Dover

The largest of the ancient ports in the south east of England, and the one with the most direct route to the continent, by the early seventeenth century Dover was the only Cinque Port which retained mercantile prominence, and the wealth which went with it. In 1634 it was required to pay £260 towards the county’s Ship Money assessment, a sum exceeded only by Canterbury and Maidstone.1 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 144v. Four decades later the Compton census revealed that the town’s two parishes (St Mary and St James) were home to over 1,600 conformists, 20 papists, and some 300 non-conformists.2 Compton Census, 34. Such was the national importance of the pier and harbour that maintenance and repairs were funded through a national levy on shipping.3 Add. 29623, f. 111v. The town’s strategic role – it was styled ‘the key of the kingdom’ in 1642 – was also reflected in the presence of a permanent garrison at the ancient castle, with a resident lieutenant or constable, often styled ‘deputy lieutenant’ in recognition of his relation to the lord warden of the Cinque Ports. Yet by the early 1640s the castle was reputed to be in a state of some decay, having been neglected by the authorities during the previous decade.4 Jones, Annals of Dover, 63-4, 70; A True Relation of the Brave Exploits (1642), 3-4; Englands Safety in Navie (1642), sigs. A2v-A3 (E.137.20).

Dover had been governed by ‘burgesses’, and from a ‘guildhall’, since before the Conquest, and it had been incorporated by a charter granted by Henry II in the twelfth century.5 A. Ballard, British Borough Charters (1913), 114; S. P.H. Statham, Dover Charters and other Documents (1902), pp. xv-xvi. It had sent burgesses to Parliament regularly since the reign of Edward III.6 Oldfield, Rep. Hist. v. 368. During the early modern period the town’s affairs were managed by a mayor, ten jurats, and a self-perpetuating oligarchy of 37 common councillors. During the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I the franchise lay in the corporation, and it was required that none should be elected unless freemen on the day that the writ was issued, ‘forasmuch as it is found by experience that the said decrees were for the weale publique of the Cinque Ports’.7 Add. 29622, ff. 213-14. Dover was also a borough which maintained traditions regarding the payment of Members’ expenses, at least in instances where they were chosen from within the corporation.8 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 19. In 1624 a petition to Parliament against the outcome of that year’s election asserted a franchise in the freemen.9 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 115v-16; Add. 29623, ff. 63v-4. However, the subsequent adoption of this model does not appear to have been intended as a means of diminishing the influence of the lord warden, who traditionally claimed the power to nominate one burgess in each election, and who continued to do so.10 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 120; Add. 29623, f. 67. This resulted in the frequent election of incumbent lieutenants of Dover Castle, and former secretaries of the lord warden, or occasionally both, as in 1628, when Sir John Hippisley* and Edward Nicholas† were chosen.11 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 128v; Add. 29623, f. 79.

Dover had much about which to petition both Parliament and the crown, and unlike many other ports, it possessed the resources for regular lobbying.12 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 129, 130; Add. 29623, f. 80. This activity centred around the state and the management of the harbour; its boom was controlled by crown nominees, who were able to charge the town.13 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 146; Do/FCa/5, f. 300; Add. 29623, ff. 111v, 121. With a vested interest in maintaining a strong relationship with the lord warden of the Cinque Ports, the town authorities paid regular gratuities to his servants. In 1623 they gave £5 to Edward Nicholas for his ‘great pains’ for the town, while Thomas Webb* received £10 for helping to enable to town to evade providing troops in September 1640, and a further gratuity of £20 in July 1641.14 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 107v, 164; Add. 29623, ff. 59, 129; Add 29622, f. 213. In June 1640, furthermore, the town hosted a dinner for the then lieutenant of Dover Castle, Sir John Manwood*.15 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 280. The corporation had also developed close links with one of the lord warden’s former chaplains, John Reading, minister of a local parish and a freeman from 1620, who received £20 a year for weekly lectures until 1643.16 ‘John Reading’, Oxford DNB; J. Reading, The Old Mans Staffe (1621), A2; Add. 29623, f. 50; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 93; Do/FCa/5, ff. 281, 282, 301, 302, 303v, 305v, 326, 327v, 329, 330, 347, 347v.

Nevertheless, the townsmen tried to prevent the authorities in Dover Castle from dominating the elections to the Short Parliament. The first seat was taken by Sir Edward Boys, deputy lieutenant of the castle under Theophilus Howard, 2nd earl of Suffolk, but the second seat went to Sir Peter Heyman, who had been imprisoned for his part in the tumultuous conclusion to the 1629 session of Parliament. Heyman had then been grown familiar burgess for Hythe, another of the Cinque Ports, but he had also developed ties with Dover, and in July 1629 had been named to a delegation from the town which made representations to the privy council over disputes with the water bailiff, one of the crown’s servants in the port.17 Add. 29623, f. 82. It seems likely that Heyman defeated Sir John Hippisley, who stood on the admiralty interest. In January 1640 Thomas Smith*, secretary to the lord high admiral, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, had informed the admiral of the fleet, Sir John Pennington, that Hippisley had secured Northumberland’s backing at Dover. However, while Smith relayed instructions to procure votes for Hippisley, he correctly predicted that such efforts would prove fruitless.18 CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 400-1. Nevertheless, it is possible that the spring election provoked a dispute, for although no direct evidence survives, the chamberlain’s accounts reveal that the town spent over £90 on sending delegates to London, suggesting preparedness to argue its case.19 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 281v.

That the town was content with its choice is evident from the fact that in September 1640 presents of bucks were made to both Boys and Heyman, who were promptly re-elected when new writs were issued for what became the Long Parliament.20 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 281v. When the freemen responded to the traditional blowing of the horn which announced the election, Heyman and Boys seem to have been unopposed.21 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 301. Both repaid the faith placed in them by assiduous service at Westminster on the town’s behalf. Heyman reported the efforts which he and Boys had made to exempt the ports from the subsidy, and they were assisted by the town clerk, Francis Raworth, who was despatched to Westminster.22 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 164v; Add. 29623, ff. 129-30. Heyman’s death in February 1641, however, provided an opportunity for the new lord warden, the king’s cousin James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox (later 1st duke of Richmond), to reassert his authority. Before the new writ had even been issued (10 Feb.) it was rumoured that the place would be taken by a local gentleman, Anthony Hammond, but by the time the horn had summoned the voters, the lord warden had secured the return of Benjamin Weston, younger brother of the 2nd earl of Portland (Jerome Weston†), the lord treasurer.23 CJ ii. 82a; Oxinden Lttrs. ed. Gardiner, 191; Add. 28000, f. 74; Vis. Kent 1619 (Harl. Soc. xlii), 47; E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 302v.

Weston’s election seems to have provoked resentment among the townsmen, who responded by reiterating their determination to follow guidelines laid down in 1572 and 1603 to preclude the election of men with no prior connection to the borough, which they felt had been ‘neglected’.24 Add. 29622, f. 213-4; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm1, f. 246. That no beneficial alliance was forged with Weston is suggested by the fact that, in the years which followed, they made him no gifts, and engaged him in no correspondence; Weston, for his part, was for some time little seen in the chamber. Moreover, the Dover corporation made every effort to align itself with the opposition to courtiers. They provided information to Boys about Henry Percy*, who had fled to France in the wake of the failed Army Plot, in June 1641, and displayed a determination to work with Boys to disarm strangers in the town in the following November, when they hosted a dinner for their MP.25 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, ff. 303v, 325v. In the spring of 1642 they placed their trust in Parliament rather than the king, when they joined with the other ports to petition for the improvement of the defences at Dover, spending over £20 on the expenses of their delegates at Westminster.26 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 167; Do/FCa/5, ff. 327, 328v; Collonel Lunsford His Petition (1642), sigs. A3v-A4; Englands Safety in Navie, sigs. A2-A3. In June they also sought Boys’ good offices to secure a committee hearing regarding a petition to Parliament by the Merchant Adventurers.27 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 167v; Do/FCa/5, f. 329; Add. 29623, f. 133. Although the corporation paid for a bonfire to mark the king’s coronation day (9 May), the townsmen readily accepted instructions from Parliament in the same month, and entertained the parliamentary committee which visited the town in June, as well as the army officers by whom they were accompanied.28 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, ff. 328, 330.

Shortly after rumours circulated of an attempt by royalists to take control of the castle, and amid fear regarding the plans the ‘malignant and seditious sect[ary] Sir Edward Dering had made in those parts’, the garrison was secured for Parliament on 21 August, whereupon Boys was appointed lieutenant, or governor.29 Exceeding Joyfull Newes from Dover (1642), 6; A True Relation of the Brave Exploits (1642), 3-5. On his arrival in the town, the corporation sent Boys a gift of wine, and thereafter they worked closely with him and other prominent Kent parliamentarians, like Sir Michael Livesay*, to enhance the town’s fortifications.30 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 168v, 171; Add. 29623, ff. 134-6. They took action against townsmen who were openly critical of the king and were assiduous in removing local royalists from positions of authority.31 HMC Portland, i. 64; Bodl. Nalson II, f. 161; CJ ii. 843a.

For the remainder of the first civil war, the corporation maintained regular communication with Boys, not merely cooperating with his instructions, but also sending regular gifts of wine to Dover Castle.32 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 365; Do/AAm2, f. 175v; Add. 29623, f. 138; Eg. 2096, f. 145. They also entertained the parliamentarian commissioners who visited the town in July 1643, and made a present of wine to Robert Rich, 3rd earl of Warwick, during his stay at Walmer Castle in November 1644, at the time of a renewed royalist threat to the castle, involving Thomas Webb, secretary to the duke of Richmond, now displaced as lord warden.33 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 349; Do/AAm2, f. 174v; The Kentish Conspiracy (1645), sigs. Bv, B2v-3. It is significant that when in February 1646 the borough petitioned Parliament, they employed the services not merely of Boys, but also of Henry Heyman*, son of their former MP and a prominent Kent parliamentarian, rather than their own burgess, Benjamin Weston.34 Eg. 2096, f. 149. Once again, Boys and Heyman were rewarded for their service with gifts of wine worth £6 and £5 respectively.35 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 177v; Do/FCa/5, f. 382; Add. 29623, f. 145v.

Indeed, there is evidence that at least some of the townsmen inclined towards radical politics and religion. They do not seem to have protected their long-serving preacher, John Reading, who was plundered by parliamentarian troops in 1642, and sequestered from his living, and readily employed Michael Porter, the replacement appointed by Parliament.36 ‘John Reading’, Oxford DNB; Walker Revised, 224; E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 176v. Boys’ death in the summer of 1646 presented the townsmen with an opportunity to display their political opinion in a recruiter election, called on 11 August.37 CJ iv. 642a. On 28 August the freemen who were summoned by the town horn chose a future regicide, John Dixwell, a zealous Kentish parliamentarian who had recently assisted in efforts to strengthen the port’s defences in the face of the royalist threat.38 Return of Members, 497; 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. Dixwell quickly demonstrated his commitment to serving the town, and his relations with its authorities remained strong until the Restoration.39 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, ff. 382v, 395v; Do/AAm2, f. 178; Add. 29623, f. 145v; Eg. 2096, f. 151. The religious zeal of the freemen, moreover, is apparent from the decision in August 1647 to employ John Davis (or Davice) to preach the weekly lecture, with a salary of £20 a year.40 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 179; Add. 29623, f. 147. Davis, a former preacher at Christchurch in London, was a renowned Congregationalist, whose activities in the town had already drawn the attention of the Presbyterian pamphleteer, Thomas Edwards.41 Calamy Revised, 158; T. Edwards, Gangraena (1646), ii. 163-4; J. Davis, Heaven and Earth Shaken (1656). Although his appointment was not uncontroversial – there was an attempt in November 1649 to replace him by one John Dixe – he remained in post, and in receipt of corporation funds, until at least November 1655.42 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 183, 187; Do/FCa/5, ff. 395v, 467; Add. 29623, ff. 156, 161. In 1651 the corporation employed a second religious Independent, John Robotham, while in 1654 they paid for weekly lectures by Nathaniel Norcrosse, a Congregational minister who had returned from New England, and in 1655 for the same by Thomas Barrow.43 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 187; Do/FCa/5, f. 467; Add. 29623, ff. 156, 161; Calamy Revised, 367; J. Robotham, The Mystery of the Two Witnesses (1654), sig. A2.

Nevertheless, the town was beset by factionalism, and during the second civil war in 1648 control of the borough swung towards royalist sympathisers. One account claimed that it was ‘a town exceedingly malignant, and by reason of the decay of trade, and poverty of seamen, rude and barbarous beyond belief’.44 Newes from Kent (1648), 2 (E.448.5). Prince Charles tried to persuade one of the castle’s officers to declare for the king in April 1648.45 Prince Charles His Message to Mr William Swan (1648, E.435.39). The subsequent Kent rising threatened the castle, which became a refuge for parliamentarians like Sir Henry Heyman*, who had been forced to flee his home. When Heyman attempted to provision the garrison with supplies from the surrounding area, the civic authorities assisted the rebels in laying siege to the castle (mid-May). Aware that Dover was one of the few places in the county outside the control of the rebels, Heyman refused to negotiate terms for its surrender, resisted threats from Lord Goring (George Goring*), and held out until the castle was relieved by Major Robert Gibbon* at the end of the month.46 Newes from Kent (1648), 2-17 (E.448.5); Newes from Kent (1648), 4 (E.445.27).

Thereafter, the parliamentarian faction probably reasserted its influence, and late in 1648 the corporation maintained correspondence with both the earl of Warwick and Sir Thomas Fairfax*, especially about relations with the Dutch.47 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 394. Although it was alleged that royalists – including those who had participated in the second civil war – remained in positions of authority within the town into 1649, the townsmen maintained cordial relations with Algernon Sydney*, lieutenant of Dover Castle from 1648 to 1651, and with their MP John Dixwell, to both of whom they made regular gifts.48 N. Burt, For Every Individuall Member (1649), sigs. Av-A3 (E.568.19); E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 181, 183; Add. 29623, f. 153. The town lobbied Sir Michael Livesay about the billeting of troops in March 1649, and may have exploited their links at Westminster to secure favourable treatment by the committee for trade in June 1651.49 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 394v; Add. 29623, f. 155v. They recognised the threat identified by the council of state from possible royalist sympathisers operating the town’s postal system, and also the security risk presented by cannons which the town possessed.50 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 183v, 184; Add. 29747, f. 18. The corporation accommodated the republican regime by arranging for the arms of the commonwealth to be set up in the court hall, having spent nearly £7 on their painting, gilding, and framing.51 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f 187; Do/FCa/5, f. 429v; Add. 29623, f. 156. They provided entertainment for both Dixwell and Thomas Westrowe* (Sept. 1651), and developed a strong working relationship with Thomas Kelsey*, Sydney’s successor as lieutenant of the castle, which was of particular importance during the first Dutch war.52 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 409v; Do/AAm2, ff. 189, (in reverse)196v; Add. 29623, ff. 156, 158; Add. 29747, f. 20-23v; Eg. 2119, ff. 2-90; Eg. 2096, f. 175v. Like his predecessors, Kelsey received gifts of wine from the corporation.53 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 190; Add. 29623, f. 159; Eg. 2096, f. 178.

For the first time since 1626, the election for the first protectorate Parliament in 1654 – when Dover was allocated only one seat, as in 1656 – returned a townsman, William Cullen, who was later awarded expenses of 5s per day for his service at Westminster.54 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, ff. 189v, 191; Do/FCa/5, f. 467v; Add. 29623, ff. 158, 160; Eg. 2096, ff. 177, 180. Cullen, who had sat in the Nominated Parliament of 1653, had been a jurat since 1648, had served as mayor in both 1651 and 1652, and had proved himself both a zealous supporter of the commonwealth and a loyal advocate of the town’s interests.55 Eg. 2096, ff. 157v-8, 168, 173v. That the borough accepted the protectoral regime is evident from their somewhat delayed decision in October 1655 to replace the town’s maces.56 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 192; Add. 29623, f. 161v. That they remained sympathetic to political and religious radicals, however, is evident from the decision in August 1654 to retain Thomas St Nicholas* as the town’s counsel.57 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 190; Add. 29623, f. 159; Eg. 2096, f. 178. He had been connected with the Cinque Ports since his appointment as steward of the court of chancery and admiralty in 1651, and he had been nominated by the Kent Congregational churches to Parliament in 1653, and by Kelsey as a candidate at Rye in 1654.58 CSP Dom. 1651, p. 47; Add. 32471, f. 12v; E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/149/15. St Nicholas’s legal skills were employed by the corporation regularly until at least January 1659, and he was handsomely rewarded.59 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, ff. 483v, 485v, 487v, 500v, 517v.

In September 1656, having made Major-general Kelsey a freeman of the town and remitted the traditional fee on account of his many favours, the town elected him as its representative in Parliament.60 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm2, f. 195; Add. 29623, f. 164; Eg. 2096, ff. 188-9. There were 219 voters on that occasion.61 Eg. 2120, f. 19. Such was the strength of Kelsey’s connection to the town that he opted to sit for Dover ahead of Guildford, for which he had also been returned.62 CJ vii. 434a.

In July 1657, as Parliament finalised the constitutional arrangements attached to the Humble Petition and Advice, Dover joined the other Cinque Ports in soliciting the support of the lord warden (now John Disborow*) and Kelsey for petitioning Parliament and protector that their traditional number of MPs might be restored.63 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm1, f. 253v; Add. 29622, f. 222. They received a favourable response. The two men ‘freely declared themselves bound to do what in them lay for the good of the ports, and that they were not in despair of effecting the business’, although they ‘thought requisite that a convenient time might be taken for a prosecution therein’, and they added that Harbert Morley* ‘would be a very good friend to the business’.64 E. Kent RO, Do/AAm1, f. 257; Add. 29622, f. 227.

Whether specific intervention by Disbrow and Kelsey made any difference in effecting the restoration of two seats in 1659 is debateable, since that decision was also taken elsewhere. The borough gave its two seats in the Parliament of Richard Cromwell* to its two old friends, Kelsey and Dixwell, both of whom belonged to the republican faction in the Commons.65 E. Kent RO, Do/FCa/5, f. 518v. When the Rump was restored in May 1659, Dover was represented by Dixwell and his Long Parliament and Rump colleague Benjamin Weston. However, Dixwell’s nomination as lieutenant of Dover Castle in October helped provoke the army to suspend the House.66 CJ vii. 796b. Dixwell returned to the Commons upon its recall in December, when he was confirmed as governor of Dover Castle, and named to the council of state.67 CJ vii. 800b; Whitelocke Diary, 588. He probably withdrew from the House after the readmission of the secluded Members in February 1660. Weston’s position is uncertain. After the Restoration Dover’s petitioning for maintenance of its harbour continued, as did its disinclination to submit entirely to the electoral influence of the lord warden.68 HP Commons 1660-1690.