_A view of the state of things in this town during the reign of George
II.—his accession attended with no inauspicious circumstances_; _and his
reign_, _on the whole_, _happy and prosperous—recital of some of the most
notable and prominent acts of our municipality in the earlier part of
it—account of certain subsequent proceedings and occurrences_.
The reign of George II. commenced upon the arrival of the news of his
father’s demise, which was very shortly, and within a few days after that
event had taken place. He was proclaimed in London on the 15th of June,
and at Edinburgh and Dublin on the 19th of the same month. His accession
was attended by none of those untoward appearances which beclouded that
of his predecessor. All the lords and others, the late king’s privy
councellors, were sworn of his privy council, the former ministry
retained their places, and Walpole held the premiership for fifteen years
longer; nor was he displaced at last through any dislike or prejudice
which the king had imbibed against him or his service, but by the
persevering and prevailing exertions of the opposition party, headed by
_Pulteney_, who forced him to resign, contrary to the desire or
inclination of the sovereign. His administration has been much censured,
for its systematic corruption. But that corruption never extended so far
as that of certain heaven-born ministers of more recent times; and it was
certainly employed for much better purposes. His aversion to war, and
constant endeavours to avoid it, cover a multitude of his sins: and it
was probably not so often as most people imagine that this country has
been favoured with better ministers than Sir Robert Walpole.
The reign of George II. may safely be pronounced, on the whole, one of
the most happy and prosperous in the annals of this country. The
principles of civil and religious liberty were then favoured at court,
and recognized by the sovereign, as what had seated his family on the
throne. Protestant Dissenters he considered as some of his best friends
and most faithful subjects; nor did his ministers and courtiers ever
presume to treat them with coolness and disrespect, or pretend to
entertain any doubt or suspicion of their loyalty, or their attachment to
the king and constitution, according to the principles laid down at the
revolution. In short, this reign will be contemplated with no small
pleasure by the sons of freedom, as a period when an open attachment to
civil and religious liberty, or the real rights of man, subjected no one
to the suspicion, or imputation, of being a traitor to his king and
country. How far the same may be said of our situation for the last
twenty years, is a question of which we shall not at present enter upon
the discussion.
One of the first notable acts of our municipality, after the commencement
of this reign, may be presumed to be that of addressing the throne, by
way both of condolence and congratulation; the former on the death of the
late sovereign, and the latter on the happy accession of his successor.
But as no copy of this address has fallen in our way, we cannot form any
judgment of its tenor or merit: only we are informed that our cities and
boroughs, in general, did then actually send up such addresses; and it is
not to be supposed that the same was neglected or omitted at Lynn,
especially as the prime minister himself was one of its representatives.
This address, no doubt, was sufficiently loyal, but whether or not so
eloquent and sublime as those sent up in the reign of queen Anne, must
now be left among the uncertainties, or, perhaps, even among the
inscrutables.
Not long after, or in the course of the autumn of that same year, as it
would seem, the mayor, (Mr. Tho. Allen) according to one of our
manuscript narratives, issued _an order to prohibit the barbers to shave
on Sundays_; for which we may be pretty sure his worship had not many
thanks from that fraternity. How far this order was obeyed, or did
contribute to the reformation and benefit of the town, we have not been
able to discover. The wisdom and utility of such measures appear very
questionable, and it is doubtful if they have ever answered any very good
purposes, as they seem to be ill, or not at all, calculated to convince
people of the evil of the conduct or practices against which they are
directed. Some of our mayors, of more recent days, have taken upon them
to issue similar orders, at the commencement of their mayoralty, but they
have seldom, or never, thought it proper or expedient to enforce them
throughout, or to the end of the year.
Mr John Goodwin, the mayor of the ensuing year, (1728–,) distinguished
himself, according to the same narrative, in another way, by setting down
a stone-cistern at the end of the Fish-Shambles, and also endowing one of
the Almshouses in broad Street for one poor man with two shillings a
week.—His successor, Mr. Andrew Taylor, distinguished himself still
differently: for, as the same narrative words it, “He did abundance of
good, as he thought, by taking away guns and killing of dogs; but was a
friend to the Church, which he seldom troubled.” That is, if we rightly
comprehend the meaning, he was, in talk, a mighty zealot for the Church,
though he seldom would condescend, or deem it worth his while to honour
it with his presence: which, to all thinking and discerning people, was a
sure sign and clear proof that all his noisy zeal was nothing but mere
pretence, to answer some mercenary or hypocritical end; and but for which
he in reality cared no more for the church than the most heathenish or
irreligious of his neighbours.
How many such churchmen as this Andrew Taylor have been mayors of this
town since his time, it is impossible to say; but that numbers of them
have pretended to be very stanch and zealous for the Church, while they
seldom attended its stated service, or public worship, is very certain.
That there were none of this description among the present members of the
Hall seems much to be wished; and especially that a truly and christian
spirit towards those of other denominations was more visible and
predominant among them; which yet is suspected not to have been
altogether the case at the formation or establishment of the Lancastrian
school, and in some subsequent circumstances relating to that event. But
this is not the proper place to make these matters the subjects of
inquiry, investigation, or animadversion. {912}
The successor of Taylor, Mr. Charles Harwick, who obtained the mayoralty
in 1730, had most painful scenes to engage his attention, owing to the
most shocking murder of a Mrs Ann Wright, which had been perpetrated in
the town that year, by one George Smith, aided by Mary Taylor, Mrs
Wright’s Servant, who had let him into the house in the dead of the
night. For this black and horrid deed Mary Taylor was burnt alive in the
market-place, and Smith was hanged at the same time, on a gallows
erected, as Mackerell says, seventeen yards distant from the stake. This
happened, it seems, in 1731, the latter part of Harwick’s mayoralty. The
superlative atrociousness of that bloody deed, and the dreadful
abandonment, dereliction, or depravity of mind which it discovered,
called, undoubtedly, for the most exemplary and terrible punishment, in
order to deter those of the like character from the commission of similar
crimes, as nothing else can be expected to have much effect on such, in
restraining their flagitious propensities. A virtuous principle,
however, after all, is the most powerful and effectual of all preventives
against vicious or criminal excesses, and far beyond all the terrors of
penal laws, or punitive justice. It is a great pity more care is not
taken to instill this principle as much as possible into the minds of the
rising generations
About the time last mentioned, one _John Rudkin_, a member of our
municipality, fell under the sore displeasure of his brethren, and was
eventually expelled from among them. The affair is thus related in the
Hall books—“April 26. 1731, Ordered that John Rudkin be discharged from
the office of common Councell man, unless, next Hall-day, he can shew
cause to the contrary; he having disclosed the councells of this
assembly, and the secrets of this corporation, and hath behaved
contemptuously towards the mayor (Charles Harwick Esq. {913}) and other
members, justices of this burgh, and charged some of them with
pyracy.”—again—“June 16. 1731, John Rudkin’s answer being insufficent, he
was expelled and discharged from the office of a common councell.” This
shews that our corporation, as such, have _counsels_ and _secrets_, that
are deemed very improper and criminal to disclose; which seems to look
somewhat dark and suspicious; for if all their proceedings were fair and
just, honestly and solely directed for the public good, what need could
there be to care if the whole world knew all about them?
{914}—Corporations might be beneficial in their original institution, and
in feudal times, to protect the inhabitants from baronial domination and
tyranny; but they have become long ago (for the most part, at least,)
grievous nuisances, rather than real benefits, to the British public.
At the period we are now reviewing, Lynn was by no means in a flourishing
state, as may be pretty safely concluded from the following passage in
our book of Extracts—“Dec. 23. 1731; Ordered that a memorial be sent to
the Representatives in Parliament, touching the heavy burthen upon them,
from the Land-Tax Act, and from the decrease of traders among them,
praying reliefe.”—Things must have gotten to a sad pass to bring our
high-minded corporation to so dejected and supplicating a posture. For
sometime previous and subsequent to the date of the above extract, as the
present writer has heard from ancient people who remembered the time, the
_indigence_ of Lynn was a matter of general notoriety; so that _poor
Lynn_ used to be the common appellation of the town, in the language of
the country people. It seems now to be the prevailing opinion that the
late conduct of our rulers, in subjecting the small houses to taxation,
and otherwise so unconscionably burdening the town, will soon bring
things here again to the same pass, and restore to us the humiliating
name of _poor Lynn_ once more. Our many _empty houses_ would seem to
corroborate this opinion; but we would fain hope their number will soon
decrease, and that some favourable events, or happy turn of things will
prevent such an opinion, or the fears entertained on this head being
realized.
In the times we are now exploring, our mayor was allowed to confer the
freedom of the town, on some one person whom he should think proper to
select for that purpose: hence such notices as the following occur in our
book of Extracts—“Dec. 8. 1732; Rd. Hawkins made ffree, as the mayor’s,
John Farthing’s ffreeman.”—again—“May 8. 1733; Wm. Langley, mariner, made
ffree, upon Andrew Taylor’s recommendation, not having had a ffreeman
chosen for his mayoralty, as accustomed.”—again—“May 23. 1733; Edmd.
Harwick, of Wiggenhall St. Maries, to have his ffreedom upon
recommendation of alderman John Goodwin, he not having had a ffreeman
chosen for his last mayoralty as hath been accustomed.”—About three
months after, however, our Hall suddenly resolved to discontinue this
custom, as appears from the following passage among our Extracts—“Aug.
29. 1733; Saml. Browne chosen mayor, and to have 150_l._ viz. 50_l._ for
the better carrying on the mayoralty; 50_l._ for the entertainment on
Michaelmas Day; and 50_l._ on St. John’s Day”—Then it is added—“And that
_no succeeding mayor have the liberty of naming_, _or making a ffreeman_,
_as his ffreeman_, _for the future_.” But they did not long adhere to
this order, or resolution, or persist in so self-denying a course, as we
find by another note among the same Extracts, which is expressed
thus—“May 22. 1739; The revd. Mr. Edmd. Keene had his ffreedom gratis,
_as his father’s ffreeman_.” {917} Whether or not it was very wise to
discontinue this custom, or afterwards to revive it, after it had been so
expressly and formally abolished, we will not now stop to inquire, but
shall here close this section.