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 80l. a year, a sum equal to 5 or 600l. 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 50l. yearly and a dwelling house, provided he agree not to meddle in the election of church wardens or parish clark.”—This 50l. 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 50l. 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.