In the autumn of 1678 a pretty strong antipathy to popery appears to have been prevalent in this town, and measures were adopted to secure the inhabitants from such dangers as might arise from that quarter. Accordingly we learn from the Hall books, that it was ordered on the 11th of November that year, to have “a watch kept every night to prevent dangers from Popish Recusants.” This seems to indicate that the Corporation and people of Lynn were now inclined to side with the patriots or Whigs against the Court; which appears somewhat corroborated by their resolving sometime after to elect two of their own townsmen, in preference to court candidates, to represent them in the ensuing parliament; as is evinced by the following document from the Hall books—“January 29th (1678, 9.) This day upon reading in this House a Letter from Robert Wright Esq. late one of the burgesses in parliament for this town, intimating his desire of being again elected here, it is ordered that thanks be returned for services received, and to acquaint him that this House taking notice of the generall averseness of this corporation to choose any other than an inhabitant of this town, and two of the Society having declared themselves to stand, this House cannot with any assurance incourage his coming down for that purpose. But that they doe and shall retain a true sense and opinion of his former performances.” The candidates they now returned were Messrs. Turner and Taylor, afterwards Sir John Turner and Sir Simon Taylor. How patriotically they discharged their respective duties we are unable to say.
On the 28th of the following April, 1679, an occurrence took place here which is well worth recording. It did so much credit to the moral feelings of one of the then members of the Hall, and does so little to those of certain members of it in more recent times, (namely, the absentees, or nonresidents above noticed,) that it ought by no means to be here passed over in silence. The person first alluded to was one of the aldermen, and he was also a physician. He perceived, upon serious reflection, that the duties attached to the office of an alderman were incompatible with those that belonged to the exercise of the medical profession; and as he was not disposed to relinquish the latter, he felt himself bound in conscience to withdraw from the Hall and resign his municipal function. This occurrence is thus noticed in the volume of Extracts from the Hall or Town Books—“April 18th. 1678, William Bassett having sent a Letter insinuating the inconsistence of his place in this House with his Profession of a Physician, and how that he is necessarily compelled to be criminal in the one whilst he endeavours to discharge his duty in the other, begs most heartily to be discharged,—[this House] doe consent that he be discharged, &c.”—This singular transaction gives us a very favourable idea of the character of this alderman, or doctor Bassett: it certainly deserves to be remembered; and it is now earnestly recommended to the serious consideration of the present members of the Hall, and especially the absentees, whose nonresidence must be more incompatible with their municipal duties than that gentleman’s medical profession was with his. If there be really any municipal factions or duties, that are any way useful or interesting to the community, attached to the appointment of common-council-man, or alderman of Lynn, the due discharge of them, without all doubt, must be utterly incompatible with the absence or nonresidence of such functionaries.—These hints, it is hoped will not fail to have their due weight with those individuals to whom they are applicable.
Section IV.
Danger incurred by the corporation on account of the issuing of farthings—third part of the duty levied on coals brought by strangers and landed in South Lynn, allowed to the South-Lynnians—difference and great lawsuit between them and the corporation about the Long-Bridge—the consequence, &c.
Towards the close of 1670 our corporation appeared in no small fear of danger from their gracious sovereign’s displeasure, on account of their having issued farthings, which was deemed an encroachment on the royal prerogative. They accordingly took measures forthwith towards appeasing the Monarch’s wrath and obtaining his forgiveness. This memorable affair is thus stated in the Town books,—“November 4th 1670, Forasmuch as Mr. Mayor, (Henry Bell Esq.) did this day present to this House two Letters, the one from Mr. Recorder, the other from Mr. Wright, for and about the danger the Town is lyable too, (to) for and concerning their putting out of Farthings, Mr. Mayor is desired to answer the said Letters and let them know this House doe desire that they would both effectually take care to use all means to prevent the Quo-ranto (Quo warranto) issuing out against the Town, and to petition his Majesties pardon, and to doe whatsoever else they shall judge necessary to prevent any trouble that may fall on the corporation for the putting out of these farthings which are out on the corporation account.”
The recorder therefore and the other gentleman, (who was also another great lawyer and one of the members for the town) appear to have exerted themselves faithfully and successfully on this occasion. We accordingly find that his sacred majesty’s pardon was actually obtained; but it seems to have taken up a long time, no less than two years, to effect this. It may be supposed to have cost a large sum of money, and we may presume that our corporation did not deem that money ill spent, though it might far exceed all the profits they had derived from their coinage. Both king and courtiers might deem it good policy to seem to be in great wrath for sometime, which would make the corporation the more ready to part with their cash. The successful termination of this business is thus noticed in the Town-books—“November 2nd. 1672, Ordered the Town Seal to be fixed to an instrument acknowledging his Majesties grace and favour in pardoning the Corporation for making of farthings.”
How many of these farthing coinages were undertaken by this corporation, it does not seem very easy to ascertain; nor are we able to discover when this measure was here first resorted to, or adopted. The present writer is in possession of several Lynn farthings, but they appear to have been all issued either in 1668, or in 1669. Whether or not any have been issued here before 1668 he is not able to say. He has seen farthings of other towns of a much earlier date, and has himself a Bristol farthing of 1652, which is the earliest of these town tokens he remembers to have met with. It is likely that Lynn was led into this coining adventure by the example of other places, and especially Norwich, which may be presumed to have been previously concerned in this business. [826] The same offence had been committed earlier, oftener, and later, by many, if not by most of its neighbours, so that it must be somewhat odd that the resentment of the court should appear so bitter towards this town, beyond what it seems to have been towards other offending places.—Norwich, Yarmouth, Diss, Thetford, Bury, Ipswich, Lowestoft, and other towns, all, if we are not mistaken, coined and issued farthings, and Wisbeach halfpence; yet we do not find that they were brought into any mighty trouble, or alarm, like Lynn, on that account. However this might be, these private coinages seem to have been discontinued every where soon after 1670, and never more resumed till within these last twenty or thirty years, when they became again very general, in consequence of the example of the Paris-mountain copper Company, in the Isle of Anglesey, who issued large penny pieces, which were for some years very common, and in extensive circulation. They have been latterly suppressed, with all the others to which they had given rise. Government seem resolved to prevent or discourage any thing of the kind being again attempted; for which we impute to them no blame, and sincerely wish we had no greater grievance to complain of.
Between the borough, or corporation of Lynn, and the parish of Allhallows, or Allsaints, alias South Lynn, there has been for ages, at times, no very good understanding. That parish has been too often treated like a younger brother, or a weaker neighbour, though we know not that it ever appears to have advanced any unreasonable claims. About the year 1672, some difference seems to have arisen between the two parties, about the participation or distribution of the benefit derived from the duty of 12d. in the chalder upon coals brought by strangers and delivered in South-Lynn parish. The borough, or great parish of St. Margaret, claimed the whole, as their exclusive right, but affected to condescend, at last, to allow a third part of the same to the South-Lynnians, as an act of generosity. The latter, by their agent, Tho. Hugins, consented to this, in consideration that their poor rates were moderate and easy, compared with those of Saint Margaret’s parish, which were said, even then, to be very heavy.
The South-Lynnians, however, as appears by their old Parish-book, considered that there was here some over-reaching, or foul play, on the part of the mayor and burgesses, and that their agent, Hugins, had been taken in on this occasion. So they really appear to have viewed this business. But the mayor and corporation viewed it differently; and the following is their representation of it, as given in the Hall-books—“October 17. 1672: Whereas there is due unto the mayor and burgesses, from Mr. Thomas Hugins and others of South Lynn, divers sums of money, arising upon the duty of coales bought by them of strangers, and whereas they have earnestly requested, forasmuch as the said duty doth arise for coales landed or sold within the said parish of South Lynn, that a third part of the said moneys may be allowed unto the said parish of South Lynn for the benefite of the same parish, to be employed by the paritioners according to the meaning of the order for that purpose, in regard of their present great charges. Thereupon this House doe think fitt to order that the same be allowed accordingly.” Thus we see that the corporation did not appear disposed to acknowledge that their South Lynn neighbours had any direct right to this allowance.
The mayor and corporation were very culpable, not only in granting their neighbours of South-Lynn, with such ill grace, a third part of the duty on coals delivered there by strangers, but also in refusing to accede to any such measure till now; which appears to have been really the case. To have been a little more neighbourly and accommodating would have been much more to their credit and their interest. But nothing better, perhaps, could be expected from them, as things then stood. Could they have foreseen the humiliating and mortifying condition, into which their illtreated neighbours would bring them in the course of a few months after, there is reason to believe they would have used them with a greater degree of gentleness and condescension. The fact is, they had been at bitter variance with them for several years, about the obligation of keeping up and repairing the Long Bridge, which they would fain throw entirely upon them. But that they were not able to effect, though they actually went to law with them for that very purpose. This memorable law-suit forms a prominent feature in the history of Lynn at that period: an account of it has been preserved in the old Parish-book of South Lynn, and is given as follows—