Part 14

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}

SECTION II.

_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.