King’s Lynn

Situated at the point where the River Ouse flows into the Wash, King’s Lynn was a seaport of antiquity and the capital of the west Norfolk marshland. Its prosperity depended on its position at the head of a river network which reached far into Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire. This enabled it to supply the northern ports of the east coast with corn from the surrounding countryside and ten counties with coal and salt. Fishing was another source of prosperity. The draining of the Great Level in the late 1630s threatened that trade, but, in conjunction with Cambridge, the town ensured that the Ouse remained navigable. A. Barclay, Electing Cromwell (2011), 94-5. However, when convenient, it could still be argued that times were tough. In 1634 the town joined with Norwich and Great Yarmouth in seeking a reduction in payments towards Ship Money. King’s Lynn boldly asserted that during the past two decades the number of fishing boats sent to Iceland each year had dropped from over 40 to just four or five. They also claimed that, apart from the consignments of coal and salt shipped from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, they had no other significant shipping interests. H. Swinden, Hist. and Antiquities of the Ancient Burgh of Gt. Yarmouth (Norwich, 1772), 532n.

King’s Lynn received its first charter in 1204. By the charter of 1524 the corporation consisted of the mayor, 12 aldermen and 18 common councilmen whose acts and proceedings in assembly were often referred to as those of ‘the House’. The corporation was assisted by a high steward, recorder, town clerk and other lesser officers. The freemen at large were not members of the assembly. The town had anciently possessed an indirect committee-based form of electing their parliamentary representatives and at the beginning of this period the right of election was vested in the House without reference to the views of the freemen. Accordingly the town’s MPs were accountable to the House and received their wages and instructions from it. But this period was marked by disputes over the franchise as the freemen found the confidence to challenge the electoral privilege of the corporation.

The first move in the Short Parliament election of 1640 was made by the town’s high steward, Thomas Howard, 21st earl of Arundel, who wrote to the corporation on 28 January. The corporation replied to him a week later. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 50. The identity of Arundel’s nominee remains unknown and the corporation probably had candidates of their own in mind. On 13 March they elected William Doughty* and Thomas Gurlyn*, both senior aldermen who had represented the town in Parliament twice before (although never together). Thomas Toll I*, as mayor, presided. The indentures were sealed three days later and the pair were granted daily allowances of 5s. C219/42, pt. 1B, f. 152; King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, ff. 52, 52v; HMC 11th Rep. III, 178. On 4 May the corporation agreed to ask their MPs to raise their concerns about the local bishop, Matthew Wren of Ely, but Parliament was dissolved the following day. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 54v.

That autumn Arundel again attempted to secure the nomination to one seat, sending letters both to the corporation and to Doughty, now the mayor. Both letters were read to the corporation on 12 October. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 65v; HMC 11th Rep. III, 178. As before, the earl’s choice is unknown but may have been his secretary, Nicholas Herman*, who had sat for Castle Rising in the Short Parliament. The corporation responded by ‘unanimously agreeing’ that they would choose as MPs ‘only such as are resident and inhabiting within the corporation’. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 65v; HMC 11th Rep. III, 178. But others also wanted to have a say. Sixteen years later, when investigating another controversial result, the Commons’ committee for privileges discovered that the town’s parliamentary franchise had been restricted to the corporation until 1640, whereupon ‘the ancient custom and usage aforesaid was interrupted’, and that since then ‘the burgesses and inhabitants of the said town have claimed to have voices’. CJ vii. 441b. It seems likely that the latter were responsible for electing to what became the Long Parliament John Percival* and Thomas Toll I*, two aldermen who were related by marriage. C219/43, pt. 2, f. 59.

Resentful at this infringement of their privileges, the corporation retaliated by withholding the wages of the two Members, who secured an order for payment from the Commons on 15 October 1642. CJ ii. 810b. Percival and Toll presented this order to the corporation in person on 2 January 1643. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 109; HMC 11th Rep. III, 179. The corporation stood its ground, declaring the following day that previously

no parliamentary wages have been paid before the Parliament ended, nor then out of the town stock, but by the freemen and inhabitants, saving that of late times, merely of bounty and not of duty, the burgesses were diversely rewarded by the representative body. So in like humbleness we represent the now impossibility of performance of the said order, in respect we have not at present (nor had at any time since notice of the said order) any town stock at all, nor are likely to have any for many years to come. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 109.

Only in November 1643 did the corporation finally back down and agree to pay Percival and Toll all the money due to them since the start of the Parliament. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 127; HMC 11th Rep. III, 181.

War turned the town into a port of military as well as commercial significance. ‘Naturally strong’ according to Edmund Ludlowe II*, the town ‘might have proved impregnable, if time had favoured art and industry to have fortified it and furnished it with provisions’. Ludlow, Mems. i. 57-8. Poor defences allowed local royalists, led by Sir Hamon L’Estrange†, to seize the town on 13 August 1643. The two MPs, Percival and Toll, happened to be there at the time, so both were arrested, although Toll subsequently escaped. L’Estrange held out until 15 September, when the besieging parliamentarian force under the 2nd earl of Manchester (Sir Edward Montagu†) forced him to surrender. A briefe and true Relation of the Seige and Surrendering of Kings Lyn [1643] (E.67.28); King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 124; HMC 11th Rep. III, 181; CJ iii. 250b; Ketton-Cremer, Norf. in Civil War, 206-15. The Commons subsequently summoned the mayor, Edmund Hudson*, to London to answer questions about his role during the royalist occupation; Percival was appointed to serve as deputy mayor during his absence. CJ iii. 271b, 287a.

The civil war had profound economic consequences for the once thriving port. In January 1645 the corporation wrote to the chairman of the Committee of Navy and Customs, Giles Grene*, lamenting that ‘the poor and miserable condition of our town is such by reason of the decay of trade and want of employment at sea, besides the insupportable burden of quartering soldiers upon trust’. CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 225-6. This pathetic refrain was repeated in 1646 and 1647 as the soldiers grew mutinous for want of pay. Add. 15903, f. 63; Mems. of the Great Civil War, ed. Cary, i. 285, 288-9.

Percival died in August 1644 and on 1 January 1646 Toll, acting under instructions from the corporation, moved the issue of another writ. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 178v; CJ iv. 394a. The by-election probably took place in early February 1646. This was a messy affair, for the earlier arguments about the franchises resurfaced and probably combined with deep local divisions first exposed during the siege. In a most provocative move, the current mayor, Edward Robinson, set out to secure the election of Edmund Hudson, his predecessor, who had been suspected of royalist sympathies in 1643. But standing against him was a man whose parliamentarian loyalties could not be doubted. Thomas Rainborowe* was a colonel in the New Model army and already one of the most radical voices among the soldiers. He had no ties at all with the town. His intentions were made plain on 23 January when he presented himself in person to the corporation and asked to be admitted as a freeman. They agreed and he took the necessary oaths. In return, he donated £3 to the poor and £2 to poor seamen. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 182v. There was also a third candidate, ‘Mr Cook’, whose identity is unclear. A Diary, or an Exact Journall (18-25 Feb. 1646), 5-6 (E.325.6). Possibly he was John Coke of Mileham, son of the famous lord chief justice, the late Sir Edward Coke†, and brother of Henry Coke*. Unlike Henry, John Coke was strongly parliamentarian, serving as a Norfolk assessment commissioner and as a justice of the peace. C231/6, p. 8; A. and O.; HP Commons 1660-1690.

Hudson had the decisive advantage that Robinson as mayor acted as the returning officer and so made the return in his favour. Rainborowe duly objected. Following the reading of a petition from the corporation and the burgesses on 18 February, the Commons referred the case to the Committee for Examinations*, which until recently had been dominated by the town’s recorder, Miles Corbett*. CJ iv. 447a. The committee received Rainborowe’s complaints three days later. Rainborowe’s principal allegation was that while his request that justices of the peace monitor the votes cast for each candidate was fulfilled in his own case, Robinson had not appointed one to monitor those cast for Hudson. Moreover, some voters, including Robinson, had voted twice, once for ‘Cook’ and then for Hudson. A further complaint was that several royalists who had been banished from the town by the governor, Valentine Wauton*, following the 1643 siege had nevertheless been allowed to vote. Finally, he claimed that Robinson had sent round the town crier to summon the freemen to vote. Diary, or an Exact Journall (18-25 Feb. 1646), 5-6. But no decision was taken and Hudson was not allowed to take his seat.

In August 1646 the corporation elected Toll as mayor for the coming year. Never happy when serving MPs were elected as mayors, the Commons sanctioned this on 1 September only because of 'the present condition of that town and the necessity of that service’. CJ iv. 658b. Although they could call on the services of Corbett, this left the town without an MP at Westminster and made the uncertainty over the by-election result all the more unsatisfactory. Still awaiting the committee’s report in February 1647, the impatient corporation ordered that Mayor Toll write to Corbett to tell him that ‘this House conceives that the town suffers for want of one [MP]’. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 206. That still did not produce a quick result. Finally, on 5 July 1647 Corbett reported to the Commons that it appeared ‘by testimony and other evidence’ that Hudson had acted against Parliament in 1643. The Commons accepted the report, disabled Hudson and ordered a new writ. CJ v. 233b.

This writ was never issued, however, and therefore the Commons gave order on 22 June 1649 for another writ, and this was issued on 24 August. CJ vi. 239a; C231/6, p. 164. On 8 September ‘the commonalty of this borough' elected the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil*), a councillor of state who had been granted the freedom of the borough four days earlier. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, ff. 258, 260v; HMC 11th Rep. III, 182; Cal. Lynn Freemen, 162. As Salisbury acknowledged in reply to the letter informing him of his election, he had no previous connection with the town.

As the precedent you have made in choosing of me to be your burgess is unusual (I believe) if not the first amongst you, so doth it lay the greater obligation upon me, neither is that favour a little heightened by my being so much a stranger unto you as indeed I am. And as you have here an open and free acknowledgement from me of your kind and good affections in so unanimous an election of me to serve you in Parliament, as your letter doth express, so cannot they merit, or you expect more thanks than I do really return unto you for them; you have been pleased cheerfully (as you say) to confer your freedom upon me, I shall ever be as zealous in maintaining of yours. HMC 11th Rep. III, 182.

But his success is not too difficult to explain. Several peers who had been excluded from Parliament by the abolition of the House of Lords used by-elections to gain seats in the Commons and constituencies were keen to elect them. The 4th earl of Pembroke (Philip Herbert*) and 1st Baron Howard of Escrick (Edward Howard*) had already been successful in Berkshire and at Carlisle. Salisbury took his seat in the Rump on 18 September. CJ vi. 297a; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 456, 596.

King’s Lynn retained the right to return Members under the 1653 Instrument of Government. In 1654 the freemen and inhabitants claimed a voice and accordingly on 10 July joined with the corporation to elect Philip Skippon*, a native of the county and a high profile soldier who was now a councillor of state, and Guybon Goddard*, the town’s recorder. C219/44, pt. 2, King’s Lynn indenture, 10 July 1654. No reference is made to the election in the corporation hall books but on 21 July the House gave Skippon the freedom of the borough and ordered that the mayor’s election expenses of £4 10s should be reimbursed, as well as the costs incurred by two members of the corporation who rode to London to inform Skippon of his election. The mayor had also spent 50s entertaining one of the Bury St Edmunds aldermen, John Clarke*, perhaps in connection with the election. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 424v. On arriving in London on 2 September, the day before the Parliament opened, Goddard obtained his certificate from the clerk of the commonwealth in chancery to allow him to take his seat. Burton’s Diary, i. p. xvii.

The following year the corporation decided to seek a new charter from the lord protector and on 24 September 1655 they set up a committee to consider its contents. Letters explaining their proceedings were then sent to Charles Fleetwood*, John Disbrowe* and Skippon. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 466. By the following spring the corporation was ready to press their case. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, ff. 482v, 485, 486. The council of state heard their proposals on 3 July 1656 and referred them to a committee which included Disbrowe, John Lambert* and Fleetwood. CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 5. Later that month the committee recommended the charter’s renewal with one variation concerning the power of imprisoning for not obeying by-laws and with several additions concerning powers relating to the election of the mayor and the extension of admiralty jurisdiction. At the corporation’s request, the town was to be empowered to set up a common public stock for the benefit of the poor and its boundaries were extended to include the hamlets of North and West Lynn. CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 22. However, the charter was not ready before the next parliamentary election and it was not until a week later (25 Aug.), that arrangements were made for the old charters to be sent to London. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 491v. The new charter disappeared at the Restoration.

That election gave the corporation their chance to try to re-assert their exclusive privilege of electing the MPs. Accordingly on 18 August 1656 they chose Disbrowe (Cromwell’s brother-in-law) and Skippon, sealed the indenture and sent two of their number to London to inform the pair of their election. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 491; HMC 11th Rep. III, 183. The freemen, anxious not to lose the right of election, made a second return naming Disbrowe and Goddard. Both indentures were returned by the mayor, Thomas Toll II* (son of the Long Parliament MP), to the sheriff. CJ vii. 441b-442a.

On 25 September Disbrowe, who had been elected for four constituencies, chose to sit for Somerset and the Lynn election was referred to the committee of privileges. CJ vii. 428a. The corporation lost no time in ordering the town’s solicitor to attend the committee ‘to make good this House’s ancient custom of election of burgesses to sit in Parliament’, and appointed their own committee to ‘draw up instructions and state the business of election clearly between this House and the Commons of this borough’. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 494; HMC 11th Rep. III, 183. They also enlisted the assistance of Clarke, now MP for Bury St Edmunds, to represent their interests at Westminster. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 495; HMC 11th Rep. III, 183. On 6 October the corporation heard from the privileges committee, which summoned the town clerk to London. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 495v. Perhaps not surprisingly given the status of Disbrowe and Skippon in the government, on 20 October the committee reported to the Commons in favour of their return, citing the fact that the freemen had not been entitled to vote before 1640. CJ vii. 441b-442a. The report, which had a mixed reception in the Commons, was only accepted after a division in which Disbrowe and Thomas Kelsey* acted as tellers in favour, with Sir John Hobart*, 3rd bt. and Sir William Strickland* in the minority. The motion to accept was passed by 81 votes to 73. Disbrowe and Skippon were thus declared elected and a new writ was ordered the next day to elect a replacement for Disbrowe. CJ vii. 442a, 442b. Clarke wrote to the corporation with the good news. The copy of the parliamentary order was then placed for safe keeping in the special box where they kept the new charter. The corporation reimbursed Clarke for the £1 3s 4d that he had spent in fees to the clerk of the privileges committee. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 497.

The deputy major-general for East Anglia, Hezekiah Haynes*, now evidently applied pressure on the corporation. On 15 December, four days before the election, they admitted as a freeman Haynes’s old friend and colleague, Griffith Lloyde*, who was serving under him as a captain in Fleetwood’s regiment. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 503v. However, on the election day itself, the corporation instead chose Sir John Thorowgood* of Kensington. Immediately afterwards the Commons’ order of 20 October was re-read. C219/45, pt. 2, King’s Lynn indenture, 19 Dec. 1656; King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 505; HMC 11th Rep. III, 183. Thorowgood’s most prominent public role was as a trustee for the maintenance of ministers, but, unlike Lloyde, he could claim some genuine local ties. He was originally from Grimston, just six miles away, where his father had been the rector, and he had been a freeman of the town since 1645. Crucially, his half-brother, Robert Thorowgood, was the current mayor. Once the indenture had been sealed, letters were sent to Thorowgood himself, Fleetwood, Disbrowe, Edward Montagu II* and Skippon to explain the House’s ‘proceedings’. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 505. Thorowgood took his seat in the Commons on 5 January. Burton’s Diary, i. 299.

The previous spring the corporation, together with the town’s merchants and sailors, had petitioned the council of state for assistance against ‘pirates and enemies at sea’ who ‘know our coast so well that they chase, plunder and take us in our bay’. They wanted a naval convoy to help protect their ships. CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 210-11. In February 1657 the corporation wrote to Skippon and Thorowgood repeating that request. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 508v. Two months later they consulted Thorowgood about arrears of dean and chapter lands charged on the town. In his reply Thorowgood suggested that the town suffered by not having a solicitor in London and he was accordingly requested to find one at the town’s charge. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, ff. 516, 518v. That December the corporation asked Thorowgood to lobby for the continued augmentation to the stipend of the rector of St Nicholas’s. As a trustee for the maintenance of ministers, Thorowgood was particularly well placed to do so and,

with Skippon, he obtained the confirmation almost immediately. The corporation thanked them with gifts of plate. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, ff. 534, 534v, 535v.

On 31 December 1658 the mayor announced that the election for the forthcoming Parliament would take place between eight and eleven o’clock on 3 January and that the MPs would be chosen by the members of the corporation ‘according to the ancient custom’. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/11, f. 10. However, on the day itself a number of the freemen requested permission to vote. The corporation refused, citing the Commons’ 1656 ruling. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/11, f. 10v; HMC 11th Rep. III, 184. After further debate, the corporation proceeded to the election but, ‘in case the said commons at large shall persist in their desires’, the precept was read to them. This failed to satisfy them, so two returns were made, one in the name of the mayor and burgesses, and the other in the name of at least nine ‘free burgesses’, both of which named Thomas Toll II and Griffith Lloyde. King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/11, f. 11; HMC 11th Rep. III, 184; C219/47, King’s Lynn indentures, 3 Jan. 1659. Both sides thereby felt that they had asserted their right to vote without creating another dispute over who exactly had been elected. The oddest aspect of the result was that both sides should have agreed to elect Lloyde. In late 1656 Lloyde had an influential patron in the form of Haynes and yet, thanks to Robert Thorowgood, the corporation had then passed over him; now Haynes was largely powerless and Lloyde, still the complete outsider, was elected without any obvious difficulties. Perhaps they were mindful that Lloyde’s other patrons, such as Fleetwood and Edward Montagu II, remained powerful.

Of the town’s two Rump MPs, only Salisbury was still alive in 1659. He took his place in the revived Rump, although his health was poor and his attendance was intermittent.