Penryn

Penryn was a little port town at the head of Falmouth Harbour, with an anchorage protected by the twin castles of St Mawes and Pendennis. At the beginning of the seventeenth century it was less prosperous than its inland neighbour, Truro, and Richard Carew† described it as ‘rather passable than notable for wealth, buildings and inhabitants’.1 Carew, Survey, f. 150v. In later decades Penryn also came under pressure from the newly established port at Smithwick (or Falmouth), developed by the Killigrew family.2 CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 387. In the middle years of the century, however, the borough appears to have been fairly well-to-do, with a population of around 600, a good number of large houses (33 with over 5 hearths in the early 1660s), and over 50 householders listed as being worth £5 or more.3 Cornw. Hearth Tax, 124, 169.

The corporation was also tightly-knit. Under the charter of 1621, the borough was to be governed by a mayor, with 11 other aldermen and 12 ‘assistants’.4 Parochial Hist. of Cornw. ii. 78 The original office-holders of 1621 were succeeded by their sons and nephews, and the Bloyes, Smalyes, Cockes, Hallomores and Roscrowes remained in charge of the borough through the interregnum and into the 1660s.5 R.J. Roddis, Penryn: the history of an ancient Cornish borough (1964), 24, 26; C219/44, unfol.; Cornw. Hearth Tax, 124, 169. Despite this civic continuity, Penryn was unable to resist the heavy hand of its patrons. The bishops of Exeter had founded the town in the thirteenth century, and still owned the two manors of Penryn Foreign and Penryn Borough 400 years later, although their influence had declined somewhat with the leasing of the borough manor to the corporation in 1606 and the granting of the charter in 1621.6 Parochial Hist. of Cornw. ii. 78-9, 90-2; Roddis, Penryn, 98. In the early seventeenth century the borough had instead been dominated by the Killigrews, who leased much of the episcopal land around the borough, and were able to control both parliamentary seats throughout the 1620s.7 HP Commons 1604-1629; Roddis, Penryn, 48, 53.

By 1640 the Killigrew influence had also declined, and this explains the confused nature of the two elections in that year. On 26 March 1640 the wealthy local landowner (and sometime courtier) Sir Richard Vyvyan was elected by 12 voters, probably on his own interest, and he was joined by Joseph Hall, son of the bishop of Exeter.8 C219/42/18, 29. This was not the recrudescence of the episcopal interest – rather, it seems, the result of a deal between the bishop and another local gentleman, Francis Godolphin II* of Treveneage, who was granted the lease of the two Penryn manors by a deed dated 2 May 1640.9 Exeter Cathedral Archives, MS 3601, pp. 106-7. The rival influences of Vyvyan and Godolphin can perhaps be seen in the autumn, when the borough elected two men of diametrically opposing views: the future royalist Sir Nicholas Slanning and the Devonian parliamentarian – and friend of William Strode I* and John Pym* – John Bampfylde.

During the first civil war, Penryn sided with the king, although only a handful of the burgesses were active royalists.10 CCAM 1428; CCC 2977, 3259. The borough was important as the main port for Falmouth harbour, and as the royalists retreated into the south west during 1645, supplies from the continent were increasingly landed and processed there.11 CCSP i. 270, 292. The closest Penryn came to the fighting was in the spring of 1646, when the town became the forward base for the parliamentarian soldiers besieging Pendennis. In May 1646 Colonel Fortescue used the town gaol to hold prisoners of war, including the father of one of the Pendennis commanders, Colonel Lewis Tremayne.12 Cornw. RO, T/1624. The stubborn resistance of the royalists was bitterly resented by the people of Penryn, and Sir Thomas Fairfax* reported that although it had been ‘a town formerly not very well-affected [to Parliament]’, there was a surprising degree of animosity towards the king’s troops who disbanded at the town.13 Coate, Cornw. 210; Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva, 228; J. Vicars, Magnalia Dei Anglicana (1646), 395 (E.348.1). The defeat of the king removed Penryn’s traditional patrons at a stroke, although both episcopal manors were still held by Francis Godolphin II.14 SP 28/289, f. 3. Perhaps at Godolphin’s prompting, on 11 May 1647 the Commons ordered that a new election be held to replace Slanning, who had been disabled from sitting nearly five years before, but although a writ was issued that same day there is no evidence that a new election took place thereafter.15 CJ v. 167b; C231/6, p. 85.

The ruling elite of Penryn reacted to the regicide and interregnum with equanimity. Indeed, the survival of the status quo appears to have been their primary concern during the whole of the 1650s. This can perhaps be detected in sundry entries in the mayors’ accounts: in 1654 the serjeants’ cloaks were trimmed; in 1655 the pulpit cloth and other linen for the church were renewed; in October of the same year the serjeants’ cloaks were again refurbished; and in 1657-8 two shillings were spent on ‘cleansing the cucking pool’.16 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, ff. 22, 26, 27, 28v. The visit of George Fox, the Quaker, in 1655 was treated with mute hostility, and local converts were dealt with firmly, with the aid of the local justice of the peace, Thomas Ceely*, and the governor of Pendennis, Captain John Fox*.17 Jnl. of George Fox, i. 205; Coate, Cornw. 344; Recs. Quakers Cornw. 7, 10. In the same period, Penryn was careful to promote itself as a town entirely loyal to the commonwealth and protectorate. In January 1653 the mayor assured the admiralty commissioners that the recent naval proclamations by Parliament had been duly proclaimed in Penryn by beat of drum, and all seamen had been instructed to join the fleet.18 CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 512. The corporation was happy to proclaim Oliver Cromwell* as protector in the spring of 1654, and to hold a thanksgiving day for peace with the Dutch shortly afterwards.19 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 23. The proclamation of Richard Cromwell* was similarly celebrated in September 1658, and the town sent a message of congratulation to the new protector.20 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 28v; Coate, Cornw. 298. The corporation also went out of its way to curry favour with the local panjandrums. Their new lecturer, Thomas Peter (brother of Cromwell’s chaplain, Hugh Peter), was entertained before he went to London in 1652, and he corresponded with the mayor ‘about the town’s business’ thereafter.21 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 21. Peter was apparently retained as an adviser by the corporation in later years, as in July 1656 he was paid £1 4s ‘for the necessary affairs of the town’.22 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 27. The commander of the west country, Major-general John Disbrowe*, was given wine when he visited the town in 1653, and the new governor of Pendennis, John Fox, was also welcomed by the town authorities in the same year.23 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 21. In September 1653 Fox and Thomas Ceely were entertained ‘in company of the aldermen and assistants’, and in July 1654 Fox was chosen as recorder of the borough.24 Cornw. RO, PENR/411, ff. 22, 23. There were benefits in cooperating with the new rulers. In November 1652, a former royalist, James Robyns†, was discharged from his sequestration, despite being pursued by the local commissioners.25 CCAM 1428. In April 1656, Disbrowe instructed the Cornish commissioners for securing the peace of the commonwealth not to replace the mayor of Penryn (William Bloye) but to allow him to stay in office until his term expired.26 CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 418.

Penryn’s loyalty may have encouraged the authorities to continue its position as a parliamentary borough when other Cornish towns were disenfranchised. On the death of Bamfylde in April 1650, Penryn had been left without any representative in the Commons, but on 9 March 1653, when the Rump debated the form of future Parliaments, it was resolved that the borough should be allowed one MP despite the wholesale abolition of borough seats that was planned.27 CJ vii. 265b. This concession was continued during the protectorate, as the Instrument of Government of December 1653 stipulated that Penryn should return a single Member.28 A. and O. In the elections for the first protectorate Parliament, held on 10 July 1654, the 17 voters chose their new recorder, John Fox, as their MP. This clearly reflected the will of the corporation: as well as the mayor, William Cocke senior, the signatories of the indenture included the 11 other aldermen, as well as selected ‘inhabitants’.29 C219/44, unfol. Fox was a prudent choice, as he was sufficiently well-connected to secure favours for the borough in London. He was re-elected in 1656, and in January 1659 the corporation was evidently keen to secure his services again, paying £12 9s for a ‘flagon presented to Mr Recorder’ in the days before the election, and a further £1 ‘for wine at election of burgesses’.30 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 29v. The signatories of the indentures again included leading townsmen like the then mayor, William Gregor, and five former mayors: William Bloye, Sampson Bloye, Thomas Melhuish, William Cocke junior and Thomas Smalye.31 C219/46/20-1. As well as John Fox, on this occasion the borough elected their old friend, Thomas Ceely.32 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, ff. 21-2, 26-8.

The collapse of the protectorate put the Penryn corporation in an extremely awkward position. Although John Fox was treated to a ‘welcoming home’ party in June 1659, the next month the corporation was just as keen to entertain Richard Lobb* – a local landowner and merchant with strong ties to the new commonwealth regime. In the spring of 1660 the mayor and aldermen were anxious to welcome the restored monarchy with suitable fervour, proclaiming Charles II no less than three times –in May and June and August.33 Cornw. RO, B/PENR/411, f. 30v. Old friendships were quickly forgotten. In the elections for the Convention in April 1660 John Fox and Thomas Ceely were rejected in favour of two prominent burgesses, Samuel Enys and James Robyns, both of whom had sided with the king in the 1640s. Thereafter, as the bishop of Exeter’s influence was still in abeyance and the Killigrews unpopular because of their encouragement of Falmouth, Penryn’s parliamentary patronage once again became fragmented, and open to interference from the royal court.34 HP Commons 1660-1690.