PYNE, John (1600-78), of Curry Malet, Som. and the Middle Temple, London.

The Pyne family, originally from Hampshire, had settled in Somerset in the sixteenth century when this MP’s grandfather, John Pyne senior, had acquired the manor of Curry Malet, which lay halfway between Taunton and Ilchester. They were a family of lawyers, a career also pursued by the future MP as a young man; in 1629 he was called to the bar and he retained chambers at the Middle Temple until 1637.23MTR ii. 681, 703, 704, 752, 855. During his time there Pyne sponsored the admission of another student with Somerset connections, Alexander Popham*, and he also got to know Bulstrode Whitelocke*.24MTR ii. 677, 726, 740. However, Whitelocke would record that when they later sat together in the Long Parliament his one-time friend became his ‘enemy’, being ‘of the more rigid party’.25Whitelocke, Diary, 55.

Pyne’s involvement in Somerset local politics dated from 1636, when he was appointed as treasurer of the hospitals of the western division of the county.26QS Recs. Som. Charles I, 254. This was often a step towards appointment to the commission of the peace. But, as Pyne was already in his mid-thirties and had held his lands since coming of age, this was later than it might have been. In truth, he was not of sufficient wealth or standing that he could take such a promotion for granted. It was probably during that same year, when William Bassett* was sheriff of the county, that Pyne took a stand against Ship Money. Pyne refused to pay and so had his goods distrained by the constables of the hundred of Abdick and Bulstone. In 1638, perhaps inspired by the example of John Hampden*, he attempted to sue the constables.27CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 288; 1637-8, pp. 407, 486. Whether he was successful is not known.

Pyne sat for the Dorset constituency of Poole in the 1625, 1626 and 1628 Parliaments, a position he had owed solely to his family connections with the Hanhams of Wimborne Minster. His marriage in 1629 to his cousin Eleanor Hanham had reinforced that link. In the two 1640 elections the Hanham interest again ensured his return at Poole and both times he was paired with the town’s recorder, another Hanham kinsman, William Constantine*. As had been the case also in his three previous Parliaments, Pyne left no trace on the proceedings of the Short Parliament.

Opposing the king, 1640-5

He was not much more visible during the opening years of the Long Parliament. He was most in evidence when supporting action against Laudian clergymen and/or Roman Catholics, especially in Somerset. In mid-December 1640 he wrote to Thomas Smyth I* reporting that the petition from the inhabitants of Beckington, Mells and Hemington had been presented. The committee appointed to consider it had been given powers to hear other petitions against the bishop of Bath and Wells, William Piers.28CJ ii. 50a-b. Pyne referred to this as action against ‘this notorious bishop’ and hoped that it would ‘give ease unto our country by delivering them from so oppressive a person’.29Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 164. He was himself added to that committee the following month.30CJ ii. 75a. Meanwhile, a by-election was to be held at Bridgwater. Pyne supported Smyth, although he would have been willing to back Robert Blake*, whom he recognised as being a confirmed critic of episcopacy, if Sir Thomas Wroth* had stood.31Cal. Corresp. Smyth Fam. 168. He took the Protestation (3 May) and was appointed as a commissioner for disarming recusants in Somerset (31 Aug.).32CJ ii. 133b; LJ iv. 385b. His godly credentials were reinforced the following spring when he was named to the committee on the bill for the better maintenance of the ministry (25 Mar. 1642) and included as one of the Somerset commissioners to act against scandalous ministers (7 Apr.).33CJ ii. 496b, 516a. His other known activities in Parliament during this period were of obvious local interest. It is unsurprising that he should have been named to the committee on the estate bill on behalf of his fellow Somerset MP, Sir Francis Popham* (29 July), while in May 1642 he was well placed to provide the Commons with the latest news about fears that soldiers being sent to Ireland would cause trouble before they sailed from Minehead.34CJ ii. 228a, 584a. He made at least one trip back to Somerset, as Harbert Morley* obtained for him leave of absence in July 1641.35CJ ii. 220b; Procs. LP vi. 55.

Pyne’s determination to side with Parliament against the king was never in doubt. But his role in the opening stages of the civil war in Somerset was marked more by enthusiasm than bravery, although the latter was a vital asset in raising troops. Pyne, Sir Thomas Wroth and John Preston* took the lead in raising men to fight for Parliament throughout the western parts of the county. They could not take it for granted that Somerset would side with them. On 18 July Pyne wrote to Parliament warning that a number of their prominent opponents in Somerset, led by 1st Baron Poulett (John Poulett†), were busy raising forces for the king, although he also thought that the county would mostly support Parliament. This letter was presented to the Commons by John Pym* on 22 July.36PJ iii. 250-1. By late July the marquess of Hertford (William Seymour†) had concentrated the Somerset royalist supporters already in arms at Wells. Pyne joined with those who converged on the city in the hope of expelling them. Together with William Strode II* and Richard Cole, he assembled his men to the east of the city.37Joyfull Newes from Wells (1642), 2-3 (E.111.4). Their presence there was challenged on 1 August when Sir Ralph Hopton* and Thomas Smyth I attempted to hold a royalist gathering at Shepton Mallet and Strode was briefly arrested while trying to stop them. A letter written by Pyne and some of the other deputy lieutenants reported this to Parliament.38PJ iii. 282; LJ v. 265b. Pyne had, in the meantime, seen action himself. On 4 August he and Preston were intercepted at Marshall’s Elm outside Somerton by Sir John Stawell*, Sir John Poulett*, John Digby* and Edmund Wyndham*. Stawell offered to allow Pyne to retreat without a fight, but Pyne refused and, on attempting to advance, came under attack. A cavalry charge by Stawell and Poulett settled the matter. Pyne’s men scattered and Pyne himself allegedly escaped the battlefield only ‘by good horsemanship’.39Som. RO, DD/HI/B/466: examinations of J. Preston, 5 and 25 Aug. 1642; Bellum Civile, 7-9. He then fled to London, arriving at Westminster on 8 August, in the words of Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, ‘in his doublet and hose without coat or cloak’.40PJ iii. 286. Some men might have hesitated to report their own military defeat to the Commons in person, but Pyne did so in detail within hours of reaching London, demonstrating that Poulett and Stawell were in arms against Parliament. On that basis, the Commons immediately expelled them from the House.41CJ i. 708b; PJ iii. 286-7.

Pyne headed back to Somerset almost as hurriedly as he had travelled to London. Later that month he was assisting Sir Francis Popham* and Strode in their efforts to prevent Stawell recruiting men for the king.42Exceeding Joyfull Newes from the Earl of Bedford (1642, E.113.17. By early September he was part of the force under the 5th earl of Bedford (William Russell*) which was trying to contain Hertford at Sherborne.43A Relation of the Actions of the Parliaments Forces [1642], 3-6 (E.116.42). A later allegation would be that while there Pyne again fled while under fire.44Articles of Treason and high Misdimeanours, committed by John Pine of Curry-Mallet [1649, 669.f.13.92]. He may not have seen out the siege to its conclusion, as 23 September he was back at Westminster. His immediate purpose was to raise the case of Sir William Uvedale*, the treasurer of the army who had obeyed the king’s summons to York. Pyne now explained to the Commons that Uvedale had returned and wished, on the grounds of ill heath, to beg for leave to go into the country. Three days later he also intervened on behalf of one of the members of the Harington family, who wanted to claim interest on money he had lent to Parliament. Meanwhile, the royalists in Somerset had formally declared Pyne to be a traitor.45Add. 18777, ff. 9v, 12v, 77v.

In January 1643 a parliamentarian army under Henry Grey, 1st earl of Stamford crossed into Devon in the hope of trapping Hopton in Cornwall. Those accompanying Stamford included Pyne, Francis Buller I* and William Strode II. By 13 January these three had reached Tavistock, from where they wrote to Stamford asking for more troops to allow them to pursue Hopton towards Saltash.46Harl. 164, f. 276v. The royalist victory at Braddock Down on 19 January halted their progress, however. One news report claimed, probably optimistically, that Pyne had been taken prisoner.47A True and Briefe Relation of the great Victory obtained by Sir Ralph Hopton (1642), 40. The tables had turned and soon the fear was that Hopton would advance into Somerset. As early as February 1643 Pyne and Edward Popham* were warning other Somerset parliamentarians that they would be unable to resist any invasion of the county and that the best they could hope to do would be to try to defend the major towns.48Som. RO, DD/HI/B/466: E. Popham and Pyne to J. Preston and others, 7 Feb. 1643. They still had time to make preparations, which Pyne put to good effect; he was reputed to have raised 6,000 men and £14,000 that spring for the defence of Taunton and Bridgwater.49Articles of Treason and high Misdimeanours. Having defeated Stamford at Stratton (16 May), Hopton finally turned northwards to confront them. Pyne now fled yet again. His enemies would claim that Pyne took the money he had raised with him, just at the moment when it was needed to encourage those defending the county to take a stand.50Articles of Treason and high Misdimeanours.

As long as Somerset remained under royalist control, it was impossible for Pyne to consider returning. Left undefended, his estates at Curry Malet became a target for royalist pillaging and Pyne later claimed that his house had been left uninhabitable.51HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494. But, if Pyne was not in Somerset, there are few indications that he spent much time in London. The firmest evidence for his presence in Parliament throughout the whole of 1643 is his appointment on 7 August to the committee to investigate whether money or plate was being smuggled about the country, with specific allegations having been made against John Pym*, Oliver St John* and Sir Gilbert Gerard*.52CJ iii. 196b. It may well be that Pyne was concerned about the rumours against himself. Less certain is that he was the MP appointed to the committee on the bill to levy forces and money created on 15 December. On the face of it, ‘Pime’ cannot be John Pym, who had died the previous week, but this could just be a clerical error and so cannot definitely be Pyne.53CJ iii. 342a.

In February 1644 it was being reported that Pyne, William Strode II and Alexander Popham would take part in the planned advance by Sir William Waller* westwards out of Wiltshire.54The True Informer no. 22 (10-17 Feb. 1644), 160 (E.33.14); Mercurius Civicus no. 41 (29 Feb.-7 Mar. 1644), 423 (E.36.2). It is therefore possible that he spent the summer with Waller on campaign in Berkshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. That he was named by the Commons to its committee on the additional excise bill on 11 May need not, by itself, be decisive evidence that he had instead returned to Westminster.55CJ iii. 489a. That was, in any case, just before Waller and Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, set off in their pursuit of the king’s army, so Pyne could easily have re-joined Waller’s army soon afterwards. In August 1644 the Committee of Both Kingdoms ordered ‘Capt. Pyne’ to accompany Waller on his march towards the south west to relieve Essex in Cornwall.56CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 414, 424, 438. That intention was overtaken by the disaster at Lostwithiel. This campaign-that-never-was probably marked the end of Pyne’s career as a soldier.

His critics later claimed that Pyne had been ‘the first incendiary’ creating divisions between the English Parliament and the Scots and that he had done so by ‘speeches, reports and letters’ sent from London to Somerset in 1644.57Articles of Treason and high Misdimeanours. One letter which purported to be from him certainly encouraged distrust on all sides. In February 1645 Sir Lewis Dyve intercepted a packet of letters allegedly including one from Pyne, dated 3 February at Westminster, addressed to Edward Popham*. This was then passed on to the king’s advisers at Oxford.58Clarendon, Hist. iii. 491-2. Recognising the propaganda advantage, it was published in the royalist newsbook, Mercurius Aulicus, in early March. The main body of the letter complained about the behaviour of some of the soldiers in Somerset, implied that Waller was too hesitant about marching westwards and, most damagingly, expressed the hope that ‘little will be done’ during the peace talks at Uxbridge. Compounding this, Pyne enclosed an anonymous note which claimed that relations between the Scottish commissioners in London and the leading Independent MPs had cooled and that the commissioners were aligning themselves with the Presbyterians in the hope of establishing Presbyterian church government.59Mercurius Aulicus (23 Feb.-2 Mar 1645), 1390-3 (E.273.13). This had serious implications. Royalists used it, on the one hand, as evidence that the parliamentarian commissioners at Uxbridge were not negotiating in good faith and, on the other, to undermine the earl of Essex’s confidence about the extent of his support in Parliament. According to Clarendon (Edward Hyde*), the letter played its part in sabotaging the Uxbridge negotiations.60Mems. of Prince Rupert, iii. 62; Clarendon, Hist. iii. 492-3. Pyne meanwhile was summoned to appear before the Commons to explain himself.61CJ iv. 97a, 100a; Luke Lttr. Bk. 502. It is possible that he was able to argue that the letter was a forgery: that was the line taken by at least one of the parliamentarian newsbooks.62Mercurius Britanicus, no. 74 (10-17 Mar. 1645), 596 (E.273.14). If so, however, the culprits had managed to mimic Pyne’s likely views with some sophistication.

Ascendancy in Somerset, 1645-9

During the summer of 1645 Sir Thomas Fairfax* re-conquered Somerset for Parliament. In his wake the apparatus of county government by the pro-parliamentarian civilians was re-established. The county committee, the commission of the peace, the sequestration commission and the assessment commissions could all function once again. This was Pyne’s moment. Contemporaries all viewed him as the dominant figure on the revived county committee.63Articles of Treason and high Misdimeanours. They were almost certainly right to do so. It always worked to his advantage that he was a sitting MP with superior contacts at Westminster than most of his colleagues – except that his dominance in Somerset was only possible because of his willingness to spend extended periods away from London. There is little sense that he had ever relished the bigger world of Westminster politics and he was always more comfortable operating at a local level. Not that his authority in Somerset would be unchallenged. The new parliamentary elections served as one early test for his rule.

There were 14 seats available in the recruiter by-elections held in Somerset in late 1645 and early 1646. Pyne saw this as his chance to entrench his power base within the county and so set out to win as many of those seats for his allies as possible. He was quickly disappointed. While the electors of Minehead happily returned two candidatesof whom Pyne approved, Walter Strickland* and Edward Popham, those at Bath and Wells preferred some of his more prominent opponents, including his arch-critic, Clement Walker*. Just as humiliatingly, the county poll was won by one candidate they did not want, George Horner*, and by their second choice, John Harington I*, from the candidates they had supported. Then, after that result had been challenged, those two won the re-run. This was despite accusations of heavy-handed tactics by Pyne. Humphrey Willis, the leading spokesman of the Somerset clubmen, accused Pyne of having had him arrested after he had spoken in support of William Strode II, another of the candidates and now also another of Pyne’s detractors.64H. Wills, The power of the Cttee. of the Co. of Som. [1646], 7 (E.345.3). Meanwhile, the voters of Milborne Port hedged their bets by returning one of Pyne’s allies, William Carent*, along with a candidate, Thomas Grove*, who was not. By early January 1646 it looked as if most of the Somerset results would go against Pyne. The elections at Bridgwater and Taunton allowed him to salvage something, as the winning candidates – Robert Blake, Sir Thomas Wroth and John Palmer* – were men much more to his liking.

This then left the contest at Ilchester. In December 1645 Pyne had spoken at a public meeting in the town telling the voters that he and the county committee wanted them to elect Thomas Harrison I* and John Pym’s* son, Alexander.65Add. 70087, portfolio 5, no. 15, unfol. However, some of the Ilchester residents were instead inclined to choose Strode, although they were willing to balance him with one of Pyne’s cronies, Henry Henley*. In the end, two separate polls were held and Pyne was present on 9 February 1646 to ensure that his allies elected Pym and yet another candidate, Fairfax’s brother-in-law, Sir William Selby. This was not enough: the rival candidates, Strode and Thomas Hodges II*, were allowed by the Commons to take these seats. The final tally of these results was that more of the Somerset seats had been gained by Pyne’s enemies than by his friends.

The backlash became evident in other ways. Resentment of Pyne’s wish to dominate county politics helped encourage the rise of the Somerset clubmen, who saw him as a worse tyrant than the king had ever been. From 1646 Humphrey Willis began articulating that resentment in print. To him, Pyne and his cronies were oppressing honest men, while, at the same time, turning a blind eye Parliament’s real enemies. Their rule was as bad as that of Tiberius.66Wills, Power; H. Willis, Times Whirligig (1647, E.374.10). These were the sentiments that William Prynne* now sought to exploit by deploying all the authority of the Committee of Accounts to expose Pyne’s iniquities. He persuaded the London Committee to appoint a local sub-committee for Somerset in the hope of uncovering firm evidence of corruption. This could then have been used by the Presbyterian Prynne as a weapon to denounce Pyne’s Independent friends at Westminster. The result was rather different, however. A series of tactical obstructions, ranging from the skilful to the merely crude, allowed Pyne to delay the investigations. Prynne’s ploy eventually fizzled out.67D. Underdown, Som. in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), 141-2. Strode may have spoken for many when in February 1647 he told the former governor of Portland, Colonel Thomas Gallop, that, ‘I make no doubt but we shall have him [Pyne] hanged’.68HMC Portland, i. 448.

With his position in Somerset less than secure, Pyne could not risk spending long periods away at Westminster. On 3 September 1646 he was given leave to spend time in the country and he was still absent the following month.69CJ iv. 662a, v. 417a. That absence was prolonged. His extended presence in Somerset is confirmed by his well-documented activity as a justice of the peace in this period.70QS Recs. Som. Commonwealth, 1-79; Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 17-28. His trips to London by 1648 may still have been infrequent, although he was named to a couple of Commons committees in January and April of that year.71CJ v. 417a, 546a. When royalist rebellions broke out in other parts of the country, Pyne was keen to ensure that no such rising took place in the south west. In August 1648 Mercurius Pragmaticus alleged that Pyne (‘that pitiful, whining, drunken colonel’) and Alexander Popham had written to Parliament requesting permission to raise a regiment of foot, but that, on being debated on 2 August, this had been rejected by ‘the moderate party’ who suspected ulterior motives.72Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 19 (1-8 Aug. 1648, E.457.11). The renewal of talks with the king that autumn probably did not meet with his approval. Later, after the king’s execution, Pyne’s enemies alleged that he had wanted those negotiations to fail, making it known in Somerset ‘that the Parliament should make no peace with the king, but that the king’s life should be taken from him.’73Articles of Treason and high Misdimeanours. His presence at Westminster in November enabled the Commons to include him among MPs ordered to write to Somerset to encourage the collection of the assessments, a move intended to keep the army on side.74CJ vi. 88a. As an opponent of further negotiations, he was unaffected by the purge of the Commons on 6 December.

Rumper, 1649-53

If Pyne had previously called for the king’s death, the reality of regicide was not so easily embraced. At the time and later, Pyne deliberately distanced himself from the decision to execute Charles I.75HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494. Perhaps pointedly, the earliest firm evidence for his presence in Parliament after the purge dates only from 31 January, the day after the execution. Earlier that month he had still been in Somerset.76QR Recs. Som. Commonwealth, 76. He was then named to the committees on the bill to try delinquents remaining in prison and on the arrangements for the king’s funeral.77CJ vi. 126b, 127a. On 1 February he dissented from the vote of 5 December 1648.78PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 625; [W. Prynne], A Full Declaration of the True State of the Secluded Members Case (1660, E.1013.22), 23. The following week he was also included on the committee to compile lists of names for the new commissions of the peace (8 Feb.).79CJ vi. 134a. He was thus able to promote a number of his protégés, including George Serle*, John Palmer* and John Preston*, to the Somerset commission.80Underdown, Som. 157. This was all, however. Although there were now far fewer MPs, there is no indication that Pyne considered playing a more visible role in Parliament. He once again preferred to occupy himself back home.81QS Recs. Som. Commonwealth, 84, 86, 92, 99.

Not that he could be accused of failure to serve the new republic. That spring trouble broke out in Somerset, possibly among troops stationed there who, like soldiers elsewhere, were unhappy with the plans to send some of them to Ireland. Pyne and Wroth responded by raising a rival force of volunteers. This seems to have quickly resolved the trouble and on 1 June, at Fairfax’s suggestion, Parliament wrote to thank them for their swift action.82CJ vi. 221b. The council of state subsequently formalised the status of those volunteer regiments, appointing Pyne, Wroth and Alexander Popham as their officers under Sir Hardress Waller*.83CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 256. The following November Pyne wrote to Fairfax’s secretary, William Clarke, to warn that these troops should not removed elsewhere. Pyne’s fear was that, without them, the county would be vulnerable to an invasion by the exiled Charles Stuart. But he was equally concerned that the Levellers were growing in power. He however told Clarke that he welcomed the Engagement as a useful means of encouraging loyalty.84HMC Leyborne-Popham, 51. As Pyne must suspected, the volunteer regiments could only be a temporary expedient. But his appointment in February 1650 as colonel of one of the county’s militia regiments ensured that he remained closely involved in the defence arrangements within Somerset.85CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 521.

Throughout this period the council of state routinely relied on Pyne as their principal contact and champion in Somerset. They wrote to him regularly in the expectation that he could be trusted to implement their commands and, in doing so, they often expressed appreciation of what he had already done on their behalf.86CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 421, 440-1; 1650, pp. 58, 175, 364, 442; 1651, p. 3, 65, 148. They tended to refer especially sensitive matters in Somerset promptly to him. When Prynne, in custody at Dunster Castle, was accused of receiving a book without permission, the council must have known that Pyne would relish their request to investigate. He was also consulted over the imprisonment at Taunton of two notable local royalists, Sir Edward Rodeney* and Sir Edward Berkeley.87CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 20-1, 194. In the weeks before the battle of Worcester (3 Sept. 1651), Pyne put the county on a war footing in case Charles Stuart attempted to capture Bristol.88CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 335, 362, 363, 394. The Rump had previously appointed him as one of the MPs to oversee the distribution of aid for the rebuilding of Taunton, which was to be paid for from the composition of Sir William Portman*.89CJ vi. 291b; CCC 150. In late 1651, with royalist resistance apparently smashed, Pyne helped organise the slighting of Taunton Castle.90CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 474, 505.

The one person who threatened his local ascendancy was John Ashe*. The continuing complaints that Pyne’s cronies were profiteering from the sequestration process seemed to provide Ashe with the strongest basis for a challenge. He therefore set out to pack the Somerset sequestration committee with his own supporters, including Benjamin Mason*. Pyne rose to the challenge. In the spring of 1650 he and Alexander Popham submitted a rival list of nominees (including John Gorges*), as well as drawing up allegations against Ashe’s preferred candidates.91CCC 194, 209, 212-13, 221, 222, 288, 719-20. When the Committee for Compounding attempted to investigate, Pyne dragged his feet by refusing to hand over the relevant records and by not summoning witnesses.92CCC 238, 243, 244, 250, 252, 256, 264, 281, 291, 294, 297, 303-6, 309-10, 322, 323, 333, 353-4, 365. Those caught up in the dispute included John Buckland* and Richard Jones II*, both of whom had tried to avoid involvement in these factional quarrels.93CCC 173, 221, 226, 264. In the end, Pyne’s intrigues persuaded them to step aside. This made possible the appointment of new commissioners in November 1650 chosen to balance the two factions.94CCC 354-5, 363. When the Committee for Compounding then ordered Pyne to account for any money that had passed through his hands, he denied vehemently that he had been the county treasurer or that he had ever handled significant sums of money.95CCC 390.

Pyne seems to have spent part of the winter of 1651-2 in London, as his only appearances in Parliament in this period all date from December 1651 and January 1652. The immediate reason for his attendance may have been the passage of the additional bill for the sale of lands confiscated for treason. With his own work as a sequestration commissioner under such scrutiny, he had an obvious interest in its provisions and he was named to the committee to which it was committed (3 Dec.).96CJ vii. 46b. His committee appointments included those on the creation of the Army Committee (26 Dec.) and a new high court of justice (1 Jan.).97CJ vii. 49b, 55b, 58a, 62a. Given that he had previously been worried about the influence of John Lilburne and the Levellers in Somerset, it is unsurprising that he also sat on the committee to see that Lilburne was properly punished (21 Jan.).98CJ vii. 75b.

In January 1653 Pyne once again struck against a fellow member of the Somerset sequestration commission. This time his target was John Gorges, whom he thought too zealous in his desire to root out corruption, particularly if this might implicate Pyne himself. Pyne denounced Gorges for hypocrisy and receiving brides from one of the clients of his brother, Thomas Gorges*.99CCC 625, 629, 631, 642, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 659. The Committee for Compounding then took another close look at Pyne’s own practices.100CCC 635, 636, 638. Eventually, almost a year later, the Committee decided that both Gorges brothers had acted without fault.101CCC 663, 664. John Gorges was nevertheless removed from the sequestrations commission.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Pyne’s denunciation of John Gorges occurred during one of his more extended visits to London, over the winter of 1652-3. He was named to a couple of committees in November 1652 and he was certainly present on 26 November when he was one of the four MPs who arrived late for the division on the nominations of the new admiralty judges.102CJ vii. 205a, 215a, 221b. He was then added to the Army Committee on 17 December.103CJ vii. 230b. During January and February 1653 he was named to a further three committees, including those on the sales of the royal forests (8 Jan.) and the late king’s goods (25 Jan.).104CJ vii. 245a, 250b, 260b. But he probably did not remain at Westminster much longer than that. On 19 April 1653, the day before Oliver Cromwell* dissolved the Rump, Pyne was attending the quarter sessions at Ilchester.105QS Recs. Som. Commonwealth, 202-3.

Keeping his head down, 1653-9

The dissolution of the Rump on 20 April 1653 only briefly interrupted Pyne’s parliamentary career. Within months he was back at Westminster as one of the four men summoned to represent Somerset in the Nominated Parliament. He was then given the apartment in Whitehall formerly occupied by William Purefoy I*.106CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 412. He was no more active in this Parliament than its predecessors, however. The only trace he left in its proceedings was to be named to the Committee for the Army (20 July 1653).107CJ vii. 287a. Even so, when Nathaniel Jones of Bridgwater petitioned this Parliament seeking the return of his sequestered estates, he stated that Pyne would back up his claims.108CCC 2582. Pyne was also one of the MPs in this Parliament who were said to have been opposed to the maintenance of the clergy.109Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 424.

After the Restoration Pyne would defend himself by stating that he had ‘not acted for nor served the late new erected government, only that he sat in the convention called the Little Parliament [i.e. the Nominated Parliament].’110HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494. That was untrue. Pyne continued to act as a justice of the peace throughout the years of the Cromwellian protectorate.111QS Recs. Som. Commonwealth, 258-360; Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 70. It could be argued that this was not quite the same as serving the protectorate and his commitment was so lukewarm that some protectoral officials like John Thurloe* doubted his loyalties. In early 1655, when John Wildman* was believed to be organising a republican plot against the government, Thurloe thought that Pyne was part of it and that, when the rising took place, he would join with Alexander Popham to seize Taunton, Bristol and Portsmouth.112TSP iii. 147, 148. Within weeks, however, William Goffe* had formed a rather different view. During Penruddock’s rebellion that spring Goffe found that Pyne and Wroth were busy raising forces to defend Somerset against the rebels, but that one of the Gorges brothers, probably Thomas, was refusing to cooperate with them. Goffe considered this odd, as Pyne and his friends ‘have been formerly very good instruments for securing these parts and for any public good’.113TSP iii. 237-8. In the light of Pyne’s previous treatment of the Gorges brothers their reluctance to work with him is not so surprising. The dispute was so serious that John Disbrowe* travelled to Taunton to resolve it.114CSP Dom. 1655, p. 99. Notwithstanding Pyne’s denial of sitting in any of the protectoral Parliaments, he did stand in the 1656 elections for one of the Somerset county seats, but his later preference to forget this may not just have arisen from political expediency. On 20 August he poled just 457 votes, over 1,000 votes behind any of the successful candidates.115Som. Assize Orders ed. Cockburn, 77. It is also possible that the decision by Robert Hunt* to stand at Milborne Port in 1659 was intended to deter Pyne from standing. Probably Pyne was never happy serving the protectorate, but considered the prospect of a restored monarchy as even worse.

The Rump revived, 1659

The recall of the Rump and the re-establishment of the republic in May 1659 was much more to his liking. Pyne resumed his seat in the Rump within a fortnight of its revival. Several of his initial committee appointments confirm his eagerness to undo the rule of the Cromwells. These included the committees to prepare a declaration defending the Rump’s constitutional legitimacy (20 May), to review all legislation passed since its dismissal in 1653 (21 May), to strip the protector’s palaces of their quasi-regal furnishings (23 May) and to pay off Richard Cromwell* (25 May). He probably also supported the moves against the prominent Cromwellian courtier Philip Jones*.116CJ vii. 661a, 661b, 663a, 665a. Other measures intended to bolster republican rule which he seems to have supported included the bills to reform the Westminster militia (24 May) and to secure the collection of taxes (8 June).117CJ vii. 664a, 676b. A number of committee appointments confirm that he continued to attend during June and July. The most sensitive such appointment may have been to the committee to reflect on the laws for punishing disturbances of religious services (1 July).118CJ vii. 666a, 668a, 673b, 678b, 700b, 702a, 704b, 721a. By mid-August he had returned to Somerset to help stiffen the county’s defences against the threat of royalist rebellion, and to that end he was nominated by the militia commissioners as a colonel of militia foot.119Bodl. Clarendon 63, ff. 185-6. The Rump confirmed this appointment on 1 September. His interest in the additional sequestrations bill was only to be expected and so he was named to the committee to consider it on 4 October, nine days before the Rump was again suspended.120CJ vii. 772b, 791b.

A copy of a letter dated 14 November 1659 survives among the Pyne family papers. Its writer can be assumed be either Pyne himself or one of his close friends. In it, he set out his political credo as it then stood.

The true interest and constitution of a commonwealth and all things thereunto conducing I do dearly love, and when I find that foundation laid, derived from good people and to them to be duly conveyed, with that I can willingly and readily engage the small remainder of my old age.

However, seeing little prospect of any of this being achieved in the near future, he was reluctant to act:

Oh my soul panteth for the appearing and preserving of the true good old cause, whereof I can discern little appearance, but rather a departure from it by the many single person men [Cromwellians] everywhere introduced, and really to me an unwillingness unto a pure settlement appeareth rather than anything else, it is high time to give off jesting with edged tools, God will not be mocked, my faith and dependence is above man.121HMC 9th Rep. ii. 493-4.

Pyne may well have already realised that events were moving against men like him. The new sittings of the Rump the following month were one last chance to preserve the ideal of a pure republic. However, quite possibly absent from the capital when the Rump re-assembled on 26 December, Pyne probably took his seat again only in mid-January 1660. That he was then named to the committee to arrange a grant of lands to George Monck* (16 Jan.) was an uncomfortable reminder that the Rump would not be the master of its own fate. When on 9 February the council of state ordered Monck to subdue London, Pyne backed them; he was a member of the committee appointed later that day to draft a bill to remodel the common council of the City.122CJ vii. 813a, 838b. Monck’s vacillating response followed by his decisive support for a new parliamentary elections made it impossible for the Long Parliament to last much longer. Unwilling to accept this, Pyne may have boycotted its final weeks.

Final years, 1660-78

The issue created by the Restoration was not whether Pyne would accept the principle of a monarchy – there was surely never much chance of that – but how he would live under the new government. Such was Pyne’s notoriety that some royalists wanted to single him out for special retribution. Most damaging to him was that Sir John Stawell’s sequestration had become a cause célèbre. Knowing that his estates, his freedom and even his life were all in danger, Pyne submitted by taking the oath of allegiance in the presence of the Speaker, (Sir) Harbottle Grimston*, on 7 June 1660.123HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494. The question then became whether he should be barred by name in the Act of Indemnity from holding any public office. On 18 June Viscount Falkland (Henry Cary*) moved in the Commons that Pyne should thus be excluded from the benefit of the Act. In supporting that motion, Thomas Chafe†, the MP for Totnes, denounced him on the grounds that he ‘was called the king of the west and a great tyrant.’124Bodl. Dep. F.9, f. 4. Other MPs agreed and a clause specifically barring him from public office was added to the Act.125CJ viii. 67b, 118a-b; Dering Diaries and Pprs. 45; LJ xi. 115a; SR. Thereafter the government understandably remained suspicious of him. By early 1661 he had been arrested and, evidently with some reluctance, he re-took the oath of allegiance at the Dorchester assizes on 9 March 1661.126HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494. He was re-arrested in July 1662 after the government received reports that he had been saying that Charles II planned to introduce popery.127CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 437-8, 441. He remained in custody until the privy council agreed to his release the following October.128HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494.

Fears that Pyne might plot against the restored monarchy seem to have been unwarranted. He spent his remaining years living quietly at Curry Malet. He was on friendly terms with (Sir) Edmund Wyndham*, the former royalist who had become knight marshal of the royal household and who had previously been married to his cousin, Christabella Pyne. Letters written by Wyndham to him in 1666 and 1669 kept Pyne informed about the latest news from the Cavalier Parliament.129HMC 9th Rep. ii. 494-5. By the mid-1670s he was beginning to feel his age. On 11 August 1676 he sealed an indenture transferring control of his estates, probably into the hands of or for the benefit of his eldest son, John junior. The next day he drew up his will. He died before 14 June 1678, when it was proved. As his estates had previously been settled, that will made only token bequests to his sons. He also left £50 to Wyndham, his ‘dear and honoured kinsman’.130PROB11/357/85.

Pyne had never really been a national figure. His wider fame had always rested on his reputation (or notoriety) in Somerset and the same has been no less true among recent historians. But for a brief period he had been the most powerful man in his locality. What made that all the more remarkable is that the Pynes had never before been so prominent even at a county level and would never be so again.