[894] See Coxe’s mem. of Walpole, vol. I.
[897] On the 26th. of the preceding January, it was decreed in the Hall, that no person under 60 years old should be elected, or admitted into Gaywood Hospital. The same rule, we presume, has been ever since strictly observed.
[901a] Here it may be proper just to observe, that the author rather thinks he was mistaken at page [889], in supposing that Browne had been complimented with the freedom of this town. He has since examined the book which contains a list of the names of all our freemen, and cannot find the doctor’s name there. This is not to be wondered at, considering the bad terms on which he lived with the corporation.
[901b] About the same time that the pens of Armstrong and Badslade were thus engaged, that of the elder Kinderley also was employed in the same cause, as appears by the dedication and preface to his son’s volume on the ancient and present state of the navigation of Lynn, &c. About these times, the names of Messrs. Steph. Allen, John Cary, and Geo. Hogg, became enrolled among our freemen, whose descendants have ever since figured among the first families of this town.—They are thus noticed in our volume of Extracts—“Augt. 29th. 1724. Mr. St. Allen to have his ffreedom, paying 20 nobles.—Sept. 27. 1727. John Cary elected free upon paying 20 nobles.—Febr. 3. 1728–9. Granted the ffreedom to Geo. Hogg, marriner, at the request of alderman John Kidd, as his mayor’s ffreeman.”
[902] Two Irishmen, as the story goes, served in the German or imperial army during a war with the Turks. One of them, in a skirmish with some Tartars, was by one of them overpowered and taken prisoner. Upon which he called out to his comrade, “By Jasus, I have caught a Tartar!” “Very well,” said the other, “bring him away then;’” “he wont come,” answered paddy; “then come yourself,” replied his comrade; “arrah now, my dear honey,” cried he, “but he wont let me.” Hence the origin of the proverbial saying, when a sharper has been overmatched, that he has catched a tartar.
[912] The gentlemen of this town, with all their superabundant zeal for the church, ought to consider how much they owe, for what morality and religion exist here, to the exertions of those who dissent from that church. Every candid and discerning person in the town must see and acknowledge that the labours of these dissenters have very largely contributed to the reformation of the inhabitants. But for our dissenting chapels, far more than one half, perhaps three fourths of our population would have been effectually precluded from the possibility of being benefited by the public ministry of the clergy, for want of room or proper accommodation in the churches. This is a known fact. Must not the labours of the dissenters therefore be evidently and unquestionably entitled to the gratitude and encouragement of our rulers, even if their mode of instruction had not been better calculated to enlighten the common people than that of the church ministers?
[913] The Harwicks seem to have been peculiarly unfortunate in being treated unhandsomely and rudely by some of their townsmen, during their mayoralty. Richard Harwick was said to be so treated, by Browne, in 1723, and Charles Harwick now by this Rudkin. How to account for this, we are unable to say. The Harwicks might carry themselves with too much haughtiness, or, on the other hand, with too much condescension; for the one as well as the other kind of conduct has sometimes exposed people to rude and unbecoming treatment. However that was, the fact itself, as above stated, appears no less clear than remarkable.
[914] Rudkin’s successor in the common-council was the late Thomas Sommersby, the elder. Hence the following note occurs in the Hall books—“Nov. 26. 1731, Mr. Th. Sommersby chosen into the common councel, in the room of John Rudkin amoved.”—Sometime previously to the expulsion of Rudkin, Edw. Bradfield, the Town clerk, was also expelled, or discharged from his office, as appears by the following notes in the same books—“August 29. 1729, Ed. Bradfield, Town-Clerk suspended.”—again . . . “Sept. 29. 1729; Ed. Bradfield, Town-Clerk discharged.”—His offence, or the cause and reason of his discharge is not mentioned: but by the Epitaph drawn up for him by his friend Dr. Browne, it would seem not to have been any thing very honourable or creditable to the corporation. This Epitaph, as it is of an unusual cast, and in the doctor’s best manner, may be worth preserving, and reads as follows.—
“Behold a rare Monument of Friendship,
Dedicated to the Remains of
Edward Bradfield, attorney at law.
Happy while he was Master of himself;
Unfortunate when he became the Servant of others.
His fine Patrimony,
And a Profession wherein he excell’d,
Gave him Independency,
And every Enjoyment
That could make Life agreeable:
But alas!
His accepting the office of Town-Clerk
Subjected him to Servility,
And to every Disappointment
That could make Death desirable.
His Experience of both Fortunes was remarkable:
In the Prosperous, he was follow’d
As if he never had an Enemy;
In the Adverse, he was deserted
As if he never had a Friend.
He died September 6th. 1736, aged 47.
Leaving a Widow, and an only Daughter.
He was Defended while living;
He is Covered now Dead,
By one who commenced,
Almost from the Cradle,
And continues his Friend,
Even beyond the Grave.
William Browne, M.D. in both Universities,
And Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.”
This Epitaph is certainly creditable to the feelings and memory of Sir William Browne.—Having this occasion to mention him again, the author begs leave here to correct what he said above at page [901] relating to the question, whether or not he had been complimented with the freedom of this borough? He has since ascertained that that honour was actually conferred on him gratis, Febr 3 1717–18; which must have been previous to his having incurred the displeasure of the Hall. Nor can this writer discover that the same honour was withheld from any physician, who had settled here for any length of time, before our two present ones: (only Dr. Hamilton purchased his freedom, but that was, it seems, before he had received his Doctor’s degree.) Nor yet does this same honour appear to have been withheld from any of the clergy who were Lecturers here, except the present Lecturer and his predecessor Eyre. We know not how to account for this omission on the part of our corporation, (at a time when the honour itself is daily decreasing in value,) but from a mere want of urbanity; and we hope, in what we may have occasion to say of them hereafter, we shall never have any reason to lay any thing worse to their charge.