Lostwithiel

Lostwithiel had been the capital of the duchy of Cornwall from its creation in 1337, and was the centre of the royal administration in the county, the venue for the county court, the stannary court and the elections for the knights of the shire. Despite its status, the town was small and relatively poor. Richard Carew†, writing at the turn of the century, noted that ‘this town claimeth the precedence … yet all this can hardly raise it to a tolerable condition of wealth and inhabitance’.1 Carew, Cornw. 137. The decline of the local tin trade had given the town an air of neglect, and in October 1640 it was reported that three houses in the high street were falling down, including ‘the great house’ – the old duchy palace.2 HMC Var. i. 333. In 1642 the town had 131 adult males, suggesting a total population of no more than 5-600 people.3 Cornw. Protestation Returns, 121. The charter, granted in 1608 and instituting a corporation of a mayor and six capital burgesses, with a parliamentary electorate consisting of these seven and a further 17 inhabitants, may have been an attempt by the townspeople to gain their freedom from local gentry influences, notably from the Kendalls of Pelyn.4 Cornw. RO, B/LOS/398; HP Commons 1604-1629. The attempt was not entirely successful, as the Kendall interest was soon replaced by that of the new recorder, Sir Reginald Mohun†. During the 1620s almost all the MPs were duchy nominees or relatives of Mohun, with the only dispute, in 1625, being the result of a challenge from the Kendalls, backed by the then mayor, Thomas Treffry.5 HP Commons 1604-1629.

In the elections for the Short Parliament, held on 13 March 1640, the duchy interest seems to have disappeared altogether. The duchy’s council had nominated one of its own members, Sir Richard Wynn*, who was extolled as ‘a gentleman of approved judgement and sufficiency’, but to their irritation received ‘no return or answer thereof’.6 DCO, ‘letters and warrants, 1639-43’, ff. 44v, 66v. Instead, both seats went to local gentlemen, Richard Arundell of Trerice and Nicholas Kendall of Pelyn. The latter was no doubt supported by his uncle and namesake, Nicholas Kendall of Lostwithiel, who was mayor and recorder, and signed the election indenture.7 C219/42/14-15. In the elections for the Long Parliament in the following autumn the duchy was again side-lined and Arundell was re-elected, this time alongside the son of another prominent Cornish landowner, John Trevanion. Although it may not have been clear at the time of the elections, both Arundell and Trevanion would become ardent royalists during the civil wars. Trevanion was killed at the head of his regiment during the siege of Bristol in July 1643, and Arundell was disabled from sitting as an MP on 22 January 1644.

Lostwithiel’s main role in the early months of the civil war was as a convenient meeting place. On 26 June 1642 the royalists held a conference at Lostwithiel to discuss their response to the growing crisis; Warwick Mohun, 2nd Baron Mohun, convened the royalist commissioners of array at Lostwithiel a month later; and at the Michaelmas quarter sessions there, the county justices of the peace issued orders to the sheriff to raise the posse comitatus against the parliamentarians mustering in the east of the county.8 Coate, Cornw. 31; Cornw. RO, B/35/57; Bellum Civile, 20. It was rumoured that 25,000 or 30,000 Cornish royalists had mustered at Lostwithiel in the early days of October.9 New News from Cornwall (27 Oct. 1642), 5 (E.124.20). As the duchy capital, and as a borough that had returned notorious royalists as MPs in 1640, Lostwithiel acquired a reputation for royalism which had little to do with the opinions of its inhabitants. This was not a problem when Cornwall was dominated by the king, but in August 1644, when the army of Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, was trapped in Lostwithiel for several weeks, they took out their frustrations on the town and its people. According to one royalist newsbook, the parliamentarians ‘not only most shamefully oppressed the poor townsmen, but at their departure they pillaged the whole town to a man, of all their money, goods, wearing apparel to their very shoes’.10 Mercurius Aulicus no. 38 (14-21 Sept. 1644), 1168. Another report alleges that ‘in contempt of Christianity, religion and the church, they brought a horse into the church, and there, with their kind of ceremonies, did as they call “Christian” the horse and called him by the name of Charles, in contempt of his sacred majesty’.11 Symonds, Diary, 67. The parish church was also looted and defaced, and, in a last act of defiance, the retreating soldiers tried to blow it up with the remaining royalist prisoners locked inside.12 Coate, Cornw. 148-9.

Whatever the truth of these allegations, the events of the summer of 1644 had been traumatic for Lostwithiel, and there was much justification for the letter sent by the constables of the hundred to the county committee in May 1646, asking for the town assessment to be waived because of its ‘poor distressed condition … occasioned by the residence and passage of the armies in and through that town’.13 HMC Var. i. 333. With the defeat of the king, Lostwithiel’s pattern of political patronage was also destroyed. The traditional interests of the duchy, the Mohuns and the Kendalls were replaced by that of local parliamentarians, not least the owner of nearby Lanhydrock, John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes, who became recorder of the borough on 24 November 1646.14 HMC Var. i. 335. It was probably his prompting that led to the Commons order, passed on 8 December, stipulating that new elections should be held to replace Trevanion and Arundell.15 CJ v. 4b. In the absence of the traditional patrons, the ‘recruiter’ elections held on 20 January 1647 were decided by national political interests, and, no doubt with Robartes’s guidance, two Presbyterian outsiders were returned: Sir John Maynard and Francis Holles, son of Denzil Holles*. It may be significant that on this occasion the indenture was signed only by the mayor.16 C219/43/43.

During the later 1640s and early 1650s Lostwithiel once again became a backwater. Between 1650 and 1653 the duchy properties within the town were surveyed and sold off, with the watermill being granted to the existing tenant (and mayor of the borough in 1650 and 1653) Walter Kendall, while the rents, court profits and ‘the old ruined house heretofore called the duke’s palace’ went to a consortium of soldiers represented by John Menheir.17 E320/D1-2; Parl. Survey Duchy Cornw. i. 90-1; HMC Var. i. 336-7. Although the make-up of the corporation does not appear to have altered radically during this period, there are indications that the authorities were attempting to introduce stricter moral standards among the inhabitants. In 1649 15 tipplers were bound over, 19 in 1653 and 22 in 1655; and in 1651 the grand jury considered a case against the wife of the prominent burgess (and former mayor), Thomas Allen, accused of being a ‘scold’.18 HMC Var. i. 335. It is possible that the absence of Francis Twigg, who was sacked as mayor in January 1654, and the refusal of his deputy to serve instead, may reveal opposition to the newly created protectorate.19 HMC Var. i. 336-7. It may also be significant that the proceedings of the court of record, kept continuously from 1645 until October 1652, were discontinued from then until November 1658.20 Cornw. RO, B/LOS/305.

The unsettled nature of the borough can be seen in the elections for Richard Cromwell’s Parliament, held on 5 January 1659. With Lord Robartes in retirement, the way was clear for Walter Moyle* – who owned considerable amounts of property in the borough – to monopolise the elections, and he secured a seat for himself and one for the Yorkshire lawyer, John Claiton. The election indenture shows that this was a regular return, with the mayor and at least 11 burgesses signing the document, but other sources reveal that – with at least 46 voters – the election was disputed, with another candidate, Walter Vincent* securing nearly a fifth of the vote.21 C219/46/18; HMC Var. i. 336. In the elections for the Convention in April 1660, Moyle and Claiton were again returned, defeating a challenge from candidates put forward by the recorder, Lord Robartes. The importance of Moyle and Robartes was eclipsed in 1661, when Lord Mohun reasserted his influence over the borough, ensuring the return of royalist candidates to the Cavalier Parliament.22 HP Commons 1660-1690.