Part 12

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.