Cinque Ports

The Cinque Ports, which had their own charter and institutional structures, nevertheless had an anomalous status in the seventeenth century, as they were governed by a lord warden, based at Dover, who exercised powers akin to, but distinct from, the lord high admiral. They also enjoyed certain liberties, in terms of exemption from taxes and impositions, which they were determined to defend, not least by retaining the services of a string of powerful lawyers, including Serjeants Nathaniel Finch*, Ralph Whitfield, and Thomas Twisden*. Cal. White and Black Bks. Cinque Ports, 454, 456, 458, 459, 461, 465, 467, 471-2, 475, 478, 484. The lords warden were responsible for despatching parliamentary writs, and it was to them that returns were made, and they had traditionally claimed the privilege of nominating at least one Member – or baron – for each port. K.M.E. Murray, Const. Hist. of the Cinque Ports (1935), 95, 128. Occasionally, however, wardens sought to exert more influence, and George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham had eventually claimed power over both seats. Murray, Const. Hist. 95-101; Add. 37819, f. 17v; Eg. 2026, f. 41. Buckingham had been succeeded as lord warden, if not as lord high admiral, by the 2nd earl of Suffolk, who appears to have generated a good working relationship with the ports in the 1630s, not least by supporting petitions for the renewal of their general charter, and for special privileges in relation to knighthood compositions. Cal. White and Black Bks. Cinque Ports, 454, 456, 458, 459, 461, 465, 467.

Lords warden

22 July 1628: Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk. CP.

4 June 1640: James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox and 1st duke of Richmond. CP.

19 Oct. 1642: Committee for the Admiralty and Cinque Ports. CJ ii. 813b.

c.Aug. 1643: Robert Rich†, 2nd earl of Warwick. CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 477.

19 Apr. 1645: Committee for the Admiralty and Cinque Ports. LJ vii. 311b-13a; A. and O.; CJ iv. 111b-12a.

29 May 1648: Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Warwick. A. and O.; LJ x. 290b-1a.

23 Feb. 1649: Council of state. A. and O.; CJ vi. 243a, 277a, 368b, 529a, 534a, 592b; vii. 219b; CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 221.

22 June 1654: John Lambert*, John Disbrowe* and Robert Blake*. Add. 4184, f. 15; E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/150, unfol.; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 241; Mercurius Politicus no. 261 (7-14 June 1655), 5392, 5403 (E.842.19).

Sept. 1657: John Lambert and John Disbrowe, vice Blake. Oxford DNB.

25 Feb. 1660: Council of state. CJ vii. 730a, 767a, 801b; A. and O.

Lieutenants of Dover Castle

26 Apr. 1637: Sir John Manwood*. CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 352; 1640, p. 70.

c.June 1640: Sir Edward Boys*. CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 373.

10 May 1645: John Boys*. CJ iv. 136b-7a.

13 Oct. 1648: Algernon Sydney*. CJ vi. 51a.

May 1651: Thomas Kelsey*. CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 189, 201, 209, 253.

by 12 Oct. 1659: John Dixwell*. CJ vii. 796b.

Short Parliament elections, 1640

The Short Parliament elections were marked by stiff competition for seats, although the success of the lord warden’s interest was arguably hampered by attempts to extend his influence, by the fact that the court interest was divided, and by the separation of the office of lord warden from that of the lord high admiral since Buckingham’s death. The ability to resist pressure from outside influence, especially from the court, was severely tested in the spring election of 1640, when so many boroughs, particularly Cinque Ports, faced long lists of candidates, whether as a result of individuals making their own approaches, or of letters of recommendation from courtiers and grandees. At a port such as Dover, where the lord warden perhaps had the natural advantage of an established powerbase, and a resident deputy, there emerged a conventional division between warden and town, as represented by Sir Edward Boys and Sir Peter Heyman. Add. 29623, f. 82. As had been true in earlier Parliaments, the warden was generally most successful when no attempt was made to seek both nominations. A similar arrangement was apparent at Hythe, where Heyman’s son secured one of the places, while the lord warden, it must be presumed, backed the candidacy of John Wandesforde. E. Kent RO, H1209, f. 238; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 80. At both Sandwich and Winchelsea, the candidates proposed by the Suffolk and the court appear at first sight to have been successful against challenges from local candidates, although in both cases this may have been something of an illusion. At Sandwich in December 1639 the lord warden had backed his deputy, Sir John Manwood*, as well as a second candidate, Nathaniel Finch, one of the counsellors retained by the ports since 1636. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 1, 10, 11; Add. 33512, f. 30; E. Kent RO, Sa/ZB2/90; Cal. White and Black Bks. Cinque Ports, 471, 472. Finch may also have had wider backing at court, not least in the form of a letter of recommendation from his brother, Lord Keeper John Finch†. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 10-11.

Both Manwood and Finch were duly returned, although this ought not to be considered as a clear victory for the court, since Finch* was also the town’s recorder. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 8-9, 11-12. Moreover, Finch and Manwood’s success owed much to the chaotic nature of the election, which was brought about by the townsmen’s refusal to admit as freemen three other candidates, Edward Partheriche*, Sir Thomas Palmer, and Sir Thomas Peyton*, even though this precluded them from being returned. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 12-13. These local men would almost certainly have defeated Finch and Manwood, and their exclusion from the contest caused notable protests at the election, and objections thereafter, although in the end no petition was presented to Parliament, and Finch and Manwood were able to represent the borough for the duration of the Parliament. E. Kent RO, Sa/AC7, ff. 364v-7v; Add. 33512, ff. 40-2. The apparent victory for the court interest at Winchelsea is equally misleading. Suffolk’s successful candidate was Sir Nicholas Crisp*, a wealthy customs farmer, but one who had business interests in the area. E. Suss. RO, Win 58, f. 49v; Win 56, f. 398; Sloane 206A, ff. 89-90. The second successful ‘court’ candidate was John Finch, an Inner Temple lawyer, who was recommended by a kinsman, Lord Keeper Finch, and perhaps also by the 4th earl of Dorset (Sir Edward Sackville†). E. Suss. RO, Win 58, ff. 47v, 49. However, such court influence on behalf of Finch may only have been possible because his family, lords of the manor of Icklesham, traditionally wielded significant influence in the town, and in parliamentary elections. VCH Suss. ix. 71. The election at Hastings highlighted the resistance which emerged when the lord warden sought to control both seats. Suffolk’s first nominee was Robert Reade*, nephew of, and secretary to, the secretary of state, Sir Francis Windebanke*, but Suffolk also sought to extend his influence by nominating John Ashburnham*, one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber. CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 607; SP16/449, f. 86. However, this attempt to nominate two MPs failed entirely, in the face of the candidacy of two local men, Sir John Baker* and Thomas Eversfield*, whose families were both prominent in the area, and who could both claim proprietorial interest in the borough. VCH Suss. ix. 20.

More dramatic evidence of the risks which the lord warden took in overstretching his authority, or at least the risks of the court interest being overplayed and uncoordinated, emerges from the New Romney election. The borough had traditionally sought to return at least one resident townsman, even during the period when Buckingham had proved particularly assertive. M. Teichman-Derville, Annals of the Town and Port of New Romney (1929), 3-4, 8; Compton Census, 35. Although the borough records are thin, there appear to have been three court candidates, more than one of whom may have had Suffolk’s backing. Thomas Withring* had obvious court connections, as a former servant to Queen Henrietta Maria, and as a client of the secretary of state, Sir John Coke†, and if Coke sought to influence the election, even indirectly, then another of the candidates, recorded only as Mr Coke, may have been one of his kinsmen. E. Kent RO, NR/Aep/3/1-2. The most likely recipient of the lord warden’s patronage, however, was John Harvey*, who had served as serjeant-in-ordinary to James I. E. Kent RO, H1209, f. 240. The port also proved popular with ‘independent’ candidates, however, and four other men put themselves forward. Although one of these subsequently withdrew, the election was contested by six men, including Thomas Godfrey* of Lydd and his nephew William Steele*. E. Kent RO, NR/Aep/45; NR/ACo/1, f. 62. See: NR/AC2, pp. 277, 325. This ensured that the freemen had to be polled in order to determine the outcome, although the result demonstrated emphatic support for Godfrey and Steele. By ignoring the influence of the lord warden and other grandees, the freemen had made an important break with tradition, and offered a clear snub to the court. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 265; NR/Aep/3/1.

The outcome at New Romney was repeated at Rye, where the clamour for places ensured no fewer than nine candidates in the spring of 1640, six of whom were either nominated by of court officials or peers. Suffolk promoted the candidacy of his 18-year-old son, Thomas Howard†, but subsequently recommended Reade as well, who also received nomination from Windebanke and Sir John Manwood. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/131/2, 4, 10, 11, 14. It is possible that Suffolk sought to supplement his direct patronage with indirect support for at least one other candidate, Sir Walter Roberts bt. of Cranbrooke. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/131/3; CB i. 151. Aside from such overt court influence, other candidates received support from prominent courtiers, albeit men who were also local aristocrats. Having initially backed a cousin, Sir John Sackville†, the earl of Dorset subsequently nominated his secretary and kinsman, John White I*. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/131/13. In addition, there were three local candidates, including Sir John Culpeper*, who was returned alongside White, in a clear rejection of official court candidates. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/131/5, 6, 8; 47/132, unfol.; 1/12, f. 349; CJ ii. 3b.

Aside from the problems which arose when Suffolk attempted to extend his influence, there was also a significant threat from the electoral aspirations of the lord high admiral, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland. Northumberland was optimistic in seeking to wield influence at Dover, but he nevertheless sought to promote Sir John Hippisley*. CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 400-1; Cent. Kent Stud. U350/C2/73. At Rye, meanwhile, Northumberland nominated Sir Nicholas Selwin of Preston, a member of the band of gentlemen pensioners, and this may have helped to split the court vote. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/131/7. At Sandwich, Northumberland proposed Edward Nicholas†, then clerk of the Privy Council. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, p. 9. On this occasion, Suffolk likewise offered his own backing, although the town may have resented this attempt to extent his influence, and Nicholas received little support. Add. 33512, f. 36; Boys, Sandwich, ii. 424; CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 333; SP16/441, f. 276; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 9-10; Sa/AC7, ff. 365v-6.

The Sandwich election also highlights the importance of political and religious issues in the spring of 1640, since much of the attention focused on Nicholas’ religious beliefs, and since ‘factious non-conformists’ were certainly mobilizing opposition. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 13-15; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 561-2, 568-9. The problem with viewing the Sandwich election in purely religious terms, however, is that the local men whom the townsmen sought to support, Partheriche and Peyton, probably had very different views from each other, and it is possible that the freemen were motivated by a concern to secure local men, rather than by ideology, or that religion became a factor only when Catholicism was suspected. The same may also have been true at Hastings, where the contest effectively involved a struggle between Reade and Eversfield, and where the context for the bitter struggle which ensued cannot be separated from the controversy surrounding Reade’s supposed Catholicism. Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, f. 88; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 556, 565-6, 607; 1640, pp. 2-3, 12, 17, 28, 36, 45, 56, 68; SP16/451, ff. 14, 104. Although religion was not mentioned overtly during the manoeuvring surrounding the election, during which allegations of bribery were more prominent, the language of libels and private meetings, together with the known puritanism of Eversfield and his allies, are strongly reminiscent of the kind of campaigns where religious and political issues predominated. Moreover, when Reade announced his candidacy to the freemen again later in the year, he expressly challenged accusations about his Catholicism, implying that this had indeed been an underlying influence during the spring. CSP Dom. 1640-41, pp. 160-1; SP16/469, ff. 169-70.

Long Parliament Elections, 1640-1

By the autumn of 1640, Suffolk’s death had led to the appointment of a new lord warden, the 4th duke of Lennox and 1st duke of Richmond, and there is evidence that he benefitted from a stock of goodwill which had yet to be exhausted, as well perhaps as a modesty of ambition. At Dover, Hastings, Hythe and New Romney, the electoral spoils were divided between the lord warden and local men. That the townsmen of Dover merely re-elected Sir Edward Boys and Sir Peter Heyman, indicates not merely the strength of their respective support, but also the fact that the lord warden had not sought to nominate a second candidate. E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, ff. 281v, 301. Likewise, at New Romney, Richmond managed to secure the election of his favoured candidate – Philip Warwick*, secretary to Lord Treasurer William Juxon and a clerk of the signet – by nominating only one man, leaving the other seat to a local man, Norton Knatchbull* of Mersham Hatch. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 282-3. The election at Hastings was never likely to be so smooth, although here again the lord warden secured the return of his nominee – John Ashburnham – by exercising caution, wisdom, and restraint, even in the face of a threat from a rival court candidate. Reade, meanwhile, failed to prevent his rival, Eversfield, from standing, and failed to secure Richmond’s support, relying instead on the earl of Dorset, as well as a series of privy councillors, albeit to no avail. CSP Dom. 1640-41, pp. 158, 160-1, 172; Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, f. 89.

Richmond was politic enough to know when not to overplay his hand, but he also knew when to exert greater influence on those occasions when he felt confident of success. At Hythe he appears to have nominated both John Harvey and Captain Bevill Wimberley, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the re-election of Heyman. E. Kent RO, H1209, f. 240; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 82. However, the court interest was also divided by the candidacy of Wandesforde, this time with the backing of the lord chamberlain, Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke. H.B. M’Call, Story of the Fam. of Wandesforde (1904), 316. Despite such competition, and traditional resentment against such tactics, Richmond was partially successful, securing Harvey’s return, if not that of Wimberley. Nevertheless, this victory proved highly controversial, and the pressure exerted by Richmond formed part of the case against him in Parliament in January 1642. PJ i. 219, 224-5; LJ iv. 549b, 552a-b. At Rye and Winchelsea, the electoral spoils were divided between the court and the lord warden, to the exclusion of local interests, and if this may not have come as a surprise at Winchelsea, it may well have done so at Rye. Winchelsea merely re-elected Finch and Crisp, the latter having almost certainly secured Richmond’s support. E. Suss. RO, Win 58, ff. 53, 53v. At Rye, however, the arrival of a new lord warden altered the electoral patronage, and Reade discovered that he could not rely upon Richmond, who recommended instead Sir John Jacob, a prominent merchant, monopolist, and crown financier. CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 121; E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/133, unfol. The earl of Dorset, meanwhile, recommended his secretary, John White I*. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/133, unfol. Unlike in Winchelsea, moreover, evidence indicates that two local men, John Fagge* and William Hay*, stood in competition for the town’s seats, and that the contest was fought along political and religious lines, between future royalists and future parliamentarians, with the former successful at the expense of the latter, and in spite of protests regarding the way in which the election had been undertaken. E. Suss. RO, Rye 1/12, f. 6; 47/133, unfol.

Although Richmond had played no part in the spring election at Sandwich, the tension surrounding that contest ensured that neither he nor the court was likely to have any success in the autumn, and the freemen rejected both of their candidates in favour of local men. Finch evidently sought re-election, presumably as a court candidate, and Richmond recommended the future royalist commander, William Villiers, 2nd Viscount Grandison [I], despite predictions by the civic authorities that there was little chance of success. Add. 33512, ff. 45, 47, 52, 71; E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 36-7, 59-61. Having learnt from their mistake in the spring, the townsmen admitted Peyton and Partheriche as freemen alongside Grandison and Finch, and chose the former pair rather than the latter. E. Kent RO, Sa/AC7, ff. 376-7. As at Hythe, however, Richmond courted controversy by demanding to know details of the votes cast by individual freemen. E. Kent RO, Sa/C1, pp. 61-2.

The need for by-elections in 1641 provided an opportunity for the lord warden to extend his influence, particularly in those ports where he had previously shown moderation. At Dover, where an election was called following the death of Heyman, Richmond was able to ensure the return of his kinsman, Benjamin Weston*, a younger brother of the 2nd earl of Portland (Jerome Weston†), evidently against the wishes of many of the freemen. CJ ii. 82a; Oxinden Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 191; Add. 28000, f. 74; E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 302v; Add. 29622, ff. 213-4; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm1, f. 246. Winchelsea too faced an election in early 1641, following the expulsion of Crisp from the Commons. CJ ii. 77a. Richmond was probably responsible for the return of William Smyth, a Middle Temple lawyer who had been a member of the household of his mother, the dowager Duchess of Lennox (d.1637). E. Suss. RO, Win 58, ff. 55, 55v, 56. At New Romney, however, the situation was more complicated. In a by-election necessitated by Philip Warwick’s decision to sit for New Radnor, Richmond secured the election of his own secretary, Thomas Webb*, but the latter was subsequently removed as a monopolist, and by the time that the new election took place, on 26 April 1641, it was apparent that hostility to the electoral influence of the peerage, and of the lord warden in particular, would militate against Richmond’s chances of influencing the election. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 284-5, 287; NR/RF4; NR/Aep/4; C231/5, p. 437. This may explain why Webb delayed returning the writ for the election of his successor, in a vain attempt to block the election of Richard Browne of Great Chart, a prominent local puritan. CJ ii. 123a; E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 293, 295; Stowe 743, f. 149. The fourth port where a by-election was required was Rye, where the expulsion of Jacob prompted something of a scramble for the seat. CJ ii. 71a. Richmond quickly nominated Sir William Hicks, albeit somewhat defensively, given his previous support for Jacob. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/133, unfol. Hicks faced competition from Sir William Waller*, who was recommended by Sir Edward Dering*, although the port opted instead for one of those men defeated in October, William Hay. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/133, unfol; 1/13, f. 15v. Richmond’s weak position by the spring of 1641 is evident from Parliament’s decision to re-enfranchise another Cinque Port, Seaford; a decision which was only likely to have been taken on the assumption that the lord warden would be unable to exert significant influence. CJ ii. 78a. Indeed, the subsequent return of Francis Gerard* and Sir Thomas Parker* suggests that the move was inspired by puritans and future Parliamentarians. Murray, Const. Hist. 47-8.

The experience of Cinque Port elections during 1640 and 1641 may have strengthened the Commons’ determination to undermine aristocratic electoral influence more widely. In December 1641 the Commons passed a resolution that ‘they conceive that all letters of that nature, from any peers of this realm, do necessarily tend to the violation of the privileges of Parliament, and the freedom of elections of the Members that ought to serve in the House of Commons’, and they sought to gather evidence regarding the practice. CJ ii. 337b. On 29 January 1642 a conference was held regarding Richmond’s electoral influence, not least his attempts to obtain evidence of the ways in which particular freemen had cast their votes, and his intention to ‘call some of them to account, for not giving their votes for the party the duke recommended’. CJ ii. 403a.

The Long Parliament, 1641-53

During the course of the Long Parliament, the Cinque Ports engaged in vigorous lobbying at Westminster, in an attempt to secure their traditional exemption from the subsidy. By June 1641 it had become clear that Parliament no longer intended to exempt the ports, and in July the ports not only made a generous gift to Webb, the warden’s secretary, but also spent a further £12 on lobbying Parliament in defence of their liberties. CJ ii. 176a, 191a; Cal. White and Black Bks. Cinque Ports, 478; Stowe 744, ff. 2-v. During debates on the supply bill in March 1642, the Commons once again rejected a proviso to exempt the ports, prompting the despatch of a delegation from the ports, which petitioned the Commons on 21 March. CJ ii. 475b, 491a. The barons for Dover and Sandwich supported this campaign, while at least two of the ports contributed financially towards the lobbying campaign undertaken with the assistance of the town clerks of Dover and Sandwich; a breviat of the case appeared to have been printed. E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 164v; Add. 29623, ff. 129-30; E. Kent RO, H1209. f. 249v; Sa/C4/1, 3; Sa/FAt39, p. 32; Sa/C4.; SP16/489, ff. 196-7; The Barons of the Cinque Ports… Breviat (1642). Although disappointed on this issue, the ports, like most boroughs in Kent and Sussex, supported Parliament during the civil wars, and indeed during the spring of 1642 submitted a petition calling for religious reform as well as better defence of the southern coast. To the Right Honourable Lords …of Parliament Assembled. The Humble Petition of… the Cinque Ports (1641). Indeed, when Dover’s corporation joined with the other ports in submitting a petition regarding the need to improve the defences at Dover, they spent over £20 on the expenses of their delegates at Westminster. E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 167; Do/FCa/5, ff. 327, 328v; Collonel Lunsford His Petition… Also the Humble Petition … of the Town and Port of Dover (1642), sigs. A3v-A4; Englands Safety in Navie (1642), A2-A3 (E.137.20).

On the outbreak of civil war, Parliament became more intimately involved in the government of the Cinque Ports. Following the removal of Richmond as lord warden it was rumoured that he would be succeeded by the earl of Northumberland in February 1642. E. Kent RO, Sa/C4; Sa/ZB2/92; Add. 33512, f. 72. This appointment was never made, however, and Northumberland was discharged as lord high admiral in June. CP. On 19 October, however, the Commons resolved that during the vacancy of the office of lord admiral, the admiralty committee was to have the power to ‘execute all such things as pertain to the said office of the lord admiral and lord warden of the Cinque Ports’. CJ ii. 813b. In the following December they appointed a new judge of the admiralty for the ports, the civil lawyer James Masters, and also issued orders to Sir Edward Boys, in his capacity as governor of Dover Castle, to ensure the defence of the ports, and to remedy the defects of the clerks of the passage. CJ ii. 882a, 894b. In January 1643, Parliament reappointed Northumberland as lord high admiral, and sometime before 13 August 1643, Parliament also appointed the earl of Warwick as lord warden, and subsequently made him lord high admiral as well, in December 1643. LJ v. 100b, 101a, 169b, 407b, 524a; vi. 330a; CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 477; 1644, p. 165; A. and O.; CJ iii. 323a. Warwick held both positions until 9 April 1645, when both jurisdictions were passed to a committee for the admiralty and Cinque Ports, which included Warwick as well as Northumberland. LJ vii. 311b-13a; A. and O.; CJ iv. 111b-12a. It was this parliamentary committee which served as lord warden during the recruiter elections, but while it is difficult to distinguish between the interest of the lord warden and local parliamentarians, it is nevertheless likely that the latter generally prevailed.

This is not to say that the committee members, and Warwick in particular, were inactive. In the case of Sandwich, where one seat became available as a result of the expulsion of Sir Thomas Peyton in early 1644, the lord warden’s interest was both active and successful. A writ was eventually issued on 25 September 1645, and five days later the freemen unanimously chose Charles Rich*, Warwick’s son. Nevertheless, while this suggests Warwick’s influence, no letter of recommendation survives, and it is also evident that Rich was supported by the county committee at Maidstone, and that his candidacy was uncontested. C231/6, p. 22; E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, ff. 55v-56v. Warwick also took a personal interest in the election at Rye, where one seat became free by the expulsion of White as a royalist. CJ iv. 263a. Warwick’s preferred candidate was Dr John Bastwick, the puritan ‘martyr’ from the 1630s, and a controversial Presbyterian figure during the 1640s. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/138/1; J. Lilburne, Innocency and Truth (1645), 8 (E.314.21). In the election, however, Warwick proved no more successful than his predecessor had been in 1641, and Bastwick was defeated by a local man, John Fagge*, who belonged to a group around the Sussex parliamentarian Harbert Morley*. E. Suss. RO, Rye 1/13, ff. 4v, 6, 6v, 15v, 45, 45v, 46, 54v, 55, 57; 47/136, unfol.; Glynde 191; W. Suss. RO, Wiston 1294, 2252, 4762-3, 5048. It was undoubtedly through the efforts of Morley and William Hay that Fagge was elected, aged only 18. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/140, unfol.; 1/13, f. 158; 47/135/1-3, 6; 47/136, unfol.; 47/137; 47/133, unfol.

In other cases it is difficult to detect the direct influence of the committee, and difficult to ascertain whether the involvement of the lieutenant of Dover Castle meant that he was acting under instructions from Westminster. At Winchelsea, the availability of two seats – caused by the death of Finch and the expulsion of Smyth – appears to have enabled a division of the spoils between the authorities at Dover and the locality. CJ ii. 963a; iii. 369b; iv. 263a. The corporation received a letter from the constable of Dover Castle in late September 1645, and subsequently elected Henry Oxinden and Samuel Gott. E. Suss. RO, Win 58, ff. 83-4. It is possible that Oxinden was nominated by Boys, given that he had recently put himself forward as a candidate in the election for a knight of the shire in Kent, only to withdraw in favour of the constable’s cousin, John Boys*. CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 138; Add. 28001, f. 35. Gott may have been returned on his own interest, although as a relative newcomer to the county, he may also have relied upon the influence of Presbyterian grandees from Sussex. Add. 28002, ff. 95, 117. The Winchelsea election demonstrates the strength of local parliamentarians as much as it does the power of the lord warden, and this is also clear from the elections at Dover, Hastings and Hythe. The seat at Dover became available following the death of Sir Edward Boys, and the townsmen chose a future regicide, John Dixwell*, a zealous Kentish parliamentarian. CJ iv. 642a; E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, ff. 382v; Add. 20001, ff. 68, 73, 75, 84, 132; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 81-2, 88-9. The election at Hythe, necessitated by the death of Harvey, witnessed overt influence by the county committee, and although they did not mention their preferred candidate by name the place was uncontested, and their efforts may have been intended to support one of their own number, Thomas Westrowe*, who was returned in early October 1645. E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 82-3; CJ iv. 299a. Even where two seats were available, as at Hastings, the Cinque Ports influence was negligible. This election was caused by the expulsion of the town’s two MPs, Eversfield and Ashburnham, and as with other Sussex constituencies, the election saw the electoral spoils shared between the two rival parliamentarian factions. CJ iv. 263. The ‘war party’, represented most powerfully by Harbert Morley, secured the return of Roger Gratwyke*, a member of the county committee, and a jurat at Hastings. Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, f. 63. In choosing John Pelham*, on the other hand, the borough also ensured that the faction headed by political Presbyterians, including Pelham’s father, secured a seat.

The convoluted history of the Cinque Ports during the civil wars took another twist in the spring of 1648, when Warwick was reinstated as lord high admiral and lord warden. A. and O.; LJ x. 290-1. This arrangement only lasted until the early weeks of the republic, however, and in February 1649 both jurisdictions were handed to the council of state, while Parliament retained the power to appoint judges of the admiralty within the ports. A. and O.; CJ vi. 243a, 277a. Subsequently, it was to the council that the ports directed their lobbying efforts, for confirmation of their charters and rights. Cal. White and Black Bks. Cinque Ports, 486. The council’s power was granted on an annual basis, and renewed periodically until October 1653. CJ vi. 368b, 529a, 534a, 592b; vii. 219b; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 221. It remains unclear, however, whether the council, or merely the lieutenant of Dover Castle, became involved in preparations for an election at New Romney in March 1650, where a vacancy had been caused by the death of Richard Browne. The authorities at Dover certainly recommended a candidate, whose identity his unknown, although in the event no writ was ever issued. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 383.

Protectorate Parliaments, 1654-9

During the protectorate the government of the Cinque Ports changed once again, and from June 1654 the powers of the lord warden were held jointly by John Lambert*, John Disbrowe* and Robert Blake*, although once again it is difficult to assess whether it was they or the lieutenant of Dover Castle, Thomas Kelsey*, who held effective power, particularly during elections. Under the Instrument of Government of December 1653, Hastings, Hythe, New Romney, Winchelsea and Seaford were disenfranchised, leaving only Sandwich, Dover and Rye able to send barons to the first protectorate Parliament in September 1654. Only the first of these returned a candidate backed by the Cromwellian court. Sandwich witnessed a contest between a local man – Peter Peke, a member of the town’s common council – and Kelsey, who proved successful as the court nominee. E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, ff. 106v, 113-14v, 139v. It is not known whether the seat at Dover was contested, but the freemen returned a townsman, William Cullen. E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 189v, 191; Do/FCa/5, f. 467v; Add. 29623, ff. 158, 160; Eg. 2096, ff. 177, 180. The Rye election witnessed another victory for a local man, Harbert Morley, who had established a strong relationship with the borough since the 1640s. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/149/10; 47/150, unfol.; 1/13, f. 197; 1/14, ff. 37v, 126; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 241. Although the seat was contested by a second candidate, Nathaniel Powell*, there is little indication that he stood with the backing of the authorities at Dover. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/148, unfol. Morley initially accepted the honour, but changed his mind upon securing a county seat. Only then did the lord warden’s interest become apparent, when Kelsey took the opportunity to recommend the steward of chancery in the Cinque Ports, Thomas St Nicholas*. He was defeated, however, by Nathaniel Powell, probably on his own interest. E. Suss. RO, Rye 1/14, ff. 127, 150-1, 153; 47/149/12, 13, 14, 15; 47/151/3, 5; 47/152, unfol.; CJ vii. 377b.

Lambert, Blake and Disbrowe also acted as lord wardens during the elections for the second protectorate Parliament in August 1656, while Kelsey remained as lieutenant of Dover Castle, although the political dynamic had changed significantly by the appointment of the latter as major-general for Kent. CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 138; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm1, f. 253v; Add. 29622, f. 222. Kelsey’s own return at Dover was no surprise, but at Rye and Sandwich his influence was rejected, perhaps because he was also seen as an agent of Cromwell’s court. E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 195; Add. 29623, f. 164; Eg. 2096, ff. 188-9. Although the three lords warden issued the writ for Rye, it was Kelsey who wrote to the mayor and jurats in order to recommend Edward Hopkins, one of the navy commissioners. E. Suss. RO, Rye 1/14, f. 207; 47/153/3, 24. Once again, however, the court lost out to local interests, in the form of William Hay, who benefitted from the nomination of his kinsman and political ally, Harbert Morley, one of the most powerful opponents of the protectorate in the region, in order to defeat both Hopkins and a prominent member of the corporation, Allan Grebell. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/153/2, 4; 1/14, f. 208-9; 47/154/4. At Sandwich, meanwhile, the election saw the defeat of the man who can be assumed to have been the candidate backed by Dover and the major general, Colonel John Hewson*, by the town clerk, James Thurbarne, perhaps in response to interference by the lords warden in the town’s affairs. E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, ff. 131-2; CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 138; SP25/76, pp. 496-7.

As Parliament sought to finalise the constitutional arrangements under the Humble Petition and Advice in July 1657, the ports petitioned Kelsey and the lords warden in the hope of securing their support for a planned petition to both Parliament and protector seeking restoration of their traditional number of MPs. E. Kent RO, Do/AAm1, f. 253v; Add. 29622, f. 222; Cal. White and Black Bks. Cinque Ports, 499, 506. Kelsey apparently supported such moves, and this duly occurred throughout the country in the 1659 Parliament, although the electoral dynamic was by then altered, given that Kelsey and the two lord wardens, Disbrowe and Lambert, were now opposed to the protectoral court interest. Overall, the elections revealed scant success for the Cromwellians, and a division of the spoils between Kelsey and the local community. Dover returned two old friends, Kelsey and Dixwell, in an expression of the strength of both military and civilian republicans in the region. E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 518v. At Winchelsea, the object of Kelsey’s influence is unknown, although of the two successful candidates the most likely recipient of his patronage was John Busbridge*. E. Suss. RO, Win 58, ff. 144-5v. The second candidate, Robert Fowle, was almost certainly returned on the basis of local influence, and the standing of his kinsmen in the region, not least Samuel Gott. Fletcher, Suss. 19, 104, 127, 132, 257, 295, 326, 338, 341, 354. There is little direct evidence of Kelsey’s involvement at New Romney either, and while he is unlikely to have backed Lambarde Godfrey*, a moderate critic of the protectorate, but no friend to the republicans, he may have supported Sir Robert Honywood*, brother-in-law of Sir Henry Vane II*, and a prominent republican member of the Kent gentry. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 425-6. Likewise, at Hythe, which witnessed notable competition, and significant agitation, it is uncertain who benefited from Kelsey’s letter to the mayor. E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 153-4; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 83-4. He is unlikely to have supported John Nayler, the town’s counsel, and an outspoken critic of religious Independents, or the Cromwellian lawyer Sir Robert Hales*, who had recently received a Cromwellian baronetcy, and who may have had court support. Kelsey may, however, have supported William Kenwricke*, a radical parliamentarian who had supported the trial of Charles I, or perhaps Henry Oxinden*, both of whom were accused of supporting the ‘pulling down of the ministry’. E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 22, 138, 139, 153-4; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 83-4; Add. 28004, ff. 37, 41, 42, 44, 49, 50; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 225-8. In a closely contested poll, the seats were divided between the two rival factions within the town, as represented by Hales and Kenwricke, making Hythe the only seat which can be considered to have witnessed any success for ‘court’ candidates. E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 153-4; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 83-4; The Gen. new ser. viii. 104; Add. 28004, f. 52; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 228-9.

Elsewhere, neither Kelsey nor the supporters of the protectoral court could secure favourable results. At Sandwich, Kelsey probably backed Colonel Nathaniel Rich* against Hales, although both men were rejected in favour of two local gentry figures, Richard Meredith* of Leeds Abbey, and James Thurbarne*. E. Kent RO, Sa/AC8, ff. 141v-42v. At Hastings and Rye, indeed, there is little evidence that the seats were even contested by candidates representing either Kelsey or the court. At Hastings the seats there were taken by Samuel Gott, a prominent Presbyterian who had been employed as the town’s legal counsel since September 1656, and Nicholas Delves, a merchant who had played little or no part in the civil war, and who almost certainly owed his return to the influence of his family, not least his elder brother, the incumbent mayor. Hastings Museum, C/A(a)3, unfol.; C/A/(a)2, ff. 91, 92v, 93; Moss, Town and Port of Hastings, 136. Rye, meanwhile, continued to display the strength of Morley’s interest, and he and Fagge ensured that the poll was scheduled to take place after the county election, as an insurance against their failure to secure places as knights of the shire. In the interim they nominated William Hay, who was eventually able to take the seat, alongside a local merchant, Mark Thomas*. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/157/5, 7, 8; 1/14, f. 293. The absence of an election at Seaford before the opening of Parliament apparently represented an accidental oversight. When the call of the House on 31 January 1659 revealed that no writs had been issued, and that no Members had been elected, the Commons ordered writs to be sent out immediately. CJ vii. 596a. The resulting election reinforced the power of the local interest, with the return of a crypto-royalist, George Parker*, while also resulting in a somewhat unusual choice of a radical Baptist, William Spence*, albeit one who had accommodated the protectorate.

Conclusion

The electoral history of the Cinque Ports always involved more than merely a test of the power of the lords warden, and of the willingness of the individual towns to accept their recommendations. Although this was clearly a perennial feature of elections in the ports, not least when particular wardens sought to extend their influence and to nominate more than one baron, other issues had long played a part, and continued to do so during the civil wars and interregnum. These included: the electoral pretensions of the lords high admiral, a post which was not always held in tandem with the lord wardenship; attempts by other courtiers to influence the polls; and the presence of candidates who stood on their own interest, or with the backing of local magnates. What changed after 1640, however, was the location of the lord warden’s power, and the experience of the Cinque Ports in the 1640s mirrored wider administrative and political developments, in terms of the appropriation of court power by Parliament, and then its ‘return’ to conciliar authority and the protectoral court in the 1650s. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare the electoral success of the lord warden’s interest under successive regimes, because such arrangements were not strictly comparable, and since surviving evidence precludes confident statements regarding the ways in which influence was wielded during the mid-1640s and 1650s. It is unclear whether county committees served the interests of Parliament or the locality during the 1640s; whether effective power lay with the lieutenant of Dover Castle or the lords warden in 1654; and whether it makes sense to talk of a court interest at all under the major-generals, let alone in 1659, when the lieutenant of Dover was an open critic of the protectoral regime.