Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:12:49.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lord Wardens and Elections, 1604-1628

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

John K. Gruenfelder
John K. Gruenfelder*
Affiliation:
University of Wyoming
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Various scholars have discussed, for particular elections, the court's role as an electoral patron. However, their work has, of necessity, left unanswered several significant questions about such patronage. It is clear that, by the elections of 1640, issues of a more “national” importance had a strong impact on the success or failure of the court's electioneering. But the questions remain. Were the elections of 1640 unique or can traces of such agitation over matters of more than local concern be found in earlier elections? And did the issues of early Stuart politics, religious reform, the alleged growth of recusant sympathies, the foreign policies followed by James I and Charles I, and the financial expedients practiced by Charles I, have any significant effect on the court's electoral influence? Perhaps, by reviewing the influence of the Lord Wardens of the Cinque Ports between 1604 and 1628, a few answers may be suggested and a clearer picture of the electoral practices of the court may emerge.

England's traditional bridge to Europe, the Cinque Ports — a misleading title since there were actually seven — held fast to their special privileges, their own unique organization, franchise and courts. They returned fourteen burgesses, or “barons” as they were uniquely called, to parliament. The Lord Warden, however, enjoyed considerable influence over them. He was Constable of Dover Castle, his administrative headquarters, and acted as a sheriff for the ports, which were outside county jurisdiction. More importantly, the Lord Warden was the voice of the Cinque Ports at court.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , Fall 1976 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The following abbreviations have been used for archival material cited in the notes:

Hastings Borough MSS: Hastings B MSS; Common Book of Assembly: CBA; Hythe Borough Records: H BR; Hythe Borough Assembly Book: H BAB; East Sussex Record Office: ESRO; Rye Corporation MSS: RC MSS; Winchelsea Borough MSS: Winchelsea B MSS; Court Book: CB; Kent Record Office: KRO; New Romney Borough MSS: NR B MSS; New Romney Corporation MSS: NR C MSS; New Romney Common Assembly Book: NR CAB; Sandwich Borough MSS: S B MSS; Sandwich Letter Book: SLB; Sandwich Year Book: SYB.

1. Moir, Thomas L., The Addled Parliament of 1614 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 46–47Google Scholar; Ruigh, Robert E., The Parliament of 1624 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971)Google Scholar; Gruenfelder, John K., “The Election to the Short Parliament, 1640,” Early Stuart Studies, ed. Reinmuth, Howard S. Jr., (Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 192, 199–200Google Scholar; Keeler, Mary Frear, The Long Parliament, 1640-41 [Memoirs of the Amer. Phil. Soc., 36] (Philadelphia, 1954), 76–78Google Scholar.

2. Gruenfelder, , “The Election to the Short Parliament, 1640,” Early Stuart Studies, pp. 185, 197–205, 213–14, 217–24Google Scholar; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 11–15, 76–78Google Scholar.

3. SirNeale, J. E., The Elizabethan House of Commons (London, 1949), pp. 213–14Google Scholar.

4. Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, pp. 215–21Google Scholar; Hull, Felix (ed.), The White and Black Books of the Cinque Ports (London, 1966), p. xxxiGoogle Scholar.

5. ESRO, Lord Cobham to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 26 May 1603, RC MSS 47/64, 22: 10; The White and Black Books, p. 375.

6. Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/A (a) 1, fols. 88, 88v. For a list of Northampton's nominees, and those of his successors, see the Appendix. Northampton's lieutenant at Dover Castle, Sir Thomas Waller, was not on the list.

7. H.M.C. Rye and Hereford MSS, pp. 126-27, 360; KRO, SB MSS, SYB A & B, 1582-1608, Sa/ AC 6/f. 329; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, fols. 82, 84, 134; KRO, NR B MSS, CAB 1577-1622, NR3AC 1/fols. 134v-136; KRO, Sir Geo. Fane to the Mayor of New Romney, n.d., 1604, NR C MSS. NR/AEp 41; KRO. Sir Thos. Fane to the same, 28 Feb. 1604, Northampton to the same, 4 March 1604, NR C MSS, NR/AEp 40, 43; Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/A (a) 1, fols. 88v-90.

8. KRO, NR B MSS, CAB 1577-1622, NR/AC 1/fols. 134v-136; KRO, Sir Geo. Fane to the Mayor of New Romney, n.d. 1604, NR C MSS, NR/AEp 41; KRO, Sir Thos. Fane to the same, 28 Feb. 1604; Northampton to the same, 4 March 1604, NR C MSS, NR/AEp 40, 43; Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/A (a) 1, fols. 88v-90.

9. For the efforts made in behalf of Rye by Northampton and Lord Zouch, see Gruenfelder, John K., “Rye and the Parliament of 1621,” Sussex Archaeological Collections, CVII, (1969), 25–35Google Scholar. Northampton's bye-election nominees are listed in the Appendix. He approved of Sir William Twysden's suggestion that Heneage Finch replace the deceased Remington at Rye in 1607. H.M.C. Rye and Hereford MSS, p. 360; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 200–01Google Scholar; D.N.B., VII, 7-8; Hastings B MSS, CAB, C/A (a) 1, fols. 107-08; KRO, S B MSS, SYB A & B, Sa/AC 6/fols. 370-370v; NR C MSS, CAB 1577-1622, NR/A C 1/f.191v; ESRO, Twysden to the Mayor of Rye, 26 Sept. 1607; Northampton to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, Sept. 1607; Twysden to the same, 12 Oct. 1607, RC MSS, 47/71, 23: 1, 2, 3.

10. Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, p. 300Google Scholar.

11. Spedding, Jameset al. (eds.), The Works of Francis Bacon, (London, 1857–1874), IV, 365–73Google Scholar, V, 194-207; Prestwich, Menna, Cranfield, Politics and Profits Under the Early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), pp. 138–40Google Scholar; Willson, David H., The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604-29 (Minneapolis, 1940), pp. 134–35, 142–46Google Scholar; Moir, , Addled Parliament, pp. 97–109Google Scholar; PRO, minutes of the council meeting of 28 Sept. 1615, SP 14/81: 115.

12. Spedding, , Bacon, VII, 114–17, 123, 127–28Google Scholar; BM, Buckingham to Bacon, 19 Oct. 1620, Harleian MSS 7,000, f. 27; Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, p. 241Google Scholar.

13. Moir, , Addled Parliament, pp. 46–47Google Scholar; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, fols. 193, 193v; KRO, NR CAB 1577-1622, NR/AC 1/fols. 209, 210, SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/fols. 32, 32v; Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/A (a) 1, fols. 107, 174; H BR, H BAB, 209, 1608-1645, fols. 44v. 46-46v; BM, Add.MS 28,036, f. 115v; BM, Add.MS 29,623, f. 28.

14. Gleason, J. H., The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558-1640 (Oxford, 1969), pp. 25, 119, 126, 128–29, 130–31, 137Google Scholar; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 200–01, 304–15Google Scholar; D.N.B., V 14-16, X, 449-50; Stokes, John, “Barons of New Romney in Parliament,” Archaeologia Cantiana, XXVII, (1905), 53–54Google Scholar; Upton, A. F., Sir Arthur Ingram (Oxford, 1961), pp. 68–69, 244Google Scholar; Prestwich, Cranfield, passim; Nichols, J. (ed.), The Progresses … of James I (London, 1828), I, 215Google Scholar & n, 428 & n; PRO, Cal. SP DOM. Ed. VI … James I (London, 1856–1872, IX, 199Google Scholar; H.M.C. Downshire MSS, Throckmorton to Trumbull, 1 April 1614, IV, 363; PRO, Chamberlain to Carleton, 3 March 1614, SP 14/76: 39; Hovenden, R. (ed.), The Visitation of Kent, 1619-21, Harleian Soc., XIII, (London, 1898), p. 132Google Scholar; Somerville, R., Office-holders in the Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster (London and Chichester, 1972), p. 219Google Scholar. Northampton's success in 1614 meant, in effect, that the ports had abandoned the resolutions of 1572 and 1603.

15. Willson, , Privy Councillors, p. 79Google Scholar; D.N.B., XXI, 1330-1332.

16. Prestwich, , Cranfield, pp. 289–90Google Scholar.

17. BM, Add.MS 29,622, f. 113; Hull, , The White and Black Books, pp. XXXI, 409Google Scholar.

18. BM, Nicholas to Marsh, 8 Dec. 1620; Zouch to Buckingham, 10 Dec. 1620, Add.MS 37,818, fols. 48v, 51v-52; PRO, List of Zouch's nominees, 13? Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 26; PRO, Marsh to Nicholas, 10 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 21. Buckingham's intervention caused a delay in sending the nominations. Zouch knew of the problem before 10 Dec., when he wrote to Buckingham about it. Marsh's anxious letters are dated 8 and 10 December. The list was ready around 18 December but Marsh knew nothing of it for some time following that date.

19. PRO, List of Zouch's nominees, 13? Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 26; Moir, , Addled Parliament, pp. 137–38, 146Google Scholar; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 294–95Google Scholar; H.M.C. Hastings MSS, Huntington to the sheriff of Rutland, n.d. 1624?, ii, 64.

20. PRO, Buckingham to Zouch, 14 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 27.

21. Prestwich, , Cranfield, pp. 289–90Google Scholar.

22. H BR, Zouch to the Mayor, jurats and commonalty of Hythe, 28 Nov. 1620, H BAB, 209, f. 133; ESRO, Wm. Angell to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 28 Nov. 1620, RC MSS 47/96, 27; 2; PRO, John Collins, Mayor of Winchelsea to Zouch, 6 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 9; PRO, Wm. Leonard to Nicholas, Sir Henry Mainwaring to Zouch, 12 Nov., 6 Dec. 1620, SP 14/117: 74, 118: 14. Nicholas had already, on 12 Nov., been urged to inform Zouch of the need for haste at Dover. PRO, Leonard to Nicholas, 12 Nov. 1620, SP 14/117: 74; PRO, Extracts from Dover's records, 16 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 29; PRO, Zouch to the Mayor and jurats of Hastings, 18 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 33; H BR, Zouch to the Mayor, jurats and commonalty of Hythe, 18 Dec. 1620, H BAB, 209, fols. 129v, 132; BM, Zouch to the Mayor and corporation of Winchelsea, 18 Dec. 1620, Add.MSS 37,818, f. 52v; PRO, Zouch to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 18 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 34; ESRO, RC MSS 47/96, 27: 2; PRO, Mayor of Dover to Zouch, 1 Jan. 1621, SP 14/119: 3 and enclosure i, Mayor and jurats of Hastings to Zouch, 26 Dec. 1620; PRO, Mayor and jurats of Sandwich to Zouch, 1 Jan. 1621, SP 14/119: 4; BM, Zouch to Marsh, 4 Jan. 1621, Add.MS 37,818, f. 53; KRO, NR CAB 1577-1622, NA/AC 1/fols. 266, 267-267v; Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/A (a) 1, f. 221; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, f. 237; KRO, SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/f. 86v; BM, Add.MS 29,623, f. 52.

23. ESRO, Wm. Angell to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 22, 28 Nov. 1620, Zouch to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 28 Nov., 18 Dec. 1620, RC MSS 47/96, 27: 1, 2, 3, 7; PRO, Zouch to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 18 Dec. 1620, Marsh to Nicholas, 1 Jan. 1621, SP 14/118: 34, 119; 3; ESRO, Edmondes to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 1 Dec. 1620, Lennox to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 2 Dec. 1620, RC MSS 47/96, 27: 4, 5. For the election, see Gruenfelder, , “Rye and the Parliament of 1621,” Sussex Arch. Collections, CVII, 25–35Google Scholar.

24. PRO, Collins to Zouch, 6 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 9; BM, Zouch to the Mayor of Winchelsea, 10 Dec. 1620; Zouch to the Mayor and corporation of Winchelsea, 18 Dec. 1620, Add. MS 37,818, fols, 51-52v; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, fols. 236v, 237, PRO, Marsh to Nicholas, 9 Jan. 1621, Waters to Finch, 30 Jan. 1621, Hill to Nicholas, 29 April, 9 May 1621, SP 14/119: 12, 54; 120: 117; 121: 26.

25. PRO, Marsh to Nicholas, 8 Jan. 1621, SP 14/119: 11; KRO, SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/fols. 85v, 86.

26. PRO, Kelk to Zouch, 3 Feb. 1621, SP 14/119: 63; Journals of the House of Commons, I, 586Google Scholar; Notestein, Relf and Simpson, , Commons Debates, IV, 181Google Scholar, V, 317, VI, 4, 81; BM, Zouch to Marsh, 8 April 1621, Add.MS 37,818, f. 61; KRO, SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/fols. 87-88.

27. ESRO, Zouch to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 28 Nov. 1620, RC MSS 47/96, 27: 3; H BR, Zouch to the Mayor, jurats and commonalty of Hythe, 28 Nov. 1620, H BAB, 209, f. 133; PRO, Mainwaring to Zouch, 7 Dec. 1620, SP 14/118: 14; BM, Add.MS 29,623, f. 51; KRO, NR B MSS, CAB 1577-1622, NR/AD 1/fols. 266v, 267; D.N.B., XII, 990-91.

28. Francis Drake of Surrey, a gentleman of the privy chamber and candidate at Sandwich in 1621, was returned for the port. Nothing, however, suggests that Zouch supported his candidacy. Keeler, , Long Parliament, p. 159Google Scholar; H BR, H, BAB, 209, fols. 174, 181; Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/ A (a) 2, fols. 14-15v; KRO, Zouch to the Mayor, jurats and common council of New Romney, 12 Jan. 1624, NR C MSS NR/AEp 44; NR CAB 1622-1701, NR/AC 2 / fols. 27-28, 30; SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/f. 155v; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, fols. 280, 280v, 283v; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor of Winchelsea, 30 Jan. 1624, the same to Sir Alex Temple, 5 Feb. 1624, the same to Nich. Eversfield, 6 Feb. 1624, Add.MS 37,818, fols. 145v, 146, 147v, 148. At Rye, its usual flock of candidates appeared but no contest developed. The port chose Zouch's nominee, Sir Edward Conway, the son of James's principal secretary of state, and John Angell, who had served before 1621. But Rye had returned the wrong Conway, as the elder Conway informed the port two weeks later. Captain Thomas Conway should have been nominated and returned since Edward was absent from England. Zouch was also embarrassed by the gaffe; indeed, he admitted (or claimed) that he did not realize Conway had two sons! Rye dutifully conducted another election and returned the right Conway, amidst all kinds of promises of help from its embarrassed patrons. ESRO, Sir Edw. Conway to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 7, 24 Feb. 1624, Zouch to the same, 27 Feb. 1624, RC MSS 47/98, 28: 9, 10, 11.

29. CSPD 1619-23, X, 505, 509, 528, 555, 569, 571, 579, 602, 611; CSPD 1623-25, XI, 100, 107, 109, 112-13, 113, 114, 119, 120, 120-23, 151.

30. PRO, Zouch to the Mayor of Dover, 12 Jan. 1624, SP 14/158: 21; BM Add.MS 29,623, fols. 63v, 64, 65; PRO, Young to Zouch, 18, 24 March 1624, SP 14/160: 94, 161: 32; Commons Journals, I, 748Google Scholar; PRO, Young to Zouch, Rich. Zouch to Zouch, both 23 March 1624, SP 14/161: 31, 32; BM, Harleian MSS 159, f. 98v.

31. PRO, Sir Rich. Young to Zouch, 25 March 1624, SP 14/161: 38.

32. PRO, Sir Edw. Cecil to Zouch, two letters, 25 March 1624, SP 14/161: 38, 39; PRO, Young to Zouch, 29 March 1624, Sandys to Zouch, 13 May 1624, Wilsford to Zouch, 29 May 1624, SP 14/161: 51, 164; 75, 165: 72; CSPD 1623-25, XI, 237. Zouch never forgave Mainwaring; and when he agreed to turn his office as Warden over to Buckingham in July, 1624, Buckingham promised never to employ Mainwaring in the ports, a promise Buckingham kept. Sir John Hippisley became his lieutenant at Dover Castle in October, 1624. PRO, “Agreement between Lord Admiral Buckingham and Lord Zouch,” 17 July 1624, SP 14/170:6; CSPD 1623-25, XI, 333, 352, 374.

33. BM, Add.MS 29,623, f. 67; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Winchelsea, 8 April 1625, Add.MS 37,819, f. 12; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, fols. 299, 299v; KRO, NR CAB 1622-1701, NR/AC 2/fols. 40, 41; H BR, H BAB, 210, 1624-1635, fols. 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 19v, 20; Hastings B MSS, CAB, C/A (a) 2, fols. 19v, 20v; KRO, SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/fols. 125v-126v; D.N.B., XXI, 966-72; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Rye, 8 April 1625, Add.MS 37,818, f. 12; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Sandwich(?), 8 April 1625, Add.MS 37,818 f. 11v. Jurat Richard Godfrey served for New Romney in 1624-1626, and the port was not about to abandon him in 1625.

34. ESRO, Dorset to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 1 April 1625, Ley to the same, 3 April 1625, Angell to the same, 9 April 1625, Nicholas to the same, Buckingham to the same, both 11 April 1625, Halsey to the same, 18 April 1625, RC MSS 47/101, 29: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Rye, 8 April 1625, Add.MS 37,819, f. 12.

35. H.M.C. Cowper, Drake to Sir Jo. Coke, Dec. 1625, I, 242; PRO, Cal. SP Venetian (London, 1864)—), XIX, 1625–1626, 311Google Scholar.

36. PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham, 8 Jan. 1626, SP 16/18: 28.

37. Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, pp. 219–20Google Scholar; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Hythe, 10 Jan. 1626, Add.MS 37,819, f. 17; PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham, 14 Jan. 1626, two letters, SP 16/18: 58, 60 and enclosure i; PRO, Hippisley to Nicholas, 14 Jan. 1626, SP 16/18: 61; H BR, H BAB, 210, 1624-1635, fols. 22v, 24, 26-26v, 27; PRO, Mayor and commonalty of New Romney to Buckingham, 20 Jan. 1626, SP 16/18: 97; KRO, NR CAB 1622-1701, NR/AC 2/fols. 50-52. Hippisley tried to soften the blow at Hythe by claiming that Sir Peter Heyman and Basil Dixwell were Buckingham's “servants”, which was a bit far-fetched. Heyman has been described as a “leader of the popular faction” although Dixwell, a neighbor to Hythe and owner of Folkstone manor, may have deserved Hippisley's testimonial. Hippisley later interceded for Dixwell's baronetcy, although it was not granted for almost a year. Dixwell, however, secured it without the usual fees. Was it a reward for services to Buckingham or recognition of his status in Kent society? Buckingham, however, nominated neither of them at Hythe in the election. D.N.B., IX, 775-76; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 214–15Google Scholar; V.C.H., A History of the County of Kent (Westminster, 1908–1932), III, 305–06Google Scholar. Dixwell is noted in the D.N.B., V. 1035; PRO, Cal, SP Dom. Charles I (London, 1858–1897), II, 1627–1628, 187, 563Google Scholar; Hasted, E., A History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2d. ed. (Canterbury, 1797–1801), VIII, 160–61Google Scholar; ESRO, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Rye, 10 Jan. 1626, RC MSS 47/101, 29:2a; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Rye, 20 Jan. 1626, Add.MS 37,819, f. 17.

38. PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham 12, 14 Jan. 1626, SP 16/18: 37, 58; PRO, Hippisley to Nicholas, 14, 23 Jan. 1626, ibid.: 61, 19; 33.

39. Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/ A (a) 2, fols. 24v, 30v-31; BM, Memorandum of Burgesses, 10 Jan. 1626, Add.MS 37,819, f. 17v; BM, Buckingham's memo of 22 May 1626, ibid., f. 24; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 114, 170Google Scholar; Everitt, Alan, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion, 1640-60 (Leicester, 1966), pp. 63, 74, 74–75Google Scholar; D.N.B., III, 996-99, XIX, 141; V.C.H., A History of the County of Sussex (Westminster and London, 1905–1953), IX, 19–20Google Scholar; KRO, SLB C & D, Sa/AC 7/fols. 131v, 132-132v, 133; PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham, 21 Jan. 1626, SP 16/19: 17; BM, Buckingham to the Mayor and corporation of Sandwich, 9 Feb. 1626, Add.MS 37,819, f. 19v. Suckling had strong connections with Norwich; his father had been Mayor and MP of the city. ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 55, CB 1597-1627, f. 308; Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, pp. 217–21Google Scholar.

40. Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 214–15Google Scholar; D.N.B., IX, 775-76; Heyman's denunciation of Finch is quoted in Willson, , Privy Councillors, p. 221Google Scholar; Everitt, , Community of Kent, pp. 63, 74–75Google Scholar.

41. PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham, 2 Feb. 1628, SP 16/92: 12; PRO, Earl of Suffolk to Buckingham, May 1626, SP 16/524: 11. ESRO, Buckingham to the Mayor and jurats of Rye, 9 Feb. 1628, RC MSS 47/108, 31: 9; Hastings B MSS, CBA, C/A (a) 2, f. 38v; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 39, 214–15Google Scholar; D.N.B. I, 634-35; ESRO, Winchelsea B MSS 58, CB 1628-1701, f. 2; PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham, 31 Jan., 2, 3, 25 Feb. 1628, SP 16/91: 91, 92: 12, 26, 94: 38; PRO, Hippisley to Nicholas, 25 Feb. 1628, SP 16/94: 45; PRO, Mayor and jurats of Dover to Nicholas, 5 March 1628, SP 16/95: 37; BM, Add.MS 29, 623, f. 79; D.N.B., XIV, 422-27. Buckingham correctly refused Hippisley's suggestion that Beecher be his nominee at Dover where Beecher had been refused in 1626. The Duke wanted no repetition of that fiasco. He placed Beecher at Windsor instead and nominated Nicholas for Dover. It is practically certain that neither of Hythe's members, Sir Peter Heyman and Sir Edward Scott, head of a great Kent family, would have had Buckingham's help. H BR, H BAB, 210, 1624-1635, fols. 61, 61v; Everitt, , Community of Kent, pp. 35, 36, 42, 63, 70–71, 74 & n., 144Google Scholar; KRO, NR CAB 1622-1701, NR/AC 2/f. 85.

42. PRO, Hippisley to Buckingham, Hippisley to Nicholas, both 21 Jan. 1628, SP 16/91: 22, 27; CSPD 1627-28, II, 392, 393, 433, 436. The Dean of Rochester and Secretary Conway both favored a Mr. Brooke, whose appointment to a church in Sandwich was promptly challenged by one Mr. Warren, who had some local support. Hippisley described Warren as a “most seditious man” and past troublemaker, KRO, Buckingham to the Mayor and jurats of Sandwich, 9 Feb. 1628, Sandys to the Mayor and burgesses of Sandwich, 21 Feb. 1628, Phillipot to ?, 7 Feb. 1628, S B MSS Sa/ZB 2/74, 75, 77; S B MSS, SYB C & D, Sa/AC 7/f. 154; Boys, W., Collection for a History of Sandwich … (Canterbury, 1792), p. 423Google Scholar; Everitt, , Community of Kent, p. 118Google Scholar. Phillipott was bailiff of Sandwich in the spring of 1640, CSPD 1639-40, XV, 561; PRO, Mayor and jurats of Sandwich to Buckingham, 12 March 1628, SP 16/95: 67.