Seaford

Borough

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning, 1983
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Right of Election:

in the freemen 1660-71; in the 'populacy' after 1671

Number of voters:

32 in 1671

Elections

DateCandidate
c. Apr. 1660SIR THOMAS DYKE
 GEORGE PARKER
6 May 1661SIR WILLIAM THOMAS, Bt.
 SIR THOMAS DYKE
15 Mar. 1670FRANCIS GRATWICK vice Dyke, deceased
 Robert Morley
 MORLEY vice Gratwick on petition, 10 Feb. 1671
23 Feb. 1671SIR NICHOLAS PELHAM vice Morley, deceased
 John Amherst
20 Feb. 1679SIR WILLIAM THOMAS, Bt.
 HERBERT STAPLEY
 Edward Selwyn
7 Oct. 1679SIR WILLIAM THOMAS, Bt.
 HERBERT STAPLEY
7 Mar. 1681EDWARD MONTAGU II
 EDWARD SELWYN
6 Apr. 1685SIR WILLIAM THOMAS, Bt.
 (SIR) EDWARD SELWYN
 Sir Nicholas Pelham
14 Jan. 1689WILLIAM CAMPION
 SIR NICHOLAS PELHAM

Main Article

Seaford was added to the confederation of the Cinque Ports by Henry VIII; but its representation would not have been restored by the Long Parliament if it had been easily controllable by the lord warden. Local interests were dominant, and the lord warden’s ‘nominations’ in 1661 and 1685 only confirmed them. In 1660 the borough returned Sir Thomas Dyke, a royalist sympathizer but no Cavalier, and George Parker, whose father had represented it until Pride’s Purge. The Parker interest appears to have lapsed in 1661, the family preferring to revive their long connexion with Hastings. The Duke of York nominated Sir Allen Apsley, his treasurer, who came from a Sussex family, ‘considering how ordinary it hath always been to yield that respect to former lord wardens’. But the corporation rejected Apsley, and the Duke had to content himself with assenting to the election of Dyke, and revoking the commission of the commander of the local militia, who had been ‘the most active in opposing his Royal Highness’s desires’. With Dyke was returned Sir William Thomas, whose interest was to prove impregnable till his death 40 years later.1

Dyke died in T669, leaving an encumbered estate, and his interest did not survive him. The by-election was contested. Francis Gratwick was lord of the manor, though his residence lay in West Sussex, and he was returned by the bailiff, jurats and freemen. His family connexions suggest conservative sympathies, whereas Robert Morley came from a Presbyterian background and might be regarded as a natural recruit for the country party. After almost a year’s delay Sir Job Charlton reported from the elections committee in favour of Morley’s petition and a wider franchise. On a close division the House agreed, thereby awarding the vote in this constituency to ‘the populacy’, a term which was not defined until 1761. Before the decision was reached, both candidates died, and another by-election was ordered. Sir Nicholas Pelham defeated the father of Jeffrey Amherst, the first success of a family interest that was eventually to dominate the borough but was only intermittently effective in this period. Amherst petitioned, alleging malpractices by the bailiff, but the House saw no grounds for interfering with the result.2

Thomas was returned at both 1679 elections with his wife’s nephew Anthony Stapley. It is not known whether Pelham stood for re-election in February, but the junior seat was contested by two court supporters, Stapley and Edward Selwyn. Selwyn’s petition was buried in committee, and there is no evidence of a contest in October. But in 1681 the existence of an electoral bargain may be inferred. Thomas succeeded Pelham as junior knight of the shire, while Pelham’s nephew Edward Montagu was returned with Selwyn at Seaford. The arrangement, doubtless a concession to Montagu’s doting wife, did not affect the political balance of the constituency, since Thomas and Montagu were both moderates.3

In 1683 the Seaford corporation firmly rejected the lord warden’s claim to nominate one Member, and when James II succeeded to the throne, he did not risk another humiliating rebuff. He endorsed the candidature of Selwyn, who defeated Pelham, while Thomas as usual was returned unopposed. In the Convention of 1689 Thomas sat for Sussex again, and Seaford was for the first time represented by two firm Whigs. Pelham regained his seat, but his senior colleague, in defiance of social precedence, was William Campion, a Kentish squire, although Sussex-born and evidently a forceful personality. No doubt his family connexions counted with the electors. He was a first cousin of Sir Robert Parker and (by marriage) of (Sir) John Stapley. But both these families were in political and financial eclipse, and Campion must have owed his seat to Thomas, who had married another of his cousins.4

Author: Basil Duke Henning

Notes

  • 1. Adm. 2/1745, ff. 35, 38; Oldfield, Rep. Hist. v. 439.
  • 2. CJ, ix. 200, 215, 229; Oldfield, v. 438.
  • 3. Sidney Diary, i. 251.
  • 4. Suss. Arch. Coll. vii. 108-9; x. 3.