Part 18

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.

SECTION VII.

_Great chancery suit here about_ 1738—_violent storm or hurricane in_ 1741—_its effects here and in the adjacent country—the damages here repaired—perilous state then of the river and harbour—rebellion breaking out in_ 1745—_its effects in this town—its progress—suppressed after the battle of Culloden—reflections thereon—subsequent events relating to Lynn to the end of that reign—state of the nation—accession of George III_.

About the time of which we have been speaking, our Corporation had a great suit in Chancery with one of their own principal members; and however justifiable or unjustifiable it might be, a falling out among brethren must be allowed to be, at any time and on any occasion, a very unpleasant occurrence. Our knowledge of this unlovely affair is derived from the following luminous passage in our book of Extracts—“Dec. 22. 1738; Whereas there was lately a suit depending in Chancery between the mayor and burgesses and Robt. Britiffe Esq. their trustee, against alderman Thomas Allen, (which was the 7th. Octr. 1738, agreed that Mr. Serjeant Urlin, Chas. Clarke Esq. and Mr. Tho. Nutting be appointed Referees to arbitrate) for the recovery of the ancient customary payment of 1_d._ per quarter for corn sold by the said Tho. Allen, upon contracts made by him with other merchants, not being freemen, for shipping such corn at a price certain, clear of all charges. Said Mr. Allen hath agreed to pay not only all the arrears for all corn he shipped off out of this port, where the same was not really his own risque and adventure, but in all future times to pay the said dues for all corn which he shall contract for and sell to any persons not being freemen of the said borough, which shall be exported out of the said borough by water.” In this suit the corporation evidently got the better of their opponent; but this is far from having been invariably the case in all their law-suits, as has before appeared in the course of this work.

The year 1741 was rendered very remarkable and memorable in this town and country, on account of a violent storm, or hurricane, which then happened, and did great damage to the churches and other buildings. It arose on the 8th of September O. S. and blew down the spires of St. Nicholas’ chapel, and St. Margaret’s Church, and demolished a great part of the body of the latter. The following memoranda, written at that period, will further describe the awful effects of this disastrous visitation. Among our Extracts, so often quoted, it is noted as follows under the date of Sept. 9. 1741; “The Hurrycane yesterday blew down the spire and body of St. Margaret’s Church; also the spire of St. Nicholas’s Chappell.” And in another place, but of the same date, it is thus noted—“That whereas the Hurricane yesterday blew down St. Margaret’s spire and part of the Church, application be made to Sir Robert Walpole to procure ane act of parliament for rebuilding the same.” But a more particular account of the effects of this furious tempest we have found written on a blank leaf, at the end of a copy of the history of the great storm in 1703. It is in the handwriting of a Mr. _Tho. Peirson_, a clergyman, if we are not mistaken, whose property the book probably was, and it runs as follows—

“M E M. That on Tuesday 8. Sept. 1741, about 20 minutes after 12 at noon, was a most violent storm of wind and rain, which blew down St. Margarett’s Church Steeple and St. Nicholas at Lynn Regis, with the Weather-cock, &c. of All-Hallows Church in South Lynn, {920} Norfolk. Also the great West gabble-end, with a very large stack of chimneys, and the Weather-Hand of Middleton-Hall—And a great barn belonging to Henry Whiteman’s Farm at Tilney, with a small barn belonging to Thos. Cricks Farm at Outwell, in the Isle of Ely, the property of Me.—Besides divers other buildings in Marshland; and great damage was done to the Timber and others Trees in the country about Lynn and Downham.

_Ita Testor_. _Tho: Peirson_.”

The damages sustained here from this storm were all in time repaired: those of St. Margaret’s Church, it seems, by virtue of an act of parliament. One of our MS. narratives informs us that the rebuilding of that church was begun in 1742, during the mayoralty of Edward Everard, and completed in 1747, during that of Walter Robertson; so that it appears to have been about five years in rebuilding. But the new, or present church, like Ezra and Nehemiah’s new temple at Jerusalem, is said to be much inferior to the former, in point of dimension, as well as beauty and magnificence. It may be supposed however, that the _pardons_ or _indulgences_ offered to the contributors towards the old edifice, procured ampler funds for its completion than the _act of parliament_ that was obtained for completing the new.

It would seem as if our very river and harbour had not entirely escaped the effects of that storm, and even that it did, or occasioned some very material damage to them; at least, there were great complaints made just after, of the bad and very perilous state to which they were then reduced. This will appear from the following passage, extracted from the Town Records—

“Sept. 9. 1741 agreed that the defences in sundry places of the Harbour are become insufficient to confine the fflux and reflux of the Tide, so that the Port and Harbour will soon be lost—That the two points of land on the east and west side of the river about a mile below the town are worn away by the rage of the sea, so that Marshland on one hand, and Gaywood and Wooton and all the low-lands thereabouts on the other, are in danger of being swallowed up by the sea—That, to guard against the flux and reflux, Piers are conceived to be absolutely necessary to be placed both above and below Lynn, for the preservation of the Town as well as the Port and Harbour.”

Shortly after another meeting was held at the Hall on the same occasion; which is thus noticed in the same Extracts—“Octr. 15. 1741, Sir John Turner, bart. is desired to write to Sir Robert Walpole, to recommend a Surveyor to view the Harbour, and to draw a report thereof, in order to have the same laid before parliament.”—Three weeks after, the result of this application to the minister is thus announced—“Nov. 5th. Sir John Turner acquainted that he had received a Letter from Sir Robt. Walpole, recommending Mr. Roswell, then at Hull, to survey the Harbour; and he is accepted and approved of to be Surveyor, and B. Nuthall Esq. or his Deputy, Mr. Recorder, aldermen Goodwin, Allen, Farthing, Bagge—Mr. Hulton, Everard, Langley, or any five or more to be a committee to prepare instructions for him.”—again—“Dec. 14. 1741; Ordered 21_l._ to be presented to Mr. Rodwell [_so the name is spelt here_:] for his trouble and advice in matters relating to the Harbour and South Marsh.”—Furthermore—“Febr. 24 1741–2;—Mr. Wm. Reynolds presented his report touching his survey of the Harbour, together with ane estimate of the charges in the erecting of two Piers which he proposes for the restoration and preservation thereof, which is approved off.”

Afterwards we hear no more of this business, for nine months or more. Then we find it further noticed as follows—

“Novr. 29th. 1742; Ordered that application be made to parliament for the preservation of the channel and harbour of this Port and Borough, which are in danger of being lost.—The schemes of Mr Rosewell and Mr. Reynolds being read and approved of, it is agreed that the same be carryed into execution, and this House hath agreed to resolve itselfe into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of ways and means for raising moneys, by laying such rates and duties on goods and merchandizes imported into, and exported out of this Port, or by such other ways as they shall think proper for the effectuall carrying those schemes into execution, for preserving the channel and harbour aforesaid and rendring the same usefull and safe for navigation.”

What beneficial effects resulted from the above measures we have not been able to discover. Nor do our Extracts afford us any further information relating to the subject, except what is suggested in the following passage—“Dec. 19. 1744; A Committee [was appointed] to view the state of the banks, in Gaywood and Wooton, lying against the sea—and to view the breach made in the South Marsh bank, by the rageing tides, and enquire if the corporation may desert the lands lying upon the banks, and whether by such desertion the corporation will be discharged from the repairing said banks.”—This passage discovers more selfishness than public spirit. They seemed disposed to let the banks remain unrepaired, and take no further care of them, whatever might be the consequence to the country, provided they could be sure it might be done with perfect safety, or without any pecuniary risk to themselves. This is in the true corporation character.

The next year (1745) was very memorably distinguished by the rebellion, which then broke out in Scotland in favour of the pretender, or the son of James II.

“On the 6th of August this year some notices having been communicated to the government of such an attempt, aided by the French Court, a proclamation was published, offering a reward of 30,000_l._ for apprehending and securing the eldest son of the pretender, in case he should land, or attempt to land, in any of his majesty’s dominions. On the 17th. an account arrived, that several persons had landed between the islands of _Mull_ and _Skie_, one of whom it was supposed was the pretender’s Son. On September 5, his majesty sent notice to the lord mayor of London, that the pretender’s eldest son had landed in Scotland, and that several persons had assembled there and broke out into open rebellion.

“Soon after advice arrived, that the rebels had marched Southward. On the 13th. they passed the Forth, five miles above Stirling, and on the 17th. took possession of the city of Edinburgh. By that time general _Cope_ with his army landed at Dunbar, and began to march towards that capital. The rebels did not wait to be attacked by him, but came out to meet him, and on the 21st. at daybreak, they attacked him at _Preston Pans_, seven miles east of Edinburgh, and totally defeated him, making most of his infantry prisoners. The dragoons made their escape to _Berwick_, with little loss, save that of the brave _Colonel Gardiner_. These advantages on the side of the rebels spread a general consternation throughout the kingdom; but all ranks and orders, as we are told, vied with each other in displaying their loyalty, and abhorrence of this unnatural rebellion.”

Many associations were now entered into for the support of his majesty’s crown and dignity, and the constitution in church and state. A large body of _British_, _Dutch_, and _Hessian_ troops were brought over from Flanders: and the success of the rebellion, and dread of a threatened invasion from France, having caused a great run upon the Bank, 1100 merchants and eminent tradesmen met, and subscribed their names to an agreement, not to refuse bank-notes in any payment to be made to them.—On Oct. 18. the duke of Cumberland arrived from Flanders, and set out on Nov. 26. to take upon him the command of the army, then on its march into Lancashire. For the rebels, having increased to 8,000, had left _Edinburgh_, on October 26, and on November 15. the city of _Carlisle_ was surrendered to them. On the 24th. without any molestation, they arrived at _Lancaster_, and on the 29th. took possession of _Manchester_, where they formed into a regiment those who had joined them in England. In the beginning of December they left _Manchester_ and advanced to _Congleton_, as if they intended to meet and engage the Duke of Cumberland, whose advanced guard was then at _Newcastle-under-Line_. But they suddenly turned off to the left, and marched into _Derbyshire_, seeming to have an intention to slip by the duke, and take their way directly to London.

When this news reached the metropolis it occasioned the greatest consternation imaginable; the run upon the Bank and depression of the public Funds became very great and alarming; but recourse was immediately had to such measures as were thought most proper towards remedying those evils, and frustrating the supposed intention of the dreaded enemy. On the 4th. of December, the rebels entered the town of _Derby_, and soon, after contrary to expectation, began to retreat northward by the rout they came. Such was the panic with which the nation was then seized, that it was thought if they had proceeded straight to London, they might have entered and mastered it with little or no opposition. There were then no bands of armed citizens, as at some other periods; and the troops stationed there and thereabout, were now ordered to march and form a camp upon _Finchley-common_: but had the rebels appeared, they would probably have behaved no better than their brethren had done at _Preston Pans and Falkirk_.

In the meantime, the general panic and alarm, as might be supposed, extended even to Lynn, and produced here very remarkable and whimsical effects. No sooner was it known that the rebels were at _Derby_, than it was concluded, by our wise men, that they certainly meant to visit this town, in their way to the metropolis. And as it was judged that they would attempt to enter at the South-Gate, or that the town was most vulnerable on that side, it was deemed necessary to strengthen that part by constructing there some new outworks. In this service great numbers of the inhabitants cheerfully engaged. The late Mr. _Philip Case_ was then mayor. His worship and the whole corporate body turned out on this occasion, and took their places among the numerous workmen, with spades, shovels, and pickaxes in their hands, assisting with all their might towards the completion of what was supposed so necessary a measure for the effectual defence and preservation of the town.

But these extraordinary exertions of our patriotic townsmen did not long continue, being soon rendered unnecessary, by the arrival of undoubted intelligence, that the rebels had no immediate design upon these parts, and were actually in full retreat towards Scotland. All our fear and consternation now vanished, of course; the project for fortifying the town was instantly relinquished; every thing, in short, reverted to its usual channel, and resumed its former undisturbed and tranquil appearance. But, if our traditional information may be relied upon, there occurred here, during the bustling and alarming interval, some very queer and ludicrous incidents, which some of our ancient townsmen often relate, with much pleasantry and good humour, as what would seem less creditable to the wisdom, the sagacity, and the fortitude of their good forefathers of that period, than to their loyalty, or their patriotism. {927}

The rebellion existed for several months after its dread had ceased to be felt in this town. As soon as the duke got notice of the retreat of the rebels, he set out in pursuit of them, with all the horse in his army, and about a thousand foot soldiers mounted on horseback. Marshal _Wade_ also, who commanded a separate corps, detached a considerable body of cavalry, under general _Oglethorpe_ for the same purpose. On December 18th. the duke came up with the rear of the rebels at _Clifton_, in Northumberland, where he obtained some advantage over them. On the 30th. he retook _Carlisle_, after a siege of nine days, making the garrison prisoners. Their main army had by that time reached Scotland, to which kingdom the rebellion was thenceforth entirely confined till its final suppression after the battle of _Culloden_.

On Jan. 5, 1746, the duke returned to St. James’s; and on the 17th. of that month, the rebels defeated the king’s forces commanded by general _Hawley_, near _Falkirk_, though the latter were much superior in numbers. Upon this misfortune, it was thought expedient the duke should take upon him the command of the army in Scotland. He accordingly left London for that purpose, and arrived at Edinburgh on the 30th. of that month. The rebels, who had laid siege to the castle of _Stirling_, then retreated, and the duke followed them, as fast as the severity of the season and badness of the roads would permit, and arrived at _Aberdeen_ on the 27th of February. Meantime the rebels reduced the Castle of _Inverness_ and Fort _Augustus_, and laid siege also to Fort _William_, and _Blair_ Castle, of Athol, but failed in both those attempts. On the 8th. of April the duke left _Aberdeen_, and on the 14th. arrived at _Nairn_; and being there assured that the rebels were encamped at _Culloden_ House, near _Inverness_, he rested the whole of the 15th. at _Nairn_, to refresh his men. That night the rebels marched, with intent to attack him before daylight; but failed, through some mismanagement; whereupon they returned to _Culloden_, resolving, in that station, to wait for their pursuers.

The duke, on the 16th. left _Nairn_, between 4 and 5 in the morning; and at two in the afternoon the engagement began. The rebels obtained some advantage at first, but were soon thrown into confusion and totally defeated, with great slaughter, and circumstances of unusual barbarity, which exposed the duke to much censure, especially from our northern countrymen, and procured him the reproachful appellation of the _bloody butcher_. Others, however, hailed him as the saviour of the country, and a pattern of every patriotic and princely excellence; and he ever after possessed, especially in these southern parts, great and unrivalled popularity. The battle of Culloden put an end to every chance or hope of restoring the Stuart family, and the evils of rebellion and civil war have never since been experienced in this island.