Part 40

“Such was the animosity between the court and country parties at this time (1679) that it looked as if the year _Forty-One_ was going to be acted over again; which probably had been the case, if the king’s necessities had occasioned him to make the parliament perpetual, as his father had done—if Scotland had not been so effectually enslaved, by a standing army which the court kept there, that they had not power to stir—and if the bishops and clergy had been as disagreeable to most of the people as they were at that time. Besides, all the staunch episcopalians, fearing the presbyterians might again subvert the established church, forgetting the dangers of popery, joined themselves so firmly with the court, as to make it at last formidable to the other party. During the repeated prorogations of the present parliament abundance of addresses were presented from all parts to petition for its speedy sitting; which being highly distasteful to the court, means were found to have a number of _counter-addresses_, expressing the greatest _abhorrence_ of such petitions, as an infringement upon the prerogative, which they took care in their expressions to advance as high as possible. And so the nation became divided into two parties, _Petitioners_ and _Abhorrers_, soon known by the names of _Whigs_ and _Tories_, which the parties, by way of reproach, gave each other: _Tory_ being the name of an _Irish_ robber, and _Whig_ signifying sour-milk, an appellation first given to the _Scotch_ presbyterians.”

Thus it appears that the Lynn corporation were then rank _tories_, or _Abhorrers_—that is, they abhorred liberty and loved slavery. How much things have changed among us for the better since, is a question that we will not now attempt to resolve.

{803} See Mackerell 253, 254.

{805} This prince afterwards, in 1715, made an unsuccessful effort to recover the throne of his ancestors, to which he and many others thought he had so undoubted right.

{806} This was perhaps the expulsion from the Hall of the mayor, town-clerk, five aldermen, and eight common-councilmen, by order of Council, and appointing others who were thought better of (and who were among the present addressers) in their room, by royal mandate. Among the latter was _Henry Framingham_. This happened in June.

{812} It is somewhat remarkable that our present members are descended from those two gentlemen who represented the town so long ago. One of the Walpoles has represented it almost ever since, and a moiety of the representation of Lynn is now considered as almost hereditary in that family. One of our present members is generally on the _right_ and the other on the _wrong_ side in the House: for they are mostly on opposite sides.

{820} A late friend of the present writer assured him that he was once servant to her grandfather, who, if he rightly recollects, was a _baker_ at Downham. His enormous vanity, after he grew rich, caused people often to advert to the meanness of his origin.

{826} The author has a Norwich farthing of 1667, which it a year earlier than any of those of Lynn that have fallen in his way. Very few of these tokens appeared before the restoration. They became then very common for ten years or more.

{832a} 1673 according to our reckoning.

{832b} What follows is somewhat abridged occasionally.

{834} The above trial cost the people of South Lynn 42_l._ 1_s._ 1_d._—The following are some of the items of their bill of costs—“For six horses hire to Thetford 1_l._ 16_s._—Expences in our way out and home 6_s._ 6_d._—Six men’s diet and horse meat at Thetford, 1_l._ 11_s._ 5_d._”—A bill of costs or expences on a similar occasion at present, would make a very different appearance.—We cannot dismiss this subject without suggesting a wish, that this had been the very last foolish and disgraceful lawsuit that our corporation have been engaged in.

{837} Of this affair _Burnet_ speaks as follows—

“A bill of indictment was presented to the Grand Jury against Lord Shaftsbury. The Jury was composed of many of the chief citizens of London. The Witnesses were examined in open Court, contrary to the usual custom: they swore many incredible things against him, mixed with other things that looked very like his extravagant way of talking. The draught of the Association was also brought as a proof of his treason, though it was not laid in the indictment, and was proved only by one witness. The Jury returned Ignoramus upon the bill. Upon this the Court did declaim with open mouth against these juries; in which they said the spirit of the party did appear, since men even upon oath shewed they were resolved to find bills true or ignoramus as they pleased, without regarding the evidence. And upon this a new set of _addresses_ went round the kingdom, in which they expressed their abhorrence of that association found in Lord Shaftsbury’s cabinet; and complained that justice was denied the king: which were set off with all the fulsome rhetoric that the penners could varnish them with.” H. O. T. 2. 153

{838} See Burnet H. O. T. 2. 535.

{840} From the preceding extracts it appears that the corporation affected or pretended to have surrendered their old charters _voluntarily_, or as their own free and spontaneous act and deed: hence they speak of having done it _with one assent and content_—_freely surrendering_—as the _act and deed of the mayor and burgesses_, _&c._ Whereas it was all the effect of constraint, or imperious and unavoidable necessity. The same was the case with the monks and friers at the reformation, previously to the dissolution of the monasteries: they all solemnly declared, in their instruments of surrender, that they acted _freely_ and _without compulsion_, though the contrary was well known to have been invariably the fact. Thus it is very clear that the surrendering of the charters as well as of the convents was a scene of hypocrisy and falshood.

{841} The Charter here alluded to, (being the 2nd. and last of those obtained from Charles II,) contains the following clause—

“PROVIDED always, and full power and authority to Us our Heirs and Successors by these Presents we resume, and from time to time and at all times hereafter the Steward, Mayor, Recorder, Town-clerk, and all or any of the Justices of the Peace, or of the Aldermen, or of the Common-Councell, or of the Coroners of the Burgh aforesaid, or of other officers, members, or ministers of the same Burgh for the time being, at the will and pleasure of Us, or of our Heirs and Successors, by any of our order or any order of our Heirs and Successors in Privy Councell made and under the Seal of them signified respectively to remove, or to declare to be removed, and as often as We and our Heirs and Successors by any such our order made in Privy Councell declare the same Steward, Mayor, Recorder, Town-clerk, and all or any of the Justices of the Peace, of the Aldermen, and of the Common-Councell, or of the Coroners of the said Burgh for the time being, or of the other Officers, members, ministers, to be removed from their respective offices aforesaid, That then from thenceforth the Steward, Mayor, &c. &c. of the same Burgh for the time being so removed or declared to be removed from their several and respective offices, Ipso Facto and without any further process, really and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, are and shall be removed, and this as often as the case shall so happen, any thing to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”

This sufficiently shews how completely in the king’s power this memorable Charter placed our corporation, so as to be no longer any better than mere and miserable tools and vassals of the court.

{843} The _oaths_ being _dispensed with_ seems to imply that some of them were _catholics_, or that way inclined. Their places and new honours, however, they did not long retain; for about a fortnight before the arrival of the prince of Orange they were all in their turn displaced, and the old ones were restored: only _Mr. Cyprian Anderson_ was readmitted and chosen mayor. Of this event one of our old MS. histories gives the following account—

“On the 20th of October John Davy was displaced and Cyprian Anderson was chosen mayor, by reason of the king’s proclamation for restoring Corporations to their ancient rights and priviledges; at which time all those members that came in with the New Charter, or by Mandamus, were displaced, and the old ones put in again: at which sudden alterations all expressed great satisfaction, appearing by the people ringing of bells and firing of guns: and on the 22nd. Mr mayor bringing home the mayoress out of the country was met with near a hundred horsemen and received with firing of guns and ringing of bells, and all sorts of people striving to exceed in their acclamations of joy.”

Thus it appears that even Lynn, at last, came to partake in some degree of the then prevailing national aversion to the system or measures of the court.

{845a} They were again brought back and restored to their former places at the end of about eleven months; for it is noted in the Town Books, under the date of Sept. 27 1689. “The Gunns, &c. were returned from Hull.”

{845b} That nobleman, if the author is not mistaken, was the last _protestant_ duke of Norfolk before the present. He was very active after the arrival of the prince of Orange in promoting the cause of the revolution in this county, and nowhere perhaps more so than he was in this town. For we find that he came here himself on that occasion, assembled the inhabitants and harangued them, in the market-place and elsewhere, so successfully, that he seemed to have brought them over altogether to his own way of thinking before he left the town. It is therefore probable that the change which then took place in the politicks of Lynn was in no small measure owing to his exertions. A remarkable anecdote concerning him used to be related by some ancient people at Norwich 30 or 40 years ago, the substance of which was to the following purport.—

“The duke, in the summer and autumn of 1688 was suspected by James and his ministers to be inimical to their proceedings, and was therefore narrowly watched by their emissaries, of which he himself was not unconscious. He resided then chiefly at his palace in Norwich, where his evenings were generally spent with large parties of the principal inhabitants of the city and its vicinity, which consisted not merely of protestants, but also of catholics, who would not be likely to connive at, or conceal any symptoms of dissaffection or disloyalty which they might discover in his conduct. Some correspondence was said to have been carried on between him and the prince of Orange; but on some very particular occasion, not specified by the narrators of the anecdote, he wished for a personal interview with the prince. This would be a hazardous undertaking, as he was then circumstanced; yet he resolved to make the attempt. It was now about Michaelmas, or later, when the prince had collected his forces, had arranged the plan of his expedition to this country, and was preparing to embark. The Duke procured a small fast sailing vessel with all possible secrecy, which was to wait for him, at a given time, somewhere on the Norfolk coast. The very day previous to his intended embarkation, he invited a large party of his accustomed guests to spend the evening with him at Norwich, and they staid there till a late hour. As soon as they were gone, he and a trusty servant mounted their horses and rode towards the sea-coast. Not far from the spot where the vessel lay, there was a farm-house occupied by one of his tenants. When they came nigh to that house he alighted, bid his servant take the horses to the farm house and stay there till he should come to him, as he had some business to transact in the neighbourhood, and would join him as soon as possible. He then walked towards the vessel and got aboard. The wind then proving fair, he was in a few hours conveyed to the Dutch coast, nigh to the place where the prince lay encamped. He went ashore without loss of time, walked towards the tent or head quarters of the prince. But as he was going along he overheard an English soldier say to his comrade, ‘There goes the Duke of Norfolk.’ Alarmed at finding he was discovered, he walked on, apparently unconcerned; but before he got to the Head Quarters he turned aside, returned another way to the vessel, went aboard again, and immediately set sail for England. The wind now proving fair, as before, he actually reached the Norfolk coast before night, near the selfsame spot where he had before embarked. He then walked to the farm-house, remounted his horse and arrived at Norwich early in the evening. He then sent for the same party that had been the preceding evening with him, who spent that evening there as they had done the former, no one having the least idea of his extraordinary adventure. This proved a wise precaution; for the soldier’s report having reached the ears of James’s emissaries in Holland, intelligence of it was immediately conveyed to the English court, when a messenger was forthwith dispatched to Norwich to arrest the Duke. His Grace, in order to discredit, or refute the report, appealed to the parties or guests above mentioned, many of whom were catholicks, who affirmed that he was at home at his own house in Norwich the evening immediately preceding and that immediately succeeding the day in which he was said to have been seen in Holland. This attestation was deemed a sufficient proof of an alibi, and it delivered the Duke from the danger which threatened him.”

This anecdote was related to the present writer above 30 years ago, at Norwich, by a Mr. _Cubitt_, a very intelligent and respectable old gentleman, who appeared to give it full credit, which he was not likely to have done on any slight ground, or without very good reason.

{851a} “The right divine of kings to govern wrong.”

{851b} Laing.

{856} That is, of the populace, who on the first discovery of his flight proceeded to plunder the popish chapels and houses, but were soon restrained and obliged to desist.

{857} “A voluntary desertion and a virtual renunciation, both of the government and realm, were meant to be implied in that ambiguous expression, in order to open the succession to the next protestant heir. But the abdication of government was irreconcileable with the premises, as it was neither applicable to his abuse of power, nor to his departure from the kingdom, which was more from constraint than choice.”—Laing, as before.

{859} For a more circumstantial account see _Rapin_, and especially _Laing_, from whose excellent History of Scotland much of the preceding account if taken.

{861} The chief of whom, we presume, was the famous _Framingham_, who was then mayor. There was another great man that was also deeply concerned in this vile business, perhaps the first _Turner_, but we are not sure, for a blank is left for the name in the printed account.—Of Framingham there can be little doubt, and Turner seems the most likely to be the other, as he was mayor the next year, when the persecution was still going on. They were, no doubt, very competent to judge, what sort of _religion_ was fit to be allowed in the town: one educated at a _bakehouse_, and the other at a _pot-house_, or _tavern_.

{862} About this same time, if we are not mistaken, the informers affected to be very sorry for what they had done, and pretended great trouble of conscience and contrition, whereby they so wrought upon Marham, that they got from him a discharge from their false information, upon their giving bonds for their future good behaviour. But it was all a villanous contrivance, in order to escape out of their present danger, and be able more easily to effect his ruin; for, about a fortnight after, they came (says our account) “and actually seized his goods according to the former levy; which plainly discovered their design of agreement was but to have a safer advantage against him; and by seizing, to ruin him; and therefore it was that he was advised to _sue the Bonds_.”—See a small tract entitled _The Lynn Persecution_, printed in London in the early part of 1693.

{864} That affair appears to have been in agitation as early as 1685; whence the following note has been inserted in the town-books—“Nov. 23. 1665, Recommended a petition which was presented to this house, concerning the decay of the stocking trade in this towne, by _weaving_ of the same, to the care of Sir Simon Taylor and Sir John Turner, our members of parliament.”—It would seem by this, that the case was, even then, laid before the legislature, or meant so to be; but we know not the result.

{865} Kimber.

{869} So it is in the Extracts, but it should, no doubt, be 1627_l._

{874} This appears from a Letter sent by _Dr. Little_, then minister of this town, to the author of an Account of that storm, published soon after in a 12mo. volume: of which Letter the following is a copy—

“Sir, I had answered yours sooner, but that I was willing to get the best information I could of the effect of the late dismal storm amongst us. I have advised with our merchants and ship-masters, and find that we have lost from this port seven ships, the damage whereof, at a modest computation, amount to 3000_l._ The men that perished in them are reckoned about twenty in number. There is another ship missing, tho’ we are not without hopes that she is gone northward: the value of ship and cargo about 1500_l._ The damage sustained in the buildings of the town is computed at a 1000_l._ at least.

I am your faithful Friend and Servant, _Thomas Little_.”

Lyn, January 17. 1703–4.

{875} So confident was he of the firmness of the structure, that he is said to have declared, when doubts were suggested of the danger it might be exposed to from a great storm, that he should have no fear to be there in the greatest storm that could blow.

{876} Of the general tenor of that proclamation the reader may form some judgment from the following extract—

“Whereas by the late most terrible and dreadful storms of wind; with which it has pleased almighty God to afflict the greatest part of this our kingdom on Friday and Saturday, the 26th. and 27th. days of November last; some of our ships of war, and many ships of our loving subjects, have been destroyed and lost at sea, and great numbers of our subjects serving on board the same have perished, and many houses and other buildings of our good subjects have been either wholly thrown down and demolished, or very much damnified and defaced, and thereby several persons have been killed, and many stacks of corn and hay thrown down and scattered abroad, to the great damage and impoverishment of many others, especially the poorer sort; and great number of timber and other trees have by the said storm been torn up by the roots, in many parts of this our kingdom. A calamity of this sort so dreadful and astonishing, that the like hath not been or felt in the memory of any person living in this, our kingdom, and which loudly calls for the deepest and most solemn humiliation of us and our people. Therefore, out of a deep and pious sense of what we, and our people have suffered, by the said dreadful winds and storms, which we most humbly acknowledge to be a token of the divine displeasure, and that it was the infinite mercy of God that we and our people were not thereby wholly destroyed—we have resolved, and do hereby command, that a general and public fast be observed, &c.”

{878} Of that address the following notice and copy are to be found in the Hall-books—

“Sept. 25. 1704. It is ordered that the common Seale be affixed to the following address To the Queen’s most Excellent Majestie. May it please your Majestie, To admitt us (amongst the great number of your loyall subjects) with unfeigned hearts to congratulate the glorious success of your arms in the victory obtained by your successfull Generall John Duke of Marleborow over the French and Bavarians near Hochstet; a defeat so entire, that hardly foreign or English history can paralell, so seasonable that the safety of the whole empire was the consequence of it; and upon the distant Danube, where the English arms never triumphed before: and whilst reverence makes us approach leisurely to your Majesties Throne, every day still produces new trophies; the Sea as well as the Land, Affrica as well as Europe must loudly proclaime Your Majestie is every where, invincible.—These are blessings justly due to your Majesties Piety and Courage, who so steddily have pursued the example of your glorious Predecessor, that from his early years, and almost a private station was always the chiefe opposer of the torrent of France, Popery, and Slavery, and whose memory will always be valuable in all true English hearts; were it for nothing else, yet for paving us the establishment of a Protestant succession in the person of your sacred Majestie, Notwithstanding which by the treachery of your faithless Ennemys your Majestie upon your accession found the dreadful powers of France and Spain united, who singly have in their turns push’d fair for the western monarchy. This would have shaken any courage less firm than your own, who whilst all Europe lay gasping waiting for the result of your councell, you stretched out your powerful arme to support the then tottering frame of its liberty, and was alone able to preserve it, and in that ourselves. And whilst your Majestie so carefully nurses our established church, your charity extends to the whole Protestant interest of Europe, which must certainly appear very naturall to your Majestie whilst your capital Enemy prides himselfe in being the Head of the Roman Catholicks and they in him.—May Your Majesties Subjects unite in their acknowledgements to your Majestie that the last subterfuge of our conquered Ennemys (our Divisions) may not prevail amongst us; but that whilst our Armys are so bravely commanded, our Treasury so frugally expended, our Laws so equally administered—and above all, The whole by your Majesties providentiall care so wisely superintended, Our Religion and Liberty may under your most auspicious government be immovably secured to us and to our Posterity.”

Such was this notable specimen of the wisdom and loyalty, the genius and eloquence of our honoured ancestors.

{880a} This teems to bespeak a consciousness that all was not right, and that some of their exactions were unjust and oppressive.

{880b} It appears that they were now ready to relinquish, if hard pressed, all the exactions complained of, except the two particulars last specified; which certainly does not look well.

{883} Of this memorable address we have found the following copy extracted from the Hall-books; which will give the reader an opportunity to form his own opinion of its merits or character.