_History of Lynn continued to the accession of Q. Anne—example of William
and the revolutionists did not liberalize our townsmen—persecution of
nonconformists here within this period—stocking trade_, _and complaints
of the hosiers—petitions to parliament—addresses to the
throne—law-suits—water-works—affair of the coal-meters—and of the
noblemen_, _knights_, _esquires_, _clergy_, _&c._
William’s ideas of civil and religious liberty, though perhaps, not
perfectly correct or unexceptionable, were yet far more so than what was
generally entertained by our countrymen at that period—and probably, even
what is generally entertained among us at this time: for civil and
religious liberty seems not to have been of late years among our
favourite studies. William and his consort would gladly have placed the
liberty of protestant Dissenters on a broad and liberal footing, but it
was not approved by the majority of the two houses of parliament. They
however readily passed an Act, in the summer of 1689, for _exempting
their Majesties Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England
from the Penalties of certain Laws_; which is commonly called the _Act of
Toleration_. But _toleration_ is a word not to be applied to honest and
virtuous men, in a land of liberty; for it implies some unworthiness in
the objects, or their being unentitled to what is granted, and that the
magistrate grants it by way of favour, indulgence, or connivance; whereas
religious liberty is the natural and inalienable inheritance of every
human being, and should be claimed as a right, and not as a boon or
favour. The Toleration Act received the royal assent May 24. 1689, and
the protestant dissenters have sat under the shade of it, mostly, but not
always unmolested, ever since. Tories and high churchmen have often
attempted to disturb them, but by this law they have been in a great
measure protected. Had it not passed in the reign of William, it is
doubtful if it had passed at any subsequent period. Even at this time
some great men are proposing to have it revised, as being too
comprehensive, and requiring certain restrictions. What the event will
be, time will shew: but it will be a sad thing if the rights of
conscience, or the enjoyment of religious liberty should be curtailed,
now in the 19th century.
Lynn is a notable instance of a town declaring for the revolution,
without entering at all into the spirit of it: for it continued still as
bigoted and intolerant as before. This was remarkably exemplified in the
bitter and violent persecution that broke out here about 1690, against a
society of protestant dissenters of the Baptist denomination, and
especially against _James Marham_, their minister. He appears to have
been a very worthy man, zealous and diligent in propagating that sort of
religious knowledge which he thought most useful and interesting to his
fellow-creatures. Some of the great ones, or heads of the town became
his chief persecutors. What they affected to take most umbrage at was,
the denomination to which he belonged. They pretended that it was a
_new_ religion; and they would not suffer it to be disseminated in the
town, but were resolved to break up the meeting. They first proceeded
against him under the Conventicle Act, and employed two men, named
_Robert Whitehead_ and _Henry Oseincraft_, as _informers_; who having
been at the meeting, laid their information before the justices, or
aldermen, {861} who forthwith issued their warrants to levy 20_l._ on the
_house_, 20_l._ on the _preacher_, and 5_s._ on each of the _hearers_.
Marham owned that he hired the meeting-house, but produced the licence,
or certificate, which shewed it to have been regularly registered as a
place of worship, according to the Toleration Act; but that they
over-ruled, and caused their levy to be executed, both upon him and
others. And finding afterwards that he persisted in continuing the
meeting, they resolved to ruin him, by charging him with some heinous
crime, which the account does not specify. They got one person to swear
against him, intending then to commit him to prison; but the witness
could not substantiate the charge; so that they were obliged to drop the
proceeding. Marham now getting a copy of their levy, found that the
informers had sworn, that when they were at the meeting-house one _John_
Marham was _preaching_; whereas there was no preacher of that name. The
preacher that was speaking when they were at the meeting was a minister
from London, whose name was _Wm. Lang_, but he was only _praying_, and
not preaching, at the time. They had also sworn, that one _Francis
Robinson_ was then at the meeting, which was not true. Having made these
discoveries Marham was advised to proceed against them at common Law,
which he accordingly did; and the two informers were put into the crown
office. The great men now interfered, and prevailed with Marham’s
attorney to desist from further prosecution, “as he would answer it,
(says the account) in the hands or _custody of a messenger_.” {862}
These threats inducing the attorney to stay the proceedings for a time,
the informers, advised by their patrons or employers, took advantage of
that to remove the cause from common law to chancery. A notice or
subpœna was then served upon Marham to answer their bill of complaint,
which bill consisted of 31 sheets. “Though the substance of it, (our
account says) _will be proved utterly false_, yet it will cost more money
by far than Marham is able to disburse, without _evident ruin_.” An
appeal was therefore made to the whole denomination for assistance; and
they are thought to have come forward pretty liberally on the occasion,
the _particular_ as well as the _general_ baptists, to the latter of
which Marham belonged. He was up in London and gave in his answer in
February 1693; but when or how the affair ended does not appear, for our
account was published before it was brought to its final issue. As a
chancery cause it might remain long undetermined, perhaps for some years.
But how or whensoever it ended, here is enough to shew very clearly with
what illiberality, intolerance, tyranny, and villany, the gentry or chief
men of Lynn were capable of acting at that period. Much of the same
spirit continued here very long after, even down to the memory of the
present writer.
About the beginning of 1690 (or 1689–90) the _hosiers_ of this town
appeared much concerned and alarmed, (as had indeed been the case for
some time before, {864}) at the prevalence of the _weaving_ method, by
which that of _knitting_ was much discouraged and fallen off, to the
great injury of vast numbers of the poor, who were consequently left
without employment. They therefore now petitioned the Hall to have the
case brought before parliament, which was readily acceded to. This
affair is thus memorized in the Town-Books.—“Jan. 17. (1689–90) On
petition of the Hosiers of this Town in behalf of the poore, against the
new invention of _weaving_ worstead hose; whereby many thousands of the
poor are destitute of employment; It is ordered and agreed that a
Petition from this House to the Honorable House of Commons representing
that grievance, now read, be sealed with the common seal of this burgh.”
It may therefore be presumed that this petition was actually presented to
the House of Commons, but what was there made of it, or what reception it
met does not appear. It must, however, have indicated a very contracted
idea of trade, or the rights of manufacturing adventurers. Near seven
years after a different sort of petition was presented by this town to
the same house; of which the following notice occurs in the Hall or
Town-Books—“Oct. 26. 1696; Mr Mayor, Mr Recorder, Sir Henry Hobart
baronet, Sir John Turner knight, Sir Charles Turner knight, Robert
Walpole, Maurice Kendall, Esquires, Mr. Bell, Mr. Holly, Mr. Turner, or
any five of them, to manage and present a petition to the parliament to
remove obstructions, and for preserving navigation—[and] for removing the
Dam and Sluices near Salters load.”—The obtaining the object of this
petition might probably have proved very beneficial to the country; but
it does not appear that the application succeeded.
Our corporation, as might be expected, did not neglect during this reign
to send some loyal _addresses_ to the throne. How many they actually did
send we have not the means of ascertaining. One was probably sent upon
their majesties accession, though we have not met with any particular
account of it. We are indeed informed in our extracts from the
Hall-Books, that Thursday, the 11th of April 1689, the day of the
coronation of King William and Queen Mary, was appointed _to be kept here
with all due solemnity_: whence one might pretty safely infer, that an
Address did soon after follow. Such was the case, we presume, with all
the rest of our corporations.
Another address was sent from Lynn in 1696, occasioned by the discovery
of the _assassination plot_, and the intended French _invasion_. One of
our historians {865} speaking of that horrid plot, thus adds—“At the same
time there was to be an invasion from France, for which purpose king
_James_ was come to _Calais_, and the troops, artillery, and stores, were
immediately ordered to be embarked; but by the news of the assassination
plot having miscarried, and the speedy sending of a formidable fleet
under admiral _Russell_, this other part of the design was frustrated;
and Calais was not long after bombarded by the English. The king on
February 21. acquainted parliament with the discovery of the plot; upon
which both Houses addressed his majesty to congratulate him on his happy
preservation: and the House of Commons drew up and subscribed an
_association_ to stand by one another in defence of his majesty’s sacred
person and government, against the late king James and all his adherents.
The Lords also agreed to the same association; and the example of the two
Houses was followed by all the corporations in the kingdom.”—The part
which Lynn took in this memorable business is thus noticed in the book of
extracts from the Hall records—“March 11th. (1695–6) sign’d an Address to
his Majestie in the nature of ane Association to stand by and assist his
Majesty against all his Ennemys whatsomever.”—We have seen no copy of
this address.
On the king’s return from the continent, in the autumn of 1697, another
address went to him from this town, of which the following is a copy—
“Great Sir. Wee your Majesties most dutifull and loyall subjects,
the mayor, aldermen, and common-councell, and chiefe inhabitants of
the burgh of King’s Lynn in the county of Norfolk, crave leave to
prostate ourselves at your Royall feet, with sincerest joye and most
devout thankfulness adoreing the Divine Goodness for watching over
your pretious life (in all the Dangers it has been exposed to by sea
and land) upon the safety whereof the fate of so many nations did
depend. The comfort is too bigg for us to express, To behold your
sacred person with happyness and honor retorned to these your
dominions after the vast toyles of a war ingaged in for the security
of your realms and the tranquillity of Europe. For no sooner had
your princely tenderness secured to us the inestimable blessings of
Lawe, Liberty, and Religion, but injured and ruined provinces abroad
implored your ayd. Then it was you awakened the slumbering genius of
this warlike people, and with matchless conduct, courage, vigilance,
you led forth the British forces to fame and great atchievements in
forreign lands. Let other chiefes and potentates of your allyance
have their deserved praise; but it is your majesties right for what
by your councell and armes has been done in accomplishing the great
worke to remain possest of the brightest share of the glory that
attends it, will outweigh the pomp of all other triumphs to be the
chosen instrument of Providence to calm a stormy world, to make wars
and desolation to cease, and to restore repose and peace to
christendome. May the same propitious providence make these
blessings durable and perpetuall, may your sacred Majestie be still
the charge of the Life Guards of Heaven, may your royall cares be
sweetened, though they can never be requited, by the constant loyalty
and duty of a gratefull people; may your days be long and prosperous,
and your renoune increase; may your Realms flourish in virtue, union,
plenty and peace; and when you shall be called to a heavenly crowne
may generations to come rise up and call you blessed.”
This Address, no doubt, was drawn up by one of our first orators and
ablest hands of that day, and in his very best manner. But our augustan
age does not appear to have commenced till after the accession of Q.
Anne. Our addresses to the throne became then long and frequent; and
they were all penned in so striking a style of eloquence as clearly
evinced the abundant confidence the compilers had in their own parts and
powers.
In 1697 our corporation had a law-suit with one _Hulton_, before Lord
Chief Justice Holt, which by the following hint in the Hall-Books they
appear to have gained—“March 29. 1697, Recovered, on a tryall before Lord
Chief Justice Holt, of Leonard Holton a Quitt rent of 23_s._ 6_d._ per
annum, and arrears for 38 years to Michaelmas 1694, on his house, late
Th: Toll Esq: and also a rent charge of 6_s._ 8_d._ per annum.”—In the
same year they had also a suit in the court of Exchequer, with one
_Vinckeson_, of which the following notice occurs in the Hall-books—“June
16. Ordered that Hubert Vinckeson be prosecuted in the court of
Exchequer for the duty of Lastage of great quantities of corn and graine
belonging to fforreigners and strangers to the liberties of this burgh,
which have been unjustly coloured and own’d by him, contrary to his aath
of ffreedome.”—It does not appear that there was any thing unjustifiable
in this prosecution.
About this same period our _water-works_ appear to have been a losing
concern to our corporation; which they seem to have felt so far as to
have the following notice of it inserted in their books—“April 20. 1696.
It is reported that the charges and disbursements of maintaining the
water-rents for ten 10 years last past, as per particulars is 1427_l._
7_s._ {869} 8_d._ the rents and profits thereof for the sametime is
1338_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._—Lost by the water account in ten years 288_l._
13_s._ 6_d._ which divided by ten years is 28_l._ 17_s._ 4_d._ per
annum.”—How this concern turned out afterwards, or how it stands at
present, we have not had hitherto the means of ascertaining.
At this period which we are now reviewing the whole body of our
_coal-meters_ and _head-porters_ brought themselves into most sad
disgrace, by certain dishonest and fraudulent doings. The customhouse
complained against them and had them all turned out at once:—but some
weeks after, on profession of contrition or promise of amendment, they
were again restored. Of this unpleasant affair, so disreputable and
humiliating to these meters and porters, our Corporation have preserved
the following memorial in their books—“July 11th. 1701; Upon Information
this day made to this House by the chief officers of his Majesties
Customes of this Port against the whole body of the Company of Head
Porters and Metters of the Port and Burgh, that they have severally
received deputations and instructions from the Right Honorable the Lords
Commissioners, as metters, weighers, and measurers, in pursuance of an
act for granting to his Majesty severall duties upon coales and culme,
have every one of them taken and received bribes, and made short and
false certificates and retornes, and been guilty of other corrupt ill
practices contrary to the said trust and the oath and duty of their
offices of Head Porters and Metters, and to the defrauding his Majestie
of the said Duties; which upon examination they have this day severally
confest: it is therefore this day ordered that all and every of them be
and stand discharged from the said offices of Head Porters and Metters of
this burgh and port.”—Then we read as follows—“August 13. Upon the
humble application and submission of divers of the corne and coale
metters, head porters, this House hath reestablished them, and ordere’d
that beside the accustomed oath they give security by bond with one
surety in 20_l._ for the just performance, and so to continue for the
future.”—This regulation is probably still in force.
About the same time our corporation appeared to claim kindred and fall
passionately in love with gentility and high life, or the titled classes
of the community, as contradistinguished from the unprivileged orders or
swinish multitude; which is evinced by the conclusion of the following
passage in the Hall-Books, on the regulation of Tolls,—“Nov. 24. 1701;
Ordered that the present Tables of Petty Tolls, taken by water and at the
gates, be regulated according to the alterations now made, and such as
are now marked be exchanged, and that new tables thereof be made to be
hung up at the gates, and delivered to the wharfinger; and that _all
Noblemen_, _Knights_, _Esquires_, and _Clergymen be from henceforth
exempted from all Tolls for goods bought by them_.” One can perceive in
this neither justice nor charity; and it was probably the offspring of
mere caprice.
At the period now under review our clergy were, seemingly, treated, or
provided for by the corporation more liberally and handsomely than they
are at present. In 1702 the minister and lecturer had their Stipends
augmented to 100_l._ a year each; which must have been equal to 3 or
400_l._ at least, of our money. Before that time they had but 50_l._
each, as appears by the following articles in the Hall-Books—“Aug. 29,
1701; Ordered that Mr. Th: Pile be appointed minister or preacher at St.
Nicholas Chaple to preach once every Sunday, and to read divine Service
once every day in the week, except Sundayes, at St. Margarets Church, and
he shall be allowed 50_l._ per annum.”—again—“March 18. 1701; Dr. Th:
Little chosen Lecturer at St. Margarets Church, in the room of Mr. Fysh
deceased, and to have 50_l._ per annum.”—again—“Nov. 20. 1702; Mr. Th:
Pyle and Dr. Little’s stypends _augmented more_ 50_l._ _per annum each_,
on Mr Jaggard’s decease.”—If we are not mistaken, there has not been
afterwards any further augmentation for 60 or 70 years; when 50_l._ more
were added to the minister or vicar: and the same has been added
lately.—Being now brought to the close of William’s reign, and the
accession of Anne, we shall here finish this section.