POLITICAL HISTORY 



by Robert Paston, the new-made earl of Yarmouth,' whose son married one 

 of the king's natural children. It was mainly through his exertions that 

 Norwich was brought in 1682 to surrender its charter by a majority of forty 

 to twenty-two in the council, to the great indignation of the freemen, who 

 presented a petition praying the council to keep the liberties they had 

 entrusted to them.^ 



The elections we have had to consider hitherto were in the earlier days 

 practically farces, by which the electors returned anyone nominated by the 

 dominant families, glad enough to do so if they could thereby save the pay- 

 ments then made to members, though in later days earnest endeavours were 

 made to send to Westminster men who would protect their freedom and 

 interests. But at the period we are now entering upon the wire-puller and the 

 avowed professional party agent come on the scene, and it is far more difficult 

 to understand why certain persons were or were not returned. There were 

 nominally two parties, the court and the anti-court party ; but, at all events 

 in Norfolk, there seems to have been very little patriotism or personal loyalty 

 to the court, and a great deal of private greed and ambition and competition 

 between the greater families. Robert Paston, the first earl of Yarmouth, 

 seems to have been an able and selfish supporter of the crown, possibly origi- 

 nally from cavalier propensities, but certainly later on, like the great Robert 

 Walpole, for his pocket's sake. Both may have considered that the labourer 

 was worthy of his hire, and certainly, though men of totally different classes, 

 both worked their hardest and received lavish rewards. Mason very correctly 

 says ''' that ' it seems to have been quite a recognized thing that the lord- 

 lieutenant should put up whomsoever he pleased, and that any others 

 who might be brought forward were regarded as opponents of his and 

 the king.' 



There is a very interesting account preserved in an unsigned letter* of 

 the county election of 1675, which is very typical of the way in which 

 elections were conducted at the time. The two nominees were Sir Robert 

 Kempe, put forward by the lord-lieutenant. Lord Townshend, William 

 Paston (afterwards earl of Yarmouth), and some deputy-lieutenants of the 

 county ; and Sir Nevill Catlyn, ' put up by a loyal party of gentry, clergy, 

 and commonalty, much against his own will and inclinations.' It is rather 

 curious to learn from a letter from J. Hurton to Lord Yarmouth ^ that ' all the 

 godly party, whether Presbyterians, Independents, or Quakers, are for Sir 

 Robert Kemp.' This seems to have been an inversion of the usual order of 

 things, and can only be explained by the supposition that the High Church 

 party feared that the court meant to give indulgence to dissenters. The 

 election seems to have aroused considerable feeling, for Hurton goes on to 

 say," ' I remember the election which was in the first year of the late king, 

 which is 50 years, and I have taken notice of many elections since, but did 

 never hear that men's minds were so strangely moved as in this.' The ', 

 Kempe party proved too strong for their opponents, and out-manceuvred 

 them in various ways. The Catlyn party having bespoken the ' King's Head ' 



' Ctil. S.P. Dom. 1673, p. 480. ' Blomefield, op. cit. iii, 417. 



^ Hist. ofNorf. 356. 



* Hiit. MSS. Com.Rej>. vi, 371. 



» Ibid. ' Ibid. 



