SECTION I.

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}