoining to Kettle Mills river; and the filth and mud
carried away by boats into the haven, to the great annoyance of the
harbour and the forming of a bar there.”  This was certainly bad enough,
but the worst is still behind.  The charge of scouring or cleaning the
Fleets, it seems, belonged to the corporation: but, in this instance, it
was contrived to throw it on the inhabitants, who were accordingly
subjected to an assessment, or tax, which amounted to a sum of no less
than 2000_l._  This, to say the least of it, seems to have been a very
shabby affair; but some will think it much less so than our famous
_paving jobb_.

In the third mayoralty of John Cary senior, which commenced in 1765, a
shocking murder was committed here by one John Rudderham, (commonly and
ironically called _honest John_) for which bloody and horrid deed he was
soon after tried, condemned, and executed.  Such, it has been said, was
the deplorable depravity and ignorance of this unhappy wretch, that he
appeared not to have any sense of moral evil, or any idea of the
existence of a Supreme Being, and of a future state.  Though born and
brought up in a christian country, and even deemed a member of a
christian church, yet he was utterly ignorant of every thing belonging to
christianity, as appeared from the first conversation he had with a
person who attended him while under sentence of death.  Being asked by
that person, if he had _ever heard of the Lord Jesus Christ_?  He
seriously answered that he could not positively say whether he had or
not: “and yet (said he) I do rather think that I have really heard
something of _such a gentleman_, though I cannot now remember what it
was.”  It is to be feared there were a great many more here at the same
time in a similar predicament, or equally ignorant.  Yet, if we are not
misinformed, a motion made, about that period, to establish here a school
for the instruction of poor children, was actually negatived, as a
needless and useless measure, and what might prove inimical to social
order, and destructive of all intellectual distinction between rich and
poor, gentlemen and plebeians.  It is pleasing to contemplate that our
higher powers were actuated by better and nobler ideas latterly, when the
Lancasterian school was proposed and established.  May this prove the
dawn of a more liberal and brighter day.

In 1768, during the mayoralty of Charles Turner, which commenced the
preceding year, the town was much agitated by a very violent contested
election, chiefly between Sir John Turner bart. and Crisp Molineaux Esq;
for the honourable Thomas Walpole Esq. the other candidate, was
apparently pretty sure of gaining his election.  He was accordingly
returned, and Sir John along with him, owing, as one of our MS.
narratives suggests, to the bribing exertions of a certain eminent
merchant, who expended 7000_l._ and upwards on the occasion.  It was,
however, the last time Sir John was returned for this town: Molineaux was
returned along with Walpole at the next general election.  After all, it
seems to have been a very foolish business; for this same candidate does
not appear to have been a person of any character, or who was endowed
with such talents or qualifications as could recommend him for a senator
in preference to Turner.  Such has been, however, too often the case in
our contested elections.

This is supposed to have been the greatest of all our Contested
Elections, except that very memorable one in 1747, which probably far
exceeded every thing of the kind ever known here.  As the particulars of
it were little known to the present writer, till his observations on the
preceding reign had been printed off, he hopes the reader will excuse his
giving some account of it here, though somewhat out of place.  The
opposition was chiefly aimed against Sir John Turner, the same,
seemingly, that was opposed in the last mentioned contest, and father of
the present Lady Folkes.  His opponent was William Folkes Esq. father of
the present Sir Martin.  He is said to have been a very respectable man,
though he was charged on this occasion with breach of a promise made to
Lord Orford, not to stand candidate at that time for this town.  What
foundation there was for such a charge, or how the case really stood, it
may be now difficult, or, perhaps, impossible to determine.

Though the prejudice against Turner was strong and extensive, and the
opposition fierce and violent, yet he gained his election; but he was
thought to owe it less to his own interest and management than to the
favour and influence of the Walpoles, who were supposed to have greatly
befriended him in that instance.  At the close of the poll the numbers
were—for _Walpole_ 199; for _Turner_ 184; for _Folkes_ 131.  The
following Extract of a Letter written at that very time by a person of
much wit and shrewdness, and who was an eye witness of the whole scene,
will give the reader a striking, and we presume a just idea of the state
of this town during that turbulent contest.  Whether or not we are still
capable of the like excesses, or extravagances, is a question that may
not be unworthy of very serious consideration.  It is to be wished it
might he answered in the _negative_.

    “Since you left us,” (says the Letter-writer alluded to,) “we’ve had
    a Contested Election, and perhaps as violent an one as any in England
    where the affair was not carried to bloodshed.  I will be very
    particular in my account of it because ’twill amuse you.—The sudden
    bringing on the Elections all over England was a wise thing.  As soon
    as ’twas known here that members were to be elected in about 3 weeks
    time, people of the lower sort got together in the Evenings in
    clusters, talking, how little good *** did to the town, &c.—This set
    a spirit agoing, and in 2 or 3 nights, they met about xxxv of ’em, at
    an alehouse, with C— P—t drunk at the head of them, whom they would
    fain have for a m—r of p—t.  C—s treated the company, and the next
    morning gave them a whet, met ’em again in the evening, and the next
    evening, and then had shewn spite enough to *** whom he hates, to
    make it necessary for them to look about ’em.  But where should they
    look?  *** was in Gl—rshire with his wife, who was every moment
    expecting to cry out, and had sent a Letter, hoping to be chosen
    without coming at all.  L—d O. was at H—n and his cousin H—’s son
    being the person that was to stand with S—r J—, my L—d was applied
    to, by our gentlemen, to let him know that the people grew rude and
    clamorous, and that unless somebody appeared, and care was taken of
    them, they feared Mr. F—s might be induced to give ’em some trouble,
    by becoming a candidate.  My L—d told them there was no fear of that,
    for he had a Letter from Mr. F—s the post before, utterly disclaiming
    any design of that sort, which Letter he shewed them.  So they all
    came away satisfied.  Notwithstanding their satisfaction, and the
    good grounds any body would have thought they had for it, within 4
    days after this F—s came down, and was introduced by A. T—, Dr. B—,
    H. F—, J. F—, J—n M—r, and several more, in coaches, chaises, &c.
    several 100 horsemen, Flags, Guns, Drums, and all the Racket that
    could possibly be made.  Neither T— nor W— were here, and all were in
    distraction.  Expresses were sent.  L—d O. got here that night.  S—
    J— could not possibly get here of two days and half.  So on the
    Saturday night he came, and the Election was to be on the Monday.
    From the time of F—s setting out from London, the Public Houses were
    opened, and continued so; so that here was nothing but men and women
    and children drunk, old women especially, wallowing about the
    streets, and half of ’em with their backsides exposed to public view,
    and fellows a clapping of ’em.”

By this time every one must clearly see what a Bedlam of a place Lynn
was, during this electioneering bustle.  Our Letter-writer, no doubt,
gives a pretty faithful and correct picture of what then occurred; on
which account some of our readers will be desirous of hearing him
further: but as his description now occasionally becomes somewhat coarse,
if not indelicate, we shall place the remainder of the extract below,
that those who wish to see more of it may have an opportunity to gratify
themselves. {950}  We shall now return from this digression, and resume
the thread of our history.

Though Sir John Turner gained his election, as one of our parliamentary
representatives, in his contest with Molineaux, and was sometime after
chosen mayor of this town; yet his influence here soon appeared to be
fast declining.  His friends in the Hall resigned and withdrew, one after
another, till the interest of that family became at last quite
annihilated, after having been very great, and almost unrivalled, for a
whole century.  But there is nothing strange or wonderful in this.  It is
the usual course of things in this world.  Families, as well as nations
and empires, have their day, beyond which they cannot extend their power,
or their greatness.

About the year 1769 our corporation had a great lawsuit with a Mr. Carr
of Massingham, father of our late merchant of that name.  But they lost
their cause; owing, as it has been suggested, to the perjury of one of
Carr’s principal witnesses.  The suit is said to have been brought on to
oblige the corporation to open and scour the Fleet from Salter’s Sluice
to Littleport-bridge, which was necessary for the accommodation of the
plaintiff, who had granaries contiguous to that fleet.  The corporation,
on their part, pleaded that the flood-door of the bridge had been put
down a hundred years before, and therefore that the requisition could not
be binding upon them.  But the said witness, who was only 56 years old,
swore that he had in his youth, for the sake of robbing an orchard, swam
over, near Salter’s clough, when the water there was ten feet deep.  This
satisfied the jury, and determined them to give their verdict against the
corporation.  They were consequently obliged to clear and open the said
fleet; and it has been kept so ever since; which seems very proper and
necessary.  But supposing it really true, that the work had been
neglected, and the fleet suffered to silt and fill up for a whole
century; still, even that very neglect must have been the fault of the
corporation, who are bound to keep the fleets open; so that they could
not be justified in resisting Mr. Carr’s requisition.  To have removed
the nuisance, at once, instead of going to law, had been far more
creditable.

About the year 1770, a very unusual and marvellous phenomenon appeared
here; which was no other than a violent patriotic spirit, or what in more
recent times, or modern cant, would have been denominated _Jacobinism_.
Our Gentlemen seemed then, all of a sudden, to have become mighty
admirers of liberty, and of _John Wilkes_.  That redoubted champion of
freedom was soon invited to this town, and actually honoured it with his
patriotic presence in February 1771, to the no small joy of our body
corporate, who received him with open arms, entertained him most
sumptuously, and conferred upon him the freedom of this ancient borough.
All this was very well.  We do not mean to blame them for it.  But it was
very different from the treatment, or reception, which another patriot,
of no less virtue and respectability, met with here at a subsequent
period.  We mean _Thelwall_, who visited us some years ago, for the
purpose of promulgating the principles of political liberty and genuine
patriotism.  But those principles, by that time, were become so very
unfashionable and disreputable here, that the patriotic lecturer could
get no hearing; and he was glad to escape with a whole skin and unbroken
bones.  The politicks of _William Pitt_ had now completely superseded
those of _John Wilkes_.  So the world goes: what is sound doctrine, at
one time, is heresy and sedition, and even blasphemy and treason, at
another.

At the time of which we have been last speaking, our dispute with the
American patriots had made considerable progress: and it might be
supposed that as this town appeared so decidedly and warmly in favour of
Wilkes, it would have appeared no less so in favour of the Americans.
But it happened far otherwise.  We eagerly caressed Wilkes, and openly
espoused his cause, but towards the oppressed and much injured Americans
we appeared very differently affected.  During that long and unhappy
dispute, and the unjust and bloody war that ensued, no measure was here
adopted expressive of abhorrence, or even of disapprobation of the course
taken by our government; or yet of concern and commiseration for the
unmerited sufferings of our transatlantic brethren.  How much more
honourable and dignified had it been to have acted differently, and
boldly borne our testimony against the injustice and folly of our own
government, and in behalf of the reasonable and well-founded claims of
the colonists?  How respectable, in that case, would Lynn have now
appeared among its sister boroughs, when the whole reasonable and
enlightened world, with one voice, is reprobating that dispute, and that
war, as the undoubted offspring of the most tyrannic disposition, or the
most perfect insanity? {955}  Nor is it at all improbable that impartial
posterity will consider our subsequent wars, and not a few of our public
transactions, as having actually sprung from the same parentage.

Soon after the commencement of the American War the great maritime powers
discovered a strong disposition to favour the resistance of the
colonists, which gave us no small offence; so that by degrees things came
to an open rupture between this country and those powers.  France, Spain,
and Holland, accordingly, became parties in the contest; and the northern
armed neutrality, with the general aspect of all other nations, pretty
plainly shewed that there was scarcely a single state throughout
Christendom, but what decidedly and heartily reprobated the part we were
acting.  It was therefore no wonder that the American war did prove
unsuccessful, and eventually terminate in the discomfiture and disgrace
of this country; and even stamp upon our counsels indelible and eternal
infamy.

The effect of the war with America, and with the European powers before
mentioned, was severely felt at Lynn.  Our trade was much cramped, many
of our ships were captured, our sailors were reduced mostly to old men
and lads, by those guardians of the constitution, and demonstrators of
the unalienableness of our rights, and reality of our freedom, the _press
gangs_.  These myrmidons, when any of our young and best sailors fell in
their way, if they did not tamely submit to be taken, would pursue them
like wild beasts, and, when they came up with them, would knock them on
the head, like dogs, with their bludgeons, and then drag them with the
utmost indignity to the house of rendezvous, or on board the tender.
There the poor fellows were left to cool, and compose themselves: and the
very next day, perhaps, would be heard singing, in the house of their
captivity, “Rule Britannia;” and “Britons never will be slaves.”  It may
be well for the nation, or, at least, for its rulers, that the ideas of
our sea-faring people, respecting liberty and thraldom, are considerably
different from those of some other people.—Being now come to the end of
the first twenty years of this reign, we shall here close the present
section.


SECTION IX.


_Lynn armed Association—termination of the American War—independence of
the United States acknowledged and confirmed—peace restored and
established among all the belligerent powers—King’s illness and
recovery_—_View of the state of this town from that period to the present
time_.

The situation of this country, engaged in a foolish, fruitless, ruinous,
and infamous war with its own colonies, at the distance of more than a
thousand leagues, and involved afterwards in a desperate struggle with
its great maritime neighbours, became very critical, and excited
considerable alarm throughout the kingdom.  Great fears were entertained
of an invasion, and means of defence against such an attempt were
resorted to.  The Irish, deprived of the military force that used to be
stationed in their country, armed themselves for their own protection, at
their own expense.  The like was done in many parts of England; and Lynn
adopted the same measure.  The Lynn Volunteers, or armed association,
amounted to about 120, {957} and were commanded in chief by _Captain
Thomas Day_, whose name we have had occasion to mention more than once in
some of the preceding pages.

This gentleman’s military knowledge and talents were generally allowed to
be superior to those of any other of our townsmen, and his unassuming
demeanor, and conciliating manners eminently fitted him for the chief
command of this corps.  The officers and men, accordingly, became greatly
attached to him, and the utmost harmony subsisted among them, to the very
last.  During the whole time they were imbodied, the behaviour of the
men, in the town, was very proper and commendable, and quite to the
satisfaction of the inhabitants; which redounded much to the credit of
the officers, and particularly the commandant, whose orders and example
would not fail to contribute largely to the regularity or correctness of
their deportment.  This respectable and memorable little band was formed
and organized in 1779, and continued till sometime after the expiration
of the war; for it was not disbanded till 1785, when its constituents,
relinquishing the military character, mixed once more with the great mass
of unarmed citizens; conscious, it may be presumed, of having so
acquitted themselves as to merit the approbation and applause of their
contemporaries, and of posterity.—Of these patriot-soldiers some further
notice may be taken when we shall have to notice our more recent and more
numerous volunteer armaments.

Peace was restored among all the belligerent powers in 1783, when the
independence of the resisting colonies, now called the _United States_ of
America, was acknowledged and confirmed.  The American war ended, as all
such unjust wars ought to end, in the disappointment and discomfiture of
the aggressors.  But had our government, and our nation possessed a
proper degree of virtue, or conscience, they would certainly have
expressed both shame and remorse, after the contest was over, and when
they had time calmly to reflect upon the part they had acted in that most
unjustifiable and detestable business.  Nothing however of that kind did
appear.  On the contrary we sat down very demurely and composedly,
without the least apparent feeling of contrition, sorrow, or
self-reproach; like _Solomon’s adulterous woman_, who eat, and wiped her
mouth, and said, “I have done no wickedness.” {959}

The impenitent spirit which our government and nation manifested at the
close of the American war, could furnish no reason to hope that it was
the last scene of folly and iniquity in which our rulers would engage:
and if any did actually cherish such a hope, they must long ago have been
convinced that it was altogether vain and groundless.  All our subsequent
wars, state policy, and maxims of government have but too plainly
indicated that we have acted ever since, almost invariably, under the
guidance of that same Evil Genius that so eggregiously misled, befooled,
and governed us, during the whole American dispute and war, and which had
before involved us in the guilt of exterminating the poor hapless
Caribbs, as well as in that of other unjustifiable and criminal deeds
previously to those events.

Some of our pretended longsighted, as well as long-headed politicians
affected to foresee and foretell a very long season of uninterrupted
tranquillity succeeding the peace of 1783.  But it proved all a dream:
for we have been most of the time since at war; and such a war too as we
never experienced before.  It has proved most miserably unsuccessful and
disastrous; and is now in a fair way of saddling upon us at last an
unexampled debt of _a thousand millions_! {960a}—Such an enormous sum as
the whole coinage of the universe could not discharge.—This is a
frightful prospect; but we will now turn to other objects.—But before we
quit the year 1783 we may just observe that a most atrocious robbery was
then committed on a Jew lad, about 16 years old, of the name of _Isaac
Levi_, on the road between Lynn and Westwinch, by one _Robert Fox_, whoso
ill treated the poor Jew as to leave him apparently dead; for which the
robber was sometime after, (September 7th.) hanged on Hardwick common,
near the place where the villanous and shocking deed had been
perpetrated. {960b}

In 1784 we had here another contested Election, which, however, in point
of violence was much inferior to those of 1768 and 1747.  Mr. Fountaine
of Narford was now the new candidate, whose character, certainly, was no
way inferior to that of either of his opponents.  But he lost his
election, though he had a respectable number of voters, and the old
members, Walpole and Molineux were again returned, than whom no two men
had perhaps less distinguished themselves in the preceding parliament, or
appeared less worthy to be re-elected.  But they suited the taste and
humour of the majority of their constituents, and especially of some two
or three or few men who had the chief share or influence in their
appointment.  Our parliamentary representation is a very fine thing in
theory, but in practice it is often found far otherwise.

But though this Election was conducted with decency and moderation, in
comparison with those of 1768 and 47, yet it was attended with
circumstances not a little disgraceful to the dispositions and characters
of some of the leading actors, particularly on the victorious side.  The
aristocratic spirit and malignant passions were but too apparent; and not
a few of the minor or unsuccessful party were made long to feel the
resentment and vindictiveness of their powerful opponents, who were not
much disposed to suffer the infallibility of their judgment to be
questioned, or allow any with impunity to disapprove the objects of their
choice or nomination.  But this intolerance, and especially resentment
and vindictiveness, must, most assuredly, be highly criminal and
iniquitous on such occasions, since every voter, even the very poorest,
has an undoubted right to give his voice freely for the candidate or
candidates whom he deems most worthy of his suffrage.  Whoever deprives a
freeman of this privilege uses him worse than a highwayman.

Not only the electors of the poorer sort, who had voted for Mr.
Fountaine, and lived in the town, suffered in consequence of having
exercised their just rights on that occasion, but even the richer ones
did not entirely escape: for those of them who held lands of the
corporation were now deprived of the same, as well as of every other
privilege which lay in the power of their revengeful opponents.  This was
carrying things with a high hand.  After all, it may be no great wonder
that our corporation should be still tenacious of having the
representatives of their town to be men of their own nomination and
choosing, considering that no one formerly, or till within these 170
years, _except those of the Hall_, appear to have had any share or
concern in the appointment or election of those who represented this
borough in parliament. {962}

It is, indeed generally supposed that matters are now here on a much
fairer and more rational footing; but that, perhaps, will not appear very
clearly when we advert to the well known truth and fact, that out modern
members for the most part, owe their senatorial honour and elevation
solely to the will and pleasure, or power and influence of some two or
three families or individuals.  Such, however, is but two often the
practical character of our boasted system of parliamentary
representation.

That of 1784 was the last contested election that has taken place here;
though some faint attempt is said to have been made for something of this
kind a few years ago, in favour of one of our military aldermen, who was
supposed not to have been very much taken with the compliment, or, at
least, did not choose to be very active in promoting his own election;
not, however, that he was at all incapable of great, and even
extraordinary electioneering feats in behalf of his friends, of which he
is understood to have given, before now, unequivocal and convincing
proof.  In short, it would seem as if he were, (in cases of that kind
especially,) more ready to serve other people than himself; which, to say
the least of it, is a conduct not a little unusual in this degenerate and
selfish age: and it may serve as a proof that generosity and
disinterestedness are not yet become totally extinct among us.

From the year 1785, when our volunteers were disbanded, till 1788, we
recollect no very remarkable event that related to this town. {964}  In
the last mentioned year, one of the Annual Registers of that period
relates a most singular accident which then befel a captain _Cook_,
master of one of our greenland-ships.  The account is as follows—“August
1788: Friday last arrived at Lynn in Norfolk, the Archangel, from
Greenland, captain Cook, with two fish.  It was with much difficulty she
got safe there, having received a deal of damage in a gale of wind, which
drove her against a field of ice.  When this ship was in Greenland,
captain Cook, the surgeon, and mate, went on shore, when the captain was
seized by a monstrous bear, which immediately hugged him with his paws.
The captain called to the surgeon to fire at the creature, though at
fifty yards distance, which he did, and fortunately shot the bear through
the head, which instantly killed it, and captain Cook was by this means
saved from being torn in pieces.” {965}  We cannot vouch for the absolute
correctness or authenticity of this anecdote, which certainly savours
somewhat of the marvellous.  It is inserted here entirely on the
authority of the periodical work alluded to.  But it is certain that
there was here a greenland captain of the name of _Cook_, about that
period.

The 5th. of November 1788 was observed at Lynn, in commemoration of the
landing of king William, and of the glorious revolution that ensued, by a
party of the friends of civil and religious liberty, among whom were the
late reverend and worthy _William Warner_, and the writer of the present
work.  The party spent the evening at one of the Inns, where they supped
together, and passed the time in the most perfect harmony and
conviviality, and no way unworthy of the occasion, or of the great,
glorious, and interesting event which they were then commemorating.
_Holkham_, the princely mansion of Mr. Coke, was the only other place in
West Norfolk, as far as the present writer has ever understood, where the
centenary of the revolution was thought worth celebrating.  That great
event was there celebrated by a grand fête, ball and supper, display of
fireworks, &c.  All in a manner worthy of the patriotic character,
revolution principles, and noble munificence of the renowned master of
the mansion.

In the latter part of the autumn and the winter of 1788, the good people
of Lynn shared with the rest of their fellow subjects in the general
solicitude, perplexity, and dismay occasioned by the sovereign’s alarming
illness.  His majesty’s health had been for sometime gradually declining;
which was then ascribed to overmuch exercise, too severe a regimen, too
rigid abstemiousness, and too short intervals of rest, rather than to the
freedom of indulgence and the softness of luxury.  As a remedy for the
symptoms that discovered themselves, the king determined to visit the
medical waters of Cheltenham, and accordingly set out for that place
immediately after the prorogation of parliament, where he arrived in the
afternoon of the 13th. of July, being the next day after he had left
Windsor.  He was accompanied by the queen, the princess royal, princess
Augusta, and princess Elizabeth: and in every town through which he
passed, he was received by vast crowds of people, with every
demonstration of affection and loyalty.  While at Cheltenham, he resided
at lord Fauconberg’s lodge, on an eminence, a quarter of a mile from the
town, and about 300 yards from the Spa. {966}

His majesty’s stay at Cheltenham was about five weeks.  He returned to
the metropolis on the 18th of August.  But no benefit answerable to the
expectations that had been formed, resulted from this excursion.  His
health was still in a precarious state, and on the 22nd of October,
symptoms {967} were observed by one of the royal physicians, of that
alienation of mind which was afterwards the occasion of so many important
and interesting transactions.  For some time it was thought proper to
observe as much secrecy as possible respecting the nature of the king’s
indisposition.  His retreat at Windsor was favourable to this purpose;
and for several days an opinion was entertained by the people in general,
that his indisposition was a fever, and that it had risen to so alarming
a height as to threaten a speedy dissolution.  The real nature of the
case however could not long be suppressed.  By the structure and practice
of the English constitution, almost every species of public business is
in some manner implicated with the royal prerogatives.  The
administration of political government was by the present event virtually
suspended from its functions; and, notwithstanding the critical situation
of Europe, and the very active share we had lately taken in its concerns,
it was now deemed impracticable to return any sort of answer to the
dispatches of foreign courts, or of our own ambassadors.  In this
situation the most natural expedient was to suffer the two houses of
parliament, which stood prorogued to the 20th of November, to meet at
that time, and either adjourn for a short interval, or immediately
proceed to discuss the measures it would be proper to adopt at the
present crisis.  Circular letters were accordingly addressed to the
members of the legislature on the 14th, signifying to them, that the
indisposition of the sovereign rendered it doubtful whether there would
be a possibility of receiving his commands for the further prorogation of
parliament.  In that case the two houses must of necessity assemble, and
the attendance of the different members was earnestly requested. {968a}

Such was the outset of that memorable affair, which caused so much
anxiety and agitation, at that time, in this town and throughout the
kingdom.  The right of the heir apparent to assume the executive power,
during the incapacity of the sovereign, was denied by the minister,
{968b} and by a large majority of both houses of the English parliament.
Nevertheless they appointed him to exercise that power, under such
restrictions as would secure to the ministers the possession of their
places.  The prince reluctantly acceded to the appointment, and consented
to act under those restrictions.  _Ireland_ being then a separate
kingdom, its parliament took a very different course, admitting the
prince’s right, and resolving to offer him the regency without
restrictions.  Having so done, a deputation was appointed to wait on the
prince, and give their resolutions their full effect.  This deputation
actually arrived in London; but before they had accomplished the end of
their mission, symptoms began to appear indicative of the sovereign’s
speedy recovery; and on the 12th of February 1789 he was declared by his
physicians to be in a state of progressive amendment.

This put an end, of course, to all further proceeding in the regency
business, on the part of either the English or Irish parliament, and
filled all ranks of people with the utmost joy and exultation.  Nothing
could exceed the gladness which was then every where expressed; and
Norfolk came not a whit behind its most distinguished sister counties in
the demonstration of its joy, and display of its loyalty.  Nor was there
any place in the county where this was more manifest than at Lynn.  The
18th of March, if we are not mistaken, was the time when this was most
strikingly and splendidly demonstrated.  We had then here a general
illumination, and other public rejoicings, with such other corresponding
exhibitions and grand doings as exceeded every thing that had been known
among us within the memory of the oldest inhabitant.  In short we had, in
miniature at least, something of almost every thing that the greatest
cities, or even the metropolis itself could then boast of.

Had the regency then taken place it is impossible to ascertain whether it
would have proved a blessing to the nation, or otherwise.  The people
seemed much in fear of the intended regent, on the score of expensiveness
and running in debt; but there is no reason to suppose that his
government would have been more expensive, or more productive of
additional taxes than that which has existed in this country ever since.
On the contrary it is highly probable that it would have been much less
so, as it may be presumed that the prince would not have been quite so
fond of war as the ministers and party that have been predominant for the
last twenty years.  As the 18th of March was observed here as a day of
_rejoicing_ for the king’s recovery, so was the 23rd. of April observed
as a day of _thanksgiving_ on the same occasion, both here and throughout
the kingdom.  Many years have been since added to the sovereign’s life,
and his reign has proved far longer than that of any one of his
predecessors, who was not an infant or minor at the time of his
accession.  He has also lived to witness greater changes in the state of
Europe than had taken place within the last thousand years:—and changes
too which the measures of the British cabinet had a principal share in
producing.  But we will now dismiss these subjects.

From the time of the king’s recovery to the commencement of the memorable
coalition and grand crusade against revolutionary France, nothing very
remarkable occurred here, except the dispute between this corporation and
that of London, about the right of those who are free of the latter to an
exemption from the payment of tolls in this port; which terminated in the
full establishment of that right, and the disannulment of the objections
which this corporation had set up against it.  The persons on whose
account this dispute originated, were the _Dentons_, two of our merchants
of that period, who obtained the freedom of London, after having long
solicited that of Lynn in vain, and offered any sum for it which our
gentlemen would choose to demand.  Being still required to pay toll, as
before, they made their complaint to the corporation of London, which
brought on a lawsuit between the two corporations.  The cause was first
tried in the court of common pleas, where it was given against Lynn, and
if we mistake not, with considerable damages; to escape which it was
afterwards removed by writ of error to the court of king’s bench: of the
result the following account is given in one of the periodical
publications of that time.—

    “Jan. 28. 1791, The case of the city of London against the
    corporation of Lynn, came on to be argued in the court of king’s
    bench.  It was a writ of error from the court of common pleas where a
    trial at bar was had on a _de essendo quietum de theolonio_ (of being
    quit of toll) brought by the city of London, to assert the right of
    their citizens being exempted from a toll on corn, demanded by the
    corporation of Lynn.  A verdict had been given for the city, and the
    errors were assigned on the informality of the declaration.  After
    much argument by serjeant Le Blanc, for Lynn, and sergeant Adair, for
    London, the court reversed the judgment, on the ground that the
    declaration did not state that the city of London had received such
    an injury on which an action could be maintained, the corporation of
    Lynn having demanded, but not having received, or distrained for the
    tolls in question.” {972}

Though our corporation, by this last decision, seem to have been relieved
from the payment of the heavy damages that would have resulted from the
first verdict, yet the whole affair must have been attended with no light
expence, which certain plans of economy subsequently adopted, and other
attendant appearances pretty clearly evinced.  How much wiser had it been
to grant those two gentlemen their freedom at once, to which they were so
clearly entitled by the great benefit which the town derived from their
extensive mercantile exertions.  Indeed the refusal of it was a piece of
flagrant injustice, as persons who contributed so much as they did to the
increase of our trade ought to have received in the town every possible
encouragement.  The treatment they met with here, proves the
defectiveness of our corporation laws and borough charters, and how ill
adapted they are to the present state of society in this country.
Sheffield, Manchester, and Birmingham, where things are on a different
footing, sufficiently evince the inutility and folly of our borough laws
and establishments, and that they are, in fact, grievances and nuisances
rather than national benefits.  Their abolition seems therefore an object
or event to be wished rather than deprecated.

The year 1792 has been rendered memorable by the _royal proclamation_,
issued on the 21st. of May, “for preventing of tumultuous meetings and
seditious writings;” and by the formation of _Reeve’s Association_, on
the 20th. of November, at the Crown and Anchor, “for preserving Liberty
and Property, against Republicans and Levellers.”  These sapient measures
had the desired effect, and operated mightily every where, as well as in
this town.  Treasury or ministerial agents were appointed in every town
and district, and Lynn was not forgotten.  Those agents were to observe
what publications were in circulation, and to apprize the Treasury board
of such as they were pleased to deem of dangerous tendency.  Not only the
drift or scope of political publications were objects of their
observation and watchfulness, but also the carriage, or conduct and
conversation, and even the social and convivial intercourse of all such
individuals as happened to disapprove of the politics of the court, or of
the accession of this country to the grand confederacy and crusade
against France.

A system of espionage was artfully formed and established, and the whole
country being filled with spies and informers, exhibited a miserable
scene of hypocrisy and dissimulation, instead of the blunt sincerity, and
the boasted uprightness and downrightness of other and better times.
This new order of things was admirably calculated to bear down and
overwhelm the minister’s opponents.  Some of the most eminent and
respectable men in the nation were accordingly marked out as disaffected
or suspicious characters, merely because they entertained different views
from the minister and his associates, and endeavoured to prevent this
country from joining the continental crusade, and even wished to see the
blessings of liberty extend all over the world.

Most of the mobility as well as the nobility of the realm, and a large
majority of both houses of parliament, being decidedly in favour of the
minister, he carried every thing before him with a high hand, ruled for
years with a rod of iron, and his little finger became heavier than the
loins of any of his predecessors since the revolution.  A spirit was then
by him awakened and set to work, which had lain fast asleep ever since
the days of the Stuarts, and Lynn partook of it in no small measure.  The
friends of peace and constitutional freedom, were here looked upon and
treated as ill-disposed persons, and unworthy characters, scarcely
entitled to the common rights of citizens, or the lowest offices of
humanity.  Such were some of the rare blessings we derived from the
administration of the last Pitt, who was at the same time hailed by
multitudes as a heaven born minister, the saviour of his country, and the
wisest and greatest of statesmen.  Nothing more clearly evinces the utter
dissimilarity between his character and that of his renowned father, than
the insatiate vindictiveness of his disposition towards those who opposed
his measures; {974} of which there have been many very glaring, and
numerous instances.

His reign terror was long and grievous.  It lasted during nearly the
whole length of the late war.  His successor, Addington held the reins
with a gentler hand, whatever may be said of his ministerial talents or
capacity.  He also restored to us the inestimable blessing of peace,
which Pitt seemed incapable of effecting.  That peace however, proved of
but short duration, which yet might not be the fault of the minister.  We
were not, it seems, sufficiently humbled, or really tired of the horrid
game of war, bloodshed and devastation: and so, without taking time to
breathe, we rushed headlong into a new war, which has already lasted
eight or nine years, and is likely to prove the longest and most
disastrous of any we have been engaged in for many ages.  God only knows
when or how it will terminate.

Great complaints having for sometime been made of the sad state of
fen-drainage in the parts above Lynn, much stir was made on that account
about the year 1794, and a Cut from Eaubrink to Lynn-harbour was then
proposed as a remedy for that growing evil.  The expediency of the
measure being agreed upon, an act of parliament was obtained in 1795 for
its accomplishment.  And though above fifteen years have since elapsed,
during most of which time a heavy tax has been levied on the lands there,
yet the projected cut, that was to produce such vast benefits, is not yet
begun: nor is it at all certain, or even very probable at present, that
it ever will, notwithstanding the vast sums that have been collected, and
are still collecting for that purpose, from the respective land-owners.
{976}  The act of parliament that was obtained, if not already renewed,
must, it seems, be so soon, because of this excessive procrastination.
How many such renewals must hereafter be resorted to before the work will
commence, it is impossible to say.  The promoters of this measure appear
to have engaged in it before they were sufficiently aware of the
magnitude and arduousness of the undertaking.  Their giving it up at last
would therefore be no great wonder.

In 1794 serious apprehensions of a French invasion began to be pretty
generally entertained in this kingdom; and in the summer of that year a
new body of volunteers was formed at Lynn, under the command of alderman
Edward Everard, junior.  This was more numerous than that which was
formed here some years before, and it continued embodied till the summer
of 1802.  The present writer being most of that time out of town, cannot
say much from his own knowledge of the character of this corps, but he
believes it was very fair, and no way discommendable, or discreditable to
its worthy commandant: and this seems strongly corroborated by a
paragraph which appeared in the _Lynn Packet_ at the time when the corps
was disbanded; {977} which also records the very day when that event took
place.—Before we dismiss 1794, we may just hint that we had here then a
violent thunderstorm, when a young girl was killed by the lightening.
(See Norfolk Remembrancer, p. 29.)

The year 1796 is rendered very memorable here by the fatal disaster which
happened then at the ferry in the mart time.  On the 23rd of February,
about 6 o’clock in the evening, many people, to the number of forty or
more, got into the ferry-boat; and though the boat-men remonstrated with
them, as being too many to be taken over at once, yet so anxious were
they to get over without further delay that none of them could be
persuaded to get out and wait for the return of the boat, it was a calm
evening, but the tide was coming in very strong.  The boat however
proceeded safely till it had almost reached the opposite shore, when
passing across some ropes belonging to a vessel lying there, it received
a violent concussion which laid it pretty much on one side: at that
moment the passengers, instead of keeping their places, rushed headlong
to the lower side, and thereby overset the boat in an instant.  Eleven of
them lost their lives; among whom was a man and his wife and daughter;
also two young persons on the point of marriage, who were afterwards
found clasped in each others arms.  It is rather wonderful that so many
of them were saved; but it was said to be owing to several boats being
then very near the spot, which came almost instantly to their assistance,
and succeeded in picking up and saving most of them.  Although the Lynn
ferry be but an awkward kind of passage, yet this seems to have been the
only very serious accident that has occurred there for a very great
length of time.  Our ferry-men in general are somewhat more civil and
decent than their brethren in other parts, who have often been classed
among the most rude and brutish of all our countrymen.

In 1797 a whale measuring 44 feet, (according to the Norfolk
Remembrancer,) was caught in Lynn channel.  In the course of the same
year our farmers are said to have discovered cleansing seed-wheat _by
water only_, (fresh water we suppose,) to be the best and most certain
preservative against the smut or brand.  If it be really so, many have
been at a great deal of needless trouble and expense in preparing their
seed-wheat.  But such an imputation is by no means peculiar to our wheat
growers.  It is commonly the case in a progress of investigation and
experiment.  Many a highly and generally esteemed practice or usage,
beside those that have obtained in the preparation of seed-corn, have
been afterwards found far from deserving the high estimation they had
acquired, and in which they had been long held. {979}

In the course of the year 1798, the fear of an invasion from France
became very strong and general in this part of the kingdom; which
occasioned our armed associations to be considerably multiplied.  Among
the new armed companies which sprung up, or were formed that year in this
country, we read of the Holkham Yeomanry Cavalry, commanded by T. W. Coke
Esq. and E. Rolfe Esq.  The Freebridge Smithdon Yeomanry Cavalry,
commanded by H. Styleman Esq.  The Freebridge Lynn Yeomanry Cavalry,
commanded by Joseph Taylor Esq. and the Swaffham ditto, commanded by J.
Micklethwaite Esq. &c. &c.  The very _clergy_ discovered a readiness and
strong desire to learn the use of arms, and one of them appears actually
to have become commandant of one of these new raised corps; for among the
military officers then enumerated the name of the _revd. T. Lloyd_
appeared as captain of the _North Walsham Volunteer company_.  This
clerical ardour for taking up arms was said to be sometime after checked
by episcopal authority, otherwise we might have had before now a very
great number of _reverend_ captains, and majors, and colonels.  The
Freebridge Lynn Yeomanry Cavalry remain still undisbanded under the
orders of their original leader.—An Act passed this year for draining &c.
the lands and fen grounds in Outwell, Stow Bardolph, Wimbotsham, and
Downham; which it is to be hoped has answered much better than the
_Feltwell_ new drainage act, which we have already noticed.—On the 29th.
of December this same year, at 11 P.M. the thermometer was said to be at
3 below 0: a degree of cold never before noticed in this island—if we may
rely on the authority of the _Norfolk Remembrancer_.

The year 1799 was rendered somewhat remarkable here by an attempt to
establish a Newspaper, under the name of the _Lynn and Wisbech Packet_;
but it did not finally succeed, though persevered in for several years.
Lynn seems not favourably situated for the success of such an
undertaking, placed as it is in a corner of the country, and the adjacent
parts well supplied with provincial papers of established repute and
extensive circulation.  It was therefore, perhaps, a rash and hopeless
attempt, so that its relinquishment at last need not to excite any great
surprise.  The projector hoped, when he resolved to try this experiment,
that it would prove a source of much gain, but he found in the end that
what he gained by it was only a pretty heavy loss, which placed him in
the list of unfortunate adventurers. {982}

But what rendered this year still more remarkable and memorable, both
here and throughout the kingdom, was the origination, introduction, and
operation of the _income tax_, which now took place and will not be soon
forgotten.  In former times this odious tax would have been very
unwelcome in this country, and probably deemed intolerable by the whole
nation.  The people would have thought themselves degraded to the lowest
degree, in being obliged to appear before certain of their own
neighbours, in the character of commissioners, and there disclose upon
oath the amount of their property and means of subsistence, in order to
empower the tax-gatherers to take from them a tenth part of their yearly
income, for the purpose of supporting and pursuing measures which many of
them utterly disapproved.  This vile impost was indeed doubly detestable,
as it not only sunk the subjects below the rank of freemen, but also laid
before them a strong incitement to falshood and perjury, and was, in all
probability, the means of greatly increasing our national guilt and
depravity.  But these were considerations that weighed but little with
the minister and his associates.  An increasing revenue was with them of
infinitely greater importance.—On the 2nd. of June this year, a pleasure
boat going off from _Heacham_ to a vessel lying in Lynn channel overset,
and out of fourteen persons, who were on board, men women and children,
twelve unfortunately perished.—This year also, from continued rains, the
harvest was not got in, in some parts of Norfolk till the beginning of
November; and in some parts of the kingdom some corn lay rotting in the
fields at the beginning of December: a like instance had not occurred
before for 40 or 50 years.

              [Picture: East Gate Lynn: taken down in 1800]

One of the most memorable of the Lynn occurrences in 1800, was the taking
down the _East-gates_, which had stood many centuries, and made a
somewhat venerable appearance.  They had been for sometime a subject of
complaint on account of the difficulty of entrance for highloaded
waggons, by reason of the lowness of the arch.  This act of dilapidation
therefore was a case of necessity, and the removal of a nuisance, and it
rendered that entrance into the town much pleasanter than before.—But an
occurrence of this year which far more affected the public mind, in this
town, as well as throughout the kingdom, was the regicide attempt of the
maniac Hadfield on the evening of the 15th. of May, at Drury Lane
theatre.  The poor insane wretch fired a horse-pistol towards the king’s
box just as his majesty entered it, but fortunately missed him, owing it
seems to a person near him, with great presence of mind, raising his arm
when in the act of firing, and so directing the contents of the pistol to
the roof of the house.  This shocking deed occasioned no small
consternation in the house; but it soon subsided, and the play went on to
the entire satisfaction and amusement of the whole company, the royal
family not excepted.

The news of this horrid attempt upon the king’s life, and of his happy
escape, deeply affected the minds of his Lynn subjects, from whom no less
than two addresses were soon after presented to his majesty on the
occasion; one from the mayor and _corporation_, and the other from the
mayor and the _inhabitants_. {984}  Both of them were penned in a
language perfectly dutiful and loyal, which, without doubt, was expressed
with the utmost truth and sincerity.  The same may also be said of all
the numerous addresses which then reached the throne, from all quarters;
which proves the sovereign’s great popularity, and how high he stood in
the estimation of his addressing subjects.  His successor it is to be
hoped will prove himself no less deserving of his people’s attachment.

Since the year 1800, and the commencement of the present century, nothing
more remarkable is known to have occurred here than what has been
produced by the operation of new taxes and new laws—especially our _poor_
and _paving_ laws. {985}  These certainly have borne and are still
bearing hard upon a large portion of the industrious inhabitants.  Of
these matters some notice has been taken already, and they will probably
be further noticed when we come to give a view of the _present state_ of
the town.  Such remarkable occurrences as the author may be able to
recollect, or any one else may put him in mind of, as having been
overlooked in the preceding pages, shall be carefully inserted in a
_Chronological Table_ at the end of the work.—Having now brought this
history down to _the present time_, we shall here close this section.


SECTION X.


_Biographical sketches of some of the most eminent or distinguished
personages among the natives or inhabitants of Lynn_, _from the
reformation to the present
day—Watts—Arrowsmith—Goodwin—Horne—Phelpes—Falkner—Goddard_.

In the list of persons of real note, or memorable distinction who
appeared since the reformation among the natives or inhabitants of this
town, the first place, in order of time, seems to belong to _William
Watts_, said to have been a native of this borough, or its vicinity.  The
time of his birth is not recorded, but is supposed to have been about the
close of the reign of Elizabeth.  He probably received the rudiments of
his education in the Grammar school of this town, which was from 1597 to
1608 under the care of _Mr. John Man_, afterwards minister of South Lynn,
and from 1608 to 1612 or 13, under that of _Mr. Henry Allston_.  He was
afterwards sent to Caius College in Cambridge, where he appears to have
made great proficiency, and to have finished his academical education.
He then went and made some stay at Oxford; after which he travelled, as
Anthony Wood says, into several countries, and became master of divers
languages.  In his travels he is supposed to have made his chief stay in
Holland, where he became acquainted with the celebrated _John Gerard
Vossius_, who entertained a very favourable and high opinion of him, and
spoke of him as _doctissimus et clarissimus Watsius_, _qui optime de
historia meruit_.  At his return, after the accession of Charles I, he
was made one of the king’s chaplains, and preferred successively to
livings and dignities in the church.  Being, as might be expected, a
zealous royalist, and adhering firmly to the king’s cause, he was
sequestered, plundered, and left without a shelter for his wife and
children.  He was carried by his courage and resentment into the field
with prince Rupert, during the hardiest of his exploits; and died, in
1649, on board his fleet, in the harbour of Kinsale.  He had an especial
hand, says Wood, in Sir Henry Spelman’s Glossary; he edited Matthew
Paris, and, exclusively of other treatises, he published, before the
civil war of England began, several numbers of new books, in the English
tongue, (more than forty,) containing the occurrences in the wars between
the king of Sweden and the Germans.  When he returned from his travels,
Newspapers were very little known in this country.  They had first
appeared in the reign of Elizabeth, under the sage direction of Burleigh;
but they were published only occasionally, and were all extraordinary
gazettes.  They appeared frequently about the time of the armada, and are
supposed to have then answered very important purposes.  Being no longer
deemed necessary when that danger was past, they were discontinued.  The
public curiosity having been much gratified by these publications, the
people would be no longer satisfied without a newspaper.  It was
therefore not long before publications of that kind began to make their
appearance.  They were at first occasional, and afterwards weekly.
“_Nathaniel Butter_, at the Pyde-Bull, St. Augustin’s gate,” established
a weekly newspaper, in August 1622, entitled “The certain news of the
present week.”  How long he continued his hebdomadal intelligences does
not appear.  He is said to have laid little before his readers, which
could enlarge knowledge, or excite risibility; though his battles may
have surprised and elevated, and his sieges may have alternately agitated
the hopes and fears of his countrymen.  He had, however, competitors and
imitators.  In February 1635–6 was first published a fresh paper of
Weekly Newes.  The foreign intelligence of May 22, was conveyed in number
13.  This too was a small quarto of 14 pages; and it was printed in
London, for Mercurius Britannicus; which proves sufficiently that that
well known title had a more early origin than has been generally
supposed.  Similar papers were continued, though they assumed different
names.  Butter, who appears to have been the most active and enterprising
newsmonger of his time, was influenced by his interest to tell—

    “News, old news, and such news as you never heard of.”

He was thus induced to convert his Weekly News into _half-yearly news_,
(two of which making a kind of _annual register_) which shews that he was
a person of no common enterprize.  In order to insure success to so novel
an undertaking, an able compiler seemed absolutely necessary; and Butter
very judiciously fixed upon Watts for that department.  He accordingly
complied with the projector’s proposal, and so became the precursor of
_Johnson_, _Burke_, _Kippis_, _Southey_, and the rest of our
distinguished literary characters, who have been since employed in
similar departments.  How long he continued thus employed we have not
been able to discover; but it is probably it might be till near the
commencement of the civil wars: and as he was likely to have
distinguished himself, in the mean time, as a warm, and perhaps violent
advocate for the measures of the court, it may in some measure account
for the hardship and severity which he and his family afterwards
experienced from the opposite party, by the hands of the sequestrators.
Be that as it might, William Watts was certainly a person so
distinguished in his day, as to deserve to have his name preserved among
the most eminent characters that sprung up here during the period we are
now reviewing.

2.  _John Arrowsmith_ M.A. Fellow of Catherine Hall, in Cambridge,
afterwards D.D., Master of St. John’s College, and member of the
Westminster Assembly of Divines.  Where he was born we have not been able
to learn; but he came to this town about Michaelmas 1630, being then
chosen minister of St. Nicholas’ chapel, in which capacity he continued
during the whole time of his residence here, which was fourteen years.
The town allowed him a salary of 100_l._ a year, which must have been
equal to 6 or 700_l._ of our money.  He was also allowed a house to live
in, or 5_l._ a year in lieu of it, which would pay a house-rent now of
between 30 and 40_l._ a year.  It appears that he was treated here,
during the whole of his residence, with singular and universal respect;
from which it may be inferred that he came well recommended, conducted
himself with great prudence and propriety, and that his ministerial
labours were highly acceptable.  Yet Arrowsmith evidently belonged to the
puritans, a party for which Lynn was never understood to entertain any
particular predilection.  How far his ministry contributed to prepare the
town for the new order of things which took place in consequence of the
siege, and with which the generality of the inhabitants appeared very
compliable, we have not the means of ascertaining.  But whatever might be
the political tendency of his public labours here, their being highly
acceptable to his hearers seems very clear and undeniable.  For though he
and the principal cotemporary minister of St. Margaret’s had several
assistants, {990a} who performed the parts assigned to them on Sundays
and week days with good acceptance, yet the present writer has in his
hands sufficient documents {990b} to prove that he stood above them all
in the public estimation.  It is therefore presumed that we are fully
warranted in placing him among the most eminent of the inhabitants of
this town during the said period.  The historian Neal speaks of him as a
person “of unexceptionable character for learning and piety;” and further
says, that “he was an accute disputant, and a judicious divine, as
appears by his _Tactica Sacra_, a book of great reputation in those
times.”  He died before the restoration, and therefore his name does not
appear in _Calamy_ and _Rastrick’s lists of ejected ministers_.

Before we take our final leave of Dr. Arrowsmith, it may not be improper
to apprize the reader of two persons whom the town successively fixed
upon to occupy the vacant place of principal minister of St. Nicholas,
immediately previous to their making choice of him.  These, as appears to
the present writer, were no other than the two _Goodwins_, _Thomas_ and
_John_, who became so famous and distinguished afterwards among the
English nonconformists.  In a document or record above alluded to, and
extracted probably from the Hall-Books, the following passage
occurs.—“1629, 12 June; Mr. Mayor and Mr. Tho. Gurlyn, aldn. travel to
Cambridge to move Mr. Tho. Goodwin A.M. to come hither to (be) preacher
in ys town, and Mr. M. A. CC elected sd.  Mr. G. if he will accept
thereof.”  But he did not accept of their invitation, owing probably to
his having been previously chosen lecturer of Trinity church in
Cambridge, of which he afterwards became vicar. {993}

Having failed in their application to him, their next choice fell on John
Goodwin, afterwards, if we are not mistaken, the noted minister of
Coleman street, and the far-famed champion of arminianism and
republicanism.  He also was a Cambridge man, and had been Fellow of
Queen’s College ever since 1617.  He and Tho. Goodwin were both Norfolk
men, and also near relations, if the present writer is not misinformed.
But surely no two relations—not even Herbert Marsh and William Frend,
could be more unlike one another.  Thomas was a high supralapsarian
Calvinist, and, of course, mortally hated Arminianism: John, on the other
hand, was a decided Arminian, and one of its most redoubtable champions;
and therefore held Calvinism in the utmost abhorrence.  His firm and
successful opposition to that system is said to have saved him at the
restoration from utter ruin, in which his antimonarchical and republican
productions would have inevitably involved him, when one or more of his
books, together with some of _Milton’s_, were burnt by the common
hangman:—a poor way, by the bye, to refute their contents, or arguments.

3.  _John Goodwin_ when invited to Lynn held the living of _Rainham_ in
the same county: yet he accepted that invitation, took up his residence
here, and became the successor of Mr. Nic. Price, as chief minister of
St. Nicholas’ chapel.  But his settlement here was not long, scarcely
exceeding one year; for he was chosen July 31. 1629—acceded to that
choice on the 10th of the next month, and within a year, or very little
more, from that period, he was, as the MS. says, _inhibited for preaching
here_, [by the _bishop_ we presume; but _on_ what account does not
appear;] and Dr. Arrowsmith was appointed to succeed him, at the
michaelmas following, i.e. 1630, for further particulars concerning him,
the reader is referred to the historians of the succeeding period, and to
our general biographers. {994}  With all his singularities and
imperfections, he must have been in his day a very considerable and
highly distinguished character.

4.  _John Horne_—was another of our townsmen of former times, whose name
deserves to be rescued from oblivion, and retained in the memory of the
inhabitants.  He was born at _Long Sutton_, _Lincolnshire_, in 1615; and
educated at Trinity College in Cambridge, where he had Henry Hall B.D.
for his tutor.  He probably went into orders before 1640; and we are told
that he _preached first at Sutton St. James_, in his native
neighbourhood.  It has been also supposed that he had afterwards a curacy
at or near _Bullingbrook_, in the same county, and it seems somewhat
probable that he married during his residence at that place. {995}  Be
that as it might, it is certain that his stay there was not very long,
for he took up his residence at Lynn in 1646, {996} where he continued
ever after to the day of his death, which was full thirty years.  His
coming hither was in consequence of having obtained the living or
vicarage of Allhallows, or All-saints, in South Lynn, where he succeeded
Mr. _John Man_, whom we noticed before, at p. 702 of this work, and who
had resided here, first as _usher_, then _master_ of the Grammar School,
and afterwards as _vicar of South Lynn_, for the long space of between 50
and 60 years. {997a}

Having obtained the vicarage of South Lynn Allhallows, in 1646, Mr. H.
continued in the faithful and diligent discharge of his duty there till
1662, when the _act of uniformity_, which took effect on _Bartholomew
day_ that year, {997b} rendered his situation there no longer tenable.
He was then ejected from his vicarage of Allhallows in this town, as were
also above 2000 worthy clergymen in different parts of the kingdom, to
the great discouragement of integrity and piety, and the eternal disgrace
of the rulers in church and state.  A very respectable biographer and
memorialist speaks of Mr. Horne as follows—“He was an _Arminian_ in the
point of redemption, and contended earnestly for the universality of it;
but did not either believe or teach, that men may therefore live as they
list, because Christ died for them; but taught that Christ therefore
‘died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto
themselves, but unto him that died for them and rose again.’ 2 Cor. v.
14, 15.  He was a man of most exemplary and primitive piety, and
blameless conversation; very ready in the scriptures; excellently skilled
in the oriental tongues, and very laborious in his private capacity after
he was cast out of his living.  He went constantly to church, and yet
preached _thrice_ at his own house every Lord’s day; first, in the
morning before sermon; then after dinner, before church-time; and again
in the evening.  On the other days of the week, beside lecture-sermons,
he constantly expounded the scriptures in order twice a day, to all that
would come to hear him, as some always did. {998}  He was a man of great
charity, commonly emptying his pocket of what money he had in it amongst
the poor, when he went into the town.  He was of great compassion and
tenderheartedness towards such as were in any affliction; a man of
wonderfull meekness, patience, and dispassionateness; and was generally
very much honoured and esteemed for his goodness, both in town and
country.”  We need no further proof of his being held here in high and
general esteem, than that he was suffered to live in the town, and
exercise his ministry, for the whole fourteen years he resided here after
his ejection, and which was perhaps the very worst part of the
persecuting and detestable reign of Charles II.  Some old people used to
say some years ago, that his lecturing or preaching place was in some
obscure alley about Black-goose Street.  However that was, Mr. Horne may
justly be considered as the _father of the Lynn Dissenters_: nor need
they be ashamed to own him as such.  Beside his other labours, which were
so very abundant, his labours as a _writer_ were by no means
inconsiderable.  Mr. _Palmer_ has preserved the titles of _near thirty
publications_, of different sizes, of which he was the author; {999}
which shews how active he was in employing his pen, as well as his
tongue, in promoting what he deemed useful and profitable instruction.
On the whole, it may be pretty safely concluded that such a union of
laboriousness, conscientiousness, and piety, as appeared in the person of
Mr. Horne, was scarce ever witnessed in any minister of this town, either
before or since his time.  His memory therefore ought to be very highly
honoured.  He died here on the 14th of December 1676, aged 61.  His wife
survived him near ten years.  She died May 24. 1686, aged 73.  What
family they had we are unable to say.  One Son, named _Thomas_, died
about two years before the father, at the age of 28: and we are inclined
to think there was another son, of both the father’s names, who long
survived his parents, and that this son was no other than the afterwards
famous master of the Lynn grammar school, who may be justly called _the
Dr. Busby of this town_.  That he exercised over his pupils so severe a
discipline as that of the celebrated master of Westminster School, is
what we will not take upon us to affirm—nor yet that he educated an equal
number of eminent men; but in the assiduity with which he executed his
charge there must have been a strong resemblance, and especially in the
length of time he continued at the head of his seminary, for he held the
mastership of the Lynn grammar school upwards of fifty years.  He must
therefore have been notable and eminent in his day among the inhabitants
of this town.  On which account, whether he was the son of the former
John Horne, or not, he is entitled to some notice in the present list.

5.  _John Horne junr._ A.M. (of the University of Cambridge, as it is
supposed) was born in 1644.  So that in case he was the son of the
former, he must have been born about two years before his father settled
in this town, which will very well agree with the former supposition, of
his being previously married, while he resided at, or near Bullingbrook.
After he left the university, the subject of the present article was for
some time _usher_ of the Grammar School at Norwich, whence he was invited
to become _master_ of that at Lynn.  This was in 1678: whereupon he
removed hither, and continued at the head of this school above 50 years;
so that it may pretty safely be concluded that he educated a far greater
number of pupils than any other master in this town.  He died in 1732.
aged 88, and was buried in St. Nicholas’ chapel, close to the grave of
the other John Horne; which, together with his refraining from going into
orders, may corroborate the opinion of his being the son of that worthy
and memorable man. {1001a}  However that was, he appears to have been a
person of a very respectable character, who faithfully served his
generation, and deserved well of his cotemporaries and of posterity;
{1001b} which, it is to be feared, is more than can be said of all, or
every one of his successors.

6.  _Charles Phelpes_.  In point of time he ought to have been placed
before the last, being his senior, by near twenty years.  But as the
former was supposed to be the son of the preceding, it was thought proper
to let his name immediately follow.  The subject of this article, if not
a relation, was yet an intimate friend of the elder Horne, and perhaps an
occasional assistant to him in the ministry; but of this there is no
clear proof.  Nor is it at all certain that he afterwards ever officiated
in the congregation as a public teacher. {1002a}  All we know of him is,
that he was a person eminently distinguished here in his day for his
religious knowledge, his benevolence, and his piety, which he strove
unweariedly to promote by his example, his conversation, and his
writings. {1002b}  In short, he was a blessing to the town, and one of
that sort of men that may not improperly be called the “salt of the
earth,” to whose benevolent and pious exertions we owe almost every thing
truly good and valuable that is to be found amongst us.  He was therefore
clearly entitled to a place in this list, or biographical sketch.  He
died on 3rd of January 1711 in the 85th. year of his age, as we learn
from his grave stone to St. Nicholas’ Church yard, over against the great
South door, where it is said, and said truly no doubt, that he was “a
person of exemplary piety and goodness.”  We have heard that he was great
uncle to the late vicar of South Lynn of the same name, who, though of
inferior worth, was yet far from being one of the worst sort of
clergymen.

7.  _Guybon Goddard_.  We hear of him first as _Deputy Recorder_ of this
borough, in 1645, under the memorable Miles Corbet, who had been chosen
Recorder the preceding year.  Goddard continued his deputy till 1650, or
rather till the beginning of the ensuing year, when he succeeded to the
recordership, as appears from the following passage in the Hall-books.
“Jan. 31. 1650, 51; This day Mr. Mayor and aldermen have elected and
chosen in the place of Miles Corbet, Esq. (called by the Parliament to
the service of Ireland) _Guybon Goddard_ Esq. Recorder, provided always,
that he, accepting of the place, shall come and inhabit in this town, for
the better assistance of the succeeding mayors with his advice and
councell.”  It may be supposed that he took up his residence here
accordingly.  However that might be, it seems he retained the place over
after, and executed the duties, attached to it with much credit to
himself, and to the satisfaction of the body corporate and the rest the
community.  He was doubtless very good lawyer, but more distinguished
perhaps as an antiquary, to which pursuit he was much devoted, in which
his acquirements we supposed to have been very considerable.  His
brother-in-law, _Sir William Dugdale_, and _Parkin_ also, make honourable
mention of his antiquarian attainments, {1003} and is such a case they
must have been very competent judges.  To archaiological objects in the
adjacent and surrounding country he paid much attention, and still more
to those that appertained to this town, his collection for a history of
which is supposed to have been very complete, and excited for a long
while very high expectation among his cotemporaries.  But they were all
sadly disappointed; for it was never suffered to see the light: and
though the corporation, after his decease, endeavoured to procure it from
his son, and offered for it what must have been at that time a handsome
gratuity; yet it does not appear that they were able to obtain it.  What
became of it afterwards no one can tell: but it is most probable that it
has long ago been irretrievably lost.  Had it been preserved, and fallen
into the present writer’s hands, it might (as was hinted at p. 821,) have
rendered this work far more worthy than it now is of the public
patronage.  In Parkin’s History of Freebridge (p. 293,) the death of
Goddard is placed in 1671, which we suspect to be a mistake for 1677, as
the application to his son was made about the beginning of the next year;
and it is not likely it would have been deferred for so long a time as
seven years.  However that was Guybon Goddard seems clearly entitled to
have his name enrolled among the memorable men of Lynn.

8.  _William Falkner_, _D.D._—He came to this town in 1658, recommended
by Dr. Arrowsmith and Dr. Tuckney, and was engaged as an assistant to Mr.
Hoogan, who had succeeded Dr. A. as senior or principal minister of St.
Nicholas’ Chapel.  Falkner was then Fellow of Peter-house in Cambridge;
so that there is no reason to suppose him the same as that _William
Falconer_, _M.A. of Aberdeen_, whom, according to _Granger_, _Wood_ in
his Fasti mentions, under 1671, as incorporated into the University of
Oxford, and one of the first exhibitioners at Baliol College.  At the
death or removal of Mr. Hoogan, F. appears to have succeeded him as chief
minister, and in that situation he is supposed to have continued ever
after; though, considering the prominent appearance he made among his
brethren, it is not likely that he was left without other preferments.
His residence here was about 24 years.  He died April, 9. 1682: nor does
it appear that he was then an old man; about 50, perhaps, or very little
more.  We have not been able to learn the character of his public
ministry and pastoral labours, or how far he therein resembled Horne, or
Arrowsmith.  But, as a scholar and writer, he must have stood high among
the Lynn clergy, and even among those of the whole diocese; for he was
very learned, and his writings for the most part, were well calculated to
render him famous among his brethren, and gain him the approbation and
applause of the highest dignitaries of the church, and the chief
functionaries of the state, or civil government.  For passive obedience
and non-resistance, and the whole tory system, then the darling doctrine
of the clergy and the court, he was a warm and able advocate.  Nor was he
less so for the church of England, against the Romanists, on the one
hand, and our protestant sectaries, on the other.  How he would have
stood, had he lived a few years longer, or till the eve of the
revolution, it is impossible to say.  But it is certain that many, who
were to the full as torified as he in the reign of Charles, changed their
minds and their tones greatly during that of his successor, so as to
caress as friends and brethren, those very sectaries and schismatics, as
they used to call them, whom they had before endeavoured with all their
might to distress and crush.  That Dr. F. would have done the same, had
he lived so long, is more than we are warranted to affirm, through we
would fain hope that such would have been the case.—Among the books of
which he was the author were several pieces of divinity, which first
perhaps appeared separately, but were in 1684, two years after his death,
printed together in a quarto volume.  As it has never fallen in our way,
we can say nothing of its merits.  But his principal publications seem to
be the following; 1. _Libertas Ecclesiastica_, an english octavo volume,
published in 1674, and spoken of, by Granger, as a book of merit.  2. A
_vindication of Liturgies_, or set forms of prayer: printed in London in
1680.  This was animadverted upon and answered by the memorable _Dr.
Collinges_ of Norwich, an eminent ejected Minister, _first_ in a piece
entitled, “A reasonable account of the judgment of nonconforming
ministers, as to prescribed forms of prayer; with a supplement in Answer
to Dr. Falkner of Liturgies;” and afterwards in another piece, entitled,
“The vindication of Liturgies, lately published by Dr. Falkner, proved no
vindication, &c.”  3. _Christian Loyalty_: or a discourse, wherein is
asserted that just Royal Authority and Eminency which in this Church and
Realm of _England_ is yielded to the KING.  Especially concerning
_supremacy_ in _Causes Ecclesiastical_.  Together with the disclaiming of
all _Foreign Jurisdictions_ and the unlawfulness of Subjects TAKING ARMS
against the KING.  This is a most notable production, and it seems not a
little unaccountable that it did not immediately procure him a mitre.  It
is much in the way of Sir Robert Filmer, and the rest of our great
Tory-writers, and scarcely inferior to the very best of them.  It was
printed in London in 1679, and again, it seems, in 1684, which shews that
it was well approved of and sought for.  Dr. Falkner dying, as was said,
in 1682, was succeeded at St. Nicholas’ by a _Mr. Killeingbeck_, of whom
we have heard nothing further.


SECTION XI.


_Biographical Sketches
continued—Littel—Pyle—Hepburn—Rastrick—Browne—Keene—&c._

9.  _Thomas Littel_, _D.D._  He is supposed to have settled here, as one
of our officiating clergy, pretty soon after the revolution; but whether
as vicar and principal minister of the town, or as Lecturer, or in an
inferior station as the Vicar’s curate, we cannot positively say.  It is
certain however that he soon succeeded as vicar or chief minister of the
town, and continued in that situation for a great many years.  Though a
Doctor in Divinity, he is supposed not to have stood high among his
brethren and contemporaries as a scholar, a preacher, or as a divine; but
there were traits in his character that were of no unamiable cast,
especially in regard to his attention to the edification of the common
people.  In more recent times he would probably have been deemed a
methodistical clergyman, which is not mentioned here as dishonourable to
his memory, but rather the contrary, as it is the opinion of the present
writer, that if a _reasonable portion_ of methodism were imbibed by the
clergy, it would render their ministry more popular, and prove of
material advantage to the lower orders of their auditors.  In Dr.
Littel’s time, a great many of his hearers, of the poorer classes, as it
would seem, became desirous of improving themselves in religious
knowledge; and the course that appeared to them most likely, or the best
for attaining that object was to establish private meetings for free
discussion, or serious conference.  Whether they had been led to this
from something of the kind that existed among their dissenting neighbours
here, we are not able to say; but it is certain that such exercises are
much more common among dissenters than among churchmen.  However that
was, it seems they were not disposed to put the plan in practice without
consulting Dr. Littel, who was then vicar of St. Margaret’s and chief
minister of the town: and it does not appear that he urged any material
objection, or gave them any serious discouragement.  But he was aware
that it would not be safe or proper for him to countenance such a measure
without the privity and permission of his diocesan.  He accordingly
applied to _Dr. Moore_, who then filled the see of Norwich, and who, in
his answer, dated September 10. 1697, appeared no way hostile to the
measure, provided it were properly conducted; though he said, however
friendly he might be to the design, yet he did not find he had any power
by law to constitute and authorize such assemblies.  Nevertheless he
consented to allow the experiment to be here tried, under certain
regulations.  This episcopal letter is on the whole a very curious
document, and not dishonourable to his lordship’s memory; but it is too
long for insertion here.  He cautioned them to avoid all discussions
about state affairs, and whatever might tend to give umbrage to
government; and he advised them to meet in small rather than large
companies: which advice was probably adhered to.  However that was, the
intended measure was soon put in practice.  For six or seven years the
meetings seem to have been kept in private houses, under certain general
regulations.  But in 1704 the plan was further matured, new rules of
conference were drawn up, {1010} and the meetings afterwards were
generally if not constantly kept in the Vestry of St. Margaret’s Church,
till the death of Dr. Littel, which happened in 1732.  The Society then
languished and dwindled away, so that in the year 1744 it was reduced to
six members, whose names were Colins Banister, James Cowell, Joshua
Edwards senr. Adam Holditch, John Lee, and William Rayns: It appears to
have been dissolved soon after, having existed about fifty years; and for
a long time no memorial of it remained, except in some old papers which
fell into the present writer’s hands accidentally.  This Society had
formed a library, a catalogue of which it also in this writer’s
possession.  What became of the books at last, does not appear.  We know
of nothing more creditable to the memory of Dr Littel, than the
countenance he afforded to those serious people.  It is supposed that his
successor in the Vicarage of St. Margaret did not also succeed him as the
patron of this Institution.

10.  _Thomas Pyle M.A._  Of the birth-place and the early part of the
life of the rev. T. Pyle, whose name is still mentioned with veneration
by the few who remember him as a preacher, we have not been able to
obtain any account.  So rapid is the neglect or the forgetfulness of oral
tradition!  From his epitaph we learn indeed that he was born in 1674.
About the year 1698, he was examined for ordination, at Norwich, by the
celebrated and truly honest William Whiston, at that time chaplain to
bishop Moore, who has stated in the interesting Memoirs of his Life, that
Dr. Sydal and Mr. Pyle were the best scholars among the many candidates
whom it was his office to examine.  It is probable that he was ordained
upon the title of one of the curacies of St Margaret’s parish, as he
married, in 1701, a Mrs Mary Rolfe of an affluent and respectable family
in Lynn, and in the same year he was appointed by the Corporation to be
minister or preacher of St. Nicholas’ Chapel.  He published some
political Sermons in the years 1706, 1707. and especially in the year
1715.  In these discourses he vindicated and enforced those principles to
which we are indebted for the expulsion of the Stuarts, and for the
elevation of the Brunswick family to the throne.  About the same period
he became generally known as the author of a very useful Paraphrase on
the Historical Books of the Old Testament, and another on the Acts, the
Epistles and the Revelation of the New Testament.  Soon afterwards he
enlisted himself as a writer in the Bangorian Controversy, and was a
strenuous and able advocate of the civil and religious principles of Bp.
Hoadly.  He appears to have been on terms of particular friendship with
some of the greatest and best men in the Church of England, such as Dr.
Sam. Clarke, Mr. Jackson of Leicester, Dr. Sykes, Bp. Hoadly, Dr.
Herring, afterwards abp. of Canterbury; and equally so with some eminent
dissenting ministers, particularly Dr. Sam. Chandler and Mr. Rastrick of
Lynn.  Many years after his death his youngest son, the rev. Philip Pyle,
published several volumes of his “Sermons on plain and practical
Subjects.”  His writings are characterised by a perspicuity and manly
sense, rather than by any elevation of style, or by a graceful
negligence; and yet in the delivery of his sermons, so impressive was his
elocution, that both in the metropolis and in the country, he was one of
the most admired preachers of his time.  The flowing lines were sent to
him on his Sermon preached at Lincoln’s Inn, May 4th. 1735, on Gen. III,
19.

    What sounds are these!  What energy divine,
    What master-strokes in every precept shine!
    While from thy lips the warm expression breaks,
    What heart but melteth as the preacher speaks!
    Thy voice is nature, and thy diction clear,
    It strikes like music on the listening ear.
    —“Vain foolish man to murmur at thy fate,
    The bounteous hand of heaven still leaves thee great;
    Still makes thee first of beings here below,
    Still gives thee more of happiness than woe.
    To lazy indolence this world may seem
    A barron wilderness; an idle dream;
    Thistles and brambles to the slothful eye,
    But roses to the hand of industry.
    ’Tis sordid avaries, with her sneaking train,
    Ambition, who torments herself in vain,
    Th’ unnumbered lusts that prey upon the mind,
    Fix the primeval curse on human kind.
    By their brow’s sweat their bread the labourers earn,
    But then no passions in their bosoms burn:
    Soon as the evening shade the day-light close,
    Unbroken slumbers crown their soft repose;
    And when the morning dawn salutes their eyes,
    Anteus-like, with double vigour rise.
    No stings of conscience! no remorse from sin!
    They feel the noblest paradise within;
    Content serene, that sunshine of the soul,
    With her warm beam invigorates the whole;
    Her blossom, health! her fruit, untainted joy!
    Nor pain nor death her relish can destroy;
    In unpolluted streams her pleasures flow,
    No weedy passions in her bosom grow.”
    —Thus faintly have I sketch’d thy glorious plan;
    Which fills, improves, adorns the inward man.
    Still urge thy generous task, to cleanse the mind,
    Till from the dregs of passion ’tis refin’d;
    To prune each vice, each folly of the age,
    Each wild excrescence of this earthly stage.
    Tho’ old in goodness, to the world resign’d,
    Still want thy heaven to give it to mankind.
    Religion’s friend! and virtue’s strongest guard!
    That heaven alone such merit can reward,
    Its joys approach no tongue but thine can tell;
    Doubt not to taste what thou describ’st so well.

With such talents, and with such connections, it cannot easily be
accounted for, that Mr. Pyle should remain during so long a life in a
situation of comparative obscurity.  Sir Robert Walpole was the member
for Lynn; and both the political and religious opinions of Mr. Pyle were
calculated to recommend him to queen Caroline, who then impartially
dispensed the dignities of the Church.  Perhaps the spirit of the man was
not thought sufficiently accommodating for an introduction to a court;
or, like the late Dr. Ogden of Cambridge, from some deficiency of
external polish, he might be deemed not producible.  A passage in Abp.
Herring’s Correspondence with Mr. Duncombe seems to be decisive on this
point.  “Tom Pyle is a learned and worthy, as well as a lively and
entertaining man.  To be sure his success has not been equal to his
merit, which yet, perhaps, is in some measure owing to himself; for that
very impetuosity of spirit, which, under proper government, renders him
the agreeable creature he is, has, in some circumstances of life, got the
better of him, and hurt his views.” {1015a}  From whatever cause, with
the exception of a Prebend of Salisbury, which he received from Bp.
Hoadly, he was only in succession Lecturer and Minister of Lynn St.
Margaret, and vicar of Lynn All-saints—all truly but a poor and paltry
pittance for such a man, and from a church which had such immense
abundance of good things to bestow; most of which too were actually
bestowed on far unworthier objects.—The following Letters which passed
between Mr. Pyle and Abp. Herring are highly characteristic and
interesting.

    “My Lord,

    In the universal acclamation of joy for your Grace’s promotion to the
    Primacy of all England, may the feeble voice of an old man be heard,
    the short remainder of whose life, will pass off with a pleasure that
    nothing could have given, but seeing at the head of the Church, a
    Prelate so affectionately attached to the interests of Truth, Virtue,
    and Liberty.

                         I am, my Lord, your Grace’s most dutiful Servant.
                                                               THO: PYLE.”

                                * * * * *

    “Dear Sir,

    Your kind wishes for me give me spirit, and make my heart glad, for
    in good faith, I have been teazed and terrified with this exaltation;
    and thus much I will venture to say for myself, it sha’nt make me
    proud, it sha’nt make me covetous, it sha’nt make me ungrateful or
    unmindful of my Friends, but it frights me, and I fear has robbed me
    of the most precious thing in life, which is Liberty, but I will
    assert as much of it as I can, and not be for ever bound to the
    trammels of a long tail and ceremony, which my soul abhors.

    I saw S—. Ch—r the other day.  I really affect and honour the man,
    and wish with all my soul that the Church of England had him, for his
    spirit and learning are certainly of the first class; and I regard
    him the more because he resembles you and your manner.  You talk of
    age and all that, but if I may judge from your letter, your eyes are
    good, your hand is steady, and I am sure your heart is warm for your
    friends, and those good things you mention, Truth, and Virtue, and
    Liberty, but that sort of warmth will certainly go to the grave with
    you and beyond it.

                                 I am, Dear Sir, your affectionate Friend,
                                                     Tho: CANTUAR.” {1017}

    Kensington. 17. Dec. 1747.

From the part which Mr. P. took in the Bangorian Controversy, and the
terms of particular friendship on which he was known to live with Bp.
Hoadly, we may be very sure that there subsisted between them a frequent
correspondence.  Copies of two of the letters that passed between them
are now in the hands of the present writer.  He has no reason to suppose
that they ever have been published, or are likely to be so, unless they
appear on this occasion.  Thinking it highly probable that a sight of
them cannot fail of gratifying many of his readers, he takes the liberty
without further ceremony to introduce them in this place; not at all
apprehensive that their contents will any way disparage the memory of
either of the memorable personages by whom they were originally written,

    “My Lord,

    You may remember that when by your kind aid the affair of M—m was
    concluded in my Son’s favour, I presented my humble (and said it
    should be my last) petition to you, begging of you to be pleased to
    bestow on him a living that might consist with M—m, and that you were
    so good as to promise to give him any living you had not then engaged
    to dispose of otherways.—An incident has lately arisen of such a
    nature, as, I am sure will excuse my repeating the above-named
    request to your Lordship, with the utmost earnestness.—My Lord, Mrs.
    Bilk the D. of N—ch’s W. with her husband’s good liking, and out of
    the esteem she has long had for me and mine, and especially for my
    son Ph—. has been pleased to propose him as a H. for her niece, the
    only child of Mr. Arrowsmith: such a proposal from one who can and
    will make a considerable addition to the very good fortune that the
    young lady’s father can give her, is a great proof of her esteem for
    my son, who has been much with her from his childhood: and what she
    requires on my part is that I use my interest in your lordship, and
    mention her as joining with me to beg of you to confer a handsome
    living on my Son.  This will crown all the instances of your
    beneficence towards me.—I want words to express the joy with which a
    happy success in this affair would carry me thro’ the small remainder
    of my life, and make me yield it up to its bounteous Author; or to
    describe the tearing anxiety that would accompany a disappointment
    from your refusing what I humbly ask.—Wherefore I beg of your
    lordship to make me feel the beginning of that satisfaction I have
    already in view by such a reply to this petition as may be pleasing
    to the excellent friends I am herein concerned with, and so highly
    obliged to, and to the heart of an old servant who has loved you all
    his life, and served you as well as he could (would to God it had
    been better) & will love you till death and beyond it.  I am,

                                                my Lord, yours &c.  T. P.”

                                * * * * *

    “Dear Sir,

                                                             6. Feb. 1752,

    You cannot rejoice more sincerely at any good that falls on any part
    of your family than I do: tho’ you may feel it more paternally.  In
    answer to what you propose, I first say that I was 75 years old on
    the 14th of last November.  What may happen God only knows.  But if
    it shd be both physically and morally in my power to serve your Son,
    you may depend upon it without the force of the strong expression you
    make use of.  For my own inclination will in such case do it.  And
    the regard I have for the D. of N—ch (and his lady, tho’ unknown,
    only by report) and for Mr. Arrowsmith, to whose faithful services
    and exemplary behaviour I was long ago a witness at Stretham, will
    not at all abate but increase the inclination.  I cannot suppose that
    by what you say you can mean such a living as would make void
    M—lksham which your son told me was worth 250_l._ per ann. for that
    would be to {1020} . . . entirety a valuable living very hardly
    obtained; but one that would be an handsome addition to his income.
    And this must be one within the canonical distance.  Nor do I suppose
    that the chapter of Salisbury will ever enter into measures for an
    exchange of Mlkshm &c.  I wish you would tell me freely what you
    understand by an _handsome_ living, assuring you of my sincere
    disposition to do any thing in my power agreeable to _your own_
    wishes.  I have without doubt several good livings in my patronage.
    But you must remember that when you mentioned your request for your
    son Ph. first, I told you of engagements, and I now tell you that
    since that, I have not had one vacancy, as far as I can recollect, of
    a living in Wilts of about 130_l._ per annum.  I think myself obliged
    to speak plainly, that nothing may be expected from me that I cannot
    pretend to perform.  I have, and have had, for some years, two
    absolute engagements upon me for two of my best livings or such of a
    secondary sort as will be accepted of till better fall.  And I am
    very sure, you are not the man that would say a single word to me
    towards the immorality of falshood or breach of promise.  And I have
    the very same opinion of the goodness of heart of those worthy
    persons who have entered into this affair with you.  As to actual
    vacancies, it is our duty not to wish for any by death.  And they are
    very uncertain, and improbable to happen during the remainder of my
    life, tho’ my health is surprisingly better than it was in my younger
    days.  With all these considerations of my age, and the precarious
    condition of all human affairs, if you will take my word, you will
    find me if alive, as sincere a Friend, as you yourself can wish to
    find.

                                       Your affectionate &c.  B. W. {1021}

Mr. Pyle, as was said before, obtained the lectureship, and became the
preacher at St. Nicholas’ chapel, and one of the ministers of the town in
1701.  In that situation he continued till 1732, when he succeeded Dr.
Littel as vicar of St. Margaret’s.  This situation he held till 1755,
being no longer capable of discharging the duties annexed to it.  He
accordingly gave in his resignation, both to the Dean and Chapter of
Norwich, and also to the Mayor and corporation of Lynn, early in the
Summer of that year.  How his resignation to the former was worded we
know not, but his resignation to the latter, of which we have obtained a
was expressed in the following words: and addressed to the elder _Cary_,
then in the second year of his mayoralty.—

    “Sir, A long decline of life, and absolute incapacity of attending on
    such a ministry as that of Lynn, calls upon me to resign it to some
    hands able in due manner to discharge it to the good-liking and
    satisfaction both of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich and of the mayor
    and corporation of Lynn.  But I cannot nor ought to do this, without
    paying my just and most grateful acknowledgements to yourself, Sir,
    with the former magistrates, and the rest of the gentlemen of your
    Body, for the favours they have, for a long tract of time conferred
    upon me, and in particular for their tender and generous indulgence
    towards me in these last years of my age and infirmities.  I request,
    Sir, you will please to make your hand the conveyor of this only
    return left in my power of thankfulness to them, accompanied with the
    sincerest wishes of every kind of good that can finish the welfare
    and prosperity of an ancient, generous, and loyal society; wishes
    from the heart of yours and theirs most affectionate humble Servant

                                                               THO: PYLE.”

    May 28th. 1755.

This Letter is supposed to have been dated from _Swaffham_, where, on
account of its healthy situation, he resided the two last years of his
life; and where, if we are not mistaken, he also died on the last day of
the ensuing year.  He was buried in the Church of Lynn All-Saints, where
a latin epitaph honourable to their memories, is inscribed on the stone
that covers the remains of him and his wife.  She died the 14th of March
1748, aged 66: and he died the 31st. of December 1756, aged 82.  This was
58 years after the commencement of his ministry.  He was succeeded in his
pastoral charge at Lynn by the late _Charles Bagge D.D._ whose
ministerial as well as literary character must have been widely different
from his; and yet it does not seem to have made any mighty difference as
to the audience, who, it is presumed, went on much as before, praising
the successor in terms very similar to those they had been wont to apply
to his predecessor.  Thus it often happens after the departure of eminent
men, both in the church and in dissenting congregations.

11.  EDMUND PYLE D.D. was the eldest Son of the former, and a native of
this town.  In piety and inflexible integrity he is supposed to have been
much inferior to his father; and the same was probably the case as to
literary attainments, theological knowledge, critical skill, and
ministerial talents: but he was certainly a man of no mean parts, as many
of his letters that are still extant sufficiently evince.  He was
educated at Cambridge.  When he went into orders, or where he officiated
immediately after, does not appear; but in 1732, upon the death of Dr.
Littel, and the appointment of his father to be his successor, he then
succeeded to the vacant place, and became the lecturer, or assistant
preacher and minister of this town; which situation he held till the year
1751, when he resigned in favour of the late Mr. Vann Eyre, and became
chaplain to _Bp. Hoadly_, and a Prebendary of Winchester.  After the Bp’s
death, which happened in 1761, he is supposed to have resided during the
remainder of his life at his prebendal house in that city, and to have
died there in 1776.  At Lynn he was deemed proud and unsociable, which
character he, probably, might deserve, for we have sufficient evidence
that even the gentry of this town, for the most part at least, stood so
very low in his estimation as not to deserve his associating, or holding
any communication with them but what was unavoidable: which to be sure
was not altogether commendable, considering that he stood to those very
people in the relation or character of _one of their pastors_.  But it is
certain that he could at times divest himself entirely of every
appearance of superciliousness and reservedness, and behave towards those
whom he esteemed in a very free, familiar, engaging and entertaining
manner.  Of this his letters still extant are a very good proof, {1024}
and the same is corroborated by the testimony of some of his
contemporaries who long survived him.  His two brothers, _Thomas_ and
_Philip_, who were much younger than he and lived long after him, though
not inferior to him in point of piety and moral worth, were yet thought
to be much so in point of acumen, or quickness of intellect, and
literature.  They had also three sisters, all well spoken of, and that is
supposed to have been all the family their father left.

12.  _George Hepburn_ (_or Hepborne_) _M.D._  He is supposed to have
settled here about the commencement of the last century, as a physician;
in which character he soon acquired high reputation, so as to be placed
at the head of the profession in this part of the kingdom for near if not
quite half a century.  He was the favourite physician of Sir Robert
Walpole the then prime minster of this country, with whom he spent much
of his time at his princely seat at _Houghton_: and he was also employed
in the same capacity by the principal nobility and gentry of this county.
Very striking and diverting anecdotes are related of him during his long
residence in these parts: but they are hardly proper to be inserted in
the present memoir.  He was certainly a very eminent and distinguished
physician.  His posthumous fame is not yet extinguished, as he is still
remembered and mentioned, with the utmost respect whenever the
conversation leads to the recollection of our eminent men of the last
century.  His reputation in the latter part of his life was become so
very considerable that he was seldom to be found at home, being almost
always attending one or other of the great families in the country.  The
town-practice consequently devolved upon the two other physicians,
_Browne_ and _Lidderdale_, both of whom were skilful and judicious
practitioners.  But as he lived to a very advanced age, it so happened
that his eye sight gradually failed, and he became quite blind some years
before he died.  Having a large family to maintain, and being perhaps
during his extensive practice not very economical, he would towards the
close of life have been reduced to great difficulties, had it not been
for two pensions which he then very seasonably obtained; one from
_George_ II, through the interest and friendship of Mr. _Pelham_, of
100_l._ a year; and the other from Dr. _Maxwell_, a rich relation of his
own, of double that sum; which placed him above want, and rendered his
situation tolerably easy and comfortable.  In Walpole’s life time, and
during his long premiership, while Hepburn was at the height of his fame,
and in extensive practice, there might be no obvious or urgent season for
befriending him and making provision for him in a similar way; otherwise
it cannot well be supposed that that minister would have neglected it.
But now the case was altered; the once celebrated and much sought
physician was become old and blind, and no longer capable of following
his profession, and gaining as theretofore the means of supporting
himself and family.  Something therefore was to be done for him, or he
would sink into penury and want.  It has been reported that though his
practice was extensive, yet his fees were but moderate, considering the
length and expence of his journeys, with the great attendance often
required by his patients.  So that his not dying wealthy was less owing
to his improvidence and want of economy or frugality, than to the
ungenerous and niggardly conduct of his patients or employers.
Correspondent with this is said to have been the experience of others of
our physicians since his time, particularly the late Dr. Hamilton, who
never could boast of the great liberality or munificence of our opulent
families, altho’ he was for some time our only physician.  In short, this
writer does not recollect having ever heard that any physician grew rich
here by his practice, however extensive, unless it was Sir W. Browne, and
it is generally understood and allowed that he really could do things
which most other people could not.  Dr. Hepburn died in 1759, at the very
advanced age of ninety.  He was a North Briton, as were also many, if not
most of our eminent physicians.  We have not been able to ascertain in
what part of North Britain he drew his first breath, but rather suppose
it to have been in East Lothian, and at, or near Haddington. {1030}  Nor
have we been able to discover at what university he was educated, but
think it most probable it was that of Edinburgh, where so many eminent
men of the same profession have been since educated.  Dr. H. was twice
married, first in 1693, to one of his own country-women, who died in
1707, aged 30.  There were several children by this marriage.  He
afterwards married again, and his second wife was a Lynn woman.  By her
also he had some children, two of whom at least survived him.  But they
were remarkably and vastly inferior, in point of genius and capacity, or
intellectual endowment, to those of the first marriage.  His eldest
daughter married a Mr. Young, and was the mother of the late Miss or Mrs.
Dorothy Young, a lady of distinguished intellectual and literary talents.
Another daughter became the wife of Dr. _Lidderdale_ an eminent physician
who settled here in the early part of George the second’s reign; and died
here, in 1766, much regretted, as he is said to have stood high in the
public estimation.  The other daughter by the first wife lived single;
but was a very extraordinary character, and stood unrivalled all her life
time among the wits of this town.  Her keen sayings, and stinging
repartees are still fresh in the recollection of her surviving
cotemporaries.  Between her and her father’s daughters by his last wife
there was a most striking and humiliating contrast: they being but little
distant from idiocy.

13.  WILLIAM BROWNE M.D. afterwards Sir _William Browne_, _Knight_,
F.R.S. and _President of the Royal College of Physicians_.  Though he has
been already noticed repeatedly in the course of this work, yet as he
made so conspicuous a figure here in his day, and our materials relating
to him not being yet exhausted, he seems justly entitled to a place among
these biographical sketches.  He was born about the beginning of the year
1692.  The place of his birth we have not been able to discover, but
think it to be at some distance from this town.  We have understood that
he was introduced here by the means and under the patronage of the Turner
family, to which he became afterwards implacably hostile.  His settlement
here must have taken place at an early period of his life; for his name
was enrolled among our free burgesses in February 1718; which must have
been some time, perhaps two or three years, after he had first taken up
his residence here.  Yet he seems to have previously resided and
graduated both at Cambridge and Oxford, for he denominated himself _M.D.
of both Universities_.  However that was, he appears to have soon got on
fast in the way of his vocation, so as to obtain a large share of
popularity and practice, especially among the middling and lower orders
of the community, which he is said to have turned to very good account.
And he is understood to have made much more of his patients, in the
pecuniary way, than Hepburn was able to make of his among the higher
orders.  Having become the popular physician and favourite, or what we
may call the man of the people, he grew quite regardless of the favour
and good opinion of the gentry or higher classes.  As to the gentlemen of
the corporation, he held them very cheap, and treated them at times with
the utmost disdain, looking upon them as his inferiors, and taking
precedence of the very mayor himself, which gave no small umbrage, as was
observed before, at page 900.  This took place as early as the year 1723:
and this hostility to the body corporate appears not to have undergone
any abatement during the remainder of his residence here.—Before we
proceed further we will beg leave here to subjoin the account given of
him in the _Encyclopedia Londinensis_, the substance of which is as
follows—

    “BROWNE (_Sir William_,) an eminent physician, settled originally at
    Lynn, where he practised with great success and profit.  Having
    acquired a competency by his profession, he removed to Queen Square,
    Ormond Street, London, where he resided till his death, which
    happened March 10, 1774, at the age of eighty two.  By his will he
    left two prize medals to be annually contended for by the Cambridge
    poets.  By his lady, who died July 25, 1763, in her 60th year, he had
    one daughter, mother to the present Sir Martin Browne Folkes, bart.
    Sir William Browne was a very facetious man, and the active part
    taken by him in the contest with the licentiates, in 1768, occasioned
    his being brought on the stage, in the farce of the Devil upon two
    Sticks.  Upon Foote’s exact representation, of him, in this farce,
    with his identical wig and coat, tail figure, and glass, stiffly
    applied to his eye, he sent him a card, complimenting him in having
    so happily represented him; but, as he had forgot his _muff_, he had
    sent him his own.  He used to frequent the annual ball at the ladies
    boarding school, Queen square, merely as a neighbour, a good natured
    man, and one fond of the company of sprightly young folkes.  A
    dignitary of the church being there one day to see his daughter
    dance, and finding this upright figure stationed there, told him he
    believed he was _Hermippus ridivivus_, who lived _anhelitu
    puellarum_, ‘by the breath of girls.’  At the age of eighty on St.
    Luke’s-day, 1771, he went to Batson’s coffee-house, in a richly laced
    coat, embroidered waistcoat and band, and fringed white gloves, to
    shew himself to Mr. Crosby then lord Mayor.  A gentleman present
    observing that he looked very well, he replied, “he had neither wife
    nor debts.”  When he lived at Lynn, an extremely censorious pamphlet
    was written against him, which he nailed up against his house door,
    for the gratification of all who chose to inspect it.  A great number
    of lively essays, both in prose and verse, the productions of his
    pen, were printed and circulated among his friends, Among those
    written during his stay in Lynn were, an Ode in imitation of Horace,
    ode 3, lib. iii, addressed to Sir R. Walpole, on his ceasing to be
    minister.  The Pill Plot; to Dr. Ward, a quack of merry memory, then
    in the town; written Nov. 30. 1734.  He also translated from the
    latin original, Dr. Gregory’s Elements of Catoptrics and Dioptrics,
    to which he added 1. a method for finding the foci of all Specula, as
    well as the Lenses universally, as also magnifying or lessening a
    given object by a given speculum, or lens, in any assigned
    proportion.  2. a Solution of those Problems which Dr. Gregory has
    left undemonstrated.  3. a particular account of Microscopes and
    Telescopes, from Mr. Huygens; which was published at Lynn.  His other
    works are, 1. Opuscula varia utriusque Linguæ Medicinam, 4to 1765—2.
    a Farewell Oration, 1768, 4to—3. Fragmentum Isaaci Hawkins Browne
    completum, 1769, 4to—4. Appendix ad Opuscula; six odes, 1770, 4to—5.
    A proposal on our Coin, to remedy all present and prevent all future
    disorders 1774, 4to—6. A New years Gift, 1772—7. Corrections in
    verse, from the father of the College, 4to—8. Speech to the Royal
    Society, 1772—9. An Eulogy and address, 1773—10. a Latin version of
    Job, left unfinished, 4to.”

From the above sketch the reader will perceive that Sir William Browne
was a person of no common cast, or ordinary genius.  Men of his sort are
not to be seen every day: and when they do appear they are sure to
attract observation, and are apt to make a stir wherever they happen to
fix their residence.  Sir William was at the head of the party which
opposed the ruling body here for most part of his long residence in this
town: and he appears to have acted his part with no small skill and
dexterity, and with considerable effect.  When the squabble assumed any
thing of a literary aspect, Dr. Pyle seems to have been his chief
opponent.  At other times he had the whole corporate body at him, and it
must be said that he generally defended himself and repelled the attacks
of the whole host of those philistines very stoutly and successfully.
There is great reason to believe that the opposition which he and his
friends so long maintained here, was often of real and not small service
to the town.  At the contested election in, 1747, he bore a very
conspicuous part, as appears from Dr. Pyle’s Letter already quoted.  The
part he acted on that occasion is supposed to have laid the foundation of
that intimacy between him and Mr. Folkes which issued in an alliance
between the two families, by the marriage of that gentleman with Sir
William’s only daughter and sole heiress.  The issue of that marriage is
our present Sir Martin; and Sir Martin’s Lady is the daughter of that
same Sir John Turner, between whom and Sir William Browne there was such
inveterate and sworn enmity.  After the Church was rebuilt in 1747, great
complaints were made of the unfair disposal of pews, &c. so as to exclude
in a great measure the common people from the privilege of sitting within
hearing of the minister.  Sir William was one of those who set their
faces against this grievance.  How far he and his coadjutors succeeded in
obtaining redress does not appear.  But whether they succeeded or not,
the part they then acted was proper and praise-worthy.  Our worthy
knight, no doubt, performed many other deeds that were equally
commendable, and others, it seems, that were not so.  Among the leading
traits of his character have been reckoned undaunted assurance and
consummate vanity. {1037}  He died at his house in Queen Square, whence
his grandson, Sir Martin, had his remains brought down to Hillington, and
there buried in the family vault belonging to that gentleman’s ancestors.
His Epitaph, or monumental inscription he had prepared long before he
died, and had an elegant engraving of it set up conspicuously in one of
his own apartments.  It was in latin.  This writer has seen a transcript
of it long ago, but has not been able to get a sight of it lately.
According to a rough draught of a translation of if, which he has now
before him, he understands that the beginning of it would read as
follows, in English.—

    “Sacred to the memory of Sir William Browne, knight, President of the
    Royal College of Physicians, London, and F.R.S. one who much pursued
    study and business, and by God’s help surmounted the knowledge of
    Physic; and every night and day, as his strength would allow,
    cheerful to give health to mankind.  Even that labour was pleasure to
    him.  Alas! to be beheld thus doing no more!  Yet asserting that he
    lived happily, well content, his time fulfilled; as a guest fill’d
    with life he departed, being a man who thought nothing belonging to
    mortals foreign from him.  He died the — day of — in the year — aged
    —.  He was born on the birth day of Cicero, the 3rd of January
    1692—Country!  O be perpetual! and free!  Let my soul be with
    Christosophists, viz. with Newton, Boyle, Locke; far from mad-men,
    and from some sort of wisemen — — —” {1039}

14.  _Thomas Lidderdale_ M.D.  He is said to have been an elegant and an
accomplished scholar, as well as an excellent physician.  The land of his
nativity, as well as that of Dr. Hepburn, was North Britain; and it
appears that he was related to some of the first families in that
country: and such was the respectability of his character after he
removed to England, that he attracted the notice and obtained the
friendship of some of the first personages in this kingdom.  He was born
in 1709, and settled as a physician in this town about the year 1731,
where he continued ever after to the day of his death, which happened in
1766.  As to his descent, we learn that he was the “second son of David
Lidderdale of St. Mary’s Isle, by Eleonora the eldest daughter of Sir
James Dunbar of Mochrum, bart. by Isabella, 2nd. daughter and coheiress
of Sir Thomas Nicholson of Carnock, bart. and Lady Margaret, eldest
daughter of Alexander 2nd earl of Linlithgow and Lady Mary Dowglass,
daughter of William, tenth earl of _Angus_ or Dowglass.”  This we have
learnt from his _Pedigree_, which is now in the possession of a very
respectable gentleman of this town, and which leads us back, by a long
line of ancestry, through the Dunbars of Mochrum and Carnock, earls of
Dunbar, of Murray, of March, heroes of the Holy War, earls and princes of
Northumberland, kings of Scotland, &c. up even to the Saxon kings of
England.  So that in this view it could be no disparagement to any family
in England, or out of it, to cultivate the acquaintance or friendship of
Dr. Lidderdale.  But it is certain that he derived far more real honour
and dignity from his own personal worthiness, or respectability of
character, than he could possibly do from his whole long catalogue of
illustrious ancestors: and that, no doubt, was what raised him so high in
the estimation of his numerous acquaintance in this country.  Like other
younger sons of respectable families, he appears not to have had much of
this world’s goods bestowed on him by his father, beyond what was spent
upon his education, which seems to have been excellent, from the high
reputation he sustained as a scholar.  The rudiments of learning he is
supposed to have received at one of the grammar-schools of his native
country; at one of whose universities he probably spent sometime
afterwards; but he finished his education, if we are not mistaken, at the
university of Rheims in France, where he received the degree of M.D.
which was also conferred upon him afterwards by the university of St.
Andrews.  It is not very likely that he had begun to practise before he
came to England; for he arrived in this town, and took up his residence
here, as a physician, at the early age of _twenty two_.  His introduction
here he probably owed to his countryman, Dr. Hepburn, who was then
advancing in years, and on the verge of his grand climacteric, though he
lived near thirty years after.  Our young physician soon attracted the
notice and esteem of the enlightened and literary part of the public; and
being patronized by Hepburn, he presently came into good practice; but
like that of his patron, it seems to have been chiefly among those of the
higher class.  It appears, from one of his letters, that he was employed
by the Townshend family from the very commencement of his practice; and
of that family he is known to have retained the esteem and friendship to
the very last.  The Walpoles, Cokes, and Bedingfelds, the Hares, the
Hostes, and most of the great families in these parts were numbered among
his friends.  With such high connections, it might be expected that he
could not fail of being placed in easy, if not in affluent circumstances.
It did not however so turn out.  A sine cure office or place in the
custom-house was all he obtained from the favour and affection, the
interest and admiration of those honourable and noble personages, besides
the fees of attendance in the way of his profession, which appear scarce
ever to have corresponded with the length of his journeys, and the time
he was often required to spend in attending upon his patients.  But many
beside him have found the smiles of the great very unproductive of solid
advantages.—About seven years after he had fixed his residence here, he
married Miss Susan Hepburn, the third daughter, if we are not mistaken,
of his great friend and patron, Dr. Hepburn.  He was then 29 years old,
and the lady some few years older.  They lived together about 28 years,
when he left her a widow with one daughter, said to have been an
extremely amiable and accomplished lady, whom the mother long survived;
one dying in 1787, and the other in 1796, at the very advanced age of
92.—How much the doctor felt the unproductiveness of his practice, and
the scantiness of his income, some years before he died, and how
anxiously he wished to better his condition and be placed in easy
circumstances, will appear from the two following Letters, one written to
the right honourable Chas. Townshend, then secretary at war, and the
other to general Townshend, afterwards Marquis Townshend.  The first was
dated at Lynn Oct. 10, 1762, and worded as follows,

    “Sir,

    Having been now upwards of thirty years a Norfolk Physician; where my
    practice has been attended with greater reputation than self-interest
    or money; it is no small mortification at last to find myself totally
    neglected and forgotten, among the many promotions and medical
    preferments which have been made for sometime, and are still daily
    making—Greenwich Hospital, or some Almshouse, I had reason to believe
    was intended for me, but that is gone with other things—I now, Dear
    Sir, beg leave to throw myself at your feet to dispose of me as you
    think properest and best, whether in a Physical or Civil capacity, I
    entirely submit to your determination and pleasure.  Indeed I am
    almost worn out in the service of this county, and am no longer able
    to undergo the fatigue of winter journeys and slavery; neither is the
    practice of physic, or manner of residence in the country the same as
    when I had the honor of prescribing for your truly noble grand-father
    and his family at Rainham.—Your generous humanity, and known friendly
    disposition towards me, will I hope plead my excuse for the freedom
    of this Letter, and remind you of one who has long been, with the
    most cordial affection and fidelity, Dear Sir, Your most obedient and
    devoted humble Servant,

                                                                    T. L.”

The other Letter was dated April 19th, 1763, and expressed thus,

    “Dear General,

    It gave me real concern that my health would not allow me to pay my
    personal respects at Cranmer, during your short stay in
    Norfolk—Indeed I have now too much reason to fear that my
    constitution and age will not permit me long to undergo the fatigue
    and slavery of business in the country, where I have hitherto
    practised with more reputation than profit; I therefore hope you’ll
    pardon my present solicitation for some appointment (through your
    interest and favour) that may render life less laborious to myself,
    and not useless to my family.  Having upwards of thirty years
    disclaimed any application or pretensions but those of my connection,
    and long endeavoured to be serviceable in this county, I rely upon
    your friendship and favour to dispose of me as you shall think
    properest and best, without any particular attachment to the
    Profession of Physick, where so many, of a younger date and less
    service, have been put over my head.

    I am, with the utmost regard,

                                Dear Sir, &c.

                                                                    T. L.”

The former Letter was not the first the Dr. addressed to that
correspondent on the same occasion.  We have seen the copy of another, of
a prior date, which he wrote to him to the same effect.  But these
applications or solicitations did not succeed.  The Townshends did
nothing for him or his family in his lifetime, whatever they did
afterwards, though nothing could exceed their professions of respect and
esteem for him.  The place he got here in the customs was not obtained by
their interest, but by that of Lord Orford and Sir John Turner: and he
continued in vain to wish and hope for further preferment to his dying
day.  But however unproductive his practice had been, and much as he had
felt on that account, his death was said to be generally and deeply
regretted; as appears from the following paragraph in the public papers
of that time, drawn up, it seems, by a celebrated character, who was one
of his warm admirers—

    “Lynn Regis Norfolk, April 18. 1766.  On Friday the 11th. instant
    died here extremely lamented by the whole county, Doctor Thomas
    Lidderdale, a physician no less eminent for his skill and happy
    penetration, than for his wit, learning, and probity.  His sudden
    sallies in conversation were so equally fortunate with his
    premeditation in prescribing, that his power over dulness, and
    disease, may be said to have been alike irresistable.”

Several Epitaphs, or monumental inscriptions, were also composed for him
about the same time, some in latin and some in english, of which the
following is one of the most remarkable.

                            “Sacred to the Memory
               Of Thomas Lidderdale, a most eminent Physician,
          in investigating the causes of diseases acutely sagacious,
                  in his practice as remarkably successful.
        They to whom he restored health deservedly regret their loss,
            The sick will wish, but wish in vain, for a physician
                             of equal abilities.
          He possessed a vein of polite wit, and inoffensive humour,
                           ever flowing, ever new.
              His sentiments, conversation, and actions were all
              highly becoming a man of probity and a gentleman.
                His Friendship, his Advice, his best services
                            were wanting to none.
                 With such sentiments, heightened by such an
             amiably moral character, it is little to be wondered
            that his life should be dear, and his death afflicting
                                   to all.
         If polite literature is held in deserved estimation by men,
          If piety, and the duties of humanity are regarded by God,
                  To his memory will be paid lasting honours
                                  on Earth,
                   To himself will be given eternal rewards
                                  in Heaven.
                   He died the 11th. of April 1766 Æt. 57.”

Dr. Lidderdale could, as we have seen, boast not only of the professed
esteem and friendship of the great, but, as was before hinted, could
claim kindred with some of them, particularly the _Stair_ family, to
which he is said to have been very nearly related.  The following
paragraph on the death of the great Lord Stair, being found among his
papers, in his handwriting, was probably drawn up by him—

    “Saturday May the 19th. 1747.  This night died in the 78th year of
    his age, at his lodging in the Cannongate, the right honourable Field
    marshal Joan earl of Stair, one of the sixteen peers for Scotland,
    knight of the most ancient order of the Thistle, governor of Minorca,
    General of Marines, Colonel of the royal regiment of Scots Grey
    Dragoons, and one of his majesty’s most honourable Privy Council—A
    nobleman of the most rare abilities, being endowed with every virtue
    that could either accomplish the Statesman, or adorn the Warrior.—The
    Court of Versailles and States general will tell of his wisdom, and
    prudence, while the plains of Ramillies, Oudenard, Malplaquet, and
    Dettingen will continue lasting monuments of his bravery and conduct.
    Where shall we begin his Encomium?  How equally qualified either for
    Camp or Court; how great without pride; now amiable without vanity;
    how just without rigour; how wise without arrogance, and bountiful
    without ostentation: supporting the highest dignities with decency,
    humanity, and moderation, only to be found among the truly great;
    being possessed of every talent which can render man great in
    himself, and beneficial to his friends and country.”

It is reported that Dr. Lidderdale had a genius for poetry, and would
sometimes amuse himself in writing verses, and particularly epigrams, one
of which is said to be the following—

    “God and the Doctor men alike adore,
    Just on the Brink of Danger—not before:
    The Danger past, both are alike requited;
    God is forgotten and the Doctor slighted.”

The following Copy of verses by the revd. Joseph Sympson, to the memory
of Miss Lidderdale, whose excellent character has been already noticed,
will not it is hoped be deemed an improper conclusion to this article.

    In vain Maria, we the healing Art
    Implor’d his balmy succours to impart:
    The healing Art, despairing of his power
    That well he knew diminish’d every hour,
    With mournful visage from thy couch withdrew,
    While hence to bliss thy gentle Spirit flew.
       And sure, meek Saint, the just decree of Heav’n
    To thee no Indian Paradise has giv’n;
    No verdant hill surrounded by the floods;
    No flow’ry valley in the depth of woods;
    Thou sought’st thy native place, the seats divine;
    The native place of ev’ry soul like thine!
    Had Angels on thy bosom fix’d their eyes
    They ne’er had seen a faulty thought arise:
    All there was guiltless as a Hermit’s dream,
    All mild as is the Sun’s departing beam:
    No wayward passions with malignant strife
    Disturb’d the peaceful current of thy life:
    The soft affections, loving and belov’d
    Alone its surface tremulously mov’d.
    To live as Virtue bids is fame most high;
    The second praise is virtuously to die;
    And both to thee are due—as on the bed
    Of tedious pain thou long reclin’d thy head,
    Calm resignation ever smoothed thy face,
    And unto sickness lent a languid grace;
    While Hope and Faith, fair sister Seraphs near,
    Still whisp’ring holy comfort in thine ear,
    With radiant finger pointed out the way
    That leads the good to everlasting day.
    Tho’ thou among the bright ethereal choir
    Again behold’st thy much regretted Sire,
    No perfect bliss thy tender heart can know,
    Reflecting pensive on thy Mother’s woe;
    For ah! thy piercing glance still sees her mourn
    In pious melancholy o’er thy urn,
    Yet let not this invade thy breast with care;
    For Hope and Faith, the same seraphic pair
    That brought to all thy sufferings sweet relief,
    Have stay’d below to mitigate her grief:
    Ev’n now they kindly check the rising sigh
    And close the opening sluices of her eye,
    Nor will they quit her till from sorrow free,
    She joins in Heav’n thy sainted Sire and thee.

We may here further observe, that among the friends and correspondents of
Dr. Lidderdale are found the names of _Dr. Heberden_, _Dr. R. Taylor_,
and _Sir John Pringle_.  Between him and the latter however there was a
kind of relationship, by the marriage of a sister of his to Sir John’s
brother, the issue of which marriage was the late _admiral Pringle_.  Sir
John used to correspond with the family long after the death of Dr.
Lidderdale, and so we presume did also the admiral, as miss Lidderdale
and he were so nearly related.  But we are not sure that that lady and
her mother received many favours or much assistance from that quarter.

                                * * * * *

Some additional papers relating to Dr. Hepburn’s royal pension having
fallen into the author’s hands since that article was printed off, he
begs leave to take some notice of them here, by way of postscript or
supplement to that same article.—It was there observed that the doctor
had obtained a royal pension by the interest and friendship of Mr.
Pelham.  After the death of that minister a fresh application for the
continuance of the pension became necessary, and this application was
made to the succeeding minister, the Duke of Newcastle, and through him
to the sovereign.  The following is a copy of the Letter from the doctor
on that occasion, dated May 14. 1754.—

    “My Lord,

    The grateful remembrance of my happy success in applying to Mr.
    Pelham 4 years ago for his Majesty’s Bounty, soon determined me to
    address your Grace for its continuance, in whose congenial generous
    breast I was sure to find the same benevolent disposition.  But lest
    the prolixity of the _Narrative_, by which it was proper to inform
    your Grace of the present state of your petitioner, should possibly
    put a stop to the timely inspection of the whole, I have thrown that
    apart, to be considered whenever your Grace shall think proper.
    Meantime confiding entirely in your Grace’s favour, I beg the honour
    of being admitted, My Lord,

    Your Grace’s most obedient and truly faithful humble Servant

                                                                    G. H.”

The _Narrative_, above alluded to, was as follows—

    “My sight has been declining for seven or eight years past.  But in
    the year 1750 (the 80th. of my age) I became almost quite blind, as I
    have now for two years past been altogether so.  Having lost most of
    my business with my sight, and as the distribution of my small
    fortune among _six_ daughters whilst I could see had left me but a
    poor pittance to subsist on, I implored Mr. Pelham’s assistance for
    his majesty’s Bounty, which he was pleased with great alacrity to
    undertake: and with what zeal and address he performed it does not
    obscurely appear from what he was pleased to tell me at Holkham
    (where I had the honour to thank him Viva Voce) viz.  That he never
    knew his majesty grant a favour with more cheerfullness than he did
    this.—The Earl of Leicester has annually done me the honour to
    receive this royal Bounty from Mr. Pelham’s own hand; two noble
    securities for one hundred pounds.”

To the above Letter an answer, of which the following is a copy, was
received from _James West Esq._ first Secretary of the Treasury, dated
May 16. 1754.—

    “Sir, I am directed by the Duke of Newcastle to acquaint you that his
    Grace has received your Letter, and that you may be assured his grace
    will be the means of the same royal bounty being continued to you as
    was in Mr. Pelham’s time.

                     I am, Sir, Your most humble Servant,

                                                                 J. West.”

To this Letter an answer was returned in the following words (dated May
19. 1754)—

    “Sir, The honour his Grace the Duke of Newcastle has done me, by your
    Letter of the 16th. instant, is extremely obliging.  But his Grace’s
    readiness to oblige has enhanced these obligations beyond expression.
    I must therefore humbly beg my noble friend’s assistance how to
    acknowledge them as I would, as well as to receive, the royal favour
    so frankly promised.  Meantime I beg his Grace to believe that my
    breast is full of all the gratitude that is possible to be expressed.

    I am with very great esteem, Sir,

                         Your obedient humble Servant

                                                                    G. H.”

It may be here just added, that though Lidderdale could not boast of the
generosity or munificence of the Townshends, the case was somewhat
otherwise with Hepburn, as appears from the following copy of a Letter
dated July 11th. 1756, from him to the then Lord Townshend.  The copy,
probably in the handwriting of one of his daughters by the _last
marriage_, is as follows—

    “My Lord, The singular testimony of your Lordships regard (which I
    lately had the honour to receive from Mr. Case) has, like the
    Sunbeams of Summer to a decayed plant, giveing (given) warmth and
    springly vigour to the winter of my age.  A warmth, my Lord, which
    has filled my breast with greattitude (gratitude) that will last as
    long as blood circulates in the veanns (veins) or the heart continues
    to beat in the breast of,

    My Lord, Your Lordship’s ever obliged, most obedient,

                      And most thankful humble servant.

                                                                    G. H.”

When the kindness of Dr. _Maxwell_, in settling upon his uncle Hepburn
the very handsome annuity of 200_l._ a year, was noticed above, it should
have been also observed that the nephew had very great obligations to the
uncle, and owed perhaps almost every thing to him in regard to his good
fortune or advancement in the world.  The following Letter from Hepburn
to the Duke of Devonshire, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, where Maxwell
was in the meantime stationed as a surgeon in the army, may serve to
throw some light upon that subject.—

    “My Lord, The honour I have had for many years of being known to, and
    sometimes taken notice of by your grace at Houghton in Norfolk, has
    fixed in me such a firm opinion of your grace’s humane disposition,
    that it is without the least diffidence I now presume to write to
    your Grace, in behalf of Mr. Maxwell, a surgeon, the bearer.  His
    near relation to me, My Lord, claims indeed my endeavours to serve
    him; but much more his own merit.  However as consanguinity too often
    occasions partiality, I choose, my Lord, and think it much more
    equitable to leave him to produce vouchers for his character from
    among the military officers of the best rank in Ireland, where he has
    served near twenty years—Let this have the honour to introduce him to
    your Grace, as my nephew.  Let the merit of whatever boon he may beg
    of your Grace (if any) depend upon the voice of those Gens D’honneur
    who have been so long constant witnesses of his behaviour and
    practice.—And now, my Lord, as in full assurance of your Grace’s good
    nature I have ventured upon this Letter, so ’tis in your Grace’s
    Goodness, I only can hope for pardon, and beg leave to subscribe
    myself, Lynn Jan. 12. 1739–40.  My Lord, Your Grace’s &c.  G. H.”

15.  _John Rastrick_ M.A.  In the order of time, or seniority, his name
in this list ought to have preceded several of the former ones, as he was
many years older than even Pyle and Hepburn; and in point of learning and
piety, or real respectability of character, he was probably not inferior
to any one that has been yet named of the former inhabitants of this
town.  He was born in 1649, at Heckington near Sleaford, in Lincolnshire.
Of the situation, or circumstances of his parents we are uninformed.
They probably ranked among the reputable yeomanry of that place.  Their
son, being designed for the ministry, may be supposed to be placed at a
proper age at one of those seminaries in the country where youth are
prepared for the university.  Having acquired the rudiments of classical
learning, he was sent to Trinity College in Cambridge, where he finished
his academical education and obtained the degree of M.A.  He then went
into orders; but when that was, we have not learnt.  He probably
officiated afterwards as curate for sometime; but that could not be long,
for he became vicar of Kirkton, near Boston, in 1674, when he was about
25 years of age.  No sooner had he settled at Kirkton than he felt the
arduousness of the charge he had undertaken.  His congregation was large,
and the parish of great extent.  How much his mind was improved with
these considerations, and how anxious he was lest he should fail in the
due execution of his office, will appear from his own testimony on the
subject, in a Letter to a friend:

    “The number and distance of the inhabitants, (says he) gave me a very
    sensible concern, and I was very uneasy under the burden that lay
    upon me: I knew not what to do for so many souls, that were also most
    of them so remote from my dwelling, nor how to discharge my duty in a
    place, that (as a learned, pious, and worthy clergyman, my friend
    told me) was as large as some of the dioceses of the primitive
    church.  Catechising, and preaching to such as would come under them,
    was not all I had to do.  But I could not forbear being concerned
    with such as would bring their children to baptism, or offer
    themselves to the Lord’s Table, how to carry it, and answer the
    Church’s expectations, with satisfaction to my mind, and fidelity to
    my highest trust.  In catechising and preaching, I could suit myself,
    my doctrine, and discourse to the condition of the people; but (by
    the rules and orders of my publick station) in administering
    sacraments and applying the seals, (especially baptism) I saw I must
    treat them all alike.  Yet if catechising and preaching be to prepare
    men for sacraments for themselves or theirs, it undeniably supposeth,
    that the _latter_ are not to be given to such in whom the _former_
    hath no effect, nor to their children.  Qualifications for privileges
    I knew were necessary, but where _those_ were wanting, it was
    impossible I should apply _these_ without a relucting mind: and
    therefore whatever I might have been in the capacity of a lecturer,
    or bare preacher, yet as a _pastor_ it could not be, that I should be
    unconcerned in acts of discipline and government, and in judging of
    my own ministerial performances of that kind.”

Such is his own account; and there is no reason to doubt of its
correctness.—Having carefully formed an idea of his line of duty, he set
himself in good earnest upon acting up to it; but here he met with
insuperable difficulties, which troubled and plagued him exceedingly, and
forced him at last, to resign his living {1052} and quit the church of
which he had been many years a minister, and which he would probably have
continued still to be, had he been permitted by his ecclesiastical
superiors to act with honesty and a good conscience, which they however
were no way disposed to allow him to do.  Thus was he forced to resign
his vicarage of Kirkton; after he had held it 14 years, while numbers of
sporting, fox hunting, and loose living incumbents were suffered to
retain their situations with impunity and without the least check or
remonstrance.  But though he quitted the ministry, he did not immediately
withdraw from the communion of the established church, for we find him
communicating sometime after at Frampton, where his friend _Ishmael
Burroughs_ was curate, who himself afterwards left the church and became
pastor of a Presbyterian congregation at Wisbeach, where he continued the
remainder his days.  We are not sure that either he or Rastrick engaged
in the ministry among the Dissenters, or even actually joined them, till
after the Revolution, when the Toleration Act made it perfectly safe for
them so to do.  It does not appear at what time Burroughs undertook his
charge, or entered upon his ministry at Wisbeach; but it appears that
Rastrick entered upon his ministry and took the charge of the
Presbyterian congregation at Lynn in 1701, {1055} for we find that he was
minister here 26 years; and he died in 1727.  The commencement of his
ministry here was therefore 14 years after he had resigned or quitted
Kirkton, and perhaps 30 years or more after the commencement of his
public ministry: so that at the time of his death he had been in the
ministry between 50 and 60 years.  How and where he spent his time during
the interval between his quitting Kirkton and his settling at Lynn, we
have not been able to discover.  Wherever it was, he spent it no doubt,
in a manner worthy of himself, or of that integrity and goodness of
character which he so uniformly and so well sustained through life.  Old
members of that congregation used to say, 30 years ago, that he settled
here as successor to a Mr. _Williams_, who, as far as we can find, was
the only minister of that society during the 25 years, that intervened
between the death of Mr. Horne and the arrival of Mr. Rastrick.  Of this
Mr. Williams we have not been able to obtain any further information.
Where he came from, what was his character, how long he was settled here,
what became of him, whether he died here or removed elsewhere, must of
course be all left among the uncertainties.  When Mr. Rastrick came to
settle at Lynn, he had been 14 years in a state of separation from the
Church, and therefore a kind of dissenter.  The Presbyterian was the
denomination he appeared most to approve, and it was that which he
afterwards joined: but he had too much moderation, and too little of a
sectarian spirit to be admired by any existing party.  Dissatisfied with
many things in the Church, he was far from approving of all things he saw
among the dissenters.  This made him often think and say (as he tells us)
that, as things then stood in England, “he was neither fit for Church nor
Meeting.”  That this unprejudiced or unbiassed disposition of his should
not insure to him the admiration or esteem of his new friends or
connection, but would tend to lower rather than exalt him in their
estimation, and so prove prejudicial to his interest among them, must not
be deemed very strange or wonderful; especially as he was pretty free in
expressing his disapprobation of what he thought amiss.  That such was
the case appears from his own testimony: “My conscience beareth me
witness, (says he) That in my more private station in all the places
where I have served, I have not been sparing both in preaching and
practice, to express myself, and set myself against the corruptions and
errors of Dissenters, tho’ it has been so much to my hindrance and
disadvantage in outward or worldly respects.”  In another place he says,
“In the mean time, I hope (in the strength of Christ) to abide in the
true catholic and apostolic christian faith and church, and in the true
protestant reform’d religion: and (as to the church of England so called)
a _mere nonconformist_, not addicting myself to any faction, sect, or
party of christians, as such, under what denomination soever.”  All this
is very honourable to his memory: and it may help in some measure to
account for a person of his learning and talents remaining all the
residue of his days the minister of a comparatively obscure and poor
congregation, (as this at Lynn, at best, certainly was,) while many
respectable and opulent congregations were in want of such pastors, or
were supplied by men of far inferior abilities and attainments.  The same
may also help to account for those difficulties and trials he afterwards
experienced from his congregation, or from certain individuals that
composed a part of it.  Such troublers or disturbers a moderate,
liberal-minded minister is pretty sure of finding in most dissenting
congregations.  A thorough-paced bigot, or sectary, has a far better
chance of escaping them, or at least of obtaining their countenance and
co-operation.  Rastrick kept his mind open to conviction; as appears from
the change which took place in his sentiments in the latter part of his
life, when he embraced the opinions which distinguished Clarke and
Jackson among the churchmen, and Peirce and Hallet and others among the
Dissenters.  It is somewhat remarkable that both Pyle and he were then
proselyted to those opinions; so that the Church and the meeting here
became equally heterodox.  This change in his sentiments appears to have
extended further than what related to the athanasian trinity, and to have
soon divided the congregation into two parties, one approving and the
other disapproving of his ministry. {1058}  It is probable that much, if
not most of his discomfort here sprung from this source.  This difference
of opinion, however did not, in his time, produce separation; for they
all continued, as far as we can learn, to attend on his ministry, while
he lived, notwithstanding their diversity of sentiments.  The malcontents
not only were Athanasians, but appear to have been also strongly
tinctured with Calvinism, and even with Antinomianism; which indeed has
been thought to be little, or rather nothing more than “Calvinism run to
seed.”  To them it is no great wonder that Mr. R’s ministry proved
unacceptable, or that they should cause him some disquietude and
unhappiness.  That such was really the case, may be inferred from his
very Epitaph; and it is further corroborated by oral tradition, as well
as by the contents the prefer to a MS. volume of his, left by him ready
for the press; though, for some reason, to us unknown, it never was
published; and it has been now many years in the possession of the
present writer.  This volume was certainly far more worthy of publication
than thousands that have been published since, and that are still daily
publishing.  It is entitled, “Plain and Easy Principles of Christian
Religion and Obedience; or, The Necessity of keeping Christ’s
Commandments, in order to our preserving an Interest in his Favour,
Demonstrated from John 15. 10.  By John Rastrick M.A. sometime vicar of
Kirkton near Boston in Lincolnshire, and now minister of the gospel at
King’s Lyn in Norfolk.” {1059}  It is a sensible and notable performance,
and contains many striking and curious thoughts, {1060} especially in the
_appendix_, where the trinitarian controversy, and that relating to the
person of Christ are more particularly adverted to and discussed.  We are
assured that he intended to publish this work himself; but being by some
means prevented, he left instructions at his death for his son to do it
afterwards: which yet he did not do, despairing _perhaps_ of its
convincing, or having any good effect on the malcontents, and fearing it
might irritate them further, and so preclude the possibility of re-union,
or a restoration of harmony in the congregation.  But whatever
consideration it was that prevented the publication of this volume, it is
certain that harmony was never restored, or a re-union effected between
these two parties: the discontented or antinomian party went off
afterwards, in the son’s time, and formed a kind of Independent Society,
which after assuming various shapes, and undergoing divers changes,
produced the Baptist congregation here, which now meets at the new chapel
in Broad Street.  Mr. Rastrick died in 1727, at the advanced age of 78.
{1061}  He lived, as did also his son afterwards, in that house in
Spinner Lane, now occupied by Mr. _Dennis_, behind which stood the
chapel, both of which, if we are not mistaken, were his own property.  He
left behind him several things in MS. some of which, beside the volume
above noticed, are now in the possession of the present writer.  The
whole is written in a very small hand, and with singular neatness, for
he, as well as his son, was an admirable penman.  He was doubtless an
eminent scholar, and reckoned a very good mathematician, which is not
unlikely, as he was cotemporary and of the same college with _Barrow_:
nor is it very probable that that generation of Dissenters had among them
many if any names of superior learning and respectability.

Of his writings not much went through the press, which we may presume had
not been the case had he lived in later times, or under more auspicious
circumstances.  Of his printed works the present writer has not heard of
any except the following: 1. “An Account of the Nonconformity of _John
Rastrick_, A.M. sometime vicar of _Kirkton_, near _Boston_, in
Lincolnshire; containing the occasion and circumstances of his secession
from that place.  In a Letter to a Friend.”  [It was printed in London,
in 1705; and the friend to whom it was addressed was Dr. _Edmund
Calamy_.]   2. “A Sermon at the ordination of Mr _Samuel Savage_, at St.
Edmund’s Bury, April 22. 1714.  With an exhortation to him at the
close.”—3. “Two letters to Mr. _Ralph Thoresby_ of _Leeds_, giving an
account of a great number of _Roman_ coins found at _Flete_ in
Lincolnshire, and other antiquities found at _Spalding_, &c. and printed
in the _Phil. Trans._ No. 279, p. 1156, &c.—4.  “A _supplement_ to the
latter, printed in the same work, No. 377, p. 340.”—His unprinted, or
unpublished works appear to have been much more numerous and
considerable; but they got into different hands after the son’s death,
and most of them perhaps have been since lost.  Some of them were in the
possession of the son’s successors Messrs. _Mayhew_ and _Warner_, and
some in that of the late Dr. _Lloyd_.  What became of them we know not.
The two following articles with some other loose papers came into the
possession of the present writer—1. The MS. volume before mentioned,
entitled “PLAIN AND EASY PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND OBEDIENCE;
or the necessity of keeping Christ’s Commandments, in order to our
preserving an interest in his favour, demonstrated.”  [It would make a
duodecimo volume of 250 or 300 pages, and may be called an ingenious and
elaborate piece, written out with great care and singular neatness.]
{1063}  2. “A SHORT CATECHISM; containing the chief heads of the
christian religion, and faith of Christ.”  It is carefully and neatly
written like the other MS. volume, yet it does not appear to have been
intended for the press, but rather as a present, or new-year’s gift to
his children, the name of one of whom, _Hannah Rastrick_, is prefixed to
it in her father’s hand writing.—The smaller MSS. are some of them in
prose and some in _verse_, for Mr. R. _like one of our present
mathematicians_, {1064a} would sometimes leave those profound or severer
studies, and amuse himself with writing little poems; but with this
difference, that these productions of the former were only meant for the
amusement or gratification of his own children and family, or the small
circle of intimate and particular friends, and not for the inspection and
admiration of the public at large, like those of the latter. {1064b}
Without attempting to draw any further parallel or comparison between our
present or former race of mathematicians, we shall here close our memoir
of the venerable John Rastrick.

16.  _William Rastrick_.  He was the only son, or at least the only
surviving son of the former: and he was every way a son worthy of such a
father.  In point of genius and learning, virtue and piety, or real
respectability or exemplariness of character, he has always been
understood as nothing inferior to him, or to any one of his
contemporaries either in this town or in all this part of the kingdom.
The very servants, and all those who were most intimate in the family,
and who had therefore the best opportunity of knowing and judging of his
private and real character, always deemed and spoke of him as one of the
best of men and most exemplary of christians.  Knowing how much his
father had been teazed and tried by one part of the congregation, he
never would undertake the pastoral charge: but used to exchange with the
Presbyterian minister at Wisbeach, at those times when the Lord’s Supper
was to be administered here; which must have been very inconvenient to a
man of his retired and recluse habits.  Like his father he exceeded any
of our townsmen of his time in many branches of knowledge, especially the
mathematics.  His superior skill and judgement would accordingly be
resorted to on such difficult occasions as required extraordinary
scientific expertness or accuracy.  In how many instances his townsmen
were indebted to his superior attainments, it is impossible now to say:
but the best _plan of the town_ that has yet appeared, with different
views of it and of some of its principal buildings, drawn by him, may be
reckoned among those instances.  Except such productions we know not of
any thing else of his that has been published: nor do we know of any
thing from his exquisite pen that is now extant beside _his Account of
the Ejected Ministers_, in latin.  Of this notable production there are
now in existence at least _three copies_; two in his own hand writing,
one of them deposited in Dr. _Williams’ Library_, in London, and the
other in St. _Margaret’s Library_, in Lynn: the latter written with
almost inimitable neatness.  The third copy is a fair transcript of the
latter, in two different hands, and in the possession of the present
writer.  It is entitled, “INDEX _Eorum Theologorum Aliorumque_ No. 2257.
_Qui propter Legem UNIFORMITATIS_, _Aug:_ 24 _An._ 1662, _ab Ecclesia
Anglicana secesserunt_, _Alphabetico ordine ac secundum gradus suos
depositus_.  _Cura ac opera GULIELMI RASTRICK_.”  Then follow, by way of
motto, Zech. i. 5. in _Hebrew_; Heb. xi. 38, in _Greek_; a passage from
_Erasmus_ in _Latin_; and one from _Locke_, in _English_.  At the bottom
of the page stands 1734, denoting, as it would seem, the year in which
the MS. was written.  Mr. W. R. lived after that about 18 years, and died
in the first week of _August_ 1752, just 25 years after his father; near
to whose grave, if not within the same, his remains are supposed to have
been deposited.  He was buried on the 9th of that month, as appears by
the parish register.

17.  _Anthony Mayhew_.  He succeeded the former as the minister of the
congregation; and was a minister every way worthy of such a predecessor;
for a man of superior worthiness, or of a more excellent character was
rarely to be found any where.  He was a native of Suffolk, and had been
many years in the ministry, chiefly in Hampshire, if we are not mistaken,
before he settled in this town.  After he had been here some years the
old chapel in Spinner-Lane was deserted, and a new one erected in
_Broad-Street_, where Mr. Isaac Allen now officiates.  He died Aug. 15,
1783 at the age of 76; about six years after he had resigned his pastoral
charge, when he was succeeded by

18.  _William Warner_.  He was a person of a most amiable disposition,
and of respectable parts and learning.  He had been educated in London,
under doctors _Savage_, _Kippis_, and _Rees_, and came to Lynn in 1777,
by the recommendation of those eminent tutors, in consequence of an
application from Mr. Mayhew and the congregation.  He was here about
three or four and twenty years.  His health had been deciding some years
before he died, which made him wish for a more favourably situation,
which at last offered itself, at Hapton near Norwich.  But he lived not
long there; for he died early in 1802 {1069} at the age of 46.  He was
born at or near _Nailsworth_, in Gloucestershire, where he is supposed to
have several near relations still living.  He married one of the
daughters of his worthy predecessor Mr. Mayhew, who still survives him,
and is no way unworthy of such a father and such a husband.  His funeral
sermon was preached at Lynn by one who knew him intimately above twenty
years, and knew him to be a man without bigotry and without guile.  The
congregation declined in his time, after his death the chapel, by some
odd management, went into the hands of the Calvinistic Methodists, under
the name of _Independents_, though it was said to be the property of the
Presbyterian Board in London.

19.  Sir _Benjamin Keene_, Knight of the Bath, was born at Lynn, in 1697.
He was the eldest son of Charles Keene, Esq; a merchant and alderman of
this borough, who served the office of Mayor in 1714–15.  Young Keene was
probably educated at the Free School in this town, and was thence removed
to Pembroke Hall in the University of Cambridge, where he took his degree
of civil law.  He afterwards continued his studies for a few years at
Leyden.  It is said that the misfortunes of Mr. Keene, the father, in
trade, first recommended the family to the humanity and the protection of
Sir Robert Walpole, who afterwards acknowledged that the talents and
integrity of the son, in a public station of peculiar difficulty, had
more than repaid his beneficence.  In July 1724, Mr. Benjamin Keene was
appointed the British Consul at Madrid, and in 1727 Minister
Plenipotentiary at the Spanish Court.  He was afterwards sent Envoy
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Court of Portugal, and then
removed with the character of Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary to the Court of Spain.  It was before observed, in the
biographical sketch of Sir R. Walpole, that it was the great and
meritorious object of that minister to preserve his country in a state of
peace: his instructions on this point appear to have been executed by his
pupil, Mr. Keene, with equal ability and dignity.  At an early period of
the clamour on account of what was called the Spanish Depredations,
{1070} the origin of the differences, and the difficulty of adjusting
them, were thus clearly explained by the Ambassador in a letter to the
Secretary of State—

    “Upon the whole, the state of our dispute seems to be, that the
    commanders of our vessels always think, that they are unjustly taken,
    if they are not taken in _actual_ illicit commerce, even though
    proofs of their having loaded in that manner are found upon them; and
    the Spaniards on the other hand presume, that they have a right of
    seizing, not only the ships that are actually trading in their ports,
    but likewise of examining and visiting them on the high seas, in
    order to search, for proofs of fraud, which they may have committed;
    and till a medium be found out between these two notions, the
    government will always be embarrassed with complaints, and we shall
    be continually negotiating in this country for redress, without our
    being able to procure it.”

No efforts were, however, to be left untried by the parliamentary
opponents of Walpole to force him into a war; and while they incessantly
inveighed against the pusillanimity of the minister, they did not scruple
to give their sanction to the most exaggerated accounts of the insults
permitted and exercised by the Spaniards, and indeed to the most
incredible tales of horror.  A transaction which had occurred seven years
before, and which was now worked up into “the fable of Jenkins’ ear,” as
Burke justly calls it, was made the vehicle of popular frenzy; and it
required the full exertion of ministerial sagacity and influence to elude
an immediate rupture.  The pacific overtures of Sir R. Walpole were most
ably seconded by Mr. Keene, whose address overcame the dilatoriness, the
punctilios, and the repugnance of the Spanish Court; and a convention was
signed at Madrid, which promised all the advantages which the most
successful warfare could have procured.  But no reasonable concession
could satisfy the people of England: their haughty and insulting language
at length disgusted and provoked the Spanish nation.  The terms of the
convention were, in consequence, not fulfilled; Mr. Keene was recalled,
and the declaration of War against Spain was hailed in England with a
frantic enthusiasm.  “They now _ring_ the bells,” was Sir Robert’s
observation, “but they will soon _wring_ their hands.”  Burke, whose
veracity will not be doubted, declares that he had seen and examined the
original documents concerning these important transactions, and that they
had perfectly satisfied him of the extreme injustice of this war with
Spain.  He even says, “some years after, it was my fortune to converse
with many of the principal actors against that minister, and with those
who principally excited that clamour.  None of them, no not one, did in
the least defend the measure, or attempt to justify their conduct, which
they as freely condemned as they would have done in commenting upon any
proceeding in history, in which they were totally unconcerned.”  It is
sufficient to add, that after a disgraceful period of seven years’
hostility, after a dreadful expense of blood and treasure, the right of
English Subjects to navigate in the American Seas, the original source of
the differences between us and Spain, were not even mentioned in the
articles of the ensuing peace!!

Mr. Keene was again appointed to the same honourable station, and in 1754
his majesty George the second was pleased to give a fresh and public mark
of approbation of the ambassador’s conduct, by dignifying him with the
knighthood of the order of the Bath; and as the king of Spain graciously
performed the ceremony of investing him with the ribband, Sir Benjamin,
in allusion to that particular ceremony, took for his motto “Regibus
Amicis.”  He died at Madrid 15. December 1757, at the time when he was
about to return to England, with a view of retiring from public
employment, and to be created a Peer of Great Britain. {1073a}  His great
abilities as a minister, exercised and improved by long and important
services; the liberality and magnificence with which he supported the
dignity of his public character, without any attention to the increase of
his private fortune; and unusual esteem and affection for his person,
which his many amiable qualities procured him at the court where he
resided, were universally acknowledged, and made his death, especially at
that critical juncture, a real loss to his country.  His remains were
brought over from Madrid, and buried at Lynn, in St. Nicholas’ chapel,
near his beloved parents. {1073b}  A sarcophagus of white marble is
placed over his grave, having on one side a medallion bust of the
deceased, and on the other a bas relief of Peace trampling under foot the
emblems of War, and pointing to ships and bales of merchandize.

20.  Dr. _Edmund Keene_, a younger brother of Sir Benjamin, was borne at
Lynn in 1714.  Through the interest of Sir Robert Walpole he was educated
at the Charter-House, and thence admitted of Caius College, Cambridge in
1730.  He was elected Fellow in 1737, but afterwards he removed to St.
Peters’ college, on being appointed Fellow of that society in 1739; and
he was made Master of Peter-House in 1748.  He was elected
Vice-chancellor of the university two succeeding years, 1749 and 1750.
In 1753 he was promoted to the see of Chester; {1075} and in 1764 the
Primacy of Ireland was offered to him, which he declined: but (as it is
related by Bp. Newton in the account of his life,) “he urged his request
to Mr. Grenville, that, upon the vacancy, he might succeed to the see of
Ely, which was the great object, the aim and end of all his ambition.”
In 1771, he “succeeded to his heart’s desire, and happy it was that he
did so; for few could have borne the expense, or displayed the taste and
magnificence which he did, as he had a liberal fortune, as well as
liberal mind, and really merited the appellation of a builder of palaces.
For he built a new palace at Chester, he built a new Ely-house in London,
and in a great measure a new palace at Ely, left only the outer walls
standing, formed a new inside, and thereby converted it into one of the
best episcopal houses, if not the very best in the kingdom.  He had
indeed received the money which arose from the sale of old Ely-house, and
also what was paid by the executors of his predecessor for dilapidation,
which altogether amounted to about 11,000_l._  But new houses require new
furniture.”—Such is the detail of narrative old age.  Bp. Keene published
only two or three sermons on the usual state occasions: he is said to
have been an attentive prelate to his diocese, particularly in reserving
to himself the appointment of all the curates in those parishes which
were without a resident incumbent.  He died in 1781.

21.  _Thomas Chesterton_.  He was born at or near Downham, in Norfolk,
about the year 1715.  When he was of a proper age to be sent to school he
was placed under the care of a respectable clergyman in that
neighbourhood, who had a number of other pupils, the sons of reputable
families, who generally turned out well, and did him no small credit.
Among young Chesterton’s schoolfellows there, were the late revd.
Thorogood Upwood, Mr. Philip Case, and others of equally creditable
connections.  His superior genius for learning was known and acknowledged
by most of his fellow pupils, many of whom in making their exercises were
often not a little indebted to his assistance.  While in that seminary he
was well grounded in the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages: nor
did that satisfy him, for he continued ever after to press forward
unweariedly for further literary improvement; till he acquired an
intimate and accurate knowledge, not only of the Latin and Greek
languages, but also of the Hebrew and its kindred tongues, the Chaldee,
Syriack and Arabick; of the latter of which he composed a Grammar, which
was well thought of by good judges.  He acquired likewise no slight
knowledge of the Persian, Coptic, and Ethiopic languages: so that it was
not without reason that some literary characters, even in the
establishment, who were well acquainted with his attainments, looked upon
him as one of the best scholars in this county.—It should have been
observed that after he left school, being designed for the medical
profession, he was placed with a _Mr. Harvey_, a Surgeon and apothecary
of very extensive practice in this town.  After he got out of his time
with Harvey, he married and went into business for himself: and being
well respected in the town he soon came into good practice.  Having from
the first been a frequent attendant on the ministry of the younger
Rastrick, he by degrees imbibed his principles and became a decided
nonconformist.  Afterwards, in consequence of having some scruples about
infant baptism, he renounced that practice, professed himself a Baptist,
and joined a Society of that denomination at Downham.  He was soon after
encouraged to engage in the ministry, and having an invitation to settle
with a congregation at Colnbrook in Buckinghamshire, he accepted the same
and removed to that place, where he continued several years.  He
afterwards resigned his pastoral charge there, and removed to London
where he followed his medical profession (as he had also done at
Colnbrook) and preached occasionally.  The congregation he was now
chiefly connected with was that which met in Eagle Street under the
ministry of the late Dr. Grifford of the British Museum.  His health now
declining, and his property at Lynn and other parts of Norfolk requiring
a nearer residence, he returned back to this town about 1765, after an
absence in all of about ten years.  He now resumed the medical practice,
chiefly to introduce his son into business, who was brought up to the
same profession.  It so happened at this juncture that the people who had
formerly seceded from Mr. Rastrick’s congregation, and had formed a sort
of Independent society, were without a minister: their late minister,
William Eltringham, commonly called _captain_ Eltringham, having removed
from them to another congregation.  These people invited him to become
their minister, and he accepted their invitation.  But he was not long
comfortable among them.  They soon became as unsatisfied with him as they
had been with Mr. Rastrick, though not on the same pretence.  The
connection between him and them was consequently dissolved.  His health
was now declining so fast, that he was obliged to relinquish the ministry
and every other active employment.  After languishing for some time, and
mostly in most excruciating pains, he died on the 10th of May 1770, at
the age of 54.  His disorder was said to be an ulcer in the bladder.  He
was pretty highly orthodox, but, by all accounts, a very pious, as well
as a very learned man.

22.  _David Lloyd_, L.L.D.  He was a native of Cilcennin in
Cardiganshire.  After having spent some time at school in that
neighbourhood he was sent to the grammar school at Caermarthen, then a
very reputable seminary.  He went afterwards to Jesus College in Oxford,
where he took the degree of L.L.B. and afterwards that of L.L.D. {1079}
After having acquitted himself very creditably as usher at some school in
the vicinity of the metropolis, he was chosen master of the Lynn Grammar
School in 1760; which situation he filled with great reputation to
himself, and equal advantage to his pupils for the long space of 34
years.  It does not appear that this school was ever in so flourishing a
state under any other master, unless it was in the time of Mr. _Horne_,
who was so long at the head of it, as was before observed.  Dr. LL. was
unwearied in his attention to the literary improvement of the youth
placed under his care, and to the forming of them to be useful members of
society in the different departments for which they were designed; in
which he appears to have been in no small degree successful, as may be
seen by the number of those who were once his pupils and now usefully
occupy very respectable stations of life.  The Doctor went into orders
late in life; (at the age of 50 or upwards) and having no preferment in
the church he preached but seldom, confining himself entirely to the
duties of his other profession.  He died in 1794, and was buried in the
chancel of St. Margaret’s church.  A stone with the following inscription
marks his grave—

                        “_Sacred to the Memory of_
                    _The revd. DAVID LLOYD_, _L.L.D._
       _Master of the Grammar School in this town for_ 34 _years_;
        _Who departed this life Nov._ 19. 1794, _aged_ 60 _years_.
   _In him were united_, _with all the virtues of private life_, _those
                               inestimable_
  _qualities which ought ever to characterize the instructor of youth_.
    _To the authority of a Tutor he added the tenderness of a Father_,
                  _Multis ille bonis flebilis occidit_.”

23.  _Robert Hamilton_, M.D. F.R.S. and F.R.C.P. Edinb. was another of
the former inhabitants of Lynn who deserved well of his fellow townsmen
and of the public at large.  He was born at Edinburgh Dec. 17. 1721; and
was a younger son of James Hamilton, who was bred to the law, and was at
one time deputy keeper of Holyrood-House, under James Duke of Hamilton,
its hereditary keeper.  He was educated at the High School in his native
city, and was there at the time of the memorable affair of captain
Porteus.  When of a proper age he was placed with a surgeon and
apothecary at Leith, where he remained three years.  After having
attended the lectures of different professors at the university, upon the
materia medica, pharmacy, botany, anatomy, surgery, &c. he was at length
obliged to quit these studies, and procured a birth on board the Somerset
man of war in 1741, having previously undergone the usual examination at
Surgeon’s Hall, London.  He continued in that line, or as a navy-surgeon,
for about seven years, when the peace of Aix-la-chapelle put him out of
employment.  He came to Lynn in 1748, to see a brother who was married
here and settled as a merchant; and having heard of, and engaged a
situation at the neighbouring village of Great Massingham, where there
was a vacancy for a surgeon and apothecary, he settled there in August
that same year, but continued there only till October 1749, when he
removed and settled at Lynn: and not long after he married a Miss
Hawkins, the sister of his brother’s wife.  He now went into business, in
partnership with Mr. Young, a grandson of Dr. Hepburn.  A vacancy for a
physician happening here in 1765 by the death of Dr. Lidderdale, he was
advised to procure a doctors degree, in order to become his successor,
which advice he at length complied with, and in May 1766 received that
honour from St. Andrew’s, the diploma being signed by no less than ten
professors.—Not long after he relinquished the practice of pharmacy, and
pursued those of physic and midwifery, which he followed the remainder of
his life, with considerable applause, and general approbation.  He died
Nov. 9. 1793, and was buried in St. Nicholas’ chapel, regretted by a
large portion of the community. {1081}

                                * * * * *

Before we entirely close this part of the work, and proceed to the
_conclusion_, or to give a _view of the present state of the town_, it
may not be improper here, by way of _Postscript_, to rectify some slight
mistakes, and to supply certain omissions that have been discovered in
different parts of the preceding sections, since the sheets have been
printed off.

In the first place, the author wishes he had, at page 137, somewhat
enlarged the memoir of that eminent president of the R. S. _Martin Folkes
Esq_; the maternal grandfather of Martin Folkes Rishton Esq; of this
town; and especially that he had more particularly noticed that
ingenious, elaborate, and masterly publication of his, the _Tables_ “of
the _English Silver-coins_, from the Norman conquest to the present
time;” and “of the _English Gold Coins_ from the 18th. of Edward III,
when gold was first coined in England, to the present time.”  The work is
comprised in one volume quarto, and was printed in 1745, for the society
of Antiquaries.  It is a work of the highest authority, and of the
greatest use and importance to those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted
with the subject there treated of; and might, perhaps, he consulted with
no small advantage by our senators and others in the present precarious
state of our currency.

At page 961, the author now finds that he was mistaken in saying that
_both the old members_ were returned at the contested election 1784.
_Walpole_ indeed was returned with Molineux, yet not the old member of
that name, but a relation of his, who for a long while after continued to
be one of our representatives; to what benefit or advantage to the town
or nation, the present writer is not able to say.—The author has been
blamed for passing over in silence the _Ball and Supper_ given at our
Town-Hall in _commemoration of the Revolution_, on the 14th. of November
1788, pronounced, as it is said, by both Mr. and Mrs Coke to have been
“_equal in Splendor_ and _more comfortable than that given at Holkham_.”
The fact is, the author had quite forgotten it; and as it was kept so
much _out of time_, he is still inclined to think that it was given more
out of vain parade, than, out of real gratitude for that great and
interesting event.—Another omission the author has been reminded of is,
“that in April 1797, _prince William_ (now duke) of _Gloucester_ visited
Lynn, and after reviewing the Volunteers, and dining with the mayor, was
presented with the freedom of this ancient borough.”—The execution of
_Peter Donahue_, serjeant in the 30th. regiment of foot, for forgery at
Lynn in 1801 is another omission suggested to the author; and also the
condemnation of _Robert Nichols_, the year after, for sheep stealing: to
which might have been added the fatal disaster of the Ferry-boat, this
present year, by which ten persons at least perished.—It will be the
author’s endeavour to set all these matters right in a Table of
remarkable events at the end of the work.



CHAP. VII.


Impartial view of the _present state_ of the town and its vicinity:
containing introductory observations, brief account of churches, chapels,
almshouses, workhouses, charitable and social institutions, religious
sects and confraternities, the corporation, the shipping, trade and
commerce, exports and imports, population, &c. &c.

This town, or at least its western vicinity, being that part of Marshland
that lies contiguous to the town, has of late experienced an unexpected
and most striking change, in the sudden resort thither and settlement of
a number of characters in high life, consisting of peers, courtiers,
statesmen, nabobs, royal physicians, naval and military commanders, &c.
This may be reckoned among the wonders of these eventful times.  It is
marvellous in the eyes of most people, and has filled all Marshland with
astonishment, so as to make its homely and unlettered inhabitants ready
to lift up their voices and cry out with the ancient Lycaonians, “The
gods are come down to us in the likeness of men!”—or with a celebrated
English poet, “Descending gods find their Elysium here!” {1085}—The
enormous price given by these new-comers for the estates they have
purchased has greatly astonished the whole country, being about double
the current valuation, or what lands usually fetched here before: and as
some of them are said to be deep in political and state secrets, these
purchases have excited strong suspicions of the tottering existence and
depreciating state of all funded property.  For had such property been
really safe and good, these sagacious persons would hardly have withdrawn
theirs and thus deliberately bury it in the bogs of Marshland.

Those changes also that have recently taken place _within_ the town are
many of them very curious and striking.  The late improvements in the
Streets, by the new paving of them, &c. might indeed be pronounced proper
and commendable, had not the expense fallen so heavy upon that large
portion of the community who were quite unable to bear the pressure of
any additional imposts, and could hardly stand under the weight of those
that had been previously imposed.  Here the projectors and promoters of
the scheme appear in a very unfavourable light—inconsiderate and
unfeeling in a very high degree.  But it is in their rage for
_innovation_ they appear in the queerest light.  Considering what they
have done in that way, it seems really a wonder that the very name of the
town itself has escaped them, or that they did not take it into their
heads to bestow upon it some new and whimsical appellation, as they have
done to almost every part of it, and even some of principal Streets.
_Checker Street_, for instance, has been by them called _King Street_,
though it had borne the former name for many ages.  The _Grass Market_
and _Damgate_, which were always before considered as _two_ distinct
Streets, (and had borne those names perhaps 500 years, if not much
longer) are by them converted into _one_, and called _Norfolk Street_; a
name that might with equal propriety have been given to _Broad Street_,
or _High Street_, or any other Street in the town.  All this, if not
superlatively fantastical and absurd, is certainly childish and
ridiculous enough.  But we will pursue the subject no further.

Among the recent changes in the town, those that have taken place in the
_Workhouse_ and the _Hall_ must not be here forgotten or overlooked.  The
new order of things in the former place, (the _Workhouse_,) is expected
to produce a saving to the town, to no small amount, without any material
detriment to the paupers, that are there maintained: and this
expectation, it is to be hoped, will not issue in disappointment, like
too many of our former golden dreams.  As to the _Hall_, the spirit of
economy and retrenchment seems to have become there now quite triumphant.
Such public days as those of _St. John_ and _St. Michael_, so remarkable
heretofore for festivity and hilarity, are now become like days of
fasting and humiliation.  Not only the sumptuous dinners and
convivialities of former times have now totally disappeared, but even the
poor pittance of a bit of cake and a glass of wine, has been actually
withheld, even from the worshipful members whose attendance on those days
was indispensable, and who may be looked upon as the very pillars and
atlases of our ancient municipal constitution.  After all it is not meant
here to censure this new frugal plan.  It may be very necessary and
highly proper, as the world goes; for it certainly corresponds with the
complexion and exigencies of the times, which require the strictest
economy and utmost frugality from almost every description of our dear
countrymen, to enable them to go on with any prospect of success or
comfort.  But here it was only meant to state a historical fact, too
remarkable to be entirely overlooked.


SECTION I.


_Brief account of the Churches and Chapels_.

In an account of the churches of Lynn, the first place, no doubt, is due
to that of ST. MARGARET, which was founded about the close of the 11_th_,
or commencement of the 12_th_ century, by Herbert de Lozinga bishop of
Norwich; memorable for his simoniacal offences, and subsequent
architectural expiations.  Among the latter were the _cathedral_ and
episcopal _palace_ at Norwich, the great church of _St. Nicholas_ at
Yarmouth, and this of St. _Margaret_ at Lynn.  The latter according to a
certain ancient deed or register was built by him _at the request of the
men of the town of Lynn_.  But if that was the case, it seems their
contributions proved by no means adequate to the magnitude or exigences
of the undertaking; for the work it seems went but slowly and heavily on,
till he had recourse to that notable and wonderful expedient of offering
forty days pardon, or an indulgence for that time in all manner of
licentious or vicious courses, to all who would contribute towards the
completion of the sacred edifice.  The work then went on prosperously,
was soon finished in a magnificent style, and the indulgence effected
what an appeal to the most pious considerations would probably have
failed to accomplish.

              [Picture: St. Margaret’s church, King’s Lynn]

Herbert dedicated this edifice to _St. Margaret the virgin_, {1088} or,
as some say, to saint _Mary Magdalen_, St. Margaret and all the virgin
saints; which probably made Mr. Britton in the Beauties of England call
it St. _Mary’s church_, a name which does not appear to have been given
to it by any body else.  This church has been so often re-edified and
repaired since its first erection, that but a small part of it, as it now
stands, is supposed to be as old as the days of Lozinga.  If there be
any, it seems to be towards the west, or south-west end, where the style
of architecture appears to bespeak much higher antiquity than any other
part, according to the opinion of the best judges.

The church in its original state is supposed to have been of greater
dimensions, as well as more magnificent, than it is at present; and it
was certainly the case in later ages, and until the last century, when
the spire fell on the body of the church and demolished a great part of
it.  This happened in 1741.  Soon after the eastern tower lanthorn was
taken down, from a fear (groundless it seems) that it might also fall, as
the spire had done, and occasion irreparable damage.  It was therefore
done to preserve the eastern part of the church.  The West end being
demolished by the fall of the spire, an act of Parliament was procured
for re-building the body of the church.  The king, it is said,
contributed a thousand pounds, and lord Orford 500_l._ towards the work;
and it was completed in 1747. {1089}  It is much smaller than the former,
but is still one of the largest and handsomest parish churches in the
kingdom:—it also abounds with the tombs of our principal townsmen of
other times; (and so do the other churches of St. Nicholas and
All-saints,) with endless monumental inscriptions, which those who are
fond of such compositions may find at large in _Mackerell’s_ volume,
which contains little else.  But they would take up too much room in this
work.  This church had formerly at least three chapels attached to it, or
comprehended in it: one dedicated to the _Trinity_, one to _St. John_,
and one if we are not mistaken, to _St. Stephen_; only one or two of
which now remain.  That of the _Trinity_ was taken down very lately, in
the progress of our paving-act improvements: and long before that the
whole north side of the church-yard was laid open and made a part of the
street, or market place.  A new burying-ground, however, of a much larger
extent, has been since laid out adjoining to St. James’s Church-yard, on
which a neat small chapel has been erected, merely for the purpose of
reading the burial service.  Had the friends of the establishment
contrived to build it on a larger scale, in order to have divine service
there on Sunday evenings, it might have answered a very good purpose; and
such a place would have been much filter for delivering evening lectures
than either of the two great churches, both of which were originally
constructed for very different purposes, it is to this omission of having
evening lectures in the churches, that the methodists and other
dissenters owe their crowded audiences, and not to the greater purity of
their creeds, or the superior abilities and respectability of their
ministers.

             [Picture: N. W. view of Chapel & Burial Ground]

2.  ST. NICHOLAS’S CHAPEL.  Both _Mackerell_ and _Parkin_ have employed
their pens in describing this respectable fabrick.  But a much better
account of it, and the best, no doubt, that has ever yet been given, came
from the pen of the _revd. Edward Edwards_, one of the present ministers
of the town, and has appeared in the 7th. number of the 3rd. volume of
_Britton’s Architectural Antiquities_.  From that and other accounts we
learn, that this chapel, was built in the latter part of the 14th century
on the site of another erected about two centuries before, and of much
smaller dimensions.  Mackerell seemed much puzzled to determine to what
Nicholas this sacred building had been dedicated, whether _the proselyte
of Antioch_, mentioned in the book of Acts, or _the bishop of Myra_ of
the same name, who so stoutly opposed the Arians at the Council of Nice.
After all, it seems not very likely that it was either of them, but a
namesake of theirs, of a much more modern date. {1093}  This, however, is
a question in which few of the readers of this work will feel themselves
much interested.

This elegant edifice is supposed to be the largest parochial chapel in
the kingdom.

                      [Picture: St. Nicholas Chapel]

    “It measures (says Mr. Edwards) 194 feet in length from East to West,
    within the walls, and about 74 feet in breadth; having no transept or
    distinct choir.  The interior consists of a lofty nave, with two
    lateral ailes.  The latter are divided from the former by eleven
    arches on the north side, and ten on the south:—the space of one arch
    at the S.W. angle being occupied by the base of the tower.  The place
    of another arch, at the east end, is taken up by a vestry on the
    south side, and a similar apartment, over the vault of Sir Benjamin
    Keene, towards the north, leaving a kind of recess between, of the
    whole width of the nave, for the communion table.  The distinguishing
    characters of this structure, as seen within, are lightness,
    simplicity, and perfect uniformity of style; the _tower_ alone being
    of an earlier date than the rest of the fabric.  The pillars are
    slender, having the horizontal section of the shaft nearly in the
    form of a truncated lozenge, relieved by shallow flutings, and raised
    about four feet from the ground upon corresponding bases.  They have
    no capitals, but small brackets which support the inner ribs of the
    Arches.  Opposite the arches, in the side ailes, are an equal number
    of windows: between the windows are niches and canopies.  The east
    and west windows are very large, with a pleasing mixture of curved
    and rectilinear tracery, and embattled ornaments upon the transoms.
    The former is divided into nine days, or lights, by eight vertical
    mullions, and the latter has eleven-days, or vertical compartments of
    glass.  More ornament has been bestowed upon the _doors_ than on any
    other part of the building.  The western door-way in particular, is
    divided by a mullion which supports an elegant niche, and is adorned
    with other sculpture in stone.  The small south door-way is in the
    same style, as is also the larger door-way towards the north.  The
    front of the _South Porch_ is still more elaborate, being covered
    with a variety of minute decorations.  The roof of it is handsomely
    groined with stone.  At the intersection of the ribs are some heads
    and figures in bold relief, but much obscured with whitening: in the
    centre is a figure of the Almighty Father with a globe in one hand,
    and the other lifted up as in the act of blessing those who approach
    his temple. {1095}  In the circle surrounding this compartment appear
    to be angels in the act of adoration; and at a little distance
    towards the windows, are two crowned heads of a male and female,
    which might be intended for Edward III and his queen Philippa.  The
    inner roof of the chapel is of oak, in a plain and simple style, yet
    with a sufficiency of ornament to harmonize with the rest of the
    building.  The beams and cornices and relieved with carvings of the
    strawberry leaf, which was so great a favourite with our ancestors;
    and overall the upper windows there were originally figures of angels
    with outspread wings, represented as playing on various musical
    instruments.”

The original chapel, built by bishop Turbus, or de Turbe, about the time
of king Stephen, (the middle or latter part of the 12th century,) having
proved too small for the accommodation of the inhabitants, it is
understood to have been taken down and rebuilt upon its present scale, in
the latter part of Edward the 3rd’s reign, and of the 14th century: “For
the pope’s bull to that effect is stated by Parkin (p. 595) to have been
granted to the mayoralty of Jeffrey Tall, or Talbooth, who served that
office in 1371 and 1379.  And it is recorded that in the latter year,
pope Urban VI sent his bull hither, which was received with great
veneration, to authorise and allow the baptizing of infants and others in
this chapel.”  This is supported by the authority of Parkin and
Mackerell, and corroborated by the gravestone and history of William de
Bittering.  Moreover “the figures of a lion and an eagle upon the summit
of the South porch, are thought to be the armorial supporters of Edward
III: and there was very lately in the centre of the west window, a figure
greatly resembling the usual portraits of that monarch, with three crowns
upon his sceptre.  The ornaments which surmount the two canopied niches
in the buttresses on each side of the western door, also appear very like
the crest of the same king, as it is represented in his first gold coin,
the quarter florin.”—[see Folkes’ Tables p. 121.]—Repeated efforts were
made to render both the original chapel and the present one independent
of the mother church; but those attempts were always opposed and
frustrated by the bishop.  But it really seemed sometimes to be
considered as independent by the inhabitants; and the _parish of St.
Nicholas_ occurs in old records as distinct from that of St. Margaret:
and in the reign of Philip and Mary the extent of each parish, and the
limits or boundary that divided them appear to have been accurately
marked out.  Afterwards, however, the managers of St. Nicholas’ parish
were found to encroach on their neighbours of St. Margaret; which
produced a dispute between them that occasioned the interference of the
Hall to put a stop to it, by declaring afresh the proper bounds of each
parish.  This happened in 1585, as appears from a passage in an old
record, now in the hands of this writer, mostly extracted, as he thinks,
from the Hall-Books of those times. {1097}  About fourteen years after,
as we learn from the same document the corporation’s title to St.
Nicholas’ _church yard_ was seriously disputed, but it is not said by
whom. {1098}  The last effort to establish the independency of this
church and parish was in 1609, but it was then crushed by the consistory
court at Norwich, and set for ever at rest.  At present the two ministers
serve this church and that of St. Margaret alternately; and it would be
no very easy matter, perhaps, to find any two churches that are better
served.  At the general dissolution of the monasteries, the impropriation
of these churches was purchased by the corporation; but it seems that the
provision they made for the ministers was more ample formerly than it has
been latterly.

3.  ALL-HALLOWS, otherwise ALL-SAINTS, or _South Lynn Church_.
_Mackerell_, from its nearness to the site of their convent, infers that
“that this church did formerly belong to the _Carmelites_ or White
Friars”—he might as well have inferred that St. James’s formerly belonged
to the Grey Friars, and St. Nicholas’s to the Augustinians, as they stand
equally near to the sites of their convents.  He also informs us that it
has been used for a parish church, ever since the abolition of the
Carmelite convent; as if South Lynn, (or _Suthsoken_ as it was anciently
called) had been without a parish church till the reign of Henry the 8th;
than which there cannot be a more groundless supposition.  Of its _former
state_, in other respects, his account is more correct: “This fabrick
(says he,) though it cannot be said to be large, yet it is a neat,
regular, and solid structure, built in the form of a cross, within a fair
cemetery, or church-yard, well walled and fenced in.  The steeple is
square and flat, with proper battlements round it.  In the middle is a
streight pinnacle, upon which is placed a weather-cock, and has five
tuneable bells.  Here are two convenient porticos, one on the south side,
and the other at the west end.  The dimensions of the whole here
follow—From east to west within, 139 feet; from north to south, 48 feet;
length of the cross isle, 83 feet; height of the steeple, 83 feet; height
of the spire, 31 feet.  The body consists of three alleys, and in a cross
isle besides the quire are very many grave-stones for _monks_, and
others, [of the different orders of friars] who came thither about the
reign of Henry III, and here settled, building themselves convents in
different parts of the town” [as divers protestant sects have also done
in more recent times.]—Of this Edifice, in its more modern state _Parkin_
says; “This church is dedicated to _All Saints_: it is a regular pile
built in form of a cross, with 3 isles and a chancel, covered with lead;
the whole being about 140 feet long; breadth 48 feet; cross isle 83 feet
long.  At the west end was a strong tower—and 5 tuneable bells.  The
tower fell down in 1763, and part of the end of the church, which is now
repaired with a strong brick wall; on the top of which is a kind of
cupola of wood, &c. in which hangs one small bell.—At the dissolution
this impropriate rectory being in the crown, was assigned to the Lady
Mary (afterward queen Mary) and was valued 11_l._ 0_s._ 9_d._—[a very
small sum compared with its present value, or annual product.]  In the
20th. of James I. it was possessed by Sir John Jolleys,” [and at present
by Sir Martin Browne Folkes bart.]  The _vicarage_ is in the gift of the
bishop of Ely; but is a very poor one, and said to be worth very little
if any thing more now than it was 150 years ago.

  [Picture: All Saints Church of South Lynn, published April 1810, by W.
                            Whittingham, Lynn]

4.  OLD LYNN, or _West Lynn_ Church; otherwise _West Lynn St. Peters_.
This edifice, as its last name implies, is dedicated to _St. Peter_;
meaning, as we presume, the apostle so called.  It stands on the western
bank of the Ouse, nearly opposite to St. Margaret’s.  It is not the
original church of old Lynn; nor does it stand on the same spot: that
stood to the east of it, and within the present bed of the river.  It is
said to have been destroyed, together with the church-yard, about the
56th. of Henry III, or 1271, by an _inundation of the sea_; or rather,
perhaps, by the vast _increase of fresh water_ in this harbour, from the
addition of the Grant, the Ouse, and the Nene, about that time, to those
other rivers which before had their passage to the sea by this town.  The
present church, it seems, was erected very soon after, on a piece of
ground which the rector, William Pakenham, had procured for that purpose;
who, to avoid all disputes, allowed the former patron, the prior of
Lewes, the soil or ground, and the right of patronage.  To this new
church was afterwards added a _chapel_ dedicated to _our Lady_, in which
was _her image_: also a chauntry, endowed with much land and divers
tenements; all which was seized by the crown at the dissolution, and
granted afterwards to the L’estranges of Hunstanton.  This church is a
rectory:—it is covered (says Parkin) with lead, and the chancel with
reed; and he adds, “it has a square tower with 3 bells.”  So much for
this consecrated fabric.

5.  NORTH LYNN _church_, or, (as we may call it) _Lynn St. Edmund’s_,
from its being dedicated to a royal saint of that name.  Of this sacred
structure not a vestige now remains.  We have been able to discover
neither the time when it was built, nor yet when it disappeared.  But it
was probably built soon after the death, or canonization of _king
Edmund_, called the _martyr_, to whom it was dedicated.  It seems to have
stood many ages; for it was standing in the latter part of the reign of
Henry VII; and it probably stood a good while after that; even to the
time of the reformation or later.  It appears from Parkin’s account, that
it was standing at the beginning of the 16th century; for John Byrd, the
then rector, and who calls himself _parson of_ OLD LYNN, (which, by the
bye, seems to imply that the name of _old Lyn_ was then applied to both
parishes,) by his will dated 1505, wills to be buried in the chancel of
this church.  This proves that it was then standing, and that there was
no apprehension entertained of its being in any great danger of falling,
or of being swallowed up by the waters.  Yet it certainly underwent that
catastrophe sometime after though perhaps not very soon: so that both
church and church-yard were completely swept away.  It is supposed they
stood in the present bed of the river, somewhere nearly opposite to the
fort, or the block-house.  Since that period the North-Lynn rectory has
been a _sine cure_.  Repeated attempts, if are not mistaken, have been
made since (though in vain) to have this benefice bestowed on the
corporation, for the better maintenance of the ministers of the town.
One of those attempts was made in the reign of Charles I, as is evinced
by the following extract from the Hall-books—“1647, _Dec._ 17.  _Ordered
a Letter to Mr. Alderman Toll and Mr. Recorder_, _to acquaint them with
the death of Mr. Scott_, _minister of North-Lyn_, _and to get that living
by some means to be bestowed on this town toward the maintenance of the
ministers thereof_.”—The present incumbent, being also one of the
ministers of the town, the object then had in view may be said to be in
some measure secured during his life-time.  But it is not certain, or
even very likely, that it will be secured any further.


SECTION II.


_Brief account of the different dissenting chapels in this town_.

Of all our present sects the _Jews_ and the _Catholics_ seem to claim the
precedence in point of antiquity.  The former composed a part of the
population of Lynn at a pretty remote period; and the treatment they here
experienced ought to be spoken of only in terms of the utmost
reprobation.  They were pillaged and massacred in the most brutal manner,
and had their very habitations burnt and destroyed, as has been related
in a former part of this work. {1103}  There are still some Jewish
families resident here; and we believe they have always had a synagogue
in the town.  It was for many years in Tower Street; but that has been
lately pulled down, being part of the premises which the _Methodists_
have purchased for the purpose of erecting there their intended
magnificent and capacious temple.  We have not learnt that the Jews have
yet been able to procure another synagogue; but we may suppose that they
will not be long without it.  At present they probably meet in some
private apartment fitted up for the purpose, till a more suitable place
can be obtained.

As to the CATHOLICS, they were formerly our predominant sect, and
constituted the established church of England and of Lynn, for near a
thousand years.  They have long been reduced here to a small society, and
are not at present likely to become more numerous or considerable.  They
have generally a priest stationed among them.  Their present chapel is a
small room in Ferry Street, and those who attend are, of course, but few
in number.  The present minister is a French emigrant, of fair character,
and very well respected in this town, to whom many of our townsmen are
indebted for the proficiency they have made in the knowledge of the
French language.  The Roman Catholic religion being no longer the
religion of the state, it has ceased to be oppressive or formidable to
our other religious communities; and it is supposed to have lost (at
least in these kingdoms) much of that intolerant and sanguinary character
which distinguished its professors in former times.  By many the
Catholics in these realms, and especially in Ireland, are thought an
oppressed people; and it is much to be wished that every just reason for
such an opinion might entirely be done away.

3.  That respectable body of protestant Dissenters, who have assumed the
name of FRIENDS, and are by others called _Quakers_, have long had a
place of worship in this town, and formed a reputable part of its
population.  It seems that some of our townsmen have been of that
denomination ever since the year 1655.  _George Fox_ himself visited this
town in the course of that year, and preached here with considerable
effect.  A Person was sent about the town to apprize the inhabitants of
his arrival, and invite them to give him a hearing, especially the more
sober and pious part of them, together with the officers of the garrison.
A large congregation appears to have assembled, many of whom were much
affected by the sermon: consequently, as we learn from Fox’s Journal, a
fine meeting or congregation was formed here, “_who had come from the
hireling teachers to sit under the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ_.”
From that time to this it is supposed that there has always existed here
a society of Friends or Quakers.  Fox, however, was not the first of that
Denomination who visited Lynn.  It was visited, as _Sewel_ informs us, by
_Thomas Briggs_ two years before, who warned the people to repent, but
appears not to have been much listened to, and even to have met a very
unchristian reception—“a great mastiff (says Sewel,) was set upon him;
but the dog coming near, fawned upon him, and would do him no harm:” so
that the poor brute behaved to him much better than those of his own
species.  But it has often so happened to those who endeavoured to reform
the world and turn mankind from the errors of their ways.  Fox visited
Lynn again in 1662, when some of his Friends were confined here in
prison.  We find that he preached here then with acceptance; which was,
probably, what excited the magistrates to have him apprehended and
imprisoned; but before they could effect their cruel purpose, he escaped
out of their jurisdiction.  Where those of his persuasion held their
meetings here in those troublesome times does not appear, but they
afterwards met in the Cross Yard near Lady Bridge, which continued to be
their place of worship till the erection of their present place in New
Conduit Street.  This is a neat, but small place; though quite large
enough for their congregation, which is supposed to be now much smaller
than it has been in former times, as is also the case in most parts of
the kingdom—the modern Quakers having but a small portion of that zeal in
disseminating their principles which was manifested by their early
ancestors.  This is to be regretted, as some of those principles are
certainly very excellent, and deserve every possible exertion to
disseminate them throughout the world.  Of the particular tenets of the
Quakers a full account may be found in _Barclay’s Apology_, and also in
_Clarkson’s Portraiture of Quakerism_.  They have no preaching among
them, here except when a stranger comes, as they have no public friend or
minister among themselves.  They have three burying places in this town,
which may indicate that they have had here three different meeting
houses.

4.  PRESBYTERIAN _Chapel_.  Though the Presbyterians seem to be of
somewhat longer standing in this town than the Quakers, yet it does not
appear that they had here a separate place of worship as early as they.
They appeared here as a distinct sect soon after the Restoration, in
consequence of the ejection of _Mr. Horne_ from the vicarage of Lynn
Allhallows, and from the established priesthood.  His acknowledged piety,
learning, and respectability of character, were likely to gain him
adherents as an ejected minister.  The number of those who adhered to him
on that trying occasion we have not been able to learn; but it is certain
that they soon formed themselves into a separate society, and report has
said, that they met for some time at a place fitted up for the purpose in
a certain yard or alley in Black-goose Street.  They afterwards removed
to Spinner Lane, behind the house now inhabited by Mr. _Dennis_, where
they fitted up and converted into a decent chapel, a round house,
originally erected for a Glass-house.  Here the congregation assembled
during the whole ministration of the _two Rastricks_, and part of that of
_Mr. Mayhew_.  After he had been here some time, the old chapel falling
into decay was given up, and the congregation then removed to a new and
neat chapel which they had erected in Broad Street, which was a more
eligible situation.  Mr. Mayhew about the 70th year of his age resigned
the ministry, and was succeeded by _Mr. Warner_, who was the minister of
this chapel from 1777 to 1801, when he resigned his charge and removed to
_Hapton_.  Before his removal the congregation had been for sometime
declining, not for want of abilities in him, but rather for want of a
larger portion of sectarianism and proselytism.  Several of the principal
members were removed by death, some before his departure, and others soon
after.  Of the remainder, those of them who might be expected to retain
some attachment to the cause, fearing the expense which might attend any
exertion on their part to revive and support it, now dastardly quitted
their post, and ingloriously sneaked back into the bosom of the
established church, and have ever since, as might be expected,
constituted some of its most useless members.  In consequence of that
defection and desertion, the Calvinian Methodists, under the name of
Independents, thrust themselves in, and got possession of the chapel, to
which they could apparently have no more right than the other Methodists,
or even the Quakers.  Indeed it would seem that they had less right to it
than those, as the Lynn Presbyterians had always been _Arminians_ from
the beginning.  It was always said by Mr. Warner, that the place, in the
event of the extinction of the Presbyterian interest here, according to
the chapel deeds, would become the property of the Presbyterian board, in
London.  As to the Trustees, if they knew their business, they could not
suppose that they had any right transfer to another and hostile
denomination the possession of the property with which they were
entrusted.  This we notice as what we conceive to be due to historical
truth, and to the memory of the Presbyterian congregation, which existed
so usefully and reputably in this town near 150 years, and whose
ministers were in general among the chief ornaments of the place for
learning and respectability of deportment.—The Presbyterian chapel was
about 40 feet by 25, with a gallery fronting the pulpit.  It has been
since lengthened to about 58 feet, with the addition of very narrow side
galleries.  It is but ill planned, and supposed not capable of containing
so many people as either the Methodist or Baptist chapels.

5.  BAPTIST _Chapel_.  This also is situated in _Broad Street_, and not
far from that of the Presbyterians.  It has been lately rebuilt, and is a
neat handsome place, about 46 feet by 26, with deep galleries in the
front and at both ends.  The dissenters of this denomination are not of
so long standing at Lynn as those treated of under the two last articles.
They were gathered and formed into a society here in the reign of James
II, by the ministry of the worthy and memorable _Thomas Grantham_, who
was indefatigable in his endeavours to enlighten and reform his
countrymen, and establish them in what he deemed to be scriptural
christianity.  Till a proper place of worship could be procured, it is
understood that he was allowed to preach in the Townhall; and he appears
to have been treated here with much respect, owing perhaps to his
respectable connections, the Granthams being then one of the first
families in Lincolnshire.  He was what is called a _general_ Baptist, and
therefore not what was then, or would be now, deemed orthodox.  He never
settled here, but went mostly about, as an apostle or reformer, to
promote what he conceived to be the pure religion of the New Testament.
He succeeded in gathering and establishing many congregations in
different parts of the country, but chiefly in Lincolnshire and Norfolk.
The latter part of his time he resided mostly at Norwich, where he
gathered a congregation, in spite of the intolerance and bitter enmity to
dissenters, which continued to rage there, even after the revolution: and
there he died at the beginning of 1692, at the age of 58. {1109}  About
that time or a few months earlier, the congregation at Lynn became the
objects of persecution from the ruling powers here.  They were proceeded
against upon the _conventicle act_, although both their place of worship
and their minister had been regularly licenced.  An account of this dark
and disgraceful business has been given before at page 861.  How long the
congregation was enabled to withstand this persecution we have not been
able to ascertain.  Perhaps it was soon after borne down and crushed.  We
are sure that it had become extinct long before the denomination was
again revived here about the commencement of the present reign by the
ministry of Mr. _Chesterton_.  The society then formed was _calvinistic_,
and so more orthodox than the former, and so it still continues.  It was
dissolved about the time of Mr. Chesterton’s death, but again revived and
reorganized about the year 1777; since which time it has been kept up,
though not always without some difficulty.  Their present minister is a
person of good report, and it is hoped he will be long comfortable and
very useful in his situation.

6.  METHODIST _Chapel_.  This place, situated in the _North Clough Lane_,
is very well contrived and neatly fitted up.  It is about 42 feet by 30,
with very deep galleries in front and at both ends.  It is so constructed
as to be capable of accommodating, perhaps, a greater number of hearers
than any of our other chapels; yet such has been the late increase of
Methodism here, that it is now become too small for the audience; and
therefore for their better accommodation, a new and very capacious, as
well as elegant and splendid place is now about to be erected in _Tower
Street_, which is expected to be completed by next Michaelmas.  The
expense of this intended erection is estimated at 4000_l._ or more.  As
to the old place, it is likely to be soon desecrated and converted to a
granary or warehouse, or place for some such secular and unhallowed use:
and though it would be a very commodious place of worship for any other
description of christians, yet it is understood that it would not be
obtainable for such a purpose, from, as it would seem, the low and
tradesman-like consideration, that it would not be quite safe to have it
occupied in the same line, lest it should prove detrimental to the trade
of the new shop.  The present writer remembers the Methodists a
persecuted sect, classed among the heretics of the day, and much spoken
against every where.  They were then meek and passive, and not apt to
brand those of other denominations with bad names, or fix upon them the
odium of heresy.  The case is greatly altered since: they were then weak,
but are now powerful; they were then few, now they are numerous, and
their numbers daily and rapidly increasing.  They consequently assume a
high tone, and join in the cry of _heresy_ as loudly as any of our
persecuting sects—especially against _anti-trinitarians_, or
_unitarians_, and _universalists_: and yet it is certain that the public
mind, or national opinion is no more inimical to persons of those
denominations at present, than it was to the Methodists fifty years ago.
Let the Methodists think of this, and learn a becoming measure of
moderation and good neighbourhood.—What has happened to themselves may
also happen, in a course of time, to those whom they now so very bitterly
and violently decry, and so unmercifully stigmatize and anathematize.

7.  SALEM _Chapel_.  This is a new place of worship, erected the latter
pact of last year, (1811,) in consequence of the dismission of _Mr.
Finch_ from the pastoral office in the Baptist congregation, on account
of some difference of opinion about _satanic influence_, and some other
speculative and abstruse points.  The place is about 50 feet by 30; and
so larger than any of the other chapels here: and when galleries are
erected, (a measure already in contemplation,) it will be capable of
containing a larger audience than any of them.  It is at present well
attended, and supposed likely to continue so.—Mr. Finch’s dismission from
his late situation in the Baptist chapel, {1112} and especially the
manner in which it was transacted, being disapproved by many of the
hearers, who were much attached to his ministry, measures were soon
adopted to retain him still in the town, by erecting for him a new
chapel, where things should be conducted on a more liberal plan, and in
the true spirit of protestantism, to the exclusion of all human creeds
and formulas, and the admission of the scripture as the only religious
directory, or sole rule of faith and practice.  In a society so formed,
the essence of christianity, it was _hoped_, would be exhibited as
consisting in the imitation of Jesus of Nazareth, a submission to his
authority, and reliance on him, arising from the firm persuasion or
belief of his Messiahship, or that he is indeed the Christ, the Son of
God—of which the New Testament affords such clear and ample evidence.
Whether or not that hope will be realized, must be left for time to
determine.  The persons chiefly concerned in this new undertaking are not
anxious to identify themselves with any one of our religious parties or
denominations, though they wish to maintain peace and good neighbourhood
with them all.  If they ever connect or identify themselves with any one
party, it will probably be a liberal, though small body of those called
_general Baptists_, {1113} one of whose ministers, the worthy and
respectable author of the _Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian
World_, was unanimously invited to assist at the opening of this new
chapel, when his services gave entire and abundant satisfaction.  The
first sermon he preached here, being also the first that was delivered in
this new place, has been since published, with an _Appendix_, containing
an account of a late very curious correspondence between him and _Mr.
Berington_, a learned _Catholic priest_, which it is supposed must render
this publication very interesting.  Except the stated minister, _Mr.
Evans_ is the only one that has yet preached in this new chapel; but it
is understood that the occasional service of any worthy minister, of
whatever denomination, whether reputed orthodox or otherwise, who passing
this way may be disposed to address this congregation, would not be here
rejected.  It may therefore be expected that ministers of different views
on many religious subjects will be found sometimes officiating in this
new pulpit; which seems very well to accord with the avowed principles of
these people, who profess a readiness to hear what any serious and pious
religionist may have to say, and then to judge for themselves of its
reasonableness and accordance with the scriptures.  It is hoped they will
carefully persevere in this laudable course, trying all things, and
holding fast that which is good, however unfashionable such a mode of
proceeding may appear to have now become in the religious world.

Having now finished the account of places of worship, it may not be
improper to add here a few supplementary observations before we close
this section.  First then it may be remarked, that religion at Lynn
exhibits the appearance of considerable diversity; which diversity is
allowed by the higher powers, for which they are certainly not to be
censured, as religious liberty is one of the first and most undoubted
rights of man.  Accordingly there are here Jews and Christians, Catholics
and Protestants, Churchmen and Dissenters, and the latter of various
orders and descriptions—all at present quite unannoyed and undisturbed,
_except what may be occasioned by the bigotry and malevolence which some
of them too often manifest towards others of a different way of
thinking_.  This is disgraceful enough to our sectarian bigots, and shews
how little they have yet learnt of Christ, and how ignorant they still
are of the spirit of his religion, notwithstanding their loud pretensions
to superior knowledge.

Each of the great bodies or sects, with which most of our religious
communities here are connected, has its particular constitution, which is
its law of confederation and great bond of union, and may be said to be
no less definable than our boasted and admired English Constitution.  All
these sectarian constitutions answer pretty well the end of their
formation; but do not all discover equal legislative capacity, or
profoundness of judgment in the different framers of them.  Some of them
are such as can reflect but little credit on the skill or judgment of
their constructors, while others discover such profound sagacity, deep
penetration, and accurate knowledge of mankind as would not have
disgraced a Solon or a Lycurgus.  Of this latter sort is the constitution
of those respectable sectaries called _Friends_ or _Quakers_, as appears
from _Barclay’s Apology_, and _Clarkson’s Portraiture_.  Of this sort too
is _the constitution of the Arminian or Wesleyan Methodists_, of which
the fairest, and fullest, and best account this writer has seen, or knows
of, is in _Nightingale’s Portraiture of Methodism_; which is a moderate
size octavo volume, and well worth the perusal of all who wish to become
more intimately acquainted with the history and character of this rapidly
increasing sect, which is said to be likely soon to swallow up all the
rest.  However that may happen, it seems very certain that Methodism,
from the nature of its constitution and organization, is calculated for a
wide and rapid increase, far beyond any otter existing sect now within
the British dominions.  What may render this more credible to the reader
is, that there are now about 30 preachers of this denomination,
(including those called _local_) belonging to this town and circuit, all
in very constant employ here, or in the surrounding villages; which seems
a pretty fair specimen of their present state throughout the realm.  This
is not mentioned to disparage their exertions.  If they think their cause
of superlative importance to mankind, let them persevere, while they use
no other, or worse means to insure success, than pious persuasion and
fair argument.  If they succeed and become the most numerous body of
religionists in the country, let them by all means be the _established
church of England_.  Where would be the harm of that?  We know of none:
at least, if they were to be constrained at the same time to renounce and
quit forever every remnant of a bigoted or intolerant spirit towards
their dissenting neighbours. {1116}


SECTION III.


_Hints relating to the state of Deism_, _Scepticism_, _Free-Masonry_,
_&c. in this town_.

Considering the easy faith, or aversion to incredulity, which our
townsmen, in common with most of their dear countrymen, have generally
shewn, on almost all subjects and occasions, it may seem rather odd that
there should be found here any religious unbelievers; and yet such is
really the case.  A very large portion of the community, comprehending
not a few persons of reading and some reflection, appear to be at this
time, either unconvinced, or decided disbelievers of the divine authority
and truth of christianity.  Nor is this perhaps much to be wondered at,
when the case is duly considered.  To many, no doubt, this unbelief, or
infidelity, proves very _convenient_ and desirable, as it frees them from
almost every moral restraint, and leaves them much at liberty to follow
and gratify their vicious and lawless inclinations.  Upon this ground we
may pretty safely account for the scepticism and unbelief of _most_ of
our avowed infidels.  These too, seem to be the very worst of them, as
they are more inexcusable than that other sort, who viewing christianity
through the medium of its _corruptions_, hastily reject it altogether, as
utterly unworthy of their credit or acceptance.  But it may be said,
“they are very wrong, in determining so hastily, without looking into the
New Testament, and examining it as it is delivered there.”  Very true.
But who among our numerous christian sects and parties, will dare, for
shame, to reproach them on that account, while they themselves, with all
their professed veneration for that book, make no scruple to deviate from
it, whenever their interest or policy, or the established formulas,
creeds, or customs of their respective parties require them so to do?
One takes up _the Athanasian Creed_, and says, “this is christianity; and
except a man believe it he cannot be saved, but must, without doubt,
perish everlastingly.”  Can it be any wonder that an honest and rational
enquirer should startle, and say, “if this be christianity, I cannot
believe its divine authority, or that it came from God, for I am very
sure that such a self-contradictory farrago can never have proceeded from
him.”—Other articles in great abundance, all equally absurd and
incredible, and very prominent in the creeds and observances of the
religions world, might be here added, and which professing christians and
christian ministers are daily representing and recommending, as
unquestionable parts of christianity, and most worthy of our belief and
reception.  In viewing christianity through the mists and fogs of its
numerous and enormous corruptions, it is certainly not very wonderful
that many who are not disposed to bestow much time upon religious
enquires should be discouraged, so as to stand aloof, and deem the divine
authority of it incredible—and if they are very blameable for so doing,
still no small portion of the blame must be imputable to those who have
so greatly tarnished the beauties of christianity, and obscured its
truth, by presumptuously introducing, supporting, and advocating those
corruptions.

After all, the Deists are not to be deemed the worst enemies of
christianity.  Its most dangerous foes are to be found among its
pretended friends and admirers, who would fain persuade us that our
public and national transactions are all, forsooth, very christianlike
and evangelical: and so by divesting christianity of its morality, and
reducing it to a mere state engine, they do all they can to render it
incredible and contemptible in the eyes of all reflecting and honest
men.—Thus the American War, with all its enormities—the African Slave
trade, West Indian system, Caribbean war of extermination, with all their
horrors—the late war, with all its follies—Pitt’s reign of terror, with
all its espionage and profligacy—our days of thanksgiving, fasting, and
humiliation, with all their hypocrisy and solemn mockery—the Copenhagen
expedition—the whole Irish system, and every public deviation from wisdom
and moral rectitude, have been represented by these men as very
justifiable, and thoroughly consistent with the dictates of christianity.
These people consist of courtiers and statesmen, placemen and pensioners,
laity and clergy, (even most of our prelates and dignitaries,) and in
short, the whole of that immense multitude who live upon the public
loaves and fishes, or expect to come in for a share of them.  That they
should profess the religion of the state, and be very clamorous too in
its defence, is natural enough—as well as that they should be very ready
to defend and justify all our public or state measures; but it is not
quite so clear that they are more friendly or favourable to christianity,
properly so called, than our professed deists: on the contrary, by
identifying their monstrous corruptions with christianity, they may be
said to be its worst enemies; in comparison with whom, our professed or
avowed deists are feeble and harmless adversaries.  The deists of this
town are said to be very numerous, and would, if formed into a society,
constitute, perhaps, the largest congregation in the place: but they are
not of a gregarious or congregating character; {1120a} and they know in
general so little of the New Testament, or uncorrupted christianity, that
their objections seldom affect any part of it—their assault being chiefly
directed against its outworks, or rather its corruptions: and for every
attempt to expose and explore them they deserve every honest man’s
thanks.

2.  _Free Masons_.  The origin of this numerous sect or fraternity, as
well as that of the _Gypsies_, is involved in great and impenetrable
obscurity.  It is in vain to look even to the most knowing of its own
members for any information upon that subject, that may in the least be
depended upon.  Almost every thing they urge or allege about it is
evidently and ridiculously false and fabulous.  They tell us that the art
and mystery of Masonry was first introduced at the building of the _Tower
of Babel_, and from thence handed down by _Euclid_, who communicated it
to _Hiram_, {1120b} the Master Mason concerned in the building of
_Solomon’s Temple_; where was an excellent and curious Mason that was
chief under the grand Master _Hiram_ whose name was _Mannon Grecus_; who
taught the art of Masonry to _Carolus Marcel_, in France, who was
afterwards elected king of France; and from thence was brought to England
in the reign of king _Athelston_, who ordered an assembly to be held once
every year at York, which was the first introduction of it to England.
{1121}  At other times they say, that masons first appeared in England
A.D. 43, when they built the monastery of _Glastonbury_.  They might as
well have introduced them at the building of _Stonehenge_, or at the
commencement of _Druidism_, and erection of the _druidical altars_.  But
it probably slipt their memory.  Others, indeed, though they seem not to
have belonged to the craft, have actually supposed them to have sprung
from the _druids_, who like them had a method of making themselves known
to one another by certain _secret signs_; as is also said to have been
the case with the _Gnostics_ and some other ancient heretical sects.
Others, however, carry the origin of the order still farther back, even
beyond the Flood, and name _Tubal-cain_ as one of the grandmasters of
that period; in proof of which they refer to a certain document, which
they call, an _original Record_.—Such wild and extravagant pretentions
exhibit Free-Masonry in a very queer and unfavourable light: and they
ought never to have been countenanced by any of the members who had any
regard for their own characters.

Not only about their origin or extraction, but also in what relates to
their subsequent history, are the Free-Masons chargeable with propagating
the most idle fabrications.  Thus they tell us a most strange tale about
the grand master _Hiram_, called also _Hiram Abiff_; how _three_ out of
the 15 _fellow crafts_ conspired to assassinate him, which they effected
as he was coming out of the _Sanctum Sanctorum_, where he had been
praying.  This was at noon day.  They hid the body, afterwards buried it,
and then absconded.  These ruffians, whose names were _Jubela_, _Jubelo_,
and _Jubelum_, were afterwards discovered near Joppa, by _three other
fellow crafts_, who had gone in pursuit of them.  They were then brought
before king Solomon, by whose orders they were all three executed.
Hiram’s body, being by the king’s order dug out of the grave where the
three masonic ruffians had buried it, was afterwards solemnly interred,
forsooth, in the _Sanctum Sanctorum_.—The tale is pretty long in some of
the masonic books; but this is the substance: and it is very disgraceful
to the fabricators and the propagators of it, as it discovers a glaring
propensity to the most sottish and profligate kind of lying.—Much might
be here added to the same purpose; but this it is hoped will induce the
members of this community at Lynn, to review and reject this and every
other exceptionable part of their system.

As to the mode of admission, parade about the cardinal points of the
compass, where the master and inferior functionaries are stationed, and
their forms about tyling the lodge, setting the men to work, and calling
them off to take refreshment, &c. &c. they may be all harmless enough, or
at least, comparatively so: yet to the serious by-stander, or
uninitiated, they can hardly fail of appearing in no small degree
frivolous and childish.—Many indeed have deemed the whole system or
institution of masonry a designed burlesque upon scripture and religion.
But though there may be many circumstances that would seem to bear that
way, yet such is the unquestionable respectability of many of its members
that it is very certain such a design could never have met with their
concurrence or countenance.  The fact, that such characters do really
belong to this community seems also to prove that there must be some good
points pertaining to masonry, which recommend it to their approbation,
and hide in a great measure, or at least appear to counterbalance the
defects above mentioned.  In particular, it is said, that those of this
fraternity, not only are much given to conviviality and good fellowship,
but also abound in acts of kindness and charity, especially among
themselves, and towards their brethren in distress; and even that they
are generally among the most active promoters of benevolent deeds, or
good works in the places where they reside.  If it be really so, it will
account for that warm attachment to masonry which many well disposed and
respectable persons have often manifested.  In short, when we consider
the fair and estimable characters of many of our masons, the order
appears respectable: but, on the other hand, when we advert to the forged
and absurd tales, and to those idle forms, customs, and ceremonies that
are attached to the institution, we cannot help wondering how those
worthy members can patiently or possibly endure them, or quietly continue
in the connection.  But they conceive, no doubt, that the good
preponderates, or that the excellencies of masonry outweigh its defects,
and satisfy their minds with that consideration.  Be it so, it is not
meant here to judge or blame them for so doing: they have certainly a
very good right to think and act for themselves, so long as no one is
thereby wronged or injured.

The present form and organization of the masonic sect appear to be but of
very recent origin, and cannot perhaps be traced beyond the era of the
revolution.  The fraternity soon after began to assume something like its
present appearance; and as it consisted mostly of rather suspicious
characters, it was for a long while deemed a tory or jacobitical
institution.  It did not spread very much before the accession of the
Brunswick family; after which it multiplied apace, but was still thought
to consist, chiefly at least, of disaffected persons and friends of the
pretender.  In process of time, however, that reproach was completely
done away, when it came to be known that not only courtiers, but even
some branches of the reigning family were among its members.

The first regular lodge in this town was opened at the White Lion Inn,
October 1. 1729.  Since which time there is supposed to have always
existed here one or more regular lodges.  There are now here three
lodges.  Two of them deem themselves to all intents and purposes regular
and orthodox, but are not willing to allow the third to be so.  What is
the real ground of this difference, or what it is that constitutes
masonic regularity or irregularity, orthodoxy or heterodoxy, is beyond
the competency of the present writer to pronounce or explain.  He has
been informed by some of the Lynn masons, that the whole number of them
now in this town, (exclusive, as he understood, of those of the irregular
lodge) amount to above five hundred: from which it would seem that
masonry is here at this time in a thriving and flourishing condition.  As
to their great and boasted secret, we shall not presume to guess what it
may be, but shall most willingly let it quietly remain among the
mysteries, without the least solicitude or wish for its discovery.  Nor
will we so much as mention the heavy charge which professor _Robison_ and
the _Frenchman_ brought some years ago against the whole order; believing
as we do that it was totally unfounded.

3.  _Society of True Britons_.  This institution did not last long.  It
seemed not to have any very important object in view.  The dignified name
it assumed, with the pompous formalities of its organisation, could not
therefore insure its permanence.  It was established with no small
parade, with _Governor_, _Deputy governor_, _Secretary_, _Sword-bearer_,
&c. together with _laws_ and a _constitution_, which all the members were
solemnly to _swear_ to observe, and keep inviolate.  The first meetings
of this memorable Society were held in the autumn of 1749; after which
they were conducted for sometime in great form: but their proceedings
appeared in general very much like a burlesque upon all corporate bodies
and social institutions.  This might be very easily exemplified, but it
would probably afford the reader but little gratification, as we cannot
find that the society proved of any material benefit to church or state;
or to the town itself—some of whose leading families, however, such as
its _Bagges_ and _Brownes_, were among its members. {1126}  But we will
here dismiss the subject and close this section.


SECTION IV.


_Brief account of the Almshouses of Lynn_; _and also of its Purse-clubs
or Benefit Societies_.

Of St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospital, or the _Gaywood Almshouse_, which stands
a little way out of the town, a pretty long and circumstantial account
has been already given, in another part of the work. (see p. 530,
&c.)—Exclusive of that, there are here three almshouses, which are all
within the town, but of more recent origin than the former.  Of these
three, by much the most ancient is the _Bede-house_, or old women’s
almshouse, over against the New Burying-ground.  Near to this, and
seemingly about the spot now occupied by _Mr. Bonnett’s school_ and
dwelling, stood formerly an almshouse for _old men_; which being the
_southmost_ of the two, was probably the reason why the other, according
to some old writings, went by the name of the _North-house_.  These
almshouses appear to have been founded in the 14th century, by some of
the original members of one of our ancient Gilds, that of _St. Giles_ and
_St. Julian_.  It is not quite clear that they owed their origin to that
gild itself, but rather to some of its most charitable and opulent
members; such as _Edm. Bellyter_, (_or Bellyete_,) merchant; _Tho.
Constantyn_, _Esq_; and _Margaret_, his daughter; and _Wm. Inot_,
merchant.  The gild was constituted in 1384, but the date of the erection
of these almshouses, is involved in considerable obscurity, so that it
seems uncertain whether it occurred previously or subsequently to that
year.

But whenever they were erected, and whether by the persons above
mentioned, exclusively, or by the gild at large, it is pretty evident
that they became in no long time the property of that gild; and there is
reason to believe that they continued so till the dissolution of the
Monasteries, when all the gilds shared the same fate.  At that time the
property of this gild, as well as that of others still more opulent, fell
probably into the hands of the corporation.  For some reason, the _men’s_
almshouse was dissolved, but that of the _women_, or _Bedehouse_, as it
was then, and is still called, was continued, under the patronage of that
body.  It does not clearly appear how many persons were originally
maintained in these _two_ houses.  But we learn that the _men’s_ house
had in it _seven_ chambers, and the _women’s six_.  Supposing therefore
that but _one_ person occupied each chamber, the number between both
houses would be _thirteen_; but if we suppose that _two_ were placed in
each chamber, (as might be the case in those times; and more than two
cannot be supposed;) then the whole number would be _twenty-six_.  The
question, however, is now immaterial, and requires no further attention.
{1129}

When the Bedehouse came into the hands of the corporation, it seems they
divided each of the chambers into two, so as to make _twelve_, instead of
_six_, as we find is still the case.  This probably accounts for one half
of them being without a fireplace, which is not likely to have been the
case originally: and it has certainly been very inconvenient ever since
to those who have occupied those chambers.  It is therefore to be hoped,
that when Mr. _Cook’s_ legacy is obtained, this inconvenience will be
soon remedied.  The number of occupants now, as well as for a long time
past, is _twelve_: _eleven women_, and the _reader_; who is a sort of
_chaplain_, reading prayers and guiding the devotion of the sisterhood,
mornings and evenings.

Till the last summer, (1811,) this house had been for some years in a
very low state, and might be denominated the mansion of starvation,
rather than the habitation of mercy and charity, or house of bread.  The
weekly allowance to each poor woman was only _thirty pence_ and _three
farthings_!—a sad proof of the very low ebb to which the generosity and
humanity of the patrons of the place had been reduced!  At length however
they awoke to a sense of the unseemliness of this mock charity, and very
commendably added _another thirty pence_ to the weekly allowance of each
inmate, or pensioner.  This addition has materially benefitted them, and
ameliorated their condition, and the present writer wishes he had it in
his power to name the individual from whom it originated, who certainly
has deserved well, not only of the poor pensioners themselves, but also
of the community at large.

Soon after this fortunate augmentation of the allowance or income of
those poor pensioners, intelligence arrived of a still further provision
being made for them, by a gentleman lately deceased, of the name of
_Cook_, {1130a} who lived in London, and left them by his will 2000_l._
in the 3 per cents; the interest whereof to be applied in augmentation of
their weekly income.  This charitable bequest, which is likely soon to be
transferred into the hands of the corporation, as the trustees or
guardians of these poor pensioners, will add it is to be hoped, another
_half crown_ to their weekly allowance; which will render their situation
very comfortable, compared with what it has been of late years.  To have
each chamber destitute of a fireplace furnished with that needful
appendage, {1130b} would be to most of them a still further and very
desirable accommodation.

By an old MS. volume which has very lately fallen into the hands of this
writer, he learns that one John _Loneyson_, or _Leneyston_, {1131a} by
will bearing date in 1594, endowed this almshouse, and gave it an annuity
of 10_l._ from 75, (or 76) acres of pasture, called _out marshes_, or
_salt marshes_, lying and being in South Lyn, anciently purchased of
_Charles Cornwallis_ and _George Nicholls_ Esqrs. and demised to _Elsdin_
by the corporation in the 2nd. year of James I. {1131b}  How far this
corroborates or contradicts the _Tablet_ in the church, which made such
stir among our townsmen last year, may deserve some consideration from
the member of the Hall.

Beside the above endowment in land there was a sum of money amounting
600_l._ left by divers persons to this almshouse, the interest whereof to
be applied to the support or maintenance of the pensioners: and as money
bore then a higher interest than at present, the annual product of this
provision amounted to no trifling sum.  This money was placed in the
hands of the corporation; 400_l._ of it laid out at interest, and 200_l._
employed in buying or trafficking in _rye_; whence it was sometimes
called _rye money_.  In short the 600_l._ and the 10_l._ a year before
mentioned seem to have constituted formerly the chief of the funds of
this almshouse: only in extraordinary cases, such as sickness, the
pensioners were relieved by voluntary contributions. {1132a}  It should
be here further noted that it appears from the said MS. that in
consideration of the above funds, the corporation formerly paid yearly in
money to this almshouse 44_l._ and moreover 8_l._ 4_s._ by 9 chaldron of
_coals_ and 200 _sedge_—making in all 52_l._ 4_s._ which, including the
afore-mentioned extraordinary charges, is said to _surmount the interest
of the whole money given_; which might well be supposed to have been the
case. {1132b}

2.  _Finkel-Row Almshouse_, or _Valenger’s Hospital_, in South Lynn.
This house was founded in 1605. by _Thomas Valenger_, gent. then
Town-Clerk of Lynn, for _four poor men_ to dwell in gratis.  We cannot
learn that he endowed it with any land or money, though it is said that
some land does now belong to it, an advance in the rent of which, two
years ago, occasioned an addition of 3_d._ a week to be made to the
allowance of each pensioner.  Last year there was a more considerable
addition, of no less than _one shilling_ a week, made to that allowance;
making it in the whole 4_s._ a week, which is the amount of the present
weekly allowance of each of them: and this sum is paid them weekly by the
overseers of the parish.  As _Mr. Cook_, mentioned under the preceding
article, has left 700_l._ in the 3 per cents to this charity, each
pensioner, it is supposed, may shortly expect a further addition of 2_s._
a week or more to their present allowance.  Like the Gaywood hospital,
this house was originally designed for _men_; but it has been now for a
good many years converted to the use of the other sex, and has been ever
since occupied by _four_ poor _women_, who have in it now very
comfortable dwellings, the house having been rebuilt in 1806.

3.  _Paradise Hospital_, or _Broad Street Almshouse_.  This house appears
to have been founded in 1676, by one _John Heathcote_, _otherwise
Helcote_, of whom some mention has been already made, at page 827.  He
dying while the work was unfinished, the completion of it was undertaken
and effected the year following by the famous _Henry Framingham_.  Of him
also some mention is made in the page last referred to, as well as in
page 861.  It is probable that the former died intestate, without having
made any provision for the endowment of the almshouse, and that his heirs
were not disposed to complete the plan which he had formed.  However that
was, Framingham appears to have then stept forward and purchased the
premises, for the laudable purpose of completing the benevolent
institution which the other had projected.  This house is pleasantly
situated, in the field called Paradise, on the east side of Broad Street,
with which it communicates, and from which is its only entrance.  It
consists of a chapel and twelve apartments or dwellings, all opening into
a quadrangular court, to which there is an entrance by a gateway from the
street.  Those dwellings are occupied by 12 poor men, one of whom
officiates as chaplain, and is called _The Reader_; in consideration of
which he has an additional pension or allowance.  Attached to those 12
apartments are as many little gardens, which lie on each side of the
entrance from the street.  Framingham, it seems, endowed only 11 of these
dwellings: the other endowed a long while after, by one of our alderman,
whose was _John Goodwyn_.  The present weekly allowance of each of these
12 pensioners is 3_s._ 6_d._ with the addition of 15_d._ to the chaplain,
which makes his weekly allowance 4_s._ 9_d._  The 11 lay brethren have
each a chaldren of coals yearly, and the chaplain a chaldron and half.
They have beside, the interest of 250_l._ which they receive half yearly.
This it is presumed is a pretty correct account of the present state of
these pensioners; but it must not here pass unnoticed, that Mr. _Cook_,
the charitable benefactor of the other almshouses, and whose memory ought
to be very dear to all our pensioners, has left to this house the sum of
2000_l._ 3 per cent stock, for the augmentation of the weekly allowance
of the 12 poor occupants: when this bequest therefore is obtained, which
is now very soon expected, it can not fail of considerably bettering
their condition.  But what an indelible disgrace is the benefaction of
Mr. Cook to the memories of all those overgrown wealthy Lynn men, who
have departed this life without the least apparent spark of benevolence,
or one charitable thought towards their indigent neighbours.

Besides its _four_ Almshouses, (including that of Gaywood,) Lynn is also
distinguished for divers other charitable institutions, and particularly
for a great number of those called _benefit societies_, or _purse clubs_,
which amount to _upwards of twenty_.  Most of them consist of _men_, but
some few are made up of the other sex; {1135} which in most places we
believe is rather an unusual case, as it has been generally supposed that
such societies would not succeed.  Here, however, they are said to have
succeeded, and to have proved very beneficial.  Their plans and
constitutions seem well formed, and their rules and orders have been
circulated in print.  These societies, as might be supposed, hold their
meetings in private houses, those, probably, of some of their most
opulent and active patronesses.  Of the societies of this description
which consist wholly of _men_, some are of a superior order, and designed
particularly for the benefit of females or _widows_.  One of those, if we
are not mistaken, is called, “The Provident Society for the benefit of
widows;” and another, “The Benevolent Viduarian Society.”  The latter was
established Nov. 5.1807. and the former several years earlier.  Both of
them, if we are rightly informed, secure to each widow an annuity of
twenty pounds, which to most cannot fail of being a very desirable
object.

The meetings of these two societies, and of all the rest that belong to
the _men_, are kept at different public houses in various parts of the
town: {1136} and it is probable that they are the most suitable places,
upon the whole, that could be easily obtained for that purpose.  It may
be here further observed, that we scarce ever hear of any thing in the
conduct of those who attend at these meetings, that is palpably improper,
unbecoming, or exceptionable.  So that the rules and orders of these
fraternities appear to have taught the members in general to pay a due
respect to a propriety or decency of behaviour, so as to fit them to be
better members of the community.  This consideration not a little
enhances the use and importance of these friendly and fraternal
institutions, as manifestly conducing to the cultivation of good manners,
civilization, and moral improvement.

But in an account of our Benefit-Societies, and provident, benevolent, or
charitable institutions, the two following charities ought not to be
forgotten—1. The _Lying-in Charity_.  This was set on foot in 1791, by
the late Mrs. Elizabeth Gibbons, in conjunction with Mrs. Keed, Mrs. S.
Newham, &c. for _lending Child-bed Linen __to poor women_: and it is said
to have been the means of affording great relief to those who were the
objects of it.  It has been assisted and supported by subscriptions from
several Ladies, amounting for the last year to 37_l._ 6_s._—As it is
known to have proved very beneficial, it is to be hoped that it will be
long continued.—2. The _Stranger’s friend Society_. {1138}  This has been
set on foot here by the _Methodists_, but has been supported by many
others of the inhabitants, and rendered very useful to the poor.—An
account of the state and proceedings of this society is published
annually: about which time a sermon is also preached at the Methodist
Chapel, for the benefit of the institution.  Those who are appointed by
the society for the office of _visiting_ the distressed poor, are
directed to assist them by prayer and religious instruction, as well as
by their alms.

☞ Before he entirely closes this section, the author feels it incumbent
upon him to confess, that since the last sheet was printed off, he has,
upon further consideration, become less confident of the annuity
mentioned at p. 1131 being originally left to the _Bedehouse_.


SECTION V.


_Brief account of the_ Schools, _with some hints on the present state of
Education at Lynn_.

Before the Reformation, the education (such as it was) of the children
and youth of this country was committed chiefly to the monks and friars;
and carried on in the convents and religious houses,—of which description
were even the very universities themselves, if indeed they are not so
still.  Lynn had then many of those convents and religious houses; and it
seems probable that each of them had in it a school, of some sort or
other.  But they were all schools for _boys_; and yet but few, compared
with the whole number of the Lynn boys of those times, can be supposed to
have been so fortunate as to get there admitted.  As to the _girls_,
there was then no such provision made for their education: and they seem
to have been, in that point of view, as little regarded as if our
ancestors thought, like the Mahometans, that women had no souls.

Among the inconveniences occasioned by the general dissolution of the
monasteries, one of them must have been that of being deprived of those
conventual schools.  How long the town continued without any substitutes
for them, we are not able to say.  Something probably might be done in
the reign of _Edward_, though we have not been able to discover any clear
proof of it: only the fact may be supposed, as it is well known that many
schools were established in that reign, and endowed with some small
fragments of the abbey-revenues.  Indeed there is some reason to conclude
that there was a school, on a very small scale, established here by the
corporation, almost immediately after the dissolution, as appears from
the following passage in an old memorandum book, extracted chiefly, as it
would seem, from the Hall-records—“1538, Sept; 29. Thomas Person, prest,
late ffryer, was chosen to be Charnell Prest: He to have for his selary
viii_l._ iiii_s._ and licence to preche iiii tymes every Quarter, _and
frely to teche vi Child.[ren.]_”—The last expression necessarily implies
the establishment of a _school_ for the education of _six children_: and
as the teacher was the charnel priest, it may reasonably be concluded
that the school was kept at, or over the charnel house.  That also being
the place where our Grammar School was kept till the erection of the
present building, it seems not improbable that this little school for the
education of half a dozen boys may have been the origin of that seminary.
How long our means of education were confined to one solitary
establishment for six boys, we are not able now to say; but we could
discover no appearance of the existence of any thing further till _above
forty years_ after the dissolution of the convents, when a respectable
seminary, on an extensive scale, began to give additional dignity to the
character of the town.—We will now proceed to give a cursory view of our
principal schools, and present state of education.

1.  _The Grammar School_.  This has long borne a respectable character
among the grammar-schools of this country.  It is supposed to have been
established about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth, as we have been
able to trace it no further back than the year 1580, when we find it an
established school, and its _master’s_ name _Iverye_. {1140}  He died in
1590, and was succeeded by _Alex. Roberts M.A._ who had a stipend of 20
marks a year, and the house where his predecessor lived.  He becoming one
of the ministers of the town, was succeeded in 1593 by _Nic. Eston M.A._
of Pemb. Hall, Cambridge.  Eston in 1597, was succeeded by _John Man_
M.A. who in 1608, was succeeded by _Hen. Allston_, on condition that he
_considered himself as holding the school only during the goodwill and
pleasure of the Mayor_, _A. and C. C._  He appears not to have been on
the best terms with the corporation; and about 1613, was succeeded by a
_Mr. Armitage_.  He dying in 1618, was succeeded by _Mr. Robt. Robinson_.
He died in 1626, and was succeeded by _Ambr. Fish_, who shortly after
gave up his charge, and was succeeded, 11. May 1627, by _Robt. Woodmansea
M.A._ of Loughborough.  He removing in the spring of 1634 (or rather
1635,) had for his successor _John Rawlinson M.A._ of St. John’s Col.
Cambridge, who removed, as it seems, in 1637, and was then succeeded by
_Edw. Bell M.A._ who, if we are not mistaken, held the place 40 years;
and dying in 1678 was succeeded by the memorable _John Horne M.A._ who
held the mastership of this seminary still longer; even no less than 51
or 52 years, with much credit to himself and no small advantage to his
numerous pupils.  He was succeeded May 21. 1730. by _Charles Squire_; who
was succeeded by — _Pigge_; and he by _John Danville_, and he by _John
Knox_, who resigned in 1760, {1142a} when he was succeeded by _Dr. David
Lloyd_, who continued at the head of this seminary 34 years, and
supported during all that time a character no way inferior, perhaps, to
the most eminent of his predecessors.  He was succeeded in 1794 by his
eldest son _Henry Lloyd D.D._ the present Hebrew Professor at Cambridge.
Upon his resignation in 1797, he was succeeded by _Richard Scott_, who in
1803 was succeeded by the present master, the rev. _Martin Coulcher_.
{1142b}

The course of education in this seminary, is similar to what is usual in
most of our endowed grammar-schools, or free-schools.  Its original
object seems to have been to teach the rudiments of the learned
languages, which still forms a principal part of the plan; but like the
generality of our modern numerous and respectable boarding schools, it
has now for many years embraced divers other objects, and even all those
branches of education, the knowledge of which is now deemed necessary to
fit our youth to become men of business, and useful and accomplished
members of society.  The endowment to this seminary is about 60_l._ a
year, and a handsome dwelling-house for the master; for which he is to
teach a certain number of freemen’s children gratis: but it is only in
grammar or classical learning; for which reason they are but few in
number; and he depends chiefly for his support upon those pupils he
derives from other quarters.  In some cases those who go from this
seminary to the university, are entitled to certain exhibitions or
pecuniary aids, which some well disposed persons deceased have bequeathed
for the benefit of such young scholars.

Our other _boy_-schools are now pretty numerous, and are entitled to
different degrees of estimation, from those of Messrs. Coulton, Smith,
and Bonnet, down to those of our veriest or humblest abecedarian
pedagogues, who yet are doubtless very useful in their sphere.—Of
_girl_-schools there are here likewise a great many, and they also are of
different sorts, and descend, like the former, in various gradations,
from the respected boarding schools of Miss Nichols and Miss Henderson,
to the liliputian seminaries of those homely dames whose pupils are made
up of young misses and masters of two, three, and four years old.  The
two schools here first mentioned, (those of Miss N. and Miss H.) are very
respectable; and the former has been so for a great many years, and still
maintains its character with undiminished reputation.  But as these good
ladies can be in no want of any encomium or praises which are in the
power of this writer to bestow, he will here drop the subject.

We must not however close our account of the Lynn schools, without
noticing those which are formed on the Lancasterian plan; of which there
are two here established—one for _boys_ and the other for _girls_.  Of
the latter the following sketch, it is presumed, will be found pretty
correct.

    “_The Charity School for Girls_ was founded by voluntary
    subscription, at a meeting of ladies held at the Town-hall, April 13.
    1792, and opened May 28 following.  It provided instruction, in
    reading, sewing, and spinning, with some portion of clothing, for 30
    children.  A room in Purfleet street was for some years hired for the
    purpose; but in 1805 a much more suitable apartment, adjoining to the
    north tower of St. Margaret’s Church, was fitted up by the
    subscribers: and the school has been since extended to 50 girls,
    under the direction of _Miss Harriet Howell_, who has successfully
    adapted the new or Lancasterian method of education to the
    instruction of girls—This school is now supported in a great measure
    by taking in plain work; as the whole amount of the subscription, for
    the current year is only 49_l._ 7_s._”

The other charitable seminary, that for _boys_, and which in fact is our
proper Lancasterian school, is of much later origin than the preceding.
Of its rise and progress the following brief account, we doubt not, will
be found pretty accurate—

    “It is remarkable that in so large a town as this, there was no
    public charity school for boys prior to the year 1808.  Complaints
    were loud and universal of the number of idle and disorderly boys,
    who were rioting in our streets, and sometimes committing great
    depredations upon the property of individuals.  But the very
    magnitude of the evil seemed to discourage all endeavours to remove
    it.  The expense of educating so large a number upon the old plan of
    instruction, which required one master to every 30 or 40 boys,
    precluded all hope of raising an adequate contribution from the
    public; and no effect could not be expected from a private person
    commensurate to the existing evil, of so large a portion of the
    population being destitute of all moral or religious instruction.
    But the rise of the new system of education, by which one master can
    teach almost any number of boys that one room can hold, soon
    attracted the attention of those who felt for the rising generation:
    and as this improved system was then practised only by Mr. Joseph
    Lancaster, in London, an application was made to him for a master.
    Upon which he kindly offered to come down, and gave a public lecture
    at the assembly room upon the subject, February 8. 1808.  Several
    resolutions for the establishment of a school in this place, by his
    assistance, were immediately agreed upon; a committee of 15
    subscribers for the management of the institution, were afterwards
    nominated; the Corporation granted the use of a building well adapted
    for the purpose, and on Wednesday, May 11. in the same year, the
    school was opened for 230 boys. {1146a}—The success and the utility
    of this institution have fully answered every reasonable expectation
    which could be formed respecting it.—The annual subscriptions for the
    present year amount to 111_l._ 6_s._”

Besides these schools, which are under the direction of the clergymen of
the establishment, there are here two sunday schools under the direction
of the dissenters.  The chief of these, and of the longest standing, is
under the care of the revd. _I. Allen_, and kept at his meeting house, in
Broad Street; but it is supported by the subscriptions of persons of
different denominations, churchmen as well as dissenters. {1146b}  It has
existed some years, and is deemed a very useful institution.  The other
is of more recent origin, and at present on a much smaller scale, and is
kept at the Baptist meeting house.  It is only for boys; whereas Mr.
Allen’s is for both boys and girls, but chiefly the latter.  In his last
annual account, if we are not mistaken, Mr. A. has represented both these
schools as only one school, making the whole number of scholars 249—143
girls, and 109 boys.  Of the latter about 60, as we are told, belong to
the _Baptist_ Sunday School.  These institutions, it is to be hoped, will
long prove very useful to the town.—But we must not omit here to mention
that the Lynn Sunday Schools originated with the _Methodists_ about 25
years ago.  The school which they then established was carried on with
much spirit, and to very good purpose for several years; but was at last
given up in favour of an extensive day-school, which was then planned,
and which it was supposed would render the other unnecessary.  But either
that day-school was not established, or it did not succeed; so that the
Methodists were too hasty in discontinuing their school, which if we
rightly recollect, consisted of about 200 children. {1147}

From the foregoing account the reader may form some idea of the present
state of education in this town.  The Lancasterian schools have answered
the most sanguine expectations of their patrons and promoters, and
especially the boy-school, which has hitherto given abundant
satisfaction, and has greatly conduced to the credit both of the managers
and the teacher.  The dispute which has agitated other parts of the
kingdom as to the respective merits of Bell and Lancaster, will, it is to
be hoped, not materially affect this town.  For though the Church
Catechism is taught here, which the present writer thinks in part very
absurd; yet if the young pupils think at all as they grow up, and advert
to the new testament, that absurdity will not long have any very strong
hold upon their minds, or remain a great while unperceived.  As they will
be enabled to read the scriptures, if they will take the trouble of
searching them, and judge for themselves, they may be soon very capable
to determine how far the Church Catechism and the Common prayer book are
to be deemed necessary appendages to the inspired writings.

As to our schools of the better sort, or of the higher order, we judge
that they are as well conducted as those of the like description in most
other places.  Some indeed have found fault, especially with those for
female education, for what may be called too much uniformity, or not
varying more the course of instruction, and adapting it to the ranks,
circumstances, or prospects of the respective pupils.  Hence the
tradesman’s and petty farmer’s daughters are taught music, drawing, and
other genteel accomplishments, in common with those of the squire, the
merchant, and opulent farmer, who are expected and designed to move in a
much higher sphere.  In giving the former the education of fine ladies
they are supposed to be unfitted for that station in life in which they
are likely to be placed, by having their minds filled with such high
notions as can but very ill accord with their probable future destiny.
This therefore has been deemed contrary to the dictates of reason, and
every just rule of prudence and propriety.  But however absurd this may
be, the blame seems not imputable to the governesses of these seminaries,
but rather to the parents or guardians of those pupils.  Nor would it be
very safe perhaps for our governesses to remonstrate with these, or even
so much as hint on the absurdity or impropriety of such an indiscriminate
and preposterous course of instruction, as it would be taken as a
reflection on their superior wisdom, or their competency to dictate the
proper line of pupilage for their young relatives.  But it is not
intended here to insinuate that the circumstance in question is peculiar
to our Lynn Boarding-schools: on the contrary, the same is supposed to be
very much the case in many, if not in most other places.  If however it
be so improper as many have supposed, it would no doubt, be very
desirable to have it discontinued.  But the world is not very likely soon
to agree to discontinue all improper practices.

☞ Here before he begins another section, or proceeds any further, the
author begs leave to apprize the reader of an error he has committed at
page 1134, in suggesting that Framingham endowed 11 out of the 12
dwellings in the Broad street Almshouse.  He has understood since that he
endowed but _ten_, and that the _eleventh_ was endowed by Ald. Goodwyn,
and the twelfth by the elder _Hogg_, great grand father of our present
alderman of that name, and founder of that respectable mercantile family.
This correction is made, as due to the memory of the said _Mr. Hogg_,
which stands much higher, as a benefactor to the poor, than that of any
of our wealthy men who survived him.—It is also due to the sacredness of
historical truth, which demands as much fidelity as a statement of facts
upon oath in a court of judicature.


SECTION VI.


_Sketch of the Corporation_, _with cursory remarks on its power_,
_possessions_, _privileges_, _&c._

The Corporation of Lynn was established in the reign of king John, which
is not mentioned here as a circumstance redounding to its honour, or yet
to its dishonour.  Our corporations might be very proper and useful in
those feudal and barbarous times, as a check to the despotism and tyranny
of the barons and feudal lords; but in the present state of the nation
their propriety and utility are very far from being obvious; seeing such
places as Birmingham, Manchester, and Sheffield, appear to have done full
as well, and thrived quite as much, without any chartered immunities, or
such a privileged order of men, as our most famous or favoured
corporations.  It is not however to be expected that these dignified
bodies will readily descend from their elevated situations, and place
themselves by the side of their unprivileged neighbours.

The Lynn Corporation is generally considered as consisting of a Mayor,
Recorder, Lord High Steward, twelve Aldermen, eighteen Common-councilmen,
town Clerk, Chamberlain, two Coroners, and several inferior officers.
{1150}  The power, privileges, and possessions of this body are very
considerable, so that their dignity and consequence seem not a little
superior to those of some others of our corporate bodies in different
parts of the kingdom.  Their various immunities are distinctly specified
in their numerous charters, which they obtained of different sovereigns,
from John to Charles the second.  But as it seems to be intended shortly
to publish those Charters, it may be needless to say any more here about
their contents.  There has been a pretty general wish for some time to
have these documents published in English, that the freemen might know
the full meaning and extent of the oaths tendered to them in taking up
their freedom, of which not one in twenty of them are supposed to have at
present any adequate idea: and as there is known to exist now in the town
a fair translation of them, it is hoped and expected that it will ere
long be made public.  In that case the dignity, power, and prerogatives
of this privileged body will be sufficiently explained, and our future
freemen will be enabled to discover the nature and extent of the
obligation imposed upon them by their burgess oaths.

The possessions of the Lynn Corporation in landed property &c. are said
to be very considerable; and together with their various tolls, tallages,
and privileges, produce a large annual income, which we are told might be
considerably increased, were their lands all let to the best bidders, or
according to their full value, instead of letting them in the usual
unfair and partial manner, for the accommodation of their own particular
friends and favourites.  With such an ample revenue as their means might
be made to produce, and of which they are understood to be but the
trustees of the commonalty, our corporation might be real and great
benefactors to this town, and secure to themselves the esteem and
applause of all their reasonable and respectable fellow-citizens; but
being apt sometimes to carry themselves rather too haughty and arrogantly
towards their unprivileged neighbours, they are not always in possession
of the respect that would otherwise be very readily paid to them.  It is
not however likely that they are much more despotically disposed than the
generality of the rulers of other corporations.

The _mayor_ of Lynn is chosen annually on the 29th. of August, from among
the aldermen, by the members of the common-council: and he must be one
who has not served the office previously for at least five years.  In
case he declines the appointment, or refuses to serve, without reasonable
cause to be allowed, the major and aldermen may fine him in any sum not
exceeding 60_l._ {1154a}  Also in case of such refusal, or of a mayor’s
death, the common-council-men may within eight days choose any other
alderman, who has not served for five years, in his room.  The new mayor
being elected on the 29th of August, he is not sworn in till the 29th. of
the ensuing month, or Michaelmas-day, when his official year commences.
If he should happen to be sick, so as not to be able to attend at the
Guild-hall to be sworn, on the day last mentioned, it shall be lawful to
administer the oath, or oaths to him at his own house, or wherever he
shall be within the borough. {1154b}

Formerly it was customary to have here at the hall, both on St. John’s,
and St Michael’s days, elegant entertainments or sumptuous public
dinners, given at the mayor’s expense, and often much expatiated upon by
former writers; but the custom has of late been discontinued, and we are
not sure that it will be ever again resumed: nor are we sure that its
resumption would be at all desirable; on the contrary, it seems more
probable that its utter abolition would be of far greater use to the
community in general, at such a time as this, as it might serve to remind
us all of the absolute necessity of retrenching and observing the utmost
economy in the management of all our temporal affairs, as the only way to
escape starvation and all its concomitant miseries.  For all which we
have to thank the vile maxims that have directed and distinguished our
public affairs for these 50 years, and especially those that characterize
the administration of the last Pitt and his successors.

Of the present revenue of this Corporation, which is understood to be
very considerable, we have not been able to ascertain the exact amount.
It is one of those secrets, it seems, which the members make a point of
keeping to themselves, and whose disclosure would render them liable to
expulsion.  It being therefore a corporation and sworn secret, we will
not presume to pry any further into it.  But it is very certain that
several of their present sources of revenue did not at all belong to them
formerly.  Among which are to be reckoned the possessions of the Gilds of
the _Trinity_, and _St. George_, and perhaps of some of the others; which
were granted to the Corporation at the dissolution.  Also the profits of
the _Toll-booth_, which were originally divided between the _bishop of
Norwich_, and the _Earl of Arundel_ as lord of _Rising_, comprehending
what is called _Tronage_, _Measurage_, and _Lovecop_, {1155} with the
_baily-ship of the Water of Wiggenhall_, &c.  Of these, after passing
through several hands, a _fourth_ part was vested in the prince of Wales,
as Duke of Cornwall, and the other _three_ parts afterwards reverted to
the crown, and were by Henry VIII. granted to the corporation, who have
been in possession of them ever since.  The fourth part is supposed to
belong still to the duchy of Cornwall, and rented from the managers of
its concerns by the mayor and burgesses.—An _admiralty_ jurisdiction
within the liberties of this borough, has also been granted to this body
corporate, by king James’ Charter, which will probably avail them very
materially in their present dispute with lord William Bentinck.

Before we close these remarks we may just observe, that four or five of
our aldermen, and several of our common-council-men are now absentees, or
live out of town—a case, it is supposed, never known here before, and
which would not have been allowed in former days: for absence or removal
out of town was always heretofore succeeded by expulsion, if the
absentees did not think proper to resign of their own accord.  It seems
somewhat difficult to account for the unexampled indulgence with which
our present absentees are treated, especially as the mayor is said to
find it often very difficult, on that very account, to get a Hall, or
muster such a number of members as is necessary for transacting their
municipal business.

Other sources of municipal revenue here, are the _fairs_ and _markets_.
Of the former there are only two in the year: one of these is very
considerable and celebrated, but was much more so in former times.  It is
commonly called _the mart_, or the _Lynn mart_, and commences on the
14th. of February, when it is with great formality _proclaimed_ {1157} to
last for _six days_, but is generally allowed to continue about a
_fortnight_.  It is but the shadow of what it was formerly, when most of
the town and country shopkeepers were then supplied with goods till the
time of _Sturbitch fair_, where they procured a fresh supply.  But the
latter also is now sunk into great comparative insignificance.  Both of
them therefore might now be discontinued without any material loss,
except to those concerned with their respective revenues.  The other Lynn
fair is held on the 17th. of October, and is called the _cheese fair_.
It was formerly, it seems, a respectable fair, but is now become so
inconsiderable and insignificant as not to require or merit here any
further notice.

Besides the _Fairs_, there are at Lynn _two weekly markets_, one on
_Tuesday_ and the other on _Saturday_.  They are kept in two different
parts of the town: the former towards the north end, on a spot called the
_Tuesday market-place_; which is a spacious area of about three acres,
surrounded by very good houses, and having, on an ascent of four steps, a
beautiful free stone _Market Cross_, of modern architecture, built in
1710, adorned with statues and other embellishments, with a peristyle
round below, supported by 16 pillars of the Ionic order, as also another
walk above, encompassed with an iron palisade, enriched with tracery work
and foliage, enclosing a neat octagon room, on the outside of which, in
niches, were standing four statues, representing the cardinal virtues,
and facing the four cardinal points.  The upper part is finished with a
cupola, in which hangs the market-bell, and the whole is 70 feet high.
The foundation having given way on the west side, it is thought the
building ere long must be taken down.  From the cross, in a semicircular
direction on each side, extends a range of covered stalls or shambles,
having a small turret at each end.  The _fish-market_, which formerly
stood behind the cross, has lately been taken down, and since that time
the fish-market is in Common-stath-yard, where a convenient building had
been previously constructed for that purpose.

  [Picture: Market Cross, pub.D Feb.y 1ST 1810, by W. Whittingham, Lynn]

The _Saturday Market_ is kept in a convenient area opened of late years
near St. Margaret’s church, where capacious shambles have been erected,
over which the Grammar School is kept.  Before 1782 it was kept in that
part of High Street which is next this church; but which being found
inconvenient, the present spot was prepared for that purpose, and it is
on the whole a good commodious market-place.  It was however, with great
reluctance that the market people quitted their former station, and
consented to remove to the new one, though it must have been evident to
all that the latter was far preferable.  But that was only the natural
effect of that strange attachment which most people feel for old habits
and customs.  Both the Lynn markets are plentifully supplied with good
and excellent provisions, and at as reasonable a rate as can well be
expected in these strange times, when our _guinea_ is of no more value
than the _shilling_ of our ancestors.  But we will here close this
section. {1160}


SECTION VII.


_Present stele of Lynn_, _as to its shipping_, _trade and commerce_,
_exports and imports_, _population_, _&c._

In former times, and even at some pretty remote periods, Lynn stood high
among our English sea-ports, in regard to its shipping.  Hence, as long
ago as the year 1374, when Edward the III was fitting out an expedition
against France, and required his principal sea-ports to furnish ships to
enable him more effectually to accomplish his purpose, he is said to have
had from Lynn 19 ships, when London sent only 24, Bristol 25, Plymouth,
26, Sandwich 22, Dover 21, Weymouth 20; and Newcastle only 17, Hull 16,
Harwich 14, and Ipswich 12.  So that Lynn appears to have been then among
the first of our sea-ports, as to the number of its ships, or the extent
of its trade and commerce.  In after ages it is supposed to have
maintained its rank among its sister ports; but we are not able to
ascertain the exact degree of its weight and consequence among them
during all the subsequent periods.

Of late years our trade and commerce have fluctuated with the times, and
our shipping and tonnage have increased or decreased according to the
natural operation of a state of peace or of war.  In 1776, being the
earliest period at which any record appears to have been preserved of
them, the number of trading vessels belonging to this port {1161} was 85,
and the amount of tonnage 12,700; in 1777 and 1778, ( and probably in
1779,) they continued in much the same state, as appears from a MS.
account which belonged to a late shipmaster: but in 1780, or 1781, there
was an increase, though we cannot learn how much.  But in 1791 the ships
were 125, and tonnage 17,000; in 1801, ships 108, tonnage 13,000; in
1806, ships 134, tonnage 15,600; in 1811, ships 106, tonnage 12,000.—From
this it would seem, that our trade is not now in a progressive or
thriving state; and though our shipping are still considerable in number,
yet in point of _tonnage_ they are less than at any former period here
referred to, or probably than at any one period since the commencement of
the present reign.  What effect a peace would have, it is impossible
precisely to say, but the probability is, that our trade would then
revive, and things revert again into their old channels.

The trade of this town formerly to different parts of the continent was
very considerable, and particularly to the Baltic; but it is now almost
totally deprived of all its foreign trade; and except some little
intercourse with Spain and Portugal, its trade is at present almost
wholly confined to the importation of _Coals_, and the exportation of
_Corn_ coastwise to different British ports.  The quantity of coals
imported these years is said to have been very great, and that of last
year has perhaps exceeded any other year: and as that article bears a
very heavy duty it has greatly helped to keep up the revenue of the
custom-house.  Foreigners, under the licence system, bringing the produce
of the Baltic, may also be supposed to have contributed considerably to
produce the same effect.  The tables below will serve to cast some
further light upon the subject, and help the reader to judge of the trade
of this place for the last fifty years. {1162a}

As to the _Coal-trade_, which now constitutes the chief article or main
branch of our remaining commerce, and which of late has employed so large
a portion of our shipping, and is thought likely to decline considerably
this year (1812,) owing to the price of that commodity having been lately
lowered, so as to diminish the profits so much, that it will be no longer
worth the while of the private ship-owners, who are pretty numerous, to
employ their vessels in the trade: and it is supposed that they will
therefore be obliged to lay them up.  This seems a great hardship upon
them, for which our principal merchants are much blamed, whether justly
or not, the present writer will not take upon him to say.  Powerful
merchants, most certainly, as well as powerful men of other professions,
have before now acted very unfairly and oppressively towards their weaker
neighbours.

The trade to _Greenland_ and to _Davis’s Straits_, or what is called the
_Whale Fishery_, is another branch in which Lynn has been concerned for
many years: and as it is still persevered in, it may be presumed to have
proved no ungainful concern.  The ships fitted out for this trade
generally sail in March and return about July.  Three or four ships have
been usually employed in this trade, and sometimes more, but we
understand that there are only two fitted out this year.  Some ships also
of late years have traded between this town and Canada, chiefly, we
believe, for timber: and as we are now quite shut out from the Baltic,
this trade will probably increase.  On the whole, we presume it may be
very truly said, that the trade of Lynn is at this time at a lower ebb
than it was ever known to be at any time within the last hundred years or
more.  When we shall have driven the French out of Spain and Portugal,
and obliged Napoleon to restore all his conquests, and allow us a free
trade to every part of the continent, it may be hoped it will once more
revive and flourish as much as ever.

The _population_ of Lynn is _between ten and eleven thousand_.  The
census taken in 1801 fixed it at 10,097, and that taken in 1811 at
10,253.  But there is no reliance to be placed on the accuracy of either.
The real population probably exceeded both these numbers, and it is
uncertain at which of the two periods was the most numerous.  Some have
thought that it must have been in 1801, and the present writer was once
of that opinion.  What led him to that conclusion was, the great and
unusual number of untenanted houses found in different parts of the town
in 1810, amounting in all to _above one hundred_.  But observing, upon
further deliberation, that a still greater number of new houses, of a
smaller rent, had lately sprung up in certain alleys and outskirts of the
town, and all tenanted, he was induced to relinquish his former opinion,
and conclude that our population had not actually decreased.  Nor can he
now help thinking the real population of the town at each of those
periods to have much exceeded the numbers made out by the respective
persons employed on the occasion; and moreover, that our present
population is not below 10,500 souls.

Of this population, it is a melancholy consideration that the greatest
part are still very ignorant and unenlightened, and never frequent any
place of worship, and are in fact in a state of mere heathenism, though
they are all absurdly considered as members of the established church.
It is indeed by such members that this same church is enabled so greatly
to outnumber our great body of dissenters, or the nonconforming party
throughout the nation.  Were only the sober and devout on each side to be
numbered, it is highly probable that the established church, with all its
vast wealth, and alliance with the state, would be found to be the minor
party.  As to the regular communicants, it is the opinion of some, that
even the very methodists alone could at present muster a number not
inferior to those of our establishment.  Be that as it may, it must be
exceedingly absurd and stupid to consider the ignorant, the irreligious,
and heathenish part of the community as belonging to any church at all.

The religious functionaries or ministers of this town, both churchmen and
dissenters, are allowed to be in general very assiduous in the discharge
of their clerical and ministerial duties; and were they at the same time
less subject to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance, and more disposed to
believe what their Lord and Master has declared, that _they who are not
against us are for us_, they would certainly deserve great commendation.
But they and their flocks are, _for the most part_, so deficient in the
articles of christian charity, forbearance, and liberality, that they may
be said to dishonour the very cause they have espoused, and the service
in which they are embarked.  The more orthodox and evangelical they
pretend to be, the more uncharitable and intolerant they are generally
found.  Their evil spirit of intolerance and infallibility seems to carry
them so far as hardly to allow those who stand without the pale of their
respective communions to be worthy of even the name of christians.
Sometimes they have been heard to pronounce such as they fancied to be
heterodox, as presuming to _teach men to be christians without believing
any one principle of that institution_; as if God had endowed them with
the infallible knowledge of christian truth, and constituted them judges
of the very state and destinies of their fellow professors.  It was a
saying in the primitive times, “See how these christians love one
another;” but here it might rather be said, “See how these christian
parties and sects envy, vilify, and hate one another.”  In short, they
may be said to possess so large a portion of that unworthy spirit of
jealousy and rivalry as would disgrace even the meanest tradesmen, or the
very lowest orders of shopkeepers and mechanics: and what is still worse,
they seem quite incapable of blushing for their absurd and unchristian
conduct.  There are however some honourable exceptions to this
representation, though they seem to be very few.  But we will now close
this section, and here conclude the regular series of this history.


SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION;


(_containing divers recollections_, _corrections_, _and miscellaneous
matters_:)—_defects in the plans and modes of public worship_, _or the
usual proceedings in our religious assemblies—our gentry and tradesmen
capriciously and absurdly distinguished—shrimp trade—water-works—brief
account of certain public buildings previously omitted—additional hints
relating to our grammar-school_, _our libraries_, _and present
population_.

To what was said of our religious sects and parties in the preceding
section, under the heads of rivalry, envy, uncharitableness, &c. it might
justly have been added, that they are also very deficient in their modes
of conducting public worship, or their way and manner of proceeding in
their religious assemblies; and particularly in _neglecting_ as they do
the _reading_ and _expounding_ of the scriptures.  Things would be likely
to come to a much better pass, if, at least, _half_ the time that is now
spent in _preaching_ and _singing_ were appropriated to the important
duties of _reading_ and _expounding_ the sacred writings.  The minds and
attention of the people, in that case, would be directed to the meaning
and understanding of holy writ, and a spirit of enquiry after scripture
knowledge could not well fail of being effectually promoted in our
respective congregations.  Instead of that, as the case now stands, or as
the public ministry is at present conducted, the people seem in general
as unacquainted with the scripture at the end of the year, as they were
at the beginning of it, and quite unconcerned or indifferent about the
matter.  They appear to attend for some other purpose—that of mere
amusement, or something very short of what they ought to have in view in
attending the christian ministry.  Most preachers seem, as if afraid to
lay the scriptures at large before the people, lest they should attract
too much of their attention, so as to induce them by degrees to read,
think, and judge for themselves, or become actual searchers of the
scripture, and indisposed to take every thing upon _trust_ from their
ghostly guides: for notwithstanding our usual outcry against the
_papists_, our priests and theirs are more nearly allied than is
generally supposed.  These hints, it is presumed, are not altogether
unworthy of the serious consideration of the different religionists of
this town. {1168}

Except these of the learned professions, and _very few_ besides, all the
principal families of this town are in fact _tradesmen_; yet even these
are here very capriciously and superciliously distinguished into
_gentlemen_ and _tradesmen_; though the former retale their goods, or
sell their commodities in small quantities, as well as the latter: and
surely a man who buys corn by the bushel, the coomb, or the quarter, and
sells coals by the chalder and half chalder, and his deals in any small
quantity the buyer may wish, and his bottled wine by single dozens, is to
all intents and purposes as much a tradesman as a grocer, a linen-draper,
an ironmonger, or a druggist.  What then is the ground of this
distinction?  Is it education?  No: our tradesmen in general have been
brought up at the grammar-school, and the others can seldom or ever
pretend to any higher advantage.  Nor do they possess minds more
cultivated by reading and knowledge of the world; for there is every
reason to believe that the tradesmen are at least their equals in those
respects, and some of them perhaps very much their superiors.  But is not
fortune or _wealth_ the ground of this distinction?  No: many of those
denominated tradesmen are known to be much more wealthy, as well as much
more intelligent and respectable, than some of those who have arrogated
to themselves the dignified name of gentlemen.  On what then can this
curious distinction be founded?  It may very truly be answered, On pride,
arrogance, ignorance, impertinence, and vulgar servility. {1169}

In treating of our trade and commerce, in the preceding section, that
remarkable branch or article, the _shrimp-trade_, was quite forgotten;
and some perhaps may think that it might as well still remain so: others
however will be of a different opinion; at least when they learn that
beside what has been consumed in the town and parts adjacent, and up the
country, there have been actually sent from hence to London alone, by the
stage coaches, in one season, or within a year, no less then between
_sixty and seventy tons of shrimps_. {1170}  It is a vast quantity to be
sent by land, and coach carriage, to the distance of a hundred miles.  We
have not learnt how long this trade has been kept up on this large scale.
It is said to have somewhat declined since the Bostonians have taken it
up and become our rivals.  But this rivalship can do no harm, as London,
no doubt, will readily receive as many shrimps as both these towns can
possibly furnish.

         [Picture: N. E. View of the Kettle Mills or Waterworks]

The _Water-works_ of this town are also among the articles overlooked in
the preceding part of this history.  It is agreed on all hands that Lynn
is supplied with excellent water from the Gaywood river, a stream that
takes its rise about Grimston, six or seven miles off.  At the
Kettle-mills, in the north-east outskirt of Lynn, this water is raised
into a reservoir, which is between 30 and 40 feet higher than the surface
of the water in the river.  Formerly there were two engines used for this
purpose.  One of them was worked by a fall of water in the river, and the
other by horses.  This latter was used when the water-engine was under
repairs, or in dry seasons when the water-engine had not sufficient power
to supply the town.  In very dry seasons the hire of horses was very
expensive.  About the year 1779 or 1780 the water-engine became unfit for
further use.  A new one being then erected on better principles, had near
three times the power of the old one.  Thus the town was plentifully
supplied with water for some years, and at a small expense, as the
horse-engine was seldom used.  But unfortunately the corporation came
afterwards to a resolution to have the town supplied with water by the
force of _steam_.  A fire-engine was erected, which afforded an ample
supply of water to the town; in consequence of which the horse and water
engines were taken down.  But the corporation, neglecting to avail
themselves of the improvements of Bolton and Watts, erected their engine
on the old principle of Newcomen; and it was soon discovered, to the
astonishment of the unlearned in hydraulics, that the expense of coals
and repairs amounted to a sum so far beyond the calculation of the
corporation, that it was absolutely necessary to purchase no more steam
at that rate.—The town is now supplied by an engine turned by water; but
as it is constructed on old principles, the town, in dry seasons, must be
ill-supplied and much distressed: and as the steam engine is become unfit
for further use, the town must always be without a drop of water while
the water engine is under repairs, which sometimes takes up more than a
fortnight.  This is an inconvenience which the town is said never to have
experienced until the late alterations were made.  On the whole
therefore, this business appears to have been injudiciously managed; so
that it would be very desirable to see it put upon a better footing,
which it certainly ought to be, as there has lately been an advance made
in the water-rate—for which no plausible reason is known to have been yet
assigned, any more than for the unexpected advance in the price of
_beer_.

In our preceding account of _the public buildings_, it now appears that
divers of them have passed unnoticed, and particularly the _Theatre_, the
_Custom-Haute_, and the _Town-Hall_; each of which we shall now briefly
describe.  The _Theatre_ was originally the Hall of an opulent company,
which constituted one of our numerous _Guilds_, that of _St. George_.
After the dissolution of the Guilds it was converted it seems into a kind
of _Exchange_, and after that into a _court-house_, for holding the
county quarter sessions of the peace.  Since those sessions were allowed
to be held in the town-hall it has been converted into a Theatre, or
Play-house, which is said to be very convenient and neat, neither
profusely ornamented nor disgustingly plain; and although not free from
faults, yet they are, it seems, what resulted from the architect having
to fill up the shell of an old building which had been erected for
another purpose.  The usual time of performing here is in the Spring,
when the inhabitants are entertained by the Norwich Company.

The _Custom House_ was erected for an _Exchange_, in 1683, by Sir John
Turner, the founder it is supposed of that family.  It is a handsome
free-stone building, with two tiers of pilasters, the lower of the Doric,
and the upper of the Ionic order, with a small open turret, terminating
in a pinnacle.  In a niche, in front, is a statue of king Charles the
second, that _most religious_ king, as his bishops and clergy used to
call him, even in their addresses to the deity.  This building contains
several commodious apartments, well suited for the accommodation of the
respectable collector of his majesty’s customs and his numerous
underlings.—It has been noticed before that the revenue of this house, in
1806 amounted to 84,200_l._ and the last year (1811,) to 75,300_l._ which
is said to exceed the revenue of most houses of the same description in
the kingdom. {1173}

 [Picture: Custom House, published Oct. 1, 1810, by W. Whittingham, Lynn]

     [Picture: The Town Hall, Jail House, published April 1810, by W.
                            Whittingham, Lynn]

The _Town-hall_, or _Guild-hall_, alias _Trinity-hall_, is an ancient
building of stone and flint.  It consists of divers apartments, the first
of which is the _stone-hall_, where the county quarter sessions, as well
as the town sessions are held.  This hall, comprehending probably the
principal part of the old Guild-hall, is 58 feet in length, by 27 wide,
and proportionably lofty.  There are in it the following
_portraits_:—Full-length of _Sir Robert Walpole_, who is said to have
been returned for this borough seventeen times; and so firmly was it
attached to him, or so completely under his control, that even after he
was expelled the House of Commons he still continued member for this
place: Also half length of Sir _Thomas White_, the liberal benefactor to
young tradesmen: Likewise a half length of _Sir __Benjamin Keene_, the
memorable ambassador to the Spanish Court, who was a native of this
town.—The adjoining _Ball-room_ is 60 feet long, 27 broad, and 22 feet
high.  The adjoining _Card-room_ is 27 feet by 27, and 22 feet in height.
Some have pronounced these rooms ill contrived and have observed that, as
they are upon a line, it would have given them an uncommon elegance had
the openings from one into another been in three arches in the centre,
supported by pillars, instead of the present _Glass-doors_, which have a
mean appearance.  The eye, it has been further observed, would then at
once have commanded a suit of one hundred and forty-five feet, which,
with handsome lustres properly disposed, would have rendered these rooms
inferior to few in England.  The position of the _music gallery_ has also
been found fault with.  But on these matters we will not enlarge: nor
does it seem necessary to subjoin a particular description of the
_Council-room_ and other apartments or offices connected with this
building. {1174}

As Lynn has not been much distinguished for its literature or
bookishness, it can be no great wonder that it should not abound with
public libraries.  Till of late years there was here nothing of the kind,
except in the two churches of St. Nicholas and St. Margaret, each of
which was furnished with a library.  That of the former is now no more:
it was removed some years ago to the other church, by way of addition to
that collection.  Both being thus consolidated or united, form what is
called the _Church library_.  It may be said to be, on the whole, a
respectable collection, consisting of the donations of divers
individuals, at different times; but it has never been supported with
much spirit, nor has it received any great addition now for many years;
owing, perhaps, to the unliterary or unbookish character of our
corporation, and of most of our great and wealthy families.  St.
Nicholas’ Library, it seems, was founded in 1617, and that of St.
Margaret’s about 14 years later.  This was much augmented in 1714, by the
will of _Dr. Thomas Thurlin_, master of St. John’s College, Cambridge,
and rector of Gaywood, who bequeathed to it 179 folios, 178 octavos and
duodecimo’s, and 84 quartos; in all 441 volumes, valued then at 160_l._
which it is presumed was the best single donation ever made to this
Library.  This bibliothecal collection is the property of the
corporation, and is under the care of a librarian of their appointment,
with an annual salary of 2_l._  It is not open to the public at large,
and is not therefore, strictly speaking, a public library.  It contains
about 1700 volumes.

Before the year 1797, our reading and bookish people chiefly consisted of
the members of a few _book-clubs_, which then existed in the town;
together with the subscribers to those _circulating libraries_, (made up
mostly of _novels_,) which our booksellers had formed, and which
constituted, if it do not still constitute, a lucrative branch of their
trade; for _novel-reading_ is carried on hereon a large scale, especially
among the female part of our population; to which not a few of them
probably owe all the polish, real or fictitious, which their manners have
acquired.—But in the year 1797 a subscription Library was here founded,
which has been hitherto in a thriving way, and it has at present upwards
of a hundred members.  The rules or orders of this society consist of
about twenty, and are, on the whole, well expressed and adapted to the
occasion. {1176}  A general meeting of the society is held _annually_, on
the _first Monday_ in _July_, (the anniversary of the establishment of
the Library in 1797.)  _Quarterly_ meetings are also held, on the _first
Mondays_ in _October_, _January_, and _April_, every year.  Each
subscriber may propose what books he pleases for the Library, (except
such as ape _merely professional_, _political pamphlets_, or _Novels_,)
by entering their Titles and Prices in a book kept for that purpose.  But
they must be so entered a week at least before the general or quarterly
meeting, otherwise they cannot lawfully be then balloted: nor must the
same book be balloted for more than _twice_ in one year.  A _librarian_,
(who is also _treasurer_) and a _sub-librarian_, are annually chosen; the
latter gives daily attendance at the library, from _eleven_ to _one_, and
from _six_ to _eight_.  The present number of different articles or
_works_ in this library amounts to about 600, and the number of _volumes_
to near 1400; many of them very valuable and expensive.  They are all new
books.

Here in addition to what was before advanced, at pages 1164 and 1165,
relating to our present population, it seems proper and necessary to say
something further upon that subject, as _West Lynn_, or _Old Lynn_, and
_Gaywood_, {1177} which may justly be denominated _out suburbs_, were not
included in that reckoning.  Now the population of these two places
amounts to about 800, which added to 10,253, will make our whole
population somewhat to exceed eleven thousand: and as this does not
comprehend our _sea faring people_, who are very numerous, our whole or
actual population may be very reasonably and safely supposed to be now no
less than twelve thousand.  Yet this is probably much below what it has
been in former times.

In addition also to what was said of the _pictures_ in the town-hall, it
may be proper here just to add, that the Ball-room there contains two
whole lengths, the one of his present _Majesty_ in his coronation robes,
and the other of the late _Lord Nelson_.  The former a copy, from an
original by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and the latter a copy, from an original
by Hoppner—both done by _Mr. Lane_, son to our present collector, and
said to do no small credit to the skill and talents of that young artist,
who is supposed to be the very first native of Lynn that has ever
promised to rise to eminence in that line.

                                * * * * *

                   _Lynn Benefactions_, _or Charities_.

Here it was intended to close the work, by a table or _summary of
remarkable events_, chronologically arranged; but considering that our
different _benefactions_ and _charities_ seemed to require to be more
fully stated and particularized, it was thought proper to give first a
cursory view of that subject—Among these charities the first place
perhaps is due to the _endowment of the grammar-school_; which may
probably be ascribed to one of the _Thorsbys_, sometime before the
reformation, whose Will is noticed at page 1174, and who it is supposed
was that same Thorsby mentioned before at p. 528, as founder of the
_college_ in this town.  It is likely he might fit up the place over the
charnel-house for a school-room, settle on the master a house to dwell
in, and an annual salary.  He was contemporary with _Walter Coney_, and
like him wealthy, and also ready to employ his wealth in acts of
liberality and charity, which has made his memory truly respectable.

_Sir Thomas White_, citizen and alderman of London, who lived in queen
Mary’s time, was another of our early benefactors.  He gave during his
life 2000_l._ to the city of _Bristol_ to purchase lands of the yearly
value of 120_l._ for which it was agreed that the mayor and corporation
of that city, in 1567 and the ten ensuing years, should pay the sum of
100_l._ which having for that time been allowed to accumulate, was to be
thus expended: 800_l._ to be divided in loans without interest, among
sixteen young Clothiers, freemen of that city, for ten years, upon
sufficient security; at the aid of which time that sum to be lent to such
other persons as the desire of the mayor, alderman, and four of the
common council shall point out.  The remaining 200 to be expended in the
purchase of corn to be sold to the poor at prime cost.  At the expiration
of nine years at the feast of St. Bartholomew he directed that 104_l._
should be paid to the mayor and corporation of _York_, to be lent by them
to four young freemen of that city, (clothiers always preferred.)  The
same sum the next year on the same conditions, to the city of
_Canterbury_: the next to _Reading_, the next to the _Merchant Tailors’
company_; the next to _Gloucester_, and so on successively, to
_Worcester_, _Exeter_, _Salisbury_, _Norwich_, _Southampton_, _Lincoln_,
_Winchester_, _Hereford_, _Oxford_, _Cambridge_, _Shrewsbury_, _LYNN_,
_Bath_, _Derby_, _Ipswich_, _Colchester_, _Newcastle_; and then to begin
again at Bristol, and to proceed annually and regularly to the other
places for ever.—Lynn first received this money (if we are not mistaken)
in 1594; then in 1618, then in 1642; it next became due in 1666, but was
put off for three years, till 1669, on account of the seat of the late
rebellion (as it was said) having been where the estate lay.  The rent
was therefore lost for three years.  The next payments was made in 1693.
The next was received in 1724, the payment having been retarded because
the corporations refused to allow taxes, which were unjustly insisted
upon by the city of Bristol: at last however, rather than go to law, they
agreed to allow those taxes.  How many times Lynn has received this money
since, we have not learnt; but suppose it has been paid pretty regularly;
so that our corporation ought to have now in hand a large sum to lend to
poor tradesmen.  The present expence of _stamps_ is said to have in a
great measure destroyed the benevolent intention and use of this
benefaction.

But one of the principal charities belonging to this town is that which
bears the name of Mr. _John Crane_, an apothecary of Cambridge, about the
time of Charles the First and the Common Wealth.  It consists of 147
acres and one rood of land, at Fleet in Lincolnshire, or rather arises
out of the rental of that land, which now amounts to 395_l._ 10_s._ a
year, which comes to Lynn by rotation every five years, as it belongs
successively to the town of Cambridge, the university of Cambridge, the
town of Ipswich, the town of Wisbeach, and the town of Lynn.  The rental
being originally only 62_l._ was appropriated to each of these places
successively, till each of them should receive to the amount of 200_l._
From each payment the sum of 20_l._ a-piece was to be lent to _three_
young tradesmen, without interest, for 20 years.  The odd forty shillings
to be given to the minister who should be appointed to preach, at the
place which received the money, a commemoration sermon to stir up others
to the like charitable deeds.  Afterwards the benefaction to continue to
each place for ever, and supplied as follows; viz. to relieve honest old
men and women in distress, and release from prison poor men confined
there for debt.  The testator changes those entrusted with the management
of this concern (as they will answer it before God) to relieve the _most
honest and most religious men and women_ in their several places, who had
lived well, had a good report, and had been reduced by mere misfortune,
or through no fault of their own: and he cautions them against applying
any part of his benefaction to the relief of _dissembling hypocritical
persons_.  The chief part of this statement the author has drawn, with
some abridgement, from a MS. account, once the property of a former
alderman.  He has not been able to learn how this charity is now applied
by our corporation: only that it is at the disposal of the mayor and the
four senior aldermen.

Other charities are as follow—15_l._ given by _Robert Boston_ alias
_Tyler_, to be lent from year to year to deserving objects.—Also _John
Strogers_ of Lynn, Cook, by will, 25 April, 1670, gave 45_l._ to the
mayor and burgesses, that 20_s._ per annum might be paid to the minister
of St. Margaret’s to preach a sermon the 1st. of January, and 14_s._ to
14 widowers and widows in Trinity-Hall ward, and 10_s._ to ten poor women
in Stonegate ward upon the 20th. of December; and 10_l._ to the mayor and
burgesses to buy a piece of plate.—Also _Edward Robinson_, born and
educated in this town, by will, dated April 12, 1770, gave a capital
tenement, in Lath Street, to the mayor and burgesses, and their
successors forever, upon the trusts, and to the uses, intents, and
purposes following—_viz._ To pay 1_l._ to the curate of St. Margaret’s
church, to preach a sermon there every Good Friday for ever—and to pay to
12 poor decayed seamen, or other decayed aged men, that the mayor,
aldermen, and common-council shall elect, for life, upon each Good
Friday, ten shillings apiece:—and (after paying _one pound_ on St.
Thomas’s day to the minister and church wardens of _Thornham_,) to
distribute the remainder of the rents among such 12 poor men as shall be
placed in the Broad Street Almshouse, above 60 years of age.—Also Mr.
_John Horn_, the memorable master of the Grammar-school, by his Will
dated 27 April 1731, after sundry Legacies given to his relations,
directed the residue of his estate to be sold, and the produce to be paid
to the mayor and aldermen, to be by them put out at interest, and that
interest to be by them yearly for ever employed for binding out of poor
children apprentices.—Moreover, of late years, _Mary Leake_, widow, of
this town, bequeathed 200_l._ to the mayor, aldermen, and common-council,
to be put out at interest, and the produce applied, as before, to bind
poor children apprentices:—also her sister _Catherine Barwell_,
bequeathed 300_l._ to the same trustees, the interest whereof to be laid
out in purchasing coals, to be given away to such industrious poor women
as receive no parish relief.—The last, but not the least of all our
benefactions, is that of the late _Mr. Cook_ of London, who bequeathed
5000_l._ 3 per cent stock, in trust to the mayor and burgesses, the
interest whereof to be applied for the benefit of the three almshouses in
the town: viz. that of 2300_l._ to the _Bede-house_, that of 700_l._ to
the _South-Lynn_ almshouse, and that of 2000_l._ to the almshouse in
_Broad-Street_.

To those above enumerated may be added the following benefactions.—Viz.
_Loneyson’s_ annuity of 10_l._ to St. James’ Hospital; from 75 acres of
pasture land in the south marshes. (see p. 1134)—Also 30_s._ a year
towards cloathing two poor widows, arising from a Legacy of 40_l._
bequeathed by _Joan Maye_ to the mayor and burgesses, about 1660.—Also
40_s._ a year, for 7 years, to a _poor scholar_, a native of Lynn, who
shall go thence to the university of Cambridge; being a bequest of _Alex
Hall_, merchant of this town, who died about 1597.—Also 16_s._ or 3_l._
8_s._ 8_d._ a year for the term of _five years_, (out of Nottely tithes
in North Runcton) to a _poor scholar_, chosen out of the poorest scholars
of this Free-school, by the master and vicar master of Trinity College
Cambridge, and the mayor of Lynn: being the gift, it seems, of _Richard
Hopps_.—Also _John Pierson_, carpenter, left 6_l._ per annum by his Will
dated 22. Oct. 1623, as follows; _viz._ 40_s._ a year to a _poor
scholar_, who shall go out of the grammar school of this town to any
college in Cambridge, to be continued during the first seven years of his
abiding there; also the same sum of 40_s._ every Lent season to the poor
people in the Lynn Almshouse, (the _Bedehouse_ we presume;) and another
sum of 40_s._ to the poor people in _Stone gate-ward_, to be distributed
also in the Lent season by the direction of the mayor for the time being,
or the alderman of the said ward.—Beside these there is the
_Token-money_, consisting of the sum of about 43_l._ annually laid out in
_coals_, which are distributed in single mets, or some such small
quantities among the poor in the different wards.  When or whence this
money originated the author cannot distinctly say, but he understands it
to be of pretty long standing, and the gift of some well disposed person
or persons, of other times.  He also understands from good authority that
_all the charities_, or _benefactions now in the gift of the
corporation_, _amount to the annual sum of_ 498_l._ 16_s._ _exclusive of
the endowments of the different Almshouses_. {1184}

☞ Since the above was sent to the press, the author got sight of a
curious old book which belonged to a former town-chamberlain, (Jos.
Cooper senr.) in which the following charities are recorded.

    “_Mrs. Titloe_, about 1613, left a Legacy to the town, the interest
    whereof, amounting to 11_l._ annually, to be paid to Emanuel College
    Cambridge: 8_l._ of which to be paid to _two_ scholars that have gone
    from this Free-school thither: the remaining 3_l._ to the fellows
    towards the repairs of the chapel.—Also _Matthew Clarke_, alderman,
    gave 10_l._ the interest to be divided among 20 poor widows in the 10
    wards, [interest then at 10 per cent.]—Also _Mrs. Jane Gurlin_, maid,
    gave 20_l._ to be lent out for three years gratis.—Also _Wm. Cleave_
    Esq. of London, gave a house situated at the corner of Grass-Market,
    let at 13_l._ per annum, the rent to be distributed to the poor of
    St. Margaret’s parish, at the discretion of the minister,
    church-wardens, and overseen of the same.—Also _Gyles Bridgman_,
    alderman, (mayor in 1679) gave 100_l._ to the mayor and burgesses on
    trust, the interest to be paid for ever to the master and widows, or
    sisters in the almshouse (_Bedehouse_) by way of augmentation of
    their weekly pensions.—Also, Nov. 10, 1721, _Mrs. Margery Brock_,
    gave 20_l._ the interests to be laid out in coals, and given to 4
    poor widows in St. Margaret’s parish for ever.”

In the same book also stand recorded the sources and amount of our
Christmas _Coal-Charity_, thus expressed,

 Here follows what is given to the poor in money and coals at Christmas.

                                                  _l._    _s._    _d._
_Mr. Graves_ and _Mr. Sendall_ gave 20              13       6       8
nobles each
_Mr. Clarke_ the interest of 20_l._ to 20            1       0       0
widows of the ten wards.
_Mr. Strogers_ to three wards                        1      14       0
_Mr. Peirson_ to Stonegate ward                      2       0       0
_Alderman Holly_ interest of 100_l._                 6       0       0
_Alderman Auborne_ to the ten wards                  9      10       0
Likewise is Coals                                    9      10       0
                                      _Total_      £43       0       8

Then it is added,—

And on New Year’s day among the poor children          1      0      0
in the Work-house
And near Easter Sunday to the poor                     3      0      0
(pensioners) in St Mary Magdalen’s Hospital.
And to those in Framingham’s Hospital.                 3      0      0
And to those in St James’s Hospital                    3      0      0
(Bedehouse)
And for a Sermon on Midsummer-day                      1      0      0
                                                     £11      0      0

Then it is also added, that Alderman Auborne’s Charity was first disposed
of at Christmas 1741.

But it must not be here forgotten that this same old book also discovers
the origin and founder of the Lynn _Grammar School_, which had we
obtained a sight of in time, would have saved us those useless
conjectures at pages 1140, 1160, 1178.  The passage alluded to is as
follows—

    “_Mr. Thos. Thorisby_, alderman, and sometimes mayor, built a chapple
    adjoining to the south side of the church of St. Margarets, and gave
    to the master of the Charnell House, (now the _Free_ School,) certain
    lands in Gaywood, to the value, of 8_l._ per annum, for teaching
    Grammar and Songs, and also for singing durges, (dirges,) dayly in
    the said chapple: which land became forfeited to the crowne, and
    invented in the Corporation by Charter of Edward VI.”

Thus is the origin of our grammar-school at last sufficiently cleared up,
which seems to have been founded in the reign of Edward IV, or that of
Henry VII, when Thorsby flourished and was thrice mayor of this town.—see
more of him at p. 528.

                                * * * * *




TABLE OF EVENTS.


A TABLE _of memorable_, _or somewhat remarkable events_, _relating to
this town_, _from the Conquest to the present time_; _including what is
most worthy of preservation in Mackerell_, _and divers private MSS.
belonging to certain of our most curious townsmen_: _the whole
chronologically arranged and brought down to the present year_—1812.

A.D. 1066.  This year the French conquered England, and their commander,
the Norman Bastard, seated himself on the English throne, which was also
possessed by his descendants for many generations: Lynn of course felt
the effects of this revolution and readily acceded to the new order of
things.  _Stigand_, archbishop of Canterbury, and his brother _Ailmar_,
bishop of Elmham, were before the great men that bore sway here; but they
were now ousted, and their power and possessions transferred by the
Conqueror to two of his French adherents, _Odo_ bishop of Baieux, in
Normandy, his half brother, and _Herfast_, one of his own chaplains.
Frenchmen then got possession of almost all the land in the kingdom, and
they were the progenitors of most of our present noble families; so that
our House of Lords is now in a great measure made up of their
descendants.

1100.  About this time St. Margaret’s church was built by bishop Herbert,
who granted long indulgences to the people to commit all manner of sin,
by way of encouragement or inducement to contribute towards the
completion of the sacred edifice; as if he thought that to give people
their full swing in all manner of iniquity, was the surest way to make
them pious and liberal.

About the same time was also built the Benedictine Priory, on the south
side of the church.

1144.  A Priory at Gaywood was founded in honour of Mary Magdalen, whence
it is still called _St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospital_.  The priory has long
disappeared, and has been succeeded by the present Hospital.  The
founder’s name was _Petrus Capellanus_, who died in 1174.—see p. 530, &c.

1190.  A terrible riot and commotion here, and in many other parts of the
kingdom, excited, it seems, for the purpose of plundering and massacring
the poor _Jews_, who were then settled in great numbers here and in many
of our great towns.  Of what then occurred here see vol. I. page 391 of
this work.

1204.  This town was constituted a Borough by royal charter, and its
chief magistrate was at the same time, or soon after, denominated
_Mayor_, see page 393.  These honours were the royal gifts of king
_John_, who repeatedly visited this town.  His last visit was in the
autumn of 1216.  He soon after died at Newark, and was interred at
Worcester, where his remains were discovered in 1797 in a state of
remarkable preservation, considering that they had lain in the ground
near 600 years.

1233.  King Henry 3. granted his first charter to this town, in
confirmation of that of his father, 28 years before.

1268.  The same sovereign granted our corporation a second charter with
more ample privileges, in consideration of _the faithful and laudable
service_, and valiant _assistance_ which our burgesses had rendered him
in the late troubles of his kingdom.

1271.  Lynn said to be then a fortified town: but it was probably so ever
since, or very soon after it received its first charter, if not before.

1330.  The queen dowager _Isabel_ took up her residence at _Rising
Castle_ by Lynn, where she continued to reside afterwards as long as she
lived, which was 28 years; in the course of which time her son Edw. III.
his queen Philippa, and their son the black prince, repeatedly visited
her there: and there can be no doubt of their having also frequently
visited this town in the mean time.

1340.  The king and queen were at Rising for some time, as appears by the
account rolls of Adam de Reffham and John de Newland of Lynn, who sent
his majesty at the same time a present of wine.—Previous to the king’s
arrival the queen dowager sent her precept to the mayor of Lynn, for 8
carpenters to assist in making the necessary preparations.

1344.  The king and his court were here for some time, as appears from
certain letters which he sent from hence to the bishop of Norwich, then
at _Avignon_, to be there delivered by him to the pope.

1349.  A dreadful plague or pestilence, which had broke out in the north
of Asia, made its destructive way soon into Europe, and now to England.
It is said to have raged so much in some countries that scarcely a tenth
part of the population escaped.  It was called _the black death_, and is
said to have swept away in Norfolk alone, 57,374 persons, from January to
July, and 7000 of them in the town of _Yarmouth_.  We cannot find how
many perished then at Lynn, but the number was doubtless very great, as
the disorder then raged terribly throughout the whole county.  Most of
the clergy seem to have then perished; hence we are told that 850 persons
were, by the bishop of this diocese instituted and collated to benefices
which had now become vacant—50,000 persons were carried off in _London_,
and as many at _Paris_.—see p. 358 of this work, and Andr. 1. 372.

1369.  An order was made that no Roadsman should charge more than 3_s._
4_d._ for pylotting in any stranger’s ship from the channel to the town.

1380.  The pope granted his license for christening in St. Nicholas’s
chapel; which must of course, in the public estimation, have added
greatly to the sanctity and dignity of the place.

1381.  An ordinance made for the inhabitants of this town to
merchandise.—Another account says—it was an order, or ordinance for
settling of merchandise in this town—both seem too ambiguous and
mysterious to make out.  But it was in the reign of Richard 2. when many
strange ordinances were made, and many vile measures pursued.  Except his
_mother_, and especially his _queen_, whom his subjects used to call _the
good queen Ann_, {1190} there was about his court but little that could
be deemed respectable.  His favourite method of raising money was by a
loan: a few instances of the respective sums he demanded of his subjects
as they stand in the _Fædera_, will shew the comparative wealth of Lynn,
and other places at that period.—From _London_ 10,000 marks: from _York_,
_Gloucester_, _Salisbury_, and _Lincoln_, each 200 ditto.—From
_Cambridge_, _Canterbury_, and _Southampton_, each 100 ditto.—From
_Bristol_, 300 ditto.—From _Norwich_, 500 ditto.—From _Lynn_, 400 ditto.

1384.  Our _bishop Spencer_ went abroad at the head of a crusade, or
army, of 50,000 foot and 2000 horse, to fight for pope _Urban_, against
pope _Clement_: for there were then two heads of the catholic church,
which made it a perfect monster.  In this memorable crusade great numbers
of Norfolk and Lynn people were doubtless enlisted.

1399.  _Sir William Sawtre_, (minister of St. Margaret’s,) prosecuted
here for _Lollardism_, (much the same with what we call _protestantism_,)
and forced to recant; but relapsing soon after, he was taken up and burnt
for his reputed heresy.  He is called the English proto-matryr.—see more
of him at p. 580, &c.

1403.  Two fierce factions sprung up here and disturbed the peace of the
town for 30 years; at their heads were two aldermen of that time,
_Wentworth_ and _Pettipas_.—see p. 364, &c.

1417.  Our mayor and aldermen and other merchants obtained from Henry V.
a warrant to elect an alderman for Denmark and Norway: of which see more,
p. 485.

1446.  King Henry VI. came to Lynn and ordered the sword to be borne
before the mayor.—Next year the sword was carried before the mayor for
some time, and then before the bishop as formerly, the mayor following
him.

1449.  King Henry came to Lynn again, and ordered the sword to be carried
before him. {1191}

1469, or 1470.  About this time Edward IV. (put to flight by the great
Earl of Warwick,) came to Lynn out of Lincolnshire; and in crossing the
washes lost his baggage and money, according to some of our MS.
accounts.—One account says that he arrived here on Michaelmas Day, 1470,
and took shipping here for Flanders on the 2nd of October; so that his
stay was only three or four days.  At that time we are told that he
_pardoned Robert Gregory_, _Coney_, _and company_, who had probably sided
with the house of Lancaster.  The Red Mount is said to be the place at
which he then took up his abode; whose buildings must have been very
extensive and capacious, as he is said to have been attended by a large
retinue.  It may also be supposed a place of strength, and the most so of
any at Lynn, or a kind of fortress; for in a place of no other
description would so wary and able a leader choose to trust himself for
so many days and nights together, as he was then circumstanced.

1471.  March 9.  Edward landed here on his return from Flanders, in his
way to London.

1476.  Walter Coney built the roof of the cross aisle of St. Margaret’s
church: also the Trinity chapel there, which has been lately pulled down.

1482.  A great law-suit between the town and the bishop about the right
of holding the Court Leet.  It does not appear which party gained the
cause.

1493.  A great fray between the inhabitants and the under sheriff of the
county.  But neither the occasion, not the result or consequence is
mentioned.

1493.  King Henry VII. his queen, his mother, and his eldest son Arthur,
with a numerous retinue, visited this town; and were lodged and
entertained at the Austin Convent, which then stood behind Mr. Rishton’s
house, and partly it seems on the same site.  It was doubtless a
sumptuous edifice, and the most suitable for the accommodation of the
royal visitors of any place then in this town.—see p. 513, &c.

1501.  The town-walls new cast, with mortar, broken glass, and terras.

1502.  Thomas Thorisby built the south part of St Margaret’s church, the
college, and the south gates.  It was then his third mayoralty.  It does
not appear at what time he founded the Grammar School.

1506.  The service suspended in St. Margaret’s church, and christenings
performed in the Charnel house—the occasion not specified, or how the
affair terminated.

1510.  A suit between this town and Cambridge about the toll of Stirbitch
Fair:—the precise ground of the dispute not stated.  Nor is it clear who
gained the cause.

1512.  Parishioners of St. James’s rose against the Prior, for certain
wrongs he had done them—such as cutting down the trees in the churchyard.

1515.  A woman burnt in the Market-place, for the murder of her husband.

1519.  Cardinal Wolsey came to Lynn in great state, and with a princely
retinue of lords, knights, and gentlemen, as was his usual manner of
travelling.

1520.  Thomas Miller now became mayor for four years successively.  In
the meantime he had a law suit with the bishop for precedence, or the
right of having the sword carried before him; and is said to have got the
cause.  A few years after his lordship lost most of his consequence here,
being obliged by his sovereign to resign his temporal jurisdiction at
Lynn to him, in exchange for the abbey of St. Bennet in Holme: at which
time the name of the town was changed from _Bishop’s Lynn_ to _King’s
Lynn_.

1527, (or 1528, according to other accounts) Mary, queen dowager of
France, and sister of Henry VIII, with the duke of Suffolk, her second
husband, came to Lynn, and lodged (as Mackerell says,) _at Mr. Coe’s
place_: but nothing further is said of Coe’s place, or yet of Coe
himself.

1531.  A maid servant boiled to death in the market-place, for poisoning
her mistress.

1535.  A Dutchman burnt in the market-place for reputed heresy; in other
words, for presuming to think for himself, and acting
conscientiously—which was deemed a crime in former times, and is so
deemed still in some places.

1536.  The four great orders of Friars, together with the other religious
orders, were here suppressed, which was followed by the dissolution of
the convents and other religious houses, which diminished in a great
measure the respectable appearance of the town.

1537.  William Gisborough, a friar, was hanged here, and his father at
Walsingham, for attempting to relive their order, in opposition to the
royal decree.—Two marts or fairs were also then instituted here, one at
the _assumption_, the other at the _purification_ of the Blessed Virgin.

1540.  The town much afflicted with hot burning agues and fluxes, on
which account there was no mart kept.

1541.  The East Gates repaired, and the king’s arms set up there.

1546.  The Gilds and Chauntries suppressed, and their possessions seized
by the king:—His majesty now also granted his licence for uniting South
Lynn to the borough, it being before unconnected with it, and a separate
jurisdiction.  This however seems not to have been brought to full effect
till about ten or eleven years after, in the reign of Philip and Mary.

1549.  St. James’s church demolished, (all perhaps but the cross aisle
which still remains; though there is said to be some further demolition
of it in 1623.)—also what is called _Kett’s rebellion_ now occurred: one
body of the insurgents had a camp at _Mousehold heath_, by Norwich, and
another body of them had a camp here on _Rising Chase_.  _Lord
Willoughby_ in the meantime was governor of Lynn, which he secured
against all the attempts of the insurgents to obtain possession of it.

1553.  _Lord Audley_ came to Lynn, and proclaimed _Lady Jane Grey_ queen
of England, the mayor and corporation concurring with him: but Jane’s
party did not prevail—the voice of the nation being decidedly in favour
of Mary.

1554.  Trinity Hall underwent considerable alterations; the council room
being divided from the Stone-hall; &c.—The South-gates then also covered
with lead.

1555.  A whale caught near this town—one account calls it a _small_
whale, and another calls it an _enormous_ whale: both describe, it as no
less than 40 feet long.

1556.  The pipes taken up, which formerly supplied the Austin Convent
with water from Wootton common.  That convent being dissolved it no
longer wanted that supply.  But it shews how well provided it was in its
day.

1558.  The _plague_ was in the town, and carried off great numbers of the
inhabitants: among them the _mayor and four aldermen_—one account says,
the whole five were mayors successively, in the course of that year; in
which case five mayors must have died here in the course of the year.

1559.  Rood-Lofts and Images taken down, the ground at the east end of
the churches levelled with the other parts, and the windows furnished
with _glass_, instead of wooden shutters.

1560.  Several persons came to Lynn by order of the privy council, to
take the state of St. James’s Church, but were opposed by the
corporation: of the strict correctness of which some doubt may be
entertained.

1561.  Popish relics and mass-books burnt in the Tuesday market place.

1562.  Sir Nic. Le Strange entered into a law-suit against Lynn, for the
_house of Corpus Christi_: (the hall, we suppose, belonging to the late
Gild of that name,) but nothing is said of the ground of the action, or
how it terminated.

1564.  Marshland inundated, and much stock lost, especially in Tilney and
Terrington.

1566.  Chimes first set up in St. Margaret’s, which played a different
tune each day of the week.

1567.  St. Margaret’s Spire, with divers little crosses and ornaments on
different parts of the church, shot down by a Dutch ship that lay then in
the harbour.  Which seems rather a blind and queer kind of a tale.

1568.  Popish vestments and relics brought from St. John’s and Tilney,
and burnt in the market place.

1569.  Marshland drowned, to the great loss and damage of the
inhabitants, many of whom were forced to leave their houses, and glad to
save their lives in boats which came to their assistance.

1570.  Monday and Tuesday, the 2nd. and 3rd. of October, Marshland and
Wiggenhale overflowed with salt water, so that from Old Lynn to Mawdlin
bridge there were not left ten roods of the bank whole and firm, to the
great damage of the whole country, (see p. 116.)—Quere, _If this flood
and the preceding were not the same_: _some careless writer of memoranda
antedating it under_ 1569?—another account seems to have post-dated it
under 1570.

1574 or 1575.  Earthquake and plague in this town.  Also in the latter
year _Henry Wodehouse_, vice admiral of Norfolk, seized two fly-boats
here by process, which the mayor refused to serve, and thereby brought
great trouble on himself and several others.—In one MS. the admiral is
called _Sir Thomas Wodehouse_.

1576.  Commissioners of Sewers cut off the water from Sechy river, which
worked the town mill, which caused great loss; no less than 1000 marks
having been laid out to bring the water hither.

The Queen about this time coming into Norfolk, was presented by our
corporation with a rich purse, finely wrought and adorned with pearl and
gold, containing 100 old angels of gold: the whole valued at 200_l._

1579.  The town-ditches from the South-gate to Kettle-mills scoured, and
the walls also repaired and cast with black mortar.

1581.  That part of St. James’s church that had not been demolished
repaired, and fitted up for a workhouse, to employ the poor in the
manufacture of Bays; which not found to answer the cost, was afterwards
given up.—St. Nicholas’ also was then repaired at considerable expense.

1582.  Ringing having been here for some time disused, certain young
fellows, attempting to revive it, were opposed by divers of the aldermen,
which occasioned no small disturbance and the spending of a great deal of
money.  But it is not said in what way it was spent, or how the affair
ended.

1583.  Gaywood river new cast, from the Kettle-mills to the Purfleet
bridge.

1584.  Lynn again visited by the Plague; on which account the _mart_ was
_removed from Damgate to the Tuesday market-place_; where it has been
kept ever since.

1585.  The stone-bridge (High Bridge) taken down, and two arches of brick
added to it.  The drain in Webster’s row, (Broad Street) also vaulted
over with brick.

1586.  The manufacture of Bays having failed, divers poor people were now
employed at the Work-house in dressing hemp and making strings and tows
for the fishermen.

The stone bridge, or High Bridge, was now also new built: that is, as we
presume, the houses on each side, which had been pulled down: for the new
arches had been built the year before.

1587.  The pinnacle or top part of St. James’s steeple taken down, and
the remaining part made flat and covered with tiles.—_Sir Robert
Southwell_, admiral of Norfolk, with several commissioners and justices
held a court of admiralty at Lynn, at which sixteen _pirates_ were
condemned, most of whom were executed at _Gannock_.

This year also _John Wanker’s wife_ and the _widow Porker_, were both
_carted_ here for _whoredom_, a crime which appears to have been then
greatly discountenanced in this town; so that those found guilty of it
were put in a cart, or fastened to its tail, and driven or dawn, through
the whole town, as spectacles of detestation.  The business is now
managed differently.

1588.  The memorable _Feast of Reconciliation_, which far excelled all
our other Lynn Feasts, was this year instituted.  It was a meeting of the
mayor, some of the aldermen, common council-men, and the clergy, held the
first Monday in the month, to check discord, reconcile differences, and
decide all manner of controversies among the inhabitants.  It was well
calculated to do good, and did much good, no doubt, while it was duly
attended to; but is become now as a tale that is told, and seems like
other feasts to be now fast passing towards oblivion.—This year Lynn is
also said to have furnished a pinnace to oppose the dreaded Spanish
Armada.

1589.  Five sail of ships from this town formed part of the squadron of
Drake and Norris in their expedition against Spain; and it is said they
returned home safe without any loss.

1590.  One _Margaret Read_ burnt here for _Witchcraft_—a reputed crime
deemed in those days as atrocious as murder, if not much more so.  The
history of Lynn is sadly stained and disgraced with accounts of these
executions, or rather legal murders committed by the magistrates.—The
same year the foundation of the South-gate was secured from the danger of
being undermined by water.

1594.  A violent storm or tempest, which began September the twenty-first
and lasted till the twenty-fourth.

1596.  A new wind-mill erected at Gannock—occasioned probably by the
difficulty of obtaining a sufficient supply of water to work the town
water-mill.

1597.  The great Mill-dyke from Sayer’s Marsh new cast.  But the Mill
afterwards seems to have been in general but ill supplied with water.  It
was at last given up, after having been the grist mill of the town time
immemorial.  It stood by the Lancastrian school and new bridge.  The lane
below took from it the name of _Mill-lane_.—Great sickness and mortality
in the town this year; particularly from March to July, when 320 persons
are said to have been buried in St. James’s church yard.—Other accounts
place this mortality in the following year.

1598.  One _Elizabeth Housegoe_ executed for _Witchcraft_.—Another legal,
but most foul murder committed by Lynn magistrates.—One MS. mentions two
men of war, as fitted out this year, at the expense of this town and
Yarmouth.

1602.  A severe shock of an Earthquake felt here on Christmas Eve.—also
the Windmill removed from the South gates to Kettle-mills: but not by the
earthquake, we suppose.

1604.  A man executed for a rape, on a child under ten years of age.

1605.  King James’s Charter was this year obtained, which greatly
augmented the privileges of the corporation; particularly in exempting
them from the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral, and investing the
mayor and burgesses with that power within this borough and its
liberties.  This Charter is long and its grants most ample.

The town-clerk, _Vallenger_, also this year built the South Lynn
Almshouses, for four poor men. (see p. 1133, 1160, and 1185.)  A great
fire broke out in High street, in which a man and his wife and family
perished.  The Cistern at Kettle mills was made.

1606.  A vessel of one hundred tons overthrown in this haven, in
February, and not recovered till April.

1607.  A very high tide, which flowed up quite to the Tuesday
market-cross.

1616.  One _Mary Smith_ executed here for _Witchcraft_ on the twelfth of
January:—one account says that she was _burnt_, and another that she was
_hanged_; but all may safely say she was _murdered_.  Alexander Roberts,
one of the Lynn clergy, is said to have given an account of her
execution, in a treatise he published that year on Witchcraft.

1617.  St. Nicholas’s Library founded by the mayor and burgesses.—One Dr.
Pearse gave 1000_l._ to the corporation, they to pay for it 5 per cent.
interest; but they disclaimed and would not accept it. (see Joseph
Cooper’s book, and Hall books No. 7,)—It is not said how the interest was
to be applied.

1620.  Two large fishes cast here on shore, one thirty feet long, and the
other eighteen yards; but Mackerell is loath to believe the latter to be
so large, and thinks it could be only eighteen feet.—The old custom-house
now pulled down and rebuilt.—eight or nine ships driven up to St.
Germans, and several sunk at the Ball, so as not to be seen at low water
or dead neap. (J. Cooper’s MS.)

1621.  A man drawn up by the rope of St. Margaret’s great bell and
killed.—The people prohibited going to Gaywood Fair; but the reason not
told.

1623.  St. James’s church underwent additional demolition: one account
says, that it was now “_entirety_ pulled down,” which must be a mistake,
as the cross aisle is still standing, and forms a principal part of the
present workhouse.

1626.  St. Ann’s Fort erected, and furnished with a number of great guns
from the Tower.  The house adjoining, and the piazza, or covered walk,
supposed to have been erected about the same time.

1628.  Chimes said to be now _first_ set up in St. Margaret’s: but it
seems to be a mistake, as we had heard of chimes there many years before,
(see under 1566.)  Chimes are also said to be now first set up at St.
Nicholas’s.—On the 20th. December this year, the four varlets, or
sergeants at mace being absent from the mayor, his worship caused them to
be cried in different parts of the town:—what success attended this
curious experiment, or whether his worship ever found his lost or strayed
sergeants, does not appear.

1629.  The Bedehouse repaired, and a pipe laid to it conveying thither
St. Margaret’s water.—Writing school established in the chamber over the
Butcher’s shambles, in Saturday market.—Those shambles furnished with a
weighing stool to weigh children.  But it seems an odd idea, to have
children taken to the butcher’s shambles, to be weighed like hogs or
sheep.

1630.  April 29.  The White Friars steeple, or tower of the Carmelite
Convent in South Lynn, fell with a tremendous crash.—Draining of Paradise
now took place, which seems to have been before in a hoggish state—The
great muck-hill, at the East-gate, spread over St. Catharine’s ground,
close by.—One Beane, a tailor, indicted for ravishing his maid, but got
off, on paying a fine of 50_l._

1631.  A high tide, overflowing the lands about the town, deprived it of
fresh water for a long time.

1633.  The Ferry-boat sunk, by which eighteen persons were drowned.

1634.  The mayor, Thomas Gurling, buried his wife, and married another
the next week.

1635.  Five lads, who were here at school, going to wash in the river,
near the Ball, were there drowned.

1636.  The Plague again in this town; on which account sheds or
pest-houses were erected under the town walls for the diseased, where
about 200 persons are said to have died.—Also 4th. November, a terrible
storm here; fourteen sail of ships lost in the harbour, and all hands
perished, according to one account.

1637.  An order arrived from the archbishop, for the ground at the East
end of the churches to be raised, railed in, with steps to ascend
thither, and the communion tables, or alters to be there placed.  This
was one of _Laud’s_ high-church projects, and one of those that increased
the public discontents, and hastened his and his sovereign’s downfal.—The
town this year assessed 200_l._ towards building a ship of war.—[Three
years before, the town, according to one account, was also assessed
1192_l._ towards building a ship of war, of 800 tons, and 260 men.]
Twelve Grampuses here cast on shore, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen
feet long.

1638.  The town store of gunpowder lodged in the Red Mount.  Two weekly
foot-posts appointed for London: to go by turns, and have 30_s._ a year
for their wages.—The water-rent of a Brewhouse and Malthouse fixed at
5_l._ a year, and of a Brew-house only at 3_l._

1639.  Thomas Toll, mayor elect, being very ill on Michaelmas day, had
the oaths administered to him in bed, at his own house.

1640.  March 13.  The sheriff’s precept arrived for the election of two
members for this borough, to serve in the parliament summoned to meet at
Westminster on the 15th of the following month; when Messrs. Doughty and
Gurlyn, the two senior aldermen, were chosen, with an allowance of _five
shilling a day_ while they attended their duty in the senate.—12 October
about 3 weeks before the meeting of the Long Parliament, the mayor,
_William Doughty_, apprised the Hall of two Letters just received from
the _Earl of Arundell_, one to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, the
other to the mayor himself, to induce them to return certain persons of
his nominating and recommending to the said parliament.  On which it was
unanimously agreed and resolved, not to choose any other burgesses to
serve in parliament but such as are resident and inhabitants within the
corporation or borough.  Messrs. _Thomas Toll_ and _John Percivall_, two
of the alderman, were accordingly chosen as representatives of Lynn, in
that memorable parliament: and they were the first ever elected here by
the voice of the _freemen of large_—the _Hall only_, or some part of it,
being till now the only and sole electors of our parliamentary
representatives.  [Some, perhaps will be ready to say, that the case is
not much otherwise, even at present.]

1641.  A sword-fish of an uncommon size came up to the town and was
taken.  The town now also began to be fortified, and seven pieces of
brass ordnance or cannon were sent hither from London.  Everything, in
short, both here and throughout the kingdom, was fast advancing towards
the great crisis which the nation soon after experienced.  [How much that
period resembled the present, may deserve some consideration.]

1642.  The three gates (the East, the South, and Gannock,) furnished with
draw-bridges.—Captain _Sherwood_, of Norwich, with a troop of dragoons
appeared before the town, and came close under St. Catharine’s wall by
the East Gate, demanding entrance, which the mayor and townsmen refused:
the gate being shut; and bridge drawn.  The Earl of Manchester soon after
appeared with a strong force, and commenced the siege of the town on the
28th of August, and on the 16th of the following month the town
surrendered to him, with the loss of only _four_ men killed, and a few
wounded.  According to the terms of capitulation every foot soldier of
his had 10_s._ paid him, and every foot officer a fortnight’s pay; which,
according to Mackerell, amounted to 3200_l._—We are told that our
principal Lynn commanders or warriors on this occasion were Sir Horace
Townshend, Captain Kirby, Capt. Atkin, Capt. Morse, Capt. Gurling, Capt.
Wharton, Capt. Brady, Capt. Davy, Capt. Marsh, and Lieut. Porter:—all
very loyal and royal, no doubt, but ingloriously conquered by their
jacobinic and democratic assailants.  During this memorable siege, in the
afternoon of Sunday, September 3, an eighteen-pounder from a battery on
the west side of the river entered St. Margaret’s church at the west
window in sermon-time, took off a great part of one of the pillars, and
terribly frightened the whole congregation, but no body was materially
hurt—all left the church in the utmost terror and confusion.  [_Of these
matters_, _and subsequent proceedings and regulations here_, _see Part_
IV. _Chap._ IV. p. 754, &c.]

October 9. same year (1642) there was an order of the Hall, (or of the
new constituted authorities,) that the _Charters_ should be _read_ by the
Town-Clerk, in _English_, “that those of that body might the _better
understand what then were sworn to maintain_.”—We cannot discover that
any thing of the kind was ever thought of here, but at this time of
republican predominance: at all other times the members of the Hall, as
well as the freemen at large, were called upon to swear to maintain
certain unknown rights—a something they knew not what.—Nineteen out of
twenty, perhaps, of our present freemen have been thus solemnly sworn,
which must render those freemen the most disreputable and contemptible
part of our whole population: for what can degrade any man more than to
submit to swear what he does not understand?

1643.  January 2.  Parliament ordered that the mayor, aldermen, and
common council of Lynn, should pay and allow their two representatives,
out of the town stock, as large an allowance per diem as they had used to
pay any of their aldermen that had represented that town in
parliament.—The corporation would fain have evaded this expense—partly on
the plea, that the _whole body of freemen_ had a voice in the election of
these two members, and _not the Hall alone_, as usual; and therefore that
this payment should not rest solely on the latter.  But their chief plea
was poverty, and having no town stock.  It was however not admitted, and
our corporation at last agreed to pay their two representatives 5_s._ a
day during their attendance in parliament.

March 20.  _Oliver Cromwell_ (then called _Col. Cromwell_) visited this
town, and was entertained here at the expense of the corporation.
{1200}—The curious painted glass, in the windows of St. Margaret’s
church, taken down this year, and replaced with plain glass.

1644.  Ships coming hither from places infected with the plague obliged
to observe quarantine fourteen days, one half in the roads and the other
in White Friar’s Fleet—_Col. Valentine Wauton_ was now governor, and
_Miles Corbet_ recorder of Lynn—both of whom sat afterwards as judges at
the king’s trial, and finally suffered among the condemned regicides.

1645.  In February _Sir Thomas Fairfax_ visited Lynn, and was entertained
at the expense of the corporation.—_Dorothy Lee_ and _Grace Wright_ were
also murdered here legally by the magistrates; or, in other words,
_hanged for witchcraft_.—The plague visited the town again this
year.—_Col. Hobart_ became now governor, and _Guybon Goddard_ deputy
recorder of Lynn.

1646.  The eleventh of May this year was rendered not a little
conspicuous among our memorable days, by a most curious resolution of the
Hall, expressed as follows in our volume of extracts—“It is this day
ordered that alderman Th. Rivett be requested to send for Mr. _Hopkins_
the _Witch-Discoverer_ to come to Lynn, and his charges and recompense to
be borne by the town.”—This year also the charge of the Town Records was
committed to one _Ticket Browne_, who had been turned out for erasing and
falsifying them, thirteen years before.—The town having suffered much by
means of _Lord Paulet_, parliament ordered reparation to be made out of
his estate.—see p. 761.

1648.  A woman was hanged here, for killing her child: Her name supposed
to be _Rose Warne_, of whose penitent death Mr. Horn, then vicar of South
Lynn, published an account.—The ruinous state of the town being now
represented to parliament, they voted “2000 oaks for reparation thereof.”
see p. 761.

1649.  Lease of three Ferry-rights granted to John Bird, at 10_l._ per
annum, and a _brace of well-fatted Swans to the mayor_.

1650.  An insurrection of royalists now took place in this county, and
the Lynn garrison employed in its suppression.—One _Major Saul_ was then
taken and hanged here in the Tuesday Market-place, see p. 769.—_Dorothy
Floyd_ (or _Lloyd_,) murdered by our magistrates: (that is, _hanged for
witchcraft_:)—one of the blessed effects, we may suppose, of Hopkins the
witchfinder’s late visit.—October 16.  Shops ordered to be shut up every
Thursday during Lecture-time, to the end that people and their servants
might attend the hearing the word of God—_This order was issued by the
very people who had sent for the witchfinder_; so that we cannot attach
much merit to it.

1651.  Lynn petitioned parliament against the erection of Denver Sluice,
which was probably no injudicious step.

1652.  The Lynn garrison dissolved.

1653.  One _Say_ hanged here for _killing her husband_—one account says
it was by _poison_.—The South gate was now let to Henry Bloy at 1_l._
5_s._ a year, and the East gate to James Browne at 1_l._ 15_s._ which
shews that the town had then more intercourse with the country by the
_East_ than by the _South gate_.—There being before this year only _six_
corn meters, but they were now increased to _ten_.

1654.  The town obtained a very advantageous charter from the Protector,
of which we have not been able to get sight of any copy or transcript.
It was probably destroyed at the restoration.

1655.  Lynn now again garrisoned.

1656.  The generals Rippon and Desborow elected members for this town,
and their charges (we suppose 5_s._ per diem) ordered to be paid by the
corporation.—St. George’s Hall now converted into an _Exchange_.

1657.  Front of the Free-School-Master’s house rebuilt at the charge of
the corporation—Rent of the two gates advanced from 1_l._ 5_s._ and 1_l._
15_s._ to 15_l._ a year, which seems to indicate the thriving state of
the town during the protectorate.—During this and some of the preceding
years, a mighty stir was made here for the suppression of vice, and
especially of _profane swearing_, _excessive drinking_, and _tippling_,
which greatly affected the publicans, or ale-house-keepers, who were then
very heavily fined, which occasioned great discontents and complaints on
their part and that of their customers.—The money thus raised said to be
applied towards paving and improving the town.  Of that stir see pp. 773,
&c.—The mayor now agreed to take _forty shillings_ instead of two fatted
swans from the Ferry-man.

1658.  St. James’s church yard became the parish being-ground, there
being no longer any room left for burying in St. Margaret’s
churchyard.—One _Dorothy Warden_, alias _Billins_ hanged for killing her
child.—_Oliver_ died, and was succeeded in the Protectorate by his son
_Richard_, to whom an _Address_ was voted by this corporation on the 8th
of October.

1659.  Jan. 3.  The right of electing burgesses or members of parliament
determined to be in the _Hall_, and _not in the freemen at large_: the
two members, _Toll_ and _Lloyd_ were accordingly now elected by the
Hall.—Jan. 14.  Ordered that the chamberlain take of all townsmen who
build Booths at the Mart, 6_d._ and of strangers 10_d._ a foot for their
ground.

1660.  April 13.  The freemen at large claiming again, rather
clamorously, a voice at the election of burgesses, the Hall thought
proper to give way; _Hare_ and _Walpole_ were accordingly elected by the
freemen at large.—May 29, 300 Young maids, dressed all in white, (200 of
them at the expense of two wealthy individuals,) paraded through the
principal streets, by way of joy and triumph for the king’s restoration,
see p. 797.—Divine service now performed at St. Margaret’s, in summer at
5, and in winter at 6 o’clock in the morning, which had not been the case
for the last ten years.

1661.  Alderman Keeling expelled the Hall for _non-residence_.—Rent of
South-gate tolls lowered from 15_l._ to 5_l._ a year.

1662.  An impost of 1_s._ per chalder laid on all coals brought by
strangers, and applied to the relief of the Poor, who were here then very
numerous and much distressed, notwithstanding, the blessed restoration.

1663.  Several Friends or _Quakers_ were now also imprisoned here for
nonconformity, which shews how friendly the restoration proved to liberty
of conscience.—“Many musters and shews (says Mackerell,) were performed
by the _Trained Bands_, who took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to
the king with all imaginable chearfulness.”—Tolls of the East gate let
for one year at 11_l._

1664.  Price of coals advanced this year from 17_s._ to 30_s._ and
upwards.—Lord _Townshend_ elected _lord high steward_.

1665.  The plague again this year visited Lynn and committed great
ravages; on which account the gates were shut and even the mackerell
carts not suffered to enter.

1666.  Plague continued and no Mart kept—markets also discontinued, and
all communication with the country suspended.

1667.  A woman, named Wharton, hanged for killing her child.

1670.  Duke of Richmond and lord Townshend entertained here at the
expense of the Hall—great fear here of a Quo-warranto for issuing
farthing tokens—_Worsted Weavers_ petition parliament to have a Dyer and
Calender settled here.—Proclamation relating to decayed houses: [to be
seized by the corporation unless timely repaired.]

1671.  August 11.  Sir Robert Steward apprizes the corporation of the
king’s intention to visit Lynn in the course of the following month:
100_l._ is therefore ordered to be paid into the Chamberlain’s hands to
provide for that occasion.  Provision was accordingly made, but his said
majesty did not come.  Nov. 10.  The whole banquet provided for the king,
voted to the mayor for the sum of 10_l._

1672.  Address to his majesty acknowledging his grace and favour in
pardoning the corporation for coining farthings.—_Duke of Ormond_, &c.
entertained here at the expense of the Hall.

1673.  Giles Alden, common council-man expelled the Hall for
non-residence or frequent absence.

1676.  William Pearson hanged here for shop lifting.—Mr. _Helcote_ laid
the foundation of _Broad-street Almshouse_, which was next year completed
by _Framingham_.

1677.  One _John Swift_, a shop-breaker, hanged.

1678.  Application made by the Hall to Thomas Goddard Esq. son of the
late Recorder, Guybon Goddard, for his father’s MS. Collections relating
to the antiquities of this town—but it is supposed without success:—20
guineas however were offered for them.—The elder _Turner_ began now to
acquire consequence here, being, as Mackerell says, common council-man,
mayor-elect, parliament-man, and captain of the Trained Bands, all in the
space of two years.

1679.  The corporation signified their intention, not to have any in
future to represent the town, in parliament, but some two of their own
townsmen.—_Wm. Basset_, _M.D._ resigned his aldermanship; deeming its
duties incompatible with those of his medical profession.  [What would he
have thought had he gone _out of town_ to live?]—One _John __Page_, an
old offender, was hanged here this year: one account says, it was for
breaking open several shops.

On the 3rd of July this year, there was a _great fire at Market-Dereham_,
which burnt a great part of that town, and reduced the sufferers to great
distress; which Lynn affected deeply to commiserate, and a collection was
made here for them, amounting in all, if we are not mistaken, to 110_l._
but it ought surely to have been more, considering the state of the case,
and that the aldermen went about to collect through their different
wards:—(which appears from the book of Extracts so often referred to)

1680.  Sir Henry Hobart and Sir Taylor returned burgesses for this
town.—A grampus was taken 22 feet long and 7 feet deep.—Mackerell says,
that St James’s church began now to be made a spinning-school for the
collectioner’s children; but we know not what he meant by _Collectioner_.

1681.  The mart this year kept in Common Stath yard.  Nov. 4. a committee
appointed to report if the said yard was convenient for keeping the mart
there in future—[it probably did not appear to them a convenient place
for that purpose, so that the mart was kept there but one year.]

1682.  The mayor, with several aldermen and common council-men met the
king at Newmarket, and there presented an Address to him.—A committee
this year appointed for erecting a public workhouse: accordingly we find
that St. James’s church was now fitted up for that purpose.—Two new
_May-poles_ were also this year set up in the town; one in the Market
place and the other at the Fort.

1683.  Lord Mowbray, Earl of Arundell, Lord Lieutenant of the county,
entertained at the public charge.—The governor and guardians of the
workhouse incorporated, under the dignified names of _Master and Brethren
of St. James’s Hospital_.

1684.  The Earl of Arundell, Lord Lieutenant of the County, and now Duke
of Norfolk, again entertained here at the public charge.—New altar-piece
set up at the church, which cost near 200_l._—Our Charters were now also
surrendered to the king, who on that occasion conferred on the two
aldermen, _Turner_ and _Taylor_, the honour and dignity of
_knighthood_.—On the 18th. of August this year it was ordered at the
Hall, that every new-elected alderman, in lieu of the customary treat,
should pay 10_l._ and a common-council-man 20 nobles, for the benefit of
the new work-house; which was continued above 40 years.—(see under
1725)—None now admitted to their freedom unless they had taken the
sacrament within the preceding year.

1685.  Febr. 10. James the second proclaimed, and an address to him
agreed upon, four days after—Nov. 9.  The _may-pole_ in the market place
taken down to be replaced by the _king’s statue_.—The two aldermen
_Turner_ and _Taylor_ elected members for the town.—Petition transmitted
and recommended to them concerning _the decay of the stocking trade_ here
by the introduction of _weaving_, instead of _knitting_.  See more about
it under 1690.

1686.  April 13.  The anniversary of their majesties coronation kept here
with no small pomp and parade; and the king’s statue set up at the same
time with extravagant rejoicings, in the market place, where the may-pole
had formerly stood.

1687.  This town presented a very loyal address to his majesty, agreed
upon 19th. September.—In November Lord Cornbury and others visited Lyon
and were entertained at the public charge.

1688.  Sunday 29th. of January being appointed a day of Thanksgiving for
the queen’s pregnancy, was kept here with wonderful solemnity: the mayor
and whole corporation, in their formalities, attended at morning and
evening service, _to render thanks to Almighty God for so signal a
blessing_; and after evening service they repaired to the custom-house to
drink the king’s health with a bonefire.

29th. of June another thanksgiving day was kept here, for the queen’s
delivery and birth of the prince.—The king was also now loyally
addressed.—Such was the loyalty and piety of our ancestors in the reign
of James the second.—His majesty after seizing the charters, and removing
several members of the Hall, and replacing them with others whom he
thought better of, had his pious projects, and paternal plans and
purposes suddenly interrupted and frustrated, by the arrival of the
Prince of Orange on the 5th. of November—which brought on the
_Revolution_.

1689.  The convention parliament, having met on the 22d. of January,
declared the throne _abdicated_, and offered the same to the prince and
princess of Orange, which they soon agreed to accept; and they were
crowned on the 8th. of April.—On the 27th. of September the Fort guns at
St. Ann’s, which had been removed to Hull, were returned, and placed in
their former situation.

1690.  In our extracts from the Hall books, the following passage occurs,
under the date of Jan. 17th.—“On Petition of the Hosiers of this town in
behalf of the poor, against the new invention of _weaving_ worstead hose,
whereby many thousands of poor are destitute of employment.  It is this
day ordered and agreed that a Petition from this house (the _Hall_,) to
the honourable House of Commons, representing that grievance, now read,
to be sealed with the common seal of this Burgh.”

Aug. 29.  Henry Framingham, now chosen mayor, remitted the usual fee of
100_l._  In other respects he was an unfeeling, intolerant being, as
appears by the shameful persecution that was carried on here during his
mayoralty, and that of his immediate successor, against one of the
dissenting ministers and his congregations—see p. 861, &c.

1691.  Dec. 21.  Benjamin Holly’s fine of 30_l._ for declining the
mayoralty mitigated to 21_l._

1692.  March 13.  Fishing in Gaywood river, as far as the double bridge,
declared to be the right of the corporation.

1693.  King John’s cop repaired at the expense of 12_l._ 10_s._

1694.  Great inconvenience having arisen of late from large ships
occupying Dowshill, Purfleet, Mill, and Whitefriars Fleets, to the
exclusion of Keels, Barges, Boats, Lighters and other open vessels,
whereby many of the latter, left exposed to the violence of the flood and
ebb tides were damaged or lost.—the mayor, aldermen, and common council,
on the 29th. of January this year, ordered that no person thenceforth do
lay, or suffer to be laid, any vessel of the burden of 20 tons or
upwards, in any of those Fleets, otherwise than ancient and accustomed
ship seats, &c. under the penalty of 3_s._ 4_d._ for every tide they did
as offend—the mayor reserving the power of permission on extraordinary
occasions.—4th. June, Meter’s pay fixed at _one penny_ each chalder of
coals of _freemen_, and _two pence_ of _strangers_; and on tonnage goods,
a pence a ton of freemen, and 4 pence of strangers.

1695.  March 11.  The Hall signed an address to his majesty, in the
feature of an association, to stand by and assist him against all his
enemies.

1696.  Outgoings or expences in maintaining the water-works for the last
ten years exceeded the income by 288_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._—The expenditure
being 1427_l._ 7_s._ 8_d._ and income 1338_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._

200 sail of Colliers and coasters, in running for Lynn deeps in a storm,
were all wrecked, and near 1000 persons perished.  (Norfolk Remem.)
Scarcity of coals, and price greatly advanced.

1697.  The Hall gained a cause in a trial with Leonard Hutton, before
Lord Chief Justice _Holt_.—They also petition parliament for the removal
of the dam and sluice near Salter’s Load, and preserving of
navigation.—The _Bagges_, _Brownes_, and _Scarlets_, now begin to make
some figure here.

1698.  Pictures of Edward VI. and James I. presented to the Hall by
alderman Robinson.—Juggard succeeds Haslewood as Lecturer.

1699.  _John Cary_ succeeds, _Osborne_ as writing master, and is to teach
6 poor boys gratis, and to instruct all the children in the Church
Catechism.—This is the first prominence of the Carys.—A ship now sent to
Norway for pump-wood, or timber for water-pipes, at the adventure and
charge of the mayor and burgesses.

1709.  Another ship freighted to Norway for pump-wood for the
water-works.

1701.  The Head Porters and Meters being convicted of bribery and
defrauding the king of his dues, were all discharged; but about a month
after some of them were restored, by giving bond with one security in
20_l._—August 29. the elder Pyle appointed Lecturer.—Nov. 24. Noblemen,
knights, esquires, and clergymen exempted from tolls here.

1702.  Dr. Little succeeds Mr. Fysh as minister of St. Margaret’s.

1703.  Sept. 24. The Boale, or World’s End, with the houses thereon, and
the rights and duties attached to the same, bought of Robert Elsden, by
the corporation, for 130_l._ and 20_l._ more at the end of five years
from that date, (see p. 873)—Towards the latter end of November this
year, happened that dreadful national calamity commonly distinguished by
the name of _the great storm_, of whose effects here, see p. 874.

1704.  The gloom of the former year succeeded and dissipated by the
triumphs of Marlborough at _Blenheim_, which occasioned great rejoicings
throughout the kingdom, of which Lynn largely participated, as appears by
its address to the throne, see p. 874.

1705.  The gentlemen of the counties of Bedford and Huntingdon prefer a
serious charge of arbitrary and exorbitant exactions, or extortion
against this corporation, see p. 879.

1708.  Lynn harbour said to be now in a most wretched and alarming state,
see 888.—In the course of this year also, according to one of our MS.
accounts, two children were hanged here for felony, one eleven, and the
other only seven years of age.

1714.  Dr. Thurlin’s library deposited in St. Margaret’s church, in a
commodious place fitted up for its reception, to which the old church
library was at the same time removed: a faculty being obtained from the
bishop.—The same year the first commemoration sermon for _Framingham_ was
preached at St. Nicholas’s, by Mr. _Pyle_, for which he had 20_s._ and
10_s._ more _for reading the Will_—which, are still continued.

1715.  The first rebellion in behalf of the Pretender broke out.  See p.
894.

1719.  January 26. Ordered that none be admitted into Gaywood Hospital
under 60 years old.

1720.  John Cary junior (father of our late alderman of that name)
elected master of the Writing-School—the aldermen Berney and Scarlet
being then Governors and Inspectors of the same.

1721.  Our corporation now, apprehensive of losing the navigation of the
Cambridge river, (from the representation of a Mr. Stafford of Denver,)
which they thought proper to communicate to the corporation of
Adventurers.  The result not stated.

1723.  Two new galleries erected in St. Margaret’s church, on the sides
of the organ loft; with projections for two particular families.—This
year (or during the mayoralty of William Allen, which commenced at
Michaelmas,) _Thomas German_ (says one MS.) was hanged here for burglary,
on the gallows out of the South Gates—Cooper’s MS. calls him _Jarmey_, in
a memorandum which reads thus—“1723: A night watch set up for all the
year, and the _king’s watch_ dropt here, being one Jarmey, who broke into
several houses, and was hanged for the same out of the South Gates.”—The
same MS. referring to the same year, has this passage—“A great fleet of
ships lost on Christmas day; Mr. Vinkerson’s ship right against West Lynn
church, laden with coals.”—Dr. Browne this year gave great offence to the
Hall and especially the mayor—of which see p. 900.

1724.  The chapel chimes, which formerly played but one tune, were this
year altered, and made to play several tunes.

1725.  Ever since 1682 it was customary for each alderman upon his
election to give 10_l._ and each common-council-man 6_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._
towards the Workhouse: but this year Mr. Thomas Allen, being chosen
alderman, refused to comply with this custom, and thereby occasioned the
cessation of those laudable donations.  (Cooper’s MS.)—From the book of
Extracts it seems it was in 1726 Mr. T. A. became an alderman.—The
harbour now in a most wretched state, see p. 901.—And this year 1725 (if
we are not mistaken, for the last figure is not very plain) Cooper’s MS.
mentions a _great tide_, which happened on the 8th. of March, and came
into a Warehouse in Puddin Lane, where was a quantity of unslaked lime,
which being wetted became so hot as to set some deals that lay there on
fire, so as to endanger the firing of the town.  He seems indeed to say
that it was a piece of _iron_ heated by the quick lime which set the
deals on fire.

1726.  _Henry Southwell_, a freeman, charged by the corporation (unjustly
it seems) with having violated his oath of freedom, and threatened with
disfranchisement.

1727.  The mayor, Mr. Thomas Allen issued an order to the _barbers_, to
_prohibit them to shave on Sundays_—of which see p. 910.—February 3rd.
this year the above Henry Southwell was disfranchised.

1728.  The decree of disfranchisement against Mr. Southwell was rescinded
On the 29th. of April this year; of which see further at p. 902, and
3.—Of this year’s mayor, _Goodwin_, and his successor _Taylor_, see pages
910 and 11.

1730.  April 6.  Our corporation made a remonstrance to the corporation
of the Bedford Level against repairing Denver Sluice: which was probably
very right.

1731.  Great complaints of the decrease of trade &c. here this year.  But
among the occurrences of this period the most deplorable and shocking was
the _murder of Ann Wright_, a publican, by one _George Smith_, who had
been let into the house in the dead of the night by the servant, _Mary
Taylor_, for which she was burnt at a stake in the Tuesday market-place,
and the man was hanged on a gallows, 17 yards distant, on Thursday the
1st. of April, see p. 912 and 914.

1738.  Law-suit between the corporation and alderman Thomas Allen, who
was charged with attempting to evade the customary payment of 1_d._ per
quarter for corn sold by him to unfreemen.  See p. 918.

1741.  On the 9th of September a violent hurricane which blew down the
spires of St. Margaret’s and St. Nicholas’s and did immense damage all
about the country.—St. Margaret’s spire falling on the body of the church
demolished a great part of it—the rebuilding began in 1742, and was
completed in 1747.—see pp. 919, 20, 21.

1742.  State of the harbour growing still worse, an application to
parliament on that occasion was made the latter part of this year: see p.
922, &c.

1745.  The second rebellion in behalf of the Pretender commenced: of its
effects at Lynn, see p. 926, &c. also pp. 1073, and 4.

1747.  A contested Election this year between Turner and Folkes; and the
most violent perhaps ever witnessed in Lynn: for the particulars see p.
947 to 952.—A great many here now made free gratis, see p. 931.

1749.  _Charles Holditch_ executed for burglary, see the page last
referred to.

1751.  _William Chaplain_, for the murder of _Mary Gafferson_, was hanged
in chains on a gibbet upon South Lynn Common, see p. 932.

1753.  The New Walks laid out and the trees planted.—Also the Tuesday
Market-place new paved.—One Jumper condemned for the murder of Jones, was
afterwards reprieved and transported for life.

1754.  One Elizabeth Neivel stood in the pillory.—Also one Hannah Clark
_ducked_ for _scolding_.

1755.  Certain profitable appointments attached to our Recordership, and
the mayor’s annual salary settled at 100_l._—see 933, and 4.

1759.  The West Norfolk militia reviewed on Sayer’s Marsh, by the Earl of
Orford, previous to their being called out on actual service.

1760.  Mayor secured from any charges incurred through neglects of gaoler
and serjeants.—October 29. the king died in his 77th. year.  In his reign
_Methodism_ sprung up in these kingdoms.—see p. 934, 5, etc.—The present
inglorious era and disastrous reign now commenced.

1761.  The tower of All Saints or South Lynn church fell down, to rise no
more.  See p. 943.—About the same time a large whale was taken here near
Darsingham, 56 feet 9 inches long, and 34 feet 4 inches in girth, see p.
944.—A man and his wife transported, he for 7, she for 14 years, the
cause not noted.

1763.  December 2.  A dreadful high wind and tide here, which did great
damage among the shipping, many of which were wrecked on the coast:
cattle and sheep also in vast numbers were drowned in Marshland, and
about Snettisham, &c.

1764.  The town served a vile trick by the mayor, which they seem to have
submitted to very tamely, see 945.

1765.  A shocking murder committed here by one _Rudderham_.—See 945, and
6.

1766.  January 27. Rudderham hanged here for the above murder of Leonard
Wilson, near the Rope Walk.

1768.  A great contested election here between _Turner_ and _Molineux_.
See 946.

1769.  The corporation had a great law-suit with Mr. Carr, about the
fleet on both sides of Littleport-bridge.  Of this affair see p. 952.—Two
men in a boat carried away by the strong current of a land-flood on the
10th of April to sea, and picked up there and brought home on 19th.

1770.  Our corporation suddenly became mighty patriots and violent lovers
of liberty.—see 953.—_Pilling_ hanged here for a rape.

1771.  _Wilkes_ visited Lynn, to the no small joy of our patriotic
corporation, who entertained him sumptuously and conferred on him the
freedom of this ancient borough.  See 954.—Different temper of the town
when _Thelwall_, another great patriot, visited it above 20 years after.
Ibid.

1772.  St. Margaret’s church damaged by a thunder storm.

1779.  On new-years day there was a strong gale and a very extraordinary
tide, the highest known here in the memory of man; which overflowed and
demolished the sea banks in many places, and did vast damage in and about
this town.—The Lynn armed association was also formed in the course of
this year, under the command of Captain _Thames Day_—and continued
embodied till 1785.  See 958.

1782.  A woman, named _Howard_, stood here in the pillory—we know not for
what crime.—Towards the close of this year _Beeton_ robbed the mail; and
he was executed the 17th of the following February.  See 960.

1783.  _Isaac Levi_, a Jew lad, robbed, by one _Robert Fox_, on the road
between Lynn and West Winch, and left apparently dead; for which Fox was
hanged, 7th. of September, on Hardwick common.

1784.  Another contested election here, when Mr. _Fountaine_ was one of
the candidates, but was unsuccessful.—See 961.

1785.  November 5. the Recorder being ill, the mayor, William Bagge, sat
as sole judge at our sessions, and upon the conviction of John Bradley
and another person, his said worship passed on them the sentence of
transportation:—but with what solemnity, if any, we have not learnt.—So
late at the 24th of November this year, a Mr. Berry brought to town some
young rooks from Mr. Fisher’s Carr at Tilney.

1788.  On the 5th of November the centenary of the revolution was here
kept by a select party.  The same was then done at _Holkham_ and other
places . . . see 965, and 1083.  About nine days after, it was also kept
here at the Hall, by the corporation, with no small parade, and thought
by some to rival if not excel the Holkham Fete.—A strange report of an
extraordinary adventure of one of our Greenland captains this year—see p.
964.—The autumn and winter of this year were distinguished by the _king’s
memorable illness_, which almost broke the hearts of half his subjects,
and overwhelmed the whole nation with grief and dismay.  In this
affliction Lynn, without doubt, shared largely:—but it happily proved not
of long duration.

1789.  On the 12th of February his majesty was pronounced to be in a
state of progressive amendment; and by the 18th of March he was deemed
fit to resume the royal functions.  The joy and exultation of the public
now equalled their former grief and dismay, and they might be said to
have gone from one extreme to the other.  On the evening of the day last
mentioned this town was most splendidly illuminated, and exhibited the
most unequivocal tokens of its joy, and demonstrations of its
loyalty.—See p. 969.—The 23rd of April was observed as a day of
thanksgiving for the king’s recovery.—See p. 970.

1791.  The law-suit between this corporation and that of London was
determined in favour of the _Dentons_ and other London freemen.—See p.
970.

1792.  Effects of the _royal proclamation_ against tumultuous meetings
and seditious writings, and of Reeves’s _Crown and anchor association_
manifested here.—See p. 973.

1794.  In consequence of great complaints of the defective and decayed
state of the Fen Drainage, the Eau-brink Cut was proposed and approved of
as a remedy.  Our trained bands or armed association again revived—and
the _Lynn Volunteers_, infantry and cavalry, landsmen and marines,
blunt-shooters and sharp-shooters, made their appearance among us.  They
consisted of different corps, but the most numerous was commanded by
Colonel Everard, which was about three years after disbanded:—most of the
others still remain, see 977, &c.—A violent thunderstorm happened this
year, when a young girl was killed here by the lightening.

1796.  February 23.  Eleven persons lost their lives in attempting to
cross the river in the Ferry-Boat—see 978.—The preceding day a Marshland
man, of the name of _Fuller_, going to see the wild beasts, and putting
his hand to a Lion’s mouth, narrowly escaped being torn to pieces by
him.—April 25.  The Free-masons, went in procession, from the Maid’s Head
Inn to St. Margaret’s church, where a sermon was preached to them by _Dr.
Lloyd_, the present Hebrew Professor at Cambridge; all this preparatory
or introductory to the instituting and consecrating a _new lodge_ of Lynn
Free Masons: see p. 1120, &c.

1797.  A whale, measuring 44 feet, caught in Lynn channel.—An improved
method of cleaning Wheat seed discovered by some of our farmers: see p.
979.—The subscription Library established this year; of which see p.
1176.—In April this year, _prince William_ (now duke) _of Gloucester_
visited Lynn, and, after reviewing the Volunteers and dining with the
mayor, was admitted to the freedom of this borough.

1798.  Lynn and Freebridge Yeomanry Cavalry, under Colonel Taylor,
embodied.  Divers other such corps in our vicinity sprung up about the
same time—the martial ardour of the time extended even to the
priesthood.—On 29 Dec. this year the Thermometer said to be at 3 below 0:
see p. 981.

1799.  The _Lynn and Wisbeach Packet_, and also the inglorious _Income
Tax_ commenced their progress and operations: the former with far less
success than the latter.—A great controversy soon after arose here about
the termination of the century; one party placing it at the close of
this, and the other at the close of the following year: so that the
controversy rested on this curious ground, whether or not 99 was equal to
100.

1800.  _St. Catherine’s Gates_, commonly called East Gates, taken down
after having stood above 700 years.—Sept. 3. The dearness of provisions
caused here a considerable commotion among the common people; and _Mr.
Forster_, a flour merchant, was very roughly treated by some of them.—The
attempt of Hadfield upon the king’s life, at the theatre, this summer,
caused no small agitation here and throughout the nation: two very loyal
addresses were now presented to his majesty, by our _corporation_ and the
_inhabitants_.

1801.  The old building or tower, called the Black Mount, on the town
walls, fell this year without doing much damage, as the ropers had just
left it, being their dinner time.—816_l._ 9_s._ subscribed here this
year, to furnish the poor with _pease-soup_, which was served out to them
from the Town Hall thrice a week, by reason of the extreme dearness of
provisions.—Also one _Peter Donahue_ executed here for forgery.—The
_Peace of Amiens_ excited no small joy here, and the town was illuminated
on the occasion.

1802.  A grand Fete given at Refley Spring, when a whole sheep, roasted
(says one account,) was served up at dinner, as a _peace-offering_ to the
friends of Refley [which _friends of Refley_, we may suppose, were the
gods worshipped there that day.]

1803.  The first act for _paving_ and improving the town was now
obtained.—The _new-road_, from the South gate to St. James’s End, was
also made this year.—Also the new Burying ground and Chapel consecrated,
by the then bishop of Norwich, Dec. 14.

1806.  In the course of this year there was a very high tide which
demolished the remaining ruins of our Lady’s Chapel on the Bridge.—St.
Nicholas’s Chapel this same year thoroughly repaired and greatly improved
at a considerable expense.

1807.  His royal highness the _duke of Clarence_, attended by _Earl
Cholmondeley_ visited Lynn, (13. October,) and they were both presented
with the freedom of this borough.

1808.  The names of many of the Streets of the town were this year most
capriciously, childishly, and confoundingly changed; and the rage for
changing names appeared now so predominant, that some began to expect no
less than that the town itself was to receive a new name.

In the summer of this year the _Lancasterian School_ was established
here, of which see page 1145.

1809.  In the month of October this year, the memorable _Jubilee_ took
place, which was kept and solemnized here with the greatest hilarity and
exultation, as if the commencement of the present reign had been the
introduction of the very millennium itself.  It was a political manœuvre;
and not the first to which the British public have been the dupes.

1810.  This year a negotiation took place, and was carried on for some
months, between _Mr. William Corston_ of Ludgate Hill, London, and the
Lynn _Court of Guardians_, in consequence of a proposal from the former,
to furnish employment for the _female_ children of the Lynn poor, in
plaiting of straw and knitting of hats, on certain terms and conditions:
_viz._ To be provided with a proper house for the manufactory, and a
dwelling for the superintendents, together with the loan of a large sum
of money, on proper security, for seven years, without interest.—This
notable treaty was opened in March, and after a number of Letters had
passed between the parties, it was closed by a Letter from the
_Registrar_ to Mr. Corston, dated Sept. 15. of which the following is a
copy—

    “Sir, I was duly favoured with your Letter of the 20th. of August,
    inclosing answers to my questions respecting your plan for employing
    the female poor of this borough, which, with the sketch of the
    proposed building, &c. transmitted to Mr. Dixon, I laid before the
    Court of Guardians at their meeting, holden on Thursday last; who
    after having given the matter their most mature consideration,
    instruct me to inform you, that they entirely decline acceding to
    your propositions.  I therefore return you the several papers,
    requesting you will be pleased to accept the thanks of the Court for
    the trouble you have had in the business.  I am, &c. J. _Smeatham_.”

So the affair ended; happily or otherwise, we take not upon us to say.

1811.  St. Margaret’s church thoroughly cleaned, white washed, and
beautified, at considerable expense.—A new place of worship, called
_Salem Chapel_ erected—and premises Purchased, in Tower Street, for the
erection of the splendid Methodist minster.—Those premises cost between 8
and 900_l._ and the subsequent erection will cost between 4 and 5000_l._
more.—In the early part of this year, if we are not mistaken, Mr. Allen,
one of our common—brewers, relinquished his memorable attempt to dig a
well, after having sunk to the vast depth of 560 feet and spent a large
sum of money without success; so that it seems now that though Lynn is
situated in a bog, the ground below is as destitute of water as any spot
in the kingdom can well be.  Some praise however seems to be due to Mr.
A. for having so long persevered in this arduous undertaking, attended as
it was with so much expense and discouragement.  Some curious fossils,
and even bones; were said to be discovered there at a great depth.

On Saturday evening, Oct. 5, one of the ferry-men in a small boat, which
they use only occasionally, attempting to bring over from West-Lynn too
many passengers, the boat suddenly went down and every soul perished:
They were 9 if not more beside the ferry-man; and the boat was capable of
carrying safely not above half that number.  This fatal disaster was
imputed to the perverse temerity of the boatman.

The last month of this year was rendered memorable by the death of the
most singular and excentric character in the whole town, and probably in
the whole county.  His name was _Robert Pursglove_: he was descended from
very worthy and reputable parents, who belonged to the respectable
society of Friends or Quakers.  With that society he himself was also
generally classed, although for many years past almost every shade of
resemblance between his character and theirs had disappeared.  His
parents left him in possession of good property, which he managed most
strangely and in a manner peculiar to himself.  He had a _Ship_, which he
might have sold for a good sum of money; but he had it laid up, till it
rotted all to pieces—a number of _hay-stacks_ he also had, which he might
have sold and turned to good account, but he would hear nothing of that,
and they were left, year after year, till they were quite spoilt and good
for nothing.—He had _kine_ and other cattle, which were of course
neglected and mismanaged—he lived in a large house, which he had
purchased, where formerly had resided one of our first families; but he
suffered every thing there to go to decay and utter ruin, till doors,
windows, floors, stair-cases, roofs, and every thing became perfect
pictures of desolation—his dogs, and even his swine and kine occupied
some of its best apartments, all ill-fed and half starved.—In this dreary
mansion of desolation he was himself at last found, in the agonies of
death, resulting from an apoplectic attack, and beyond the possibility of
deriving any relief from medical skill.  He is said to have often wanted
food, though he left behind him property to the amount, as it is
reported, of near if not quite 10,000_l._—This sketch might be greatly
enlarged, but this will serve to give the reader some idea of the
eccentricities and peculiarities of this extraordinary person.

1812.  This year has been yet distinguished by nothing more than a
miserable stagnation of trade, and a probability of the bread and beer
and other necessaries of life being dearer than ever.  Nothing, in short,
appears to be going on here now with vigour or spirit, but the methodist
erection above mentioned and taxgathering; so that were we required to
name whatever is here at present in a very thriving state, or rapidly on
the increase, we should be able to mention scarce any thing besides these
two articles, _taxation_ and _methodism_.—As to the much talked of
_Evening Lecture_ at the Church, it will seemingly be given up at last;
our churchmen not having zeal enough to effect its accomplishment.—As to
the _Dispensary_, its prospect of success is far more flattering, and
there can be little doubt now of its speedy establishment: large sums
have been already subscribed, a house has been purchased, or is about to
be purchased, and every thing fairly promises the sure completion of the
undertaking, and the full application of its benefits to those classes of
the inhabitants for whose behoof or relief the institution is intended.
That it has succeeded better than the proposed _Lecture_, will perhaps be
considered by some people as an indication, that our wealthy churchmen
are more ready to provide for the _corporeal_ than for the _spiritual_
accommodation of their neighbours.—Of the notable plan of _economy_, so
laudably adopted, and so steadily pursued during the present mayoralty,
to save certain expenses usually attached to that important office, some
account has been given at pages 1087, and 1154.—Of the present state of
the _Workhouse_, and the prospect in regard to the future management of
it, and of the _poor-rates_, some further observations, in this latter
part of the work, were intended; but our information is too imperfect to
admit of our resuming these subjects at present: we can therefore only
say, that it is to be feared our sanguine hopes of being greatly
benefited by the new plan, or lately adopted system, will, after all,
terminate in useless regret and vexatious disappointment.  Whatever they
may do on the other side, it seems now pretty clear that our managers are
not likely very soon to fall into the sin of being too frugal or
economical in the application of the public money. {1215}—Among the
extraordinary and memorable events of this year, the tragical exit or
assassination of our late premier will be expected, perhaps, to be here
noticed: and much as we do deplore that shocking catastrophe, we would
fain hope it will operate as a warning to all future ministers, not to
trifle with the serious complaints and sufferings of their fellow
subjects.  What may be the results of that fatal and melancholy
occurrence, and the subsequent changes, it is impossible yet to say.
They seem to have already produced the _rescinding_ of the vile and
pernicious _orders of council_, which had reduced almost half the nation
to distress and beggary, and proved how easily the Americans can cramp
our manufactories.  Should they also produce a redress of the grievances
complained of by the Catholics and other Dissenters, together with a
thorough parliamentary reform, and a general peace, we may still escape
national perdition, and even hope yet to see brighter and happier
days.—The convulsion and expulsion lately experienced at the
_Independent_, or rather _Presbyterian_ chapel, may be also placed among
the remarkable occurrences of this year.  That congregation, it is hoped,
(and all our other congregations) will no longer tolerate _priestcraft_,
or submit to be _priest-ridden_.  Whatever may be said of their
successors who denominate themselves _Independents_, our _Presbyterian
ministers_, we believe, were never chargeable with priestly domination.

                                 _FINIS_.




ERRATA. {1216}


Page 638, last word of the contents of section III, for _ineffetual_ r.
_ineffectual_.—p. 638, l. 8, _for fovourite_ r. _favourite_—p. 735, l. 9,
after _them_ a _comma_.—p. 773, l. 2, after _conscience_ a
_semicolon_.—p. 782, last line but one, after _absentees_, a _comma_. —p.
794, l. 4, for _rejected_, r. _ejected_—p. 800, l. 5, after _stand_, r.
_by_.—p. 803, l. 21, after _rubbish_, a comma—p. 821, l. 9, for
_Guyborn_, r. _Guybon_.—same page, l. 19, after _even_ r. _the_.—p. 835,
l. 21, for _Assesiation_ r. _Association_—p. 847, Note, l. 19, for
_proceeding_ r. _preceding_.—p. 959, last line but one, for _egregiously_
r. _eggregiously_—p. 1027, note, l. 24, for _pastime_ r. _patience_.—p.
1087, l. 14, for _exegencies_ r. _exigences_.—p. 1106 l. 1, _comma_ after
_here_—p. 1127, note, l. 5, for _townsnen_ r. _townsmen_.—p. 1140, last
l. for 1570 r. 1590—p. 1142, note, l. 8, after _could_ r. _not_. —p.
1147, note, l. 2, after _much_ r. _to his_.

                                         _Whittingham_, _Printer_, _Lynn_.




FOOTNOTES.


{625a}  Such as the lawfulness of suppressing reputed error by violence,
or of contending for the faith and extirpating heresy by fire and sword.

{625b}  For instance, translating the scriptures into the vulgar tongue,
and putting them into the hands of the common people, that they might
examine and judge for themselves.

{626a}  _Bucer_ owns, as will be seen further on, that their converts
considered this doctrine as favourable to their licentious propensities.

{626b}  “I say, (says _Calvin_,) that by the ordination and will of God
Adam fell.  God would have man fall.  Man is blinded by the will and
commandment of God.  We refer the causes of hardening to God.  The
highest and remote cause of hardening is the will of God.  It followeth
that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening.”  [See
Barclay’s Apology, Edit. 1703, p. 113, where reference is made to those
places in Calvin’s Works where these expressions are found.]  Those who
are acquainted with this reformer’s _Institution_, must know that many
passages to the same purpose, and equally strong, occur there.—Others of
the reformers come not a whit behind Calvin in the boldness of their
language on this topic.—“God (says _Beza_) hath predestinated, not only
unto damnation, but also unto the causes of it, whomsoever he saw meet.
The decree of God cannot be excluded from the causes of corruption.”—“It
is certain (says _Zanchius_) that God is the first cause of obduration.
Reprobates are held so fast under God’s almighty decree, that they cannot
but sin and perish.”—“God (says _Peter Martyr_) doth incline and force
the wills of wicked men into great sins.”—“God, (says _Zuinglius_) moveth
the robber to kill.  He Killeth, God forcing him thereunto.”  [See
_Barclay_, as before.]

{628a}  Luth. Serm. in Postill. Evang. 1. Adv.

{628b}  Luth. Serm. Dom. 26, post Trin.

{628c}  Luth. in Serm. conviv.

{628d}  Bucer de regn. Christ. 1, i. c, 4.

{628e}  See Milner’s Letters to Sturges, 3d. Ed. p. 170, 171, &c. a work
that contains a great deal of very curious matter on these subjects, and
on most of the great points at issue between the catholics and their
opponents.

{629a}  Calv. 1. vi. de scand. quoted by Milner, as before.

{629b}  Erasm. Ep. 1. vi. 4.—It appears by the mode of expression here
used, that notwithstanding all the unfavourable and unchristian-like
effects of their ministry, they actually did, like some modern, labourers
in the same vineyard, boldly arrogate to themselves the exclusive name of
_evangelical_ ministers, or propagators of the genuine and pure _gospel_.

{630}  Erasm ad. Frat. Infer. Germ, quoted by Milner, as before, p. 172.

{632}  Mosheim, iii, 313.

{634}  See Milner, as before: 182.—_Carlostadius_ was Luther’s first
disciple of any considerable note: and he co-operated with, and supported
him with great firmness and ability.  But having ventured to alter the
mass, during Luther’s absence in the year 1521, and to deny the real
presence, the latter commenced a furious war against him and his
followers, and condemned them in terms of the utmost rancor and
bitterness.  _Melancthon_ too (misnamed the _mild_) now calls him “a
brutal ignorant man, void of piety and humanity, one more a Jew than a
christian.”—a rare specimen of mildness and meekness!

{636a}  See Milner as before, 188.—It is not said how Henry brooked all
this; but it was well for Luther that he was not within his reach.  The
most curious circumstance is that “Luther, in giving an account of his
book, reproaches himself with having been _too mild_ in it towards the
king, saying that he did so at the request of his friends, in hopes that
his _sweetness_ would gain Henry.”—If such was Luther’s _sweetness_, what
could his _sourness_, or his _bitterness_ be?

{636b}  Milner, 181.

{636c}  Ibid, 132.—No wonder he should behave as he did to Cariostadius,
whose chief crime seems to be his having acted _without his authority_,
though in conjunction with Bugenhagius, Melanancthon, Jonas, &c.  He
continued afterwards to persecute him with unrelenting virulence, and
nothing would satisfy him short of absolute submission to his sovereign
will and pontifical mandates.  His banishment ensued.  He appears to have
been one of the best men among the reformers.  It seems, however, that
Luther was at last convinced of his misconduct in this affair, and
obtained permission for his return from exile.  See Mosheim, IV. 30.

{637}  See Milner, 123.

{638}  See Milner, 185, 186, where the authorities are referred to.

{642}  Their blindness generally proceeded from a fallacious kind of
reasoning, which is still very common among their orthodox descendants or
successors, but which, like a two-edged sword, cuts both ways.  They
plead that they are the people of God, and are in the right way, so that
their cause is the cause of God and truth, and therefore the papists are
cruel persecutors when they deprive them of their lives or liberties.
When they are reminded of having themselves before now deprived the
papists and other christian sects of their liberties and lives, they
answer, that that was done very justly, as those sufferers were either
seditious persons or heretics, and what they did to them was in the way
of suppressing _sedition_ or restraining _heresy_.  When they are told
that the papists excuse and justify their own violent proceedings against
the protestants much in the same way and with equal plausibility, they
will answer, that what the papists assert is not true.  When they are
further told that the papists insist upon the truth of their allegations
and the falshood of those of the protestants, they will reply that the
papists belonging to a false church and influenced by a lying spirit, are
not to be credited, but as for them, being the people of God and
followers of the truth, their testimony ought to be received without
hesitation.—Thus their reasoning ends just where it began—We are God’s
people, and therefore our proceedings are not to be impeached!  No better
reasoning can be expected in defence of injustice and persecution.

{644}  Robinson’s Pref. to 3d. vol. of Saurin, p. xii.

{645}  The French protestants, or Gallic Calvinists were no less bigoted
and intolerant than their brethren elsewhere.  Their ministers, in 1563,
requested that in order to prevent the propagation of heresy and
monstrous opinions, the king would be pleased to receive into his royal
protection their confession of faith tendered to him in 1561, and the
profession of it; and to provide that atheists, libertines, anabaptists,
and Servetists should be severely punished.  See Priestley’s
Ecclesiastical History, 6, 135.

{646}  See p. 636.

{649}  “He was called up to the cardinal (Wolsey) for heresie, where he
was content to subscribe and graunte unto such articles as they
propounded unto him.”  Fox A. and M. p. 1736.  This happened in 1529.  In
1531 he was cited before the archbishop of Canterbury, Wareham, on fresh
charges of heresy, and forced to sign an abjuration of them—see Fox, p.
4738.  The third time he was called upon, with certain others, to give an
account of his opinions, by Henry himself, on which occasion he escaped
by an absolute submission of himself to his supreme head in spiritual
matters.  His fourth and last recantation was when he was deprived of his
bishopric, and committed prisoner to the Tower, where he lay till the end
of Henry’s reign, on suspicion of heresy, and for violating the fast and
abstinence of Good Friday.—It has been suggested that imprisonment did
not constitute the whole of his correction or chastisement on this
occasion, as Shaxton bishop of Salisbury was forced to recant his
Lutheran opinions, and carry a faggot at the burning of four other
protestants, in 1546; and it is not likely that Henry would have been
content with less from Shaxton’s fellow prisoner, Latimer, than a solemn
abjuration of his doctrine.—See Milner, as before, page, 196.

{650}  See Milner, p. 196.—Latimer’s name is to the sentence of Joan of
Kent, who was burnt in 1549.  See Burnet’s Hist. Ref. part ii. b. i. rec.
35.  It also appears from Collier and Fox that he was one of the leading
bishops who sat at the trial of Lambert the martyr.—See Milner, as
before.

{651}  See his signature to the sentence against Van Parre; in Burnet’s
H. Ref. as before.

{652a}  See Milner, 194.

{652b}  Fox A. and M.

{652c}  Collier vol. ii. rec. 22.

{653a}  Heylin Hist. Eliz. p. 89.

{653b}  Collier vol. ii. rec. 24.

{653c}  Collier, as before.

{653d}  Burnet, Collect b. ii. n. 47.

{654a}  The royal pair were married by Dr. Rowland Lee, in the presence
of Cranmer, the duke of Norfolk, &c. Nov. 14, 1532.  Heylin Hist. Eliz.
p. 89.  Stow fixes the marriage two months later, viz. Jan. 25, 1533.
Elizabeth was born September 7. 1583.

{654b}  The prevailing notion seems to be, that Henry’s wish for a
divorce arose from his attachment to Ann Boleyn; but from a paper in the
3rd. volume of the Harieian Miscellany it appears to be unfounded.  We
learn from that paper that archbishop Warham was from the first averse to
Henry’s marriage with his brother’s widow, but that Fox bishop of
Winchester inclined Henry VII. to be for it, as a dispensation from the
pope would remove all difficulties.  It appears further that the king
(Henry VII.) afterwards thought with Warham: and the day the prince came
of age he by his father’s order protested against it as null and void.
His father also with his dying breath persisted in charging him to break
it off.  The king continued to have scruples, and at last sent Cardinal
Wolsey to France to negotiate a match between him and the duchess of
Alencon about August 1527.  After that Lord Rochford came over from
France with the picture of the duchess.  His daughter Ann Boleyn, who was
in the duchess’ service, came over probably at the same time; and then it
was that Henry set his affection upon her.—There can be no truth
therefore in the report that she was the cause of alienating the king’s
affections from Catherine, and his scrupling the marriage.  The Cardinal
returned from France September 30, 1527; and it was not till afterwards
that the king expressed to him his attachment to Ann Boleyn.  Harl. Misc.
vol. 3. p. 43.

{655a}  See letter in Burnet History Ref. b. iii. p. 200.

{655b}  Burnet, p. 203.

{655c}  The two sentences, the one of attainder for adultery, the other
of a divorce because of precontract, did so contradict one another, that
one if not both must be unjust.  Burnet.

{655d}  Heylin, Edw. p. 28.

{656a}  Collier, vol. p. 218.  Burnet.

{656b}  See Milner’s 5th Letter to Sturges, whence the above passages or
quotations are taken, mostly verbatim.

{657a}  Fuller says: “It cannot be denied that he had a hand in the
execution of Lambert, Frith, and other godly martyrs,” adding that he
would leave him to sink or swim by himself where he is guilty.  Ch. Hist.
b. 5. sec. 2.  He elsewhere accuses Cranmer of arguing against the
aforesaid Lambert contrary to his own private judgment; and remarks that
“as the latter was burnt for denying the corporal presence, so Cranmer
himself was afterwards condemned and died at Oxford for maintaining the
same opinion,” b. 5. sec. 6.

{657b}  She is also called Joan Butcher and Joan of Kent—“When he
(Cranmer) was on the point of passing sentence upon her, . . . she
reproached him for passing the like sentence upon another woman, Ann
Askew, for denying the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament;
telling him that he had condemned the said Ann Askew not long before for
a piece of bread, and was then ready to condemn her for a piece of
flesh.”  Heylin, Edw. vi, p. 89.—As three other protestants, Lassels,
Otterden, and Adams were burnt with Askew for the selfsame cause, there
is every appearance that Cranmer was as instrumental in their punishment
as he was in that of Askew.  (Milner, 207.)

{657c}  See the process of their condemnation in Burnet’s Collect. of
Rec. part ii, b. 1, n. 35.

{658a}  In 1538 a special commission was granted to Cranmer, with two
other bishops and six other persons, to try _summaris el de plano_, even
though they had not been denounced or detected, all Anabaptists, &c. and
to deliver them over to the secular arm.  Collier vol. 2. sec. 46.—Within
a month from the date of this commission, viz. Nov. 24. I find two
Anabaptists burnt, and four bearing faggots.  Stow.—About a year after
this, by virtue of a special commission, Cranmer with certain other
bishops tried Alexander Seaton for protestant opinions, and condemned him
to bear a faggot and recant at St. Paul’s Cross, which he did
accordingly.  Collier, vol. 2 p. 184.  The same year three other
Anabaptists were burnt by virtue of the former commission.  Stow—In
Edward’s reign certain chiefs (of the Gospellers and Anabaptists) were
condemned April 12, 1549, before the archbishop (Cranmer), the bishop of
Westminster, and Drs. Cox, May, Cole, and Smith.  Being convicted, some
of them were dismissed only with an admonition, some sentenced to a
recantation, and others condemned to bear their faggots at St. Paul’s.
Heylin, p. 73.  About the same time John Champneys of Stratford was
convented before Cranmer, Latimer, and two other doctors, at which time
he was forced to recant upon oath certain “heretical and damnable
opinions” concerning regeneration, &c. as also to carry a faggot.  In
like manner John Ashton, priest, being convented before Cranmer, abjured
his heresies, &c. and took an oath to submit to whatever penance was
enjoined.  Ex. Regist. Cranm. Collier part ii. b. i, rec. 35.

{658b}  Milnes, as before, p. 208.

{659a}  Perhaps she meant no more than that he was born free from that
natural pollution or hereditary depravity implied in the orthodox
doctrine of original sin.

{659b}  Burnet, past ii p, 111, 112.  Milner, p. 208, 209.

{660a}  The two first of these retractions are without date.  The third
appears to have been signed Feb. 14.  The fourth is dated Feb. 16; and
the last is dated March 13.  See Strype’s Mem. Ecc. vol. iii, p. 134.
Cranmer retracted his recantations and was executed March 21.

{660b}  Milner, as before, 210.

{661}  Stow’s Annals, an. 1546.  Milner, p. 173.

{662a}  Hist. Ref. part ii. p. 226.

{662b}  Heylin’s Hist. Ref.  Edward IV, 1550.  Milner, 174.

{662c}  Strype’s Mem. Eccl. p. 440.

{663a}  Strype’s Mem. Eccl. B. 11. c. xxiii.

{663b}  Camden, Appar. ad Annal Eliz.—Milner 175.

{664}  The unfavourable and ill effects of the reformation on the
manners, and morals of the people, both at home and abroad, must be
chiefly ascribed to some of the great defects of the system—some of its
most prominent features or distinguishing doctrines, as was before
suggested—such as justification by faith without works, predestination to
perdition as well as to salvation, or election and reprobation
representing all human characters and actions (even the most horrid
crimes), as emanating or resulting from the decrees of Heaven, or will of
God—doctrines which certainly cannot be said to be favourable to
practical holiness or virtuous living.  Yet they form a main part of what
has been called _evangelical_ religion ever since.  As to their
licentious tendency, Luther is known to have gone very far, and expressed
himself very strongly on the above doctrine of _justification_; even so
as to speak very slightly of the _Epistle of James_, calling it “dry,
chaffy, and unworthy the apostolic spirit,” for no other reason than its
manifest opposition to his views of this doctrine.  He probably deemed
that Epistle far inferior to his own writings when he called himself the
_second Elias_ and the _Chariot of Israel_, and said in his book against
the king of England, “My ministry and calling are of that excellency that
it is in vain for princes or any persons on earth to expect submission or
forbearance from me.”  Be this as it may, it is evident, from _Bucer’s_
testimony, (see p. 628) that the reformed converts made a great handle of
that doctrine, and considered it as excusing and encouraging their
licentiousness: and Bucer was a witness of the effects of the reformation
in England as well as on the continent.—As to those reformed doctrines
relating to the _Divine Decrees_, or predestination to perdition as well
as to salvation, and which are commonly comprehended under the terms
Election and Reprobation, their loose and licentious tendency, must be
obvious to every unbiassed mind, seeing they place good and evil, virtue
and vice, truth and error, right and wrong, as it were upon a level, and
in effect annihilate all the distinctions between them, making the worst
as well as the best of human actions to be agreeable to the will of God
and the offspring of his eternal counsel or purpose.  Where such
doctrines prevail it may be expected that moral restraints will be soon
overpowered.

{668}  So far they were evidently of use, and their suppression was a
real and public loss, in that view and as things then stood.

{672}  In the days of Wickliff, and for a good while after, there was
among the common people a spirit of revolt against papal tyranny and
corruption; but that spirit had been suppressed and extinguished before
Henry had begun his work of reformation.  Between his work and that of
Wickliff there was a wide and striking difference—the former originated
with the court, the latter with some thinking men at Oxford; the former
was carried on by royal caprice, orders of council, and acts of
parliament, the latter by the diligent and persevering exertions and
eloquence of private individuals of integrity and learning, who were
convinced of its importance, and who travelled on foot about the country
to instruct and enlighten the people, in order to improve their manners,
their morals and their religious principles.

{673}  This might be the reason why so many places of worship besides the
convents, and which had no connection with them, were here laid by and
demolished at that time—such as the church or chapel of St. James, those
of St. John, and of St. Catherine, &c. the demolition of which, except
for the reason now suggested, must appear exceedingly unaccountable.—As
to the church or chapel of _St. Catherine_, of whose site the author
expressed much uncertainty at p. 559, he now begs leave to inform the
reader that he has been since led to conclude, from some old MSS. that it
stood in that small field without the East gate, on the left hand as we
go out of the town, and which is now enclosed from the road by a brick
wall.  It appears that it retained the name of _St. Catherine’s ground_
long after the church had disappeared.

{674}  Many of them could hardly read; and as to preaching, it was what
few of them were capable of.  To supply that deficiency the _Book of
Homilies_ was provided, and the reading of those homilies, for a while,
appears to have supplied the place of preaching.  But the plan was ill
calculated to instruct and enlighten the common people, though it might
be of use to their superiors.

{675a}  Hist. Ref. 1. 317.

{675b}  Hist. Ref. as before.

{676}  Burnet Hist. Ref. as before.

{678}  Of the prodigious popularity and reputation of the friars, see
above at page 495.

{680}  The following is thought a pretty correct statement of the numbers
of worshipers that might be accommodated in each and all our present
places of worship—In _St. Margaret’s_ church; 1322; in _St. Nicholas’_
chapel 1066; in _All Saints_, or South Lynn church, 388: in the
_Methodist chapel_, 500; in the _Independent chapel_ 450; in the _Baptist
chapel_ 500; and in that of the Friends or Quakers 100.—Thus all the
churches might admit 2776; and all the Dissenting chapels about 1500, or
1550—in all 4326.  But it is well known that the number of those that do
actually attend falls greatly short of 4326, and we may very safely
venture to affirm that they do not exceed 3000: so that there must be
here between 7 and 8000 people whose minds are strangers to religious
impressions, and whose conduct is very little regulated or affected by
any sound moral principles.  Would it not therefore be very desirable to
increase among us the means of religious and moral instruction?  Some
more new chapels, under proper direction, might prove of no small benefit
to the town, and help to bring from darkness to light another third part
of its population.  This hint deserves consideration.

{682}  For an account of the Lynn Gilds, see above, Part iii. ch. v. p.
403.

{684a}  Thus in the old ballad of Truth and Ignorance, the latter, who is
represented as a rustic, says,

    Che’ll tell thee what, good fellowe,
          Before the vriars went hence,
    A bushel of the best wheate,
          Was zold for vourteen pence:

    And vorty egges a penny,
          That were both good and newe;
    And this, che say, myselfe have seen,
          And yet I am no Jewe.

                                                        (Andrews, 2. 282.)

These lines were quoted before imperfectly.  They are now given correctly
in the original orthography.

{684b}  We allude principally to the _poor-rates_ and _paving-tax_, which
are certainly most severely felt, and likely to be still more so.  The
former by frugal and wise management might, doubtless, be greatly
reduced, without any material detriment to the poor: and the latter ought
never to have existed till the times proved more favourable.  When the
project was brought forward it was firmly opposed by a large body of the
householders: but it was carried against them, very wrongfully.  They
were told that the work would be completed at the expence of about
13,000_l._ and it has already far exceeded, if not doubled, that sum: yet
the work is not finished.  Thousands have been lavished, merely to suit
the convenience, or gratify the caprice of a few opulent families,
without being of the least use or benefit to the town at large; which
must have been exceedingly disingenuous and dishonourable.  So great was
the liberality which the paviers experienced at Lynn, that they are
reported to be satisfied to do their work at Norwich and Yarmouth, 25 per
cent. under what they had here.—In short, the managers, or rather the
mis-managers of this concern, went on lavishly and blunderingly, till
they could go no further.  They were aground for sometime this last
autumn, and had probably remained so over the winter, and the summer too,
and thrown the whole town into the utmost confusion, but for the timely
assistance of a certain individual, who on this critical occasion stood
in the place and acted the part of that good man noticed in holy writ,
who by his wisdom _delivered the city_.  Eccl. ix. 15.

{687}  See Martin’s History of Thetford chap. xiii. p. 170.

{688}  The Surrenders seem to have been all much of the same cast and
tenor, and so were probably the _confessions_ which accompanied them, a
copy of one of these is given by Burnet, and is as follows—

    “Forasmuch as we _Richard Green_, abbot of our monastery of our
    blessed lady St. Mary of Betlesden, and the convent of the said
    monastery, do profoundly consider, that the whole manner and trade of
    living, which we and our pretensed religion have practised and used
    many days, does most principally consist in certain dumb ceremonies,
    and other certain constitutions of the bishops of Rome, and other
    forinsecal potentates, as the abbot of _Cistins_, and therein only
    noseled and not taught in the true knowledge of God’s laws, procuring
    always exemptions of the bishops of Rome from our ordinaries and
    diocesans: submitting ourselves principally to forinsecal potentates
    and powers, which never came here to reform such disorders of living
    and abases as now have been found to have reigned amongst us.  And
    therefore now assuredly knowing, that the most perfect way of living
    is most principally and sufficiently declared unto us by our Master
    Christ, his Evangelists and Apostles, and that it is most expedient
    for us to be governed and ordered by our supreme Head, under God, the
    king’s most noble Grace, with our mutual assent and consent, submit
    ourselves and every one of us, to the most benign mercy of the king’s
    majesty; and by these presents do surrender &c.”

The Surrender follows in common form, Signed by the abbot, subprior, and
nine monks, 15th Sept. 30th year of that reign.—From these samples one
may from an idea of the tenour of the surrenders and confessions which
went from Lyon.  See Burnet, vol. I. Col. rec. p. 150.

{689}  There were then dissolved 645 monasteries, 90 Colleges, 2374
Chauntrys, and 110 hospitals.  The yearly revenue of the whole amounted
then to 161,100_l._ a sum equal perhaps, to 3 or 4 millions of our money,
which must be far less than the present ecclesiastical revenue of England
and Ireland.  From a part of the above fund the universities were
indulged with some additional colleges and professorships; and six new
bishoprics were erected.  An immense sum too accrued to the king from the
furniture, clocks, bells, lead, &c. of these edifices; and even from
bullion, 5000 marks of which were found in one abbey.  See Andrews, 2.
282.

{699}  These have long been deemed here among the _chief of sinners_, as
tippling and other vices are supposed to have abounded through their
patronage or connivance.

{702a}  Mr. Man was minister of South Lynn till 1646, when he was
succeeded by the worthy and learned _John Horne_, who was not likely to
restrain his parishioners from eating meat in _Lent_, or require the sick
to take out licences on that occasion.  Of this memorable person we shall
have occasion to say more hereafter.

{702b}  This Thomas Lilly was a respectable ancestor of our present
representative in parliament, Sir Martin Browne Folkes, and original
proprietor, it is supposed, of that gentleman’s valuable possessions in
South Lynn.  His daughter and sole heiress married Sir William Hovel of
Hillington, and was grandmother of Martin Folkes Esquire, president of
the Royal Society, and of William Folkes Esquire, the father of Sir
Martin.

{704}  Those _Licences and Dispensations_ seem to have been no longer at
the disposal or option of the parish ministers, for there was an _office_
in London opened expressly for that purpose, as we find by an
advertisement which appeared in the said _Mercurius Publicus_ of Feb. 26.
1662, and the two following weeks, and which was expressed as follows—“An
advertisement—The _Faculties Office_ for granting Licenses (by Act of
Parliament) to eat flesh in any part of England, is still kept at
Paul’s-Chain, near St. Paul’s Church-yard.”  The present writer cannot
find when this notable office was first opened, or how long it existed,
but thinks it not very likely that it was laid by, or shut up before the
revolution.

{712}  This is said to have been remarkably the case in a certain
excursion which her majesty made to _Coventry_.  The mayor, recorder, and
corporation met her on the road at some distance from the city, with what
they deemed an appropriate or suitable address.  _Versifying_ being then
much in vogue, and the queen herself rather fond of such compositions,
they had their address drawn up in that way, which the recorder read
before it was presented to her majesty.  It was but short, and said to
run thus,

    “We men of Coventry, are very glad to see,
    Your gracious majesty.  Good Lord, how fair you be!”

Which drew from her immediately the following, not very gracious answer.

    “My gracious majesty, is very glad to see,
    You men of Coventry: Good Lord! what fools ye be!”

Loyalty abounded then, it seems, at Coventry, not only among the members
of the corporation, but also among those of the cathedral.

Accordingly, on the following Sunday, _Mr. Thomas Boyce_, the clerk of
the cathedral, had a hymn composed on purpose to celebrate this royal
visit, and do honour to his sovereign, which he thus gave out, just as
the queen was entering the church—“Let us sing to the praise and glory of
God, a hymn of my own composing—

    Re—joice Tom Boyce, re—joice,
          And echo Coven—try,
    For that our gracious queen is come
          To see poor we, we, we!”

One would fain hope that wisdom is not at quite so low an ebb at this
time, in any of our corporations or cathedrals as it seems to have been
then at Coventry.

{715}  Each of our Convents is supposed to have been furnished with a
library.  But what became of those libraries after the dissolution does
not appear.  They were probably destroyed: for we learn that although
_Leland_ was employed to survey the libraries throughout the kingdom, and
preserve the choicest books, yet _Bale_ says that those who got
possession of the religious houses at the dissolution of them, generally
took possession also of the libraries, reserving the books, some to serve
their jakes, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their
boots with: some they sold to the grocers and soap boilers, and some they
sent over sea to the bookbinders, not in small quantities, but at times
whole shipfulls, to the great wondering of foreign nations.—“A merchant
(he says) bought the contents of two noble libraries for 40_s._ a-piece.
This stuff he used for more than ten years instead of grey paper to wrap
up his goods with, and yet he hath enough remaining for many years to
come.”  (See Seward’s An. vol. 1. 49.)  All this discovers some strange
mismanagement on the part of the government.

{717}  This Fort is a platform battery, mounted with ten eighteen
pounders, planted here in 1627; but having no defensive cover, could be
of little use if the town were attacked from the river side.  Of such an
attack, however, Lynn could never be in much danger; the difficulty of
approach that way by men of war, forming its best security.

{720}  We are told that there is a copy of Paramo’s book now in Dr.
Williams’s library in Red-Cross Street, London, and a most extraordinary
production it appears to be.  It was undertaken under the patronage of
_Don Gaspar de Quiroga_, then abp. of Toledo, and Inquitor general, and
first printed at Madrid in 1614.—It begins by proving _God_ himself to
have been the _first_ inquisitor—He convicts Adam and Eve of pertinacious
heresy, infidelity, apostacy, and blasphemy.  God cited Adam, otherwise
the process would have been null.  On Adam’s appearance, He enquired,
that is, made _inquisition_ into the crime.  The man accused his _wife_,
then the judge questioned her: He did not examine the _Serpent_, because
of his obstinacy.—The examinations were secret and separate, that there
might be no collusive lying.  He calls no witness; the inquisitor
overlooks the reason, that there were none to call, and affirms that
conscience and confession are a thousand witnesses, and save the judge
all the trouble, except that of condemning.  The whole was done secretly,
that it might be a precedent for the holy office; and so closely does
this holy office observe the precedent, that they make the dress of
penitent offenders after the very pattern of the clothes which God made
for Adam and Eve, and confiscate all the property of a heretic, because
Adam and Eve were turned out of paradise.—The author further maintains,
that _Abraham_ was an inquisitor, and _Sarah_ likewise; for she turned
_Ishmael_ out of doors for _idolatry_.  In this manner he goes on through
the Pentateuch, and the books of Joshua and Judges, finding inquisitors
all the way through.—_David_ was a staunch inquisitor.  _Zimri_, who slew
his master, was of the holy office: so was _Elijah_.  _Elisha_ and _Jehu_
also are among the heroes of persecution; and _Nebuchadnezzar_ most
unexpectedly proves to be an inquisitor also.—Under the Gospel, _Christ_
was the first inquisitor: the lice, which devoured Herod, and the rulers
who spoiled the Jews, only executed the sentences of death and
confiscation which he had pronounced.  _James_ and _John_, who proposed
to have the Samaritan heretics destroyed by fire, were inquisitors, of
course.  Then follow the _apostles_, and after them the _popes_. &c.
Thus the divine origin and authority of the horrid inquisition is proved
from scripture—and proved as plainly and conclusively too, as many
venerated religious tenets and usages are now every day proved by some of
our most renowned protestant writers:—for instance the precious contents
of the athanasian creed, the popular rite of infant sprinkling, and the
whole ceremony of what is called christening.  The scriptures seem no
less violated or abused, in being brought to support these, than they are
in being brought to support the inquisition.  Let us therefore not be too
severe on Luiz de Paramo for writing such book as that here noticed.

{723a}  Mackerel says that she was _hanged_; but the above account is
supposed to be the most correct.  See Mackerel 233. and Tour of Norfolk,
last edit. 253.

{723b}  That notable book the present writer has never happened to meet
with, or he might, perhaps, have been able to throw some further light
upon this dark and doleful transaction.

{727}  See Granger’s Biographical History, 2. 409.—Hopkins appears to
have wrote and published an account of his own exploits in the way of his
vacation; but the present writer has not met with it.

{732}  The distinction between some of those, as pointed out sometimes by
our law writers and others, is not a little curious: _conjurers_ are said
to differ from _witches_ and _wizards_, in that the former endeavour by
prayers and invocations to compel the devil to say or do what they
command him; whereas the latter deal rather by friendly and voluntary
conference with the devil, or familiar, to have their wishes obtained in
lieu of _blood_, or other gift offered.  Both conjuration and witchcraft
differ from enchantment or sorcery.  The sorcerer is supposed to have
personal conferences with the devil, and by the use of certain
superstitious words and incantations, or by means of images, is said to
produce strange and preternatural effects.—All these false and wild
notions must have originated from knavery and imposture, on the one hand,
and credulity and superstition on the other.  _Juggling_, or notable
skill in the arts of dexterity might promote the imposture; but as to
infernal agency, it will not be very wise and safe to give any credit to
that part of the story.

{734a}  Andrews 2. 46.

{734b}  He was probably superior to the generality of his brethren, and
therefore became suspected of being in league with Satan and the infernal
powers, according to the curious and absurd notions which then prevailed.

{736a}  The author did not advert to the date of this law, when the last
sheet was printed, or he would have said _seventy or eighty_, instead of
_sixty or seventy years_, in page 725.

{736b}  Blackstone, iv. 61.—It is somewhat remarkable that _France_ set
us the example of prohibiting those bloody prosecutions for witchcraft,
even in the reign of Lewis xiv. who thought proper by an edict, to
restrain the tribunals of justice from receiving informations of
witchcraft.  It was right certainly to follow Lewis xiv, and the French
in this instance; but one could have wished we had set the example to
them, and not they to us.

{737}  And if such was not always the case, they must, in those
exceptions, have proceeded from extreme ignorance, or self delusion, as
is the case also with many religious visionaries, who pretend to
extraordinary gifts and divine revelations.  In either case, therefore,
it must have been extremely hard and cruel to take their confessions as
any evidence of their reputed or supposed guilt, or proof that they had
actually made a contract with the devil, and had been endued by him with
extraordinary knowledge and miraculous powers.

{739}  See Encyl. Brit. vol. 18. under _Witchcraft_.—The above sketch may
suffice to give the uninformed reader an idea of what is called
witchcraft; of the existence of which the present writer has expressed
his disbelief.  He is aware, however, that the word is used in our
translation of the scriptures, but thinks it there _misused_, and applied
to a different matter from what our language meant by that term.

{740}  Even such men as _Henry More_ and _Dr. Cudworth_ could brand as
_atheists_ those who denied or doubted the reality of witchcraft.

{742}  See Encycl. Brit. as before; where other matters relating to this
vile subject, and equally disgusting, are related.  The above statement
reflects no honour on the memory of our ancestors.  But that we are
better, or less brutal and savage than they cannot be proved from our
Indian history, our American War, our blowing up the Spanish frigates,
our sacking and burning Copenhagen, or the recent cruelties exercised in
Ireland.

{744}  The circumstances which led, as it is said, to this trial, being
not a little remarkable, may be here related for the reader’s
edification.

    “Lord chief justice Holt, who had been wild in his youth, was once
    out with some of his raking companions on a journey into the country.
    Having spent all their money it was resolved that they should part
    company and try their fortune separately.  Holt got to an inn at the
    end of a straggling village, and putting a good face on the matter,
    ordered his horse to be well taken care of, called for a room,
    bespoke a supper, and looked after his bed.  He then strolled into
    the kitchen, where he saw a lass about thirteen years old shivering
    with an ague; he inquired of his landlady, a widow, who the girl was,
    and how long she had been ill.  The good woman told him that she was
    her daughter, an only child, and had been ill near a year,
    notwithstanding all the assistance she could procure from physic, at
    an expence which almost ruined her.  He shook his head at the
    doctors, and bade the landlady be under no further concern, for that
    her daughter should never have another fit.  He then wrote a few
    unintelligible words in court hand on a scrap of parchment which had
    been the directions to a hamper, and rolling it up, ordered that it
    should be bound upon the girl’s wrist, and remain there till she was
    well.  As it happened the ague returned no more; and Holt, having
    continued there a week, now called for his bill, with as much courage
    as if his pockets had been filled with gold.  ‘Ah! God bless you,’
    said the landlady, ‘you are nothing in my debt, I’m sure; I wish I
    was able to pay you for the cure you have performed upon my daughter;
    and if I had had the happiness to see you ten months ago, it would
    have saved me forty pounds in my pocket.’  Holt, after some
    altercation, accepted of his week’s accommodation as a gratuity, and
    rode away.  It happened that many year’s afterwards, when he was lord
    chief justice of the king’s bench, he went a circuit into the same
    county; and among other criminals whom he had to try, there was an
    old woman who was charged with witchcraft: to support this charge
    several witnesses swore that she had a spell with which she could
    either cure such cattle as were sick, or destroy those that were
    well: in the use of this spell they said she had been lately
    detected, and it having been seized upon her, was ready to be
    produced in court: the judge then desired it might be handed up to
    him: it appeared to be a dirty ball, covered with rags and bound many
    times round with pack-thread: these coverings he removed with great
    deliberation, one after another, and at last found a piece of
    parchment, which he knew to be the same that he had used as an
    expedient to supply his want of money.  At the recollection of this
    incident he changed colour, and sat silent: at length, recollecting
    himself, he addressed the jury to this effect: ‘Gentlemen, I must now
    relate a particular of my life, which very ill suits my present
    character, and the station in which I now sit: but to conceal it
    would be to aggravate the folly for which I ought to atone, to
    endanger innocence, and countenance superstition: this bauble, which
    you suppose to have the power of life and death, is a senseless
    scrawl which I wrote with my own hand and gave the woman, whom, for
    no other cause, you accuse for a witch.’  He then related the
    particular circumstances of the transaction, and expatiated on the
    evil of such prosecutions: and it had such an effect upon the minds
    of the people, who now blushed at the folly and the cruelty of their
    zeal, that the poor woman was acquitted, and was the last that ever
    was tried for witchcraft in that county, and, as some say, in this
    kingdom.”

This anecdote is related in the Brit. Biogr. vol. 7. and more at large in
some other biographical works.

{747a}  See Beauties of Engl. Vol. 7.

{747b}  The above trial before lord chief justice Holt, is said to have
been the last, but its date we cannot discover.

{749}  The cart was overturned on the 5th of May, 1808.  On the following
Sunday Evening, the 8th of the same month, as the minister of the parish
informs us, “a considerable number of people assembled together, as it
grew dark, and taking with them the young women ridiculously supposed to
be bewitched, about ten o’clock proceeded to the house of _Wright
Izzard_, which stands alone at some distance from the body of the
village.  When they arrived at this solitary spot, so favourable for the
execution of their villanous designs, they broke into the poor man’s
house, dragged his wife out of bed, and threw her naked into the yard;
where her arms were torn with pins, her head was dabbed against the large
stones of the causeway—and her face, stomach, and breast were severely
bruised with a thick stick that served as a bar to the door.  Having thus
satisfied themselves, the mob dispersed.  The woman then crawled into her
house, put on her clothes and went to the constable, who said, he could
not protect her, because he was not sworn.”  The humanity, protection,
and assistance which she could not find at the constable’s very happily
for herself she found under the roof of a poor widow; who unlocked her
door at the first call, wrapped up her neighbour’s bleeding arms with the
nicest linen rags she had, affectionately sympathized with and comforted
her, and gave her a bed.  But, horrible to relate! the compassion and
kindness of this poor woman, were the means of shortening her days.  “The
protectors of a witch are just as bad as the witch, and deserve the same
treatment!” cried the infatuated and savage populace, the next morning.
This so affected and terrified the poor companionate widow that she
actually died soon after.—The next evening, that of Monday the 9th of
May, Ann Izzard was a second time dragged out of her house, when her arms
were again torn with pins till they streamed afresh with blood.  Alive
the next morning, and apparently likely to survive this attack also, her
enemies resolved to have her _ducked_, as soon as the labour of the day
was over.  On hearing this, she hastily quitted her home, and took refuge
in the house of the minister of the parish; where the vile wretches durst
not follow her.—The worthy clergyman, for taking her part, and becoming
her protector, lost the good opinion, and incurred the detestation of a
great part of his parishioners; and if he and his friends had not had
recourse to the strong arm of the law it is impossible to say where the
madness would have ended.—See Preface to a sermon against Witchcraft,
preached in the parish church of Great Paxton, July 17. 1808.  By the
rev. J. _Nicholson_, curate of that parish.

{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.

{901b}  About the same time that the pens of _Armstrong_ and _Badslade_
were thus engaged, that of the elder _Kinderley_ also was employed in the
same cause, as appears by the dedication and preface to his son’s volume
on the _ancient and present state of the navigation of Lynn_, &c.  About
these times, the names of Messrs. _Steph. Allen_, _John Cary_, and _Geo.
Hogg_, became enrolled among our freemen, whose descendants have ever
since figured among the first families of this town.—They are thus
noticed in our volume of Extracts—“Augt. 29th. 1724.  Mr. St. Allen to
have his ffreedom, paying 20 nobles.—Sept. 27. 1727.  John Cary elected
free upon paying 20 nobles.—Febr. 3. 1728–9.  Granted the ffreedom to
Geo. Hogg, marriner, at the request of alderman John Kidd, as his mayor’s
ffreeman.”

{902}  Two Irishmen, as the story goes, served in the German or imperial
army during a war with the Turks.  One of them, in a skirmish with some
Tartars, was by one of them overpowered and taken prisoner.  Upon which
he called out to his comrade, “By Jasus, I _have caught a Tartar_!”
“Very well,” said the other, “bring him away then;’” “_he wont come_,”
answered paddy; “then come yourself,” replied his comrade; “arrah now, my
dear honey,” cried he, “_but he wont let me_.”  Hence the origin of the
proverbial saying, when a sharper has been overmatched, that he has
_catched a tartar_.

{912}  The gentlemen of this town, with all their superabundant zeal for
the church, ought to consider how much they owe, for what morality and
religion exist here, to the exertions of those who dissent from that
church.  Every candid and discerning person in the town must see and
acknowledge that the labours of these dissenters have very largely
contributed to the reformation of the inhabitants.  But for our
dissenting chapels, far more than one half, perhaps three fourths of our
population would have been effectually precluded from the possibility of
being benefited by the public ministry of the clergy, for want of room or
proper accommodation in the churches.  This is a known fact.  Must not
the labours of the dissenters therefore be evidently and unquestionably
entitled to the gratitude and encouragement of our rulers, even if their
mode of instruction had _not_ been better calculated to enlighten the
common people than that of the church ministers?

{913}  The _Harwicks_ seem to have been peculiarly unfortunate in being
treated unhandsomely and rudely by some of their townsmen, during their
mayoralty.  _Richard_ Harwick was said to be so treated, by _Browne_, in
1723, and _Charles_ Harwick now by this _Rudkin_.  How to account for
this, we are unable to say.  The Harwicks might carry themselves with too
much haughtiness, or, on the other hand, with too much condescension; for
the one as well as the other kind of conduct has sometimes exposed people
to rude and unbecoming treatment.  However that was, the fact itself, as
above stated, appears no less clear than remarkable.

{914}  Rudkin’s successor in the common-council was the late Thomas
Sommersby, the elder.  Hence the following note occurs in the Hall
books—“Nov. 26. 1731, Mr. Th. Sommersby chosen into the common councel,
in the room of John Rudkin amoved.”—Sometime previously to the expulsion
of Rudkin, Edw. Bradfield, the Town clerk, was also expelled, or
discharged from his office, as appears by the following notes in the same
books—“August 29. 1729, Ed. Bradfield, Town-Clerk suspended.”—again . . .
“Sept. 29. 1729; Ed. Bradfield, Town-Clerk discharged.”—His offence, or
the cause and reason of his discharge is not mentioned: but by the
_Epitaph_ drawn up for him by his friend Dr. _Browne_, it would seem not
to have been any thing very honourable or creditable to the corporation.
This Epitaph, as it is of an unusual cast, and in the doctor’s best
manner, may be worth preserving, and reads as follows.—

                   “_Behold a rare Monument of Friendship_,
                        _Dedicated to the Remains of_
                      EDWARD BRADFIELD, ATTORNEY AT LAW.
                   _Happy while he was Master of himself_;
             _Unfortunate when he became the Servant of others_.
                            _His fine Patrimony_,
                   _And a Profession wherein he excell’d_,
                           _Gave him Independency_,
                            _And every Enjoyment_
                      _That could make Life agreeable_:
                                 _But alas_!
                   _His accepting the office of Town-Clerk_
                        _Subjected him to Servility_,
                        _And to every Disappointment_
                      _That could make Death desirable_.
              _His Experience of both Fortunes was remarkable_:
                    _In the Prosperous_, _he was follow’d_
                        _As if he never had an Enemy_;
                     _In the Adverse_, _he was deserted_
                        _As if he never had a Friend_.
                 _He died September_ 6_th_. 1736, _aged_ 47.
                  _Leaving a Widow_, _and an only Daughter_.
                       _He was Defended while living_;
                          _He is Covered now Dead_,
                           _By one who commenced_,
                          _Almost from the Cradle_,
                         _And continues his Friend_,
                           _Even beyond the Grave_.
                  William Browne, M.D. in both Universities,
               And Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.”

This Epitaph is certainly creditable to the feelings and memory of Sir
William Browne.—Having this occasion to mention him again, the author
begs leave here to correct what he said above at page 901 relating to the
question, whether or not he had been complimented with the freedom of
this borough?  He has since ascertained that that honour was actually
conferred on him _gratis_, Febr 3 1717–18; which must have been previous
to his having incurred the displeasure of the Hall.  Nor can this writer
discover that the same honour was withheld from any _physician_, who had
settled here for any length of time, before our two present ones: (only
Dr. Hamilton _purchased_ his freedom, but that was, it seems, before he
had received his Doctor’s degree.)  Nor yet does this same honour appear
to have been withheld from any of the _clergy_ who were _Lecturers_ here,
except the present Lecturer and his predecessor _Eyre_.  We know not how
to account for this omission on the part of our corporation, (at a time
when the honour itself is daily decreasing in value,) but from a mere
_want_ of _urbanity_; and we hope, in what we may have occasion to say of
them hereafter, we shall never have any reason to lay any thing worse to
their charge.

{917}  This _Edmund Keene_ was the late bishop of Ely.

{920}  The spire or steeple of South Lynn Church was not then blown down,
but stood twenty years longer, and its fall was among the memorable
events which distinguished the commencement of this reign.  It is
somewhat remarkable that the Grey Friars Steeple, the slightest of all
our buildings of that kind, has hitherto withstood the severest blasts.

{927}  It is said that when they had nearly completed one part of their
work, and were ready to congratulate themselves on its impervious,
impassable, and impregnable aspect, a _greyhound_ that followed one of
the gentlemen, making a sudden spring, flew over it in an instant, which
so cooled their ardour, damped their spirits, and discouraged them, that
they had no longer any heart at all to proceed: for they concluded, that
if that greyhound could do so, the _Highlanders_, if they came, would not
fail to storm every thing of that kind that might happen to stand in
their way.—So apprehensive and confident were they for some time that the
rebels would come this way, that they readily gave heed to every flying
and idle report that coincided with that notion.  It was at one time
believed, that their vanguard had nearly reached _Wisbeach_, and even
that some of their scouts or spies were actually in _Marshland_.  The
last belief arose from the circumstance of two travelling Scotchmen
happening then to pass through Marshland, whom every body took to be no
other than rebel spies.  A strong party was sent from Lynn to take them
up, who, among other things, questioned them, if they had _arms_?  To
which they answered, “Yes, they had _twa_,” lifting up both their arms at
the same time.

{932}  The present writer is earnestly desirous to do ample justice, and
give all due commendation to the persevering and unwearied exertions of
the different descriptions of our Lynn dissenters.  They have certainly
done much good, here as well as elsewhere.  After all, it must be allowed
and confessed that the miserable _bigotry_, _illiberality_ and
_intolerance_, which they have often discovered, and particularly _on a
recent occasion_, constitute a vast and sad drawback from the merit of
their exertions, and the praise to which their labours are entitled.  But
on this head we shall be more explicit, when we come to the _present
state_ of the town.

{935}  That the _evangelical clergy_ and their _patrons_ should be at all
alarmed, at the growth, or progress of methodism, seems not a little
singular and strange, considering that they themselves are looked upon as
one sort of methodists, and have certainly and evidently contributed, in
a very large measure, to the increase and prosperity of that sect.  They,
sorely, did not mean or wish to make their hearers dissenters, but the
spirit of their system and the drift of their ministry appear to have a
strong tendency that way.

{936}  At Lynn, and some other places, the _Wesleyans_ alone bear the
name of _Methodists_: whereas the _Whitefieldians_ are here denominated
_Independents_, which name they have likewise assumed in many other
places.  In some of the western parts the name of Methodists is given
only to them, and the others are called _Wesleyans_, and sometimes
_Wesleys_: but on this subject we will say more hereafter.

{937}  Whether it will so happen or not, it is certain that the
_methodist Constitution_ is well worth the attention of the statesman and
philosopher, as well as the historian.  It is admirably calculated for
making numerous proselytes, and becoming the predominant religion of a
country—especially that of the _Wesleyan_ community; whose whole plan and
organization discover exquisite skill and judgment, with a most deep and
accurate knowledge of human nature.  In all which respects John Wesley
appears no way inferior to any of the heads of our modern orders or
sects, from Francis and Dominic down to Emanuel Swedenburg and Joanna
Southcote; not excepting Ignatius Loyola, Martin Luther, John Calvin, or
even Fox and Penu and count Zinzendorff.

{941}  See Belsham v. 414, &c.

{942}  Belsham v. 86.

{950}  The writer of the above extract further says, that during the said
electioneering tumult,

    “the insults on the T—rs family, the ladies not excepted, were
    prodigious, especially from young *—*, who exceeded every thing that
    was heard of, to my old lady and the margeries.  The poor madams
    zealously espousing S. J—n’s cause were most grievously abused by him
    and others, with their s—rs drunkenness, their own fat a—s, and even
    much worse upon their spitting in young *’s face, in the heat of
    their passion out of a window, on the Election day.  So that they
    have had fevers.—Dr. B— has declared eternal war, in those very
    words, against every branch of the T—s family, and supported Mr. F’s
    interest with the rage of a madman: his W. and D. did the same, and
    are yet the most billingsgate beasts imaginable.—A. T. purely for the
    sake of mischief reconciled himself to his Bro. and supported his
    cause with all the might of his tongue and purse.—S—*— after going
    about the town with the gentlemen to promote L—d O. and S. J’s
    interest, upon Mr. F’s breaking his promise he had made not to
    meddle, turned to him, and was as violent as any body.—T * voted for
    S. J. but did him privately all the mischief he could, and went out
    of town one day, that his W. might entertain F at Supper.  J. * was a
    fury, and his W. the queen of furies, and to this hour is fit only
    for Bedlam.  All others stood tight to S. J.  But he and his * have
    had all their faults ript up and laid open.—At length Monday came;
    and after an expense of near 2000_l._ on each side, the dear bought
    poll stood thus W. 199.  T. 184 F. 131.—There were players in town at
    the time; so the triumphant party gave their friends an entertainment
    of that sort.  To ridicule D—r B— the _Busy Body_ was the play, and a
    farce was added called the _Mock D—r_, which _mock Dr._ was dressed
    as like Dr. B— as could be.  F—’s people on their part tho’ beaten,
    would shew they had good hearts; so they bespoke _Pasquin_, which is,
    you know, written to ridicule corporation Elections; there is a m—r
    and m—r—ss &c.  They took care to dress the m—r and cripple him, so
    as to resemble poor P—, and Madam m—r—ss was most specially drunk.
    The shouting and insolence were prodigious, calling out, F— for ever!
    between the acts, and drinking his health throughout the house, and
    ending with an Epilogue made by Dr. B— comparing Sr. J—n to _Tom
    Thumb_.  They keep up a most indecent rage yet, and swear they’ll
    never have done, till they’ve thrown out Sr. J—n.  F. is coming again
    in a few days, and here’s to be dainty-doings.  Upon the whole, they
    say, Sr. J—n was brought in upon L—d O’s shoulders, which, tho’
    better than not brought in at all, sits not pleasantly upon his
    stomach, any more than the expense of 2000_l._ suits his temper and
    pocket.—I have been guilty of an unpardonable omission in saying
    nothing of your friend madam M—x—n, who espoused Sr. J—n’s cause with
    mighty warmth, and did him great service.  She kept open house for
    all freemen, and waited on ’em herself, and look’d exactly like a
    woman that keeps a booth in a Fair, with, roast pork, bottled ale,
    cider, &c.  When her husband was at home, she went abroad to
    outlyers, with presents, to keep them tight: and several of ’em she
    had at bed and board in her house, for fear of the enemy.  Dr. B—
    came to her, and demanded the release of the men: she withstood him,
    and defended her castle, as bravely as _Joan of Arc_ could have done,
    had she been raised from the dead, against the D—r, parson M—y, and
    other hussars, who were scouring every hole and corner of the town.
    The close of her gallant conduct was in free conference, or rather a
    pitched battle with Dr—B—’s W. upon what had passed, which was of
    some hours continuance, and better worth all the money you have in
    your pocket, to have seen and heard, than _Pasquin_, or the _Busy
    Body_ was worth 6_d._—Next to this Heroine deserves to be mentioned
    _Harvey_ the ’Pothecary, who because Sr. J— gave a relation of his a
    place lately, turned against him, and against his own express
    promise; drank himself into a fever, and is dead and buried.  He has
    left all he had to his wife, who seems very glad of her loss, as well
    as her gain.  _Nic. Elstobb_ was wild on the same side, and raved
    till he spit blood, and was at death’s door, and is not far from it
    at this time.  _Martin Sand—r_ on the other side lost his senses
    without a joke, and was given over for a week, but is now as well as
    ever.—There never was such a funeral at Lynn as Harvey’s.  The number
    of persons invited was very great, but the volunteers made the chief
    figure.  All F’s party met at the Dog, and joined the procession,
    going 2 and 2, and returned to the same place, in the same manner,
    where they spent the night in drinking F for ever, and to Harvey’s
    pious memory.—The next night after the _Busy Body_ was played, my L—d
    and S. J. gave a Ball to all the freemen’s wives and daughters—After
    a few dances by the better sort of Ladies they sat down, and L—d *’s
    Son, (who rode for his cousin,) S. J, the C—r, Mr. B— and Sr. Wm.
    H—b—d and the rest took shopkeepers wives and daughters, and twirl’d
    ’em about all the rest of the night.  This gave great content.—In
    return for Mr. M—x—n’s seal in S. J—’s service, the other party have
    played him a trick, by getting Johnson R—s D—r, who has a right in
    what remains above the mortgage in M—x—n’s House, to set it to sale;
    and so, by underhand management, they forced him to buy it at a dear
    rate, or he must have gone out of it.”

This long and striking extract gives a curious, but very unfavourable
idea of the state of society here, or of the character and manners of our
townsmen 64 years ago.  The reader will hardly suppose the picture to be
overcharged, when he is informed that the writer was no other than the
_revd. Edm. Pyle D.D._ then _Lecturer_ of this town, who would not be
likely to represent his own flock as more unruly, mischievous, and
graceless than what they really were.

{955}  It is hardly necessary to observe here, that all the wars, and
calamities, and revolutions, that have within the last twenty years
agitated and devastated the European world, are pretty generally thought
to have sprung from the American war, or those wrongheaded principle
which occasioned it.

{957}  Small as the above number may appear, yet, if the whole of what is
now called _the united kingdom_ had armed in equal proportion, it would
have produced a very large force, consisting, if we are not mistaken, of
no less than 200,000 men.

{959}  Proverbs. 30. 20.

{960a}  It is said to be already between 8 and 900 millions—a continuance
of the war for a very few years more will probably complete the sum.

{960b}  In the autumn or winter of 1782, the north mail was robbed one
evening soon after 11 o’clock, a little beyond the long Bridge, by a
lawless youth of the name of _Beeton_.  A few days after he was
apprehended and committed to prison, whence he made his escape on the
7th. of November, but was again taken on the 11th. at Rising.  He was
executed Febr. 17. 1783.

{962}  The ancient usage seems to have been for the mayor to name and
authorize _twelve_ of his brethren of the Hall to elect two burgesses to
represent the town in parliament.  Hence we read in an old record, that
in the year 1487 _Robert Pillye_, then mayor, called and empowered the
following twelve men to elect two persons to represent this borough in
the parliament which was to meet that year: viz.  John Massingham, John
Bilney, Tho. Carter, Wm. Yates, Robt. Powdich, Andr. Woley, John
Thorisby, Hen. Gardyner, Robt. Umfrey, Tho. Symkenson, John Trunche, and
Tho. Archer: who accordingly chose _Robert Thorisbye_ and _John
Tygo_.—Two years before (1485,) _Robert Braybroke_ and _William Munke_
had been chosen in like manner:—and the year following, (1488,) in the
mayoralty of _John Tyge_, twelve men, called and authorised by him, chose
_John Gryndell_ and _Thomas Carter_ to sit in the parliament called that
year.—It seems by this that elections were then very frequent; annual
perhaps, or nearly so: and each parliament continuing but one
session.—The same old record mentions several other subsequent elections,
always made by 12 persons called thereto by the mayor—only once, but it
does not appear in what year, he seems to have nominated but _eight_,
which eight are said to have called unto them four more, so making up the
number of 12; which 12 chose for burgesses of parliament _Robt.
Braybroke_ and _John Beels_.  This might be in 1486—If so, we have here
an account of four annual parliaments at that period.—Let us not,
however, blame our ancestors for leaving the election of their members in
the hands of 12 persons; for we do not appear to have at all mended the
matter yet: our efficient or real electors are even now less than 12.

{964}  Unless we should choose so to denominate the following
occurrence.—“At our quarter Sessions held Nov. 15. 1785, the recorder
being absent by reason of illness, sentence of transportation was passed
upon one Bradley and another convict by the then mayor, the late Mr. Wm.
Bagge.”

{965}  See _New Annual Register_ for 1788, page (32.)

{966}  “His majesty (says one of the journals of that time) is constantly
at the Spa a little before six in the morning, where he drinks a glass of
water, then walks half an hour with the queen and princesses, who
likewise drink the water.  The king takes a second glass, and about half
after seven the royal party return to Fauconberg house: his majesty hands
the queen and princesses to their carriages, and then sets out himself on
foot.  About eleven o’clock he is constancy on horseback, paying no
regard to the state of the weather.  The queen and princesses follow him
in their carriages.  They generally take the road to the hills, on the
east of Cheltenham, return about two, and at seven appear again in the
walks.—The great object (says the same journal) of the kings journey to
Cheltenham is to keep off the gout.  His complaint for some time past has
been the flying gout, which his physicians could readily fix by the use
of proper regimen; but his majesty dreads such a lodgment, as it would of
course prevent him from using that exercise which has been so much his
habit as well as inclination.  Cheltenham waters are reckoned the best in
the kingdom for this purpose.”—see _N. A. Register_ vol. 9. p. (26) and
(28.)

{967}  This is said not to have been the first time when such symptoms
had made their appearance.

{968a}  See New Annual Register, vol. 10. page 92.

{968b}  Pitt declared that the prince had no more right to assume the
regency than he had; which was deemed by many a very extraordinary and
extravagant assertion.

{972}  See _New Annual Register_ for 1791, page (7.)

{974}  When some had written violent pamphlets against the elder Pitt,
and he was urged to have them prosecuted, he smilingly answered, “No: the
press, like the air, is a chartered-libertine.”  The son, with all his
reputed and boasted greatness, had not a mind capable of imitating such
an example.  (See Belsham, vol. v.)  No real magnanimity, or true dignity
of character was to be expected from one who could seek the ruin of his
own original friends and coadjutors, the active supporters of his early
politics and youthful fame, and that, forsooth, because they would not
support his apostacy, but chose still to adhere to those principles which
he himself used to tell them were inseparably connected with the welfare
and salvation of the country.

{976}  Should the work ever commence and go on, the commissioners will
have to borrow money to a vast amount, which they will probably, not find
a very easy matter, as other fen projects, such as those of the _river
Nene_ and _Feltwell District_ especially, have turned out so miserably
unpropitious to the respective creditors; that the interest of their
money is now many years in arrears, with but little prospect of its being
ever again liquidated.  The _Nene_ commissioners are so much above their
business, and so regardless of the rights of their creditors, that they
sometimes will not deign to meet, so much as once a year, to examine the
state of their finances and see if any thing can be spared towards the
payment of their debts.—As to the gentlemen, or commissioners of the
“_Feltwell_ new fen district,” they, some years ago, thought proper to
represent themselves in a state of insolvency, and proposed that their
creditors should advance at the rate of ten per centum of the money in
their hands towards obtaining a new act of parliament to increase the
drainage taxes, and so enable them thenceforth to pay interest regularly.
The money was advanced, and the new act obtained, but not a shilling of
interest has been yet advanced, under pretence that all the money is
wanted for repairs and drainage improvements, &c.  How far all this is
honest or honourable we need not say; but that it will not fail to make
some people in future more cautious in adventuring their money on such
occasions, may be reasonably supposed and expected.

{977}  That paragraph reads thus—

    “Lynn, May 11. 1802.  Thursday last being the day appointed for the
    public reading of his majesty’s proclamation of peace in this town,
    the morning was ushered in by the ringing of bells and other
    demonstrations of joy.  At noon the Lynn Loyal Volunteers, commanded
    by major Everard, paraded in the Tuesday market place.  Soon after,
    the mayor, accompanied by the recorder, aldermen, common-council-men,
    and most of the inhabitants, proceeded in front of the line to the
    market cross, when the town-crier read the proclamation of peace.
    The Volunteers then fired a _feu de joie_, which was succeeded by
    reiterated shouts of applause from every person present, the band
    striking up ‘Rule Britannia.’  Major Everard then addressed the
    corps, and after thanking them for their zeal in defence of their
    country, read to them the thanks of both houses of parliament for
    their meritorious past services, and informed them they were now to
    be disbanded, conformably to the regulation of government, with a
    reward the most gratifying, their sovereign’s approbation of their
    conduct.  The noncommissioned officers and privates were then
    severally presented with a pecuniary donation, in lieu of a public
    entertainment.”

Thus it appears that the conduct of these volunteers gained the
approbation and applause not only of their fellow citizens or townsmen,
but even of the higher orders of the nation, up to the very throne.

{979}  The year 1797 was also distinguished in Norfolk for two great
political meetings held there in the spring of that year, of which the
Norfolk Remembrancer gives the following account.—

    “April 25th. a county meeting was held on the Castle Hill (Norwich,)
    in the open air, and a petition, praying his majesty to dismiss his
    present ministers, as the most effectual means of reviving the
    national credit and restoring peace, was moved by Mr. Fellowes,
    seconded by Mr. Rolfe, supported by Lord Albemarle, Mr. Coke, Mr.
    Mingay, Mr. Plumptre, and Mr. Trafford, and almost unanimously
    adopted.”

Had the whole nation done the same it might have proved of incalculable
benefit.  But three days after another meeting was convened by the
opposite party, to counteract the effect of the former.  At this meeting,
(according to the work just referred to,)

    “a dutiful and loyal address to the king was moved by Sir T. Beevor,
    and seconded by R. Milles Esq. and afterwards numerously signed by
    the nobility, gentry, and freeholders, expressive of their reliance
    on the measures adopted by the ministers for obtaining a safe and
    honourable peace, and of their readiness to defend with their lives
    and fortunes, the religion, laws, and constitution of their country.”

These swaggering and blustering life-and-fortune men have had their day,
and a pretty long one it has proved.  If the nation be not yet quite
tired of their swaggering, and sick at heart of their system of war,
bloodshed, violence, and endless expenditure, it seems high time it
should.  We surely, ought, to be fully convinced, by this time, that the
politics of their opponents, so long decried among us, are infinitely
better calculated than theirs for the welfare of this country.

{982}   During the whole continuance of this Paper scarce any thing more
remarkable appeared among its contents than the memorable controversy
about the termination of the century, which caused a sad division among
our wise men of that period.  Some affirmed that the century actually
ended with that year, 1799; while others insisted that it could not end
till the conclusion of the following year, for this plain reason, that
_ninety nine_ could not possibly make one _hundred_.  In short, this
controversy seems to have exhibited our wise men as somewhat akin to the
wise men of Gotham.

{984}  Of these two addresses the former, according to the _Lynn Packet_,
was worded as follows—

    “_To the King’s most excellent majesty_: The humble Address of the
    Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-council of the borough of KING’S LYNN, in
    the county of Norfolk, in Council assembled.  MOST GRACIOUS
    SOVEREIGN: We your Majesty’s Loyal Subjects, the Mayor, aldermen, and
    common-council of the borough of King’s Lynn, in the county of
    Norfolk, humbly beg leave to bear this public testimony of our horror
    and indignation at the late nefarious attempt upon a life so highly
    important to the welfare of these realms.  We most cordially
    congratulate, not only your majesty, but all friends to our country,
    on your providential escape from danger so imminent; and beg leave to
    express our earnest wishes and prayers, that your majesty may long
    continue to reign over a free and happy people.—Given _under our
    Common-Seal_, _at our Guildhall_, _the_ 21_st._ _day of May_, _in the
    year of our Lord_ 1800.”

The Address from the _inhabitants_ was somewhat longer, but to the same
effect, though differently worded.  The former mentioned the horrid act
as having excited the _indignation_, and the latter the _detestation_ of
the addressers, neither of which could be very proper as applied to the
conduct of a madman.  The outrageous conduct of a maniac, may excite
horror; but it is not easy to conceive how it can excite either
indignation or detestation.  Before we dismiss this subject we may just
observe that _Hadfield_, _Brothers_, and _Margaret Nicholson_, were not
the only personages who, in the course of this reign, were moved and
impelled by the spirit of insanity to pay very extraordinary attention to
the sovereign.

{985}  Unless we should except the great accession of honour to our town
in 1807, by the addition of the names of his royal highness _William
Henry duke of Clarence_, and the right honourable _George James_, _earl
of Cholmondeley_, to its list of _freemen_.

{990a}  The following appeared as officiating clergy or ministers in the
two churches of this parish within the time of Dr. Arrowsmith’s residence
here—Messrs _Caston_, _Stalham_, _Hares_, _Swallowe_, _Emmotte_, _Nic.
Toll_, _Caston_ junr.  _Rawlinson_, _Purchas_, _Gatford_, _Leech_,
_Almond_, _Bell_: but they were not all here at the same time; several of
then being successors to such as had removed or died.  There seem,
however, to have been more stated and officiating ministers here then,
than there are at present; and the same probably was the case afterwards
during the common-wealth and protectorate.

{990b}  The chief document alluded to is an old quarto MS. or record,
evidently extracted from an older one, or from the Hall-books, for the
use, it seems, of the clergy, and probably by some of that body, as it
has passed through that channel, and is written by different hands.  In
this record the following notices of Mr. Arrowsmith occur—

    “1630, Sept. 29.  Mr. John Arrowsmith M.A. Fell. Kath. Hall, made
    choice of from the university of Cambridge to be one of the Lecturers
    of this town; and he is to have a ffee of 50_l._ per annum, and a
    convenient dwelling house, or 5_l._ in lieu thereof—to preach twice
    every Sunday, except 1st.  Sunday in every month, and then but once,
    and with the other Lecturer, or to preach by several turns, viz. Days
    K’s entrance into ys kingdom 1st. Augt. 29th. Augt. 29th. Sept. 5th.
    Nov. 25th. Dec. and to help the curate in the mynistring Sacrament
    Ld’s supper, and if hereafter he shall take any benefice then this
    election shall be void.”

—again—

    “Dec. 10th.  Mr. Arrowsmith chosen one o’Lecturers, 29th. Sept. &c.
    now ordered to preach at St. N. every Sunday morning, and be respited
    of’s aft. S. also to preach Wednesday every forenoon St. M. and Mr.
    Caston to preach afternoons St. N. and forenoons at St. M. as
    usual.—Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr Caston, Lecturers, had ffee either of ym
    50_l._ a piece, and either of ym Dwelling house, or 5_l._ a piece in
    lieu yereof, thr. ffees to be made up 100 marks (66_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._)
    apiece, and their houses continued, or 5_l._ a piece yearly as
    formerly, and yt the xii Sermons they were respited, shall in respect
    of ys increase be preached by each of ym: ye increase of this ffee to
    begin from Xtmas next.”

—again—

    “1631, July 1st.  Mr. Arrowsmith’s ffee made up the whole to 100_l._
    per ann. Qterly beg. 29th. Sept. next.”

—again—

    “Dec. 7th. a patent under com. seal M. and burg. at request of Mr.
    Arrowsmith M.A. for his ffee of 100_l._ a year to be paid Qterly,
    with such covenants and agreements as shall be thought fit to be
    inserted.”

—again—

    “1632, Sept. 28th. 10_l._ allowed Mr. Arrowsmith towards payment of
    house rent.”

—again—

    “Mar. 11th. Mr. John Arrowsmith commended to Ld. Bp. of Norwich and
    Dean and Chapter to be minr. St. Nic. Chapel, K’s L. on conditions
    and agreements hereafter following, viz. Yt Mr. A. still continue his
    place o’pching, and to admr. Sacr. Ld’s Supper, but not to be further
    tyed or charged with the duties o’ ye minister’s place, nor to
    receive any part of the benefits thereof, only to have his ffee as
    formerly granted him; but ye same to be performed by a man to be
    appointed by ye town, and that ye town shall also dispose of all the
    benefits of the place.  Also agreed yt. Mr. A. shall suffer ye
    parishioners from time to time to make choice of the churchwardens
    and of the parish dark, as they shall think fit.”

—again—

    “1633. Augt. 26th. (loco 25.) Mr. A’s. patent sealed with com. seal
    for’s stipend of 100_l._ per ann. and 10_l._ for’s dwelling, but it
    is directed to be deposited in Town Clerk’s hand, till Mr. A. shall
    covenant in writinge with ye Major and Burgesses to perform ye order
    of this house in March last, touching ye minister’s place.”

—again—

    “1635, Apr. 10th. 100_l._ lent by ye House one yr to Mr. Arrowsmith,
    minister St. Nicholas parish gratis, &c.”

—again—

    “Sept. 14th.  Mr. A’s patent delivered out to Mr. A. himself.”

—again—

    “Dec. 4th.  Mr. _Matts. Swallowe_ chosen Lecturer in this town, loco
    Mr. Edm. Caston decd. by M. A. C. C. as far as in ym lieth, _viz._ to
    preach 2ce every Ld’s day, in forenoon St. Margt. and afteroon at St
    Nic. and to help to admyn. sact. Ld’s Sup. every common. day, and to
    preach on ffestival days by turns with Mr. A. as Mr. Caston did, for
    100 marks in money, and house, and a letter o’commendation to ye Bp.
    in his behalf.  And this day M A. C. C as far as in ym lies chose Mr.
    Edm. Caston, son of Mr. E. C. late decd. to be curate St. Margaret’s
    Church, loco Mr. Matts.  Swallowe this day chose into place of Mr. E.
    C. deed, he to preach every Ld’s day in ye afternoon at St.
    Margaret’s Church, and to read divine service, and perform other
    duties of the church as Mr. S. did for 40_l._ a yr. in money, and
    such ffees and church duties as Mr. S. had, and on such conditions as
    Mr. S. had the same.”

—again—

    “1637, May 12th at request of Mr. John Arrowsmith, B. D, min. and
    prcher of Word of God St. Nics. chap. K’s Lyn, on account of
    indisposition of body, and for his convenience, ordrd. ye Wednesday
    Lector in St. Margt’s shall be translated to St. Nic. chap. till
    Michs. next”

—again—

    “1641, Oct. 8th.  Mr. Mayor to treat with Mr. Arrowsmith concerng. a
    minr. for St. Margt’s church, [in the room of Mr. Gatford] and Mr.
    Mayor to get some other minr. to preach on Sundays till we can be
    provided with a min. and they yt preach shall have for every S.
    10_s._”

[It appears that the place of minister of St. Nicholas’ was then
preferable to that of St. Margaret’s; otherwise Mr. Arrowsmith, no doubt,
would have had the offer of the latter]—again—

    “1644, Sept 29th.  Mr. John A. minister St. Nic. chap, elected to ye
    Synod, and elected Mr. St. John’s Coll. Cambridge, by ye pliamt:
    discharged.”

He was succeeded about a fortnight after, by _Mr. Thomas Hoogan_.  But Mr
Arrowsmith continued long after to be highly respected here, as appears
by their applying to him when in want of ministers, and accepting those
whom he recommended.  Mr. W. Falkner, Fellow of Peter House, came here as
late as 1658, upon his recommendation, and that of Dr. _Tuckney_.

{993}  We are assured that Dr. Tho. Goodwin, afterwards the memorable
president of Magdalen College, Oxford, was at this time lecturer of
Trinity Church, and fellow of Catherine Hall, in Cambridge, of which
Arrowsmith, who was afterwards successfully invited to Lynn, was then
likewise a fellow: there can therefore be no doubt of his being the very
person who was now applied to from this town.  (See Aikin’s Biography.)

{994}  Granger speaks of him as follows—

    “_John Goodwin_, minister of Coleman Street, was a man who made more
    noise in the world than any person of his age, rank, and profession.
    He had the hardiness to introduce Arminianism among the Calvinists,
    which he bravely and jealously defended, both in his sermons and
    writings.  It is hard to say whether he displayed more courage in
    attacking or repelling the enemy.  It is certain he had a very
    powerful body to deal with, as it was said that _he was a man by
    himself_: _was against every man_, _and had every man almost against
    him_.  His genius seemed to be adapted to polemical divinity, and to
    an age of faction and tumult.  He was appointed by the council of war
    to attend upon Charles I. a little before his execution.  This was
    deemed an insult upon fallen majesty; as no man more eagerly
    promoted, or more zealously defended the murder of the king.  His
    discourses and writings on this subject were well remembered at the
    restoration; but it was also remembered, that he had sown the seeds
    of division among the sectaries, which is supposed to have saved his
    life.”

He was educated at Cambridge, and his sermons were much admired for their
elegance and erudition.  Brit. Biogr. 6. 378.—He died in 1665, aged 72.

{995}  Of his matrimonial adventure we have met with the following
anecdote—

    “The gentlewoman who afterwards was his wife, coming with her two
    elder sisters to hear him preach at _Hareby_, a village not far from
    _Bullingbrook_, the clerk, after sermon, insinuating himself into
    their company, asked them, which of them could like such a man as Mr.
    H. for a husband?  The two elder declared against it, (though they
    could not but commend his preaching,) and gave their reasons drawn
    from the poor circumstances ministers’ widows were often left in: but
    the younger said she should think herself happy if she might have
    such a man, though she begged her bread with him.  This was carried
    to Mr. H and she became his wife.  She survived him [ten years] but
    never wanted while she lived.”  (_Nonconf. Mem._ vol. 2.)

{996}  Mr. _Palmer_ dates the commencement of his residence and ministry
here in 1647, in which he is mistaken, as appears both from the document
above referred to, and also from the old parish-book of South Lynn, which
prove beyond all doubt, that he was here in 1646.—The former contains the
following curious memoranda—

    “Oct. 2. 1646: ord. yt Wedn. 14th be a day set apart for public
    thanksgiving to God for his so mercifully freeing this town fr ye
    contagious disease of the _Plague_.  Notice to be given to sevl minrs
    by Mr. ald. John May.—It is this day also agreed and ordered that the
    sevl. ministers of this Town, viz. _Mr. Almond_, _Mr. Hoogan_, _Mr.
    Toll_, _Mr. Leech_, and _Mr. Horne_ if he please, shall every one of
    them be intreated in his turn weekly at the Hour appointed to pray
    every morning before the Hall here with the company of this House by
    the space of a quarter of an hour or thereabout; and that every one
    of the aldermen or comn. Counsell that shall at any time be absent
    frm. such Prayer shall pay for his respective fine or brogue 6_d._ to
    the use of the Poor, and yt. ys. order as to the sd. payment of 6_d._
    for ye sd. absence from prayer shall be inserted in the Table of
    ancient orders.”

—again—

    “9, Dec. 1646: Whereas _Mr. Almond_, _Mr. Hoogan_, _Mr. Toll_, and
    _Mr. Leech_, ye now ministers of this Burgh did lately present a
    Petition unto ys. House concerning an order lately made in ys House
    for Prayer amongst ourselves by them and _Mr. Horne_: and this day 3
    of ym came into this House to desire an answer thereof; which said
    Petition was now plainly read, wherein were some dark sentences and
    words not well understood, whereupon ys House hath intreated and
    nominated _Mr. Hudson_, _Mr. Slany_, _Mr. Bassett_, and _Mr.
    Wormell_, aldermen; _Mr. Barnard Utber_, _Mr. Williams_, _Mr. Scott_,
    and _Captain Joshua Greene_, a committe for that purpose, giving ym
    power forthwith to request all and every the said ministers to meet
    together, to make explanation of ye sd dark words and sentences; and
    then to draw up such an answer thereof as they shall conceive
    fitting, and tender it to this House, that being approved on may be
    returned in writing.”

—again—

    “14. Dec. 1646: Whereas the last Hall day the ministers’ Petition was
    twice read, and referred to a Committee to consider thereof and
    certify the several explanations of dark sentences by ye sd
    ministers.  It is ys day upon the report of ye sd. committee ord.
    that _Mr. Edward Robinson_ shall return this answer to ye sd
    ministers, that ys House doth adhere to their former vote, mentioned
    in a former order of ys House.”

{997a}  That Mr. Man was settled here as early as 1593 appears from the
following passage in the old record already quoted—“1593 Mar. 18.  John
Man B.A. Bennet Coll. Cambr. chose usher, wages 10_l._ a yr.”—Afterwards
we have it noted—“1597, Sept. 26. John Man. _M.A._ eld. M Gr. Sch. loco
Nic. Eston M A.”

{997b}  “Bartholomew-day (said _Locke_) was fatal to our church and
religion, in throwing out a very great number of worthy, learned, pious,
and orthodox divines.”

{998}  He was doubtless more diligent and laborious in his ministry than
any we have here now, or, perhaps, ever had since his time, of any
denomination.  His memory ought therefore to be revered.

{999}  Some of them are controversial, in answer to Dr. Owen, Dr. Kendal,
Mr. Grantham, &c.  Others are funeral sermons preached at different
times, at Lynn and other parts of Norfolk: one is a narrative of the
penitent behaviour of _Rose Warne of Lynn_, a condemned malefactor;
another is a Farewell to his parishioners at the time of his ejection in
1662; another a _Poem_, entitled _The Divine Wooer_, at the end of which
is a long Epitaph drawn up by him for his friend and parishioner, Thomas
Lilly, Great Great Grandfather of our Sir Martin Browne Folkes.  Most of
the rest are pious practical discourses, all very creditable to his
memory.—From the _Farewell to his Parishioners_, it appears that the
income of his vicarage was 80_l._ a year, equal we suppose to 500_l._ of
our money.  That income he sacrificed for conscience’ sake.

{1001a}  It is not easy to conceive what should deter him from taking
orders unless it were that he had some serious scruples as to the terms
of ordination, which, to say the least of them, seem to be hard enough of
all conscience.

{1001b}  At his death he bequeathed his books to the town library: and he
also bequeathed a handsome legacy to the corporation, as trustees, to lay
out the interest of it in apprenticing poor children; which it is
presumed, is still applied to the same benevolent purpose.

{1002a}  Who immediately succeeded Mr. Horne, as minister or pastor over
his people, seems uncertain.  We have heard, a _Mr. Williams_ mentioned
as holding that situation previously to the settlement here of the elder
_Rastrick_, which seems to have taken place about 1710 or 12.  Whether he
was here during the whole of the intervening period we cannot say: Nor do
we know any thing further of him.

{1002b}  The exact number of his publications the present writer has not
been able to learn.  The following were the titles of some of them—A
Commentary on the seven first Chapters of Revelation, 4to London, 1678,
pp. 935.—A Call to Repentance, &c. 8vo London, 1682 pp. 438.—Calling and
Election: or many called but few chosen. 12mo. Lond. 1674—Needful councel
for lukewarm christians, 4to Lond.—The object of love, &c. to the end we
may love one another. 12mo. London.

{1003}  Dugdale does so repeatedly, in different parts of his works, and
so does Parkin, if our memory does not fail us—

    “I have seen (says he, in one place) a memorandum wrote by Gybon
    Goddard Esq. Serjeant at Law and recorder of Lynn, who was a _curious
    collector of Antiquities_, and died in 1671, wherein he observes that
    in his time in digging to set down a new sluice a little beneath
    Magdalen fall, which is about half a mile from Magdalen bridge, on
    the Marshland side, there was found about 16 foot, within soyle a
    grave stone of about 8 feet long, and a cart wheel near to it.  The
    grave-stone (he adds) is now in Magdalen Church Yard.”

{1010}  They run thus—

    “Orders to be observed at the Society when met together—1. That there
    be a meeting of the several members every Lord’s day evening, after
    divine service, for religious conference, to be managed in manner
    following, viz. One of the Stewards with the whole society kneeling,
    to read the Collect for the second Sunday in Advent, adding thereunto
    any particular Collect according to his discretions (but he shall
    make choice of no other but those appointed for Sundays and holidays)
    and if a chapter be read out of the N. Test, then the Society to
    discourse of the contents of that chapter, aiming thereby each to
    improve himself in the undertaking thereof, and in the more lively
    application thereof to his own heart and conscience, and to render
    the influence more powerful to the mind both of himself and his
    brethren.—That every member at his going away, according to his
    ability, put what he please into the poor-box, which is heartily
    wished may be done not grudgingly or of necessity, but with joy and
    alacrity, for God loveth a cheerful giver: After which to conclude
    with two Collects, one of the Steward’s choice, and the last to be
    that in the Communion Service, (_Prevent us O Lord_, _&c._)
    Moreover, beside the forementioned general method of reading and
    discoursing the scriptures in order, any member hath the liberty to
    raise any argument of a spiritual or religious nature, provided it be
    not above our reach and capacity, nor leading to doubtful
    disputations, but such as may conduce to general benefit and
    advantage, to counselling the doubtful, and instructing the ignorant,
    confirming the weak, and encouraging one another to run with patience
    the race that is set before us.  But matters of controversy to be
    avoided, especially state affairs, as not belonging to us, who
    pretend to be instructed by that grace of God that teacheth us to be
    holy without blame before him in love.  Wherefore upon deliberate
    consideration, reflecting upon the confusions and distractions that
    have been raised by societies on such occasions, it is ordered with
    full consent, that whosoever shall pretend to start any thing of
    debate or controversy concerning state affairs, after the first or
    second admonition, shall be excluded from the society: also all
    discourse of matters of trade, or other temporal concerns to be
    forborne.—2_ndly_, that every respective member shall have liberty to
    recommend an object of charity to the Stewards, to whom a
    satisfactory account being given of the particular circumstances of
    those unto whom they, with the consent of the rest of the society, or
    the greater part of them, shall give out of the aforesaid collections
    as necessity shall require.—3_rdly_, That every one that is absent
    from the society at their meeting together, if on a frivolous
    occasion, such as shews any backwardness to attend, or a mean and
    slight esteem for the society in conformity to these rules and
    orders, shall incur the penalty of 6_d._ to be paid into the bank for
    defraying the necessary charges of the society, for the convenience
    of meeting; and if a Steward, one shilling: but if any person’s
    absence appears to be involuntary, as from a master’s restraint upon
    a servant, or otherwise, not proceeding from sloth or backwardness, a
    sufficient answer being given to the Steward who shall enquire the
    cause, the said answer shall suffice for his absence: but if any one
    be absent four times together without a very sufficient cause, he is
    to be looked upon as dissaffected to the society until he gives the
    Stewards satisfactory reasons for his said _absence_.—4_thly_, That
    upon the Lord’s day next before Whitsunday there shall be an
    _election of Stewards_ for the year ensuing, to be made in manner
    following, viz. Every member of the Society to put into a bason two
    tickets, whereon are written the names of the two persons he desires
    may be stewards: that is to say, the one name on the one, and the
    other on the other, each of the present stewards to have duplicate
    votes, each putting in four tickets, having on two of them the names
    of the one, and on the other two the names of the other person they
    prefer for stewards: then the tickets being told over by the old
    stewards, those two persons whose names are written on the greatest
    number of tickets are the Stewards elect; and if at any time an
    equality shall happen, then the determination to be made by
    lot.—5_thty_, That for the admitting a new member into the Society it
    is requisite to be introduced by one of the members, who is to
    accompany him into the Society at their usual meeting, where giving
    an account of the knowledge he hath of his life and conversation, if
    approved of by the Stewards and the rest of the Society, the rules
    and orders to be read to him; and after _one month_, if none of the
    society make objection against it, he is to be admitted, by
    subscribing his name to these rules and orders, expressing his
    approbation of them and resolution to live up to them.—6_thly_, That
    six times a year every member meet at St. Margaret’s Church to take
    the holy sacrament together, extent upon unavoidable
    hinderance.—7_thly_, That the major part of the society shall upon
    any necessary occasion have power to make a new rule or order with
    the approbation of a minister of the Church of England, which shall
    be equally binding with the present upon every member of the
    Society.—8_thly_, That the rules and orders be read over at least six
    times every year at the usual meeting of the Society, and every
    member have liberty to take a copy thereof.—9_thly_, That the person
    who hath the greatest number of lots next the Stewards, shall be
    deputy in the absence of one of the Stewards.—_These are the Rules
    and Orders of a Religious Society in King’s Lynn_, _under the
    patronage of the reverend Doctor Littel_, _Anno Domini_ 1704.”

The author has more materials relating to this remarkable society, but
what has been here given throws a sufficient light upon its character and
its objects.  Such a society in every parish would be no way dangerous to
either church or state.

{1015a}  It must not here be concealed, that his reputed heterodoxy,
especially in regard to the Athanasian trinity, might also be among the
causes, if it was not indeed the very chief cause of his failure in the
point of ecclesiastical preferment.  That he was decidedly averse to
Athanasianism, and made no secret of that aversion, is very well known; a
remarkable instance of which was related by his son Dr. Edmd. Pyle in a
letter to one of his female friends, dated August 4. 1747; a copy of
which has fallen into the hands of the present writer.  The passage
alluded to is as follows—

    “My F—r has been excessive hoarse and stuffed and oppressed on the
    lungs, and after physic had in vain attempted his relief, he went
    abroad, the weather being fine, to view his new ch—h, {1015b} where
    they are putting up a magnificent p—lp—t, as the finishing stroke.
    There the sight of the Tr—ty in Un—ty emblematically displayed in the
    front pannel of the said p—l—p—t put him into such a passion, that
    you would have sworn, that with distemper and indignation he must
    have been suffocated: but G—d be praised nature got the better both
    of the m—st—y and the disease, and the conflict produced, what
    medicines could not, a free and large expectoration, which was
    succeeded by a fit of as clear and audible raving, as a man would
    wish to hear from a sound protestant divine, on so provoking an
    occasion.”

This letter-writer to be sure was an arch and wicked dog; but there can
be no doubt of his statement being founded on fact: and when it is
considered how their reputed heterodoxy affected Clarke, Whiston, and
others of Pyle’s eminent contemporaries, it will not appear very strange
that his rewards were not equal to his merits, or that his preferments
were few and inconsiderable.

{1015b}  This was St. Margaret’s then rebuilt.

{1017}  The correspondence between these two eminent men did not close
here.  It is certain that some letters afterwards passed between them, as
appears from the fragment of Mr. Pyle’s answer to one he had received
from the primate, and which reads thus—

    “I no sooner received the great favour of your Grace’s kind and good
    Letter than I wrote to the person intimated therein, and deferred my
    dutiful answer to it no longer than till I was enabled to acquaint
    you with his truly filial reply, that he should never find greater
    pleasure than that of complying with every desire of a father, and
    the honorable friends of that father.—Meantime I am sorry for the ill
    state of my friend _C—st—l_, which gives occasion to this affair.  I
    loved the man: my Sons honoured him much.  I thank your Grace for
    your very good remembrance of me and my Sou.  Age, my Lord, confines
    me at home, when yet good providence blesses me with eyes and
    faculties, still enabling me to read, and even to preach once a day
    generally.  I read every thing and make use of the glorious
    prerogative of private judgment, the birth-right of protestants.  I
    pass free sentiment upon _Mddltn_, and on all his opponents stronger
    or weaker.  So I shall upon what he is going to say on the only piece
    of that great man of L— that ever gave me pleasure.—I read
    _Disquisitions_, and when I’ve done fall to my prayers and wishes,
    that the good thing desired may be put into the hands of the able,
    knowing, and impartial, that no church-_tinkers_ may be suffered to
    mend some few holes and leave others open, at which some vital part
    of the noble christian scheme may run out and be lost.  But no wish
    of mine is so ardent as that your Grace may live with that excellent
    [mind {1018}] of _Tlltsn_, which is in you, to preside in, to direct
    this same good thing, and bring it to perfection.”

Of the residue of this letter we know nothing: this part of it
sufficiently shews whereabout Mr. P. and the Primate stood as to the
points afterwards agitated in the _Confessional &c._  This epistle is
supposed to have been written about 1753, three years before the death of
Mr. P. and four years before that of the Abp. than whom it does not
appear that a worthier prelate ever occupied the See of Canterbury.

{1018}  There is a word wanting here in the MS. Copy, which probably was
_mind_ or _spirit_; alluding it is supposed to Tillotson’s liberal
mindedness, and wish to get rid of the Athanasian Creed, &c.

{1020}  Something is here wanting; _vacate_ perhaps or _relinquish_.

{1021}  The same MS. volume, or Collection, from which the above has been
taken, contains the following curious fragment or P.S. of a letter of the
date of 1742 from the same respectable prelate, to the same
correspondent, as we presume, for it has no superscription.—

    “I find by the direction of one of your correspondents, whose hand
    and head I guess at, how great a man a C—n of S— must be, that his
    titles must follow him into all countries.  The other, whose hand and
    head I pretty well know, has more sense than to adorn the outside of
    his letters in that manner.—I remember a story of a clergyman of
    great form in _Surry_, who directed a post letter to _Abp.
    Sancroft_—_To his Grace_, _my Lord Abp. of Canterbury_, _Primate of
    all England and Metropolitan_:—which letter a man famous for
    imitating hands happened to see brought to the post-office at
    _Epsom_, and finding a little room left after the word
    _metropolitan_, added the words _to boot_, which caused great wrath
    in old Sancroft, and a thorough reprimand to the poor man next time
    he appeared at _Lambeth_, who could not distinguish the addition from
    his own hand.  B. W.”

{1024}  Of those letters of his which have fallen in this writer’s way
all are of a date posterior to his removal from this town, except that
which contains the account of the contested election in 1747, of which we
have already given large extracts.—Of the rest the most remarkable is
dated 24. July 1756, at Chelsea, where the Bp. of Winchester has a town
house, with whom he then resided as his chaplain.  Who his correspondent
was does not appear; but he writes to him as follows—

    “Dear Sir, I returned to this place a few days ago from Winch—r,
    after taking possession of a warm stall in the Cathedral, and a very
    good house in the close.  My going thither was delayed a fortnight,
    by a feverish disorder, attended with some very odd and disagreeable
    circumstances of inflamation, from which I thank God I am very well
    recovered.  I find that as my constitution is, I must, now and then,
    sacrifice something in point of health, to the plenty, that flows in
    this noble house.  However I am not worse upon the whole, than when I
    lived in Norfolk: in that respect and all others I am sure I am a
    _thousand times better_.  Winch—r and all the large towns in that
    county were full of _Hessian troops_, whose appearance and sober
    behaviour was pleasing.  I saw them in several different
    circumstances.  FIRST In their military _Exercise_, out of the City,
    in a spacious plain on the top of a hill, every fine morning.
    SECONDLY.  At their _devotions_, on Sundays, in the Body of the
    Cathedral; which was a most grave and edifying sight.  Their service,
    (both of such as are _Lutherans_, and of others of them that are
    _Calvinists_,) is in the way of our _Dissenters_—1_st._ a _psalm_,
    very long, in which every Soldier bore his part; each having a book,
    and behaving in that, and the other parts of the service, with all
    possible decency and attention.  I saw about 700 each time that I was
    present.  They sing very well.  The psalm was set by a Serjeant of
    Granadiers, a noble stately fellow; who had a vast pair of whiskers
    like birch brooms.  All their granadiers wear this distinction in
    their faces.  When the psalm was ended, a very solemn divine (tho’ he
    had no whiskers) in a black cloak, gave us a sermon in their
    language; after a prayer, which ended with the _Lord’s_ Prayer; at
    which they all went down on their knees on the floor.  The preacher
    used no great action, but he had a very great voice, great
    earnestness, and was in a great sweat.  Then followed another psalm,
    much shorter than the first, and all was closed with a prayer shorter
    also than the former.—There was a Collection of money, but for what
    purpose I know not certainly.  There were few of the common-people
    but gave something.  It is said to be made for the preacher’s
    service, by some; others say it has relation to the Sacrament, which
    they receive monthly; but I saw not the administration of it.  The
    generals and officers were all present and behaved with all
    seriousness.  The officers are very genteel and frugal; yet generous
    enough to give the ladies of the place a Ball once a week.—Another
    circumstance I saw them in was at a Ball, in a garden, from 6 to 9
    o’Clock, which was by far the prettiest entertainment I ever was at.
    The Dean of Winch—ter has a fine and large Garden, which is a place
    of resort on summer evenings, for all the persons of fashion (which
    are many) in the city.  It consists of a large lawn, at the end of
    which, (or rather through which) passes a quick river, that has a
    Chinese bridge over it, and is formed into two cascades, as it runs
    along.  There is also a large grove, fine walks of gravel, and two or
    three alcoves.  Here the officers desired leave to introduce the
    music, and give the ladies a Ball.  The Dean consented, and all the
    gentry and quality in and about the place were put together there.
    And for the three hours I spake of, 25 couples danced on the lawn on
    one side of the river, the musicians standing on the other.  There
    were 25 hands, and all good ones.  They have learnt at home the tunes
    of our English Dances, which are practised there in compliment to our
    sovereign and country.  In the dancing one could not but observe, how
    true the officers stept both to the time and tune: whereas the
    dancing of the English gentlemen, and most of the ladies too, was
    what one may call _Romps run mad_.  The day before I came away, the
    troops from all the towns were encamped, about a mile and a half from
    the city, which afforded me a mornings amusement of the most
    agreeable sort.  The Dean and Prebendaries, who have each of them a
    good income; [and I’ll assure you, most of ’em, live up to it, as Peg
    B— said of the Week’s Preparation] have done these Foreigners honour
    at their Tables with high gentility.  They almost all come to the
    Cathedral, and one of ’em who sat next me, by some broken English of
    his, and some bad _latin_, both of his and mine, was made to
    understand all the ceremonies that were performed _by_ and _upon_ me
    in the church, on the sunday I took possession.  He seemed better
    satisfied with all other things, than with our surplices, scarves,
    and scarlet hoods; which he looked upon with somewhat of an evil eye:
    For, you know, that from the days of good Q. B—ss to these days some
    of the protestants abroad have objected to our Ecclesiastical Dresses
    as _Popish_—and some even of our own Divines have boggled at them in
    her time.—They have brought no _women_ with them, but a few of the
    soldiers wives, who are very clean, large, and fleshy.  They put on
    when they get abroad a Straw Bonnet, which shades and almost hides
    their faces, and a callico or printed linen cloak, very long and
    full.—The persons at Winch—r of the female sex [like those of another
    place that we know] are all, or would all pass for, fine gentlewomen.
    And I could not for my life help being diverted with a question asked
    by the simple _Hessian Women_ concerning them.  _Pray_, said they,
    _have you none but ladies of quality in this place_?  The answer was,
    that there was but one lady of quality [Lady Jernegan] in the city.
    _Well_, said they, _we thought they were all such_; for in _our
    country_, they who are _always dress’d out_, and _going from home_,
    _are ladies of quality_: so we thought that ye were all quality.—One
    of the superior officers quartered at Southampton (where the resort
    of company to drink and bathe in the sea water, has benefited the
    place and spoilt the people) seeing all the gentlewomen of the town
    gadding abroad o’mornings, to the public rooms, or idle visits,
    bought up all the _Thimbles_ he could get; and one morning when
    abundance of them were together in a public place, he presented each
    with a Thimble, saying, it must needs be, that they wanted the
    requisites to employ them properly _at_ home, or they would not be
    constantly _from_ home.  This pretty reproof has produced a great
    deal of mirth, but very little reformation, that I heard of, among
    the Southhampton _Quality_.—The emoluments of churchmen as well as
    others who live in Hampshire, [at Winch—r especially] ought to be
    good.  For (put all articles together that belong to house-keeping)
    and things are dearer there, than with you, by 7 and 6 pence in the
    pound.  There is very little difference between the rate of eatables,
    coals. &c. there and in London.  Fowls of all sorts, pigs, rabbets,
    are very high priced, and fish is 6_d._ a mouthful, tho’ Southampton
    is so near.  For the fine folks that come down from London have in a
    very few years more than doubled the rate of that sort of food, even
    upon the place.  But the worst circumstance belonging to both that
    city and county, is that there are many _Roman Catholicks_.  One of
    that persuasion would have hired my prependal house at a considerable
    rent, for the term of the bishop’s life, till the end of which I
    shall not fit it up for my own use.  I sent such an answer that I
    shall ne’er be applied to again by any body of that stamp: ‘any other
    person of fashion shall have it for half the money, and be thanked
    into the bargain.’  In looking over what I have writ, I find I have
    filled a sheet; this surprizes me, for I did not intend to fill more
    than a side.  If you have as much patience as you used to have, may
    be you have read it all.  You can’t do a more acceptable thing than
    to write to me, at any time, and at this time, it will be a sort of
    charity, I being greatly dejected in _spirit_, at the state of public
    affairs.  Our Common prayer says, what is entirely true, ‘There is
    none that fighteth for us but only God:’ and I wish I could be sure
    we had him on our side.  God bless us all.  God bless you and yours,
    and all that you and I love, and that love us—But, as _Falstaff_
    says, ‘a pox on all cowards.’—So says your most humble servant, E.
    P.”

To the preceding we beg leave to subjoin the following letter, or rather
_fragment_ of a letter.  That it is _from_ the same hand seems
sufficiently certain from both external and internal evidence.  It was
written in 1756, probably to his father, and it might be one of the last,
if not the very last that passed between them.  We insert it the more
readily because so honourable to Bp. Hoadly’s memory, and not otherwise
to that of Dr. F.—

    “Dr. _Thackery_, who keeps a school an _Harrow_ on the _Hill_, has
    one living and 14 children.  A man bred at Eaton, and a great scholar
    in the Eaton way, and a good one every way, a true Whig, and proud to
    be so by some special marks of integrity.  He was candidate for the
    Headship of King’s, and would have beat all men but George, and
    George too, if Sir R. W. had not made George’s promotion a point.
    Since this disappointment he took the school of _Harrow_ to educate
    his own and other people’s children; where he has performed all along
    with great reputation.  The Bp. of W. never saw this man in his life;
    but had heard so much good of him, that he resolved to serve him some
    way of other, if ever he could—but said nothing to any body.  On
    friday last he sent for this Dr. T. and when he came into the room,
    my lord gave him a parchment, and told him he had long heard of his
    good character, and long been afraid he should never be able to give
    him any serviceable proof of the good opinion he had long conceived
    of him: That what he had put into his hands was the _archdeaconry of
    Surry_, which he hoped would be acceptable to him, as he might
    perform the duty of it yearly, at the time of his leisure in the
    Easter Holidays.  Dr. T. was surprized and overcome with this
    extraordinary manner of doing him a favour, that he was very near
    fainting as he was giving him institution.—Tis 130_l._ a year, with
    dependencies that may bring in a deal of money.—1756.”

{1030}  What led the author to this supposition or conclusion was an
anecdote said to have been written by Dr. H. himself; in these words—

    “In Turner de morbis cutaneis See Wts. related by Langius of a woman
    longing to bite a baker’s shoulder.—Somewhat like this was the case
    of Mrs. Forest the wife of an alderman (or baliff as they are called
    in Scotland) of _Haddington_ in _East Lothian_; who having had 4 or 5
    daughters, and then with child of a boy, and lying by her husband
    awake, while he was fast asleep, in a summer-morning, his shoulder
    lying bare, she long’d to taste of it, and after a great desire could
    not forbear fixing her teeth.  He waking jump’d out of bed thinking
    she was mad, but being soon convinced of what was the matter, easily
    forgave the fact, but would not venture a second trial.  After
    dressing and taking care of the slight wound, he soon after made a
    jest of the news to his companions at the tavern: but while they were
    a whetting, news was brought him that his wife was miscarried of a
    boy; upon which he merrily said, ‘d—mn it, if I had known it was a
    boy her longing should have been satisfied.’—This I had from the
    woman herself upon enquiry: for the story was notorious about the
    time I was born, 1669.  G. H.—M. Dr.”

{1037}  Those traits in his character have been often elucidated by
divers well known anecdotes, two or three of which we will here take the
liberty of inserting.—One of them is given in a letter of Dr. Pyle, if we
are not mistaken, of the date of 1752, addressed perhaps to his father.—

    “Your old friend Sir W. B. came to my Lord Bp. of Winch—r some weeks
    ago, and told him that he waited upon him for a pension payable out
    of his estate to the College of Physicians.  My Lord said, he never
    heard of any such pension paid out of his revenues; and as to an
    estate of his own, he had none.  Yes, says the knight, you are
    chargeable herewith out of such an estate.  My Lord said, he had no
    estate any where of his own, and as Bp. of W. he had no such estate
    as was named.  Bp. of W—! quoth the knight; why then lam wrong; you
    are not the person.  I wanted Sir Cecil Bishop, and they told me he
    lived here.  Is Sir C. B. a clergyman, says my Lord?  No, says the
    knight.  Why then Sir you might have seen your mistake immediately,
    and so your Servant.  This dog certainly wanted to see how the Bp.
    look’d, and thence judge of his being likely to live or not, on
    account of some estate that somebody he knows, is to buy or renew,
    who hold of the Bp. of W. and nobody but a man of his parts and
    assurance could, have got to the sight of him;” [_July_ 1752.]

Another anecdote of him is related by Bp. Warburton in a Letter to Hurd;
dated Prior Park, Nov. 18th 1767.—

    “When you see Dr. Heberden pray communicate to him an unexpected
    honour I lately received.  The other day word was brought me from
    below, that one Sir William Browne sent up his name, and would be
    glad to kiss my hand.  I judged it to be the famous physician, whom I
    had never seen, nor had the honour to know.  When I came down into
    the drawing room I was accosted by a little, round, well fed
    gentleman, with a large muff in one hand, and a small Horace open in
    the other, and a spying-glass dangling in a black ribbon at his
    button.  After the first salutation he informed me that his visit was
    indeed to me, but principally, and in the first place, to Prior Park,
    which had so inviting a prospect from below: and he had no doubt but
    on examination it would sufficiently pay the trouble he had given
    himself of coming up to it on foot.  We then took our chairs; and the
    first thing he did or said, was to propose a doubt to me concerning a
    passage in Horace, which all this time he had still open in his hand.
    Before I could answer he gave me the solution of this long
    misunderstood passage: and in support of his explanation had the
    charity to repeat his own paraphrase of it in English verse, just
    come hot, as he said, from the brain.  When this and chocolate were
    over, having seen all he wanted of me, he desired to see something
    more of the seat; and particularly what be called the _Monument_, by
    which I understood him to mean, the Prior’s tower, with your
    inscription.  Accordingly I ordered a servant to attend him thither;
    and, when he had satisfied his curiosity, either to let him out from
    the park above into the down, or from the garden below into the road.
    Which he chose I never asked; and so this honourable visit ended.
    Hereby you will understand, that the design of all this was to be
    _admired_.  And indeed he had _my admiration_ to the full; but for
    nothing so much, as for being able at past eighty to perform this
    expedition on foot, in no good weather, and with all the alacrity of
    a boy, both in body and mind.”

[Before we dismiss this anecdote, it ought to be observed that the bishop
was somewhat incorrect in two instances at least: 1st. in representing
our knight as a _little man_; 2_ndly._ in saying that he was then _past
eighty_.  Those who knew and remember him, speak of him as a _tall man_;
and it is certain that he wanted several weeks of seventy six when he
visited Prior Park.]—The next anecdote and the last that we shall here
relate, came from the late Thomas Hollingworth, many years a respectable
bookseller in this town, and who settled here under Dr. Browne’s
patronage.  He used to say that the first time he had to make out his
bill after the doctor had been dubbed a knight, he wrote _Sir William
Browne debtor to Tho. Hollingworth_.  When he delivered it into the
knight’s hand, he looked at it a short time, and then looking at him
said, Mr. H. you might have said _the honourable_ Sir Wm. Browne.  I beg
your pardon Sir Wm. replied the bookseller, but upon my word I did not
know that it was customary to prefix to the name of a knight the word
_honourable_.  As to that, rejoined the knight, tho’ it be not customary,
it would yet have been pleasing.—That to be sure was childish and
ridiculous enough; but we believe that with all his eccentricities and
foibles, Sir. Wm. B. was far from being one of the most disreputable or
unworthy characters that were to be found among the gentlemen of this
town and its vicinity during his long residence here.

{1039}  The rough draught, or fragment of a translation of the
inscription is longer, but the rest the present writer could not well
make out.—The above seems enough to give the reader a pretty just idea of
the tenor of the whole.—Before we entirely dismiss this article, or take
our final leave of Sir Wm. we should not omit to notice the much admired
impromptu, or extemporaneous epigram produced by him when a regiment of
horse happened to be quartered at _Oxford_, and the king having purchased
the noble library of Bp. _Moore_, made a present of it to the university
of _Cambridge_.  The epigram was an answer to one that had been made by a
Dr. Trapp, a witty, torified clergyman, on that occasion, in these words,

    “The king, observing with judicious eyes
    The wants of his two universities;
    To _Oxford_ sent a _troop of horse_, for why?
    That _learned_ body wanted _loyalty_:
    To Cambridge he sent _books_, as well discerning,
    That that right _loyal_ body wanted _learning_.”

Which drew from Sir Wm. the following reply, said so have been much
commended, even by Dr. Johnson.

    “Contrary methods justly George applies,
    To govern his two universities;
    To _Oxford_ is dispatched a troop of horse,
    Since _Tories_ own no argument like _force_;
    To _Cambridge_ Ely’s learned books are sent,
    Since _Whigs_ admit no force like _argument_.”

{1052}  The loose livers, (or whores and rogues of the parish, as some
would call them) used to bring their _bastard_ children to him to
_christen_, or make them christians, although they discovered no desire
or inclination to live soberly, righteously, and godly, or become
christians themselves.  This he thought very improper and objectionable,
and no less than a direct profanation of a religious rite; and therefore
refused to christen such children, unless their parents made a profession
of repentance, and solemnly promised to forsake those irregular and
vicious courses, and lead for the future virtuous and pious lives.  Some
willingly complied with his requirement, upon whose children therefore he
performed the said rite.  Others could not be prevailed upon to submit to
this requirement, for which reason he left their children unchristened,
which gave great umbrage, not only to their parents and such like folk,
but even to his own ecclesiastical superiors, up to the very bishop—all
blamed him for having any scruples about such frivolous, harmless, and
indifferent matters as these.  Some also even of the most decent among
his parishioners disapproved of his refusing to christen the said bastard
children, it being, as they said, punishing the poor things for the sins
of their parents.  Forbidding those of loose or immoral lives to come to
the Lord’s Table was another circumstance that gave great offence, and
caused him no small trouble.  One of these was the greatest man in the
parish, or head Squire of the place; and a very fierce and dashing fellow
he certainly was.  He, by way of retaliation and revenge, set himself
about picking holes in Mr. R’s coat.  They were not indeed of an immoral,
but rather an uncanonical nature.  Mr. R. had allowed a certain worthy
person to partake of the Lord’s Supper _sitting_ instead of _kneeling_.
He also had _not_ made a point of wearing the _surplice_ while performing
the burial service and some other duties.  He had likewise taken the
liberty of using the word _honour_ instead of _worship_ in the marriage
service, and moreover of curtailing occasionally the liturgic part of the
public service.  These deviations were magnified into serious misdoings,
and looked upon by his superiors in a very unfavourable light.  Wherefore
his conduct was afterwards more closely scrutinized; and from the
examination and confession of his church-wardens the following articles
of accusation were extracted, upon which he was proceeded against in the
ecclesiastical court—1. That he did not read the Litany on _Wednesdays
and Fridays_: 2. That he did not constantly wear the surplice in all his
administrations: 3. That he did not usually administer the communion on
_Christmas-day_, unless it fell on _Sunday_.  Nor on _Whit-Sunday_.  4.
That he did not read over the _Canons_ and _Articles_ twice a year.  5.
That there were two children unbaptiz’d in the parish, which he refused
to baptize.  6. That he was in the habit of conversing (or was on
friendly terms) with one Mr. Richardson, an excommunicate person.—[Now
this person was a worthy, pious dissenting minister, who had been
persecuted for conscience sake, or for nonconformity, and excommunicated:
and it was expected that no clergyman would converse or associate with
him, unless he recanted: which was a sort of morality or religion which
Rastrick did not approve, and therefore did not choose to practise.]  The
first time he appeared before the spiritual Court at Lincoln to answer to
the above articles or charges, he had nothing to do but only to retain a
_Proctor_ against the next court-day.  When that time came, it fell out
to be the very day when king James’s Declaration for liberty of
conscience came first down into the country, which must have been in the
spring of 1687.  At this his second appearance he found the court very
much down in the mouth (as he expresses it) and far from the heat and
violence in their proceedings that he expected.  They did however proceed
to business, and went over each of those charges, but came to no
determination: not thinking perhaps the then aspect of things favourable
enough to warrant a rigorous decision.  However that was, Rastrick was
now becoming more and more dissatisfied with the terms of conformity, and
began soon to think of availing himself of the royal Declaration of
liberty of conscience to quit his public station in the church, as he
actually did before the close of that same year.  After which he seems to
have continued disengaged till 1701, when he settled with the
Presbyterian congregation in this town.

{1055}  The author therefore requests the reader to correct his mistake
at p. 1002 in dating Rastrick’s arrival here in 1710 or 11.

{1058}  Something similar has occurred here within the present year
(1811,) only with this difference, that the disaffected gained their
point, and obliged the minister to resign and withdraw; whereas Mr. R.
maintained his ground and retained his situation, in spite of all
opposition, to the last.  But he was constantly supported by the most
respectable part of the congregation.

{1059}  As a manuscript it is very curious for the neatness and smartness
of the writing, especially as it appears to be written when the author
was above 70 years of age.  The beginning of the Preface, where matter
corroborative of what was above suggested occurs, reads thus—

    “Perceiving that Antinomianism is in a great part grown to be the
    completion of the dissenting interest in England, as far as my
    observation reaches, to the great reproach of the reformation, and
    scandal of the opposers of its progress: and that many who pretend to
    be against it are yet fond of the doctrines and opinions on which it
    is founded; grounding all their divinity on the decrees of God alone,
    abstracted from his rule of government; falling in with the
    hypothesis of necessity and fate, on which Hobbes founded his
    Atheism: making all God’s government to be merely physical, to the
    destruction of all religion and morality: not enduring to hear of a
    justification by works in any sense, though it be undeniably a
    scripture doctrine and expression, _Jam._ 2. 24:—asserting such an
    imputation of Christ’s righteousness as is essentially and formally
    altogether unscriptural; and the like: by which means sinners are
    hardened in their sin, comforted against necessary fears conducive to
    their safety; charity, alms-deeds, and all good works at a fatal
    stop; people taught to presume without ground; calling a good
    conscience, or a consciousness of keeping Christ’s commandments, the
    building on a rotten foundation: tho’ Christ saith the contrary.
    _Math._ 7, 24.  Learned, able, and faithful ministers rejected and
    discouraged, and illiterate persons that will indulge men in their
    soporiferous notions set up in their room—I say, perceiving and
    musing on these things, and _exercised_ by a party of weak christians
    under the aforesaid impressions; understanding the state of christian
    doctrine amongst us, and the divided condition of the Churches about
    it, and casting my eyes upon that text in _John_ 15, 10. as one of
    the plainest and fullest decisive of these controversies: so many
    thoughts sprung up in my mind upon it, that to preserve them.  I
    immediately set pen to paper and wrote down above twenty of the
    following propositions before I took it off; to which the rest were
    quickly added.  By which time I purposed to preach from that text,
    and lay them all before _my own congregation who so much needed it_:
    which I did with different success; viz. the usual distaste of the
    _discontented party_, but so much to the satisfaction and acceptance
    of others, my worthy friends, that I was greatly and constantly
    importun’d to present them to their eyes, as I had done before to
    their ears.  And having been called to preach at a meeting of
    ministers at _Nottingham_ on the 26th of June 1718, I made no
    particular preparation for it, but took a text out of the 22 chap. of
    _Math._ part of the parable of the marriage feast, the whole of which
    I had preached over at home, but now only so much of it as would
    afford me matter suitable to the whole congregation, both ministers
    and people.  And being by my brethren desired to publish my Sermon, I
    was forced to deny them their request at that time, because what I
    had delivered was pick’d out of a great many discourses, and what I
    thought most proper for the auditory at that time only, but would
    have been a maining to the whole.  Yet I did not despise their
    motion, nor lay aside all consideration of it.  The importunity of
    some of them ran so much in my mind, that . . .  I thought if I must
    write I might digest the matter of that sermon into the following
    Treatise, without deviating from the design of it, but rather
    conveniently adding to the principles of it, which I have done,
    hoping that they will accept it here, with the rest, by which the
    doctrines of that sermon are better stated, cleared, and confirmed,
    than they would have appeared to have been if that sermon had gone
    alone.  So in this way I shall answer the desires of my friends at
    home and my reverend brethren abroad at once; and do what service I
    can to the Church of God before I die.”

The whole preface is very long, this being but a small part of it.  But
this is enough to shew that there was in this congregation a party that
disapproved of his ministry, as well as another that highly approved of
it, and that he experienced a great deal of discomfort from the former,
who appear to have been very calvinistically or antinomianly inclined,
and withal very contentious, as their descendants or successors have been
almost ever since.

{1060}  Some of those thoughts relate to the _Theory of Comets_, which he
supposed to be worlds in a state of conflagration and dissolution; and he
thought it probable our Earth will hereafter become a comet and be seen
as such in remote regions of the universe.  This comet state of a
Heavenly body he considered as a state of judgment, and indicating the
previous apostacy and irreclaimable impenitence or rebellion of its
rational inhabitants, which caused the very world they inhabited to be so
devoted to destruction.  Each of those devoted worlds, he thought, had
its _saviour_ and offers of mercy sent to it long previous to that awful
and fatal catastrophe.  Christ he believed to be the saviour only of this
world, from which he draws some curious inferences favourable to his own
system.—According to his notion the same comet could not be expected to
appear twice in our system: nor would that, perhaps, even in this day, be
very easily refuted.

{1061}  He was buried in St. Nicholas’ Chapel towards the west end, where
his grave stone is still to be seen, with a long Latin Inscription or
Epitaph, of which the following translation has been given many years ago
by the late Dr. _Thomas Gibbons_, exclusive of two expressions here
added.

                           “_Here lie the remains_
                     _of the revd._ JOHN RASTRICK, _M.A._
                      _Born at Hackington near_ Sleaford
                         _in the county of Lincoln_;
              _and educated at_ Trinity-College _in Cambridge_.
                      _He was formerly vicar_ of Kirkton
                   _in the same county_, _fourteen years_:
                  _And afterwards_, _as he could mot comply_
               _with some regulations of the_ Church of England
                          _with a safe conscience_,
                _Was an undefatigable preacher of the gospel_
                       _in this town twenty-six years_
        _To a christian church in separation from the establishment_.
                       _He was a man of eminent piety_,
                          _charity_, _and modesty_;
                           _of approved integrity_,
                       _of remarkable study and pains_;
               _And an adept in almost every part of learning_,
                      _But especially the mathematics_.
                        _He was a pleasant companion_,
                         _A truly christian divine_,
                     _An eloquent and powerful preacher_,
                      _A faithful and vigilant pastor_,
                        _An intrepid reprover of vice_
                    _And as warm an encourager of virtue_.
                        _Having finished his course_,
                  _Imbittered_, _alas_! _with many trials_,
                  _He joyfully yielded up his soul to God_,
                         August 8, 1727.  _Aged_ 78.”

{1063}  On a slip of paper, in his hand writing, pinned to a blank leaf
fronting the title page are the following directions to his son—

    “My dear son William, I suppose you will be inclined when I am gone
    to publish the following Treatise called ‘Plain and Easy Principles,
    &c.’  If you do, I leave it to you to tell the world, that these are
    the notions that I am most inclined to; and that it was the division
    among the ministers at Salter’s Hall, that begat them, and put me
    upon a more deliberate perusal of Dr. Clarke’s and Mr. Jackson’s
    books, &c. as well as Dr. Waterland’s: and that my case was just the
    same with that of Mr. Peirce of Exeter, &c.—It’s probable that you
    may write an Epistle of your own to the Reader (and so stile it, as
    mine it stiled the Preface).  In that Epistle you may account for my
    sentiments as now mentioned, and add what more of your own you
    please.  But I would not have you publish my book till you have let
    some learned pious persons peruse it and give their approbation.—Mr.
    Sam. Wright’s thoughts you will find in his Letter, and my undigested
    notions in that matter, you will find in his said Letter before my
    book: if you can put them into order you may, and may punish them in
    the nature of an appendix: _as also you may a great part of my last
    Thoughts about the Trinity and Son of God_.  Or let Mr. Wright put
    them in Order.”

N.B. The above words in _italics_ have the pen drawn through them, and
may therefore be considered as cancelled.

{1064a}  See the _preface_ to a modern poem called _Sleep_.

{1064b}  Of those little poems, one is entitled _The Dissolution_; and as
the name of _Martha Rastrick_ is affixed to if, we may presume it was a
present, perhaps a new years gift to that daughter.  The greatest part of
it we will here take the liberty of inserting, thought we have no reason
to think that the author had the remotest idea of its publication.  Yet
as it cannot dishonour his memory, and has lain in MS. now nearly if not
quite a _hundred years_, it may be placed here as a curious relic.  It
runs as follows—

    “Happy the man to whom the sacred Muse
    Her nightly visits pays,
    And with her magic rod
    Opens his mortal eyes:
    He nature at one glance surveys,
    And past and future, near and distant views.

    I’m mounted on Fancy, and long to be gone
    To some age or some world unknown,
    Swifter than time and impatient of stay,
    To the west, to the uttermost limits of day,
    To the end of the world I’ll hasten away:
    Where I may see it all expire
    And melt away in everlasting Fire.

    ’Tis done!  I see a flaming Seraph fly,
    And light his Flambeau at the Sun;
    Then hastening down to the curst globe
    His blazing torch apply—
    See the green forests crackling burn,
    The oily pastures sweat
    With intolerable heat:
    The mines to hot volcanos turn;
    Their horrid jaws extended wide,
    The sulphurous contagion spread.

    Why do the aged mountains skip,
    And little hills like their own sheep,
    Like lambs, which on their grizzly head
    Once wanton play’d?
    Expanded vapours, struggling to the birth,
    Roar in the bowels of the earth.

    And now the Earth’s foundations crack assunder,
    Burst with subterraneous thunder.
    Dusky flames and vivid flashes
    Reduce the trembling Globe to ashes
    Fiery torrents rolling down,
    The naked valleys drown;
    And with their ruddy waves supply
    The channels of th’exhausted sea.

    Seas, to thin vapours boil’d away,
    Leave their crooked channels dry:
    And not one drop returns again,
    To cool the thirsty Earth with rain.

    And must all Earth th’impartial ruin share?
    Spare ye revengeful angels, spare!
    Spare the Muses blissful seat:
    Let me for _Wickham’s_ peaceful walls intreat.
    No, ’tis in vain: and _Bodley’s_ spicy nest
    Of learning too must perish with the rest;
    —The _Oracles of God_ alone
    An hasty Angel snatch’d away,
    And bore them high through parted flames
    To the Eternal throne.

    Behold! fond soul, all thou didst once admire,
    The objects of thy hope and thy desire;
    Houses and lands and large estate;
    The little things that make men great:
    The empty trifles are no more,
    But vanish all in smoke, scarce lighter than before.

    Was it for this the Statesman wrackt his thought?
    Was it for this the Soldier fought?
    While grumbling drums like thunder beat,
    And clanging trumpets rais’d the martial heat?

    Now Nature is unstrung,
    The Spheres their musick lose,
    The Song of ages now
    Ends in a solemn close.”

{1069}  He had left Lynn the year before, so that the congregation had
but _four_ ministers in a _hundred years_, whose labours here were nearly
of equal duration: _J. Rastrick_ 26 years; _W. Rastrick_ 25 years; _A.
Mayhew_ 25 years; _W. Warner_ 24 years.—The _Baptists_, in little more
than 40 years, have had at least half a score ministers, and the
_Methodists_ ten times as many.

{1070}  Coxe’s Memoirs of Walpole.

{1073a}  Biographical account of Sir B. Keene, by Bailey Wallis D.D. who
married his niece, a daughter of the rev. Venn Eyre, formerly lecturer of
Lynn.

{1073b}  Of their intellectual character, or mental endowments not much
seems now to be known.  The father being an alderman may furnish a sort
of presumption, that he must have been a person of no common or mean
parts: the mother has been spoken of as possessed of a well-cultivated
mind; which seems to be corroborated by the following extract of a Letter
from her to her son, the ambassador, in 1745, when this town assumed such
a warlike appearance; as was observed at p. 920.—

    “This place, heretofore famous for the arts and blessings of peace,
    is now entirely in the guise of war.  Every thing has a military air.
    The ditch before the walls is scoured; but there are unhappily so
    many hay-stacks just by, that a few Highlanders, or French, by
    casting two or three of them into the deepest part of it, might be
    masters of the town in about four hours.  The bridge of St. Germans
    and those above it are to be cut down, if we hear any of the rebels
    have escaped through the Fens, and are coming towards us.  But the
    river is fordable in many places, and several of them are near the
    town.  The body of the people are formed into 5 regiments, which are
    commanded by proper officers, chosen out of the body politic.  Those
    whose spouses bear rule over them being disposed into one regiment
    called greys.  Those heroes spend their mornings and evenings in the
    Guildhall, there learning the trade of war, under able and
    experienced masters.  No merchant sells deals, salt, pitch or tar,
    without a weapon by their side.  Shopkeepers have taken to the sword,
    and divide their cags of soap with their blades.  You can’t purchase
    a joint of meat, or a loaf of bread, or a pound of candles but of an
    armed man.  Even clergymen are engaged in these death-doing measures.
    One bears a captain’s commission.  Another is a sutler.  Most of the
    fair and timerous persons of the other sex, who had any wits a while
    ago, have very few remaining now.  An ancient Lady indeed of the
    illustrious house of the R— commands a fortress adjoining to the
    town-wall, in which are some veteran troops, natives of Spain. {1074}
    With these she supports herself and wonderfully animates her
    neighbours whose courage fails; and let the enemy come when they
    please, ’tis generally believed she will be in a condition to make a
    sally.”

{1074}  “Bottles of Mountain Malaga.”

{1075}  On his promotion he was congratulated by his venerable relation,
the elder Pyle, to which the bishop returned the following answer—

    “My dear uncle, I return you my hearty thanks for your kind
    congratulation on my advancement to the see of C. and was proud of
    shewing my respect and veneration for you by doing a small piece of
    service to so worthy a young man as my C. P. [cousin Philip]  I hope
    these cold winds will not set you back again and I may once more
    visit you and survey you as I did then, in the light of an ancient
    prophet or patriarch.  Truly I have often wished that my fortune had
    permitted me to have enjoyed you more than I have done, to have sat
    at your feet and suckt in the true unpoluted streams of goodness and
    religion, which you have poured forth for so many years, so much to
    your own reputation and the welfare of others.  Be assured you leave
    a Nephew behind you who is determined to support the cause of Truth
    and Righteousness, and has courage enough to attack the f. [false]
    principles both of gt, and rn. [government and religion] that
    universally prevail among ch. Divs. [church Divines]  With my most
    sincere Benediction I am.  Dear Sir. your affectionate Nephew 28 Mar.
    1752.

                                                                    E. C.”

{1079}  A degree which was exactly the reverse of the initials of his
name D.LL.

{1081}  Dr. H. was respectable in the line of his profession, not only as
a practitioner, but likewise as a writer; though he was not rewarded
according to his merit.  Many of his works, at his death, were left in
manuscript, most of which still remain in that state; but some have been
since published, in addition to those that appeared in his life time.  Of
his published works the following are thought the most remarkable—1. “A
paper on a _puncture in the bladder_,” inserted in the Phil. Trans. vol.
66.—2. “A paper on the disease called _the mumps_,” inserted in the
Edinb. Phil. Trans.—3. “A paper on the _use of mercury and opium_,”
published in Dr. Duncan’s Medical Commentaries.—4. “A Treatise upon
_Scrophula_,” published in London by Dilly.—5. “A Treatise on the
_Eau-brink-Cut_,” published at Lynn, in 1793.—6. “Observations on the
_Marsh remittent Fever_ and on the _Water Canker_, &c.” published by
Mawman, London, 1801.—7. “Letters on the cause and treatment of the
_Gout_, in which some digressive remarks on other medical subjects are
interspersed;” published by Whittingham, Lynn, and Sold by Crosby,
London, 1806.  Before we close this brief memoir of Dr. Hamilton we may
just observe that he, as was before said of Mr. Rastrick and another
person, sometimes left his profounder studies and amused himself in
writing verses, of which a specimen may be seen at the beginning of his
“Observations on the Marsh Remittent Fever.”  In the same work, at page
89, we also learn how long it was that Dr. Hepburn practised physic in
this town, and consequently at what time he settled here, which appears
to have been about the spring or early part of the year 1694, whence was
about 25 years of age.  This had escaped the author’s observation till
after the memoir of Dr. Hepburn had been printed off, otherwise he would
not have represented the doctor’s settlement here as taking place at or
_about the commencement the last century_, which is six years at least
later than the time when it did take place.  This is mentioned here for
the purpose of correcting that mistatement, and enabling the reader to
fix the true date of Dr. Hepburn’s first settlement here.—The passage
referred to in Dr. Hamilton’s book reads thus,

    “The late Dr. George Hepburn, who practised physic at Lynn upwards of
    65 years, {1082} and whose medical ability, sagacity, and judgment,
    were equalled by few, and surpassed by none of his contemporaries,
    told me that he was so folly convinced of the great efficacy, as well
    as perfect innocence and safety of large doses of the Peruvian bark,
    that being attacked by an intermittent fever himself at an early
    period of his medical career in this town, and at a time when he had,
    in an epidemic season, a great deal of practice in the country, took
    at one dose an ounce of the Peruvian bark in powder, mounted his
    horse immediately after it, went to visit his patients, and had no
    more of his disease.”

{1082}  _During so extraordinary a course of practice and longevity he
must have seen the whole population of the place buried two or three
times over_.

{1085}  Their godships or high mightinesses would do well however to be
constantly upon their guard against that formidable natural enemy of
theirs, the high bailiff of Marshland, who has before now overpowered and
overthrown as potent beings as any of them.  If they escape the mighty
hug, or unfraternal embrace of this formidable adversary, this ancient
lord and master and demon of this lower region, they may think themselves
peculiarly fortunate, and need not fear afterwards to breathe the
deleterious air of any other spot in Britain, or even in the very island
of Walcheren itself.

{1088}  This female and virgin saint is said to have been born at Antioch
in the 3rd century.  Some say her father was a heathen priest, while
others say that it was Theodosius patriarch of Antioch.  All agree that
she was a christian; and some assert that she was very beautiful, which
excited in Olybius, preside of the east, under the Romans, a desire to
marry her; but finding she was a christian, deferred it till he could
persuade her to renounce her religion.  Not being able to accomplish that
object, he first put her to extreme tortures, and then beheaded her.  She
has the same office among the papists, as Lucina has among the heathens,
viz. to assist women in labour: So she seems to be the patroness, or
tutelar saint of the midwives.  Her holiday, (20th July) is very ancient,
not only in the _Roman_, but also in the _Greek_-church, who celebrate
her memory under the name of _Marina_.  She suffered in the year 278.
[See Wheatly on the common Prayer, p. 69—also Mackerell’s History of
Lynn, p. 4.]—Her victory over the Dragon by means of the cross has
probably only a figurative meaning.

{1089}  Of the former and present state of this church, the following
descriptions have been given by writers who had visited and examined it,
and had consequently undertaken to give of it a correct account.—

    “This church (says _Mackerell_) deserves to be taken particular
    notice of, as it is of no mean extent, being a very large, stately,
    and magnificient pile, built, as most cathedrals in England are, in
    the perfect form of a cross, and contains in _length_ within the
    walls, by mensuration 240 feet; in _breadth_, including the cross,
    118 feet, and in _height_ from the highest battlements 52 feet.
    About the middle or cross isle it is graced with a very fair and
    lofty _Lanthorn_, all covered with lead, mounted on four main arches
    within the body of the church, in which hangs the _Clock-Bell_, which
    may be heard all over the town.  The height of this ornamental
    fabrick is 132 feet.  It was neatly painted within with several coats
    of arms and other decorations in 1621.—At the west end is a tower of
    stone 82 feet high; on the outside of which towards the street, is
    placed a Moon-Dial, shewing the increase and decrease of that planet,
    with the exact hour of the day to all that pass by, actuated within
    by clock work, and new beautified and gilt in 1710.  On this tower is
    a very high and regular spire, of timber, all covered with lead,
    resembling a pyramid, in height 193 feet; [but] in all, from the
    superficies of the ground, it is 275 feet, including the spindle of
    iron with a cross on the top, and under it a vane in form of a hand,
    both gilt, which was new set up in 1630; the former one having
    continued full 70 years, being erected in 1568. [rather 1558.]  The
    model of the spire is surprizing.  Near this [and parallel with it on
    the north side] is the Bell-Tower, built of freestone 86 feet high,
    in which formerly were _five_ very large bells, of which the biggest
    was called _the Margaret_, and was for her curious sound one of the
    fairest of that kind, and might be heard (the wind favouring, as I
    have been assured) full ten miles distant.  Others had likewise their
    distinct names, as _the Trinity_, _the St. Thomas_, _&c._  So
    christened, I suppose, as was usual before the reformation.  But the
    _biggest_ and the _least_ of these were purposely broken, and with
    some addition cast into others, to make a ring of _eight_, which was
    effected in 1663.—This noble structure is illuminated with above 70
    arched windows, and others, all formerly of painted glass,
    representing the pictures of saints in sacred scripture, with other
    holy men and women, martyrs and confessors; of which that high and
    lofty one on the south side and cross isle is [was] very remarkable,
    [exhibiting] as I am informed, the whole history of _St. Margaret_,
    the patroness of this church; and that circular one over the altar
    [containing] the genealogy of the kings of Israel, is now to be seen
    almost all entire, where also underneath the same are depicted the
    Town-Arms, and on the south windows in the Quire are still remaining
    several coats of arms in lively colours, and very fair.”

[In the time of the civil wars most of the painted glass in those windows
was, it seems, taken down and replaced with white glass, the former being
looked upon, by those who were then in power here, as savouring too much
of _popery_ and superstition.  See _Mackerell_, p. 8, &c.—Of its present
state Mr. _Britton_ writes as follows.

    “The _church_ was a large spacious structure, and though curtailed of
    its original dimensions, is still a noble pile.  Internally it
    displays a nave, with ailes, which constitute the present place for
    service; a chancel or choir, with ailes; a transept and two towers at
    the west end.  The roof is supported by 22 columns; of which those
    east of the transept are formed by a cluster of five shafts each.  In
    this part of the building are some ancient carved stalls, and several
    flat monumental stones, with inscriptions; also some very large and
    fine brasses.  At the east end is a circular window, with ten
    transverse mullions.  This part of the church is divided from the
    transept by a wooden screen, which was erected in 1622.  A lofty
    tower, or _lanthorn_, is said to have been originally at the
    intersection of the cross ailes; and a high _spire_ to have
    surmounted one of the western towers.  The latter display different
    styles of architecture, and the lower parts of them are very ancient.
    The buttresses of the angles to the southern tower consist of several
    small shafts of columns.  The church formerly contained numerous
    brasses {1091a} and inscriptions, some of which remain.” {1091b}

This account, we presume, is pretty fair and correct as far as it goes,
and our limits will not well allow us here to attempt any further
enlargement.  We will, however, just add, that the interior of this
church is, for so large a building, kept in a style of uncommon
cleanliness and neatness.

{1091a}  _Since Mr. Britton wrote this passage_, _an unprincipled and
sacrilegious Sexton made much havoc among those brasses_, _many of which
he carried away and sold_; _but being detected_, _he was so ashamed and
frightened_, _that he actually went and hanged himself_.

{1091b}  See Beauties of England, vol. xi, page 293.

{1093}  From the period in which he flourished, the date of his
canonisation, and the great regard then paid to the memory of new saints,
(compared with the date of the original erection of this chapel,) it
appears more than probable that the personage in question was St.
Nicholas called _Peregrinus_, who became famous in Apulia, and of whom
_Jortin_ says—

    “He was a Greek, born in Attica.  His parents were poor, and he had
    not learnt to read, or been bred to any trade.  When he was eight
    years of age, his mother sent him out to take care of the sheep.
    From that time he began to sing aloud, _Kyrie eleison_, which he did
    night and day; and this act of devotion he performed all his life
    long.  His mother not being able to make him leave it off, thought
    that he was possessed of the devil, and carried him to a neighbouring
    monastery, where the monks shut him up and chastised him, but could
    not hinder him from singing his song.  He suffered punishment
    patiently, and immediately began again.  Returning to his mother, he
    took a hatchet and a knife, and clambering up a mountain, he cut
    branches of cedar, and made crosses of them, which he stuck up in the
    highways, and in places inaccessible, praising God continually.  Upon
    this mountain he built himself a little hut, and dwelt there sometime
    all alone, working perpetually.  Then he went to Lepanto, where a
    monk joined himself to him and never forsook him.  They passed into
    Italy, where Nicholas was taken sometimes for an holy man, and
    sometimes for a madman.  He fasted every day until evening; his food
    was a little bread and water, and yet he did not grow lean.  The
    nights he usually passed in prayer, standing upright.  He wore only a
    short vest, reaching to his knees, his head, legs and feet being
    naked.  In his hand he carried a light wooden cross, and a scrip at
    his side, to receive the alms that were given him, which he usually
    laid out in fruit, to distribute to the boys who went about with him,
    singing along with him _Kyrie eleison_.  His oddities caused him to
    be ill used sometimes, even by the orders of the bishops.  He
    performed, [as was said] various miracles, and exhorted the people to
    repentance.  At last falling sick, and being visited by multitudes
    who came to beg his blessing, he died, and was buried in a Cathedral,
    with great solemnity: and according to custom (our author adds) a
    great number of miracles was wrought at his tomb.”

This is related under 1094, which we take to be the year of his death, or
canonization.  See _Jortin_ Rem. Eccl. Hist. 5. 66.  Such was our St.
Nicholas: a more harmless and far better saint, without doubt, than
_Dominic_ and many others that might be mentioned; so that his memory,
_comparatively speaking_, ought to be held in very high estimation.

{1095}  Had the wielders of the whitening brush totally effaced this
impious representation, or had the reformers of the time of Edward the
sixth, or of Charles the first completely obliterated it, they had done a
good thing, and deserved our commendation; and so would our present
rulers were they to do the same; for what can be a more absurd and
impious object in a place of worship, or any other place, than a picture
or image of the Almighty!

{1097}  The passage alluded to is as follows—

    “1585 Feb. 21.  An order made III and IV Ph. and Mary conc. the
    derision of St. Margts. parish and the parish of St. Nic. and yt. of
    late yt. order notwithstanding prcell of the _Checker-warde_ and of
    _New Condutt-warde_ have been accounted prcell of St. Nic. Chap.
    ctrarie to the same order: yt. is ord. yt. those 2 wards aforesaid
    shall hollie be accounted of St. Margt’s parishe and shll paie
    clarcks wages and other charges, as prishrs. of the parish of St.
    Margt. according to ye sd. resited order.”

{1098}  That affair is thus related in the record—

    “1579, May 23.  Controversye about the Tytle of St. Nicolas church
    yard.  Opinion of the Recorder 19. June.  Maior Ald. C. C. stand to
    their Tytle and Int. in S. N. ch. yd. and defend it by Law of Arms.”

{1103}  p. 391.

{1109}  In the White Friars Yard Chapel at Norwich, where he used to
preach, a monumental inscription in memory of him was set up long after
his death by his grandson the late Grantham Killingworth Esq. the chief
part of which is as follows—

                                  A MEMORIAL
                    _Dedicated to the singular merits of_
          _A faithful confessor_, _and laborious servant of Christ_,
           _Who with true christian fortitude endured persecution_
         _Through many perils_, _the loss of friends and substance_,
                 _And ten imprisonments for conscience sake_;
                       _The rev._ Mr. THOMAS GRANTHAM,
               _A learned Messenger of the Baptized Churches_,
          _And pious founder of this church of believers baptized_,
                  _Who delivered to king Charles the second_
                         _Our Declaration of Faith_,
                      _And afterwards presented to him_
                    _A Remonstrance against Persecution_.
      _Both were kindly received_, _and redress of grievances promised_.
                    He died Jan. 17. 1692, aged 58 years:
           And to prevent the indecencies threatened to his corpse,
                      was intered before the west doors,
          In the middle aile of St. Stephen’s Church, in this city,
               Through the interest, and much to the credit of
                          The rev. Mr JOHN CONNOULD
                     By whom, with many sighs and tears,
         The burial service was solemnly read to a crowded audience:
                      When at closing the book he added,
              “This day has a very great man fallen in Israel.”
         For after their epistolary dispute, in sixty Letters, ended,
                       That very learned vicar retained
           The highest esteem and friendship for him whilst living,
              And was by his own desire buried by him, May 1703.

{1112}  A narrative of this memorable affair has been published by Mr.
Finch, and may be had of him, or of the booksellers.

{1113}  With whom such connection might be desirable for this infant
society; and it certainly would not be dishonourable, or inconsistent
with their avowed aversion to religious thraldom; as it would require no
sacrifice of their religious liberty or christian freedom: both parties
being equally advocates for the full enjoyment of that inestimable right,
and most invaluable blessing.

{1116}  Of the _origin_ and _progress_ of Methodism in the kingdom, see a
brief account at page 934 of this work.—It is a remarkable instance of
deep policy in the history of methodism, that the sect, when young and
weak, placed itself under the wing of the established church, and
bitterly inveighed against all who separated from it; but when it
acquired strength, so as to feel itself able to go alone, it threw off
the mask, and scrupled not to avow and prove itself, to all intents and
purposes, a dissenting sect.

{1120a}  Should they soon assume a different character, or become
disposed like their neighbours to congregate and form themselves into a
distinct society, for the purpose of instructing their dear townsmen by
public lectures, respecting that better way of thinking with which they
deem themselves so well acquainted, an admirable opening for putting such
a project in execution now presents itself—that of buying or hiring the
Methodist Chapel, which is expected to be disposed of to the best bidder
as soon as the new edifice is completed, or perhaps sooner.

{1120b}  Yet Hiram was dead many centuries before Euclid was born.

{1121}  So it may be supposed that Euclid and Solomon, and Hiram and
Mannon, and Marcel and king Athelstan lived all about the same time!—an
idea too monstrous surely, for English, or even Masonic credulity to
imbibe or adopt!—See _Prichard’s_ description of Masonry. 21st. Edit, p.
3, &c.

{1126}  Its constituents during the first stages of its existence bore
the following names—_Asty Harwick_, _Abel Hawkins_, _Geo. Foley_, _N.
Elstobb_, _Sam. Browne_, _Peter Elyson_, _Rich. Marshall_, _John
Mountaine_, _Nic. Anderson_, _John Bagge_, _Dan. Swaine_, _Jos. Lee_,
_Wm. Taylor_, _Rob. Fysh_, _Edm. Elsden_, _Tho. Day_, _Rich. Sands_,
_Henry Fysh_, _Robert Hamilton_, _Rich. Allyson_, _Wm. Ward_, _Scarlet
Browne_, _Geo. Patteson_, _Tho. Berneye_, _Tho. Hawkins_, and _Jos.
Taylor_.—Most of these seem to have continued in the society to the last,
though some were expelled for different reputed delinquencies.—It is
curious enough to observe their mock formalities in the administration of
their laws, and the maintenance of the government and discipline of the
society, as they appear in their written transactions, which are still
extant.  A few specimens here may not be ungrateful to the reader—At one
time _Asty Harwick_ is indicted, tried, found guilty, and fined, for
_carrying home the sword_, _contrary to the rules of the society_—at the
same time _Richard Marshall_ is indicted, tried, found guilty, and fined,
for _throwing a piece of pipe at Mr. Deputy governor_—another time
_Samuel Browne_ is indicted, tried, found guilty, and fined, for _tearing
the bill before it was discharged_—another time _Joseph Lee_ is indicted,
tried, found guilty, and fined, for _interrupting Mr. deputy govr.
Harwick_—another time _Jos. Lee_ is indicted, tried, found guilty, and
fined, for _pulling the governor_ Capt. Nic. Anderson’s _wig awry_—same
time _Asty Harwick_ and _John Bagge_, were indicted, tried, found guilty,
and fined, for _insulting the secretary in his office_—another time _Mr.
Bagge_ was indicted, tried, found guilty and fined, for _not attending_
the then governor, Mr. Richard Marshall, with the sword, Mr. Bagge being
then sword-bearer.—Those who were indicted and tried were _all found
guilty_, _with only one exception_, which was in the case of _Wm. Ward_,
(April 14, 1750) who was indicted, tried, and _acquitted_, under the
charge of _affronting the then govr._ Mr. Bagge, by conferring upon him
the unworthy and degrading office of _deputy secretary_.—Thus did some of
our most hopeful and reputable townsmen employ themselves between 60 and
70 years ago.  Whether their successors or representatives of the present
day employ themselves more worthily, may deserve some consideration.  As
to our courtiers and statesmen, it cannot well be supposed that they
would have any great objection to our gentlemen and all the rest of the
nation employing their leisure time in such a frivolous manners, as it
would leave them at liberty to pursue their course with less observance
or interruption.  After all, had our society of _True-Britons_, been
still continued we are not sure but they might have proved by this time,
as useful to themselves, and as beneficial to the community at large, as
either of our present Lodges of Free Masons.

{1129}  For further information relating to the original history of these
two houses the reader is referred to the account of St. Gyles and St.
Julian’s gild, in a former part of this work.—p. 422, &c.

{1130a}  This gentleman did not acquire his wealth here; nor did he
follow the example of our Aldersons, our Cases, our Freemans, our Adlens,
our Bowkers, our Bagges, &c., who went out of the world apparently
without ever remembering the poor, or wishing to leave behind any
memorials of their names in such charitable bequests.

{1130b}  Some years ago, as one of the present pensioners told this
writer, the governor of that time went so far as to talk of furnishing
those chambers with that desirable appendage, but that the _reader_ of
that period, with one of the women, (both of whom had a fireplace in
their rooms,) most unfeelingly dissuaded him from it, and he gave it
up.—The present occupier of one of those rooms is said to have been for a
long time confined to it, if not to her bed.  The want of a fireplace
must doubtless be severely felt by her.

{1131a}  In another place he is called _Loningston_ and _Lovingstone_.

{1131b}  Over against the above passage is inserted the allowing note,
seemingly in the same hand—“The above 10_l._ annuity is applied to the
clothing of the poor yearly, and payd by the chamberlain, to the
overseers of St. Margaret’s parish.”  Then it is added,—“I take this to
be the 10_l._ payd to the Treasurer of St. James’s Workhouse, by the name
of _Loningston_ or _Lovingstone_, which I take to be the same.”  But this
modern note-writer, and conjectural commentator, ought to have known that
St. James’s Workhouse could not be called an _Almshouse_ or _Hospital_ in
1594, nor till near a whole century after.  The said annuity must
therefore have undergone some foul play.

{1132a}  There are happily still some such contributors, and among them
one conspicuous above the rest, to whose unostentatious charities the
poor pensioners in all our almshouses are not a little indebted for their
comforts; as this writer could easily perceive by what dropt from divers
of them, in the course of conversations he has had with them at different
times.  It is here neither needful nor proper to mention the name.—Of the
_land_ charged with the 10_l._ a year to this almshouse, the following
memorandum occurs in the said MS. volume; written seemingly about 1729:

    “I find 76 acres on the S. marsh; viz. Godfrey Hill, 5 acres; 7_l._
    10_s._—Tho. Miles, 5 acres; 7_l._ 0_s._—Jer. Ink. J. King, and J.
    Lay, 14 acres; 16_l._—Widow Carleton, 16 acres; 18_l._ 2_s._—R.
    Richmund, 36 acres; 39_l._—Total 76 acres: 88_l._—This I take to be
    the land to maintain this almhouse.”—A little after we find the
    following memorandum,—“Payd the Hoipital 1729, 19_s._ 8_d._ per week,
    for 52 weeks; 51_l._ 2_s._ 8_d._—Mr. Quartereder, 5_s._—Straw money,
    6_s._—9 Chald. coles, boatidge, and porter, 9_l._ 16_s._ 6_d._—200
    Sedge, 1_l._ 4_s._—12 brooms, 1_s._ 4_d._ 4 Skeps 20_d_; 2_s._
    8_d._—this is the fixt yearly pay, 62_l._ 16_s._ 10_d._ besides other
    incident charges, repairs, &c.”

On the whole therefore it appears, that the poor occupiers, or pensioners
of this almshouse were much better off 80 or a 100 years ago, than they
have been for many years past, as well as that our rulers were than
better disposed towards them than they have been latterly.

{1132b}  Since that period, the _weekly_ allowance of these pensioners
appears to have differed at different times—down to 1772 it was 19_s._
3_d._ in all, or about 18_d._ each: From 1772 to 1791, 1_l._ 5_s._ 5_d._
or about 2_s._ each: From 1791 to 1803, 1_l._ 8_s._ 5_d._ or about 2_s._
3_d._ each: From 1803 to 1811, 1_l._ 12_s._ 3_d._ or 2_s._ 6_d._ ¾
each.—But here it ought to be observed, that the _Reader_ has had always
allowed him 1_s._ 6_d._ a week more than the women.  He has also a
Chalder of Coals allowed him, as has likewise each of the women who have
fire-places in their chambers.  _Nine_ chalders a year are allowed this
house in all;—the rest are appropriated to the kitchen or common
fireplace.

{1135}  Of two of these we learn, that the _first_ was established on the
1_st._ of June 1795 for a _hundred_ members, who receive relief in
sickness, lying-in, old age, and upon the death of their husbands.  The
fund is supported by a small monthly payment of their own, and annual
subscriptions from _honorary_ members.—The _second_ beneficial society
for the same number of poor women, (100;) was established July 1, 1799,
affording the same allowances to them, except the pension in _old age_,
which it was found by experience could not be supported without the
assistance of many honorary members.  It was hoped that this society
would be able to support itself; in which case the advantages resulting
from it might have been extended to any number of poor women who might
choose to embrace them.  But either the allowance must be still further
reduced, or the monthly payment increased, before it will be released
from the necessity of requiring at least occasional benefactions.—It is
to be hoped therefore that it will not fail of obtaining every necessary
aid and support.

{1136}  Of the number of these societies, and their respective meeting
places, the following account is supposed to be pretty correct—_Two_ at
the _Crown Tavern_; _one_ at the _Three Tuns_; _one_ at the _Three
Pigeons_; _two_ at the _Valiant Sailor_; _one_ at the _Coach and Horses_;
_one_ at the _Tailor’s Arms_; _two_ at the _Plough_; _one_ at the
_Angel_; _two_ at the _Oak_; _one_ at the _Dog_; _four_ at the _Three
Fishes_; _two_ at the _Sun_; _two_ at the _Green Dragon_; _one_ at the
_Boar’s Head_; _one_ at the _George and Dragon_.—in all 23.  There may be
more, but we have not been yet able to find them out.—As to the number of
_Inns_ and _Public Houses_ now in the town, they are said to be near 70,
but they were formerly much more numerous: even as many as 87 some years
ago.  This decrease is not to be ascribed to a decrease of our
population, but rather to a decreasing propensity in the inhabitants to
frequent those houses, owing probably, in part at least, to the great
increase of _conventicles_, and the increasing frequency of _evening
services_ in those places, where a large proportion of the inhabitants
find themselves entertained much more innocently, profitably, and
agreeably, than at the public house:—all which however cannot be supposed
very pleasing to our publicans and common-brewers.

{1138}  There are, it seems, many benevolent societies so named in
different places; and some of them unconnected with Methodism—of which
there is one of a very respectable appearance at _Liverpool_, among whose
members is the name of the celebrated _William Roscoe_.  In the _annual
account_ of this society for 1809 appears the following remarkable
passage—

    “The _Subscribers_ to the _Stranger’s Friend Society_, are, in
    general, already well acquainted with the nature, design, and
    excellency of the institution.  It may not, however, be unnecessary
    to state once more, for the information of that part of the public,
    whose attention has not been hitherto duly excited towards this
    charity, that its object is, _to visit_, _at their own homes_, _the_
    SICK _and_ DESTITUTE POOR of all countries and denominations, (_the
    Methodists only excepted_, in order to exclude even the suspicion of
    sectarian partiality,) and administer such relief and consolation as
    their wants and sorrows may appear to require.”

But how the _exception_, in regard to _Methodists_, could _exclude all
suspicion of sectarian partiality_, we cannot clearly understand.

{1140}  This appears from the following passage in an old MS. extracted
from the Hall Books—

    “1580.  Sept. 26.  Mr. Iverye recd. 4_l._ to buy books necessarye to
    be in the school for his scholars.  This day he accounted for the
    bookes, and also repaid ye sd. moneye: 5_l._ allowed him for
    reparations and other necessarie charges by him bestowed about his
    house.”

Decr. 15. 1587, it was agreed in the Hall to provide an _usher_, with a
salary of 8_l._ a year.  The first usher was _John Gybson_, clerk, but
after a few months he had 5_l._ _given him_, _for the town to be
discharged of him and family_.  His successor was _Rich. Emott_, B.A.
whose salary was advanced to 10_l._ a year.  He was succeeded in the
spring of 1593, (or rather 1594) by _John Man_, B.A. of Bennet Col.
Cambridge, with the same salary.  It does not appear who, if any,
immediately succeeded him; but 18 Decr. 1612, the Hall agreed to choose
an _usher_, whose salary, (he boarding himself,) should be 16_l._ a year.
The person chosen was probably Edwd. Labourne, who held that situation in
1617, and had 5 marks gives him towards his commencing M.A.—He appeared
to be much approved and held his place in 1626, and perhaps much later.
Of his successors we have no regular account.

{1142a}  Our school, in Knox’s time was rendered very remarkable by
having _Eugene Aram_ for its usher; a man of uncommon acquirements and
learning, but still more distinguished by his unhappy and miserable exit,
and the horrid flagitiousness of at least one part of his life.  He was
apprehended here in 1759, under a charge of _murder_, committed in
Yorkshire, 14 years before, and tried and convicted at York the ensuing
assizes, and soon after executed.  His defence at his trial was plausible
and masterly; but it could avail against the preponderating evidence of
his guilt.  The extent of the learning in which he had made eminent
proficiency was wonderful, considering the disadvantages under which he
acquired it; and he died a melancholy proof that a very learned man may
yet be desperately wicked, and commit the most heinous crimes.

{1142b}  It is remarkable that this seminary, founded about 232 years
ago, has had but _three masters_ for the greatest part of that time—viz.
_Edw. Bell_, _John Horne_, and _David Lloyd_: who presided here in the
whole 125 years—and all the rest but 107.

{1146a}  It ought to have been for a much larger number.

{1146b}  The amount of the expenditure for the last year was 73_l._
19_s._ 3_d._ ½ which seems a large sum for a mere Sunday school.  Half
the sum, it is presumed, would go much further, and do far more good, if
the Lancasterian plan were adopted.—Some such measure is understood to be
now in the contemplation of some of our good townsmen.

{1147}  _Mr. Keed_, senior, and Mr. _S. Newham_, were two of the most
active promoters of this institution, and the late _Dr. Bagge_, much to
his credit, was one of its very zealous patrons, and used to subscribe
for the support of it _Five Guineas_ a year.

{1150}  At some former periods, and especially before the reformation,
our corporation members or officers appear to have been more numerous
than at present, and some of them differently denominated.  Hence in some
records of the time of Henry V. we read of _aldermen of the Gilds_,
twenty four _Jurats_, twenty seven _Common-council-men_, TWELVE
_burgesses_ annually elected, whose business it was to choose the new
mayor, and nominate divers other officers, including even the
_town-clerk_ and _chamberlain_.  These twelve were chosen as follows: The
Alderman of the gild of merchants chose _four_ burgesses: those four
chose _eight_ more, making their whole number then _twelve_.—These twelve
chose the mayor, &c. for the ensuing year, after taking an oath which was
tendered to them thus—

    “Serres [i.e. Sirs,] ye shall well and truiye, upon your
    discressions, without affection, favour, fraude, or male engyn, chese
    our mayster the Mayre for the yeear coming from Mighelmass forth, a
    burgess of the 24, abyll, sufficient, and profitable, for the worship
    and profitt of the commons; and also ye shall chese 4 sufficient
    burgesses to occupye the office of Chamberlein for the same yeear, a
    comon Clerke and two Sergeants, thereof one shall be clerke of the
    Markett and keeper of the East Yates, a porter for the South Yates,
    and anoder for Doucehille’s Yates: which officers chosen, theyr names
    with my mayster the Mayre that shall be, ye shall present; so God ye
    help at the holy dome.”

The oath tendered to the said _four_ burgesses was worded thus.—

    “Serres—ye shall well and trulye, upon your discressions, chese and
    call to you _eight_ abyll burgeys, without any affection, fraude, or
    male engyne, of the most indifferent, and not suspect persones, for
    the election of my mayster the Mayre that is to come; so God you help
    at the holy dome.”

The oath tendered to the Gild _alderman_ (or rather, as it would seem,
_aldermen_) empowered to choose the above four burgesses, was thus
expressed—

    “Serres;—ye shall well and trulye upon your discressions, without any
    affection, favour, fraude, or male-engine, chese and call up _four_
    burges, abyll, of the most indifferent, and not suspect persons, for
    the election of my mayster the Mayre: so God you help at the holy
    dome.”

The oath tendered to each of the 24 _Jurats_ was as follows—

    “Serre;—ye shall be ready and buxom to my mayster the Mayre at all
    tymes when ye be called by him, or warned by the Sergeante, for the
    nedes and worship of this towne and the commonaltie thereof, and well
    and trulye councill him, for the proffitte and worshipe of this towne
    after your discression, and the counsell of this towne trulye kepe;
    so God you help at the holy dome.”

As to the 27 Common-councilmen, their oath ran in much the same strain,
only referring to their particular designation, as overseers or
superintendents of all _taxes_, _tallages_, _dymes_, _fiftenes_,
_loones_, _reparacions_, _amending of houses_, _walles_, _brigges_,
_fletes_, and _dyches_, _&c._

That tendered to the _Sergeant_ began thus—

    “Ser; ye shall swere that ye shall be redy and buxom to my mayster
    the Mayre at all tymes, and truelye warne the 24 and 27 to come to
    the gild halle, or into any other place.” &c. &c.—

That tendered to the _Keeper of the East Gate_ was expressed thus—

    “Ser; ye shall well, duelye, and truelye kepe the East Yates, and the
    Gannock Yate, and lete out and in the pepyll in dewe tyme, and lete
    the Couses shake in dewe tyme, to scoure the fletes of this towne,
    and oversee the markett, that the vitalls that come to the towne by
    land or by water be not ferestalled, nor hydde in no prive place, and
    every day be attendant on your mayster the Mayre, and all other
    things truelye to do and use that belongeth or perteyneth to the
    office of the portership, and keper of the markett; so God you help
    at holy dome.”

The oath tendered to the _keeper of the South Gate_ was in this form.—

    “Ser, ye shall well and trewlye kepe the South Yates, and lete the
    pepyll in and oute in lawful tyme, and buxom be to my mayster the
    Mayre, and to his commandments, for the proffitte and worshipe of
    this towne; so God you help at holy dome.”

The oaths tendered to the rest of our officers and functionaries of those
times are in a similar strain, and they are very curious, but are too
long to be all inserted here.  All the other officers being sworn by the
_town-clerk_, the oaths are so expressed as to denote that circumstance;
but the case in respect to _his own oath_ being different, it is varied
in its form accordingly, and thus worded—

    “Ser, I shall be obedient to you as my mayster Mayre, and truelye
    write and trewe recorde make and trewe councell gyffe after my
    discression, when I am cleped thereto or boden, and all other things
    truelye do and use that perteyneth to the office of common clerk of
    this towne, and the councell of the towne truelye kepe: so God me
    help at holy dome.”

Such were our forms of swearing before the reformation.—As to a _Lord
High Steward_, it does not appear that there was here then any such
officer or functionary; which appears to have sprung up about the time of
the _first_ or _second_ CHARLES: and it seems an empty insignificant
office.—Quere, if its origin was not suggested or occasioned by the
_bishop’s_ HIGH STEWARD of former times?

{1154a}  A like refusal to serve the office of _alderman_ is liable to a
fine not exceeding 40_l._ and that of a common-council-man 20_l._

{1154b}  The mayor, recorder, aldermen, common-council-men and all other
officers and their deputies, take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy
when they enter into office, and thereby have all the laws, liberties,
usages, & customs, granted and confirmed to them, without lett or
molestation.—See Charles 2nds _first_ Charter; also Mackerell, 213.

{1155}  _Lovecop_, or _Lovecoup_ is what some now _improperly call
Lastage_ two a-penny per quarter on corn carried out by _unfreemen_.

{1157}  The _mart_ is said to have been formerly kept in _Damgate_; but
latterly, for a great length of time, it has been kept in the _Tuesday
market place_.  Thither, at the opening of it, the mayor and his brethren
set out from the Hall in solemn procession, when the following
_proclamation_, according to _Mackerell_, is made by the crier—

    “Whereas by a charter granted unto this corporation by king Henry
    viii. in the 27th. year of his reign, that the mayor and burgesses of
    the burgh of _King’s Lynn_, and their successors, might from
    thenceforth for ever, have, hold, and keep, within the said burgh,
    _one mart_, _or fair_, to begin upon the day next after the feast of
    the purification of the blessed virgin _Mary_ yearly, and to continue
    six days then next following, with all the liberties, jurisdiction,
    and privileges, there contained in the Letters patents, granted by
    the said king unto the said mayor and burgesses; any act of
    parliament before that time made to the contrary notwithstanding; as
    by the transcript of the said patent under the great seal of England,
    more at large appeareth:—Now Mr. Mayor, the Aldermen and
    Common-council-men of this burgh _Do Publish and make Known_, That
    the said _Fair or Mart_ to be holden this year, doth _Begin_ this
    present _Day_, and shall continue for the space of _Six Days_ from
    hence next following, with the ancient liberties, jurisdictions, and
    privileges thereof, and of holding the court of _Pie-Powder_ for the
    hearing, trying, and determining, of all accidents and suits incident
    thereunto.—Also the mayor commandeth all common victuallers, that
    they utter and put to sale no other victuals but such as shall be
    sweet and wholesome for man’s body, and that they do afford the same
    at reasonable prices; and keep all assizes according to law.—And that
    all weights and measures which shall be used, be lawful and sealed
    according to the laws and statutes in that behalf made.—And also that
    all persons do forbear to put to sale, or shew forth wares on the
    Lord’s day.—And further, that all such persons as may be justly
    suspected of evil behaviour, do avoid this burgh and the liberties
    thereof; and that all others do keep within their several lodgings
    from _nine_ of the clock every evening until six of the clock next
    morning.  GOD SAVE THE KING.”

Afterwards in the _Common Stath-yard_—

    “All persons that have any Lastage, Wares, or Linen Cloth, to sell by
    wholesale, shall lay the same in the Common-stath-yard, or in
    Warehouses, Booths, or Chambers there, as heretofore hath been used,
    or as they or any of them shall be thereunto appointed.  GOD SAVE THE
    KING.”

Lastly in the _Custom House Porch_ [or rather at the _Cross_]—

    “All manner of persons that have any Action, Suit, or Plaint, to
    enter or prosecute for any matter, cause, or thing, arising within
    the jurisdiction of the court of _Pie-Powder_, here to be holden for
    and during the time of this _open Mart_, _or Fair_, let them repair
    to this place, and the same shall be retorted.  GOD SAVE THE KING.”

{1160}  ☞ But here again, before he proceeds further, or begins the next
section, the author begs leave to acknowledge that be was mistaken at
page 1140 in supposing the Lynn Grammar School to have been established
in 1580, or about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth.  He has since
discovered that this seminary existed in 1570, in which year, on Monday
next after the feast of St. Michael, or Michaelmas-day, at the
commencement of the mayoralty of _Edward Waters_, _Ralph Johnson_ was
chosen master, in the room of Mr. _Bacster_.  How long the latter held
the mastership does not appear.  If we suppose ten or a dozen years, and
that this _Bacster_, or _Baxter_, was the first master, it would fix the
origin of this school about the commencement of that queen’s reign, which
seems not an unnatural supposition.  The reader therefore is requested to
correct what may appear contrary to this statement in the page above
referred to; and also in the last line of that page instead of 1570 to
read 1590.—The author also apprehends that he was not quite correct at
page 1133 in supposing the South Lynn Almshouse not originally endowed
with any land of money.

{1161}  Exclusive of _fishing smacks_.

{1162a}  Comparative view of the imports and exports to and from Lynn
from 1761 to 1811, with the revenue thence arising.

In the year     Tons of      Chaldrons    Quarters of    Amount of
                 _Wine_      of _Coals_      _Corn_       Revenue.
               imported.     imported.     exported.
1761                   810        64,100       207,700       £37,600
                                               {1162b}
1771                  1030       103,900       151,900        58,800
1781                   350        69,400       118,800        36,900
1791                  1030        90,600       183,200        56,600
1801                  1280        79,100       195,600        74,800
1806                   560       103,700       147,600        84,200
1811                   450       115,500       212,500        75,300

The correctness of the above may be relied upon; and so it is supposed
may also that of the following table, which has appeared in the _Norfolk
Tour_, and is there said to have been extracted from the Lynn
Custom-house books, and is to be considered as the _yearly average_ which
has been exported to foreign markets and coastways, for the years 1791,
1792, and 1793.

              Quarters        Per Quarter                 Amount
                           _£._    _s._    _d._       _£._    _s._    _d._
Wheat            30,016       2       4       0     66,035       4       0
Wheat flour       3,138       2      16       0      8,786       8       0
Barley          112,944       1       4       0    135,532      16       0
Malt             10,703       2       0       0     21,406       0       0
Rye              12,298       1       5       0     15,372      10       0
Peas              3,855       1       8       0      5,397       0       0
Beans             4,708       1       4       0      5,649      12       0
Vetches              73       1      10       0        109      10       0
Rape Seed         2,423       1      16       0      4,361       8       0
                                                   262,650       8       0

{1162b}  _Of which_ 125,000 _were exported to foreign parts_.

{1168}  Here we must own that the service in our churches, defective as
it is in many respects, has yet greatly the advantage over that of our
meeting houses in regard to the _reading_ of the scriptures; for large
portions of them are there read every time: and even in the cathedral
service we may find a nearer resemblance of the primitive practice than
in most dissenting chapels, in the _frequency_ of the administration of
the _Lord’s supper_, which is there administered weekly, as it was in the
first age, and a good while after.  There is something very queer and
whimsical in the _lunatic_ administration of that ordinance in most
dissenting congregations as well as parish churches.

{1169}  The knowledge and mental culture of these assuming beings have
been said to be chiefly derived from _Cocker_ and the _venal newspapers_;
but the present writer looks upon that as an incorrect and hyperbolic
representation; though he suspects that but few of them possess very
expanded minds.  In time, it is to be hoped, they will become more wise,
liberal, public-spirited, and patriotic.

{1170}  Seventy two baskets per week, upon an average, each of 40 pounds
weight, have been, we are told, sent from hence by the coaches to London,
which in the whole year amounts to 65 tons 12 hundred and eight pounds.
It is supposed that no other port or place beside has ever supplied the
metropolis with so large a quantity of the said article, and that Boston,
though it is known to deal largely in the same line, yet falls much short
of the quantity here specified.

{1173}  We are told that by the report of the commissioners for auditing
the public accounts in 1784, the annual duties of Lynn exceeded those of
all the other English ports, except _London_, _Bristol_, _Liverpool_, and
_Hull_.—They might then amount to about 40,000_l._  But they have since
more than doubted that sum.—See Britton’s account if Lynn, p. 299, and
the table here at page 1162.

{1174}  It may be however not altogether improper just to observe here
that the _Gaol_ or prison, and _Bridewell_ or House of Correction, stand
contiguous to the town-hall.  This building makes a respectable
appearance on the outside, and probably no less so within; but that it is
really so, the present writer cannot positively say, having never had the
curiosity to visit the inside of it.—Here he begs leave to observe in
addition to what he has before said of our _Grammar-school_, that that
seminary now appears to have existed before the reformation, as may be
concluded from the following note extracted from the Hall-books, and
transmitted to the author by the present worthy town-clerk.—

    “Friday next after the Feast of holy Gregory the pope, anno 25 Hen.
    8. [i.e. 1534.] Lynn Bishop: the Mayor, Aldermen, and Com. Council
    have elected in to their Charnel priest William Leyton, Chaplain; he
    to have it from Lady Day next coming, during his life natural, except
    cause reasonable, and he to perform the testament of old _Mr.
    Thorsby_, and _maintain a grammar school_; and further to keep the
    house, and tenements, in sufficient repairations in all things as he
    can, as it has been used.”

{1176}  The first of them runs thus—

    “Every subscriber to this Library shall pay _one guinea_ annually in
    advance, or in proportion to the time of the year when his
    subscription commences.  And after the general meeting in 1798, each
    subscriber shall pay _half a guinea_ on his admission, and the same
    annual subscription as above.  The sum to be paid upon admission to
    be afterwards increased by _five shillings_ and _three pence_ every
    year, until it shall amount to _two guineas_.  But the property which
    each subscriber has in the Library may be transferred to any other
    person, who shall subscribe and conform to these rules; in which case
    such new subscriber shall pay nothing upon admission.”

The 17th is as follows:—

    “No book or pamphlet, except it be a duplicate, shall on any account
    be alienated from the Library, without the consent of every
    subscriber.  But if ever the number of subscribers should be reduced
    to _Five_, and continue at or below that number for _three_ years
    together, the whole Library shall be transferred to the Mayor and
    Burgesses, to be added to that of St. Margaret’s church.”

Thus the want of liberality in the Mayor and Burgesses, who neglect to
contribute towards any augmentation of their own Library, will eventually
be made up, probably, by this institution, most of whose members, it is
presumed, are unconnected with the corporation.  Had the latter shewed
some liberality in furnishing this society with a convenient place for a
library, there would have been certainly a more colourable pretence for
this article, or proviso.

{1177}  Old Lynn is said to contain 345 souls, and Gaywood about 500.

{1184}  Here it may be expected that some notice should be taken, and
some use made of Mr. _Zachary Clark’s_ lately published _Account of the
Norfolk Charities_, which makes some mention of those of this town and
suburbs.  That account indeed, as it relates to this place, is very
incomplete; but we shall here insert such of the articles as are not
included in the preceding statement.—He mentions a house given by deed,
by _William Cleave_, in 1616, and vested in the Minister and
Church-wardens of St. Margaret’s; the rent, 4_l._ 4_s._ per annum, to be
distributed by them among the poor of that parish:—also that in 1689, the
mayor and burgesses granted a duty of 4_d._ per chalder on all coals
imported here, by owners of ships, or part of ships, not paying to the
poor’s rates, towards the maintenance of the poor in St. James’s
Workhouse, and which is vested in the governor and guardians thereof.
The average amount of the last three years was 214_l._ 8_s._ 3_d._—Also
6_l._ payable annually out of Grey Friars, given by the mayor and
burgesses in 1705, towards the support of the aforesaid
workhouse.—Likewise for the same purpose, the annual sum of 10_l._ being
a gift, during pleasure, of the _High Steward_ of the town, and
commencing in 1724.—Also that _John Kidd_ esq. in 1715, bequeathed 36_l._
vested in the mayor and burgesses, the interest 36_s._ to provide 6_s._
worth of bread, in two-penny loaves, to 36 poor people, the six Sundays
in Lent.  The principal vested in the mayor and burgesses.—Also 100_l._
vested as the last, a legacy by _Peter Ward_ in 1720; 50_s._ of the
interest to be given in bread to the poor, viz. 25 two-penny loaves the
first Sunday in every Calendar month; and 50_s._ for teaching two poor
boys writing and arithmetic.—Also a legacy of 150_l._ vested in the mayor
and burgesses, left by _Sarah Dexter_, in 1753, the interest to be paid
to the poor men in Framingham Hospital, (_Broad Street Almshouse_) and to
the poor women in St. James’s Hospital, (_the Bedehouse_.)—Also a legacy
of 36_l._ vested as before, and left by _James Stapleton_, in 1778, the
interest to be distributed to the poor by the Chapel wardens.—Also of the
South Lynn Almshouses he says, that the founder left 20_l._ to be secured
on a freehold, and the income therefrom to be applied, one half for the
repairing of the said almshouses, and the other half to provide coals for
the inhabitants of them.  This legacy was put out to interest till 1641,
by which time it had accumulated to 55_l._ 5_s._  This latter sum
purchased 5 acres of land, in Wiggenhall St. Germans, the rent whereof,
nearly 4_l._ 10_s._ per annum, is applied as above directed.—As to _West
Lynn_, (or_ Old Lynn_,) he mentions there 4 acres of land at Islington,
vested in the minister and parish officers, for the benefit of the poor;
left for that purpose by _John Swaine_, in 1678.  The rent is supposed to
be regularly distributed according to the will.—He also mentions a legacy
of 5_l._ 5_s._ for the use of the poor there, left by the late _Henry
Whall_, Deacon.—Also in _Gaywood_, (which may be deemed another suburb of
Lynn,) he mentions the following charities—_Tho. Thurston_ D.D. in 1714,
by his will, left 40_s._ yearly for ever, toward cloathing three of the
poorest inhabitants; which money is payable by the mayor of Lynn.—Also 2
roods of land there, annually let to the highest bidder, and the rent
applied for the benefit of the poor.—Also a _house_ in Lynn, the rent of
which (8_l._) is received by the officers of Gaywood, and applied as
above: but when, or by whom these donations were made he gives no
account.—So much for the Lynn Charities; of which this is the best
account we have been able to procure.  As to such as belong to the
respective almshouses, that are not here particularized, the reader is
referred for information respecting them to the account that has been
already given of those houses.

{1190}  _She was possessed of many virtues_, _and was universally
respected_: _to her we owe the introduction of side-saddles_: _our women
before used always to ride astride like the men_.

{1191}  _However this affair was finally settled between the bishop and
mayor_, _these articles seem clearly to shew that a_ sword _then really
formed a part of the Lynn regalia_, _which has been by some thought very
doubtful_.

{1200}  _The author begs leave to acknowledge a mistake of his at page_
763, _in placing Cromwell’s visit to Lynn before the siege_, _whereas it
was in fact about half a year after that event_.  _This correction
invalidates several of the remarks and conclusions in that section_.

{1215}  See _vol._ I. _page_ 572, &c.

{1216}  The errata has been applied in this transcription.—DP.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 62372 ***