A HISTORY OF NORFOLK at Norwich as their head quarters, were jockeyed out of it by the influence of the lord-lieutenant, and the letter describes how on the polling day the Lord-Lieutenant was placed in a chair proportionable to his greatness in the Market Cross, over against the ' King's Head ' Gate, where many of the Catlynes expected their rendezvous and entertainments, but coming hither unexpectedly found the Lord- Lieutenant and his party there, what discord and advantage this might put upon Sir Nevil Catlyne's party may be easily understood. The winners appear also to have broken some agreement as to checking the voters, to prevent their voting twice, and the account finishes with this indignant remark : — And now, good Sir, whether you will communicate to your brethren of the House of Commons how the militia of Norfolk govern their poor countrymen, or whether you will publish this paper to any of them, I leave it freely to your choice and discretion, with the assurance that if these irregularities be brought in question in the House of Commons, this relation will seem but a shadow to what will appear by the proofs. At a bye-election in 1677 Paston had an unwilling opponent in Captain Augustine Briggs,^ who was put forward by the sectaries," from which it appears that the dissenters had soon left the court party. The captain was easily beaten, although no less than 330 faggot votes were created among the freemen to support him. By the next county election (1678) Paston had become lord-lieutenant, and threw in his interest with Sir Nevill Catlyn and Sir Christopher Calthorpe. It has been said that he used all his influence against the party with whom he co-operated in 1675, but there seems to be no proof of this ; he gives as his reason for supporting these two candidates that as ' they are persons of undoubted loyalty and worth, having declared their intention of standing for this county, he (Lord Yarmouth) has engaged all his interest to promote their election.' ' It is quite probable that Catlyn had come round to Paston's views. The Paston interest carried the day and his two candidates were declared elected, but a fresh election was ordered at which Sir John Hobart, son of the resolute Sir Miles Hobart (who had sat in 1645, 1654, 1656, and 1673) came out at the top of the poll, and Sir Nevill Catlyn only secured second place, Calthorpe and Windham being the unsuc- cessful candidates. Hobart in turn was unsuccessfully petitioned against. The Parliament only sat a very few months, and when the new writ was sent down to the sheriff it seems to have been handed over to and delayed by Paston, which brought down a letter from the Lord Chancellor to Paston warning him against this kind of procedure.* Hobart and Sir Peter Gleane, a Norwich citizen, were elected practically without opposition to this and the following Parliament of 1681. Paston, earl of Yarmouth, died in 1683. Of the election of 1685 Evelyn writes in his diary, 'The truth is there were many of the new members whose elections and returns were universally cen- sured, many of them being persons of no condition or interest in the nation or places for which they served, especially in Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk, &c. said to have been recommended by the Court.' ^ This is certainly not fair to Norfolk, whatever may have happened in other counties, for nearly every one returned was of considerable position, viz. : For the county Sir James Astley, bart., and Sir Thomas Hare, bart. ; for Norwich, Robert ' Hist. MSS. Com. Ref. vi, 384. ' Ibid. ^ Ibid. 389. ' Mason, op. cit. 361. ' Evelyn, Diary (ed. Bray), ii, 223. 518
