_History of Lynn from the death of William to that of Anne—her majesty’s
accession—address to her from Lynn—dangerous state of the Boale or
World’s End_, _and measures adopted for its preservation—the great storm
in_ 1703, _and its effects on this town—address to the throne in_
1704—_petitions to parliament the same year_, _from the counties of
Bedford and Huntingdon_, _against unreasonable and exorbitant exactions
at Lynn—constructive disloyalty of our corporation—minister’s house in
Webster’s Row_.
On the death of King William, Anne, the younger sister of his late queen,
succeeded to the throne, by virtue of the _act of settlement_, which had
passed in the preceding reign. She was proclaimed on March 8, 1701–2, a
few hours after the king’s death; and her accession gave entire
satisfaction to all her protestant subjects. Those of this town appeared
on that occasion very conspicuous, as they were actually among those who
addressed the throne within that selfsame month. We have never seen a
copy of this address, but have learnt from our book of Extracts that it
was dated March 30, 1702. Whether it was long or short, we know not; but
there can be no doubt of its being very loyal: and, in point of style or
diction we may take it for granted that it bore no small resemblance to
those of succeeding years, of which we shall not fail by and by to
exhibit some fair specimens.
About the time of which we are now speaking, Lynn was thought to be in
some danger from the encroachment of the tide upon that point called the
Boale, or world’s end; and the most effectual means that could be thought
of were therefore adopted for the safety of the town.—This affair is thus
noticed in the Hall books:—“Sept. 24. 1708; In pursuance of a late order
wee have considered Robert Elsden’s Petition to us referred, and taken a
view of the ground called the Boale or World’s End, and the lands and
houses on either side, and are of opinion, that there is an absolute
necessity that the said ground as it now is be preserved from being lost
to sea, and for that purpose that some present meanes be considered by
Jettys and Counter-shores to repell the flow and reflow the sea, without
which the houses on the north side of the Mill ffleet, and consequently
the town will be in great danger of ruin; and considering how necessary
it is that present care be taken of the defence of the town so incumbent
upon this House, which the said Elsden is in no wise able to performe,
and also considering the advantage it will be to this corporation to have
the duties of wharfage and groundage, stakes, mooreage and other dutys
claimed and long enjoyed the owners of that ground united and made entire
to this port, Wee have treated and contracted with the said Robert Elsden
for the absolute purchase of the said ground and all profits and
advantages thereunto belonging for the sum of 130_l._ and 20_l._ more at
the end of five years if the said ground shall continue so long preserved
from sea without considerable diminution.”—Then it is added—“Said Report
and Articles are read and well approved by this House.” This was, no
doubt, an advantageous bargain to the corporation; and as might be
expected, they now set themselves in good earnest about effectually
preserving their new purchase. They laid out upon it a good deal of
money; of which the following memoranda occur in their books—“Sept. 29.
1704: Ordered 100_l._ to be taken up for reimbursing the chamberlain’s
charges about the Jetties and defences against the sea at the Boale, or
World’s End.”—again—“Jan. 12 1704–5: Ordered that Mr. Hainsworth
chamberlain’s account audited at 347_l._ 8_s._ 9_d._ relating to the
Boale be allowed, and that he have 10_l._ 10_s._ for his extraordinary
trouble.”—This spot, we presume, has been ever since the property of the
corporation, which we cannot find to have been ever the case before.
About this same time happened that dreadful national calamity, commonly
called _the great storm_, the most tremendous and most disastrous,
perhaps, ever experienced in this kingdom. It continued for several days
but was at the highest on the 27th of November 1703. No place escaped
its fury, but in some places it was most awfully terrible and
destructive. It blew from the _west_, and therefore could not so much
affect this coast; and at Lynn the loss it occasioned was comparatively
inconsiderable; amounting to seven or eight ships, twenty or thirty
hands, and damage to the houses, or buildings, computed at about 1000_l._
and the whole including the shipping to about 3000_l_, {874} which was
but a trifle, compared to the losses which some other places had then
sustained.
On the western coast the ravages of this storm far exceeded what they
were in these eastern parts. At _Bristol_ it occasioned so high a tide
as did above a 100,000_l._ damage to the merchants goods only. It also
caused the _Severn_ to break down its banks, and overflow a vast tract of
land, by which 15000 sheep, besides other cattle were drowned. The
famous _Eddystone_ Lighthouse also, which had borne several storms
unmoved, was not able to stand this. It was swept off on the tremendous
night of the 27th. and nothing was to be seen the next morning but the
bare rock. _Winstanley_ too, its ingenious projector and constructor,
who happened then to be there, perished with the rest. {875} Soon after,
on that very night, the _Winchelsea_, a homeward bound Virginia-man,
split on the same rock, and most of its hands were lost.
It was computed that no less than 300 sail of ships, some of them
belonging to the royal navy, were lost on different parts of out coasts,
and that there were drowned then in rivers and at sea, at least 8000
persons. Between one and two hundred lost their lives by the fall of
houses, chimneys, &c. and a still greater number were grievously bruised
and hurt from the same causes. More than 800 dwelling houses were blown
down, and barns and outhouses without number. Above 400 wind-mills were
overset and destroyed; upwards of one hundred churches were uncovered,
and the lead from some of their roofs blown to an incredible distance:
many of their steeples and battlements were also demolished. In addition
to all which, above 250,000 trees were said to be then torn up by the
roots. In short the whole country for sometime after exhibited the
appearance of dejection, dismay, and desolation.
The public feelings being greatly affected by this national calamity, we
need not be surprized that a general _fast_ was soon after solemnly
proclaimed and devoutly observed throughout the kingdom; and though we
may not very readily fall in, or coincide with every idea suggested in
the royal proclamation, {876} yet we cannot help looking upon that fast
as much more proper and justifiable than most of those that have been
observed by our countrymen ever since.—After all, what were the
deplorable ravages of that great and mighty storm, compared with those of
a single campaign in some of our modern wars, when myriads of human
beings have miserably perished, entire provinces cruelly laid waste, and
whole nations involved in utter ruin? Yet these most calamitous scenes
are seldom looked upon by governments and nations as the judgments of
Heaven, or what ought to lead men to serious reflection, religious
humiliation, and repentance.
In the course of the following year, (1704) our national feelings were
very differently affected. The dejection of the preceding year was no
longer felt, and the public mind became suddenly elated in a wonderful
manner, and to an extraordinary degree. This was occasioned by the
battle of _Hochstet_, or _Blenheim_, as we most commonly call it. That
surprising victory filled the nation with such vainglorious triumph as to
throw it almost into a state of atheistical intoxication. Addresses to
the throne came in thick now from all quarters, and our corporation
appeared conspicuous among those memorable addressers. Our address was
not a little remarkable; but whether most so for its piety, good sense,
and elegance, or for its loyalty, adulation, and fustian, or bombastry,
may be left for the reader to judge. {878}
But however loyal or patriotic we seemed at this period, and elated with
the idea of our military successes and national glory, we yet lay at the
same time under some very unfavourable and disreputable imputations from
some of our neighbours, on the score of extortion, or unwarrantable and
exorbitant exactions in our commercial dealings. Nor is it at all clear
that the charge was absolutely or entirely groundless.—These
circumstances appear from the following document in the Hall-books.—
“Jan. 12th. 1704–5. Whereas Petitions have been lately exhibited to
the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament by the Deputy
Leuftenants, Justices of the Peace, Gentlemen and Inhabitants of the
Countys of Bedford and Huntingdon, complaining of great duties and
payments exacted by this town of Lynn by force of pretended By-Laws
on all such sea coales brought into this port as are not consumed in
this town, and for that under a pretence of a certain custome of
_Foreign bought and foreign sold_ all masters of ships and others not
free of this corporation who bring in coales are compelled to lye
three market days after arrival before they are permitted to sell
their coales to any person whatsoever; and after they have layn such
time yet they are permitted to sell to non but Freemen and
inhabitants of the burgh at their own prices, whereby all other
traders in Sea coales are discouraged, that trade monopolised there,
and the prices raised to an excessive rate, and that the freemen and
inhabitants thereby make exorbitant gains to themselves, to the great
oppression of the petitioners and diminution of the queen’s revenue,
which custom and practices are contrary to divers laws and statutes,
viz. 9th of Ed. 3 and 25th. Ed. 3. and 11th. Rd. 2. and therefore
pray to be relieved against them.—And whereas the matters in said
petition are referr’d to a private committee it is ordered that
Councell be taken in said case, and that such concession and
disclaims {880a} be made before the committee or otherwise as by our
Burgesses in Parliament with advice of such Councell shall be thought
reasonable touching the duty of 8_d._ per Chalder and compelling
Strangers ships to lye 3 days mentioned in the said case, and to act
farther therein as they shall see cause, _saving_ to this corporation
the ancient _custome of fforeign bought of foreign sold_, and the
_duty_ 4_d._ _per chalder_ time out of mind received and injoyed.”
{880b}
How this affair terminated we have not been able to ascertain.
Soon after the affair just now mentioned another circumstance transpired
which had a still more serious aspect on our corporation, as it seemed to
involve them in a kind of dispute with the crown itself, and to threaten
them with a repetition of former alarming regal procedures, or another
deprivation of their charters and municipal franchises. A process was
accordingly commenced against them on the part of their sovereign, for
the embezzlement, or non-payment of certain royal dues; and it is thus
noticed in their own records—“June 13th. 1705; upon reading a writt
directed to the sheriffe of this county, for seizing into Her Majesties
hands the liberties of this Burgh, for default of entering claims, and
answering and accounting for the debts, fines, and forfeitures due to Her
Majestie arising within this Burgh. It is this day ordered that the Town
Clerke forthwith take care to cause appearance to the said writt, and
such other matters be performed as are incumbent on the mayor and
burgesses.”—It is not said what was the result, but it may be supposed to
have ended favourably, though, probably, not without absolute submission
and great expense. But for any disloyalty that might be alleged against
them in this instance, they seem to have made ample amends by their
memorable address to the throne in 1706, which shall be given in the next
section.
Among the advantages enjoyed formerly by the minister of the town, or the
vicar of St. Margaret’s parish, was that of a _parsonage house_ for his
habitation. This house was situated in _Webster’s row_, or Broad street.
For sometime before the period of which we are now speaking there seems
to have been some doubt, whether this house belonged to the corporation,
or to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich. But now, during the deanship of
the celebrated _Dr. Prideaux_, the Dean and Chapter expressly
relinquished their claim in favour of the corporation. But this is
supposed to have proved to succeeding ministers an unfortunate
relinquishment: for it does not seem that they had any longer an
appropriate mansion in the town, but were obliged to shift for
themselves, and procure a dwelling as they could, like the rest of the
inhabitants. How the corporation came to deprive the minister of his
parsonage house we have not learnt.—Of this affair the following notice
occurs in the Hall-Books; “August 29. 1705; It appeareth by old deeds
that the minister’s house in Webster’s Row belongeth to the mayor and
burgesses, and Dr. Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, by his Letter produced doth
disclaim the same, as never in possession of the Dean and Chapter of
Norwich.”