Chapter XVIII: Section II

_Cromwell in much request at Lynn about the commencement of this period—the reason of it conjectured—his visit here_, _and that of Fairfax—character or quality of the then parliamentary representatives of the town—how chosen—paid by their constituents—demur on that score—payment enforced by parliament_: _&c._

The reputation and influence of Cromwell appear to have been very considerable in these parts before the breaking out of the war. In his native county of Huntingdon, and that of Cambridge, he was evidently well respected; and especially in the Isle and Fens and parts adjacent. In the direction and management of the drainage and other affairs of the Fens his interest appeared scarcely inferior to that of the earl of Bedford, if it did not sometimes exceed it. He appears to have been at the head of the opposition to that nobleman, to which party this town then belonged, as well as that of Cambridge, which Cromwell represented in parliament. The service which he had rendered to his party must have procured him their good opinion: and this, together with his general reputation, might be the reason of his being treated here with uncommon distinction.

In the spring of 1643, and but a few months before the Siege we find him invited here by the mayor and corporation; and the following order is still extant in their books—“March 20th. ordered a free entertainment at the town charge, by Thomas Gurling Esq. mayor, for Col. Cromwell and those gentlemen of his equipage, according to the invitation of Mr. Mayor, in answer to a Letter he received from Col. Cromwell.”—In the same books, a few weeks after, was inserted the following memorandum—“April 17. Mr. Mayor was allowed 5_l._ for his preparations for the entertainment of Col. Cromwell.” {764} This was at an early period of the war, before the town had ventured to declare for the king, and when they appeared desirous of keeping fair with the parliament, or being treated on the footing of neutrality. But whatever might be its policy, it was a very undignified conduct, as must always be the case where duplicity or hypocrisy forms the leading feature. The event shews that a different conduct would have answered better:—agreeable to the old adage or maxim, that “Honesty is the best Policy.”

The burgesses or representatives sent by this town to the _short_ parliament, which met in the spring of 1640, as well as those sent to the _long_ parliament, which met the ensuing autumn or winter, were chosen from among its principal and responsible inhabitants; which seems to have been strictly proper and unexceptionable.—The representatives in the former or _short_ parliament were _Mr. Wm. Doughty_ and _Mr. Tho. Gurlyn_, the two _senior aldermen_; those in the latter, or _long_ parliament, were _Mr. John Percival_ and _Mr. Tho. Toll_; who were also chosen from among the aldermen. To each of those representatives their constituents allowed _five shillings a day_ for their trouble, while they attended their duty in parliament. With this trifling allowance, while it was paid, the recipients appear to have been quite satisfied. But their constituents soon grew tired of it, and withheld it from them, which occasioned the interference of parliament, as appears by the following order.

“October 15. 1642—It is this day ordered by the Commons, now
assembled in parliament, that the mayor, aldermen, and common
counsell of the town of King’s Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, shall
pay and allow, out of the town stock, as formerly, unto John
Percevall {765a} and Tho. Toll, their burgesses for this present
parliament, as large an allowance, per diem, as they have hitherto
{765b} allowed any of their aldermen that have been burgesses in
parliament for that towne, notwithstanding the _freemen_ {765c} of
that town _had their voyces_ in the choice of the said John Percevall
and Tho. Toll to be their burgesses in the present parliament. If
the mayor of Lynn can shew any cause to the contrary wee shall be
ready to hear him.”

The Corporation appear to have been pretty much at a loss how to act in this affair. No public notice appears to have been taken of it from the middle of October till the beginning of January. On the 2nd. of that month the Corporation had a meeting on the occasion, when the above order was taken under consideration. On the next day they met again, when it was resolved and ordered that the following Letter or address should be presented to the House of Commons, by way of answer.

“We the Mayor, Aldermen, and Comon Councel, whose names are hereunto
subscribed, doe in all humbleness represent unto your grave wisdoms,
That as heretofore no parliamentary wages have been paid before the
parliament _ended_, {766} nor then out of the town stock, but by the
_Freemen_ and _Inhabitants_, saving that of late time, meerly of
bounty not of dutye, 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 wee 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, for that our revenues are not sufficient to defray the
necessary charges wee annually disburse for the ordinary maintenance
of the town, whereunto wee are tyed, besides the extraordinary
expences which unavoidably do and will daily fall upon us for the
safety of our town in especiall, and of the kingdom in generall, all
which wee humbly refer to your high Justice and Honorable
Consideration.”

As this address was a mere shuffle, it was not likely to impose upon parliament, or prove ultimately of any avail to the corporation. They affected however, to be still desirous of keeping fair with that body; and accordingly treated Cromwell and his company, when they visited the town, two or three months after, with marks of most respectful attention. {767} But that was probably a piece of downright finesse on their part, to gain time and bring the plot which they were forming, or their plan of future resistance to greater ripeness and a fairer chance of success. Even their withholding from their two members the usual allowance for their attendance in parliament may be naturally supposed to have resulted from the design of declaring for the king and against the parliament: and this design was put in execution the ensuing summer, which brought on the siege and other events already noticed.

The Corporation evaded the payment of the said daily allowance to their two members for a whole year or more: but it was not forgotten by the parliament, who sometime after the siege, appear to have put them again in mind of it. Accordingly we find that the following memorandum stands yet in the corporation-books—“Nov. 24. (1643,) ordered that _five shillings per diem_ be paid to John Percevall and Tho. Toll, burgesses in this parliament, from the time they went to parliament to this day.” Thus the affair ended; and our representatives, it is presumed, continued to receive the like allowance afterwards, till the restoration. But it does not appear, or is at all likely to have been the case any longer, as to this town, though it might elsewhere. {768} At the period of which we are speaking, it was, probably, pretty general. Had it been universal, and so continued to this day, it would, no doubt, have been a very happy circumstance for these kingdoms. Our House of Commons, in that case, would have felt more for the country than it has generally done in these latter times: not to say that the people too had been then more careful in the choice of their representatives.

As to the two last _elections_, already glanced at, that for the _short_ and that for the succeeding _long_ parliament, they appear to have differed from each other in this, that the former was the act or deed of the _corporation alone_, and the latter that of the _whole body of freemen_, as is the case (at least _nominally_) at present. Succeeding elections seem to have exhibited similar diversity. In Cromwell’s _first_ parliament, that of 1653, it does not appear that Lynn had any representatives. It is therefore likely that there was here then no previous election. In the _second_ protectoral parliament, which met in 1654, this town was represented as usual; but how the election was conducted does not seem very clear, though it appears most probable that the freemen at large had no share in it, as may perhaps be concluded from the following memorandum in the town-books—

“1654 July 21. Ordered that 4_l._ 15_s._ expended by Mr. Mayor on
the day of the election of the burgesses to serve in parliament _for
this corporation_ be paid by the chamberlain.”

That the election for the members sent to the 3rd protectoral parliament (that of 1656,) was managed by the corporation _solely_ seems pretty evident from the following note in the town books—

“1656. August 18th. This day general John Desborow and major
general Philip Skippon are chosen _in this house_ to serve as
burgesses for this borough in his Highness next parliament upon the
17th September next, according to a precept directed to Mr Mayor from
the Sherife, and ordered that _their charges be paid by this House_.”

In the election of the members who represented Lynn in the protector _Richard’s_ parliament the _corporation_ appear to have exercised the same arbitrary power as before, of being _sole electors_. Several of the other freemen at the same time desired permission to poll, but were not allowed. At the election which took place in April 1660 the freemen again applied for permission to vote which, after some hesitation, was acceded to, and the members were then chosen by the _general body_ of free burgesses. {769}

Thus we see how things formerly stood in this town, as to the state of political liberty, or the freedom of election. Former times appear not to have been very pure in those respects, any more than the present. In looking to our ancestors for much political rectitude or public virtue, we are often most sadly disappointed. It is now frequently made a subject of complaint or reflection, that our present members are chosen, in fact, by two or three individuals; but the same seems to have been almost always the case ever since the reformation, and revolution, as well as before. The freemen at large are indeed _said_ to have a _voice_ in the election of our members; but it is all a joke, while freedom of acting, or voting without constraint or control is totally out of the question. It is well known at what risk most of our pretended _freemen_ would vote freely at our elections, and how much it has cost some of them before now for presuming so to do. All this however must be very wrong, if our constitution ought to be in practice what is it in theory.