OF THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF LYNN, WITH A SKETCH OF ITS HISTORY FROM ITS FIRST RISE TO THE NORMAN CONQUEST. CHAP. I. Of Lynn while Britain formed a part of the Roman Empire. SECTION I. _The present town_, _or borough of Lynn_, _of no great antiquity—its site not the same with that of the original town—the probable site of the latter_, _and era of its origin_. What is now called _Lynn_, _Lynn Regis_, or the _Borough of King’s Lynn_, is generally considered as a place of no very high antiquity. It arose probably during the Heptarchy, out of the ruins of the old town, though not built on the same spot, and must soon have become a place of no small consideration in the kingdom of the East Angles, as may very reasonably be concluded, from the convenience of its situation for trade and commerce. We hear not much of it, however till after the conquest, when it presently appears as a place of growing importance, under the direction and management of its new French masters, the enterprising companions and agents of the successful Norman adventurer, the Bonaparte of the eleventh century. But though no traces can be discovered of the existence of a town on the _eastern_ side of the river, prior to the time of the Heptarchy, it is more than probable, that there was a town on the opposite, or _western_ side, long anterior to that period. That town has not yet entirely disappeared. It may still be recognized in the little village called _Old Lynn_; a name which plainly indicates, that the original town must have stood there. It is well known that the town on the eastern side was formerly called _New Lynn_, or rather _New LEN_, and that the other was then distinguished from it by the name of _Old Len_. No good reason can be assigned for this, but that the latter was the original town, known by the name of _Len_ long before the other had any existence. The attempt made by Spelman, Parkin, and others to elude this conclusion is weak and frivolous. It does not appear that there ever has been any period, since the eastern, or modern town existed, when the inhabitants did not apply the name of _Old Len_, or _Old Lynn_ to the other. There can therefore be no manner of doubt, but that it is to this same old Lynn we are to look for the site of the ancient and original town. It is probable, indeed, that that town might extend much nigher to the spot now occupied by the present town, than what the village of Old Lynn now does, as the bed of the river was formerly very narrow, compared with what it is at present; and the waters are allowed to have made considerable encroachments on the western shore. When, and by whom the original town was founded, as well as, what may be the true etymology, or real meaning of its name, are points that are involved in no small obscurity, and cannot, therefore, be very easily and clearly settled, or ascertained. It seems, however, highly probable, if not certain, as shall be shewn by