Hythe

As was the case with many ports on England’s south coast in the early modern period, Hythe’s importance had been undermined by the forces of nature: by the late sixteenth century the shingle deposits by which it was affected reduced it to little more than a local fishing harbour.1 K.M.E. Murray, Const. Hist. of the Cinque Ports (1935), 208-9. As its mercantile base withered, so too did its population, and the Compton Census recorded only 300 inhabitants of communicable age. However, like neighbouring ports, it had long been home to religious non-conformists, of whom there were 25 recorded in 1676, and in the mid-seventeenth century religious issues proved to be of profound significance in the town’s affairs, including in its elections. 2 Compton Census, 34.

The town had been granted its first charter in 1156, and had been represented in Parliament since 1265. In 1575 it became the only Cinque Port to be formally incorporated, under a mayor, nine jurats, and an undefined number of common councillors, in whom the franchise was vested. By the 1640s, however, the franchise had been extended to the entire body of the freemen, who numbered at least 73 in 1659.3 Murray, Const. Hist. of the Cinque Ports, 12-13, 233; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 1, 61; The Gen. n.s. viii. 104. This appears to have weakened the influence of both the civic leaders and the lord warden, and enhanced that of local gentry grandees like the Heyman family. In the 1620s the then lord warden’s kinsman Dr Richard Zouche† had represented the town twice, but Sir Peter Heyman* had been returned four times.4 HP Commons 1604-1629.

In the election for what became the Short Parliament, Heyman (returned instead for Dover) made way for his son, Henry Heyman*, who gained the second place. Given the heightened interest in the first elections since 1628, the lord warden (Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk) was probably determined to exert his interest. He can be presumed to have recommended John Wandesforde*, a Yorkshireman with no previous connection to the port, who had spent most of the 1630s in Aleppo, but had powerful court connections.5 E. Kent RO, H1209, f. 238; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 80.

In the autumn election for the Long Parliament, the death of Suffolk and the appointment of another lord warden worked against the court interest. Wandesforde, who professed not to know the new incumbent, the king’s Scottish kinsman James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox, recognised that his hopes of re-election were damaged, although he sought assistance from the lord chamberlain, Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke.6 H.B. M’Call, Fam. of Wandesforde (1904), 316. Lennox probably recommended John Harvey*, a Folkestone-born crown receiver with strong connections at court and in the City, who gained the junior seat. He over-extended himself, however, by nominating a second candidate, one Captain Bevill Wimberley, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the re-election of Henry Heyman, who came top of the poll.7 E. Kent RO, H1209, f. 240; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 82. The pressure exerted at Hythe by the lord warden (by this time created duke of Richmond) formed part of the case against him presented in Parliament in January 1642, when Heyman gave evidence at a conference with the Lords that, after the election, the deputy lieutenant of Dover Castle was instructed by Richmond to demand information on the voting patterns of the freemen.8 PJ i. 219, 224-5; LJ iv. 549b, 551a-553b.

In the earlier 1640s first Heyman and then also Harvey was active in the service of their constituency, which contributed financially towards the lobbying undertaken by Robert Jager on behalf of the Cinque Ports.9 E. Kent RO, H1209. f. 249v. Early in 1642 Heyman supplied news of the latest events in and orders from Parliament, and reported on his efforts to further the town’s petitions, including that in which the borough expressed its readiness to assume a posture of defence, and to maintain the liberties and privileges of Parliament (2 Mar. 1642). It was to Heyman that townsmen appealed in August 1643 for support for a potential petition that troops raised in the region might be deployed locally.10 E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.; PJ i. 493. Following the outbreak of war, Harvey too worked for the town’s interests: dealing with the royalist financier, Sir Peter Rycaut; searching records on land matters; and endeavouring to orchestrate the removal of Stephen Sackett from the living of West Hythe, perhaps through his lobbying of the Committee for Examinations*, and its chairmen Miles Corbet* and Laurence Whitaker*. After his death, Harvey’s executor Harbottle Grimston* paid the town £147 out of the estate, although the precise reason for this is unclear.11 E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.

Harvey’s death some time between late June and late July 1645 necessitated a recruiter election. The evidence indicates that the local elite adopted a novel approach towards influencing the outcome. In late August the town received a letter from the county committee, denying any intention to ‘entrench upon your rights by a personal recommendation whatsoever’. They claimed to be ‘somewhat advantaged by our present relations and employments, for a further insight into the steerage of affairs than yourselves’, but merely sought to

put you in mind of the high importance of the well placing of your votes, upon which under God depends your own and the kingdom’s happiness or ruin. Both which are at this very instant upon the turning point, and for aught you know yourselves may be the men, nay any of you the man, who with a breath crying ‘I’ or ‘no’, may so turn the scale, as may raise or forever sink a tottering kingdom. Be wise for God, for a bleeding nation, for yourselves and your posterity; let nothing sway you but truly pious and public aims.

Beyond this, they advised seeking a man ‘of courage, fearing God and hating covetousness’, but they declined to suggest any names, and even refused to sign the letter.12 E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 82-3. The outcome of the apparently uncontested election, however, suggests that they hoped to promote one of their own number, Thomas Westrowe*, a Londoner brought up in Kent, who was returned before 7 October.13 CJ iv. 299a.

Westrowe, a committed Independent, immediately joined Heyman in serving the town, by forwarding orders regarding the ban on transporting horses overseas, and by assisting in attempts to improve the state of the harbour, albeit unsuccessfully. The pair also sent orders from the committee for the admiralty regarding the local fishing industry.14 E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol. Under the Rump, when the town made regular financial contributions to the expenses of James Thurbarne* to solicit on behalf of the Cinque Ports at Westminster, the townsmen enlisted the services of both of their burgesses, and rewarded them with gifts of local produce.15 E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 10, 12, 13, 31, 32, 47.

The town’s MPs were less accommodating, however, in responding to its plea for assistance in prosecuting a Baptist. In February 1646 the mayor drew attention to Jeremy Elfrith, a local joiner who had been preaching in the town, and who was considered to be ‘a dangerous fellow’ who drew people away from church. Upon his imprisonment Elfrith, who had been a parliamentarian soldier until he came to regard fighting for either side as unlawful, and who continued to preach from his prison window, had predicted that Westrowe and Sir Michael Livesay* would ‘stand his friends’. This proved correct. Indeed, both Heyman and Westrowe responded by informing the town that they could not find ‘any rule of law’ by which Elfrith was punishable, and ‘neither do we know of any such punishment inflicted by the Parliament upon any for preaching or expounding, unless it were for disturbing the peace, or publishing seditious or known heretical doctrine’. This rebuff, however, did not prevent the townsmen from issuing further complaints in 1647, regarding Richard Greenland, John Davies, John Lambe, and one Mr Fisher, who had been ‘preaching and expounding the scriptures in houses and baptising men and women’, and who had been ‘delivering erroneous and blasphemous doctrine, which we fear may prove very pernicious and dangerous, if not timely prevented’.16 E. Kent RO, H1257, unfol.

Hythe was disenfranchised under the terms of the Instrument of Government. When it was restored as a parliamentary borough by Richard Cromwell* there was notable competition, and significant agitation, for places in the 1659 Parliament. The potential for division was possibly increased by the decision to readmit to the corporation those freemen who had earlier been excluded because of accusations of royalism.17 E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 153-4. The first candidate was John Nayler of Ashford, who had been the town’s counsel since August 1650. Nayler was an ancient at Gray’s Inn, soon to be made a bencher, but he was a controversial figure, whom members of the corporation had tried to remove in November 1657, not least for having said that ‘Jesuits went sometimes under the habit of tub preachers’.18 E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 22, 138, 139; Al. Cant.; G. Inn Admiss. i. 186; PBG Inn, i. 327, 384, 409, 430. Other candidates who likewise sought election through letters to the town, included William Kenwricke*, a radical parliamentarian who had supported the trial of Charles I and had been a member of the Nominated Assembly, and Sir Robert Hales*, a leading Cromwellian lawyer with strong local connections, who had recently been granted a baronetcy. Thomas Kelsey*, the former major-general for Kent, who was lieutenant of Dover Castle, also wrote to the mayor, although it is uncertain whether this was in support of his own candidacy, or that of one of the other men.19 E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 153-4; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 83-4 Our knowledge of the electoral dynamics in December 1658 and January 1659 stems chiefly, however, from the correspondence of the final candidate, Henry Oxinden*.

Oxinden’s friends and agents in the divided town reported the problems faced by his campaign. They claimed that ‘there is great party that will stand for Kenwricke’, but also noted the strength of support among the leading civic figures for Hales and Nayler, while acknowledging the existence of a faction which was vehemently opposed to the latter. On 19 December Oxinden was informed that his supporters ‘cannot prevail anything, for the bigger vote are strongly fixed for other men’.20 Add. 28004, ff. 37, 41; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed Gardiner, 225. On the other hand, by the end of the month Oxinden was assured that ‘there is no fear but you will prevail, for I have spoken with many of them which have faithfully promised’ their support.21 Add. 28004, f. 42. There was apparently a ‘party’ around a former mayor, Michael Lushington, which was ‘very constant for you, and my friends stand fast and do promise me to their utmost power’.22 Add. 28004, f. 44; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed Gardiner, 226. A week later it was apparent that support for a Oxinden-Kenwricke ‘ticket’ was gaining momentum, although it was considered that Oxinden’s success was dependent upon that of Kenwricke. However, there was opposition to both men stemming from fear that they were ‘for the pulling down of the ministry’, and such concerns apparently bolstered the support for Hales and Nayler.23 Add. 28004, f. 49; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed Gardiner, 227-8. Another of Oxinden’s correspondents noted reports that ‘you are against tithing, [and] self-seeking ministers, and also against the abuses which are acted by the lawyers’, but confirmed that this endeared him to a section of the electorate, and intimated that the result was likely to be very close.24 Add. 28004, f. 50; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed Gardiner, 227. Despite such tensions, which centred on religious issues, the election was eventually ‘carried very fairly, and no revenge done to any party’, perhaps because the seats were divided between the two rival factions within the town. Hales and Kenwricke were returned, albeit only narrowly ahead of Nayler and Oxinden.25 E. Kent RO, H1211, pp. 153-4; Wilks, Barons of the Cinque Ports, 83-4; The Gen. n.s. viii. 104. Although the latter may have attempted to withdraw from the poll at the last minute, he apparently received the support of those who ‘were of the national standing’, as well as of ‘the Anabaptists’.26 Add. 28004, f. 52; Oxinden and Peyton Lttrs. ed Gardiner, 228-9.

Although both of the town’s representatives in the Long Parliament had been allowed to sit after Pride’s Purge, both were dead before the reassembly of the Rump in May 1659. In the period before the Restoration, the borough thus lacked burgesses at Westminster. Thereafter, the struggle for ascendancy over elections between local grandees and the lord wardens resumed.27 HP Commons 1660-1690.