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.