“The imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops, (says an excellent historian, [851b]) were the last measures of infatuation that remained. When a second indulgence was issued, and ordained to be read in the church, the bishops petitioned against an order calculated to reduce the clergy, on their compliance, to the contempt and reproach of becoming accessary to their own destruction; or to subject the disobedient to the penalties recently inflicted by the high commission. The whole nation was agitated at the imprisonment of the fathers of the church. The same violent agitation was excited by their trial; but their acquittal resounded through the capital, and was received with tumultuous joy by the whole kingdom, as a religious and even a national triumph over the sovereign. From the public ferment, which was not likely to subside, that dangerous crisis had at length arrived, to which despotism and bigotry conducted James.
“The eyes and expectations of men had been long fixed on his nephew, the prince of Orange, whose marriage with his eldest daughter had opened a near prospect of obtaining the crown. Religion, as well as interest, had connected William with the popular party, as alike adverse to the ambition of France, and impatient for a protestant successor to the English throne. The discontented found a secure asylum in Holland, and an honourable or secret reception at his court; and his connexion with every party was preserved and enlarged by their correspondence with their friends.
“While the chance of a protestant succession remained, the prince was averse to a premature rupture, and the nation was desirous to await the natural course of events. But the birth of a son, during the ferment excited by the imprisonment of the bishops, consoled James with the prospect of a catholic heir, and accelerated every preparation for his ruin. The most injurious surmises had been entertained of the queen’s conception; and from some mysterious circumstances, the report of a supposititious child, however improbable at present, was eagerly propagated and implicitly believed. From the prospect of an hereditary religious despotism the invitation of the prince of Orange was no longer deferred. The whigs, who had urged the exclusion, were indifferent to the hereditary line of succession, from which the tories, who had no view beyond a parliament, were unwilling to deviate. But as every political and religious party deposited their animosities during the common danger, a secret conspiracy was formed by their coalition, the most extensive perhaps, and the best concerted which history has preserved.
“The secret, although entrusted to many thousands, transpired only from the preparations of the prince of Orange. Although his declaration announced that he was invited over by divers of the temporal and spiritual lords, the king was unable to discover the lines of conspiracy with which he was surrounded at home. The declaration issued on the embarkation of the prince, enumerated the grievances of the three kingdoms, the suspicious birth of the prince of Wales, and the necessity of interposing to establish the religion and liberties of the people on a secure foundation. Terrified at the approaching danger from abroad, and at the contempt and hatred which he had incurred at home, the king endeavoured, when too late, to retract his former illegal measures; but when the Dutch fleet was dispersed, and driven back by a storm to Holland, his confidence in the protection of heaven revived. But the expedition was renewed in a few days. While the English fleet was confined to its station off Harwich, the prince, with six hundred transports and ships of war, passed with an east wind through the Straits of Dover, in the presence of wondering multitudes, who gazed at the sublime spectacle from either coast; and disembarking at Torbay, afforded a signal proof to the nation, that its navy will not always prevent an invasion, nor a standing army ensure stability to the throne.
“For a few days the prince of Orange was joined by none; but when the first example was given, the extent of the confederacy was announced by a rapid and universal defection from the king. The gentlemen of Somerset and Devon hastened to the prince, who had advanced to Exeter, and entered eagerly into an association for his support. The earl of Bath admitted his fleet into Plymouth. The earl of Devonshire and the gentlemen of Derby and Nottingham declared for the prince and a free parliament. Lord Delamer took arms in Cheshire; and in the northern counties lord Danby and his associates surprised Newcastle, York, and Hull. Cornbury, the earl of Clarendon’s son, was among the first to desert; but when a petition for a free parliament, signed by nineteen peers and prelates, was evaded, he was followed by Churchill, Kirk, Trelauny, Drumlanrig, the dukes of Ormond and Grafton, prince George of Denmark, the king’s Son in law, while a greater number of inferior officers refused to fight against the prince of Orange.
“The king, who had arrived at Salisbury to give battle to the prince, was overwhelmed with misfortunes. All England appeared in commotion. The capital was full of discontent; the very fleet declared for a free parliament; and surrounded, as he believed, by a disaffected army, he knew not in whom to confide. He withdrew his army, and retired to London; but when informed of his daughter the princess Anne’s escape, “God help me,” cried he, with tears of anguish, “my own children have deserted me.” Every new disaster increased his perturbation. He summoned a council of peers; issued writs for new parliament; dispatched commissioners to propose a treaty: but as the prince, amidst the acclamations of all ranks, continued to advance, he was bereft of all fortitude and strength of mind. His conduct was irresolute, pusillanimous, absurd; and unable to submit to necessity, yet incapable of a single effort of generous despair, he sunk, without dignity, beneath his misfortunes. His father’s execution was still present to his desponding thoughts; and he listened credulously to every suggestion of personal danger, without reflecting either on the difference of the characters or of the times. His terrors were flattered as the result of political wisdom, and he was easily persuaded that his departure would produce a scene of anarchy to accelerate the recovery of absolute power. His hopes were absurdly placed on the public confusion, to increase which he recalled and burnt the writs for a new parliament; directed Feversham to disband the army; threw the great seal into the Thames; and with a single attendant, embarked in a small vessel at midnight for France, whither the queen and his son had before been secretly conveyed. When he was intercepted at Feversham and brought back to Whitehall, the returning affections of the city might have convinced him that the nation was not yet lost. In this delicate extremity he attempted to resume his authority by an indiscreet proclamation against the late excesses; [856] but was required at midnight to remove from the palace, and permitted to retire to Rochester, with an obvious design to connive at his escape. He was convinced himself that his departure would prove acceptable to the prince; and the few friends who adhered in adversity to his fortunes, urged him to remain. But the despair of life returned. An expression of his father’s was remembered—that ‘short is the distance between the prison and the grave of kings:’ and by the desertion of his kingdom, which he was destined never to revisit, he left his rival an unbloody victory, and a vacant throne.—The revolution was accomplished in Scotland with the same ease and success.”
A convention was assembled in each kingdom, to manage their respective concerns, and settle their future government. In England the revolution was accomplished by a coalition of whig and tory; but in Scotland, where the same distinctions prevailed under different names, the parties kept separate and opposed to each other; the episcopalians siding with James, and the presbyterians with William. The latter, however, in the end prevailed, and the convention adopted a plan, prepared by a committee, for the settlement of the crown.
The deliberations had degenerated in the English convention into verbal disputes between the two houses, whether the late king had deserted or abdicated the vacant throne. In Scotland there was neither the same necessity to gratify the tories, nor the same propriety in declaring that the king had abdicated the government, by the desertion of a country wherein he did not reside. But the opposite genius of the two nations was never more conspicuous than in the result of their deliberations on that important event. The English convention declared that James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution, by breaking the original contract between the king and people, and having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn from the kingdom, had abdicated [857] the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant. The Scots, on the other hand, instead of attempting by an ambiguous fiction to reconcile hereditary right with a change in the succession, placed the vacancy of the throne on its true basis, the religion and mal-administration of James. The same oppression which the English apprehended while yet distant, they had long endured. Their loyal attachment to the Stewarts, which survived the civil wars, had been effaced by their sufferings since the restoration. From the same national ardour which rendered the reformation so complete, or destructive in Scotland, they proposed and passed a bold and decisive vote, that James had forfaulted [forfeited] the crown by his misconduct and crimes.
When the throne was declared vacant, the convention, of both nations, resolved that the crown should be tendered to William and Mary, as joint sovereigns. The prince in an agreeable and obliging manner accepted of the crown in the name of them both; and the same day, (Feb. 13. 1689,) they were proclaimed king and queen by the named of William and Mary, at which a general joy appeared among the people. On the 11th. of April the new sovereigns were crowned in London, and proclaimed in Scotland on the same day. From the latter Argyle and others were deputed by the three temporal estates to present the crown, and administer the oath to the king and queen. The instrument of government and the grievances were first read; to which an Address to turn the convention into a parliament, was subjoined. When the coronation Oath was administered to William, at the obligation to root out heretics, he paused, and declared that he did not mean to become a persecutor; and on the assurance of the commissioners that such was not its import, protested that in that sense only he took the Oath. This must be extremely honourable to William’s memory, and is a rare instance of princely virtue, wisdom, and patriotism. If all kings were of his sort the objections to monarchical government would lose most of their strength. With this sketch of the British Revolution, so much talked of, and so ill understood by most, the reader, it is hoped, will not be displeased. [859]
Section II.
History of Lynn continued to the accession of Q. Anne—example of William and the revolutionists did not liberalize our townsmen—persecution of nonconformists here within this period—stocking trade, and complaints of the hosiers—petitions to parliament—addresses to the throne—law-suits—water-works—affair of the coal-meters—and of the noblemen, knights, esquires, clergy, &c.
William’s ideas of civil and religious liberty, though perhaps, not perfectly correct or unexceptionable, were yet far more so than what was generally entertained by our countrymen at that period—and probably, even what is generally entertained among us at this time: for civil and religious liberty seems not to have been of late years among our favourite studies. William and his consort would gladly have placed the liberty of protestant Dissenters on a broad and liberal footing, but it was not approved by the majority of the two houses of parliament. They however readily passed an Act, in the summer of 1689, for exempting their Majesties Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certain Laws; which is commonly called the Act of Toleration. But toleration is a word not to be applied to honest and virtuous men, in a land of liberty; for it implies some unworthiness in the objects, or their being unentitled to what is granted, and that the magistrate grants it by way of favour, indulgence, or connivance; whereas religious liberty is the natural and inalienable inheritance of every human being, and should be claimed as a right, and not as a boon or favour. The Toleration Act received the royal assent May 24. 1689, and the protestant dissenters have sat under the shade of it, mostly, but not always unmolested, ever since. Tories and high churchmen have often attempted to disturb them, but by this law they have been in a great measure protected. Had it not passed in the reign of William, it is doubtful if it had passed at any subsequent period. Even at this time some great men are proposing to have it revised, as being too comprehensive, and requiring certain restrictions. What the event will be, time will shew: but it will be a sad thing if the rights of conscience, or the enjoyment of religious liberty should be curtailed, now in the 19th century.
Lynn is a notable instance of a town declaring for the revolution, without entering at all into the spirit of it: for it continued still as bigoted and intolerant as before. This was remarkably exemplified in the bitter and violent persecution that broke out here about 1690, against a society of protestant dissenters of the Baptist denomination, and especially against James Marham, their minister. He appears to have been a very worthy man, zealous and diligent in propagating that sort of religious knowledge which he thought most useful and interesting to his fellow-creatures. Some of the great ones, or heads of the town became his chief persecutors. What they affected to take most umbrage at was, the denomination to which he belonged. They pretended that it was a new religion; and they would not suffer it to be disseminated in the town, but were resolved to break up the meeting. They first proceeded against him under the Conventicle Act, and employed two men, named Robert Whitehead and Henry Oseincraft, as informers; who having been at the meeting, laid their information before the justices, or aldermen, [861] who forthwith issued their warrants to levy 20l. on the house, 20l. on the preacher, and 5s. on each of the hearers. Marham owned that he hired the meeting-house, but produced the licence, or certificate, which shewed it to have been regularly registered as a place of worship, according to the Toleration Act; but that they over-ruled, and caused their levy to be executed, both upon him and others. And finding afterwards that he persisted in continuing the meeting, they resolved to ruin him, by charging him with some heinous crime, which the account does not specify. They got one person to swear against him, intending then to commit him to prison; but the witness could not substantiate the charge; so that they were obliged to drop the proceeding. Marham now getting a copy of their levy, found that the informers had sworn, that when they were at the meeting-house one John Marham was preaching; whereas there was no preacher of that name. The preacher that was speaking when they were at the meeting was a minister from London, whose name was Wm. Lang, but he was only praying, and not preaching, at the time. They had also sworn, that one Francis Robinson was then at the meeting, which was not true. Having made these discoveries Marham was advised to proceed against them at common Law, which he accordingly did; and the two informers were put into the crown office. The great men now interfered, and prevailed with Marham’s attorney to desist from further prosecution, “as he would answer it, (says the account) in the hands or custody of a messenger.” [862] These threats inducing the attorney to stay the proceedings for a time, the informers, advised by their patrons or employers, took advantage of that to remove the cause from common law to chancery. A notice or subpœna was then served upon Marham to answer their bill of complaint, which bill consisted of 31 sheets. “Though the substance of it, (our account says) will be proved utterly false, yet it will cost more money by far than Marham is able to disburse, without evident ruin.” An appeal was therefore made to the whole denomination for assistance; and they are thought to have come forward pretty liberally on the occasion, the particular as well as the general baptists, to the latter of which Marham belonged. He was up in London and gave in his answer in February 1693; but when or how the affair ended does not appear, for our account was published before it was brought to its final issue. As a chancery cause it might remain long undetermined, perhaps for some years. But how or whensoever it ended, here is enough to shew very clearly with what illiberality, intolerance, tyranny, and villany, the gentry or chief men of Lynn were capable of acting at that period. Much of the same spirit continued here very long after, even down to the memory of the present writer.
About the beginning of 1690 (or 1689–90) the hosiers of this town appeared much concerned and alarmed, (as had indeed been the case for some time before, [864]) at the prevalence of the weaving method, by which that of knitting was much discouraged and fallen off, to the great injury of vast numbers of the poor, who were consequently left without employment. They therefore now petitioned the Hall to have the case brought before parliament, which was readily acceded to. This affair is thus memorized in the Town-Books.—“Jan. 17. (1689–90) On petition of the Hosiers of this Town in behalf of the poore, against the new invention of weaving worstead hose; whereby many thousands of the poor are destitute of employment; It is ordered and agreed that a Petition from this House to the Honorable House of Commons representing that grievance, now read, be sealed with the common seal of this burgh.”
It may therefore be presumed that this petition was actually presented to the House of Commons, but what was there made of it, or what reception it met does not appear. It must, however, have indicated a very contracted idea of trade, or the rights of manufacturing adventurers. Near seven years after a different sort of petition was presented by this town to the same house; of which the following notice occurs in the Hall or Town-Books—“Oct. 26. 1696; Mr Mayor, Mr Recorder, Sir Henry Hobart baronet, Sir John Turner knight, Sir Charles Turner knight, Robert Walpole, Maurice Kendall, Esquires, Mr. Bell, Mr. Holly, Mr. Turner, or any five of them, to manage and present a petition to the parliament to remove obstructions, and for preserving navigation—[and] for removing the Dam and Sluices near Salters load.”—The obtaining the object of this petition might probably have proved very beneficial to the country; but it does not appear that the application succeeded.