Crewe’s Act broke the government interest at Winchelsea and placed the borough securely in the control of local patrons. Jackman, the Whig agent sent down to investigate the Cinque Ports in 1790, reported that there were only six qualified voters and Oldfield claimed in 1794 that there were only three, and in 1816, seven.Ginter, Whig Organization, 169; Oldfield, Boroughs, ii. 347; Rep. Hist. v.
Crewe’s Act of 1782 disfranchising revenue officers threw Seaford into turmoil. At the 1784 general election and in the protracted struggle which followed it the hitherto dominant Treasury interest tried, through the device of keeping unfriendly voters off the rate-books, to maintain itself against the revived interest of the Pelham family of Stanmer and an independent interest which sought an extension of the franchise.
At the three general elections before 1790 government, acting through the Admiralty, had taken both seats at Sandwich, one of the few boroughs in which its influence had been increasing. Government’s main strength lay in the person of Philip Stephens, a long-serving secretary to the Admiralty, of whom Oldfield wrote:
The inhabitants are bound to this gentleman by every tie of gratitude, as there is scarcely a single family, some part of which has not been provided for by him, in the Admiralty, navy, or marines.Boroughs, ii. 319.
Oldfield estimated in 1794 that there were only six voters at Rye, and in 1818 only 15 of the 33 members of the corporate body were qualified to vote. The small electorate was a close oligarchy dominated by the Lamb family—Thomas Lamb (d.1804), his son Thomas Phillipps Lamb and his grandson Thomas Davis Lamb.
Oldfield wrote of New Romney in 1794:
Evelyn and Farnaby Radcliffe, local landowners who had sat since 1768 and 1774 respectively, had by 1790 established a commanding position at Hythe, and with the aid of government had beaten off the challenges of an independent interest led by John Sawbridge.
Throughout the period Hastings was regarded as a Treasury borough and at every election supporters of administration were returned. Crewe’s Act had reduced the electorate to insignificant proportions, and, according to Oldfield, those freemen who remained qualified to vote were ‘quartered on such of their brother freemen as are in possession of the more lucrative situations’, while ‘others, rather than lose their franchises by the operation of that bill, have given up their places to their sons, and other near relations’.
The Dover electorate, according to Jackson’s calculations in 1808, numbered about 1,600, some 700 of whom were non-resident, but the largest number of voters polled before 1820 was 1,241 in 1807. The size of the electorate ensured a considerable degree of independence, which expressed itself in favour of local men and of Members willing to take an interest in the town, rather than in favour of Whigs or Radicals.
Winchelsea was a Treasury borough which by 1715 had been allowed to fall under the control of two wealthy business men, George Dodington and Robert Bristow. On Dodington’s death his interest passed to his nephew, George Bubb Dodington, who from 1722 chose to sit for Bridgwater, returning ministerial nominees till 1734, when he brought in his brother-in-law E. H. Beaghan.
In practice the right of election at Seaford, a decayed port, was confined to inhabitants paying scot and lot,T. Hurdis to Newcastle, 24 June 1747, Add. 32711, f. 499. though this was not confirmed by the House of Commons till 1761. From 1715 Members were returned on the recommendation of the Duke of Newcastle, whose estate of Bishopstone adjoined the town and who controlled the local Treasury patronage. In 1722 the voters, numbering 51, signed a letter to Sir William Gage and Sir Philip Yorke, stating that: