Great chancery suit here about 1738—violent storm or hurricane in 1741—its effects here and in the adjacent country—the damages here repaired—perilous state then of the river and harbour—rebellion breaking out in 1745—its effects in this town—its progress—suppressed after the battle of Culloden—reflections thereon—subsequent events relating to Lynn to the end of that reign—state of the nation—accession of George III.
About the time of which we have been speaking, our Corporation had a great suit in Chancery with one of their own principal members; and however justifiable or unjustifiable it might be, a falling out among brethren must be allowed to be, at any time and on any occasion, a very unpleasant occurrence. Our knowledge of this unlovely affair is derived from the following luminous passage in our book of Extracts—“Dec. 22. 1738; Whereas there was lately a suit depending in Chancery between the mayor and burgesses and Robt. Britiffe Esq. their trustee, against alderman Thomas Allen, (which was the 7th. Octr. 1738, agreed that Mr. Serjeant Urlin, Chas. Clarke Esq. and Mr. Tho. Nutting be appointed Referees to arbitrate) for the recovery of the ancient customary payment of 1d. per quarter for corn sold by the said Tho. Allen, upon contracts made by him with other merchants, not being freemen, for shipping such corn at a price certain, clear of all charges. Said Mr. Allen hath agreed to pay not only all the arrears for all corn he shipped off out of this port, where the same was not really his own risque and adventure, but in all future times to pay the said dues for all corn which he shall contract for and sell to any persons not being freemen of the said borough, which shall be exported out of the said borough by water.” In this suit the corporation evidently got the better of their opponent; but this is far from having been invariably the case in all their law-suits, as has before appeared in the course of this work.
The year 1741 was rendered very remarkable and memorable in this town and country, on account of a violent storm, or hurricane, which then happened, and did great damage to the churches and other buildings. It arose on the 8th of September O. S. and blew down the spires of St. Nicholas’ chapel, and St. Margaret’s Church, and demolished a great part of the body of the latter. The following memoranda, written at that period, will further describe the awful effects of this disastrous visitation. Among our Extracts, so often quoted, it is noted as follows under the date of Sept. 9. 1741; “The Hurrycane yesterday blew down the spire and body of St. Margaret’s Church; also the spire of St. Nicholas’s Chappell.” And in another place, but of the same date, it is thus noted—“That whereas the Hurricane yesterday blew down St. Margaret’s spire and part of the Church, application be made to Sir Robert Walpole to procure ane act of parliament for rebuilding the same.” But a more particular account of the effects of this furious tempest we have found written on a blank leaf, at the end of a copy of the history of the great storm in 1703. It is in the handwriting of a Mr. Tho. Peirson, a clergyman, if we are not mistaken, whose property the book probably was, and it runs as follows—
“M E M. That on Tuesday 8. Sept. 1741, about 20 minutes after 12 at noon, was a most violent storm of wind and rain, which blew down St. Margarett’s Church Steeple and St. Nicholas at Lynn Regis, with the Weather-cock, &c. of All-Hallows Church in South Lynn, [920] Norfolk. Also the great West gabble-end, with a very large stack of chimneys, and the Weather-Hand of Middleton-Hall—And a great barn belonging to Henry Whiteman’s Farm at Tilney, with a small barn belonging to Thos. Cricks Farm at Outwell, in the Isle of Ely, the property of Me.—Besides divers other buildings in Marshland; and great damage was done to the Timber and others Trees in the country about Lynn and Downham.
Ita Testor. Tho: Peirson.”
The damages sustained here from this storm were all in time repaired: those of St. Margaret’s Church, it seems, by virtue of an act of parliament. One of our MS. narratives informs us that the rebuilding of that church was begun in 1742, during the mayoralty of Edward Everard, and completed in 1747, during that of Walter Robertson; so that it appears to have been about five years in rebuilding. But the new, or present church, like Ezra and Nehemiah’s new temple at Jerusalem, is said to be much inferior to the former, in point of dimension, as well as beauty and magnificence. It may be supposed however, that the pardons or indulgences offered to the contributors towards the old edifice, procured ampler funds for its completion than the act of parliament that was obtained for completing the new.
It would seem as if our very river and harbour had not entirely escaped the effects of that storm, and even that it did, or occasioned some very material damage to them; at least, there were great complaints made just after, of the bad and very perilous state to which they were then reduced. This will appear from the following passage, extracted from the Town Records—
“Sept. 9. 1741 agreed that the defences in sundry places of the Harbour are become insufficient to confine the fflux and reflux of the Tide, so that the Port and Harbour will soon be lost—That the two points of land on the east and west side of the river about a mile below the town are worn away by the rage of the sea, so that Marshland on one hand, and Gaywood and Wooton and all the low-lands thereabouts on the other, are in danger of being swallowed up by the sea—That, to guard against the flux and reflux, Piers are conceived to be absolutely necessary to be placed both above and below Lynn, for the preservation of the Town as well as the Port and Harbour.”
Shortly after another meeting was held at the Hall on the same occasion; which is thus noticed in the same Extracts—“Octr. 15. 1741, Sir John Turner, bart. is desired to write to Sir Robert Walpole, to recommend a Surveyor to view the Harbour, and to draw a report thereof, in order to have the same laid before parliament.”—Three weeks after, the result of this application to the minister is thus announced—“Nov. 5th. Sir John Turner acquainted that he had received a Letter from Sir Robt. Walpole, recommending Mr. Roswell, then at Hull, to survey the Harbour; and he is accepted and approved of to be Surveyor, and B. Nuthall Esq. or his Deputy, Mr. Recorder, aldermen Goodwin, Allen, Farthing, Bagge—Mr. Hulton, Everard, Langley, or any five or more to be a committee to prepare instructions for him.”—again—“Dec. 14. 1741; Ordered 21l. to be presented to Mr. Rodwell [so the name is spelt here:] for his trouble and advice in matters relating to the Harbour and South Marsh.”—Furthermore—“Febr. 24 1741–2;—Mr. Wm. Reynolds presented his report touching his survey of the Harbour, together with ane estimate of the charges in the erecting of two Piers which he proposes for the restoration and preservation thereof, which is approved off.”
Afterwards we hear no more of this business, for nine months or more. Then we find it further noticed as follows—
“Novr. 29th. 1742; Ordered that application be made to parliament for the preservation of the channel and harbour of this Port and Borough, which are in danger of being lost.—The schemes of Mr Rosewell and Mr. Reynolds being read and approved of, it is agreed that the same be carryed into execution, and this House hath agreed to resolve itselfe into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of ways and means for raising moneys, by laying such rates and duties on goods and merchandizes imported into, and exported out of this Port, or by such other ways as they shall think proper for the effectuall carrying those schemes into execution, for preserving the channel and harbour aforesaid and rendring the same usefull and safe for navigation.”