The reign of George II. may safely be pronounced, on the whole, one of the most happy and prosperous in the annals of this country. The principles of civil and religious liberty were then favoured at court, and recognized by the sovereign, as what had seated his family on the throne. Protestant Dissenters he considered as some of his best friends and most faithful subjects; nor did his ministers and courtiers ever presume to treat them with coolness and disrespect, or pretend to entertain any doubt or suspicion of their loyalty, or their attachment to the king and constitution, according to the principles laid down at the revolution. In short, this reign will be contemplated with no small pleasure by the sons of freedom, as a period when an open attachment to civil and religious liberty, or the real rights of man, subjected no one to the suspicion, or imputation, of being a traitor to his king and country. How far the same may be said of our situation for the last twenty years, is a question of which we shall not at present enter upon the discussion.
One of the first notable acts of our municipality, after the commencement of this reign, may be presumed to be that of addressing the throne, by way both of condolence and congratulation; the former on the death of the late sovereign, and the latter on the happy accession of his successor. But as no copy of this address has fallen in our way, we cannot form any judgment of its tenor or merit: only we are informed that our cities and boroughs, in general, did then actually send up such addresses; and it is not to be supposed that the same was neglected or omitted at Lynn, especially as the prime minister himself was one of its representatives. This address, no doubt, was sufficiently loyal, but whether or not so eloquent and sublime as those sent up in the reign of queen Anne, must now be left among the uncertainties, or, perhaps, even among the inscrutables.
Not long after, or in the course of the autumn of that same year, as it would seem, the mayor, (Mr. Tho. Allen) according to one of our manuscript narratives, issued an order to prohibit the barbers to shave on Sundays; for which we may be pretty sure his worship had not many thanks from that fraternity. How far this order was obeyed, or did contribute to the reformation and benefit of the town, we have not been able to discover. The wisdom and utility of such measures appear very questionable, and it is doubtful if they have ever answered any very good purposes, as they seem to be ill, or not at all, calculated to convince people of the evil of the conduct or practices against which they are directed. Some of our mayors, of more recent days, have taken upon them to issue similar orders, at the commencement of their mayoralty, but they have seldom, or never, thought it proper or expedient to enforce them throughout, or to the end of the year.
Mr John Goodwin, the mayor of the ensuing year, (1728–,) distinguished himself, according to the same narrative, in another way, by setting down a stone-cistern at the end of the Fish-Shambles, and also endowing one of the Almshouses in broad Street for one poor man with two shillings a week.—His successor, Mr. Andrew Taylor, distinguished himself still differently: for, as the same narrative words it, “He did abundance of good, as he thought, by taking away guns and killing of dogs; but was a friend to the Church, which he seldom troubled.” That is, if we rightly comprehend the meaning, he was, in talk, a mighty zealot for the Church, though he seldom would condescend, or deem it worth his while to honour it with his presence: which, to all thinking and discerning people, was a sure sign and clear proof that all his noisy zeal was nothing but mere pretence, to answer some mercenary or hypocritical end; and but for which he in reality cared no more for the church than the most heathenish or irreligious of his neighbours.
How many such churchmen as this Andrew Taylor have been mayors of this town since his time, it is impossible to say; but that numbers of them have pretended to be very stanch and zealous for the Church, while they seldom attended its stated service, or public worship, is very certain. That there were none of this description among the present members of the Hall seems much to be wished; and especially that a truly and christian spirit towards those of other denominations was more visible and predominant among them; which yet is suspected not to have been altogether the case at the formation or establishment of the Lancastrian school, and in some subsequent circumstances relating to that event. But this is not the proper place to make these matters the subjects of inquiry, investigation, or animadversion. [912]
The successor of Taylor, Mr. Charles Harwick, who obtained the mayoralty in 1730, had most painful scenes to engage his attention, owing to the most shocking murder of a Mrs Ann Wright, which had been perpetrated in the town that year, by one George Smith, aided by Mary Taylor, Mrs Wright’s Servant, who had let him into the house in the dead of the night. For this black and horrid deed Mary Taylor was burnt alive in the market-place, and Smith was hanged at the same time, on a gallows erected, as Mackerell says, seventeen yards distant from the stake. This happened, it seems, in 1731, the latter part of Harwick’s mayoralty. The superlative atrociousness of that bloody deed, and the dreadful abandonment, dereliction, or depravity of mind which it discovered, called, undoubtedly, for the most exemplary and terrible punishment, in order to deter those of the like character from the commission of similar crimes, as nothing else can be expected to have much effect on such, in restraining their flagitious propensities. A virtuous principle, however, after all, is the most powerful and effectual of all preventives against vicious or criminal excesses, and far beyond all the terrors of penal laws, or punitive justice. It is a great pity more care is not taken to instill this principle as much as possible into the minds of the rising generations
About the time last mentioned, one John Rudkin, a member of our municipality, fell under the sore displeasure of his brethren, and was eventually expelled from among them. The affair is thus related in the Hall books—“April 26. 1731, Ordered that John Rudkin be discharged from the office of common Councell man, unless, next Hall-day, he can shew cause to the contrary; he having disclosed the councells of this assembly, and the secrets of this corporation, and hath behaved contemptuously towards the mayor (Charles Harwick Esq. [913]) and other members, justices of this burgh, and charged some of them with pyracy.”—again—“June 16. 1731, John Rudkin’s answer being insufficent, he was expelled and discharged from the office of a common councell.” This shews that our corporation, as such, have counsels and secrets, that are deemed very improper and criminal to disclose; which seems to look somewhat dark and suspicious; for if all their proceedings were fair and just, honestly and solely directed for the public good, what need could there be to care if the whole world knew all about them? [914]—Corporations might be beneficial in their original institution, and in feudal times, to protect the inhabitants from baronial domination and tyranny; but they have become long ago (for the most part, at least,) grievous nuisances, rather than real benefits, to the British public.
At the period we are now reviewing, Lynn was by no means in a flourishing state, as may be pretty safely concluded from the following passage in our book of Extracts—“Dec. 23. 1731; Ordered that a memorial be sent to the Representatives in Parliament, touching the heavy burthen upon them, from the Land-Tax Act, and from the decrease of traders among them, praying reliefe.”—Things must have gotten to a sad pass to bring our high-minded corporation to so dejected and supplicating a posture. For sometime previous and subsequent to the date of the above extract, as the present writer has heard from ancient people who remembered the time, the indigence of Lynn was a matter of general notoriety; so that poor Lynn used to be the common appellation of the town, in the language of the country people. It seems now to be the prevailing opinion that the late conduct of our rulers, in subjecting the small houses to taxation, and otherwise so unconscionably burdening the town, will soon bring things here again to the same pass, and restore to us the humiliating name of poor Lynn once more. Our many empty houses would seem to corroborate this opinion; but we would fain hope their number will soon decrease, and that some favourable events, or happy turn of things will prevent such an opinion, or the fears entertained on this head being realized.
In the times we are now exploring, our mayor was allowed to confer the freedom of the town, on some one person whom he should think proper to select for that purpose: hence such notices as the following occur in our book of Extracts—“Dec. 8. 1732; Rd. Hawkins made ffree, as the mayor’s, John Farthing’s ffreeman.”—again—“May 8. 1733; Wm. Langley, mariner, made ffree, upon Andrew Taylor’s recommendation, not having had a ffreeman chosen for his mayoralty, as accustomed.”—again—“May 23. 1733; Edmd. Harwick, of Wiggenhall St. Maries, to have his ffreedom upon recommendation of alderman John Goodwin, he not having had a ffreeman chosen for his last mayoralty as hath been accustomed.”—About three months after, however, our Hall suddenly resolved to discontinue this custom, as appears from the following passage among our Extracts—“Aug. 29. 1733; Saml. Browne chosen mayor, and to have 150l. viz. 50l. for the better carrying on the mayoralty; 50l. for the entertainment on Michaelmas Day; and 50l. on St. John’s Day”—Then it is added—“And that no succeeding mayor have the liberty of naming, or making a ffreeman, as his ffreeman, for the future.” But they did not long adhere to this order, or resolution, or persist in so self-denying a course, as we find by another note among the same Extracts, which is expressed thus—“May 22. 1739; The revd. Mr. Edmd. Keene had his ffreedom gratis, as his father’s ffreeman.” [917] Whether or not it was very wise to discontinue this custom, or afterwards to revive it, after it had been so expressly and formally abolished, we will not now stop to inquire, but shall here close this section.