Situated on the River Rother, New Romney was an ancient trading town, albeit one which, like so many southern ports, had long since decayed, and had little or no access to the sea. Although its population had probably declined – there were 230 individuals of communicable age in 1676 – it had residual importance in the mid-seventeenth century because of its role as the venue for the Guestling, the assembly of the Cinque Ports. This status ensured that, having received a charter in 1352, it had been incorporated in 1563, since when it had been governed by a mayor and up to 12 jurats, although there were generally many fewer than this. Even though the franchise extended to the town’s freemen, the electorate remained tiny. Nevertheless, the borough traditionally strove to ensure that at least one of its MPs was a resident townsman, even during the period when George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham proved a particularly assertive lord warden. M. Teichman-Derville, The Annals of the Town and Port of New Romney (1929), 3-4, 8; Compton Census, 35.
The ability to resist pressure from outside influence, especially that of the royal court, was severely tested in the election for the Short Parliament, when all the 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. As early as 7 December 1639, New Romney’s mayor received a letter from one hopeful candidate from the local area, Christopher May of Lydd, Romney’s neighbour and ‘limb’ port. May had evidently tested the water even earlier: ‘I asked you if there were not some probability (if I stood for it) by your solicitation I might be chosen burgess of Romney: if my memory mistake not you assented and promised your help if I now summoned you.’ May claimed
I confess I had rather be thence than any other place, because having land lying so near, I have more than ordinary pretence (if occasion offer itself) of being zealous for the benefit of the port and town … Besides I esteem a free election at a higher rate than the recommendation (which I might have had) of a great man’s letter.
He also drew attention to his own special merits, adding: ‘I presume I have not undeserved of the parish of Lydd … I shall be no less forward for Romney’. E. Kent RO, NR/Aep/45. May was probably advised that his chances of success were low, however, and he withdrew before the election.
The campaign for seats probably became more intense after the issue of the writ (20 Feb. 1640) and the mandate (9 Mar.). E. Kent RO, NR/Aep/3/1-2. Unfortunately, the precise nature of the influence which was brought to bear on the freemen is unclear, not least because of the absence of surviving correspondence from the lord warden, Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk. Sir Christopher Abdy probably stood on his own interest, for although he was born and bred in Streatham, Surrey, he had been settled at Belgat, Kent, since at least 1629. Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 196; Al. Cant.; Vis. Surrey (Harl. Soc. xliii), 148. On the other hand, Thomas Withring, who eventually sat for Morpeth, had much more obvious court connections, and may have secured Suffolk’s approval. As a former servant to Queen Henrietta Maria, and as a client of the secretary of state, Sir John Coke†, Withring had become a leading official in the post office. The possibility that Coke sought to influence the election, even indirectly, permits speculation that another of the candidates, recorded only as Mr Coke, was his own son, Thomas*, although this cannot be established with certainty. A more likely recipient of the lord warden’s patronage was John Harvey, a scion of a Folkestone family who had settled in London. A former serjeant-in-ordinary to James I, Harvey’s court connections had earlier included the duke of Buckingham and possibly James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox, who was patron to his brother, Dr William Harvey. Harvey would certainly receive Lennox’s backing in order to secure a seat at Hythe in the Long Parliament. E. Kent RO, H1209, f. 240. The remaining two candidates both stood on their own interest, rather than on the basis of noble patronage. Thomas Godfrey of Lydd was head of the pre-eminent local gentry family, and had represented the borough in 1628, as his younger brother, Richard Godfrey†, had done in the three previous Parliaments. The family’s local influence is also indicated by the candidacy of Godfrey’s nephew, William Steele, a Gray’s Inn lawyer, and future attorney-general during the Rump, who became lord chancellor of Ireland under Oliver Cromwell*. Godfrey’s influence may have secured Steele’s appointment as retained counsel for the town in March 1639. E. Kent RO, NR/ACo/1, f. 62; cf. NR/AC2, pp. 277, 325.
The candidacy of six men ensured that the 16 freemen present on 12 March had to be polled in order to determine the outcome, although the result demonstrated emphatic support for Godfrey and Steele. The poll list indicates that only one other candidate, Coke, secured any votes at all. 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. Later in the year, however, changed political circumstances, and the appointment of a new lord warden, ensured that such independence could not be maintained, and that the spoils were divided between local and court interests.
In contrast to events in the spring, the election for the Long Parliament does not appear to have been contested, and the nature and extent of the influence exerted by the lord warden, the duke of Lennox, is apparent. His letter survives recommending Philip Warwick, secretary to the lord treasurer, Bishop William Juxon, and clerk of the signet. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 282. Although it is unclear why Godfrey did not stand, it is possible that he made way for Norton Knatchbull, who although not a townsman, and not yet a freeman, was clearly a powerful figure in the local community, as lord of the manor of nearby Mersham Hatch. Both Warwick and Knatchbull were duly elected, in their absence, on 18 October. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 282-3. Knatchbull took the oath ten days later, but although Warwick sent the town £20, and a further £5 for the poor on 29 October, he asked to be able to take the oath in London, perhaps awaiting the outcome of the election at New Radnor, as he informed the House on 7 November that he would sit for the latter borough. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 284-5; NR/RF4. A new writ was issued within a week, and the lord warden secured the election of his own secretary, Thomas Webb. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 287. Webb was expelled from the House as a monopolist in January 1641, and hostility to the electoral influence of the peerage, and of the lord warden in particular, guaranteed that the ensuing election, upon a writ issued on 15 March, resulted in the return of a figure from Kent with no court connections. E. Kent RO, NR/Aep/4; C 231/5, p. 437. On 26 April, the borough chose Richard Browne of Great Chart, a former sheriff who had been an unsuccessful candidate in the county election the previous November, when he had apparently been supported by ‘the precise sort’. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 293, 295; Stowe 743, f. 149.
Browne’s election indicates a degree of religious zeal in Romney which became more apparent during the 1640s, when the town proved to be loyal to the parliamentarian cause. During 1641, the town supported the claims of parishioners who complained against the local minister, one Knight, for ‘vexing’ them over the payment of tithes, and expended money and energy in pursuing the case at Westminster. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 289, 292, 295, 298-9, 304-5. In 1644, following a dispute with another minister, the Presbyterian John Sterne, over ‘the manner of the administration of the sacrament of baptism’, the borough enlisted the help of Browne, ‘to the end a sufficient Englishman may be provided for the officiating of the cure of this parish’. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 326, 332; Calamy Revised, 463. In March 1645, after consultation with Mr Phelps, clerk of the Committee for Plundered Ministers, Browne recommended another Presbyterian, Joshua Kerby, as minister, and in order to enhance the value of the living, Browne also solicited Henry Grey*, 10th earl of Kent, and other commissioners of the great seal, to effect a union with the neighbouring parish of Hope, and liaised closely with the borough regarding petitions on the matter. Once again, the borough records indicate the financial resources which the townsmen were prepared to spend in order to resolve this matter. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 333, 336, 338, 339; NR/FVc/2. Furthermore, Romney’s zeal for the parliamentarian cause was also evident from its willingness to provide the county committee with evidence regarding those who refused to pay assessments (May 1643), as well as from its eagerness to secure ordnance for the region’s defence, through the assistance of Robert Rich†, 2nd earl of Warwick (May 1644). E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 319, 328. It was also apparent from the town’s willingness to remove those who were considered to be delinquents, including the mayor, Daniel Duke, and town clerk, Symon Walter, who were removed from office, and the corporation, in the autumn of 1645. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 352-4, 356; NR/ACo/1, f. 70; CP/Bp/86-7.
The seclusion of Knatchbull at Pride’s Purge ensured that Romney was unrepresented during the Rump. Although Browne, the more active advocate of the town’s interests at Westminster, may not have been targeted by the army, his great age, and the illness which brought about his death in January 1650, ensured that he played no part in proceedings after December 1648. It was clearly considered possible that a by-election would be held to fill the vacancy left by Browne’s death, and in March 1650 the authorities at Dover Castle appear to have recommended a candidate, although the townsmen responded that they ‘could not engage ourselves to any pretender until we had conference with him’, and explained that ‘we have not any ways engaged to any, and do intend to keep ourselves free, until we have writ’. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 383. No writ was ever issued, however, and the town remained without an MP for most of the 1650s, since the terms of the Instrument of Government of December 1653 gave the borough no seats.
When the distribution of parliamentary seats reverted to a traditional pattern for Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament in 1659, the borough returned two prominent members of the Kentish gentry, the family of one of whom had a longstanding connection with the borough. Lambarde Godfrey was the heir to the town’s Member in the Short Parliament, and had been a prominent parliamentarian administrator during the civil wars, and a knight of the shire in the first two protectoral Parliaments. His partner, Sir Robert Honywood, on the other hand, had spent many years in the service of the queen of Bohemia, but appears to have been the candidate of the republican party interest. He probably owed his place to the influence of his brother-in-law, Sir Henry Vane II*, and of his own brother, Thomas Honywood*, a Cromwellian peer. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, pp. 425-6. Although neither Honywood nor Godfrey were residents, or members of the corporation, both were made freemen on the day of the election, 3 January 1659, and subsequently took their oaths. E. Kent RO, NR/AC2, p. 426. With the readmission of the secluded Members in February 1660, Knatchbull returned to Westminster, and was present in the House on the day that the Long Parliament finally dissolved itself (16 Mar. 1660). Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24.37). He went on to sit for the borough in the Convention and the Cavalier Parliament. HP Commons 1660-1690.
