Part 9

About two years after L’Estrange’s adventure, we find the following notice taken of this town in a Public Paper, called “The Weekly Account,” of Wednesday May 6. 1646—It is an order of Parliament dated April 31. and thus worded—“Whereas the town of Lynn Regis hath suffered very much by the _Lord Paulet_, It is ordered that reparation should be made to the said town, _according to their Petition_, out of his estate.”—The _Weekly account_ was a quarto news-paper, of one sheet, “containing certain special and remarkable passages from both Houses of Parliament, and collections of several Letters from the armies.”—We no where else meet with any account or intimation of damages sustained by Lynn from _Lord Paulet_: but the fact cannot be doubted. The town, it appears, had complained to Parliament, and _petitioned_ on the occasion. Could that petition be found, it would, no doubt, cast some light upon this dark part of our history.

It is very certain that this town was no small sufferer during that revolutionary period, as appears from the Journal of the House of Commons in Rushworth’s Historical Collections, Vol. 7. p. 1217, where we find the following passage—“Saturday, August 5, 1648. The House was informed that the town of _Lynn Regis_ did want much repair, being ruined by these times of war. The House ordered 2000 oaks for reparation thereof.” This conduct of the parliament, or _then_ House of Commons looked well, as it indicated some regard for _justice_. We seldom, if ever, meet with similar instances in the conduct of the other, or opposite party. It is not very usual with crowned heads, or their minions, to think much of making reparation for injuries, much and devoutly as it is to be wished, that it always formed a prominent and essential part of their character.

For the remaining years, down to the restoration, this town appears to have remained tranquil, and pretty loyal to the constituted authorities, or new order of things. It seems also to have soon surmounted its former sufferings, {762a} and to have fast advanced in wealth and prosperity. We discover no particular symptoms of disaffection here within those years, unless it was about 1650, when there was an insurrection of the royalists in this county, and a _major Saul_, a worthy gentleman, as an old MS. says, was hanged here in the Tuesday market place, for being concerned, it seems, in that affair.

About the same time, or within the same year, one _Dorothy Floyd_, (or _Lloyd_,) also was hanged here, as the same old MS. says, for _Witchcraft_: which we now just mention, as we had overlooked it before, in our account of those who unhappily suffered at Lynn for that reputed or imaginary crime. {762b}

SECTION II.

_Cromwell in much request at Lynn about the commencement of this period—the reason of it conjectured—his visit here_, _and that of Fairfax—character or quality of the then parliamentary representatives of the town—how chosen—paid by their constituents—demur on that score—payment enforced by parliament_: _&c._

The reputation and influence of Cromwell appear to have been very considerable in these parts before the breaking out of the war. In his native county of Huntingdon, and that of Cambridge, he was evidently well respected; and especially in the Isle and Fens and parts adjacent. In the direction and management of the drainage and other affairs of the Fens his interest appeared scarcely inferior to that of the earl of Bedford, if it did not sometimes exceed it. He appears to have been at the head of the opposition to that nobleman, to which party this town then belonged, as well as that of Cambridge, which Cromwell represented in parliament. The service which he had rendered to his party must have procured him their good opinion: and this, together with his general reputation, might be the reason of his being treated here with uncommon distinction.

In the spring of 1643, and but a few months before the Siege we find him invited here by the mayor and corporation; and the following order is still extant in their books—“March 20th. ordered a free entertainment at the town charge, by Thomas Gurling Esq. mayor, for Col. Cromwell and those gentlemen of his equipage, according to the invitation of Mr. Mayor, in answer to a Letter he received from Col. Cromwell.”—In the same books, a few weeks after, was inserted the following memorandum—“April 17. Mr. Mayor was allowed 5_l._ for his preparations for the entertainment of Col. Cromwell.” {764} This was at an early period of the war, before the town had ventured to declare for the king, and when they appeared desirous of keeping fair with the parliament, or being treated on the footing of neutrality. But whatever might be its policy, it was a very undignified conduct, as must always be the case where duplicity or hypocrisy forms the leading feature. The event shews that a different conduct would have answered better:—agreeable to the old adage or maxim, that “Honesty is the best Policy.”

The burgesses or representatives sent by this town to the _short_ parliament, which met in the spring of 1640, as well as those sent to the _long_ parliament, which met the ensuing autumn or winter, were chosen from among its principal and responsible inhabitants; which seems to have been strictly proper and unexceptionable.—The representatives in the former or _short_ parliament were _Mr. Wm. Doughty_ and _Mr. Tho. Gurlyn_, the two _senior aldermen_; those in the latter, or _long_ parliament, were _Mr. John Percival_ and _Mr. Tho. Toll_; who were also chosen from among the aldermen. To each of those representatives their constituents allowed _five shillings a day_ for their trouble, while they attended their duty in parliament. With this trifling allowance, while it was paid, the recipients appear to have been quite satisfied. But their constituents soon grew tired of it, and withheld it from them, which occasioned the interference of parliament, as appears by the following order.

“October 15. 1642—It is this day ordered by the Commons, now assembled in parliament, that the mayor, aldermen, and common counsell of the town of King’s Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, shall pay and allow, out of the town stock, as formerly, unto John Percevall {765a} and Tho. Toll, their burgesses for this present parliament, as large an allowance, per diem, as they have hitherto {765b} allowed any of their aldermen that have been burgesses in parliament for that towne, notwithstanding the _freemen_ {765c} of that town _had their voyces_ in the choice of the said John Percevall and Tho. Toll to be their burgesses in the present parliament. If the mayor of Lynn can shew any cause to the contrary wee shall be ready to hear him.”

The Corporation appear to have been pretty much at a loss how to act in this affair. No public notice appears to have been taken of it from the middle of October till the beginning of January. On the 2nd. of that month the Corporation had a meeting on the occasion, when the above order was taken under consideration. On the next day they met again, when it was resolved and ordered that the following Letter or address should be presented to the House of Commons, by way of answer.

“We the Mayor, Aldermen, and Comon Councel, whose names are hereunto subscribed, doe in all humbleness represent unto your grave wisdoms, That as heretofore no parliamentary wages have been paid before the parliament _ended_, {766} nor then out of the town stock, but by the _Freemen_ and _Inhabitants_, saving that of late time, meerly of bounty not of dutye, the burgesses were diversely rewarded by the representative body, so in like humbleness we represent the now impossibility of performance of the said order, in respect wee have not at present (nor had at any time since notice of the said order) any Town-Stock at all, nor are likely to have any for many years to come, for that our revenues are not sufficient to defray the necessary charges wee annually disburse for the ordinary maintenance of the town, whereunto wee are tyed, besides the extraordinary expences which unavoidably do and will daily fall upon us for the safety of our town in especiall, and of the kingdom in generall, all which wee humbly refer to your high Justice and Honorable Consideration.”

As this address was a mere shuffle, it was not likely to impose upon parliament, or prove ultimately of any avail to the corporation. They affected however, to be still desirous of keeping fair with that body; and accordingly treated Cromwell and his company, when they visited the town, two or three months after, with marks of most respectful attention. {767} But that was probably a piece of downright finesse on their part, to gain time and bring the plot which they were forming, or their plan of future resistance to greater ripeness and a fairer chance of success. Even their withholding from their two members the usual allowance for their attendance in parliament may be naturally supposed to have resulted from the design of declaring for the king and against the parliament: and this design was put in execution the ensuing summer, which brought on the siege and other events already noticed.

The Corporation evaded the payment of the said daily allowance to their two members for a whole year or more: but it was not forgotten by the parliament, who sometime after the siege, appear to have put them again in mind of it. Accordingly we find that the following memorandum stands yet in the corporation-books—“Nov. 24. (1643,) ordered that _five shillings per diem_ be paid to John Percevall and Tho. Toll, burgesses in this parliament, from the time they went to parliament to this day.” Thus the affair ended; and our representatives, it is presumed, continued to receive the like allowance afterwards, till the restoration. But it does not appear, or is at all likely to have been the case any longer, as to this town, though it might elsewhere. {768} At the period of which we are speaking, it was, probably, pretty general. Had it been universal, and so continued to this day, it would, no doubt, have been a very happy circumstance for these kingdoms. Our House of Commons, in that case, would have felt more for the country than it has generally done in these latter times: not to say that the people too had been then more careful in the choice of their representatives.

As to the two last _elections_, already glanced at, that for the _short_ and that for the succeeding _long_ parliament, they appear to have differed from each other in this, that the former was the act or deed of the _corporation alone_, and the latter that of the _whole body of freemen_, as is the case (at least _nominally_) at present. Succeeding elections seem to have exhibited similar diversity. In Cromwell’s _first_ parliament, that of 1653, it does not appear that Lynn had any representatives. It is therefore likely that there was here then no previous election. In the _second_ protectoral parliament, which met in 1654, this town was represented as usual; but how the election was conducted does not seem very clear, though it appears most probable that the freemen at large had no share in it, as may perhaps be concluded from the following memorandum in the town-books—

“1654 July 21. Ordered that 4_l._ 15_s._ expended by Mr. Mayor on the day of the election of the burgesses to serve in parliament _for this corporation_ be paid by the chamberlain.”

That the election for the members sent to the 3rd protectoral parliament (that of 1656,) was managed by the corporation _solely_ seems pretty evident from the following note in the town books—

“1656. August 18th. This day general John Desborow and major general Philip Skippon are chosen _in this house_ to serve as burgesses for this borough in his Highness next parliament upon the 17th September next, according to a precept directed to Mr Mayor from the Sherife, and ordered that _their charges be paid by this House_.”

In the election of the members who represented Lynn in the protector _Richard’s_ parliament the _corporation_ appear to have exercised the same arbitrary power as before, of being _sole electors_. Several of the other freemen at the same time desired permission to poll, but were not allowed. At the election which took place in April 1660 the freemen again applied for permission to vote which, after some hesitation, was acceded to, and the members were then chosen by the _general body_ of free burgesses. {769}

Thus we see how things formerly stood in this town, as to the state of political liberty, or the freedom of election. Former times appear not to have been very pure in those respects, any more than the present. In looking to our ancestors for much political rectitude or public virtue, we are often most sadly disappointed. It is now frequently made a subject of complaint or reflection, that our present members are chosen, in fact, by two or three individuals; but the same seems to have been almost always the case ever since the reformation, and revolution, as well as before. The freemen at large are indeed _said_ to have a _voice_ in the election of our members; but it is all a joke, while freedom of acting, or voting without constraint or control is totally out of the question. It is well known at what risk most of our pretended _freemen_ would vote freely at our elections, and how much it has cost some of them before now for presuming so to do. All this however must be very wrong, if our constitution ought to be in practice what is it in theory.

SECTION III.

_Maintenance of the clergy—state of the public morals and manners—mode and progress of reformation at Lynn_, _under the Common-wealth and Protectorate_.

Of the Lynn clergy during this period Dr. _Arrowsmith_ and Mr. _Horn_ appear to have been by much the most eminent. The former we think was one of the ministers of St. Margaret’s parish. That his character, as a divine, stood very high, appears from his being appointed one of the Assembly of Divines, which was convened in 1643, and which appointment put an end probably to his residence here. He became afterwards Master of Peter-House in Cambridge. Mr. Horn must have settled here after the departure of Dr. Arrowsmith; not as his successor, however; for he was the minister of _South Lynn_, and held that situation till after the restoration, when we find him among those _two thousand_ worthies, commonly called the “Ejected Ministers.” As minister of Alhallows or South Lynn, he laid his income at 80_l._ a year, a sum equal to 5 or 600_l._ at least, of our money. This comfortable situation and ample income he gave up, to preserve a good conscience; an instance and a proof of integrity which must endear his memory to all honest and good men.

The clergy of St. Margaret’s parish had probably as good an income as their brother of Alhallows, but the exact amount of theirs we have not the means of ascertaining. But in the town-books there is the following memorandum dated December 18. 1637 “Lionell Gatford minister to have 50_l._ yearly and a dwelling house, provided he agree not to meddle in the election of church wardens or parish clark.”—This 50_l._ was equal to 3 or 400 of our pounds, so that the liberality of the corporation to their minister at that period must have far exceeded what we understand it to be at present. As the said 50_l._ was over and above, or exclusive of the vicarial dues, and what we call surplice fees, the minister’s income must have been what may be called very decent and handsome at the period of which we are now treating.

After this town had been reduced under the dominion of the parliament it soon began to put on a religious and puritanical appearance. The publicans and those who frequented their houses were now obliged to be very particularly upon their guard, and at their peril to observe a decency of behaviour. Those who were guilty of _tippling_ were fined, as were also the _occupiers_ of the public houses where those offences were committed. _Profane swearing_ was also punished in like manner, as well as _loitering_ in the time of divine service on the Lord’s day. {774a} A strict attention to these matters began to be paid by the magistrates very shortly after the reduction of the town; and they appear to have pursued the same course pretty regularly thenceforward till the restoration. The town accordingly, soon assumed a decorous and respectable appearance. It was no longer disgraced as before by drunkenness, riot, or profane swearing. In fact, it was in a manner regenerated; and might with a good deal of propriety be denominated a _christian town_. The _Lord’s Day_ was observed with remarkable decorum and solemnity; and on the _Thursdays_, in _lecture time_, the _shops_ were kept _shut up_, to the end the people and their servants might the better attend the hearing the word of God. {774b} On the whole, this town appears to have been for the greatest part of this period as well governed as at any one time either before or afterwards.

The love of _tippling_ appears to have been then in Lynn one of the greatest obstacles to the reformation of the people. The town was full of petty pot-houses, a great many of which were private and unlicensed. Even as late as 1657 we find no less than 40 or 50 of these private and unlawful places of resort heavily fined by the magistrates. This was, at the time, complained of, as a grievous oppression, and is so still represented in some of the existing MS. accounts of that period; which shews how unwilling the people were to forsake their immoralities, tho’ their rulers obliged them to do so outwardly. The restoration followed soon after, and we need not wonder that the profaneness and profligacy, then introduced and _restored_, proved highly acceptable and pleasing to the majority of the Lynn people, who now found themselves pretty well freed from most of the former troublesome checks upon immorality and licentiousness.

Of the persevering exertions of our magistrates, during this period, to check the prevailing propensity of the lower orders to tippling, profane swearing, and the like irregularities, many instances occur in our old records. Of several of those instances, in 1644, some notice has been taken already. Others are recorded as having occurred in 1645, {775} but a far greater number in the following year, (1646,) {776} which seems to indicate the uncommon zeal and vigilance of the then chief magistrate, or chief magistrates, for they seem to have occurred partly in the mayoralty of _Edward Robinson_, and partly (but chiefly) in that of _Thomas Toll_, one of the members for the town, who appears to have stood high here then in the public estimation.

In some of the succeeding years the attention of our magistrates appears to have been no less engaged in these corrective measures. 1651 was one of those years. _Bartholemew Wormell_ was then mayor; at least for the first nine months of it; and he seems to have trod pretty much in the steps of his brother _Toll_. The offences that came under his cognisance seem to have exceeded in number rather than fallen short of those committed during the mayoralty of the latter. They were of various sorts; such as _swearing_, _tippling_, _excessive drinking_, _keeping unlicensed alehouses_, _travelling on the Lord’s day_, _&c._ By the distance between one and another of the years of remarkable delinquency and coercion, it would seem that the irregularities were checked for a time, but would afterwards break out afresh, with increasing force, like water pent up, or impeded in its course by a dam. At the distance of five or six years the vigorous interference of the magistrates appears always to have become necessary. 1645, 1651, and 1657, were the most remarkable years for the interposition of the municipal power to correct the existing abuses.

The last of those years (1657) was exceedingly remarkable for the number of petty pot-houses, or private drinking places then discovered in the town. They amounted seemingly to _near fifty_, for such a number of persons appear to have been then fined, “for selling beer without licence.” Vice seems to have then skulked into those places of private resort, and no longer cared to shew its face in public. Most of our misdoings appear to have been then confined to those petty and private pot-houses, and but one misdeed occurs within that year which would seem to have been committed elsewhere; and the same is recorded in these words—“Received of Mr. James Davey, which he levied upon an offender for prophaneing the Lord’s day, 10_s._”—In short, one cannot help concluding that the town was then, in point of outward decency, much superior to what it is in the present day. We are not quite sure that there were then any _common breweries_ here: and if there were, it is not probable that they were the _property of magistrates_.

Nor did the improvement which then took place in the town consist merely in the outward deportment or appearance of the inhabitants, but it seems to have also extended to the temper and disposition of a great many of them; as appears from the numerous acts of humanity and deeds of charity which are found to have been then promoted and performed here, beyond any preceding or subsequent period that we know of. The sufferings and distresses of their fellow creatures, far and near, at home and abroad, were then viewed, or listened to, at Lynn with sympathetic and commiserating attention, as is evinced by the numerous collections which then took place here for the relief of such sufferers and objects of distress and misery. The statement below in reference _chiefly_ to the years 1653 and 1654, will give the reader some idea of the good character of our ancestors at the time of which we are treating. {779}—In short, we know not of any period when Lynn abounded more than it did then, in acts of charity and humanity, in works of mercy and fruits of righteousness; or when it made, on the whole, a more christian-like appearance: notwithstanding the immoral propensities of many of the inhabitants, and the adherence of not a few of the rest to superstitious or fanatical delusions.

SECTION IV.

_Miscellaneous remarks_, _or a cursory view of divers other matters relating to this town_, _within_, _or about the same period_.

Nothing, perhaps, exhibits more strikingly the wide difference between that time and the present, than the then defective state of _postage_, or letter-carriage, between this town and London. Had any one then foretold that we should ever have a mail-coach or mail-cart, or any other conveyance to bring letters from London, or carry them thither _daily_, it would have passed as an idle tale, no more credible or probable than bishop Wilkins’ notion or supposition of the probability of future intercourse between our world and the moon. The former fact, however, has been realized. But at the period of which we are speaking Letters used to arrive here from London or were conveyed thither from this town _once a week_, and that by a foot messenger.