Chap. IV

Further observations on the history of Lynn during the period under consideration—probable state of the town, as to its internal police and municipal economy previously to its being declared a free burgh and receiving its first royal charter—changes resulting from that event—statement of subsequent occurrences.

It has been already observed that Lynn was a place of considerable trade, and of growing importance and opulence, at and before the Conquest. Afterward its trade kept rapidly increasing; and in the reign of Richard I. it was become a place of distinguished eminence, insomuch that it was called by William of Newburgh, who lived at that time, “a noble city, or a city of note for its trade and commerce.” Foreign merchants had then a regular established connection and intercourse with this town, and their ships and sailors frequented it in great numbers. A considerable body of Jews also had settled here, and must have been among the most active and useful part of its population; which further corroborates the report of its being in those days a place of no small commercial note and consequence, for those people were not likely to settle, in any great numbers, except in places of that description. Indeed it seems pretty clear and certain that both in the reign of Richard and that of his brother and successor John, Lynn ranked very high among the trading towns of this kingdom, in point of commercial importance: and it is recorded upon undoubted authority, that in the sixth year of the last of those two reigns, (the date of our first royal charter) the tax or tallage of the king at Lynn, amounted to 651l. whereas that of London at the same time amounted only to 836l. 12s. 6d. From which we may infer that the revenue which the crown then derived from the trade of this town, was more than two thirds of what it derived from that of London; and consequently that the trade itself of this town did in the mean time bear the same proportion to that of the metropolis; which may be presumed to have been the case of very few places, if any, besides in the kingdom.—Lynn being allowed to have a mint, or mints for the coining of money, belonging to the king and the bishop, [393a] has been deemed another proof of the flourishing state of the town at that period.

Of the government of Lynn, or its municipal economy in those times, very little is known, except that it appears to have been under the management of an officer who bore the name of provost, who doubtless was nominated by the bishop, and acted as his bailiff or deputy; but whether he was elected annually or held his office for a longer or shorter term, or during the pleasure of his master, seems rather uncertain. He was, however, the chief magistrate of the town, and had, of course, other officers assisting and acting under him, like our chief magistrates of more modern times. It is very provable that the order of things in this town was not so materially changed by king John as some may imagine. The chief alteration apparently was, that the town now ranked among those incorporated by royal charter, was consequently declared a free burgh, had its burgesses exempted from tolls, &c. in all parts of England, but London; and finally, had its chief magistrate denominated mayor, instead of provost, [393b] a circumstance, probably of no mighty consequence, or real benefit to the community, though highly gratifying, perhaps, to the pride and vanity of the corporation. The real difference, however, between a mayor and a provost, seems to be very little, if any thing, more than that between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The former indeed is generally taken to be the highest and most honourable appellation, and therefore our corporations naturally prefer it to the other, as the title of their head man, or chief magistrate. After all, the inferiority of the provost does not seem always perceivable; and nobody, perhaps, would deem the lord Mayor of York as superior in dignity to the lord Provost of Edinburgh.

The smiles and favours of royalty are always gratifying to most people: those of king John were so, no doubt, to his Lynn subjects, and may be supposed to have confirmed them more than ever in their attachment to him, which appears to have continued strong and steady afterwards during the remainder of his reign. Of the worth and merit of that attachment, his majesty seemed duly sensible: as a proof of which, they received from him in return, some very flattering and lasting tokens, beside the immunities and privileges specified in his charters; especially the silver cup which is still in being, and shewn to strangers and others as a great curiosity. It is an elegant double-gilt, embossed, and enamelled cup and cover, weighing 73 ounces, and of exquisite workmanship, and shews the uncommon skill and ingenuity of some our silver-smiths of that period, who were probably of the monkish order, as our best artists, as well as most renowned scholars, were then chiefly to be found within the solemn precincts of our monasteries.

The sword, which is usually carried before our mayors, has been also considered as another mark or token of king John’s favour to this town; but this appears a very questionable matter. This weapon, which has a silver mounting, the king is said to have taken from his side, and given to the corporation, to be carried before the major: but it does not appear that there was a sword at all carried before our mayors as early as the reign of king John, or even for a long time after. If such a ceremony was really observed here before the reign of Henry V. or of Henry VI. it must seemingly have been appropriated solely to the great lords of the place, the bishops of Norwich, who appear, all along to have claimed, that honour as their own peculiar, and exclusive prerogative: the mayors having no share in it, but only as they followed their masters, the bishops, and formed a part of their retinue. Bishop Gibson, in his additions to Camden, observes that the present sword, though said to have been given by king John, was really the gift of Henry VIII. after the town came into his possession, and he changed their burgesses into aldermen. John’s charter does not mention the sword, but that granted by Henry expressly says, that he granted them a sword to be carried before their mayor. As to the inscription on the blade of the present sword, purporting its being the gift of king John, it proves nothing, being apparently the unauthorized contrivance of two forward fellows of the town, a sword cutler and a school-master, as late as the reign of queen Elizabeth. But, however improbable it may be that the said sword was ever the property of king John, and given by him as a present and mark of his royal and special favour to this corporation, yet there does not seem to be any just reason for entertaining similar doubts respecting the cup before-mentioned. The only circumstance relating to the cup which one would be inclined to deem doubtful, or rather incredible, is a certain sly insinuation, which has been sometimes heard, that it was a part of a parcel of stolen goods, which his majesty, while on a visit at Walsingham, contrived to pilfer from that celebrated abbey, and coming afterward to Lynn, made a present of it to the corporation.

Lynn seems to have paid very dearly for the said king’s favours. Camden, in his account of this town observes, that it enjoys very large immunities, which its inhabitants “purchased of king John with the price of their own blood, spent in the defence of his cause:” alluding, probably, to the powerful assistance they afforded him in reducing the disaffected barons of this county, whose subjugation proved an arduous undertaking, and whom he afterwards severely chastised. The assistance they rendered to this sovereign consisted not only in recruits for his army, or a strong and resolute body of landsmen, but also in sailors and ships for his naval operations: hence Lynn and Yarmouth are mentioned by Carte among the principal places that furnished his majesty with a fleet to oppose that of France on a certain occasion. In short, the good people of this town appear to have assisted that memorable monarch to the utmost of their ability, or in all the ways, and by all the means that were in their power. He, on the other hand, is said to have been very partial to them, and deemed them so trustworthy, and their town so secure a place, that he deposited there, for some time his crown and regalia, and his most valuable treasures; but took them away at his last visit, and lost them all, soon after, in crossing the Wash, at an improper place, or improper time; which he laid so to heart that it hastened his death, which took place a very short time after at Newark. There is indeed no small disagreement among our historians in their accounts of king John after his last departure from Lynn. Some represent him as crossing the Wash, or rather the Ouse, then called Wellstream, at the Cross Keys; others represent him as crossing it at Wisbeach, and the latter seems to be the truth. Some, again, ascribe the illness which terminated his life, to poison, administered by a monk of Swineshead; others ascribe it to vexation for the loss of his treasures; while others assure us that it is to be ascribed to neither of these causes, but that he was ill before that disaster of losing his treasures befel him. Nay, some have alleged, or suggested, that his last illness originated at Lynn, and was occasioned by his intemperate living during his stay here. In accounts different and contradictory, it is no easy task to distinguish truth from fiction. It seems however to be pretty well established that the said king left Lynn on the 11th of October, 1216, was at Wisbeach on the 12th, at Sleaford on the 15th, and at Newark on the 18th, where he died the very next day: but the story of the poison seems very doubtful and even improbable; nor does that concerning the loss of his crown and treasures seem perfectly clear and indubitable.

Even the fact that Lynn had been the depository of the king’s treasures, with his crown and regalia, during his absence from these parts, and till he removed them at his last departure, becomes very doubtful, or rather quite improbable, if we believe Rapin’s assertion, from M. Paris, that the king’s great competitor, the Dauphin, not long before, and within that same year, had actually reduced Lynn, and made the whole county, as well as those of Suffolk and Essex tributary to him. In that case, those treasures, &c. if deposited here, must inevitably have fallen into the Dauphin’s hands, and so be entirely lost to the king. We must therefore either conclude that the alleged fact of Lynn having been the depository of the said treasures, for any length of time, is unfounded, or that the said assertion, that Lynn had been that year taken by the Dauphin, is so. But as these matters are not very interesting, we will now drop them, and also our account of king John for the present.

After the death of John, and in the reign of his son and successor, Henry III. the people of Lynn, at one time, seem to have sided with the malcontents of that period, and so forfeited their chartered rights: but their defection was of no long duration; they returned to their duty with every appearance of contrition, and soon gave full proof of the ardour, as well as the unfeignedness of their loyalty. Camden says that they “purchased their lost liberties of Henry III. not without blood, when they sided with him against the outlawed barons, and unluckily engaged them in the Isle of Ely. An account whereof we have in the book of Ely, and in Matthew Paris.” [399a] The battle here alluded to was fought somewhere about Littleport, where the Lynn volunteers of that day were very roughly handled by their opponents, and lost a considerable number of their people; of which mention has been made by several of our historians. In the 8th and 9th years of that king’s reign, licence was granted to foreign merchants to come with safety to the fair of Lenn; and in the 11th year a talliage was granted to the king by the bishop. The oath of the burghers then was, “You shall faithfully pay your talliage made by the lord (bp.) at his will, of all your chattels’ of your own property, whatever they are, and of the chattels of your wife, and all that is your due to pay.” [399b] Thus payment was made upon oath; but the tax was granted to the king by the bishop, without the concurrence of the burghers; and also assessed and levied by him at his will, without check or control. In such a case, and under such circumstances, it might be reasonably supposed there would be some misdoings, and not a few causes of complaint, and that misunderstanding would arise between his lordship and his Lynn vassals, which might lead to very serious results. That it really did so happen appears from authentic documents.

Sometime after the above taxation, the people or burgesses of Lynn, dissatisfied, it seems, with the arbitrary and oppressive proceeding of their lord, the bishop, in that instance, and questioning his right to tax them at will, or without their consent, took upon them to tax themselves without consulting him, as well as to elect a mayor also without his permission. This his lordship greatly resented, as absolutely illegal and highly criminal: and he also, very sorely felt it, no doubt, as deeply affecting his own baronial claims here, or endangering his feudal dominion. He accordingly proceeded against them in the ecclesiastical court, and had them all excommunicated. In that grievous dilemma, and from so arbitrary and galling a sentence, they appealed to the king’s justices at Westminster, before whom the affair underwent a legal investigation: of which, and its result, the following account is given by Parkin.

“In the 8th. of this king (Henry III.) a fine was levied, at Westminster in Trinity term, before Robert Lexington, William de York, Ralph de Norwich, William de Lisle, Adam Fitz-William, and Ralph de Rokele, the king’s justices, between the mayor and burgesses, querents, and Thomas Blundevile, bishop of Norwich, deforcient. The Mayor &c. complained, that the bishop had impleaded them in a court christian (ecclesiastical or spiritual court) and had excommunicated them, because they had created a mayor among themselves, and had taxed and talliaged themselves, in the said burgh without his assent; and it was agreed between them in the said court, that the bishop should grant for himself and successors, and his church of Norwich, that the said burgesses, for the future, may chuse and create to themselves a mayor, whomsoever they pleased of their own body, on this condition, That immediately after his election, or creation, they should present him to the bishop and his successors, wherever they should be in the diocese of Norwich; who on the presentation should be admitted by the bishop without any contradiction: and for this fine and concord, the mayor and burgesses grant for themselves, their heirs and successors, that whosoever shall be so created and elected mayor by them, shall promise on his good faith and fealty, by which he is engaged to the bishop, and his successors, that he will observe all things that belong to his office, as long as he shall continue therein, and preserve, as much as is in his power, the liberties of the church of Norwich. This agreement and fine was made in the presence of the king, who consented to it. This king, as appears from many instances, sate frequently in the court of king’s bench at the head of his justices.”

It does not appear from the above account how the taxation or assessment business was then settled; but it seems most probable that it was taken out of the hands both of the bishop and the burgesses, and committed to the management of certain officers appointed by the crown. It is likely indeed that that point had been previously settled, and that the names of the first officers, or assessors, are still preserved: for we are told that “in the 17th. of the said reign, (which was the year preceding that of the above trial) Thomas de Milton, and Warin, son of Imbert, were named by the king, to assess the talliage, and all the demeans of the see of Norwich.” This point therefore might not come under discussion in the above trial at Westminster. But the case of creating, or choosing a mayor, seems to have been there very carefully investigated. The result was (as above stated) that the right of the burgesses, to elect a mayor from among themselves, was fully established; on the express condition, however, that, immediately after his election they should present him to the bishop, wherever he should be within the diocese; who on his part was to receive him without any refusal, disapproval, or, contradiction.

From the preceding statement one would be apt to conclude, that the right of the burgesses to choose a mayor, independently of the bishop’s will and pleasure, was now fully settled and that his lordship would no longer presume to interfere, either directly or indirectly, on that occasion. But it cannot be affirmed that the event warrants that conclusion. The lust of power is a strong passion, and not very soon or easily subdued. The bishops having so long borne uncontrolled sway in the direction and management of every thing in this town, it was not to be expected that they would be very ready to resign or relinquish it. The mayors here from the first, it seems, were called The bishop’s men, and their lordships appeared always desirous to perpetuate the appellation, or, at least, to do all in their power to prevent its becoming inapplicable. Though the words of charters, the opinions of judges, and even the declarations of kings, might appear against them, yet they were scarcely ever at a loss for ways and means to surmount or evade all such difficulties, and secure their own beloved power and preponderance. So the case seems to have been at Lynn for a very long period. Neither the provision of charters, the verdict of judges, nor the orders of princes, could effect any material or lasting diminution of the exorbitant power of the bishop over this town, till the 16th century. It appeared like an inveterate evil, or incurable malady, until it felt the royal touch of Henry VIII. when it gave way at once, and underwent a radical and perfect cure.

As to the above agreement between the contending parties at Westminster, it does not appear that the bishops thought proper long, if at all, to act in compliance with it, and so refrain from any further interference in the election of appointment of a chief magistrate. This must have sat uneasy on the minds of the corporation, and they would naturally, and perhaps repeatedly complain to their sovereign against so oppressive an infringement of their municipal rights. Even the king himself also would feel it as an insult offered to him, as he was personally present when the agreement was made, and had sanctioned it by his own express approbation. On this ground we may account for that clause in the charter which he granted to our burgesses in the 52nd year of his reign, in which he not only confirms their former liberties, but also allows them to choose a mayor of themselves, without presenting him to the bishop. This last exemption from a former obligation and customary observance, seems plainly to indicate that the bishop had taken some such undue advantage of his power and influence as was before suggested; of which his majesty now thought proper to signify his entire disapprobation, by discharging the burghers from every obligation to pay his lordship any further regard, in their future choice or appointment of a chief magistrate. This the bishop must have felt somewhat mortifying. But as his feudal jurisdiction here still continued unabolished, it was not likely he would be long at a loss to find means to evade the force or operation of that humiliating clause, and secure or reestablish his wonted preeminence. That it actually did so happen, appears but too evident by all that we know of the subsequent history of the town. Every attempt to reduce the bishop’s predominance here, during the period of which we are now treating, proved unsuccessful. The burgesses never could effectually shake off his yoke, or cease to be his vassals and subjects; and even their elections of mayors, in general, if not always, might be compared to the modern conge d’elire elections of bishops, by our Deans and Chapters.

During the long reign of which we have been speaking, this kingdom suffered extremely from civil discord and intestine commotions, and the inhabitants of Lynn bore their share in those sufferings. Great numbers of their people perished in a bloody and unfortunate engagement against the barons, up in the country somewhere towards Littleport, as has been before noticed; which must have proved a most distressing calamity to the whole town, and especially to the wives and children and other relatives of the vanquished and slaughtered warriors. The enemy, being so strong and formidable in and about the Isle of Ely, must also have cut off all communication between Lynn and that district, and even interrupted its intercourse with all the interior parts of the country, as he had the entire command of the rivers and channels of internal navigation. This seems to have continued a long while, and must have distressed this town in a very great degree. It appears, however, to have been quite over, and tranquillity fully restored in the 41st year of that reign, as we find the mayor and burgesses were that year commanded by the king to permit the men of Ely to come here to sell their beer, and exercise merchandise, as they had been used to do before the disturbance. [405a] In the 50th year the same reign, as we are further informed, the king’s purveyors bought at Lynn 36 tuns of wine, which the sheriff of Norfolk was ordered to have conveyed to his majesty, then at the siege of Kenilworth, or Kennelworth Castle, in Warwickshire. [405b] This also shews that there were then no very serious or dangerous commotions in the parts about the Fens, and westward of Lynn, otherwise it would have been out of the sheriff’s power to have the said wine conveyed across that country, and to his majesty’s camp before Kennelworth. It however alleged by our historians that the malecontents who seized upon the Isle of Ely were the last that held out, and that they did not surrender till after the reduction of Kennelworth Castle. However that was, it is allowed that the rebellion was now soon quelled, and that the country afterwards enjoyed peace and tranquillity, for a long period.

It was in this king’s reign, as was before observed, that the Ouse and other rivers deserted their ancient and natural course by Wisbeach, and after inundating the fen country to a very great extent, from the effect of which it has never yet recovered, forced their passage into the sea by Lynn. A neglecting of the old outfall, which occasioned the choking up of the channel and impeding the course of the waters, in the time of a great flood, has been assigned as the cause of that memorable event. But as the malcontents had for sometime occupied the fens, and made their last stand there, and as the inundation might conduce materially to their defence, it seems very natural to suspect that they also had some hand in the business. Yet as our historians are silent on this head, we cannot affirm it as a matter of fact. The event proved, no doubt, detrimental to Wisbeach; and yet not materially advantageous, at least, not immediately so, to Lynn. Nor does it appear that even our harbour was at all improved by so large an accession of fresh water: on the contrary, for aught we know, the approach from the sea to this town was quite as good before as it has been since. It may be said however to be an event that somewhat contributes to preserve the memory of the third Henry, among the people of these parts. The character of this monarch is well known, and is no way worthy of respect or imitation. He was great in nothing but the vileness of his government and the length of his reign, which extended to the 57th year: the longest of any English reign, for the last ten centuries. For the evils of which, and of all the bad and unfortunate reigns that have occurred ever since that period, many, it is supposed, will deem the blessed prosperity of the present wise and happy reign as more than a sufficient counterbalance and compensation—especially, if it should also last as long, or still longer than that of Henry III. which seems not at all improbable: and who is it, within this favoured country, but does consider this as a consummation most devoutly to be wished?