Part 39

{749} The cart was overturned on the 5th of May, 1808. On the following Sunday Evening, the 8th of the same month, as the minister of the parish informs us, “a considerable number of people assembled together, as it grew dark, and taking with them the young women ridiculously supposed to be bewitched, about ten o’clock proceeded to the house of _Wright Izzard_, which stands alone at some distance from the body of the village. When they arrived at this solitary spot, so favourable for the execution of their villanous designs, they broke into the poor man’s house, dragged his wife out of bed, and threw her naked into the yard; where her arms were torn with pins, her head was dabbed against the large stones of the causeway—and her face, stomach, and breast were severely bruised with a thick stick that served as a bar to the door. Having thus satisfied themselves, the mob dispersed. The woman then crawled into her house, put on her clothes and went to the constable, who said, he could not protect her, because he was not sworn.” The humanity, protection, and assistance which she could not find at the constable’s very happily for herself she found under the roof of a poor widow; who unlocked her door at the first call, wrapped up her neighbour’s bleeding arms with the nicest linen rags she had, affectionately sympathized with and comforted her, and gave her a bed. But, horrible to relate! the compassion and kindness of this poor woman, were the means of shortening her days. “The protectors of a witch are just as bad as the witch, and deserve the same treatment!” cried the infatuated and savage populace, the next morning. This so affected and terrified the poor companionate widow that she actually died soon after.—The next evening, that of Monday the 9th of May, Ann Izzard was a second time dragged out of her house, when her arms were again torn with pins till they streamed afresh with blood. Alive the next morning, and apparently likely to survive this attack also, her enemies resolved to have her _ducked_, as soon as the labour of the day was over. On hearing this, she hastily quitted her home, and took refuge in the house of the minister of the parish; where the vile wretches durst not follow her.—The worthy clergyman, for taking her part, and becoming her protector, lost the good opinion, and incurred the detestation of a great part of his parishioners; and if he and his friends had not had recourse to the strong arm of the law it is impossible to say where the madness would have ended.—See Preface to a sermon against Witchcraft, preached in the parish church of Great Paxton, July 17. 1808. By the rev. J. _Nicholson_, curate of that parish.

{751} Of these occurrences, one relates to a certain farmer, not far off, with his neighbours, and a _cunning man_ whom he went to consult on an interesting occasion.—It was intended to relate it somewhat circumstantially, as it proves the general belief in Witchcraft which still prevails among our country people: but for certain reasons, needless here to mention, we refrain for the present.—Another of those occurrences appertains to the _town_, and to such of its inhabitants who profess to think most freely for themselves, and to search most diligently after truth.—How little these good people have yet got beyond their blind and boorish country neighbours in some important points of doctrine, and how unlikely they are at present ever to make much progress in scriptural or religious knowledge, will appear from the mighty offence or alarm which many of them are said to have taken at a late attempt of one of their ministers to correct some of their absurd and stupid notions relating to the _devil_. Among these devout alarmists, or rather at their head, are said to be the revd. S. N. and the revd. I. A. two gentlemen of about equal respectability, as well as equal profoundness of understanding. But why need we to wonder at any thing of the kind at Lynn?—it is not very long ago since some of these very people took upon them to pronounce a certain case of _insanity_ to be verily a case of _diabolical possession_: and as they thought the demon to be of that kind that would not go out but by _prayer_ and _fasting_, they actually kept praying and fasting meetings for the express purpose of dislodging the foul fiend!—But these follies may, perhaps, be more properly castigated when we come to exhibit the _present state_ of the town. We will therefore defer, till then, the final execution of the business. But it is really most disgusting to think, after the millions this nation pays annually to its moral and religious instructors, how ignorant the greatest part of the people still are. Most of these instructors must either be ignorant themselves, or desirous that the people should continue so. In either case, it is a shameful consideration.—With _ten_ or _twelve thousand_ pastors of our national church, and two rich and famous universities, nurseries of new pastors, all maintained at an annual expense, perhaps, of no less than _ten millions sterling_: (not to mention the numerous pastors and teachers belonging to all our other sects, maintained also at _no small_ expense,)—with all these, we will venture to say, our country ought to be much better taught, and in a far more enlightened state than it now is. But while our pastors and teachers are either too ignorant to enlighten the people, or influenced by hypocrisy, fear, or worldly policy, so as to be loth to disturb the minds or offend their bigoted hearers, by attacking their favourite errors and endeavouring to undeceive them, there seems but little chance of our ever getting much further informed or enlightened.

{759a} It was a perfect Helter Skelter, no doubt; but it was well it passed so harmlessly.

{759b} In the same MS. it is added, that “a night or two before the surrender, most of the powder and shott were conveyed away by some of the town”—It was well, the commissioners of the besieging army, at the ensuing treaty, did not know of this, or they would probably have imposed upon the town much harder terms.

{760a} Rushworth.

{760b} Page 182.

{762a} Those sufferings, as to _loss of lives_, seem to have been inconsiderable: even during the siege we hear of but _four_ of the townsmen _killed_, and a _few wounded_. They made not many _sallies_, nor did they wait till the town was _stormed_, or the case might have been very different. We have seen no account of the loss of the _besiegers_.

{762b} We do not presume that our list is yet complete: many more murders for what was called _witchcraft_, were probably committed here than we know of.

{764} Near two years after the above visit from Cromwell, _Sir Thomas Fairfax_ appears to have visited this town: accordingly the following memorial of it stands in the town books—“Feb. 17, (1644,5.) ordered that Mr. Basset, chamberlain, shall pay for the Sack and Sugar at the entertainment of Sir Tho. Fairfax to this Towne.”

{765a} His name is differently spelt.

{765b} This plainly shews it had been previously customary to allow the members so much per diem, or appoint them daily wages while they attended their duty in parliament: and it was no doubt very right and proper, though it has been long ago discontinued.

{765c} The mayor and corporation had before, it seems, taken upon themselves to send whom they pleased to parliament, without allowing the freemen at large to have any voice on the occasion. But the members sent to that parliament appear to have been chosen by the freemen at large: and they were _the first ever so chosen here_; as we learn from one of the old MSS.

{766} It seems by this, that the members had been used to receive their pay at the _close_ of each session, and not before.

{767} They had also, about two months before, lent the parliament 100_l._ out of the _town-stock_, as appears from the town records.

{768} The celebrated and patriotic _Andrew Marvell_, member for _Hull_, who died in 1678, is said to have been the last who received an allowance from his constituents for his parliamentary services.

{769} Presuming that a view of some of the principal documents on which the above statement is founded may prove acceptable and satisfactory to the reader, the author takes the liberty of introducing them here from a MS. Volume of extracts from the town-books, in the handwriting of one of the former aldermen, whence some of the preceding quotations have also been drawn.—With regard to the _short_ parliament of 1640 we meet in this MS. the following Note—

“March 13. (1639, 40.) This day Mr Mayor, (Thomas Toll Esq) brought in and caused to be openly read in the House a Warrant or precept directed to him from Thomas Windham Esq. High Sheriffe of this county of Norfolk, to elect and choose according to Law two Burgesses for this Burgh to serve in the parliament summon’d to be holden at Westminster on the 13th April next coming: and Mr. _Mayor_, the _Aldermen_ and _Common Councell_ have now accordingly chosen Mr. Doughty and Mr. Gurlyn, two Aldermen of the said burgh, to be burgesses to serve in the said parliament for this borough; and have agreed that Indentures shall be presently made and sealed according to law between the High Sherife and the said Electors: and yt is farther ordered and agreed, that the said two Burgesses, during their service in the said parliament, shall have payd and allowed them, by the town, for their wages, five shillings a day apiece. (Wm. Doughty and Th. Gurlyn were the eldest Aldermen.”)

Of the election for the ensuing, or long parliament the following notice occurs—

“1640, October, 12th. This day two Letters were by Mr. Mayor (Wm. Doughty Esq.) offered and read in the House, the one sent to the mayor, Aldermen, and burgesses, by the Earle of Arundell, Lord Gridall, the other to Mr. Mayor himselfe, the effect of both Lrs. being to elect a burgess to serve in the next insuing parliament, Contain[ing] whom his lordship hath nominated in his said Letter, and that it is unanimously agreed by this House, that they will choose no other burgesses to serve in parliament but only such as are resident and inhabitants within the Corporation.”

In this instance the Corporation discovered what may be called a dignified and independent spirit; and what was no less to their credit, they also discovered a regard for rectitude and equity, in allowing the freemen at large, as was before hinted, to have a voice now, for the very _first time_, in the election of their representatives. Of the parliaments of 1653, 1654, and 1656 we have spoken already: Of that of 1658, or rather 1659, we have the following notice in the same book—

“December 31. (1658.) This day Mr. Mayor (Henry Bell) brought into this house a precept to him directed, from John Hedley Esq. Sherife of Norfolk for election of two burgesses to serve in the next parliament, to be holden upon the 27th. January next, for this burrough of King’s Lynn, which was read in this House, and it is thereupon ordered that the election of the said burgesses to sitt in parliament be made _in this House by the members of this House according to the antient custome_, on the 3rd January next, and that publication and warning thereof be made, to the end all persons concerned in the same election may take notice thereof.”

Four days after, the following note occurs, relating to the same election—

“January 3rd. Whereas severall burgesses of this burrough, _of the commons at large_, have made their requests to this House, that they might be admitted to join with this House in the election of burgesses to sitt in the next parliament, it is ordered that the resolves of the Committee of Priviledges of the last parliament, and the Parliament’s orders thereon concerning elections be first read to them.”

Then it is added—

“This day upon further debate, it being adjudged by this House that the right of election of the burgesses is at present in this House, according to the aforesaid order, it is therefore ordered that this House doe proceed to an election accordingly: and that in case the Commons at large shall after such election persist in their desires to have the Precept for the elections of burgesses to be read unto them, that the same be read unto them accordingly, for their satisfaction.”

Then it is added in another paragraph, as before—

“This day the Mayor, Aldermen, and common Councel have elected and chosen Mr. Th. Toll, one of the aldermen of this burrough and Capt. Griffith Loyd to be burgesses for this burrough in the next parliament to be holden the 27th instant.”

Next after this we read as follows—

“January 5th. This day by order of this House the Common Seal is taken out of the Treasury and affixed unto ane Indenture for the election of Mr. Alderman Toll and Capt. Griffith Loyd to be burgesses in the next parliament for this Burrough of King’s Lynn.”

Thus the affair then ended, and the freemen at large were excluded from any share or concern in the election.

{774a} We accordingly find the following items in one of the Church books within the first year after the siege—

_Received by virtue of severall warrants from Mr. John May maior_.—1644, July 13 Of I. Hinderson, 00_l._ 01_s._ 00_d._ ostler, for an oath sweareing in Mr. mayor’s hearing Dec. 23. Of Mihill Turner, 00. 10. 00. alehousekeeper, for suffering tippling in his house Dec. 24. Of John Say, 00. 10. 00. alehousekeeper, levied for the same offence Mar. 6. Of John Pratt, dier, 00. 03. 04. for tippleing in the said John Saves house Mar. 7. Of Margarett Freeman, 00. 10. 00. alehousekeeper, for suffering tipling in her house Mar. 15. Of Phillip Murrell for 00. 05. 00. loytring in time of church service on a Lords Day Mar. 16. Of Richard Porter, 00. 01. 00. pinner, for an apprentice boy of his offending in the like

This is the first account we meet with of these proceedings here; but a great deal in the same way occurs in the memoranda of succeeding years.

{774b} See Abstract of Town-books under 1650.

{775} Under that year the following articles occur in the church-warden’s accounts, May 6. (received) from Hillar Browne, by the hands of Capt. Wm. Mann, levied upon the said Hillar Browne by him, for profanely swearing seven oathes, 7_s._

July 9. Levied by vertue of a warrant from Mr. John May maior, by distraining and selling twelve puter platters of the goods of Wm. Churston, for that the said Wm. and Jone his wife were convicted for profanely swearing each ten oathes, 1_l._

{776} Under 1646 we find as follows—

April 18. Levied upon Roger Gaunt by virtue of a warrant from Mr Edward Robinson, maior, for neglecting and refusing to serve overseer being chosen, 1_l._

Nov. 4. Levied upon Peter Dixon, a baker, by warrant from Tho. Toll, maior, for travelling on the Lord’s day 10_s._ whereof 12_d._ to John Gray informer.

Nov. 22. Levied upon one Smith, a smith, of Wisbeach, for the like offence 10_s._ whereof to a soldier that informed 12_d._ and to the Court of Guard 12_d._

Nov. 23. Levied upon William Tabbott and Francis Pollard for the like offence 20_s._ whereof to John Rainer and William Disborough informers 2_s._ 6_d._

Nov. 24. Levied upon Mr. William Edwards of Swinstead, for the like offence 10_s._ whereof to Thomas Lyny, a soldier, informer, was given 12_d._

Feb. 9. Levied upon Daniell Rose for drunkeness 5_s._ and for 3 oathes sworne before Mr. maior 3_s._ but because he was poor he had 4_s._ given him, as to the poor.

Feb. 24. Levied upon a servant of William Marches, innkeeper, for convicted drunkenness 5_s._

March 10. Levied upon James Yates for 2 oathes 2_s._ whereof to Miles Lawes, poor lame and blind, 12_d._

March 12. Levied upon a stranger at Peeter Lawes, innkeeper, for travilling on a fast day, 5_s._

March 26. Levied upon another stranger, for the same offence, 5_s._ to Brian Middleton, informer, 12_d._

Aprill 15. Levied more upon Richard Paule, alehousekeeper, for suffering tipling in his house, 10_s._

May 22. Levied more upon the said Richard Paule, alehousekeeper, for breaking of the assize of beere for six quarts 6_l._ convicted by oath of John Gibson, woolcomber.—More upon Katherine the wife of the said Rich: Paule, for swearing ten oathes, 10_s._

May 24. Levied upon Thomas Forster, Christopher Pert, and Dorothy Goreing widdow, three alehousekeepers, for drawing beere without licence, each of them 20_s._—3_l._

June 22, Levied upon a stranger, for profanely sweareing one oath, 1_s._

July 21 Levied upon Edward Arther, alias Logstone, and John Mason, alehousekeepers, for drawing beere without licence, each of them 20_s._

July 26. Levied more upon William Medcalfe, alehousekeeper, for the same offence 1_l._

Oct. 15. Levied upon William Greene, alehousekeeper, for the same offence 1_l._

{779} “_Mony collected in St. Margaret’s Church for charitable uses by breifes_, _since the feast of Easter_ 1653, _to the feast of Easter_ 1654, _by the then present Churchwardens_, _for the said yeare_, _Thomas Grinnell and Robart Greene_.

Imprimis—Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Drayton_ in Shropsheire, for a loss sustained by fyre, and paid the 13th. of October 1653, to Robt. Blessed of King’s Lynn 1_l._ 17_s._ 4_d._

Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Newmarkett_, in Southfolk, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 9th. of February, 1653, to George Howard of the same towne, 1_l._ 9_s._ 3_d._

Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Long Sutton_, in the county of Lincolnsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre, and paid the 28th. of Febr. 1653: to Elizabeth Plunkett of the same towne 1_l._ 13_s._

Collected for the poore inhabitants of the towne of _Bungaye_, in Southfolke, for a losse sustained by fyre, 1_l._ 15_s._—[N.B. This is said not to have been paid; but no reason is assigned for that.]

Collected for the poore inhabitants of _Malborowe_, in Wiltsheire, for a losse sustained by fyre: 224 houses and a church being consumed by the said fyre, which losse did amount to 70,000_l._ and was collected in the church, and paid 11th. of March 1653, to John Basset Esq. then maior, appointed to receive the same, the sum of 6_l._ 13_s._ 10_d._

Collected for the natives and distressed people of _Newe England_, and that from house to house, within this parish, and paid unto Mr. Joshua Greene the 20th. of November 1653, 25_l._ 13_s._

“_Moneys collected in St. Margaret’s Church for charitable uses_, _in the year_ 1654.

Collected for the inhabitants of _Glosco_, (Glasgow) in Scotland, for a losse sustained by fyre to the vallew of 1,000000_l._ the 23d. of Aprill 1654, which was paid unto Mr. John Basset, then maior, the sume of 3_l._ 10_s._ 10_d._

Collected for a Greation, (grecian) towards the redemption of those that were prisoners in _Argeare_ (Algier): their ransome amounting to 12,000 dollers; and paid unto him 13th. Sept. 1654. 5_l._ 4_s._ 6_d._

Collected (again) for the towne of _Drayton_, county of Salop, for a losse by fyre, and paid unto Pollicarpus Tooke, the 4th. of February 1654, 2_l._ 3_s._ 1_d._

Collected by the ministers and church-wardens, from house to house, for the poore Prodestance (protestants) in _Savoy_, the 17th. of June 1655, and paid to Mr. Tho. Greene, then maior, 47_l._ 15_s._ 9_d._

Among subsequent collections we find 10_l._ 1_s._ for the relief of the distressed protestants in _Poland_.

{783} The number, if we mistake not, is _eight_; the _recorder_, _three_ aldermen, and _four_ common-council-men. What blame is imputable to them, may not be easy to say. We are willing to suppose it may not be very much; at least, not so much as what belongs to their resident brethren, who have it in their power to strike off their names from the list of members: and though it may not be of any material consequence to the community at large if they be still continued on the list of members, or if _eight_, or even _eighteen_ more were to become absentees and retain their respective memberships; yet in point of good policy it may not be quite the thing, lest the _unprivileged_ part of the townsmen should by decrees take it into their heads, that it would be no very serious cause of alarm if the whole corporation, except the mayor, recorder, and town clerk, were to set out in a body to make the _tour of Europe_, or to perform a _voyage round the world_.

{787} We also learn that the _expense_ at this period _of taking up one’s freedom_ in this town (according to ancient custom) amounted to only 7_s._ 3_d._ which was divided as follows, viz. To the prisoners 4_d._—to the poor 1_s._—to the officers 1_s._—to Mrs. Mayoress 1_s._—to the town-clerk 1_s._—for the Seal and Burgess-Letter 3_s._ 4_d._—(whereof 1_s._ 8_d._ to Mr. Mayor, and 1_s._ 8_d._ to the town-clerk,) total 7_s._ 8_d._—The expense is a good deal more now; but to those who obtain their freedom by inheritance, or servitude, it is far from being exorbitant.

{790} See Laing’s excellent History of Scotland, where the fact here alluded to is clearly stated and established.

{792a} Kimber.

{792b} Ibid.

{796a} Hist. Purit. IV. 270.

{796b} In 1657 and 1658 our reforming magistrates carried on their rigorous measures with so high a hand that not a few of the drawers, or publicans, were heavily fined, and 30 of them, as was said before, actually imprisoned. No less than 300 _tickets_ were also, in the mean time, issued or given out against different defaulters, as we learn from one of the MS. accounts of that period.

{797} They were not all, it seems, the daughters of respectable or opulent families: 200 of them, if we rightly understand one of our MSS. were poor girls, clothed at the expense of Captain Wharton and Mr. Kirby, two newly restored aldermen, and both flaming royalists. It was very natural for the young girls to be then brisk and joyful, if it were only to find themselves unexpectedly, and all of a sudden, so well and gayly clad. The other hundred lasses may be supposed to have been clothed at their own expense, or that of their parents and friends.

{800} The following hints from Kimber may serve to throw some further light on the above Address and the circumstances that led to it.