The following Lynn occurrences of this period are somewhat more luminous than the preceding ones. In 1576 queen Elizabeth visited Norwich; but it does not appear that her majesty deigned to honour Lynn with her royal presence. The corporation, however, went to meet her majesty. It is not said where, but we may suppose it to have been at Norwich, where her highness appears to have made some stay. At that interview, wherever it took place, our corporation presented their gracious sovereign with “a rich purse, finely wrought with pearl and gold, containing an hundred old angels of gold;” the whole valued at 200l. a sum equal, perhaps, to 2 or 3,000l. of our money. This, no doubt, was very handsome, and a proof of the sterling loyalty, as well as of the wealth and liberality of our corporation. What our virgin queen thought of this specimen of Lynn loyalty and homage, we are not told: but if the same had been done to her renowned grandfather, Henry VII, when he visited this town, we may be very sure that it would have proved highly acceptable and gratifying, as he is well known to have been a most ardent lover of money. His grand-daughter was in some things very different from him. Nor are we quite certain, though the gift was very handsome, that her majesty did not on this occasion laugh in her sleeve at the vanity and ostentation of the donors, who appear to have given her too much reason for so doing. She is also understood as not entertaining, in general, a very exalted opinion of the sagacity of her corporations, or the wisdom of the ruling and leading men of her cities and boroughs, who in her different excursions would sometimes sadly expose their folly, and excite in no small degree her contempt and derision. [712]
In, or about 1582, it is said, “that certain lusty young fellows began to set up ringing again, which for sometime had been disused; divers of the aldermen, meaning to silence them, occasioned a great disturbance, which turned to the mayor’s disadvantage, and was the cause of spending a great deal of money.” For aught we know, the mayor and aldermen might be very right on this occasion. Where there is a great deal of ringing it is certainly a very serious nuisance to the inhabitants, especially those who live near the steeples.—It is probable that those lusty young fellows belonged to some wealthy families, which enabled them to make so effectual a stand against the mayor and aldermen. Be that as it might, this circumstance may serve to shew what serious results may proceed from very frivolous causes, and how easily a parcel of idle fellows may sometimes disturb the tranquillity of a whole town, and bring every thing into the utmost confusion.
In 1587 the wife of one John Wanker and the widow Porker were both carted here for whoredom: and we further learn, that the sin of whoredom was deemed so detestable then, both at Lynn, and Norwich, that whoever were guilty of it were publickly exposed fastened to a cart and driven through the whole town.—This must be highly honourable to the moral character of both places at that period, and furnishes a favourable idea of the state of society here in the mean time. But alas! how very different must have been the character of Lynn then, from what it is at present, when it is said to abound with that sort of sinners more than any other place of its size, and when that vice seems no longer detested, or thought to have any moral pravity or turpitude attached to it: and as to the interference of magistrates, that seems to be entirely out of the question. After all, it seems to be a fact, that the unexampled burdens under which the people now lie, have contributed in no small degree to bring things to this sad pass.
The year 1558 was rendered remarkable in the annals of this town, by an order, as it is called, which was then made, “that on every first Monday in the Month there should be a meeting at a certain house, consisting of the Mayor, some of the aldermen and common Council-men, and the preachers, in order to settle peace and quietness between man and man, and to decide all manner of controversies: and it was called, The Feast of Reconciliation.”—This certainly looks well, and seems to reflect honour on the memory of the projector or projectors of it, as well as those who afterwards devoted their time for so useful and laudable a purpose. It is certainly much to be wished that every town and district was furnished with a similar institution; which, if properly conducted, would not fail to prove of very important benefit to the community. This therefore is here recorded as forming a favourable trait in the character of the magistrates and ministers of this town in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth.—But, alas! those very people, at the same time, were persecuting, burning, and hanging, (and we may add, murdering) poor ignorant, friendless and harmless old creatures, under the name of witches!—Of this very dark shade, (which together with the preceding favourable trait exhibit so deplorable an inconsistency of character,) we shall take some further notice hereafter.
In the next reign, (that of James I,) the obtaining of a royal Charter, and the recovery of the alienated revenues and possessions belonging to the Gaywood hospital, (of the latter of which we have spoken already) seem to have constituted the principal and most memorable transactions that appertain to this history. Besides which scarce any thing occurred worthy of being here recorded, unless it be the erection or establishment (in 1617) of a Library in the Vestry of St. Nicholas’s Chapel: which appears to have been the first institution of the kind in this town since the dissolution of the convents. [715] So that for about eighty years, or ever since the reformation, the character of the town as a literary, or bookish place, must have been at a miserable low ebb. We need not wonder therefore at the extreme ignorance that seemed to have prevailed here in the mean time. This library is said to have been founded by the mayor, burgesses, &c. The library in St. Margaret’s Church is said not to have been founded till about fourteen years after. How extensively useful these bibliothecal collections proved we have not the means of ascertaining. At any rate, they were creditable to those by whom they were projected and promoted.
Upon the accession of Charles I, one of the first and most remarkable circumstances that appear to have occurred here was the erection of St. Anne’s Fort, on which were mounted, as we are told, “several great pieces of ordnance, sent from London and planted here for the defence of the town.” This some, perhaps, would be apt to construe as ominous of the subsequent troubles of that reign, of which this town appears to have had its full share: for having declared against the parliament, it was by their forces closely besieged and taken, and afterwards laid under contribution, and strongly garrisoned. As to the Fort, we cannot find that it proved of any material use to the town in that time of danger: nor does it appear to have been ever calculated for the defence and protection of the place, or for any other purpose but to please little or full-grown children, who are naturally fond of ribands and rattles. [717]
About the beginning of 1637, “an order came from the archbishop (Laud) to this town, that the ground at the east end of the churches should be raised; the communion table (or altar) placed at the upper end of the churches, under the east windows; and that they be decently railed in, and steps made to ascend thereto.”—This was evidently undoing what Elizabeth and her reformers had done at the beginning of her reign; for the ground at the upper or east end of the churches was then ordered, as we have seen, to be levelled with that in the other parts of them. That queen and her prelates were certainly quite high enough in their notions about these matters, and yet we see that they come not nearly up to Charles and Laud. Neither of these had any dislike to popery, provided they could be themselves at the head of it. Nor would it be a very easy matter to point out the time when the spirit of popery was more predominant, than it was in the church of England in the detestable reign of the first Charles, and under the vile administration and superintendence of archbishop Laud. The latter was a sworn and mortal enemy to both civil and religious liberty, as the whole tenor of his conduct shews. In short, he was no less superstitious, than intolerant, tyrannical, and cruel, as this order which he sent to Lynn, and many other parts of his conduct clearly evince: and he may be very safely said to have contributed largely to accelerate the ruin of the cause which he had espoused, and the downfal of the church of which he was unworthily the chief metropolitan.
Laud has been often represented as very learned: but it was paying learning but a poor compliment, as it appears to have done little, or rather nothing at all towards humanizing him, or softening his hard heart, and subduing the bigotry, intolerance, and unfeelingness, which were in him so preeminently conspicuous and predominant. Severities and terrors which most of the vulgar or unlearned protestant persecutors would have deemed sufficient, could not satisfy him: cropping or cutting off the ears, and slitting the noses of those who openly objected to his proceedings, were among his favourite forms of discipline, and what passed with him as justifiable and wholesome severities. His atrocities at last recoiled upon him with a vengeance, and he became the unpitied victim of his own system of terror and tyranny.