“South Lynn Allhallowes, March 25 1674.—At a Congregation met and assembled to take the report of Tho. Hugins concerning Long Bridge and other business treated about and considered of by him with the mayor and burgesses of Lynn Regis as followeth hereunder.”—
“Memorandum: That whereas the bridge commonly called Long Bridge, standing over Sandringham Ea, (alias White Friars Fleet,) is and hath been long time in great decay, and contest hath long time been between the mayor and burgesses of King’s Lynn, and the inhabitants of South Lynn, which of them should repair it: We the inhabitants of South Lynn taking it into consideration and not being very willing to contest with the said mayor and burgesses, if that by a way of treaty with them the difference might be composed, did, upon the 13th of April 1669. make our request to Samuel Barron Esq. Thomas Spencely gentleman, and Thomas Hugins, inhabitants of this parish, that they would treat with the mayor and burgesses concerning the premisses: what they, or any two of them did agree concerning the same we would condescend unto, as it is recorded in this book the said 13. April 1669.
“Now this daie one of the said Committee, named Thomas Hugins, (the other two being lately dead,) doth make report unto us, that notwithstanding they oft made request unto the mayor and burgesses to treat about the same, they commonly did refuse to meet, and the bridge being much in decay the country did indyte the mayor and burgesses and inhabitants of South Lynn at the country Quarter Sessions held in Lynn 16. January 1671. We traversed it against the mayor and burgesses, and then and there by verdict of the Jury the mayor and burgesses, were found guilty, and the court did set but a small fine upon them of 3l. expecting they would forthwith repair it. But they still continued refractory, and said they would try it at the assizes: Whereupon we prepared for tryal, and I Thomas Hugins did attend at the next assizes held at Thetford, 12. March 1671, 2; with five witnesses, and did retain three counsels, and was at the charge of two copies of the charter of K. Edward VI. and one of Q. Mary to the mayor and burgesses: and notwithstanding their former word, that they would try it there, and Henry Bell alderman, and Mr. Farrow their recorder, and Mr. Francis Rolph (Rolfe) their town-clark were there, they did then refuse to try it, nor did not but put us and themselves to further cost and charges; The Bridge being more and more in decay, the country did still complain, and in the month of July, 1672, the mayor and burgesses did appoint a committee to treat with us, and we did meet at the house of Mr Samuel Barron, but still they did wholly refuse to be at any cost or charge, notwithstanding we did offer them that if a rate were made for the repair thereof through the whole borough, of which we are part, that we of this parish would willingly have paid our proportion, which would have been a fourth part, if not more; and this they would not accept of neither: And then it was proposed to refer it to four men in the country, two for them and two for us; and when they had nominated two for them and accepted of by us, all the gentlemen in the country would not afford two for us that they would accept of; but they had always something or other to object against them: so jealous were they of the men, and indeed of their cause.
“So nothing [being] done, and the assizes at Thetford drawing towards, I Thomas Hugins, by request of the above-said Samuel Barron and Thomas Spencely, (they not being in health, nor in capacity to go abroad) did make address to Mr Seth Hawley, mayor, desiring him to use his interest that his committee would once again meet and treat with us, to see if it might not be determined between us. The said mayor did acquaint the Hall with it, and then they added Mr Farrow, their recorder, to the committee, but after that no meeting; for the mayor did once in place where I was present desire the said Mr Farrow, that he would meet and treat with us: he did peremptory reply to the mayor, he would not meet, and said to the mayor, it was but spending of 20l. at the assizes, and there would be an end of it; and so it fell out [as] to the end, tho’ not the end as he dreamt of: for at the assizes held at Thetford the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7th. of March 1672 [832a] it was there tried, and the mayor and burgesses were found guilty; which trial was after this manner”—[832b]
“Messrs. Farrow and Rolfe, recorder and town-clerk, retained three counsels to plead for them. The South Lynnians, by their attorney, Jacob Wrag, retained also three counsels and a serjeant at Law. When they came to the indictment, it lay against the inhabitants of King’s Lynn and those of South Lynn. But lord Chief Justice Hale, [before whom this cause was tried,] understanding by our attorney and counsel, that it was the mayor and burgesses we complained of, and producing to my lord the true copies of the aforesaid charters, whereby it appeared that Edw. VI. had granted lands and tenements in King’s Lynn and South Lynn, amounting to the value of several 100l. a year, for the purpose of their maintaining of bridges, and jetties against floods, &c, Q. Mary’s charter also concurred with this; as did likewise the verdict of the jury in 1671, which was then also produced.
“His lordship taking these things into consideration, and regarding the obstinacy of the mayor and burgesses, notwithstanding the former verdict; and he having then in court advised the bridge being repaired by a rate through the whole town, [as the South Lynnians had before proposed] which they [of the opposite party] there in court refused:—His lordship then said, if we and they would join issue to traverse it, he would know who ought to repair it, and he would take such course in the recording that it should never come before a judge of assize again to determine it. After some discourse [the cause went on.] But one witness for the mayor and burgesses, Thomas Williamson, carpenter, who swore that he had done some repairs to the bridge in 1654 with his master Robert Hart, and were paid by two of the inhabitants of South Lynn: but they appeared to be tenants of the mayor and burgesses, and had got the money from them to pay the carpenters, as far as Williamson knew.” [His evidence therefore could be of no avail; and he seems to have been the principal and only witness on the side of the corporation.]
“Thus [adds the MS.] the proud were infatuated in their own wisdom by their book, paper, and witness! that we of the poor parish of South Lynn had not one witness examined; the court thinking it needed not: for their charters, the verdict as aforesaid, their own books and papers, and their witness there was enough. Upon which judge Hale said to the jury, they must bring in their verdict in three parts; for they must answer him three questions he should ask them. The jury went out, and when they came in again, his lordship asked them, Whether the inhabitants of King’s Lynn were guilty, or not guilty? They answered, not guilty. Record that, said my lord. He queried 2ndly, Whether the inhabitants of South Lynn were guilty, or not guilty? They answered, not guilty. Record that saith my lord. He asked 3rdly, Whether the mayor and burgesses were guilty, or not guilty? They answered, guilty. Record that, saith my lord. Then he asked the jury, Why they found the mayor and burgesses guilty? and they said, for that the mayor and burgesses had many lands and tenements, the gift of K. Edward VI. to the yearly value of some 100l. given to them for that end and purpose. Record that also, said his lordship.” [834]
Thus was this vexatious dispute put to rest and settled beyond the possibility of being ever after litigated. The mayor and burgesses appear on the occasion in a very unfavourable and unamiable light. That great and good man, and most upright and eminent judge, Sir Matthew Hale, before whom this cause was tried, must have thought, and evidently did think very indifferently of them, as no better than a nest of oppressors and tyrants. Who but they would have run the risk of being thought ill of by such a man? But corporations are seldom deterred from evil by the fear of disgrace, for they consider the odium of their misdoings as greatly diminished, if not quite annihilated, by being shared among so many: and when a member is reproached for any corporate or municipal misdeed, he generally contrives to excuse himself and lay the whole blame upon others of the brotherhood, whom however he will seldom condescend to name.
Section V.
History of Lynn continued from 1680 to 1688—Addresses to the throne—Quo Warranto proceedings—surrender and restoration of the charters—the revolution.
The years 1680 and 1681 (or 1682) were distinguished here by two notable addresses to the throne. Of that of the former year an account has been given already at pages [788] and [789], and a rare piece of curiosity it certainly was. Of the address of 1681 (or 1682) we cannot speak so positively, having never met with a copy of it; but there is great reason to presume that it was pretty much of a kin, or not at all dissimilar to the former. Relating to this memorable document the following article has been extracted from the Town-Books—“March 2. 1681, 2; Ordered that Mr. Recorder (Henry Ferrour Esq.) be desired to draw up an Humble Address to his Majestie in abhorrence and detestation of that late designed traiterous association lately produced at the Old Baly.” This evidently alludes to a circumstance that transpired in the course of the proceedings that had then lately been carried on against the earl of Shaftsbury, at the instigation, it seems, of the sovereign, of which an account has been given by Rapin, Burnet, and other historians.
“The king (says Rapin,) passionately wished to be revenged of this lord, who for sometime had shown him little regard: To this end he granted a special commission of Oyer and Terminer to all the judges of the kingdom to sit, the 24th of November, with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, at the Old Baily, on the Earl’s trial. Eight witnesses were heard against him, who deposed upon oath many things from his own mouth, which discovered pernicious designs against the king’s person. But the greatest crime objected against him was, the copy (or plan) of an Assosiation (found in his study) against the enemies of the king, of the protestant religion, and of their country. But notwithstanding the hopes conceived by the Court, of being freed from this enemy, the Grand Jury, consisting of one and twenty of the principal citizens of London, considering that the paper containing the association was only a copy, and not writ in the earl of Shaftsbury’s hand, and observing very great improbabilities in the depositions of the witnesses, found no sufficient ground for the Bill, and returned it Ignoramus. Immediately the whole city testified their joy for the earl’s deliverance, by bonfires in all the Streets, and other marks of satisfaction; and the witnesses against him were in great danger of being torn in pieces by the mob.” [837]
Arbitrary and vindictive as these proceedings of the Court were, they appear to have been entirely approved of by our corporation. Of the conduct and principles of Shaftsbury and the country party they evidently had no opinion. They were ready to condemn them without hesitation and without mercy: and as to the very idea of an association to counteract or check the tyrannical measures of the Court, it was looked upon by them as truly horrid and detestable. Yet it was to something of that kind, a few years after, that we owed our glorious revolution, our deliverance from popish superstition and despotism, and the establishment of civil and religious liberty. [838] This Corporation afterwards seemed no less pleased with the proceedings of William and the revolutionists than they had been before with those of Charles and his cabal, or of James and his popish counsellors: and had the pretender succeeded in 1715, or in 1745, they would probably have been as joyful on that, as they had been on any former occasion, and addressed the new sovereign with a zeal no way inferior to what they had expressed or manifested towards the most favoured and patriotic of his predecessors. In short, like most corporations, their conduct would have been regulated by circumstances or self interest, rather than by truth or genuine patriotism.
Great and notorious as had been the obsequiousness and devotedness of this corporation to the two last of the Stuart princes, it did not give them entire satisfaction. They wanted to have this, and all other corporations that sent members to parliament, completely in their own power, so as to have their parliament-men to consist solely of such as they should please to appoint; that is, of the tools or minions of the court; which would bid fair always, to insure a parliamentary majority. To accomplish this, it was necessary to abolish, or disannul all the Charters, and grant new ones on such terms as would enable his majesty to appoint all the leading men or municipal functionaries, and remove at any time all such as he should find unfit for his purpose, and replace them with such as would prove perfectly ductile and manageable. This, no doubt, was deemed by many a deep and well-laid scheme, which entitled its projectors to the reputation of being endowed with uncommon sagacity. But they never could bring it to bear, so as to realize the hopes they had conceived from it; and it was at last abandoned: when the former charters were restored, and things reverted again into their old channels. Of the process or trial of this notable experiment here, the following, it is presumed, is a fair and correct representation.
Lynn had not the honour of being the first of our corporations that was made to experience this mode or description of the royal touch. The precedence, as on other occasions, was given to the corporation of London, against which a Quo Warranto was issued in 1683; in the event of which the judges of the court of King’s Bench declared, that the liberties and privileges of the city of London were forfeited, and might be seized into the king’s hands. It was not till the following year that it came to the turn of Lynn to be questioned on a similar account. Accordingly we find the following notice of it in the Town-Books—“May 26. 1684. This day the mayor, (Benj. Keen Esq.) aldermen, and common councell of this Burgh, with one assent and consent, have ordered, consented, and agreed, that all and singular the powers, franchises, liberties, priviledges and authorities whatsoever and howsoever granted to the mayor and burgesses, or to be used or exercised by or under them, by virtue of any charters, letters patents, custome or prescriptions now in force, of or concerning electing, nominating, or appointing any person or persons into any the offices of magistracy or places of trust within this Burgh, Be fully and freely surrendered unto the King’s most excellent Majestie, and that an Instrument for that purpose be forthwith drawn and prepared to be sealed with the common Seale of this Burgh at the next Hall: and it is ordered that a committee be appointed and empowered, as deputies and attorneys for the mayor and burgesses, to attend the King’s Majestie, with the instrument of surrender aforesaid, as the act and deed of the mayor and burgesses.—May 29. This day the Letter from Lord Townshend, High Steward, resigning his Patent, being read, was delivered to Mr. Mayor till the same be further considered.—This day the Instrument of surrender was sealed.—June 9. This day the Instrument of deputation to surrender the Charter and Liberties was signed; and the deputies are ordered and authorized to petition his Majestie to regrant, renew, and confirm such liberties, franchises, and powers as his Majestie in his princely wisdom shall think proper for his service, and the good government, profit and interest of this burgh. [840]—July 24. This day the charter of our most gracious Lord and King, renewed and confirmed to the mayor and burgesses, dated 9th. instant, was read in the outward open Hall. [841]—August 6th. The Duke of Norfolk by his Majesties Charter being appointed High Steward, 10l, the ancient annual Fee, is ordered to be paid at Christmas yearly.”
Such a change was now effected here as thoroughly corresponded with the royal policy. Our Corporation continued subject to this new order of things afterwards, for several years; even till within a few weeks of the Revolution. The king, dying a few months after he had granted his second Charter, had little opportunity to act much upon it, or give it its full operation. All that was left for his brother and successor James, who took special care that it should be rendered sufficiently operative. He, accordingly, in the Summer of 1688, thought proper to set it in motion, and play it on our body corporate with full and terrible effect. Fifteen of that body, not thought well of by his majesty, and including the mayor himself, the Town-Clerk and five aldermen, were then expelled the Hall in one day, and replaced by others who were more to their sovereign’s liking. Of this memorable event there are the following memoranda in the Hall-Books.—